EXAMINING EPA’S REGULATORY OVERREACH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

July 9, 2015 

Serial No. 114–29 

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

( 
EXAMINING EPA’S REGULATORY OVERREACH 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–569PDF 2016

EXAMINING EPA’S REGULATORY OVERREACH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

July 9, 2015 

Serial No. 114–29 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

July 9, 2015 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

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

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 78 

Appendix II: Slides 

Slide submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 94 

Slides submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 95 

Slides submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 97 

Slides submitted by Representative Bill Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 99 

Slide submitted by Representative Brian Babin, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 104 

Slides submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 105 

Slides submitted by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Committee on Science, 

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

Slide submitted by Representative Ralph Lee Abraham, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 110 

Appendix III: Additional Material for the Record 

Documents submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 112 
Page

IV 

Documents submitted by Representative Mo Brooks, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 140 

Additional slides submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 133 

Documents submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 142 

Documents submitted by Representative Randy K. Weber, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 156 

Documents submitted by Representative Steve Knight, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 209 

Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 294 

Documents submitted by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 334 

Document submitted by Representative Ralph Lee Abraham, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 339 
(1) 

EXAMINING EPA’S REGULATORY OVERREACH 

THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

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

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. 

And welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘Examining EPA’s Regulatory Overreach.’’ I’m going to recognize myself for five minutes to 

give an opening statement, and then the Ranking Member. 

Over the last year, the Environmental Protection Agency has released some of the most expensive and expansive regulations in its 

history. These rules will cost billions of dollars, burden American 

families, and diminish the competitiveness of American industry 

around the world. Today’s hearing will examine this unprecedented 

regulatory agenda and the manner in which EPA has used secret 

science, questionable legal interpretations, and flawed analysis to 

promote these rules. 

A glaring example is the President’s Power Plan. This plan is 

nothing more than a power grab to give the government more control over Americans’ daily lives. These regulations stifle economic 

growth, destroy American jobs, and increase energy prices. That 

means everything will cost more, from electricity to gasoline to 

food, which disproportionately hurts low-income Americans. Even 

EPA data shows that this regulation would reduce sea-level rise by 

only 1/100th of an inch, the thickness of three sheets of paper. 

This rule represents massive costs without significant benefits. 

In other words, it’s all pain and no gain. EPA also seeks to impose 

stricter ozone standards. Once again, this comes with few benefits. 

In fact, EPA’s own figures show that since 1980, ozone levels have 

decreased by 33 percent, and today’s air quality will continue to 

improve with the expected development of practical new technologies. 

Last week, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that is an important step towards reining in the extreme actions of the EPA. It 

ruled that the EPA must consider the costs of its decisions and 

weigh those costs against any potential benefits. For two years, the 

Committee requested the voluntary production of the data EPA 

uses to justify Clean Air Act regulations. The EPA’s refusal to provide the data led the Science Committee to issue its first subpoena 

in 21 years to retrieve that information. Earlier this year, the Committee was forced to issue a second subpoena to obtain information 

related to Administrator McCarthy’s deletion of almost 6,000 text 

messages sent and received on her official agency mobile devices. 

The Administration claimed that all but one was personal. Most recently, the Committee requested information and documents related to the EPA’s development of the Waters of the U.S. Rule and 

the Agency’s inappropriate lobbying of outside organizations to generate grassroots support. The Committee was again forced to notice 

its intention to issue a subpoena for the information. Following this 

latest notice, EPA has begun to produce a limited number of documents to the Committee. However, producing documents in bits 

and pieces after months or years of delay are not the actions of an 

open and transparent Administration. They are the actions of an 

agency and administration that has something to hide. 

Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 1030, The Secret 

Science Reform Act. This legislation requires the EPA to base its 
7 

regulations on publically available data. Why would the EPA want 

to hide this information from the American people? The EPA has 

a responsibility to be open and transparent with the people it 

serves and whose money it spends. I hope the Administrator will 

tell us today she will produce the data and other information the 

Committee has requested. Then she will help the President keep 

his pledge to maintain an open and transparent Administration. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Over the last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released some 

of the most expensive and expansive regulations in its history. These rules will cost 

billions of dollars, burden American families and diminish the competitiveness of 

American industry around the world. 

Today’s hearing will examine this unprecedented regulatory agenda and the manner in which EPA has used secret science, questionable legal interpretations, and 

flawed analysis to promote these rules. 

A glaring example is the president’s Power Plan. This plan is nothing more than 

a ‘‘Power Grab’’ to give the government more control over Americans’ daily lives. 

These regulations stifle economic growth, destroy American jobs, and increase energy prices. That means everything will cost more—from electricity to gasoline to 

food, which disproportionately hurts low income Americans. 

Even EPA data shows that this regulation would reduce sea level rise by only 1/ 

100th of an inch, the thickness of three sheets of paper. This rule represents massive costs without significant benefits. In other words, it’s all pain and no gain. 

EPA also seeks to impose stricter ozone standards. Once again, this comes with 

few benefits. In fact, EPA’s own figures show that since 1980, ozone levels have decreased by 33 percent. And today’s air quality will continue to improve with the expected development of practical new technologies. 

Last week, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that is an important step towards 

reining in the extreme actions of the EPA. It ruled that the EPA must consider the 

costs of its decisions and weigh those costs against any potential benefits. 

For two years, the Committee requested the voluntary production of the data EPA 

uses to justify Clean Air Act regulations. The EPA’s refusal to provide the data led 

the Science Committee to issue its first subpoena in 21 years to retrieve that information. 

Earlier this year, the Committee was forced to issue a second subpoena to obtain 

information related to Administrator McCarthy’s deletion of almost 6,000 text messages sent and received on her official agency mobile device. The Administration 

claimed that all but one was personal. 

Most recently, the Committee requested information and documents related to the 

EPA’s development of the Waters of the U.S. rule and the agency’s inappropriate 

lobbying of outside organizations to generate grassroots support. 

The Committee was again forced to notice its intention to issue a subpoena for 

the information. Following this latest notice, EPA has begun to produce a limited 

number of documents to the Committee. 

However, producing documents in bits and pieces after months or years of delay 

are not the actions of an open and transparent Administration. They are the actions 

of an agency and administration that has something to hide. 

Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 1030, ‘‘The Secret Science Reform Act.’’ 

This legislation requires the EPA to base its regulations on publically-available 

data. Why would the EPA want to hide this information from the American people? 

The EPA has a responsibility to be open and transparent with the people it serves 

and whose money it spends. 

I hope the Administrator will tell us today she will produce the data and other 

information the Committee has requested. Then she will help the president keep his 

pledge to maintain an open and transparent administration. 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my opening statement, and the 

Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is 

recognized for hers. 
8 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and welcome, Administrator McCarthy. I want to thank you for 

being here today, and please take back to the employees of EPA my 

gratitude for their hard work and dedication. 

EPA’s job is as hard as it is important. For two generations, 

we’ve relied on EPA to be the one federal agency to protect the 

public and the environment from the pollution that comes with 

being an industrial society. Standing against you are corporations 

that have built their profits on a business model that viewed rivers, 

lakes, oceans, and the sky as their dumping grounds. However, two 

generations of economic growth and innovation have shown us that 

we can clean up the environment and grow our economy. 

If we were to rely just on the Majority’s assertions, we would 

think everything EPA does is wrong. For example, the Chairman 

has on a number of occasions cast EPA as a secretive organization 

setting out an aggressive regulatory agenda that ignores public 

comment and throttles the American economy. In fact, the reality 

of the situation is far different than the caricature. The reality is 

that the Obama Administration has done far more than the previous one to make sure that the water we drink and the air we 

breathe are clean. The Administration is pursuing a pro-health-oriented environmental agenda that includes reducing carbon emissions and slowing the path of global warming. These actions are 

immensely popular with the vast majority of Americans. 

You know what else is popular? The economic results that the 

Obama Administration has delivered. As of January, the economy 

had gained almost five times more jobs under President Obama 

than it did during the presidency of George W. Bush. Corporate 

profits are nearly double and stock prices have grown proportionately. 

This may come as news to my friends on the other side of the 

aisle, but we are seeing EPA actually enforce the law—something 

that the prior Administration was reluctant to do—while also producing jobs and profits. It turns out that these are not mutually 

exclusive outcomes. Now the Chairman is trying to paint a picture 

of EPA as being engaged in secret dealings with the environmental 

community. He has made much of the Administrator’s deleting text 

messages, the use of private email by EPA employees, and the use 

of social media to reach out to Americans to let them know of regulatory proposals. 

The truth is that no other agency in our jurisdiction has had to 

develop a more public and publicly discussed, agenda than EPA. 

This Committee is not expert in regulatory processes, so perhaps 

the Majority is unaware of the multiple public listening sessions, 

the hundreds of formal filings, and the hundreds or thousands of 

comments that EPA gets and processes in their regulatory actions. 

It takes years and years of effort for EPA to move a regulation 

from a proposal to a final rule. You have to ignore all that public 

comment to believe that there is something secretive about EPA’s 

rulemaking. 

Finally, the use of social media to communicate with the American public is nothing more than recognition of how our society 

communicates these days. I suspect every Member of the Committee uses Twitter and Facebook and the internet to communicate 
9 

with our constituents and the broader public. Engaging the public 

and providing opportunities to shape regulation appears to me to 

be a positive step towards a more democratic government. 

In the past few years, I’ve heard many members of the Majority 

complain that EPA needs to listen more to the public as they move 

proposals forward. However, the public consists of more than regulated industry with their high-priced lobbyists, and so I cannot see 

how using social media does not fit with the broad belief of Members on both sides of the aisle that people should have a voice in 

policymaking. 

Let me close, Administrator McCarthy, by encouraging you to not 

let the investigative theater of this hearing get to you. There are 

some in think tanks and industry lobby shops, and perhaps even 

on this Committee, whose mission seems to be to attack the reputation of the agency as a way to slow your work. However, it is vitally important that EPA keep working to protect public health and 

improve our environment. The agency has been doing a remarkable 

job on that score, and I hope and trust you will not lose sight of 

the importance of your great public task. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

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

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, welcome, Administrator McCarthy. I want to 

thank you for being here today. Please take back to the employees of EPA my gratitude for their hard work and dedication. EPA’s job is as hard as it is important. 

For two generations, we have relied on EPA to be the one federal agency to protect 

the public and the environment from the pollution that comes with being an industrial society. Standing against you are corporations that have built their profits on 

a business model that viewed rivers, lakes, oceans and the sky as their dumping 

grounds. However, two generations of economic growth and innovation have shown 

us that we can clean up the environment and grow our economy. 

If we were to rely just on the Majority’s assertions we would think everything 

EPA does is wrong. For example, the Chairman has on a number of occasions cast 

EPA as a secretive organization setting out an aggressive regulatory agenda that 

ignores public comment and throttles the American economy. 

In fact, the reality of the situation is far different than that caricature. 

The reality is that the Obama Administration has done far more than the previous one to make sure that the water we drink and the air we breathe are clean. 

The Administration is pursuing a pro-health oriented environmental agenda that includes reducing carbon emissions and slowing the path of global warming. These actions are immensely popular with the vast majority of Americans. 

You know what else is popular? The economic results the Obama Administration 

has delivered. 

As of January, the economy had gained almost five times more jobs under President Obama than it did during the presidency of George W. Bush. Corporate profits 

are nearly double and stock prices have grown proportionately. 

This may come as news to my friends on the other side of the aisle, but we are 

seeing EPA actually enforce the law—something that the prior Administration was 

reluctant to do—while also producing jobs and profits. It turns out that these are 

not mutually exclusive outcomes. 

Now the Chairman is trying to paint a picture of EPA as being engaged in secret 

dealings with the environmental community. 

He has made much of the Administrator’s deleting text messages, the use of private email by EPA employees, and the use of social media to reach out to Americans 

to let them know of regulatory proposals. 

The truth is that no other agency in our jurisdiction has to develop a more public, 

and publicly-discussed, agenda than does EPA. 

This Committee is not expert in regulatory processes, so perhaps the Majority is 

unaware of the multiple public listening sessions, the hundreds of formal filings, 
10 

and the hundreds or thousands of comments that EPA gets and processes in their 

regulatory actions. It takes years and years of effort for EPA to move a regulation 

from a proposal to a final rule. You have to ignore all that public comment to believe 

that there is something secretive about EPA’s rulemaking. 

Finally, the use of social media to communicate with the American public is nothing more than recognition of how our society communicates these days. I suspect 

every Member of the Committee uses Twitter and Facebook and the internet to communicate with our constituents and the broader public. 

Engaging the public and providing opportunities to shape regulation appears to 

me to be a positive step towards a more democratic government. In the past few 

years, I have heard many members of the Majority complain that EPA needs to listen more to the public as they move proposals forward. 

However, the public consists of more than regulated industry with their highpriced lobbyists, and so I cannot see how using social media does not fit with the 

broad belief of Members on both sides of the aisle that people should have a voice 

in policymaking. 

Let me close, Administrator McCarthy, by encouraging you to not let the investigative theater of this hearing get to you. There are some in think tanks and industry lobby-shops, and perhaps even on this Committee, whose mission seems to be 

to attack the reputation of the agency as a way to slow your work. However, it is 

vitally important that EPA keep working to protect public health and improve our 

environment. The agency has been doing a remarkable job on that score, and I hope 

and trust you will not lose sight of the importance of your great public task. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

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

for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. Previously she served as the 

Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental 

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

worked at both the state and local levels on environmental issues 

and helped coordinate policies on energy, transportation, and the 

environment. Administrator McCarthy received a bachelor of arts 

degree in social anthropology from the University of Massachusetts 

and a master’s of science in environmental health engineering and 

planning from Tufts University. 

Administrator McCarthy, we welcome you and look forward to 

your comments, and if you’ll begin? 

TESTIMONY OF HON. GINA MCCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Committee for inviting me here 

to testify on the Environmental Protection’s regulatory efforts. 

The mission of EPA is protection of public health and the environment, and the regulatory efforts are in furtherance of those 

goals. We’re guided in meeting those goals by science and by the 

law, which serve as the backbone of each of the Agency’s actions. 

I will focus my comments today on providing more detail on three 

rules, which will hopefully provide tremendous benefit, not only to 

share this information but tremendous benefit to the public health 

and the environment. 

Approximately 117 million Americans, which is one in three people, get their drinking water from streams that lacked clear protection, and about 33 million Americans fish, swim, and boat in 

waters that were vulnerable to pollution. Recently, the agency fi-
11 

nalized the Clean Water Rule, which will help to protect those 

waters which are vital to our health and our economy. 

What the Clean Water Rule does is simple: it protects clean 

water, and it provides clarity on which waters are actually covered 

by the Clean Water Act so they can be effectively protected from 

pollution and destruction. The rule provides clearer definitions to 

establish what waters are jurisdictional and what waters are not, 

and it places boundaries for the first time that limit the need for 

case-specific analysis. It makes clear that this rule only applies 

when someone intends to pollute or destroy a water, because only 

then does the need for a federal permit arise. This rule not only 

maintains current statutory exemptions from normal agricultural 

activities, it expands regulatory exclusions to make it clear the rule 

does not add any additional permitting requirements on agriculture. 

In developing the rule, we held more than 400 meetings with 

stakeholders across the country, reviewed over one million public 

comments, and we listened carefully to perspectives from all sides. 

In addition to the Clean Water Rule, the Agency is in the process 

of completing two significant air pollution rules. 

Ozone NAAQS—because the air we breathe is so important to 

our overall health and well-being, the Clean Air Act requires EPA 

to review the National Ambient Air Quality Standards every five 

years to make sure that they continue to protect public health with 

an adequate margin of safety. Based on the law, a thorough review 

of the science, the recommendations of the Agency’s independent 

science advisers, and the assessment of EPA scientists and technical experts, EPA issued a proposed rule in November of last year, 

taking comment on strengthening the current standard of 75 parts 

per billion to within a range of 65 to 70 so that we could adequately protect Americans’ health and welfare. We invited comments on all aspects of the proposal, including an alternative level 

as low as 60 parts per billion, and acknowledging interest among 

some stakeholders in offering comment on retaining the existing 

standard. The Agency is currently reviewing the comments we received, and we will issue a final rule by October 1st of this year. 

Our Clean Power Plan: This summer EPA will be finalizing the 

Clean Power Plan, which will cut carbon pollution from the power 

sector, which is the largest stationary source of CO2 emissions in 

the country. In crafting this proposal, EPA sought to provide a 

range of flexibilities that would cut carbon emissions while maintaining affordable electric power and safeguarding system reliability. Climate change is affecting communities all across the 

United States now, and impacts will increase in the future, burdening our children and grandchildren with health and economic 

challenges. EPA’s unprecedented public outreach effort and the 4.3 

million comments we received have provided a tremendous amount 

of information, and we expect to make changes to the proposal to 

address many of the issues that have been raised. A key consideration of EPA that was reinforced by many stakeholders both before 

the proposal and during the comment period is the need to design 

the rule in a way that respects both the urgency of dealing with 

climate change as well as the time it takes to plan and invest in 

the electricity sector in ways that ensure both reliability and af-
12 

fordability. We’ve paid close attention to both of those core concerns 

as well as other comments, and will finalize a rule that takes them 

into account. 

Again, let me thank the Committee for inviting me to speak on 

the Agency’s efforts to use the best available science to implement 

our Nation’s environmental laws so that we can adequately and effectively protect public health and the environment. 

I look forward to taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy, and let 

me say that because of the interest today and the time limitation 

and expected votes and how many Members are present, I’m going 

to need to strictly enforce the five minute rule even on myself, but 

we’re not going to start the five minutes until I start asking my 

questions. 

Administrator McCarthy, my first question, and this will not surprise you, goes to the Secret Science Reform Act that I introduced 

that passed the House and that has passed the relevant Committee 

in the Senate. President Obama’s own Science Advisor, John 

Holdren, testified before the Committee and said absolutely the 

data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions are based 

should be made available to the Committee and should be made 

public. Why don’t you agree with the President’s Science Advisor, 

and why don’t you agree that this data that you used to justify 

these regulations should be made public? 

[Slide.] 

As you know, the bill doesn’t take a position on any regulation. 

We’re not making a judgment call. We’re just saying the American 

people and other scientists deserve to see this data. I’m hoping 

you’ve changed your mind, and if so, would welcome that comment. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me first say that EPA 

totally supports both transparency as well as a strong peer-reviewed independent science process, but the bill, I’m afraid I don’t 

think will get us there. We’ve had conversations about this before, 

Mr. Chairman. The way in which our science works is for scientists 

to develop the science—— 

Chairman SMITH. But why not make this information public? 

Why not make it publically available? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The information that you’re asking us to reveal 

is revealing publicly identifiable information. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. Now, you and I both know, and we 

talked about this many times, that information would be redacted, 

and I agree that it should be redacted, so why can’t you release the 

information after it’s been redacted? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the fundamental difference of opinion we 

have, sir, is, I don’t actually need the raw data in order to develop 

science. That’s not how it’s done. 

Chairman SMITH. I understand, but why don’t you give us the 

data that you have and why can’t you get that data? Surely, you 

have the data that you based the regulations upon. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, EPA has the authority and the need to actually get information that we’ve provided to you. We do not 

have—— 

Chairman SMITH. But you’re saying two different things. You’re 

saying you can’t give us the information because it’s personal, then 

you’re saying you don’t have the information. Which is it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, when we receive the information, we’re not 

allowed to release it, and there is much information that we are 

not—that we do not have the authority to—— 

Chairman SMITH. The President’s Science Advisor is saying—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —weaken our ability to do—— 

Chairman SMITH. You’ve got the President’s Science Advisor saying you should make it public. I’m willing to say we’ll be happy to 
19 

redact all the personal information. There is no good reason why 

other scientists can’t review it. There’s no good reason why I don’t 

think that the American people shouldn’t see it either. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are absolutely in line with the Science Advisor. The Science Advisor, however, isn’t indicating that every study 

that EPA looks at to determine—to have a body of—— 

Chairman SMITH. I’m not saying every study. I’m just saying the 

studies and the data that you relied upon to try to justify—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But that is the body of data that we did not generate. That is generated in science and peer review. 

Chairman SMITH. I wish the EPA would follow—you know, the 

Ranking Member said you have nothing to hide and yet it looks to 

me like you’re hiding a lot from the American people, and maybe 

we just have to disagree on that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, we are just protecting people’s 

privacy—— 

Chairman SMITH. Again, there’s ways to do that, and every other 

agency does it except for the EPA. You can redact the information. 

If we’re not going to agree, I regret that, but I think it—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Chairman SMITH. —makes the EPA look bad. 

On the Clean Power Plan, former Obama Administration Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell said at best it will reduce global 

temperature by only 1/100th of a degree Celsius. At the same time, 

it’s going to increase the cost of electricity. That’s going to hurt the 

lowest-income Americans the most. How do you justify such an expensive, burdensome, onerous rule that’s really not going to do 

much good, and isn’t this all pain and no gain? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir, I don’t agree with you. If you look at the 

RIA we did, the Regulatory Impact Analysis, you would see it’s 

enormously beneficial. The value of this rule—— 

Chairman SMITH. Do you consider 1/100th of a degree to be enormously beneficial? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The value of this rule is not measured in that 

way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can 

actually trigger global action to address what is—— 

Chairman SMITH. Do you disagree with my 1/100th of a degree 

figure? Do you disagree with the 1/100th of a degree—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m not disagreeing that this action in and of 

itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate 

action, but what I’m saying is, if we don’t take action domestically, 

we will never get started—— 

Chairman SMITH. But if you’re looking at the results, the results 

can’t justify the cost and the burden that you’re imposing on the 

American people, in my judgment. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, this is a cost-beneficial rule. 

Chairman SMITH. We’re obviously going to disagree on that as 

well. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Chairman SMITH. My next question goes to the production of documents, and I appreciate in the last couple weeks you’ve been a little bit more forthcoming, but my question is, when can we expect 

to get all the documents that we have either requested or subpoenaed? 
20 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, let me begin by saying EPA is committed 

to transparency and the true and faithful compliance with—— 

Chairman SMITH. Can you give me a date when you will produce 

the documents that we’ve asked for? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There are a number of documents, some of 

which we’re still discussing with the staff, and—— 

Chairman SMITH. And is there any kind of a deadline or date 

that you can give us when we will get those documents? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m more than happy to have staff continue 

those discussions, sir, and if we’re not moving at a pace you 

want—— 

Chairman SMITH. But those discussions haven’t led to the production of documents. We can have discussions forever. If you’re 

not willing to give me a date by which you’re in good faith going 

to try to give us the documents, then I can’t believe that the EPA 

is acting in good faith. So is it the end of this month? Is it the end 

of next month? When is it—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, you have a number of requests into us, and 

I want to make sure that I do not give you a date that I cannot 

achieve. I will talk—— 

Chairman SMITH. But give me a target date, any target date. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t tell you that until your staff begins to discuss with us, which they are. 

Chairman SMITH. You know, to me, this just continues a pattern 

of obstruction that we’ve been seeing for a couple of years now, and 

it would be easy for you to say I’ll do my best to get it for you in 

the next 30 days or whatever. The fact that you’re not willing to 

do that is disappointing. And again, we’re talking about largely 

with these regulations, it’s all pain and no gain. I don’t see the—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, we will be able to—— 

Chairman SMITH. —impact it’s going to have that’s particularly 

beneficial. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —to respond as quickly as we possibly can, and 

we’ll make every effort to do that. I’m just trying to avoid giving 

you a date that anticipates what your own staff—— 

Chairman SMITH. Like I say, I just wanted a target date, a goodfaith date, and unfortunately, I’m not hearing that date. 

I thank you for your testimony today, and we’ll now go to the 

Ranking Member, and I recognize her for her questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I might remind you, you went one minute over. 

Chairman SMITH. The Ranking Member is correct. I just—that 

has been confirmed, and she gets an additional minute, but she’s 

the last person to get an additional minute. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Ms. McCarthy, the House is in the process of passing an appropriations bill that cuts your Agency’s budget 

by more than $750 million. It includes an amendment by the 

Chairman to cut your office and funding of the Office of Legislative 

Affairs based on a continuing pattern of obstruction and delay of 

Committee’s requests. I believe the Chairman has signed or cosigned 11 document request letters to your Agency in the first 26 

weeks of this Congress, basically a letter every other week. And 

each of these letters have been either a new request or an expan-
21 

sion of the previous request. Now, I have three questions, and I’ll 

ask them all at one time. 

What is your count of the letters from this Committee and from 

Congress as a whole? How many documents have you provided the 

Committee to date, pages or documents, however you keep track? 

And finally, can you describe the impact of the cuts and the policy 

riders in the House Interior appropriations bill would have on your 

agency? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, since January 1st of this year, we have received 10 letters and one subpoena from this Committee. We’ve 

generated 13 written responses and sent out over 15,000 pages of 

documents responsive to the Committee’s request, and we’re continuing to make production of documents to the Committee. We’ve 

held approximately 10 conference calls and communicated by email 

or phone with Committee staff on over 35 occasions. So we continue 

to try to be as responsive as we can, recognizing our commitment 

to transparency and the important work of this Committee. 

In terms of the budget cuts, the budget cuts that are proposed 

in the appropriations bill and a variety of amendments that have 

been added would seriously threaten the ability of EPA to do its 

core work. Now, I understand that there are disagreements in moving forward with some rules like our Clean Power Plan to address 

the challenge of carbon pollution or our new ozone standard to protect public health, but this goes well beyond that to impact our 

ability to deliver clean water, clean air, healthy land, work with 

states, support their efforts. This would be a devastating proposal 

in terms of disallowing us to move forward with the real problems 

we’re facing today and would be a serious problem in terms of rolling back all of the work that we’ll be unable to accomplish because 

there’d be no boots on the ground anymore. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Now, I have seen grocery 

carts of documents rolled in here from your agency on research 

that was not done by the federal government on—that was done 

over 25 years ago as related to tobacco and lung disease. Are you 

still being badgered for the information that you don’t have? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, part of the challenge with the Secret 

Science bill is that it asks us to gather information we have no authority to gather, and it asks us to release information where I cannot protect people’s personal privacy or confidential business information in order to release that publicly. And frankly, the way in 

which science works in this country is, we don’t look at—the scientists don’t exchange all the raw data although they can and they 

often do, but they don’t have to in order to do scientifically credible, 

independent peer review, which is the core of how this country has 

done science forever. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Isn’t it true that the American Cancer 

Society did that research independently of the federal government? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the two issues that really started this concern about secret science had to do with the development of basically studies that were developed by the American Cancer Society 

and Harvard, two not unknown or well thought of or fully thought 

of entities, and they had information that we sought. We were 

given the information we had the authority to gather. They offer 

opportunities for that raw data to be reviewed in one-on-one review 
22 

by researchers but it is—they are cohort studies. They’re individuals that are followed for many years. It is—they’re great studies, 

we rely on it, but they are so filled with personal information that 

it would be impossible to redact that and share, and so we’re doing 

the best we can to get the information out to people that we’re allowed to release but in no way does the lack of access to raw data 

preclude us from being—from relying on these studies and many 

others that have been the core of how we look at developing National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. My time is expired. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Oh, wait a minute. Did I get an extra 

minute? 

Chairman SMITH. You do get an extra minute. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Let me ask one more thing then. What 

do you think this Committee will do with all that data when they 

get it? We’re not researchers. We’re just a legislative committee. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think—— 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. I mean, we have it, and we haven’t done 

anything with it yet, but you’re still getting badgered for more and 

more. What, in your opinion, is this of value to us? I haven’t figured it out myself. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think that one of the reasons why we 

rely on peer-reviewed science is to allow raw data and science to 

be done by the scientists, and my job is to rely on their judgment 

and to make sure that I follow all of the practices that Congress 

has laid out to rely on peer-reviewed science. I do not know of what 

value raw data is to the general public but I certainly will provide 

any information that I have the authority to provide and I’ll do it 

in a way that still protects people’s interests in the work of our 

agency. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

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

questions. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and I think it’s worth 

noting the comments from Chairman of the EPA Science Advisory 

Board that stated that data used to justify regulations should be 

made publicly available and that all data going into making conclusions in the scientific studies should be made available, and similarly, I think it’s worth remembering the President’s Science 

Advisory’s testimony before the Committee that regulatory decisions and other decisions are based—should be available to the 

Committee and made public. I think we should remember that. 

Now, having said that, Administrator, is the EPA’s use of nonpublic scientific data consistent with the Agency’s scientific integrity policy? Are you doing things that are consistent with your own 

policy on scientific integrity? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir, we are. 

Mr. LUCAS. Can you—and I’ll be honest with you, Administrator. 

Coming from a rural area, I’m a little sensitive about the Waters 

of the United States rule. Can you guarantee me and this Com-
23 

mittee that all data supporting the final WOTUS rule will be 100 

percent publicly available? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, the docket—it was published in the 

Federal Register just a short time ago. All of the data that went 

into our connectivity study, our science study, is already publicly 

available and the technical documents are provided in the public—— 

Mr. LUCAS. In a particular area or two that goes with the waters 

of the United States rule, have you made public how the EPA developed the 4,000 feet of high tide line or the ordinary high water 

mark number in the final rule but was not in the proposed rule? 

Or for instance, the 1,500 feet within a 100-year floodplain number 

in the final rule? Or all the waters located within 100 feet of an 

ordinary high water mark identified as navigable? Have those—has 

that information been made available in what you’ve provided? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is available in the docket, and the good thing 

about attracting a million comments is, it allows us to make 

changes between proposal and final that are based on better 

science, better understanding of how the agencies have been managing these programs for years and that’s what we relied on, both 

the knowledge and the expertise of our staff, the information that 

we received from the public and comments and the science that’s 

available to us. 

Mr. LUCAS. Well, I hope that the information you say that is 

available is indeed available and continue to be added to. I would 

just simply observe that like many Members of this Committee and 

the public out there, I think the Chairman of the Science Advisory 

Board and, for that matter, the President’s Science Advisor make 

very good points. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And we follow—— 

Mr. LUCAS. Years ago, I was told as a young legislator that 

there’s a fine line between doing things for people and doing things 

to people. You and the Agency may believe you’re doing things for 

people but there’s a perception out there across the country, whether it’s in ag or construction and a variety of places, that in all of 

these rules you’re not doing things for people, you’re inevitably 

doing things to people. That’s an unfortunate set of circumstances. 

We in this Committee and we in Congress serve a very important 

role going all the way back to our predecessors in the Parliament 

on the other side of the ocean. Our responsibility it to protect the 

citizens from the king and his government. You are the President’s 

Administrator and it’s our responsibility to make sure that our constituents’ interests are well taken care of, and that the king, using 

an old term, remembers the public. 

That said, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to all of this information 

that’s been promised to us. I know that we’ve had a substantial 

amount that’s appeared in recent days. Maybe we need to have 

more hearings so we can continue the flow of information. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. 

The gentelwoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. EDWARDS. [Audio malfunction in hearing room] service and 

some of the other Members on our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee where we’ve held joint hearings with the Senate 
24 

and hearings on the same issues in that Committee, and the Administrator’s been there at hearings in this Committee and the Administrator is here, and I feel in some ways that we’ve asked so 

many of these questions so many times, and frankly, with the 

Clean Water Rule, I think since the Majority has already voted to 

gut it, it seems unclear why we’re even discussing it here today. 

Nonetheless, you know, later in the day we’re going to vote on 

the Interior Environment appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016. It 

includes a rider that prevents the EPA from even proposing a 

standard lower than the current 75 parts per billion. During the 

debate, I offered an amendment to the bill to strike that rider specifically because of the testimony that we’ve heard before this Committee, which told us that the current standard is not in line with 

the current science. In testimony, the Committee received from Dr. 

Mary Rice back in March on the health impacts of ozone, she indicated that the research has only grown stronger since the last time 

EPA considered revising the current standard. One area she highlighted was the new evidence between higher ozone levels and increased mortality. 

Administrator McCarthy, can you please describe how the EPA 

incorporates changes in the scientific understanding into the rulemaking process? Some of my colleagues have claimed that the 

science EPA uses for its ozone regulations is somehow secret, so 

can you respond to those claims in your own words, and what policies or processes does EPA have in place for public review and comment on the science that EPA is considering? And you can have the 

balance of my three minutes to do that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Well, the science behind ozone is one 

of the most robust bodies of science that we have available to us. 

There are thousands of studies that have been done for decades 

that have underpinned two ozone standards—sorry, three, that the 

Agency has put out and that will underpin our next review. This 

science is developed using both our Office of Research and Development and our Office of Air and Radiation, who work together to 

present information that they call an independent science assessment that they bring to our clean air—sorry—our CASAC, Clean 

Air Science Advisory Committee. That is a FACA that is actually 

directed—this is the process—directed by Congress to us to do. 

They are independent and they peer-review the science. It is a public process, public comments, hearings, telephone calls they can 

join. Then CASAC provides advice to us and we take a look at that, 

and then the staff also integrate what our regulatory standards are 

that are the basis of our judgment of what that science means and 

then they actually propose to the Administrator usually a range of 

standards that I might consider that they would think would be appropriate on the basis of the science, recognizing that I have to look 

at what’s adequate to protect public health and safety with a margin of safety, and so I have to look at also adding to what they give 

to add my policy judgment. And so the process is a lengthy one. It 

takes years to develop. 

The body of science is robust. It is looked at with public comment 

by independent, peer-reviewed scientists. In the case of this ozone 

standard, they clearly articulated that they thought the current 

standard of 75 was not adequate to protect public health and wel-
25 

fare and they indicated that I should be thinking about a range of 

60 to 70 PPB as the most appropriate on the basis of the science 

available, which again is very robust and is well understood and 

has been commented on. And then they went on to say but they 

recognized that I have a policy judgment to make as well on this 

issue of using a margin of safety to make sure that it’s adequately 

protective, and on the basis of that, I develop a rulemaking which 

is also public, which we proposed last year, late last year, and we 

will finalize on October 1st or before of this year, and in that I proposed a look at the standard between 65 and 70, taking comment 

down to 60, and also recognizing that people will want to talk 

about 75 again. But it was very clear to me on the basis of CASAC 

that this has been a tremendously open, public and credible process. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. I have nine seconds left by 

my clock. 

Mr. Chairman, with unanimous consent, I would ask that I be 

allowed to enter letters into the record from my constituents including a Girl Scout troop saying that we need to get on with it. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

[The information appears in Appendix III] 

Chairman SMITH. And the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator McCarthy, I’d like to ask you a few questions 

about the upcoming COP21 climate change talks in Paris. 

The President is committed to reaching an international deal 

there. Do you support international negotiations on climate change 

and greenhouse gas emissions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I support efforts to develop a global plan to move 

forward to address greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. If the global plan ends up resulting 

in increases in the price of carbon, are you concerned about the fact 

that that would disproportionately hurt poor- and middle-income 

people rather than people who are in the upper one percent? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that the actions we take on greenhouse 

gases will protect all of us but most importantly those most vulnerable to changes in climate, which are low-income and—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I think that poor and middle-income 

people will be most concerned about what happens to their expenses should the price of gas and electricity and natural gas and 

anything that is carbon-related go up if you guys go along with an 

increase in the cost of carbon. Are you concerned about the economic impact on—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Absolutely. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. —poor people? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Absolutely. I’m interested in two different ways: 

to make sure that we reduce the carbon pollution that’s threatening them but also do it in a way that continues to allow them 

to economically grow and to become part of the middle class. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is our—— 
26 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. How do you do that by increasing their 

costs? You know, I’ve seen economic studies that indicate that the 

increase in costs on a per-family basis would be thousands of dollars, and that would have a much bigger impact on poor people 

than it would be on the CEOs. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, Congress has designed a process for EPA to 

develop a cost-benefit analysis, and we’ve done this with the Clean 

Power Plan. There is no way that history tells us that we have to 

sacrifice people’s income and jobs in order to continue to make improvements environmentally, and carbon is no exception. The way 

you do it is exactly the way we designed our proposed Clean Power 

Plan to allow tremendous flexibility and time to make reductions 

in a way that keeps our electricity reliable and affordable and 

keeps people—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, that’s not what I’ve seen projecting 

things out, and you know, I would ask you to have a preferential 

option to economically protect poor people that does not result in 

some goofy politically designed redistribution program where you’ll 

collect some money and then you—taxes and then you’ll send it 

back according to what somebody decides is good social engineering. Will you commit to me that you won’t do that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, I haven’t proposed—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, and I have not proposed any such—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I know you haven’t but I’m looking 

forward to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, that’s now how—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. —COP21. Okay. Now, I’ve got a couple 

other questions because I’m going to stay in the five minutes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. All right. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. One of the problems that we’ve had in 

these climate change negotiations is that China and India and Russia don’t want to have any reductions in their growth rate. The 

President kind of went along with reducing our greenhouse gas 

emissions but letting China do business as usual. Would you support an international agreement that lets China and Russia and 

India off the hook and not have the same reductions in greenhouse 

gases over the same accounting period as the United States? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Congressman, I’m not reading what’s happening the same way that—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No, no, I’m asking would you support—if 

it turns out that way, would you support that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. So far, that’s not what—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No, that’s not the question I asked. Please 

answer the question I asked. Would you support it? Because the 

President has supported something like this in the past and maybe 

we should stop doing that by giving China an opportunity not to 

reduce its greenhouse gases until 2030 while we have to reduce 

ours between 26 and 28 percent by 2025. That doesn’t sound to be 

something to me that’s very good for America. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I certainly understand—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Do you think that’s good for America? Will 

you understood it’s good or isn’t it good? 
27 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I understand that everybody needs to act, 

and clearly, both China and the United States and other large 

economies need to move forward to reduce their carbon pollution. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Well, then I guess—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think China—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Then I guess the deal that the President 

hatched with the Chinese when he was in Beijing does not fall 

within your markers that everybody has to step up to the plate because we’re there and striking out, and they’re sitting in the dugout or some other place. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized for her questions. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you so much, Administrator McCarthy, for appearing before us 

today and for the important work you do to protect the health of 

Oregonians and Americans, and I’m an optimistic person so I want 

to say that I’m happy to hear that my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle are concerned about the needs of low-income people. 

That’s some good news today. 

So I want to start by thanking you for the EPA’s commitment to 

the ongoing cleanup of the Portland Harbor Superfund site. I look 

forward to your agency finalizing the remedial investigation and 

feasibility study. We know it’s been a challenge to find environmentally sound, cost-effective cleanup methods that will allow the 

region 10 and local parties to stay on track toward the goal of presenting the public with a proposed cleanup plan in 2016. But after 

many, many years, we’re all more than ready to resolve the situation in the Portland Harbor, and I look forward to your continued 

work together on this issue. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And the state’s been a wonderful partner in getting to this stage, and we will get this over the finish line. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I appreciate that on behalf of many of my constituents who have a lot at stake. 

So I just got back from Oregon. I was there last week, where it 

was close to 100 degrees several days and in the high 90s the rest. 

People are very concerned about climate change and warming temperatures, particularly with the risks associated, for example, our 

water temperatures, aquatic habitats, to the extent that, you know, 

core populations of some fish could become extinct. We’re dealing 

with droughts, of course, my neighbors to the south a little more 

seriously, but a lot of regions in Oregon, we have a lot of agricultural production in eastern Oregon that’s going to affect our region 

and agricultural products. So can you briefly mention how the work 

that you’re doing will help with some of these issues? And I want 

to save time for another important question. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me very quick. The work that we are doing 

is to implement the President’s Climate Action Plan, which is a series of domestic actions that will also reduce carbon pollution but 

also maintain the growth in our environment that we’re all looking 

forward to continuing, and EPA in particular is moving forward in 

a variety of ways to take action on climate and to reduce carbon 

pollution. The good news is that it was done as a strategy to try 
28 

to get global engagement to happen because it needs a global solution, and in fact, that is exactly what is happening. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

I want to point out that there have been a lot of conversations 

in this Committee about the cost of regulation. Last year, the OMB 

estimated that rules promulgated by the EPA between 2003 and 

2013, that decade, created between $165 and $850 billion in benefits at a cost of $38 to $46 billion. That sounds like a pretty good 

number to me. 

I’m really glad that you’re working on the Clean Power Plan, reducing toxins in our air and water on behalf of not only my constituents but Americans. 

So some witnesses before this Committee have offered the opinion, and some of my colleagues, that EPA regulations should only 

be set if environmentally beneficial technology is widely commercially available, but others have pointed to a long history of technologies becoming available after the EPA determines that they’re 

feasible. So does the regulations drive the innovation, and the technologies to reduce costs, for example, of renewables? So emphasizing that the EPA regulations spur innovation and in their absence there is not generally a financial incentive for widespread deployment. So we saw this when we tackled acid rain under the 

George H.W. Bush Administration. So can you comment on the 

view that EPA regulations such as the Clean Power Plan or proposed rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new power 

plants will incentivize innovation? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. I’ll just point out two things. The Clean Air 

Act was actually designed and passed by Congress to have sections 

that actually were moving technology forward. They were technology-spurring. The section that we’re regulating power plants 

under, under the carbon pollution plan, is one of those sections. So 

it does say we need to continue to move forward on our New Source 

Standard. 

So what we have done is, we’ve set a standard that’s 30 years 

away. We have set a standard that allows—it’s an investment signal in order to tell states they have every flexibility to get to that 

standard, but it’s also a signal to the market. It will tell people 

that investments in renewables are not only affordable today, 

they’re going to get more affordable moving forward. It’s an opportunity for new energy efficiency technologies. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Absolutely. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. This is a market-based approach to address a 

confounding problem but in a way that states can drive it in a way 

that works best for them and develops the businesses they want to 

have and the jobs they want to take advantage of. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. And in our state when we passed a feedin tariff pilot for solar, it sold out in the first five minutes it was 

available. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Amazing. 

Ms. BONAMICI. So a lot of potential for innovation there, and I 

yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized 

for his questions. 
29 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You’re obviously a very articulate and hardworking person, and we respect that even though we may have differences in policies. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I just—do you know in your background of 

any example where scientists or people involved with policy were 

ignoring certain raw data in order to achieve a certain preconceived 

conclusion? Do you ever know—have you ever come across that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not individuals that I have worked with. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do you know of examples of that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So you don’t know of any examples where 

people didn’t really fulfill their job—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, if you’re asking me—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —of being held to such high standards? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —personally, no, I don’t know. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Personally, no. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I would have to suggest then that 

maybe you’re a little naive in that area. Those of us who’ve been 

around a while have seen this in several occasions. So not knowing 

any examples of that, you then feel totally secure in telling us that 

we must trust—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —in the outcome—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —without knowing the raw data—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —that went to that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You are not asking us to trust you? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. What I am—clearly, I’ve read about instances where science has not—has been manipulated. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Correct. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And that is why we work through an independent, peer-reviewed body to be able to provide us advice. They 

don’t have to—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, what about us? I mean, we are elected. 

Your peer-review process are not elected by the people to watch out 

for their interests. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, actually, you—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are elected by—excuse me one moment. 

We are elected by the people—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —to make sure that their interests are being 

watched out for. You are asking us to trust someone who’s appointed rather than trying to look at whatever data is used for 

these decision-makings yourself, and I mean—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There’s no ‘‘trust me’’ about it, sir. You’ve given 

me a job. This government has provided the structure by which I 

do my job including looking at science. 
30 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, the structure that was set up originally, I believe, was the Constitution that left Congress primarily 

responsible to watch out directly for the interests of the American 

people because they vote for us. Let me just point out, you are undermining that basic constitutional privilege when you tell us 

there’s information you will not give us. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir, you have—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, with that said—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —laws that preclude us from giving you sensitive information. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, sensitive information not given to the 

people elected by the voters of this country is an insult to the people, to our Constitution, to everything this country is supposed to 

be about in terms of freedom, responsibility, openness of government, et cetera. 

Let me ask you, what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? I 

don’t have that calculation for you, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Maybe you could tell us what your personal 

guess is on what percentage is CO2. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t make those guesses, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You’re the head of the EPA and you don’t 

know? You based—you have all these laws based on—oh, you’re 

going to get your staffer to tell you now, but you’re the head of the 

EPA and you did not know what percentage—and now you are basing policies that impact dramatically on the American people and 

you didn’t even know what the content of CO2 in the atmosphere 

was, which is the justification for the very policies you’re talking 

about. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, that—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. I—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If you’re asking me how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, not a percentage but how much, we have just reached 

levels of 400 parts per million. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Excuse me. I think it was clear what I was 

asking you and I was very clear you didn’t know. 

Let me ask you, if CO2 from what I understand is only onetenth—or excuse me—one-half of one-tenth of one percent of the atmosphere and you believe that this minimal, tiny element—and by 

the way, only ten percent of that, from what I understand, is actually manmade, and of course, whatever you’re suggesting and is 

being suggested as the basis for creating these what we consider 

draconian controls is that one-tenth that is manmade of the onehalf of one-tenth of one-half of one percent, that that will have an 

impact on the weather to the point that it will actually impact people’s health. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark, is recognized 

for her questions. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy. I appreciate you being here. I appreciate your tes-
31 

timony, and I especially appreciate the correct pronunciation of carbon. 

I did want to ask you another percentage question. What percentage do you think of low-income people, in fact, all people in the 

world, will be affected by climate change if we do not do something 

to address it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that everyone, 100 percent are already 

being affected and will be much more severely impacted if we don’t 

take action now. 

Ms. CLARK. And will that impact be felt first, do you believe, by 

low-income people? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It usually is, and in this case, it will as well, and 

I think that’s well known across the world, and I think you’re seeing it play out right away. We need to adapt to the change that’s 

already happening but people in low-income areas do not have the 

kind of wherewithal to be able to adapt that many of us actually 

enjoy, and so it is up to us to meet our moral responsibility, not 

just to them but to our kids’ future and take action. 

Ms. CLARK. We’ve had a lot of discussion here today about raw 

data and its role. Could you go into a little bit about independent 

peer review and how we actually review and determine what is 

valid science to base our regulations on? I do not have scientific 

training. I am an attorney by profession. I don’t think that I am 

qualified to look at raw data, even if redacted, to make an assessment of good policy and laws. We need scientists to make that interpretation. Could you go into a little detail about that for me? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. The way that it works is that we have to 

have our science independently peer-reviewed. You need to have an 

open process that’s transparent where you pick experts with the 

knowledge in that field. 

Ms. CLARK. Can you have transparency without releasing every 

bit of raw data? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, absolutely we do have transparency. We 

have transparency in picking those experts. We have transparency 

in their discussion of what they think about those documents. We 

have public review and comment on those documents, and that’s 

before we can really rely on them as the basis of regulatory action. 

But we almost never just look at one document. We look at a huge, 

robust document, series of science in order to underpin our major 

rulemakings, and the way that it works is, the scientists don’t look 

at the raw data. They can if they want. They can reach an agreement with the researchers who own that data and sometimes own 

some of the modeling that’s used to analyze it, but they don’t need 

to. They look at it within the context of their knowledge of the 

science and the broad body of knowledge that we look at to see if 

it is being done correctly according to the science, if all of the factors that should be discussed are being discussed, and it’s looked 

at within that context, and further, it can be replicated by others, 

but they don’t sit all around saying I’m going to take another four 

years, give me the raw data and I’ll give you a sense of whether 

this works. That is just not the way that science is done. That’s the 

way that science can’t get done. 
32 

Ms. CLARK. And do you see other agencies that are also looking 

at science where that is the process, that they are going back to 

the raw data? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If you name an agency in the United States that 

is a credible science agency, that is how they do their work. That 

is what the National Academies is. This is how you do it. 

Ms. CLARK. And speaking of analysis, last month the Union of 

Concerned Scientists came out with a report that found recent decisions in state laws that predate the Clean Power Plan have resulted in 31 states already making commitments that will put 

them halfway towards their 2020 benchmarks. Do you think we’re 

going to be surprised at how easily and efficiently states are going 

to be able to meet these benchmarks even if the plan was not 

there? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the challenge for us is to make sure that 

through our rulemaking, we do what the law says, which is to reduce carbon pollution. The way in which you can make that all affordable is to look at how the energy transition is already happening, and instead of thinking you have to go way in front of it, 

you go behind it and you keep pushing. That’s how this works. And 

so I will not be at all surprised to see either the utilities or the 

states go way further than we require. In fact, that’s usually exactly what happens. It’s called good regulation and rulemaking, 

and I think this is exactly what we did with this carbon pollution 

plan because we give every state the flexibility to actually design 

the plan for themselves. All we’re doing is setting the standard. It’s 

far enough away. The technologies are there. They’re going to keep 

getting better if we send the right signals, and I think we’ll see this 

be an opportunity for us to continue that energy transition towards 

clean energy and low carbon that people are demanding. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Clark. 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator McCarthy, EPA’s impact analysis of the proposed 

ozone regulations admits that the agency’s proposed ground-level 

ozone rule will cost America at a minimum $3.9 billion per year at 

70 parts per billion and $15 billion per year at 65 parts per billion. 

In contrast, a study by the National Economic Research Associates, 

also known as NERA Economic Consulting, estimates that an EPA 

ozone limit of 65 parts per billion would cut America’s gross domestic product by $74 billion per year in real-dollar terms, totaling 

$1.7 trillion in lost gross domestic product between 2017 and 2040, 

thus denying struggling American families an average of 1.4 million jobs per year through 2040. 

Administrator McCarthy, I hope you will concur that the more 

damage the EPA’s regulations do to the American economy, the 

poorer the American economy is, and the less money America has 

to pay for and ensure that Americans enjoy clean water, clean air, 

and proper disposal of hazardous materials. Anecdotally, I would 

submit that you can look at any number of poor, heavily populated 

regions around the globe that does not have the economic means 
33 

to pay for pollution resulting in some of the worst polluted areas 

on the planet. 

In February, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley sent you a letter 

emphasizing that the proposed ozone regulations do more damage 

than good to Alabama. 

Mr. Chairman, at this time I’d like to submit Governor Bentley’s 

letter to the EPA, more specifically, the Honorable Gina McCarthy, 

dated February 24, 2015, for the record. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix III] 

Mr. BROOKS. The EPA states in its proposed ozone rule that ‘‘The 

Administrator notes that the determination of what constitutes an 

adequate margin of safety is expressly left to the judgment of the 

EPA Administrator.’’ 

Administrator McCarthy, it appears that your ‘‘adequate margin 

of safety’’ calculation will determine the EPA’s ozone parts-per-billion standard and what kind of damage will be done to the American economy and American jobs. Is that accurate? Is that the 

standard that the EPA will be going by, adequate margin of safety, 

yes, no, or I don’t know. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is what the statute requires. 

Mr. BROOKS. Since the EPA’s ozone regulation might be the costliest regulation in EPA history, which is saying quite a bit, America needs and deserves a precise and clear definition of what ‘‘adequate margin of safety’’ means. 

Administrator McCarthy, what is your precise definition of and 

what is the specific scientific methodology you intend to use to define adequate margin of safety? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is actually in the statute given as a policy 

judgment that I would make. 

Mr. BROOKS. And what is your definition as you try to wrestle 

with what that phrase means, adequate margin of safety? I assume 

you’re using scientific methodologies, perhaps sound economic analysis as you try to determine what a rather vague term, adequate 

margin of safety, means. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, you will be able to see in the rules 

a very good discussion of what my judgment is and the basis of 

that. It will not be on the basis of cost. This is a health-based 

standard to protect public health. Cost is not a consideration in the 

preliminary—— 

Mr. BROOKS. How can you say cost is not a consideration for 

health? Because the health that we enjoy is a function of what we 

can pay for? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. This actual rule when you look at public health 

benefits, they far outweigh what we estimate to be the illustrative 

costs, but costs in terms of how you define an ozone standard is not 

considered until implementation. That—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Are you going to share with us today, this Committee, your definition, your understanding, your methodology of 

what the phrase ‘‘adequate margin of safety’’ means? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That will be shared with you when you see the 

final rule, sir. That is when I apply my judgment and I explain it 

completely and it goes through whatever—— 
34 

Mr. BROOKS. So as of today, you have no judgment and you’re not 

able to explain it to this Committee, to the United States Congress 

or the American people? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There is no specific definition I can offer you. It 

is a judgment that will be well documented by the science. 

Mr. BROOKS. How long has the EPA been working on that definition and how long has that definition been in the statute? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Since we created the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards program. 

Mr. BROOKS. What year? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Since the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. BROOKS. What year? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. When was it? I—— 

Mr. BROOKS. So decades later, you still don’t have that definition 

with respect to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir, it’s not applied that way. You apply it 

to the individual rule—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Madam Administrator, I want to thank you at the top for being so patient and gracious this morning despite the rather combative nature of the questioning. 

My—our Chair, my good friend and distinguished Chair claims 

that the EPA’s actions of the last six years have severely damaged 

our economy. How do you reconcile that with 64 straight months 

of job growth, 10.8—12.8 million new private-sector jobs, tripling of 

the stock market, the recent news that we have 5.3 million job 

openings now advertised, the most in American history? And if 

there’s a—is it not perhaps better to also look at the infrastructure 

bills we failed to pass, the immigration reform we failed to act on, 

the Budget Control Act and sequester, our inability to do tax reform for holding back economic growth rather than blaming it on 

the EPA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think one of the things to recognize as 

well as when you look directly at EPA, you look at 70 percent improvement in our air pollution. It’s reduced by 70 percent while the 

GDP tripled. We know how to do these rules in a way that is not 

just not contrary to job growth and the economy but can fuel it and 

becomes part of it. 

Mr. BEYER. You know, I now use text messages a great deal, 

mostly because my children will not return my phone calls. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is exactly why I do. 

Mr. BEYER. And I also find that I’m not allowed to talk in the 

phone in Committee or on the House Floor, so my excellent staff 

text me back and forth all day long, and I read and delete, read 

and delete. I can’t ever actually imagine doing anything substantive in 140 characters, especially with my clumsy iPhone typing skills. I also discovered if I don’t delete, the chain just gets 

longer and longer and longer with my scheduler or with my daughter. So is there really any reason to think that your 6,000 text mes-
35 

sages were anything but trivial and personal and nonconsequential? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There were two that I actually saved because 

they were a record. Other than that, they were, to the best of my 

recollection, family, friends, I’m going to be a little late for something. Text does not accommodate a substantive conversation but 

it does accommodate me keeping in touch with my kids when I’m 

pretty far away. That’s the reason why I started it, and we do not 

and throughout discourage the use of text message but when we do 

use it for government purposes, but when we do there’s a process 

and a policy in place to make sure that those are preserved. That’s 

the policy that you see reflected here. 

Mr. BEYER. Can you get an EPA rule to require parents—or children to call their parents? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I wish I could. If Congress would give me the 

authority to enforce that, I’d be—— 

Mr. BEYER. On ozone, we’re now at 75 parts per billion, and the 

Chair says that’s a 33 percent improvement, and you’re only asking 

for perhaps a 5-parts-per-billion decline. That’s 6–2/3 percent. 

We’ve been offering amendments up until midnight or 1:00 in the 

morning to the appropriations bill in the last 2 months, and again 

and again and again we hear that we can cut the budget by five 

percent or ten percent and it’s not going to make any substantive 

difference at all. When 70 parts per billion is what robust science 

says is needed for our health, why the hysteria about a six percent 

cut? And we’ve heard the conservative think tank projection of job 

loss. Can you talk anything about the economic value of the health 

benefits and how that compares to the potential cost? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The health benefits of this rule dwarf the economic costs that we’re projecting. We’re talking at a level of 70, 

$6.4 to $13 billion a year in benefits; at 65, it’s $19 to $38 billion. 

So we are talking about significantly more benefits than cost. 

But the most important benefit of this, sir, if I might, is that 

you’re telling the American people what clean air is supposed to be. 

So the benefit immediately is that individuals who have kids that 

have asthma will know that their air quality—sorry. Let me put it 

another way. They can take a look at what the air quality is today 

on their Weather Channel that we help provide and they can decide whether their kids should go out and play. The biggest value 

is that individuals can protect themselves, their kids, their elderly 

parents, make decisions for themselves today while we give states 

lots of time to think about what other cost-productive ways to 

achieve that over many years. Some of these states won’t even face 

these challenges for a very long time but you don’t worry about the 

implementation if that means that you’re not giving the public the 

information they need today to protect themselves and their kids. 

That’s what this is all about. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Madam Administrator. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes. I’d like to first yield to the Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. 
36 

I just want to make two points. First of all, I’ll remind the gentleman from Virginia that text messages to staff are official text 

messages, and for the Administrator to say that all but one or two 

text messages out of 6,000 were personal is simply laughable. 

The other statistic I wish the gentleman had mentioned in his 

list of statistics is that we had the lowest labor participation today 

in America in 38 years. 

I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I yield back. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thanks, Chairman, and thank you, Administrator McCarthy. I do appreciate you being here, and I appreciate 

the job your agency is tasked with, and as I mentioned last time 

you were here, it’s important to realize the good work we’ve already 

been able to do. According to your own data, aggregate emissions 

for the six common pollutants have decreased 68 percent since your 

Agency’s implementation of the Clean Air Act while we consume 44 

percent more energy and travel 168 percent more miles. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. We actually are doing well, and that’s why I 

have concerns about an agency that many in my community and 

my constituency is continually moving the goalpost as an activist, 

not as a regulator. My constituents and I do agree that we need 

smart, reasonable, science-based regulations, and with the botched 

Mercury Rule we saw all on display two weeks ago, I’m not sure 

that that has been the case with your agency. 

I also expect your agency to work with our states and counties 

as a partner, not a Palpatine, and when former officials from an 

Administration consider EPA’s efforts to work with other federal 

agencies to be a sham, I can tell you that it does not appear your 

collaboration with our state agencies has been any better. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to enter into the record a letter from the 

U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, 

the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Regional Councils dated March 17, 2015, where they call on the EPA 

to retain the existing ozone standard set in 2008 which still has not 

been fully implemented. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix III] 

Mr. HULTGREN. I’d also like to point out, the effect these changed 

standards will have on the State of Illinois and many of the counties that I represent. The Center for Regulatory Solutions released 

a study today which showed how EPA’s proposed ozone regulations, 

the most expensive regulation in history, will cause significant burden to the Chicago-area economy. As you can see from the slides 

above, with 21 counties of attainment, I’m worried about the overall impact, and if you change to the second slide, you’ll see how bad 

this is for the collar counties that I represent. We are putting 73 

percent of the state’s already fragile GDP at risk. 

[Slide.] 

Last year, Illinois enrolled twice as many new recipients on 

SNAP benefits than it created jobs. Just last week, the Illinois 

Black Chamber of Commerce joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Black Chamber of Commerce hosted a 

symposium on the economic and employment impacts the ozone 

proposal would have in Chicago and on minority communities. It 
37 

is clear this rule will have a disparate impact on low-income communities, communities of minorities and seniors on fixed incomes. 

Administrator McCarthy, this should be a quick answer, but do 

you consider your agency’s efforts to coordinate and collaborate 

with our state and local officials to be better, worse or the same 

as your efforts to collaborate with other federal agencies such as 

DOE? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think we collaborate very well with both our 

sister federal agencies as well as our state and local communities. 

Mr. HULTGREN. That’s not what we’re hearing, and in some ways 

it reminds me of when I was in school and we’d have group 

projects, and there would be one person who wouldn’t do any work. 

The teacher would ask how it went. Everybody would put in a slip 

of paper saying this person didn’t carry their weight, and then that 

person would stand up and say I did the whole project myself and 

everybody else is dumb. That’s kind of the approach that I feel is 

happening right now when we’re hearing from other agencies—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, the studies that you’re quoting didn’t 

even do a study of this proposal. 

Mr. HULTGREN. The studies I’m quoting are talking about the impact—and it just was released today. I don’t know if you’ve seen 

it but we can make sure you have it. This is the one, and it absolutely is dealing with increase of your proposal. We’ll make sure 

you have it. You can review it and you can respond to us later. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Again, we just got it. It was just released today 

so I haven’t been holding it back from you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. HULTGREN. But it’s something that if we would have gotten 

it sooner, we would have gotten it to you sooner. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. But it just came out today. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. In the letter I submitted, the National Conference of Mayors pointed out that the Clean Air Act requires 

transportation conformity to ensure federally supported transportation activities are consistent with state air quality implementation plans. The Chicago area is largest rail hub in the country. According to the Center for Regulatory Solutions, freight traffic is expected to increase by 80 percent by 2020. How does EPA expect the 

most financially troubled state in the country to implement these 

standards when the agency has not and will not consider the full 

potential cost of implementation? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If I could point out, sir, the health standard sets 

up a process where states develop plans over time and there is significant time to achieve this standard. 

But the majority of—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. My time is expired. If you could maybe respond 

in writing back to me, these are important questions. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The vast majority of the counties will be in—— 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren, and the gentleman 

from—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —as a result of national standards. That’s an 

important thing to remember. This is not on the backs of the 
38 

states. It is a partnership between the national government and 

the states to get this done. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time is expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Hultgren. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being here this morning. 

You know, Representative George Brown, former Chairman of this 

Committee, whose portrait hangs right over there, was probably responsible for the establishment of the EPA and the passage of the 

Clean Air Act. My constituents and I have seen firsthand how the 

EPA can improve air quality and advance public health. 

In my own home district of Riverside, California, according to the 

State of the Air 2015, a report from the American Lung Association, still has tremendous struggles with ozone and particle pollution. We are situated, you know, downwind from my other colleague from California, and we typically have middle-class, low-income folks that can’t afford homes along the coast. 

I am glad to hear that my colleagues also care about poor people 

and middle-class people. I don’t understand why they’re not so concerned about the wealthy people along the coast whose property 

values stand to be put in jeopardy by global climate change. 

But, you know, I’m struck by the fact that EPA regulations save 

us money in the long run by improving public health and, you 

know, I’m struck by the comment that health is what we can pay 

for, but I’m also struck by a comment that a senior citizen once 

made to me and says, you know, nothing can really—you can’t 

place a value on your health. 

A study by the EPA shows that by 2020, the benefits of the 

Clean Air Act will outweigh the costs by more than 30 to one. The 

Clean Air Act has helped cut down on cases of asthma, heart disease and infant mortality. And by 2020, it is expected to prevent 

17 million lost workdays because people are healthier. 

And I want to put this hearing in context. I’m afraid my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are exploiting the public’s 

frustration with the economic downturn to push an anti-environmental war on science, and for me, it’s particularly offensive because the people in my area greatly suffer. We were ground zero 

for the mortgage crisis. It was a financial services meltdown which 

has caused this lack of participation in the economy, not environmental regulations we’ve proposed to solve our situation. They propose to solve our situation that was caused by a financial meltdown 

by deregulating our—you know, not regulating the environment or 

taking these controls off which my area, the people in my area benefit from those—from the EPA’s regulations. 

The clean air—the ozone and the particulates we would suffer far 

greater, I claim, if we did not have EPA improving our air quality 

over the past 20 years. 

Now, I want to ask you a question. Do you—Administrator, do 

you believe that the EPA, you know—what’s the balance between 

listening to elected politicians, the opinions and knowledge of elected politicians, versus independent scientists? 
39 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, when you make a decision like this, you 

must listen to the independent scientists who base it on peer-reviewed science. That’s what the law requires. But it’s sort of what 

all of us would agree would be a good thing to do. 

Mr. TAKANO. I agree. I think the American people would say let’s 

trust the opinions of independent scientists. They’re unelected, 

granted, but they’re also not subjected to the various different 

kinds of interests that can play upon them, right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But this body indicated that that’s how we 

should do it. 

Mr. TAKANO. The Congress set it up that way. The Congress actually mandated—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s right. 

Mr. TAKANO. —that you rely on that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Now, I understand that the power plants that burn 

coal, one of the serious emissions is mercury. Is that right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s right. 

Mr. TAKANO. And mercury causes—is linked to neurological damage in children. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s correct. 

Mr. TAKANO. And I understand that who tends to be located and 

inhabit the areas around coal plants tend to be low-income people, 

often people of color. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Is that true? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is true. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. As much as I’m glad to see the Majority 

cares about the plight of poor people but I’m wondering whether or 

not they care about the health of poor people, and it seems to me 

that it’s contradictory to say oh, we care about poor people being 

able to buy, you know, buy carbon but not also take into consideration the fact that we have many, many, many, disproportionately 

poor people that are living around these power plants. 

I only have 20 seconds left, but can you maybe comment about 

the ability of your regulations to generate greater economic activity? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah, it’s actually—a well-done rule for the environment is actually extremely supportive of the foundation of a 

growing economy because we’re talking about premature deaths, 

we’re talking about asthma attacks, kids not being able to go to 

school, we’re talking about families not being able to go to work. 

So we actually believe, and I think the data shows that our rules 

are so cost-beneficial because they give so many more public health 

benefits than they do cost the economy, and if you structure this 

right, you generate activity in the economy to grow new technologies, to grow new jobs. I think that’s extremely important to remember is that utilities—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, I’m sorry. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for his questions. 
40 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator McCarthy, a 2004 Department of Environmental 

Protection report claims, from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, due to the relatively large geographic area covered by forest and other vegetation in the Gulf area of Florida, biogenic VOC, volatile organic compounds, emissions make up to 20— 

I’m sorry—up to 80 to 90 percent of the total VOCs emitted on a 

typical summer day. 

Another Florida Department of Environmental Protection report 

states EPA also should consider whether natural background concentrations would preclude compliance with the EPA’s proposed 

standards in certain geographic areas. For example, EPA estimates 

that 70 to 80 percent of the seasonal mean ozone levels in Florida 

are attributed to background contributions. And so my question is, 

how could they comply with the new requirement of 65 to 70 if nature gives them 70 to 80 for a start? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Congressman, let me assure you that 

states are not held responsible for reducing emissions that are not 

in their control. The Clean Air Act is very clear about that. So 

there was a great discussion, frankly—— 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. You’ve stated that’s a fact. I’ll accept that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. POSEY. With regard to the Clean Power Plan, are you at all 

concerned about the increasing costs of electricity and causing 

many of the poor, which my colleague just referred to just a moment ago he seemed so concerned about, and also seniors to make 

difficult choices as to which necessities in life they can afford due 

to the increase in their electric bills, and they may possibly be extreme. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, let me be clear. I am always concerned 

about the economic consequences of our rules, and we seek very 

much to make sure that those are as minimal as possible, and if 

you take a look at the Carbon Pollution Plan, that’s why we made 

it so flexible so states could design their own plans to ensure that 

electricity would be reliable and affordable. Projections indicate 

that when this rule—at the time of the final goal in 2030, the final 

standard, you’re actually looking at a decrease in what people have 

to pay a month for their electricity. 

Mr. POSEY. So how much could the people, the senior citizens of 

Florida, how much can they expect their rates to go down because 

of this new rule that you’re going to pass? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They can expect their bills to go down by about 

eight percent in 2030, according to our projections. 

Mr. POSEY. 2030. Okay. What about between now and 2030? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. At most, the increase is a gallon of milk. It’s 

about three dollars. 

Mr. POSEY. About three dollars. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. A month. 

Mr. POSEY. For what? What volume—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That would be on an electric bill. So if you pay $100 today, it could be as much as $103 I believe in 2025. But over 

time that—— 

Mr. POSEY. Before my time runs out, did I hear you say—did I 

hear this correctly, that of the 6,000 messages you received or sent 
41 

on your government-issued BlackBerry and your governmentissued iPhone, that only one or two of those were official business? 

Did I hear that correctly? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Only one or two of those were actually records 

under the Federal Records Act that should be preserved. Now, 

there were exchanges about ‘‘I’m late for this meeting’’ or that. 

Those are transitory and those are not to be preserved. That’s how 

the Federal Records Act works because they’re not substantive. 

So—— 

Mr. POSEY. So—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —the two substantive ones that I knew about I 

preserved. 

Mr. POSEY. So out of 6,000, you only had two substantive transmissions out of 6,000? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We highly discourage through policy the use of 

mobile devices for the very reason that we need to make sure that 

we’re preserving records. So we highly discourage it, and frankly, 

I do not use it—to my recollection, I only started using text because 

my kids wouldn’t answer my phone calls. 

Mr. POSEY. Did you receive or send any message to any specialinterest groups interested in the environment from your iPhone or 

your BlackBerry? Out of 6,000 in five years, you never once, never 

once, you’re telling us, ever once sent a substantive message or received a substantive message from a special-interest group pertaining to the environment. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. To my recollection, the two that needed to be 

preserved were preserved. 

Mr. POSEY. Just—you can say yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t—that’s my best answer. 

Mr. POSEY. You cannot tell me that you never received any other 

substantive message or sent one to a special—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Are we talking about text message or—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time—— 

Mr. POSEY. Anything through your BlackBerry—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Emails—— 

Mr. POSEY. —or your iPhone. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —would have come in. Emails would have come 

in. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But those are preserved. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time is expired. I thank Mr. 

Posey, and we’ll go to the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, 

for his questions. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Administrator. 

Did you want to follow up on that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I just wanted to indicate that out of the 

two text messages that I preserved, I think one was from an outside constituency, an environmental advocacy organization. That’s 

why I preserved it. But that’s what I was trying to recall. But beyond that, I didn’t know if his question related to emails, which is 

in the system and preserved. 

Mr. SWALWELL. I didn’t know what the question was either. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you. 
42 

Administrator, in California, you know, we don’t really have the 

choice of having a debate about whether or not we believe that climate change is occurring. We live with a climate that is drastically 

changing. We have the worst drought in our state’s history. The 

good people of my district have put upon themselves drought restriction—or drought conservation measures of up to 30 percent 

conservation. And so I was hoping you could elaborate on how extreme weather events are impacting states and the types of challenges state and local governments will face when dealing with 

more regular events. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I’m happy to because the changes that 

we’re already seeing in extreme weather in the United States include heavier downpours that are just getting more intense. Heat 

waves are becoming more frequent and intense. Intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes have increased 

since the early 1980s. Winter storms have increased in frequency 

and intensity. We’re talking about floods have decreased in the 

Southwest but they’re really increasing in the North and East. We 

have droughts that we’ve not seen for the last 800 years and so we 

are seeing already extreme results, and we’ve recently put out a report that I’d encourage you to take a look at, which shows that if 

we don’t take global action, what our world—what the world’s 

going to look like that we’re handing to our children in the next 

50 and our grandchildren in the next 100 years. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Administrator. 

And also, I wanted to briefly touch upon renewable energy. Last 

September, the New York Times featured Germany and its efforts 

with offshore wind, and they will very shortly receive 30 percent 

of their energy from renewable sources, and there are many other 

countries that are close behind, but one of those countries that is 

not close behind is the United States. We’re still around 10 to 12 

percent from renewable sources, and that’s largely—that is not 

wind and solar. And so would you agree, Administrator, that the 

best way to reduce carbon emissions would be to make investment—aside from policies but in the long run would to be make investments in renewable sources that provide energy? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think the general public is speaking with 

their dollars on that because renewable is getting less expensive as 

time goes on, and we’re seeing, in terms of renewables, three times 

as much wind as prior to this Administration, 10 times more solar. 

It’s competing. I would absolutely agree that it is a technology of 

the future—of the present and the future. 

Energy efficiency is also a significant opportunity for investment. 

If you don’t demand the electricity, you don’t have to worry about 

the carbon that’s emitted from it. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And knowing the scientists that you deal with, 

some of the biggest brains in the world across our great country, 

do you believe that we are less capable as a country than Germany—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. 

Mr. SWALWELL. —in achieving 30 percent of our energy from renewable energy? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that’s the President’s frustration is that 

we have an opportunity to lead the future, and that future would 
43 

be better for us economically. We are growing more jobs in the 

solar sector than any sector of the economy. We can do better, and 

the Clean Power Plan will hopefully continue to spark that investment in innovation. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Administrator, and I also want to 

thank my colleague from New York for letting me jump ahead of 

him so I could make my way to the Floor, and I yield back, Mr. 

Chair. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. 

I will go to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, for his 

questions. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCarthy, I’d like to start with some questions. In a discussion that you and I had when you were here in November of 2013, 

I asked if the EPA was looking into regulating methane emissions 

from cattle, and I don’t expect you to recall that but—so I’ll read 

to you the transcript of our conversation. I asked if you’re aware 

that methane emissions from cattle—‘‘can you assure us today that 

you are not looking—or that you are not investigating that?’’ And 

you said ‘‘I am not looking at that.’’ And then I asked ‘‘Nobody in 

the EPA is?’’ And you said, ‘‘Not that I am aware of.’’ Now, we’re 

talking about methane emissions from cattle. That was in November of 2013. 

Now, in March of 2014, just four months later, the President 

issued a Climate Action Plan called Strategy to Reduce Methane 

Emissions, targeting a number of industries for methane emissions 

reductions, including agriculture, including cattle. And then one 

month later, April of 2014, just five months after you and I had 

this discussion, the EPA put out a document talking about the 

sources and sinks of greenhouse gas emissions and there’s an entire chapter in here dedicated to agricultural emissions, particularly cattle, beef cattle and dairy cattle. 

So, if I would ask this question again today, would you have a 

different answer? The question is is anybody at the EPA looking 

at or investigating methane emissions from cattle? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, as you teed it up in this discussion, 

you started by talking about are we regulating or considering regulating. I believe that was the context of my answer and it remains 

exactly the same. No. 

Mr. MASSIE. You are not? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. 

Mr. MASSIE. And you can give us that assurance? You have no 

intention of regulating methane emissions—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And the president is not suggesting that either. 

What he is suggesting is that it is a source of carbon emissions 

that lends itself very well to us working with agriculture to develop 

the technologies that reduce that. And EPA has been engaged in 

that issue for a very long time. 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, maybe like you’ve been working with the wood 

boiler—woodstove industry, you know—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have been. 

Mr. MASSIE. Yeah, exactly. Well, I want to ask you about that. 

So—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 
44 

Mr. MASSIE. —you issued the final ruling on that in February, 

I believe. Do you think it’s wrong or does it bother you at all if you 

promulgate a regulation that most Americans are against? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Is it—if I—if they get a chance to see it and understand it, it would bother me very much. 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, it bothers me, too, and so the irony of you 

being here today or coincidence is we’re going to have a vote on the 

Floor here in a few hours about your regulation that you promulgated—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh. 

Mr. MASSIE. —on wood-burning stoves, and it’s on the appropriations bill for your department. And I’m going to make a prediction. 

I’m going to predict that the people’s House votes not to fund that 

regulation because the majority of our constituents don’t support it. 

And I’m also going to predict it’s going to be a bipartisan vote. So 

I hope you take a good look at that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, I just hope you take a look at it because we worked with the industry very well. It’s about working 

with them to give them the time to take advantage of new technologies that will make it better for everybody. 

Mr. MASSIE. I’m glad you worked with the industry because I’ve 

been talking to them, too, and do you know what it’s going to cost 

to update their models to comply with your regulations? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Update their models? Well, all I know is that we 

worked on the timeline that was extensive for those small businesses—— 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, somebody at the EPA—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —that needed to take a look—— 

Mr. MASSIE. —knows what it’s going to cost because you’ve published that, along with the rules—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I just don’t have it at my fingertips. 

Mr. MASSIE. Okay. Well, it’s $1 million per model for hydronic 

heaters. Let’s say there are 50 models out there. What we’re talking about is $50 million cost to this industry. These are small manufacturers making a product. By the way, are you aware that their 

product is eligible for a renewable energy tax credit? I find this 

very ironic because what they produce is a carbon-neutral source 

of heat for middle-income and low-income Americans that the government provides a tax credit for, yet you are adding $50 million 

of cost just for one type of these heaters. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, the emissions from woodstoves is work that 

we have been working with States for a long time. 

Mr. MASSIE. And I would argue—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They can be a significant source of emissions 

that don’t need to be emitted if we work with—— 

Mr. MASSIE. Let me ask you this—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —the industry to provide them opportunities—— 

Mr. MASSIE. —since you’ve been working with the States, would 

you acknowledge that each State has different requirements and 

they’re unique—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Which is why the industry in the States wanted 

EPA to do a rule that smoothed those requirements specifically for 

the businesses selling—— 

Mr. MASSIE. The industry—— 
45 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —woodstoves. 

Mr. MASSIE. —is not happy about spending millions of dollars to 

upgrade their products because of a one-size-fits-all, top-down rule 

from the EPA. 

I thank you and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Massie. 

And the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And welcome, Ambassador 

McCarthy. Thank you for your leadership and—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, there you are. I was looking for you. So 

sorry. 

Mr. TONKO. No, that’s okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know how I missed you. There’s a lot of 

empty chairs. 

Mr. TONKO. There you go. Thank you for your leadership and 

your obvious grasp of the issues is a tremendous benefit to EPA. 

The hearing today is again a revival of hearings we’ve held before, proposals to strengthen standards to protect public health and 

the environment and claims that meeting the standards will be too 

costly, possibly not achievable, and in general a serious drag on our 

economy. So I have a number of questions for you, Administrator. 

The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, or CASAC, was created in the—with the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments. Their first 

report on ozone came out in the mid-1980s and there have been a 

number of subsequent reviews over the past 35 years with much 

new research since the original report. Has CASAC found that 

ozone is a less of a health risk than 1980 science determined it 

was? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir, they found that it is increasingly of concern. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And does it contribute less to other environmental problems, for instance, damage to plants, visibility, and 

other effects? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. We are now realizing just how much damage 

it actually causes. 

Mr. TONKO. And so if anything research over the years has confirmed that ozone is a health risk and an environmental problem. 

Is that correct—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. —as a statement? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, have passed standards been criticized on the 

basis of their projected cost and benefits? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Always. 

Mr. TONKO. I think your testimony points out that we have been 

able to achieve cleaner air and grow the economy, as we have 

strengthened the standards, and is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Mr. TONKO. Any reason to believe we cannot keep that record 

going? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. None. 
46 

Mr. TONKO. Well, will the States have flexibility and discretion 

to determine how they might meet new standards in the most costeffective way? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is exactly the choice we’re giving them, yes. 

Mr. TONKO. Climate change also has the potential to exacerbate 

the existing health conditions such as asthma and adversely impact 

vulnerable populations like our children and our elderly. How do 

you respond to those who ignore the role climate change has on 

public health? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I ask them to trust the scientists. There—it is 

a majority, if the—overwhelming majority and we need to make action now. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I would hope that a committee dubbed 

Science, Space, and Technology would embrace science. 

Also, what kinds of ongoing health risks are expected if we do 

not act and current climate trends continue? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, if you look at the report that we put out, 

we are talking about a tremendous loss of lives, huge economic consequences, environmental damage if we do not take global action. 

And U.S. leadership is essential to allowing the world to get the 

momentum they need to address this significant problem. 

Mr. TONKO. And how will policies that the Administration is 

seeking to implement address the public health impacts associated 

with climate change? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we’re going to be reducing carbon pollution, which also brings with it significant co-benefits. There’s significant opportunities to reduce other traditional pollutants. But 

the one thing that I think we always keep forgetting is that climate 

change is actually impacting the economy today. Don’t tell me it 

isn’t in California; don’t tell me it wasn’t when Hurricane Sandy 

hit in New York. These are costs to us today that are only getting 

worse and worse, and if you look at Action on Climate and see the 

kind of economic benefits it can provide that will not just protect 

us from escalating carbon but grow a carbon—a low-carbon future 

with new jobs, that is the goalpost that all of us are looking for. 

That’s why we designed the carbon pollution plan as flexibly as we 

did. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I, certainly as a New Yorker, would—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. TONKO. —associate with the comments you just made. As a 

New Yorker and one who works at NYSERDA, the State Energy 

Research and Development Authority, I was very much involved 

with the Regional Gas Initiative, RGGI. And the State of Massachusetts’ Department of Environmental Protection head Dr. David 

Cash said that ‘‘wise environmental protection and robust economic 

development can and should go hand in hand.’’ Would you comment on that statement? He indicated that—they touted a seven 

percent increase in economic growth—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. TONKO. —in the region while cutting carbon emissions by 40 

percent. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

has been enormously successful. I think they recognize that if they 

challenge the utilities to be more efficient, if they provide opportu-
47 

nities for renewables and energy efficiency to be supported, that it 

not only gets you the environmental benefits you’re looking for but 

it really tremendously sparks the economy. 

You know, Massachusetts, having—living there, Massachusetts 

actually bounced back better from the economic downturn than 

other States and it was credited by the Governor that it was because of the new technology businesses, the way they have embraced the future that allowed them to have less of a downturn and 

bounce back quicker. So this has to be part of an economic strategy. You cannot have climate happen and not pay attention to the 

cost today, the escalating cost tomorrow, and the tremendous benefits if you stand up tall and do what is our moral responsibility. 

That is the—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Administrator again for her awesome leadership. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to start by showing a brief video clip here. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. The tremendous outreach, Administrator 

McCarthy, is one thing, but when you use this outreach intentionally to generate nearly a million positive comments on your 

Waters of the United States rule, and not only using that outreach 

from activist groups outside the organization, but I have in front 

of me a newsletter from an EPA manager in it looks like Region 

5, and it says ‘‘EPA is planning to use a new social media application called Thunderclap to provide a way for people to show their 

support for the Agency’s proposal.’’ 

So now you’re using social media tools to advocate for your agency’s proposal, and this Thunderclap program, it’s a social media 

aggregator that, you know, includes Facebook and Twitter and a 

host of other social media tools, and you’re using your employees 

to advocate for your proposals and activating outside activist 

groups. 

Then before the Senate EPW Committee you testified that the 

EPA’s Waters of the United States rule is justified because nearly 

90 percent of the comments the EPA received favored the proposed 

rule. So you’re hijacking the comment process, then you’re using 

that data to justify your role before the Senate EPW Committee. 

I’d like to ask you, to your knowledge, did EPA engage in a legal 

analysis to determine whether using Thunderclap in this manner 

violated the Anti-Lobbying Act prior to engaging in that activity? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There was no question in terms of the Agency 

that we had done and were doing nothing that constituted lobbying. That would be against the Anti-Lobbying Act. And it is well 

within the boundaries set by the federal government—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Would you answer yes or no? Did—I’m asking 

you the question. Did you get any legal analysis before using Thunderclap and pressuring your employees to use Thunderclap—look, 

I’ve got the newsletter here—— 
48 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No one’s pressured an employee to use Thunderclap. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. If your agency—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m not aware of that. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. If your agency is using a newsletter telling 

people to sign up for Thunderclap and promote the Agency’s proposal, would that not be an ethical violation where you’re using 

your employees to advocate for your proposed rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let’s dissect this if we could, sir. The question 

you posed to me was whether or not our use of social media was 

lobbying. It was not. It was education, it was outreach, it was getting people engaged, it was exactly what everyone tells us to do 

and it’s part of the—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Well, no, this is a different level because there 

is an email here from an employee that was very concerned about 

feeling that kind of pressure, and that employee contacted—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, yeah—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. —the Regional Judicial Officer, Assistant Deputy of Ethics Official, and there is agreement that this is a national 

concern and it says ‘‘there is agreement that it is a problem.’’ 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s why I wanted to dissect this. The second 

question you asked was about an employee who took that and actually copied it in and shared it with others in the Agency, which was 

in fact inappropriate and that person has been—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. It was an agency newsletter, was it not? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not that I am aware of. I don’t know what it appeared in, sir, but he’s been counseled, and as far as we know, nobody reacted—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. It says from the Weekly DD News Item. I 

would like to know what the Weekly DD News Item is and why it’s 

coming from a Regional Director—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It was a Division Director who made a mistake. 

He was counseled and I don’t want you to get confused by EPA’s 

effort to engage people in the work that it’s doing and get them active in considering how important clean water is. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So you do realize that your own Regional Judicial Officer, Assistant Deputy Ethics Official says that this is a 

problem. 

My next question for you is what are you doing about that problem? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There—it is—the information is no—as far as I 

know, he’s been counseled to not do that. It should not have happened but that has nothing to do with the fact that we use social 

media—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. There’s two major concerns here. One is a potential violation of law with the Anti-Lobbying Act. That’s—I’m a 

Navy pilot by trade. I currently serve in the Oklahoma Air National Guard. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I fought in the war in Iraq in the beginning. 

Imagine if President Bush during the war in Iraq said we need our 

agency—we need our Department of Defense employees to advocate 

for removing Saddam Hussein. How do you think that would re-
49 

spond—we would feel pressure as employees of the Department of 

Defense to do that. 

Now, this is something that your agency has been involved in, so 

the Anti-Lobbying Act is of concern to me and we’re going to look 

further into that. I hope we do, Mr. Chairman. 

And number two, putting pressure on employees to promote the 

Waters of the United States rule, maybe that’s not a violation of 

law but it’s certainly a violation of ethics. 

I’m out of time, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman is—thank you, Mr. Bridenstine. 

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

questions. 

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

McCarthy, thank you for being here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER. A couple of questions for you, yes or no. Do you 

know what state has been the number one exporting state in about 

12 to 14 years running in the country? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Texas. Do you know who’s been the number one jobproducing state in many years producing more jobs than all the 

other lesser 49 states combined? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Can I guess? Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. What do we have for her, Johnny? 

Do you know who has the second-largest environmental regulatory agency in the world? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Texas? 

Mr. WEBER. You got it. TCEQ. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. WEBER. Serving on the Texas Legislature I served on the Environmental Regulations Committee. Do you know of how good 

Texas’ economy is compared to the other what I call lesser 49 

states? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not know. 

Mr. WEBER. It’s way up there. 

And finally, do you know what state has its own electric grid? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Texas does. 

Mr. WEBER. You’re batting—almost batting a thousand. You’re 

doing a good job. Texas is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Don’t trick me and ask me a trick question. 

Mr. WEBER. Texas does really—you don’t want that. Texas does 

really well. 

Mr. Chairman, I have five articles here about the proposed rule 

that I’d like to submit for the record. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix III] 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

Administrator McCarthy, you made a statement before the Energy and Commerce Committee that the Clean Power Plan is ‘‘not 

a pollution control strategy.’’ Do you remember making that comment? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Where did I make that comment, sir? 

Mr. WEBER. In front of the Energy and Commerce Committee. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know. 
50 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know in what context. It’s a carbon pollution— 

Mr. WEBER. Well, and today it’s been your testimony in your exchange with Congresswoman Clark and then also with Congressman Tonko here that we have a ‘‘moral obligation.’’ 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We do. 

Mr. WEBER. Is that accurate? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. To act on climate, yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, so at some point you said that the EPA 

was not empowered by the legislation to consider cost. You said 

that today also. But then you come back—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir, not on the carbon pollution— 

Mr. WEBER. Not on the carbon pollution stance. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually have to consider cost. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. So if you considered the cost—and I believe 

that this has been titled the most costliest regulation in history, 

okay—why is the EPA imposing these costly regulations on the 

American people when you admitted to the Energy and Commerce 

Committee it’s really not about protecting the environment? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know the context of that, sir, but this is 

not a—one of our most significant cost rules. It actually is enormously beneficial. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, let’s go on then. 

In 2008 then-Senator Obama was running and he said ‘‘under 

my plan’’—it was of a cap-and-trade system—‘‘electricity rates will 

necessarily skyrocket.’’ So the President is looking forward to driving up—do you remember that comment, by the way? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’ve heard of it. 

Mr. WEBER. You’ve heard that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It was raised to— 

Mr. WEBER. Have you seen the YouTube? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I may have. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. So you know that that was on his mind to 

drive electricity prices up. And, by the way, that was in January 

of 2008 in an interview by the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Now, the Chairman had the U.S. Energy Information Administration do a study and they recently came out and said that in fact 

under the Clean Power Plan, electricity prices will be driven up. 

Are you aware of that, Administrator? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am aware that there are studies that say that, 

yes. 

Mr. WEBER. No, but I’m talking about the Energy Information 

Administration. And you know they’re bipartisan and you know 

they don’t consider cost; they just look at the facts. They’re not beholden to any government agency. Is that a true fact? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That they are independent. 

Mr. WEBER. That’s right. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They were asked to do this— 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you for saying that. And you’re aware in their 

study they said that a family of four could see thousands of dollars 

increase in their electricity prices. I’m an air-conditioning contractor, 34 years, and I’m glad to hear that there are some glad colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are glad that we’re look-
51 

ing out for poor people. I’ve been in many homes in 34 years where 

people could not afford air-conditioning repair, and when their electricity bill goes up 5, 7, ten percent, it hits them hard. And so we 

looked at this very closely. I’m extremely familiar with energy 

costs. 

So when the Energy Information Administration came out and 

said—and other stakeholder groups, by the way—that the Clean 

Power Plan and other EPA regulations will increase electricity 

prices for the American people—and let me add based on my experience of 34 years as an air-conditioning contractor and watching 

power very carefully—it’s going to disproportionately impact low-income families. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We’re working very hard to give the States the 

flexibility to not have that happen. 

Mr. WEBER. Have you ever been in the homes of low-income people when they’ve had to spend money on their air-conditioner that 

was inefficient? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Yeah. It’s kind of sad, isn’t it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, what we’re hoping is that this will not only 

protect them and their public healthMr. WEBER. Let me move on. Let me move on. I’m running out 

of time. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. WEBER. In fact, I’m out of time. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time— 

Mr. WEBER. I’m going to yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. —has expired. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

Now, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Director McCarthy, thank you for being here today. I’ve got 

a lot of ground to cover so I’d like to—I’m going to ask you some 

very specific questions. They’re not—the questions themselves are 

not very complex. The answers are pretty much yes-or-no answers. 

Can we have an agreement that if I ask you something that you 

don’t understand, ask me for clarification and I’ll go back and clarify the question? But I want to move through these so we can get 

through them as many as we can. Is that okay with you? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’ll do the best I can. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. Great. 

I want to go down the road of the independency. And we’ve heard 

the term ‘‘independent science.’’ We’ve heard that spoken here several times today. According to news reports, including a recent New 

York Times article, the EPA has a pretty cozy relationship with 

third-party environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the 

NRDC, who are attempting to influence agency policy. Given these 

stories, and I’m sure you’ve seen some of them, is it EPA policy, 

Director McCarthy, to request that these third-party groups write 

reports to support the Agency’s position? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know of any agency policy that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. Well, great. Let’s have slide #1 

come up. 

[Slide.] 
52 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. According to this email obtained by the 

Committee, then-EPA Policy Director Michael Goo writes to the 

NRDC that ‘‘maybe a report or two from the NRDC showing that 

no new coal plants are being built might be helpful in order to provide cover for a draft EPA rule on new fossil power plants.’’ Are 

you surprised that the EPA Policy Director—I mean this is a pretty 

high position—requested that the NRDC draft a report related to 

an EPA rule? Have you ever seen that before? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I haven’t seen it. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. So it’s—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Does it surprise you that the Policy Director would ask an outside group to do something like that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I—you know, I assume he’s had communication. I was not aware—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, would you take that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —of it and I haven’t seen this before. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Would you take that and get back to us 

about how that conflicts with—if it’s not your policy, if it’s not the 

EPA’s policy to do that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, you asked me—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. —did he violate the policy? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —if I had a policy that to be able to do that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Yeah, right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and I answered that. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Would you say based on this that the 

EPA does indeed have a cozy relationship with the these outside 

groups if the Agency is asking them to write reports providing 

cover for an EPA draft rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, all I know is that our rulemaking process 

is transparent, it’s robust—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, no, it’s not transparent—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. —because you’re not getting comments 

from—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. This is not out of the rulemaking process. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. —outside groups other than like the 

NRDC. So do you think it’s appropriate that the NRDC is providing 

cover in their reports for proposed rules? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The—I think it’s appropriate that EPA continue 

to do rulemaking the way it does—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, I understand it’s your job is to do 

rulemaking. The question is how transparent and how independent 

is it really? Is this the only time you are aware that an EPA official 

has ever requested a third-party group write a report regarding an 

EPA rule? Have you ever had this happen before? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Have you ever requested a report from 

a third-party group asking for a report while at the EPA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Let’s have slide #2 come up, please. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Administrator McCarthy, it appears that 

EPA Policy Director Michael Goo maintained a very close relation-
53 

ship with third-party groups, even inviting employees from the 

League of Conservation Voters and NRDC to his house for an annual party known as the Goo Fest. According to the invitation, the 

party offered shots of liquor off of an ice luge and copious amounts 

of food and alcohol. Included in the invitation is an apparent fake 

quote from President Obama stating ‘‘even better than killing bin 

Laden, I’m jealous I don’t have an Obama Fest.’’ Are you familiar 

with Goo Fest? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have never been to a Goo Fest. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. But are you familiar with it? Are you familiar with it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am aware that he has—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. Would you agree—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —a party every year. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. —that inviting these third-party groups 

from the EPA Policy Director, the League of Conservation Voters, 

and NRDC, would you agree that that shows a close, cozy relationship with these folks? And do you think it’s appropriate for someone that’s responsible for directing EPA’s policy to host a party 

that includes attendees attempting to influence the Agency’s parties? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would agree that Michael Goo knows a lot of 

people in the—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. No, do you agree—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have no—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. —that it’s appropriate? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have no reason to believe that this was about 

influencing—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Oh, really. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —rulemaking, nor is there any evidence 

that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Let’s—well, let’s go to slide #3. Let’s go 

to slide #3. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, I am so sad that we’re out of time it because I had a lot more that I wanted to cover. But out of deference 

to my colleagues, I’ll yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

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

questions. 

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

McCarthy, thank you for being here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. I wanted to ask you a bit about the Waters of 

the United States rule. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Do you believe that it expands the EPA’s jurisdiction in this area? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I do not, sir. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. You do not believe that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. No, sir. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Do you feel that you will need additional funding to meet any new responsibilities based upon this rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Hopefully, it provides clarity to actually reduce 

the level of effort on all parties, including people who actually want 
54 

to get work done and need a permit. Its goal was to provide clarity, 

reduce confusion, and save money, as well as continue to protect 

the waters that are necessary for drinking water. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. And do you believe the rule was successful in 

providing clarity? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It—certainly that was its intent and I believe we 

did, yes. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. I want to read you some quotes from someone 

who has 20 years of experience in the field. And it’s a gentleman 

who testified before our Committee, Bob Kerr of Kerr Environmental Services Corporation. And his comments were, ‘‘unfortunately, the rule falls well short of providing the clarity and certainty that the regulated community seeks. This rule will increase 

federal regulatory power over private property and will lead to increased litigation, permit requirements, and lengthy delays for any 

business trying to comply. Equally important, these changes will 

not significantly improve water quality because much of the rule 

improperly encompasses water features that are already regulated 

at the state level.’’ 

Would you—how would you respond to those comments? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would disagree with every one of them. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. And I wanted to read another quote to 

you. ‘‘The only thing that is certain is how difficult it will be for 

me to provide jurisdictional determinations and secure permits for 

my clients. This rule is so convoluted that even professional consultants with decades of experience will struggle to determine what 

is jurisdictional.’’ 

How do you respond to that statement? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The reason we did this rule was because many 

in Congress and outside stakeholders asked us to do the rule to 

provide clarity. I believe we did that. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Well, I understand because in your comments 

you make certain—you know, you mentioned your goal was to provide clarity. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Right. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. But I guess I’m trying to reconcile that with 

someone who has 20 years of experiences, is in advising businesses 

and people who are trying to comply with the law that is telling 

us that it does not provide clarity—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You’ll— 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —and adds confusion. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. I—you’d have to speak with him because 

this rule actually says what’s in, what’s out, and boundaries for 

where you need to have—need to look. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Those things have not been clear for 15 or more 

years. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. In the area of—I wanted to ask you about 

ditches. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. You’ve made a point that ditches are not included as jurisdictional in the final Waters of the United States 

rule. Is that correct? 
55 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I have made it very clear that we have— 

that we are only including ditches that act as tributaries that are 

important to protect and we have added specific exclusions to make 

it clear that ditches that only run once in a while that are only 

there for irrigation purposes, all of those issues, that we maintain 

all of those exclusions and we’ve added some for clarity purposes 

to try to get the ditch issue off the table. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. And so if a farmer or, you know, a business or 

a local government believes that their ditch is exempt, do they 

have to ask for an exemption or—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —can they consider that they have an exemption? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. It is exempt. And the other thing we did 

was to very carefully and more narrowly craft what is a jurisdictional tributary so that anyone could clearly look at it and make 

those determinations and so that it would limit the amount of time 

of the Corps and it would provide certainty to the farmers and 

ranchers out there. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. So if someone believes they are exempt, 

they are exempt and they will not have a ruling from the EPA that 

counters that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The only reason you would ever come to the federal government is if you want to pollute or destroy a wetland or 

a water body that you think may be jurisdictional. That’s when 

they come and ask. But it—but agriculture now knows— 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Let me just interrupt you a second because 

we’re low—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —on time, that ‘‘we think may be jurisdictional,’’ when you say ‘‘we’’—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. An individual who wants to pollute or destroy a 

water. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. But if the individual doesn’t believe it’s jurisdictional—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They don’t call us. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. And you would not by any way have recourse 

on them because they didn’t call you and ask if it was jurisdictional? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, what we tried to do here was to make it 

is clear— 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. No, but I’m—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —as possible— 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Right. But if—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —so that farmers and those in agriculture would 

actually know and feel comfortable that what they were doing was 

absolutely all right. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. And if you disagreed, you would not have recourse on them? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t—you know, we’ve tried to make it is clear 

as humanly possible— 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. No, but—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —so those are disagreements would be—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 
56 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —minimized. 

Chairman SMITH. I thank the gentleman. 

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

questions. 

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

I’m going to go on a couple different lines, but one I want to follow up with the recent discussion, if we go back to our farmers and 

we say that if you look at these ditches and you believe that you 

are not polluting these waterways, these temporary waterways, 

these ditches, you are okay and there’s no reason why the federal 

government should come onto your property and check these 

ditches out? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have done nothing other than to hopefully 

provide clarity on what constitutes a tributary and what does not. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. Okay. I’m going to move on to California. 

Since all of my Texas folks are yelling and screaming about their 

state, I will talk about California a little bit. In a recent article, 

there was some discussion. I’m going to read very quickly just a 

couple lines. ‘‘Indeed, in some localities, especially in the western 

states, the new standards are approaching background levels of 

ozone, in other words, the level that occurs due to factors beyond 

local control. While EPA claims that their exceptional events exclusion is responsive to the concern, many states believe that EPA’s 

tools to address these concerns are limited and inadequate. These 

concerns are spread throughout the United States and are not limited to specific geographic regions.’’ 

In California, we know that we have an awful lot of background 

or other things that happen to our state—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Right. 

Mr. KNIGHT. —that we really don’t have any control of, countries 

and—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. KNIGHT. —different things that happen to our ozone. By this 

statement in this article, are that a true statement? Is the exclusionary rule for states like California—are we getting our bang for 

the buck on that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah, I think they’re referring to what we call 

exceptional events, which is to take into recognition that things 

happen that are out of states’ controls. So we have recently done 

one just maybe a few years ago that clarified dust issues, you 

know, all of the ways in which you can have dust storms arise, and 

that seems to have resolved a lot of issues. We also know there are 

issues with wildfires that we have to address. That is actually 

going to be a rulemaking that we’re moving forward with so that 

it doesn’t interfere with the states’ ability to be able to make attainment. So we’re really trying hard. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. And that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And there are other tools that we can use as 

well. 

Mr. KNIGHT. And that’ll follow up on another article that I’d like 

to be put into the record, Mr. Chair. It’s from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and we have many control dis-
57 

tricts, air pollution, air quality management districts in California 

that are very restrictive—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They work hard—— 

Mr. KNIGHT. —very difficult. Our south coast and San Joaquin 

are two very difficult ones because of all of the mitigating factors 

and the background that happens to these two. 

But it was brought up from the San Joaquin that pending standards for ozone and standards for PM2.5 require different deadlines 

and different attainments. And their solution or their worries is 

that sometimes when they get new regulations or new attainments 

that the old ones do not fall off and that they have to continue to 

take those reports and those kinds of standards. Is that something 

that we can correct at the EPA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we’re really trying to make two things 

happen. One is to enhance the states’ ability to do multi-pollutant 

plans so that they don’t do separately PM and ozone but think 

about them together so that a similar strategy can be available for 

both. But we also take a look at how we can more effectively and 

quickly deal with re-designations so that those that have achieved 

the standards have an ability to not be captured in constant SIP 

world, State Implementation Plan world. 

It is challenging because we know that we don’t want the states 

to stop doing things that they were obligated to do that got that 

achievement there—— 

Mr. KNIGHT. Yeah. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —but it’s hard to keep that and then move forward with continuous improvements. 

Mr. KNIGHT. I would ask that if you could allow the states to be 

able to get these attainments by their—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. KNIGHT. —by working on a standard that works for their 

state—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. KNIGHT. —and maybe letting them work with their districts, 

whether it be California Air Resources Board or whoever in the 

other 49 states. It might be—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know how hard they work—— 

Mr. KNIGHT. —helpful. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. KNIGHT. And secondly, if we can make it so that they understand what they’re doing every year and they don’t have to continually look back and continually do the things that maybe have 

been required of them in years past. That would make it a lot more 

helpful. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I assure you we will do the best we can. I know 

how hard they work and how much they care about the same 

things that you and I do. 

Mr. KNIGHT. And thank you, Administrator, for coming in and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. [Presiding] The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
58 

Mrs. McCarthy, I would like to put something up on the screen 

to show a picture. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. BABIN. This is Houston, Texas, which I have in my district, 

part of. It shows the twice-a-day traffic for commuters for two million people in the City of Houston, twice a day. Under your regulations and the Clean Air Act for traffic conformity, we would not be 

able to expand or add new lanes since most of my district, including Harris County, which we’re looking at here, is not in attainment under the current standards, much less under the new proposed rules. I would ask you, do you think this is a good idea when 

Houston, Texas, is one of the fastest-growing cities and areas in the 

entire country, that we cannot add any lanes to these thoroughfares here? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I was looking to see myself in that picture. I’ve 

been stuck there before. 

Mr. BABIN. I may be in there, too. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We work very hard when there are construction 

issues that arise, new lanes they need to be added, to work through 

the traffic conformity issues. It is not a carte blanche ban on doing 

new roadways. 

Mr. BABIN. So you’re saying that we—that the City of Houston, 

the County of Harris would be able to add lanes to this—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Just because you’re in—— 

Mr. BABIN. —thoroughfare? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —nonattainment does not mean that you 

can’t—— 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. That’s fine. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —move forward. It just means we have to work 

together to make that happen. 

Mr. BABIN. I got you. I’m going to remember that, okay? I’m 

going to tell the folks back home that we can add lanes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well—— 

Mr. BABIN. Let me tell you how many jobs are at stake with this 

new regulation, which will cost the American people, as we’ve 

heard today but I’d like to say it again, $140 billion every year, 

with a B. EPA’s new proposed regulations would cost my home 

State of Texas $286 billion—now, this is over the next 20 years, 23 

years up until 2040, $286 billion in gross state product losses. It 

will cost us 347,322 lost jobs per year, $1,430 drop in average 

household consumption per year, and $39 billion, with a B, for my 

constituents in Texas to operate their vehicles in those 23 years as 

well. 

This will be one of the most costly regulations ever issued in history for the American public and especially for my home State of 

Texas. I have one of the most highly industrialized districts in the 

country. If one of my constituents loses their job because of this 

regulation, what would you say to him or her? Because these folks 

are needing to provide jobs—needing their jobs to provide for their 

families. And how can you justify this? Give me a short answer, 

please. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, I don’t know what numbers you’re 

looking at that—— 
59 

Mr. BABIN. These are numbers that came from the National Association of Manufacturers. These came right off of here as well. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. These are the exact—they might as well have recycled them from the last time we did and ozone standard and it 

wasn’t true then and it is not true now. 

Mr. BABIN. Well, why are all these stakeholders, thousands of 

them, saying that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. BABIN. —they can’t come into compliance, that they’re going 

to have to shut their plants down, that this is going to cause him 

to lay off employees? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well—— 

Mr. BABIN. As we heard—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. BABIN. As we heard Mr. Weber say a while ago in the State 

of Texas we have provided more than 50 percent of the jobs in the 

entire country over the last five years. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we’ve followed appropriate—— 

Mr. BABIN. This will eliminate a lot of that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We’ve followed appropriate economic impact 

work. It’s available to you. But I think one of the things that no 

one seems to recognize is that the vast majority of counties across 

the United states are actually going to be in attainment with the 

new standard that’s revised by 2025—— 

Mr. BABIN. I beg to differ with you—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —just because of what we’re doing at the national level. 

Mr. BABIN. —Ms. McCarthy. I beg to differ with you. We have 

a map here that shows that immediately we will be out of attainment. In fact, it’s so severe that even Yellowstone National Park 

will be out of attainment immediately because of the new ozone 

regulations that you’re proposing. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m happy to take a look at it, sir, if you want 

to provide that to me. 

Mr. BABIN. I hope you will. I hope you will. 

And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

And just to clarify, states and localities can lose transportation 

funds from the Department of Transportation—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They can. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. —for new roads and bridges if an area is in 

nonattainment. That directly affects my good friend from Texas, 

Mr. Babin’s district, as well as my own district in Oklahoma. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Can but—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, 

Mr. Palmer, for five minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator McCarthy, from your—from the EPA—your agency wrote that EPA projections show that the vast majority of the 

U.S. counties would need to propose standards by 2025 just for the 

rules and programs now in place or underway. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 
60 

Mr. PALMER. Then is it also correct that the EPA has just now— 

or just earlier this year started releasing guidelines for implementing the 2008 rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is actually true, sir, yes. 

Mr. PALMER. Then why in the world are we talking about a new 

standard which the EPA, based on a past hearing here, admitted 

the technology doesn’t exist to meet this new standard, why— 

have—are you implementing a new standard when you haven’t 

even implemented the last one? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, there are still remaining a number of 

standards on—and this is actually an effort to do what— 

Mr. PALMER. Ma’am, I don’t want to get into—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Congress told us to do this, sir. It is an effort to continue to look at the science— 

Mr. PALMER. So if Congress—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —as to what the goals are— 

Mr. PALMER. You’re doing it because Congress told you to do it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I— 

Mr. PALMER. That’s a yes or no. Are you doing it because Congress instructed you to do it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, but for more reasons than that. Yes— 

Mr. PALMER. Well, wait. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —that is what—that is my obligation. 

Mr. PALMER. Your authorization for this is from Congress, is that 

correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is and— 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. So if Congress—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —I’ve actually been told that—by the Courts— 

Mr. PALMER. —if Congress tells you not to do it—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —to do this. 

Mr. PALMER. —you wouldn’t do it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I did not say that. 

Mr. PALMER. No, no, but you said you go that authorization from 

Congress—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I told you that I’m operating under the authority 

and the law that you gave me to implement. 

Mr. PALMER. —to do it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m implementing your laws. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. So if we change the law, you won’t do it. 

Thank you. 

I would like to talk about the impact on low-income families. I 

grew up dirt poor so I get this. I’d just like to point out—and you’re 

probably aware of it but I imagine most people aren’t—that the National Black Chamber of Commerce has come out strongly against 

this, and let me read you what they said. The EPA regulations— 

and if they will put up slide #1, please. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. PALMER. They say that the ‘‘EPA regulations will increase 

Hispanic poverty by more than 26 percent and black poverty by 

more than 23 percent.’’ This first slide shows the increases in energy burdens on black and Hispanic households who are disproportionately low income. If you’ll put up the next one—— 

[Slide.] 
61 

Mr. PALMER. —this shows losses in median household incomes, 

again disproportionately impacting black and Hispanic households. 

Put up the next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. PALMER. This shows the projected job losses, okay? For black 

families by 2025 we’re talking 2.2 million job losses; by 2035, 7 million. Among Hispanics, 3.8 million by 2025; by 2035, we’re talking 

12 million. If you put up the next slide—— 

[Slide.] 

Mr. PALMER. —this shows the increase in the poverty rate for 

black households and Hispanic households. And again, reading 

from the National Black Chamber Of Commerce report, ‘‘the EPA 

regulations will increase Hispanic poverty by more than 26 percent 

and black poverty by more than 23 percent.’’ Ma’am, I don’t know 

how you justified this because it does create an enormous economic 

burden. It’s having an enormous impact on jobs. The Economic Policy Institute, which is a left-leaning group, they basically are labor’s think tank, points out that 29 percent of the unemployed— 

the current unemployed have been out for 27 weeks or more. 

Ma’am, that’s over six months. 

We’re looking at a report from Gallup that shows that prior to 

2008 there were approximately 100,000 more businesses starting 

up than closing. Since 2008, we’re now seeing 70,000 more businesses close than startup. And the United States now in terms of 

how we rank with other industrialized nations in terms of entrepreneurship, job creation, we don’t rank first, second, third. We 

rank 12th. 

And I want to quote from an article from USA Today that—in 

trying to explain these two—in their words—‘‘terrifying trends,’’ 

the death of so many businesses and the dearth of new ones, it 

says there are numerous factors but one of the most obvious is 

America’s ever-growing regulatory state. And I’ve sat here now 

for—since we started this hearing listening to you basically deny 

that there is an economic impact. You’ve even asserted that there’s 

going to be an economic benefit. We’ve had numerous hearings on 

these—on the ozone rule, on the Clean Power Plan, and there’s 

been several people testified that this is all justified for health benefit, but here’s a study. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to submit all of these for the record 

if I may. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix III] 

Mr. PALMER. Here’s an article in the American Journal of Public 

Health that makes the point that the single biggest predictor of a— 

in terms of respiratory health is income, and obviously I think you 

would agree, wouldn’t you, that income is directly related to job 

status. Would you agree with that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It sounds right. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Madam. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized for 

five minutes. 
62 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Ms. McCarthy. 

Thank you for being here. We’re near the end. We’re the low guys 

on the totem pole. 

I chair the Subcommittee on Oversight, and just in the short 

time that I have been here we’ve asked numerous times for documents from your department and your office and continually, as 

mentioned earlier, rarely get those. But I was informed, as we were 

walking in, that coincidently we did receive a bunch of documents 

just before your testimony here today. And you actually mentioned 

in one of your responses that you have produced 15,000 documents 

to the Committee. If we could bring up slide one. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. And we appreciate that but what I have are 

here is an illustration of just one page of 2,000 of these pages of 

document which is incoherent garbage. It’s garble. It makes no 

sense. And so I just want to bring this to your attention. This is 

2,000 pages of the 15,000 that are just like this. Either this is insulting, that there’s no respect for this Committee, we’re just going 

to send them documents, or it’s a political statement. It let’s just— 

let’s shut these guys up and move on. 

But I’ll move on from that now. I do want to talk about economic 

impact. Regulations that have an impact on the American economy 

greater than $100 million are deemed economically significant. And 

Executive Order 12866, which was imposed in 1993 by the Clinton 

Administration, requires that agencies conduct a Regulatory Impact Analysis in which costs and benefits of economically significant rules are analyzed, as well as an analysis of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives for these rules. 

Now, yes or no, Administrator McCarthy, when the EPA sent the 

proposed Waters of the United States rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review in 2013, did the OMB deem the rule 

to be economically significant, meaning that it would have an economic impact of greater than $100 million? Yes or no? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m—I don’t know the answer to that, sir, but 

I—give me a second and I can look it up. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. So it’s—something as big as the Waters 

of the United States, we’re unaware of whether it would have an 

economic impact of over $100 million? That seems that the—that 

should be something that we would know right away. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, sir, the challenge for us is that it has 

no direct impact on the economy. The costs come in when it’s actually being implemented. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So did the OMB—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. This is the rule that determines jurisdiction. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. But did—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It’s not a rule that requires action. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Did the OMB determine whether it was economically significant when you first requested it? That’s the question. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. You don’t know. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’ll have to get back to you. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. If—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can—— 
63 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. If the EPA—well, if the OMB had indeed determine it was economic significantly—significant, would the EPA 

have conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis, which is required? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Yes, you would have. Can we bring up slide 

#1? 

[Slide.] 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. I’d like to show you a series of emails that 

were produced to the Committee by EPA regarding the proposed 

Waters of the United States rule and its classification by the OMB 

as being economically significant. In this slide, this email, the Office of General Counsel, lawyer Stephen Neugeboren and Acting 

Deputy Director of the Office of Water Dave Evans discuss OMB’s 

determination that the Waters of the United States rule is economically significant. David Evans writes, ‘‘economic assessment 

identified in direct costs that are well above $100 million a year, 

I think EPA has claimed the indirect effects of a definitional rule 

should not be used to trigger the monetary threshold identifying 

economically significant policy actions.’’ Jim Laity, who is at the 

OMB, seems to have decided otherwise. 

So it’s clear that the OMB initially had determined that it is well above $100 million impact. So is it the EPA’s belief that if a rule 

has indirect economic impacts of $100 million or more, it should 

not be deemed economically significant? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You should not be surprised that we often have 

back and forth with OMB. I would not consider that to be a determination—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. If we could go to the next slide. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. In this email the EPA Office of Water employee Jim Pendergrass writes ‘‘Nancy’’—who is Nancy Stoner and 

Ken Kopocis—‘‘know that a Regulatory Impact Analysis may be 

necessary but there are some economically significant rules from 

EPA that haven’t had an RIA,’’ which is required according to the 

Executive Order we cited earlier. But he’s stating here that there 

are some economically significant rules from EPA that haven’t had 

an RIA. ‘‘They are checking with the Office of Policy to see if there 

was some agreement at the political level that we don’t have to 

conduct an RIA,’’ an RIA that is required by law. 

The response to this email states ‘‘Good news. Tamika and Sandy 

talked to Ken and Ken has said that it has been agreed we do not 

need an RIA. Let’s leave it at that.’’ 

So there was a political decision made that you don’t need to do 

what law says that you have to do. So this email appears to show 

EPA made a political decision not to conduct a formal Regulatory 

Impact Analysis—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Maybe the way you’re reading it. I don’t think 

that’s what—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —for the proposed Waters of the United 

States. Who made that decision? Who made the political decision 

that you don’t have to follow what the law says you have to follow? 

Was it the White House? 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. We’ll have to take that for the record. The gentleman’s time is expired. 
64 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. I would like to submit all the documents I 

have for the record. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix III] 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. You bet. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Abraham, is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. McCarthy, for being here. Mr. Chairman, I 

would also like to submit a letter that 22 healthcare professionals 

have signed that would argue against EPA’s stance on the health 

benefits of these decreased ozone layers. So if you would let me 

admit that, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix III] 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Ms. McCarthy, I am a physician and a scientist 

and I would appreciate any raw data you could give me because I 

can interpret them and I can certainly make my own decisions as 

to the raw data that some of our colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle said that we weren’t probably I guess able to interpret, 

but I assure you I can. So if you could get that to me, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, we’ve provided the data that the Chair 

requested and it’s available for you already. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. I will look at that. 

Now, the other thing Ms. Johnson the Ranking Member in her 

opening statements referenced the integrity of the EPA. And I just 

want to make a comment on that. As you are probably aware that 

last week there was an article that came out that said that your 

senior counsel for Air and Radiation who you referenced in this 

hearing was given by the Centers of American Progress, a far-left 

organization, some talking points for journalists when you were 

trying or when he was trying to move up positions so to speak. 

So, again, as a physician, as a scientist that looks a raw data and 

makes decision, I’m troubled to say the least when one of your people, who I’m sure are quite capable of coming up with their own 

opinions, are being influenced by those on one side or the other. 

Now, saying that, you also have referenced increased tornadoes, 

hurricanes. I’m from Louisiana and I assure you we know hurricanes. But it also last week—and I think it was a Nobel-winning 

physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, who used to be on President Obama’s 

team of environmentalists, came out and said that President 

Obama is ‘‘dead wrong’’ on this global warming. And these are his 

words; these are not mine. 

So again, if you can give me objective data where we certainly 

have seen increased tornadoes and hurricanes in the last five 

years, I would be happy to receive them. 

And I want to—let’s go back to asthma. Again, you have referenced this. As a physician, as a scientist, I do read a lot of epidemiology journals, and prior to this hearing I referenced the American Journal of Epidemiology volume 156, issue 10, page 977 to 

983. And what I was looking at, looking at your testimony and 

what the EPA is going to tout was that, well, if we got increased 
65 

ozone, if we don’t reduce these ozone layers, we’re going to have an 

increased incidence of asthma and upper respiratory conditions. 

Let me just state that Beijing, China, one of the filthiest cities 

in the world, I’m told, as far as air quality, has a prevalence of lifetime asthma of only 2.2 percent. California is 13.8. And these are 

despite decreased ozone layers in the United States. Now, I have 

treated thousands of cases of asthma in the Louisiana Delta myself 

and we have some pretty clean air down there. We’re in the farming community. And I understand the American Lung Association 

has kind of got on the bandwagon for the EPA as to saying, well, 

increased ozone layers—or numbers could contribute to that. Well, 

it could; anything could. But if you look at the objective data, you 

have to take in to consideration pets, dust mites, pollen count, 

these types of things. 

So I guess the question to you is do you know what percentage 

increase in asthma there has been over the last few decades? I’ve 

got a slide if you want to put it up there. 

[Slide.] 

And if you look at the slide, Ms. McCarthy, you see that asthma 

rates have dramatically increased, and this is despite decreasing 

ozone. So I guess I would ask for your comment on that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I don’t think that the scientists at this 

point are saying that asthma is caused by ozone. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. No, I agree. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The issue is that it’s exacerbated. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Well, but objective data cannot prove that, and 

again, I can talk to any scientist you want and give me objective 

data, begin me some good points to argue here I guess. I’ve got a 

chart here that shows—that begs to differ. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It exacerbates the impacts of asthma because it 

impacts—— 

Mr. ABRAHAM. But anybody—you can say that, Ms. McCarthy, 

but you’ve got to prove that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, okay. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. —in the scientific community, and these numbers 

just don’t add up. And that’s my point. I don’t mind looking at good 

numbers, but I’m looking at an asthma increase with decreased 

ozone levels. We know they’re decreasing since the Clean Air Act 

back 20 years ago. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have not made any—the scientists actually 

have not made any connection between levels of ozone and the 

prevalence of asthma. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Well—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It exacerbates the impact because it makes it 

more difficult for asthmatics. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. You can say that but you cannot prove that. And 

again, you want to go back—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. So what we’re going to do now is we’re 

going to move into a second round of questioning. We have a vote 

on the Floor of the House right now. It’s a single vote so I’m going 

to chair the hearing here for this second round and I’ll be replaced 
66 

here in a few minutes when one of my colleagues comes back after 

having voted. 

So moving into the second round, Ms. McCarthy, a couple things 

I’d like—given some of the comments that we’ve heard so far, it is 

true that cities, municipalities, states have—they can lose their Department of Transportation funds if not in compliance with the 

EPA. That is absolutely true. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They can. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. They can. And what that means is that if they 

can, that means they’re being bullied. This is federal bullying and 

this is exactly what my constituents in the State of Oklahoma are 

absolutely—they are abhorred by this kind of federal bullying saying that you’re going to lose your Department of Transportation 

funds if you don’t comply with what an unelected, you know, government bureaucrat tells you to do. They are abhorred by that. You 

can argue but they are abhorred by that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is not a rulemaking. That is in the law and 

it’s never, ever happened. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. And as far as—— 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. The gentlelady is recognized. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. For an inquiry. I’m the only person on 

the side and I have to vote. Can you recess long enough for us to 

vote? 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. We’re going to keep rolling because we’ve all 

got other places to be so we’re just going to keep moving through. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. A vote supersedes and the rules say that 

we can recess for a vote. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. We have plenty of time. We’ll get there. So I’m 

going to reclaim my time moving forward. As far as the economic 

impact, people say that this is somehow going to grow the economy, 

that these rules and regulations grow the economy. This has not 

been historical precedent. It’s not the fact. 

My question for you, Ms. McCarthy, in November of 2014 you 

had an op-ed and you stated that the Clean Air Act requires EPA 

to update air quality standards every five years. I’m going to repeat 

that. ‘‘Requires the EPA to update air quality standards every five 

years.’’ However, in your testimony today you state that the Clean 

Air Act calls for the EPA to review the standards. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Do you acknowledge there’s a difference between update and review? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. I mean it—you update it on the basis of 

science—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So when you review it to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —exactly the same level—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. When you review it and you do a cost-benefit 

analysis and you come to a determination—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, you can’t do a cost-benefit analysis—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. —can you keep the standards the same? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. So you don’t have to update the standards? You can review them and keep them the same? You agree 

with that? 
67 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Just have them updated by current science. It 

could result in exactly the same standard. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So when you’re doing your advocacy, some of 

us are concerned that you’re using different language than the language you use when you testify here. So when you did your op-ed 

in CNN Money and you said you have to update the standards, 

that’s different than review the standards, which is what’s required 

by law every five years. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If you see it that way, sir, I’ll try to be more 

careful. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. Thank you for that. 

We have heard testimony before this Committee that your agency’s proposed ozone NAAQS rule will be the most expensive regulation in American history. In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling 

and Michigan v. EPA, when can we expect the EPA to withdraw 

its proposed ozone NAAQS rule since economic costs were not properly taken into account and properly prioritized when formulating 

the rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We will be moving ahead to finalize the rule no 

later than October 1 of this year by a court order. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So are you suggesting that you are not going 

to withdraw the proposed ozone rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am—have—am not now intending to withdraw 

the rule. I believe we have done the proper—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Has the cost-benefit analysis been properly 

taken into account? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We’ve believe we’ve properly done our Regulatory Impact Analysis, yes. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. I think it’s clear that we’ll have to start 

over from the beginning given the Supreme Court’s ruling. 

With that, I’m going to go vote but I would recognize the Ranking Member. 

She has departed so I will recognize Mr. Johnson for five minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Director McCarthy, thank you for—or, Administrator McCarthy, 

thank you for being here. 

Let’s—when we ended with the last round, you assured me that 

you had never been—never attended a Goo Fest. Are you familiar 

with the Goo Fest? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’ll be very honest with you. I got the very last 

invitation. I was—the one that you just showed I think was—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Yeah. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —the only—one and only one I ever received 

a—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay, great. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and I did not respond. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Would you agree, though, that the EPA 

Director of Policy—I mean this is the person that directs the development of policy—having a personal, private relationship, a social 

relationship at a thing called Goo Fest shows that the EPA—critical members of the EPA have a close relationship with these outside third-party organizations, right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, I don’t think that—— 
68 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Is there any denying that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not think that people are precluded from 

having friends in every walk of life. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, I don’t think so either but—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I hang out with—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. —but these are people that are influencing policy. We’ve already established, Ms. Administrator, that 

you’ve asked this group to do policy papers for the EPA and now 

you’ve got the EPA Policy Director in social settings with these 

folks. Let’s go on. Let’s go for slide 3. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But their ethics policies that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Let’s go for slide 3. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. In another email, Madam Administrator, 

from Tiernan Sittenfeld, currently the Senior Vice President for 

Government Affairs at the League of Conservation Voters. I’m 

going to show you some more evidence—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. —that demonstrates this inappropriate 

relationship. Ms. Sittenfeld thanked Mr. Goo for inviting her to 

Goo Fest writing, ‘‘As always, I had a great time.’’ According to the 

White House visitor logs, Ms. Sittenfeld has visited the White 

House some 71 different occasions. Administrator McCarthy, how 

many times have you been to the White House? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. A lot. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. A lot. More than 71 times? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know. I doubt it. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. You don’t know? Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I doubt it. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, I—she’s been 71 times. Are you surprised—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think she’s older than I am. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, could be. I don’t know. That’d be 

good for both of us I think. Are you surprised that Ms. Sittenfeld 

has visited the White House on—71 times? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t even know the woman. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, okay. Well—but you know the position that she holds because I just told you that. She is the Vice 

President for Government Affairs at the League of Conservation 

Voters. Would you say that environmental groups have a close relationship with the White House and if the Senior Vice President for 

Government Affairs of the League of Conservation Voters has visited there 100 times—close to 100 times or 71 times it—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I really do not know. That is a very big organization. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. All right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have no idea how many times she would go 

there. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, let’s go to slide #4. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. According to news reports and emails obtained by the Committee, Mr. Goo, back to the Director of Policy, 

apparently attempted to skirt transparency. You talked about how 

transparent your rulemaking process is. Tried to skirt trans-
69 

parency and his ties to environmental groups by arranging meetings with the NRDC at the Starbucks in the J.W. Marriott Hotel 

on Pennsylvania Avenue close to the EPA in an effort to prevent 

participants of the meetings from signing in at the EPA building 

and creating public records. 

Is it appropriate in your opinion for an EPA employee, particularly the Director of Policy, to schedule meetings with outside 

groups attempting to influence the Agency’s policy decisions at a 

Starbucks instead of inside of the EPA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, I do not know anything about what was 

being attempted. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. All right. Somewhere along the 

line, Madam Administrator, the buck stops here, you know? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Why do you think Mr. Goo, the EPA’s 

Policy Director, set up such a meeting at Starbucks instead of the 

Agency? Any idea? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would not want to guess. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, I think the American people, 

Madam Administrator, want to know what it says about the EPA’s 

relationship with outside groups if agency officials set up private 

meetings at coffee shops instead of at their office. I think the American people are very concerned about the cozy relationship between 

the EPA and these outside advocacy groups. 

And I want to say one more thing while I’ve got just another 

minute or so. I’ve heard repeated this morning, and you’ve even 

echoed it, how other countries around the world have made much 

more progress in reducing carbon emissions and becoming greener 

with investments in renewables. I just came from a visit to Europe 

and I would encourage you to go talk to some of our European 

friends. You might be shocked, Madam Administrator, to find out 

that some of our European friends are actually increasing their mix 

of coal in their energy profiles. 

And when we asked them why they’re doing that because, you 

know, they’ve got this—they’ve got a big carbon emission reduction 

to do by 2030 as well. I asked the President of the Energy Union, 

I said how are you going to accomplish this? And why are you 

going to a higher mix of coal? He said our ratepayers are businesses and our residential customers have reached the tipping 

point. They’re no longer willing to pay these exorbitantly high 

prices in energy costs. It’s making us noncompetitive in the world’s 

economy. 

Madam Administrator, that’s what your agency is doing—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. —to our country by not considering the 

economic implications of the rules that you make. The Supreme 

Court has just ruled that it’s unreasonable for the EPA to take that 

position so I would remind you of that. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

We have a number of Members that have more questions to ask 

in representation of their districts, so with that, we will stand in 

recess subject to the call of the Chair. 

[Recess.] 
70 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. [Presiding] The Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology will reconvene. Thank you for the short recess so 

some of our Members could vote. 

At this time the Chair recognizes Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator McCarthy, I think you made a point that cost was 

not a major consideration at one point in your testimony. Do you 

not think that considering the link between income and health 

costs and the number of jobs that we lost and the preponderance 

of evidence that we’re losing jobs and companies because of overregulation, do you not think that we should take into consideration 

cost? Would you—thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that jobs and the economy are tremendously important and need to be considered. I want to just make 

sure we understand each other. I said in the development of an 

ozone standard the law—and it’s been told to us by the courts— 

precludes us from looking at cost. It’s a health-based standard. 

That does not mean we do not look at cost in the implementation 

phase. 

Mr. PALMER. I realize that in the recent Supreme Court decision 

involving the Mercury rule, that those are different statutes, but at 

the same time, though, I think the point made in the Supreme 

Court decision that it’s unreasonable to apply regulations without 

taking into consideration the cost and the economic impact should 

be relevant to the discussion we’re having about ozone, about—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. PALMER. —the Clean Power Plan, about the Waters of the 

United States. And I would really encourage the EPA to be more 

conscientious in that regard and particularly in the context of how 

it impacts low-income families. 

I got a little animated earlier. I was out of time. I’m happy to 

have—to have this second round of questionsMs. MCCARTHY. -Yeah. 

Mr. PALMER. —to make that connection but—and it’s particularly 

important in the context of how it impacts minorities. And I talked 

about the report from the Black Chamber of Commerce—the National Black Chamber of Commerce, but also the Southern Christian Leadership Council, which I believe was founded by Martin 

Luther King or he cofounded it. Their President testified to the 

same effect, that what the EPA is doing is going to have a disproportionate impact on black and Hispanic families. And I would 

say across the board all low-income families are going to suffer tremendous harm from these regulations. 

And what bothers me about this more than anything else is the 

reluctance of the EPA to hand over the scientific research for peer 

review. The reports that I’ve entered into the record have been 

peer-reviewed, okay? I don’t—I think that we need total transparency here. You know, we talk—you talk about what you want 

to do in the context of a cleaner environment. You made this point 

that the GDP has gone up since—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER. —the Clean Air Act in 1970. More specifically, since 

1980 GDP has gone up 467 percent. Vehicle miles traveled, which 

vehicle emissions contribute to ozone, have gone up 94 percent. 
71 

Population has increased by 38 percent. Energy output has gone up 

22 percent but emissions have gone down 50 percent. I made this 

point in a previous hearing that the air is demonstrably cleaner 

than it’s been in 50 or 60 years, yet we continue to see an increase 

in respiratory illnesses, particularly asthma. 

So my point you is is that this is a bridge too far. I think the 

EPA needs to scale this back. I think you need to first allow the 

states to implement the 2008 standards. They were already in the 

process. They were waiting on input from the EPA for their State 

Implantation Plans. So I think this is clearly a bridge too far. I’m 

very concerned about the collaboration that the EPA has, the—I 

think the over-involvement of outside groups because it appears to 

be agenda-driven and not sound public policy. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time I’ll recognize myself for five minutes for questions. 

And thank you again for being here with us, especially as long 

as we’ve been here. But—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —to have the rare opportunity to have you 

here, a lot of people have a lot of questions and there is a lot of 

distrust of government in general and especially of your department. Let me—there were a couple of questions that we were just 

getting into when time ran out so let me recap this. I showed you 

an email to where the OMB initially stated that the Waters of the 

United States would be well above the $100 million trigger of economic impact. However, then there was slide 2, which was the second one, if we could bring that back up. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. We were just getting into this email to which 

after the Office of Management and Budget said it was well above 

the $100 million impact, which would have required an RIA. This 

email said that—Jim Pendergrass, Water employee—Office of 

Water employee said, ‘‘Nancy and Ken know that a Regulatory Impact Analysis may be necessary but there are some economically 

significant rules from EPA that haven’t had an RIA. They are 

checking with the Office of Policy to see if there was some agreement at the political level that we don’t need it to conduct an RIA.’’ 

The response to this email then states, ‘‘Good news. Tamika and 

Sandy talked to Ken and Ken said it has been agreed that we do 

not need an RIA. Let’s leave it at that.’’ 

So this email appears to show that EPA made a political decision 

not to conduct the RIA that we know is required if OMB estimates 

that it’s about $100 million impact, which from the first email said 

it was well above, not just above, not marginal, but well above. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Who made that decision? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I apologize, sir. During the break I was able to 

check back in the office. It was actually determined to be a major 

rule because it did not have direct but it did have sufficient indirect costs and an RIA was conducted. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. An RIA was conducted? 
72 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, it was done. It was determined to be a 

major rule so there was no behind-the-scenes work. That was banter back and forth between the staff. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. From what I understand you conducted an economic analysis, not an official RIA but you’re stating that there 

was an official RIA done? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. My understanding is it was treated as a major 

rule. Apparently I misspoke when I said RIA. It was an economic 

analysis—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —but it was a major rule. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So the question is Executive Order requires 

you to do an RIA if it’s above $100 million, which originally the 

OMB said it was above $100 million, but your office chose not to 

do an RIA but do another analysis. And according to the email, 

that was a political decision made. My question is who made the 

decision to not go forward? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, this decision was—obviously OMB made the 

decision because they have to sign off on the rule and ensure that 

it meets all of the policies and the requirements. So I don’t know 

anything more than what you’re telling me. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Did the EPA—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We did the economic analysis. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. According to the emails, that really leads us to 

believe that someone at EPA went back to OMB and asked them 

to reassess whether or not this was significant, if there was a significant impact. And—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And in this case it was determined to be a major 

rule and an economic analysis had to be done. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. But not an RIA, which is required. What I’m 

getting at is there’s a lot of distrust and we’re having a hard time 

building some trust here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. I apologize, sir. I’m happy to get back to 

you but my understanding is that this rule did not have direct 

costs so it was allowed to do an economic analysis because it would 

have been difficult to know how you would have done a broader 

RIA when it had no direct costs—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, one of the reasons we have OMB is because I think if left to EPA nothing would—and in fact the email 

says that you guys have done other rules that you know are significant—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know what they’re referring—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —but you didn’t do an RIA so—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I haven’t seen that. I don’t know what they’re 

referring to. I’m telling you what’s in the record—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Well—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and I’m more than happy to share what we 

did. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —I would really appreciate if you could get 

back, and I would like to know who at EPA contacted OMB and 

asked them to change their analysis to go from well above $100 

million to where it wasn’t needed. Did that come from the White 

House? Did that—— 
73 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am more than happy to get you the explanation as to why this satisfied OMB and why that decision—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Can you tell me when we’ll have that information? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’ll go back and find out—I’ll do the best I can 

to get it to you right away. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. We’d like to know who made that—who made 

the political decision—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There was no political—as far as I know, sir, 

this is—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, according to your own emails, it was a 

political decision and it was said let’s leave it at that. Apparently 

they didn’t want us to know. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m just happy—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. But I see I’m out of time. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m just happy to give you information as to why 

this was the appropriate way to meet our policies and obligations. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Moolenaar. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

continuing to stay with us on this. 

I just wanted to follow up on some questions about the ditches 

that we were talking about—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, Lord. Okay. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —and do you—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Ditches have become my favorite—— 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Well, you know, I think your goal was clarity 

but there is a lot of confusion out there. And, you know, I guess 

the question I have is do you anticipate that a farmer, a business, 

or a local government would not face legal action for not applying 

for a federal permit because they believed their ditches were exempt? So in other words if someone believes sincerely that their 

ditch is exempt, will they not face legal action or would at some 

point the EPA rule differently? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, people are expected to know that if there 

is a question, they should ask, but EPA and the Army Corps are 

not in the business of going around and—as you’re implying, and 

chasing people for this. It really is a matter of trying to provide 

clarity. The farmers and ranchers I know care about drinking 

water as much as I do. They’re not interested in polluting or destroying. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They’re interested in maintaining that for their 

benefit and their own kids, so this isn’t an opportunity to do anything more than give them more tools and more certainty. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And the process will continue to work as it’s always worked. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Would you be willing to clarify that in statute? 

Because what you’re telling me today is your interpretation of the 

rule, and someday someone else will be in your position. Many people throughout the country will be implementing this rule and will 

have different opinions on that. And even though you say they 
74 

won’t be chasing people around, there is an enforcement obligation 

that actually does lead them to chasing people around. And so my 

question is would you be willing to clarify that in statute so there’s 

no ambiguity on that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know what I’m clarifying here, sir. All 

I’m telling you is how the current system works, which is people 

are obligated to ask when there is a concern and it’s a marginal 

call. They’re supposed to know they have to protect those waters. 

We’ve made it as clear as we possibly can what waters should be 

protected. They should use their judgment, ask if they’re uncertain, 

and everything will be okay. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Well, I’m going to continue to try and work 

with you on this because—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. All right. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —your goal—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’d be happy to do that. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —is clarity but there is a lot of confusion out 

there, and when there’s a lot of confusion, it’s going to result in a 

lot of unintended consequences for costs for people—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —and legal interpretations, consultant fees. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, one of the things we’re doing which might 

be of interest and I’d be happy to work with you on it is we’re trying to develop a question-and-answer for folks that are asking 

questions so that it’s available to them and it helps guide them if 

there’s a lack of clarity. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But we’ll never get 100 percent clear but I think 

we tried to get as far along as we could in making it is clear as 

possible so they can do their business without concern. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Thank you. And I want to follow up with 

you. Some of your comments I can tell you are a person on a mission. The planet is something—I read a quote—one of your quotes 

from the forum on U.S. Energy and Climate Policy, the Christian 

Science Monitor forum—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —where you talked about ‘‘there are a lot of 

things that I worry about. I worry about the obligations I have to 

the planet.’’ Do you remember that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we actually—— 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —statement? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It was actually kind of a fun moment. They 

asked me what I would do if I had all the time in the world and 

I explained I’d hang out with my children more but after I deal 

with the planet. It was sort of I think humorous. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Well, I just—because it does—when you 

talk about moral obligations—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —and you talk about climate change—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —it does have sort of the appearance of almost 

a religious fervor about this. And I guess one of the things I would 

like you to consider because I know you’re very passionate about 
75 

this, but if some of the analysis is accurate in terms of the economic costs—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —you have a background in public health—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —I would like you to consider the public health 

impact when it comes to people losing their jobs, having lower incomes, depression, suicide, people who are unable to pay for the 

medications because they are out of work. And these are the realities of these kinds of, in my view, draconian regulations that may 

have certain intended effects but actually have unintended consequences that I think are very troubling. So I’d ask you to think 

about those things. 

I see my time is expired, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you. And unfortunately, there’s going to 

be more procedural motions on the Floor, and since all Members 

have asked questions, I know you’re going to hate to hear this, 

but—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, no. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —we’re going to go ahead and adjourn. But 

thank you so much for being here, and the Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology is adjourned. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(77) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
78 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Honorable Gina McCarthy 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
(93) 

Appendix II 

SLIDES SUBMITTED DURING HEARING
94 

SLIDE SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE SMITH
95 

SLIDES SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE HULTGREN
96 
97 

SLIDES SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BRIDENSTINE
98 
99 

SLIDES SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BILL JOHNSON
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 

SLIDE SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BABIN
105 

SLIDES SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE PALMER
106 
107 
108 

SLIDES SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE LOUDERMILK
109 
110 

SLIDE SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE ABRAHAM
(111) 

Appendix III 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
112 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE EDWARDS
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BROOKS
134 
135 

SLIDES SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE HULTGREN
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE HULTGREN
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE WEBER
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE KNIGHT
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE PALMER
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 

Please visit the following link to view the complete report: http://nbccnow.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/NBCClozonellFInal.pdf 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE LOUDERMILK
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE ABRAHAM
340 
341 
342 
343 

Æ