what vms current plans for standing up that office are and what might we anticipate being the implementation time line. .. what is the current plans and what would we anticipate the time line for implementation? >> we looked at this when the language was drafted. we thought it was the good idea. it better be more than one person is so to look at a separate advocacy groups so the reporting structure in the valuation is not tied to other programs goals or objectives of their independent. although it is part of the flood insurance program for gras will have to respond in writing but as she began promoting that we agree it is say a good idea. and to start that program up

to. >> to follow up with respect with the fema certified with as implemented the flood mapping program with deifies three council. it was created in 2012 to the point in time that it has not yet established by a fema so what is the timeline for that very important council to begin reviewing and improving the accuracy? if we refer to the fema flood map? >> those rules were created we solicited the applications and i don't have the data but we're in the process of implementing that so there was a solicitation. i just have to get you you could tell from many members on the subcommittee and

across the country, the issues involving for flood mapping and the law that was signed into law last week are so very critical across the country and we want to work with you to try to ease the pain that this is causing you and so many homeowners across the country. with that, i want to thank you so much for your valuable testimony. it is so clear to me and anyone listening that your local, state, and federal experience is so very valuable if you leave the agency which sees, it seems, more and more action regularly across the country and i want to support and appreciate your respon responses to questions about your budget. members of the subcommittee may have more questions and we ask

you respond in writing. thank you for your service. pursuant to hearing record the record is open for seven days and without objection we stand adjourned. -- for seven days and of the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> tonight, epa administrator gina mccarthy talks about the budget and the clean water act. the secretary of the airforce investigates cheating in the nuclear core. and a hearing on the transportation hearing programs.

the environmental protection agency issued new clean water acts that governor stream and wetlands. epa adman -- administrator gina mccarthy presented the budget. this is two and a half hours. >> the meeting will come to order. thank you for rearranging your schedule for the hearing. we are having vote for get away day so i appreciate you working on this. welcome to fiscal year 2015 budget hearing for the environmental protection agencies.

we are joined by gina mccarthy and mary ann forlic to discuss the budget. i believe this is ms. mccarthy's first meeting. thank you for being here. we look forward to the budget and discussing your ongoing work. the budget proposal is a level of 7.89 million which is 3.8% below the enacted level. the budget is reduced for the fifth consecutive year. the budget proposal is good bringing the budget in line with historic level and in line with the levels under sequestration

but avoids employees furloughs and other things with across the board cuts. we make targeted cuts about how we spend the money as we rein in the deficideficit. i apprec appreciated eyeate the agency's payroll tax being investigated. this has been a priority for the subcommittee since 2011. i am glad to see we are aligned. i am pleased to say that the fy 2015 fte reduction compared to 2011. previous budgets often proposed payroll levels above the onboard personal leaving us to wonder how epa would use the funds.

as we move forward, i have concerned about the state of the aging water infrastructure and the california drought. we had a hearing to discuss of ways to finance the water structure needs. there are options out there to compensate the clean water drinking water funds. it is important from a security and economic standpoint that we have a protective and efficient water structure system. we discount the value of clean drinking water whenever we need it. that is until it isn't there. the budget is full of tough choices but one proposal i will let you know is unacceptable proposed elimination of the diesel grants that support the r retro fit of the old diesel engines.

as the program is important as diesel engine power over 95% of commercial trucks. according to the epa's own estimates every $1 spend on upgrades resulted in $13 worth of health and environmental benefits. so i don't understand why the administration would propose to eliminate this program with such a high return on investment particularly when it aligns with the environmental benefits while creating jobs. the budget eliminates funding for the rural water protection grants and state raid-on grants where 22, 000 people a year die from cancer from raid-on. the administration proposes other programs we don't have the

funding to pay for in a con strained budget. these are the wrong priorties to cut. they achieve results without the heavy hand of top-down regulations. the budget proposes increase funding for the overzealous enforcement agenda. it doesn't lend to building partnerships or policies that lead the economic growth. the epa serves to kerry out that agenda. when the president issues a directive stating the epa must regulate a rule to regulate the existing power plant gas it is care the whitehouse doesn't care what the rule says or the impact to the jobs. whether the whitehouse directs you to veto a mining permit before a company had the

opportunity to apply it is clear the administration isn't serious about creating jobs. and the latest example was revealed tuesday when the epa proposed the greatest expansion over land and water resources in the history of the 42 years of the clean water act. every small business and farmer could be subject to epa fines if they disturb a puddle on their land. epa stated that science would support tuesday's ruling. but the associate science study on streams and wetlands to downstream waters has yet to clear the review boards. the administration is wanting to go alone without the cost of impact on rules, jobs and without care for what the scientific community has to say. this subcommittee will continue

to take whatever actions are necessary to inject common sense into the rulemaking process and provide certainty to farmers and small business so they will not have to look over their shoulder fearing the epa. so the sum of the trends point to the right direction, devil is in the details and i look forward to working with you on the details and keeping the line of discussion open. with that, i will save buy my additional remarks until after your testimony. now to yield to mr. moran. >> thank you mr. chairman. we may have a couple points of disagreeme disagreement on the bill but we will remain friends.

welcome administrator mccarthy. this is your first hearing and we want you to know we greatly respect your dedication to public service and that of your staff particularly taking on this role which is about as difficult a role as any in the entire administration. but you have a long record of protecting the public's health and environment which is presumed to be an unpartisan objective. and you worked for the then governor mitt romney. so i would trust this is a non-partisan, non-contentius hearing. i understand you came from the air side of the epa, but i

expect we will send a considerable amount of time on the water regulations that were released on tuesday. they have been a long time coming and i do support and appreciate the fact you have taken the initiative to do what has needed to be done for a long time. i want to say thank you for listening to my colleagues and issueing a proposed rule instead of just guidance. we hear the guidance skids the rulemaking. so hopefully that complaint is off the table now. i am sure i don't have to remind you that epa has done more than it's share of deficit reduction.

it cost about $2 billion 2010 and it is disturbing that epa would be the first in line for additional spending reductions and that your request would be $7.9 billion this year with all of the environmental challenges we have. i share the chairman's concern about the deteriation of the aging water structure. i wonder if we should have o&ber up here so we can under why the administration is gutting state funds and proposing staffing reductions to 1500 full-time

equivalents. 200 less than you will have on board this year. i appreciate your request to add over $35 million for federal and air regulation but we have seen what happened to those in the past. the reductions are mostly accepted and the increases are denied. so i appreciate your fiscally responsible request. but i question the ramifications it will have for the environment. year after year, when you propose cutting something, that is accepted when you propose increasing something it is rejected. but your mission remains as important as ever: while we debate over climate change in congress, we should bear in mind ronald reagan getting the

montreal agreement done. he had a conservative and clear and successful record on deregulation. but he was stirred by the whole in the ozone and the montreal protocol was meant to save the layer and there are evidence that it may have been not what slowed down global warming as the chemicals might have caused the global warming. we have a good leadership that faces the facts of environmental trust. a million people died as a result of air pollution exposure. we have made approvemeimproveme

the clean air but there is more to do to reduce particlets and mercury. i tried to start a tradition of quoting republican presidents like nixon, roosevelt, and lincoln on the need to protect the environment. but it hasn't done a wit of good. look at the bills. anyways, it doesn't seem to have produced much in the way of divdeneds so i am going to suspend this practice. even though i have a great quote. do you want the quote? what is that chairman? >> say it.

>> we stand where two roads diverge, but unlike the roads in robert frost poem, they are not equally fair. the road we have been travelling is disceeceptivdeceptively easy. we progress with spreed but it ends with disaster. the other fork that is lessly travelled offers the path that preserves the earth. the point being the regulations are going to be tough. i know you have gotten pushback around the country. but the road less travelled is the one we need to chose. i look forward to your service, hearing your testimony and working with you. thank yap -- you -- administrator. >> we are joined by the appropation chairman rogers.

thank you for taking time to contribute to this important conversation. >> we are moving quite quickly along on the hearings this year. we have begun earlier than we ever have to my knowledge becauseee didn't have to wait on the budget committee or anything else. i want to do 12 bills this year and so does my counter part in the house and senate. so these hearings are proceeding than every and earlier than usual certainly. so we have proven we can get the job done if they give us the equipment to do it. when they gave us there common number from the ryan-murray budget deal, we were able to n

construct with this committee, the bill in 30 days, including the two major holidays. so we can do the job and we are proving we can and that is where we're now. madam chairman, unfortunately, i found myself at odds with our agency every since i have been here and certainly ever since you have been here. and that is not changed today. for years, it seems the epa has worked hard to devise new regulations that are designed to eliminate coal mining, coal burning, useage of coal period and that means jobs where i live, especially in my district. there has been a relentless attack by your and your predecessors on jobs in the coal

industry. these are jobs that are critical to the local communities where these workers live. they are their only jobs there. i have had 8,000 of my miners laid off. they went from $80,000 to trying to find a job at mcdonald's to support a family. and i don't find any heart beat up here concerned about the well-being of these americans. i just don't see it. i see relentless on-going attack, not just from the epa, but all of the agencies that have to do with coal mining. it is sad. it is tragic. it also makes me mad. and so don't look for any friendship out of this seat. now having said that, the nation

needs this inexpensive electricity from burning goal. you are going to need it. there is not enough wind, sun, or nuclear or anything else that can produce the power that is in place by burning coal. so whether you like it or not, and i know you don't, you are going to have to use coal to keep your lights on. and so the uncertainly driven by the bureaucratic overreach that the courts have severely cautioned you on several times, this overreach that we see coming on, beats all of the others by ten lengths.

you are going to push businesses overseas. we will have job losses not just in the coal business because inexpensive electricity is one of the biggest attractions america has for creating fa factories and jobs and your policies will drive up the cost beyond belief. we almost have a burn out with the extreme cold and weather, especially in the northeast, the industry all but crashed. and you are going to see that again except more frequently. and you are going to pay a heavy price out there in the country when your policies have caused the problems that we are going

to see. but i don't see anybody in your agency that is even thinking about that or thinks about it or cares about it. i was disappointed on monday to read that the supreme court decid decided not to hear a case in which the epa was retro activeally denying permits that were approved years before. all that does is continue the cycle of uncertainty that the industry feels never knowing if a government operator is going to shutdown a mine operation m simply because they don't like coal. they are creating standards the

epa knows are impossible to meet with commercially available technology. this shows how serious the president is about one campaign promise of 2008 -- the bankrupt anyone who plans to buy new coal power plants. that undattitude underlies all the administration efforts. mining permits are almost impossible to aa -- obtain -- ad p productive minds are idle. it is time for the burrirurr tow

for all of the above energy policies which the president is paying lip service to and it should include coal. it is time for the senate to step up and pass the bills that will protect coal jobs that the house sent to them. i am dismayed at this week's news as well that despite years of concern by this committee and others, the epa and core of engineers are working to create new rules that will place strict new standards on thousands ou ouch -- of -- so-called streams in the country even thou.

by creating this new definition, the administration again is striking at kentucky and others economy and workforce every hollow and valley in my region has a stream running through it. sometimes dry or intermitant what have you will be in your jurisdiction. no economic active, no road construction, no coal mining, nothing will occur on those lands without the say-so of the people in washington, d.c. another layer of tape will be added to the knot that already has a stranglehold on the people

since the administration declared a war on coal. this is unbelievable. there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, creaks and streams and dry beds that would be subject to your oversight and no one can do anything on the lands without getting your approval. that ain't going to happen, madam administrator. right here is where a good part of the fight is going to take place: in this subcommittee. >> thank you. and we are joined by ms. loyd who is here. do you have an opening statement? >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman rogers, ranking member

moran, welcome administrator mccarthy. it is pleasure to welcome you to the first meeting. to be blunt the fy '15 request of $7.89 billion is unacceptable at $310 million below current levels. last year i voiced concern that americans don't see the importance of the epa's work in their every day lives. despite existing environmental programs, the epa's successes in improving the environment with the passage of the clean water act amendments of 1990s and the laws of the 1980s establish the super fund program address the most aagraze grnlgs threats to our well-being. my colleagues and friends,

although we may have disagreements, they don't value your purpose. the house votes on a bill to roll back the epa's ability every week to pull back and democrats opposing them overwhelming and republicans supporting them overwhelming. this budget request seems to indicate that epa doesn't fully value the importance of it's -- its -- own work in the lives of millions. i am concerned about the cuts to the state revolving loan funds that support drinking and waste water. according to the american society for civil engineers in

new york that has the oldest infrastructure in the country, there is a 56.7 billion need for drinking and waste water upgrades. in 2011, drinking water infrastructure survey, epa found that 384.2 billion in drinking water upgrades are needed over the next 20 years. and in 2008, epa reports that approximately $300 billion is needed for waste and storm water infrastructure. the price tag has grown while the epa investments have declined since this started. i am also disappointed by cuts to the long island sound, great lakes, staffing levels at the epa which strongly suggest a

decrease in inspection and enforcement efforts by the agency and an increase in self-regulation by industry. the recent chemical spill in west virginia and coal ash release in north carolina clearly demonstrate the potential dangers of self-regulation. madam administrator, i look forward to hearing from you about the future of the epa and i will do everything i can do ensure you have adequate resources when the committee writes their bill. >> thank you again and thank you administrator mccarthy to be here. share with your proposed budget for fy 2015. thank you. >> chairman rogers, and ranking

member, it is great to be here and thank you, the members of the committee, for having me here. i have an opportunity to talk about the epa's 2015 budget and i am joined by the chief acting financial agent. $7.89 billion is the budget request for the epa 2015 year. this nets the challenge of domestic spending and fulfilling the public health and environment mission. the fiscal year 2015 budget reflects the plan to take advantage of technology, regulatory and non-regulatory approaches and it recognizes that the epa is part of larger network of environmental partners in states, tribes and communities. this budget will provide the support for a smaller workforce by focusing on real progress in

priority areas and that is communities, air quality, toxins and clean safety and clean water. we are asking for 7.5 million in staff to provide green infutruckture and technology assistance for a hundred communities and cost-effective plans for water management. and we will do more to partner with states, tribes and local governments and other federal agencies. funding for state and tribal assistance grants is one of the largest part of the budget. $199.5 billion is saved for the global warming and $10 million in fiscal year to support the

president's climate action plan with $2 million for adaptation planning. the agency will focus resources on the development of common sense and achievable greenhouse gas standards for power plants. the single-largest source of carbon pollution. when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the budget provides budget for states to implement the clean water act. and we are requesting $24 million to support activities under the president's executive order on chemical safety and the agency's effort on vol till

organic in the drippinging -- drinking water. e-enterprise is a greway to loot new business practices that look toward the future. the benefits of implementing e-ente e-enterprise is many. the agency is requesting 3.3

billion to continue to work on underground storage tanks and other programs. this will ensure land is returned to beneficial use. and increase of work and increase of 9.2 million dollars for response and removal. within that total is $96 million for tribal programs. 18 million in increase for pollution control, 16 million increase for environmental information grants and a 15 million increase for state and local air quality management. science is a foundation of the work at epa and science is supported by the president's request of $537.3 million

dollars. and lastly, across the administration, we recognize the importance of the budget deal the congress agreed on in november. for that reason, congress the federal government the budget pulls a $56 billion initiative that is fully played and within that is a climate resilliance fund that will protect and enhance coastal wetlands and $5 million for urban forestry enhancement. thank you for your chance to qualify >> i want to make a point before i recognize the chairman. it is one thing to share two different perspectives on a policy.

but it is another thing to mislead the public and i believe the talking points that describe tuesday's meetings were false. i cannot agree with quote the proposed rule will not add or expand to the waters under the clean water act unquote. this is the greatest expansion in control over water and resources in the 42 history. the mount of acres will expand as more waterways are subject to permitting. it is the biggest power grab i have seen and should make every landowner fear the epa knocking on their door. epa claims the rule provides more certainty but sound like the certainty comes in the form of more mandatory permits and more jurisdictional waterways.

i recognize the chairman with that. >> thank you, mr. chairman and that sentiment expressed in your statement which is correct. this is the biggest land grab of any question in the history of mankind and the supreme court this one i think is ripe for the picking and i think the courts will say as we have said we have reached beyond the authority given by the congress. and we will see about that as time passes. just yesterday, the epa and the core announced they are work together on this new regulation system for what is called the waters of the united states and

it would expand as the chairman says the miles of waterway that you would have jurisdiction over including thousands of miles of streams that are considered seasonal, rain dependent and in essence you are saying you would have authority on streams on private property even when there are not streams. that is proof in and of itself of the malintent of this administration toward the private sector. the economic impact of that would be profound. a community needing to build on private land that had on it one of these so-called streams that you considered a waterway under the new rule would have to

travel thousands of miles to washington, d.c. to get your approval. it would absolutely freeze economic activity in this country. no more stores or shopping centers or any kind of improvement of a property would be subject to your approval. even when some of the so-called streams had not seen water in a thousand years. when the courts and the congress have understand navigable streams what does that mean? a place you can navigate which means travelling in water. but when there is no water, how can it be navigable? we are not seeing water in a

thousands years in some areas so how can that be a stream? i think the courts are growing to scream your definition of stream is way overboard. how much time would it take for an entity to go through the individual permitting process in this kind of situation? >> is that a question for me? >> how long would it take a community to go through the individual permitting process? >> this rule doesn't impact the permit process. in fact, we think it causes certainty to decrease the amount of time you question as to whether you need the permit and the time through the process. >> you are talking about permitting the whole country. >> no, sir.

we are not expanding the waters we historically regulated. >> well in my districts there are thousands of the so-called themes that would serve jurisdiction over. how is it that a private property owner would know if they need your approval? >> that is the question this opposed rule is attempting to answer based on science and the law. >> if a private property owner takes some measure on his or her own land to mitigate flooding from a seasonal stream or repair a bridge that their driveway is across would they now have to apply for a permit under this so-called rule? >> one of the things we are

doing with this proposal and one reason we switched from a guideline to a proposal is so we can be clear about what is jurisdiction. there are streams that scientist with saying we need to focus on. all we are doing is trying clarify that. it is proposal. we expanded the exemptions and have been clear about how we can protect navable waters. >> you say you are following science? >> yes. >> that you are being ruled by the science?

>> yes. >> and that determines where you are going with the rule? >> yes. >> well why is the scientific aaccessment you used to back it up only in draft form? >> the science advisory board has been asked to do a peer review for a consolidation and that will be finalized before the rule is final so we can take their final input into consideration. we know that every piece of science we are looking at has already been appropriately peer reviewed. but we felt to let everyone of you know that we are following the science the best we can that we should consolidate it and ask the board to look at that in a

tra tra transparent open situation. >> the so-called transparency that you rely on is not finished. wouldn't it stand to reason on such a wide ranging regulation as this is, would it not be the thing to do to have the scientific bases settled so we can know about it, study and analyze it before you propose the rule? >> as i said before mr. chairman, the report will be

finan finalized. we are doing this because we know and we think there is tremendous uncertainty. there is money being spent that doesn't need to be spent. the sooner we provide the clarity and we think the clean water act will work and we will be able to have certainty in the regulated community and we will be able to move forward knowing we are doing what the law requires us to do. but in the most cost effective, insensitive way we can. >> i would think you would want the settled science before you moved ahead putting everything in jeopardy because no one knows how the scientific assessment will turn off >> it is belt and suspender approach and we know we are basing this proposal on what we believe to be the best science available and it has been

properly peer reviewed. it is starting point. i would encourage you to take a look at how hard we tried to define what is in and out and propose alternatives to think about how we could do it better together. >> wouldn't it be smart to entrust the science of this to an agency like the national academy of science whose objective would be trusted, i think, by everyone. would it have been smart to get their approval or analysis before you propose the rule and start the 90-day public comment period? >> this is a 42-year-old law where the jurisdiction is up in the air.

that doesn't mean we don't have a wealth of science that already can be used to underpin and provide clarity for this 42-year-old law. we have been approached by every sector of the economy, that might be a slight exaggeration, but many have been struggling to get the permits they need to get the licenses >> we have heard from the same people. and they are in an uproar around the country at this proposal. and we will hear a lot more from people who are direct lel lel p effected by this. someone is going to have to do a map of the so-called waterways you are saying jurisdiction is. >> we have a document people can

access. we want today -- wanted to do a rulemaking to hear from people. >> where are the maps? >> you can access them from the epa's website. >> i am not going to ask anybody. i want you to deliver it. >> okay. i am happy to do that >> what is the cost of mapping out the new streams are? there are tens of thousands of them. who is going to pay for it? who is doing the mapping? and how much it is going to cost? >> we are identifying the rivers, streams and tributaries and other water bodies that science tell us it is necessarily to protect the

waters. we have taken an opportunity to map those and we are certain we will get comment on them. but the point we are trying make is there are other waters where there is uncertainty but the more we bring certainty the better off we would send signals to the communities. >> what is it going to cost? >> that is a cost analysis that is in the rule. it looks at both direct and indirect cost. but frankly, the cost of the uncertainty at this point, i believe is much larger than the cost of bringing certainty. >> what is the cost of mapping the program? >> i can look at up for you, sir, but the indirect benefits are larger.

>> what is the cost of doing the mapping that would implement this rule? >> i am not aware that we need to expand cost on mapping at this point >> who is going to do the mapping? >> epa provided maps we can comment on. and we will look at that >> you are expanding by tens of thousands of streams in all 50 states, which is a huge undertaking, and you are saying it isn't going to cost anything extra? >> sir, we don't believe we are expanding the reach of the jurisdiction of the clean water act beyond its historic waters. >> if your agency personal is going to do the mapping and you will not need additional money, what have these people done before?

this is going to be a huge undertaking. >> we are trying find a definition of what is a water of the united states so we can protect the waters. we believe the definition will provide clarity and what waters are in and out will be understood better than before and expanding the extensions. that is what this proposed regulation is all about >> i suppose a community defies the agency, maybe unknowingly, and violates the rule, what would the community pay? >> that process will not change as it is currently. we work with people beforehand, try to understand the challenges and mitigate it. the opportunity is here is understand the obligations

without the complexity in the system now. we think this will allow people to comply and to avoid the confusion >> what is the penalty? >> it would be the same -- >> which is what? >> i cannot specifically say. it depends on the interaction with the individual in question, how we can work together, there is many with no penalty and others are large penalties. it all depends on the case, and the willing of the parties to work together. >> this is a simple question. a community violates the rule crossess over a so-called stream you have jurisdiction over, maybe they don't know it is ruled by you, but nevertheless they violated the rule.

what do they pay? >> it depends on the circumstances. >> give me a break. this is a simple question and case. >> we don't like to assess a formula. we like to understand the circumstances and work with the individual. that is how we do our business >> well you are grind to a halt the economic engine of the country. no wonder we are having trouble getting the economy going again. it is sluggish for years now and i think a major part of it is the regulations and the fear of this agency that you had that is depressing the business climate in this country and this rule that you are proposing would magnify that by a hundred. so mark be down as undecided. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

recognize the ranking member for any questions she may have. >> thank you, mr. chair. one of the most significant opportunities to address, harmful to the ozone, 1800 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. the epa recently issued a proposed rule setting the levels to 19 for the final years thof phase out. i am disappointed the epa wasn't more aggressive. given the significant existing stockpiles of virgin fc-8c the widespread availability of alternatives, why is the epa proposing an additional $90

million pounds of virgin production over the next fives years? the environmental community, key industry stakeholders have urged the epa to be more aggressive. will you take another look at the proposal and consider a more aggressive phase? >> thank you for raising the question, congresswoman. the united states is on track of meeting the phase out goal in the protocol, but we know and we have done before that we can do better all of the time. we put a proposal out in december. and the common period just closed. so we are really concerned and i am concern said about not making a judgment prior to the comments and moving forward with the final. we share your concern and want to be aggressive as can be while recognizing the chemicals need

to be in use because of the existing air conditioners that rely on them. we want to make sure the economy, particularly of the homes, are not impacted by a phaseout like this. >> so you are still looking at it? >> we are. >> one of the epa's goal is to create a supply gap to grow the industry. but the gap has never been created. every year the epa allocations exceed demands leading to a stockpile and this is the last chance to get this right with this rule. so i hope you were going to review it and take another look. one other question, the epa's fy '15 request decreases funding for the long island sound by $1.047 million. ...

>> why does the administration continued to proposed budgets that under fund about watershed that one of 10 americans call home? >> congresswoman long island

sound is one of my favorite water bodies after living in connecticut five years of with a long island steady it is amazing group. i grieve they do great work with the money. the proposal in the president's budget this year is the same level as 2014 but i do recognize that congress did add direct another $1 million to the fund and i respect the decision but all things being equal the budget constraints, i did agree it is a wonderful investment but we had to make tough choices and hopefully we send a signal to the importance of long island sound with the funding level proposed. >> thank you very much. i know the will work together to make sure we continue that important work it is essential and the study has made important

results. >> thank you for the support >> administrator mccarthy, i was listening to your testimony and a the question is the chairman was asking about certainty just from listening to that conversation it seems to me the only certainty that comes is of form of more military permits for waterways -- mandatory permits for this new rule. already home builders are announcing the backlog will increase by thousands and thousands of homes, a farmer's are fearful we are hearing from farm groups throughout the united states about the uncertainties

regarding agricultural exemptions. they say it is not so form friendly. with the steady not being finalized it will bring up more questions as peer review goes forward. i know how this works. by starting the clock for the science has ben completed is a way to jump-start the process before the right questions should be asked. volume concerned why we're moving in this direction with the science being done.

from your perspective how would you defying a federal? >> if you are relating to the types of decisions that scions points to a hamid connectivity reports streams or tributaries moving seasonally. >> these are not blue lyons -- lines as they are prepared today. >> hagel sorry i am not that familiar with the mapping. >> traditionally the permit process by the court has been defined what we refer to as the blue line street

and that will expand that. >> for the most part these are the borders we have been considering that our jurisdictional. >> did you don't need to have a new rule if it would not be expanded to. >> it is to provide clarity. we want people to know the revenue streams. >> full-time or part-time is under the jurisdiction? >> it has always been that many streams under the jurisdiction. >> so the states? that the chair been pointed out over years or months have not been consistent? under the jurisdiction of

the corps of engineers or that epa. >> no. >> that is not what the rules said. i read it carefully. >> indicates it provides clarity and instead of following exactly what the supreme court told us 1985 all the way thrale a few years ago for and it got confusing. they said it is not just navigable waters but all water bodies that significantly impact the integrity. >> guy read justice kennedy decision which was not very clarifying but nevertheless i don't take you have made any more clear.

how low do you define it? >> does not run 24/7. >> how you define 24/7? twenty-four hours? >> it relates to a is significant nexus' what justice kennedy said. is about waters that have a is a dividend access to navigable waters. >> if it is dry under one year is that under your jurisdiction? >> i cannot answer that yes or no. >> they go to great lengths to. >> so that defines? >> of course, it would not. >> that is not just about navigable waters. >> so the entire supreme court.

>> with that nexus the dry streambed long dash bet? >> the significant connection has say hydrological connection to have a potential significant impact integrity of the waters below. >> any potential waterway? i wonder if our environmental friends believe that to me that case? >> to redefine the true meaning of navigable waters or nexis or ephermeral. this jurisdiction from my perspective from those in this country is not going to create certainty. with that i would be happy to recognize the ranking

member. >> can i jus' say 170 million people rely on the drinking water supply from streams that don't run full-time. we have to recognize there is a level of a judgment that has to be made. >> i suspect epa would make that judgment? >> the q. -- thank you. i do want to get on into the record the other side. there is a substantial body in the industry that feels this is the rights and necessary thing to do that does not go far enough's. the community wanted a specific expansion of water

jurisdiction. about 60% of the miles that make up the streams only flow seasonally. now the president of trout to a limited said it speaks to the heart of the clean water act making waters more fishable and swimmable. those affected by the proposal have vital spawning habitat for trout and salmon simply stated it will make fishing better. the intermittent streams provide critical fish habitat out west accounting 94 percent of arizona streams come 88 percent new mexico, provide the flow for though larger rivers for the habitats of fishing and

insect to help teach german and really do determine quality of downstream habitat for fish. the new proposal exempts farmers who are undertaking in the of the approved conservation members to seek ephermeral discharge or a field permit. the president of the nonprofit roosevelt partnership of these are a lot of hunting and fishing organization was quoted to say all the headquarters streams where the fish come from they all spawn triggered by snowmelt and other run off. we will hear about that economic impact but hunting and fishing is a $2 billion per year enterprise generating state and federal taxes.

and he is in favor. he applauded that epa and he says this is what we hear, but we wanted to make it even stronger. so let me get to a the question. listening to the debate that the jurisdiction of waters covered has not changed. what is the point of proposing a new role? can you describe if the penalties that we have shown has dumped toxic waste into rivers? if they don't toxic waste

into rivers could they paid the saving penalty under current guidance as under the proposed rule? what is the difference? >> no change. >> will this require epa to take action against a company who was dumping toxic waste into the water without a permit to? because most have not gotten permits that we find and yet we find a lot of toxic waste as a result of this mining practice. is it going to require you to take action against them if they did not have a permit for dumping into water or if they don't in excess? >> with this information

reid have to understand the application. >> it is the clarification but they would still not be held liable but this tells them an advance what they are responsible for. we were getting letters saying we need clarification but that from what i understand is your intent. >> and my intent is to listen to the comments of everyone just a week

understand there are other issues i would not even get into that that that is the emphasis i want to ask you about actressy. there has been the evaluation that was a formal study in 2003 with human health. and it is pretty well documented to human health in drinking water it

intersects the hermaphrodites it is a condition where living species specifically male fish have developed over rees and female fish have developed male organs. they are found in alarmingly higher numbers and apparently is not related to finish last month i read an article on the chemical atrazine. it is a widely used pesticide for sugar cane and this research at levels that were 30 times below what the epa allows enough water. the frogs borden mail were

in fertile female frogs after exposure to atrazine. then there was a stand -- substantial industry pressured the epa allows the continued abuse at the same time that the european commission chose to remove its. we have these documents and we chose to continue the use. more than 10 years later. still not removing it from the market. to pay $105 billion with more than 1,000 water systems with filtering atrazine because of their concern over liability as a result of atrazine illness this a.m. birth defects.

what does epa know that the european union has not that they are using for action and we are not? >> i've read the same article and i would knock on people's doors myself. of the office of chemical safety has spent several years at both the human health and the ecological cost and the next year we will have a preliminary risk assessment we will make public the expected 2016 we will make final decisions so we are taking a comprehensive review of the science and hopefully we will move in the expedited way. >> good for you. that was the host of other questions. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. >> by the way before

recognize mr. simpson i'd want to interject if you submit a map of your jurisdiction for the record? >>. >> thank you. i have not said this publicly but it thank you for the work for what they had to talk with the small business administration as much criticism the epa takes from me you have people working in the pacific northwest. they try to solve problems and we enjoyed working with them. having said that.

[laughter] i know that you talk about certainty with the changing of the water in a newsstand he likes the rules but in all honesty if you regulate every stage of water that falls of the state of virginia i don't care if you want to have a permit if he washes his car i don't care but i can tell you across the about water is vitally important. we try to create certainty we've created more uncertainty. the courts with the decisions the court said the epa had gone too far it is

not as broad as had been claimed it tell them to be consistent but they don't have to leave to the states by the federal government. is there any federally regulated waters now that would be by the new rule? >> i am sorry. >> the army corps and epa got too far. >> it would follow a that was the case that would be regulated before and to remind everyone to is because the epa or the army corps doesn't regulate it doesn't mean it is not regulated. cylinder this new rule there would be some waters that are regulated that led

default to the state regulations. >> what they told us to you do is not just rely online ecological evidence to use the wetland that we had to do the science with a significant excess between the water and navigable waters. that is exactly what this does. it tries to identify those connections exactly the way we said. it leaves the isolated wetlands and that the state's low get involved for what it tries to do what the supreme court told us to reduce. >> can you tell me why you

decided to issue this? not only two days before your testimony. [laughter] >> tell me why you issued this proposed rule prior to getting the results of the science advisory board i am sure we won all there is blind. -- mind. >> we have moved forward with the implementation of the clean water act but what i want to remind you is the science is all peer review

science. what we did was create another level of analysis for that consolidating peer review. we will not finalize until we get the final word. >> but you go out for 90 days of public hearing. the public has not seen the results of the review is. >> it is the same science that underpins that. >> so we already know the results. >> it is the suspender approached the way people would like us to do is check and double checks limit before you ask for public comment and expect the public to give legitimate comment i would expect they would look at the science advisory board review they have done a good job. but they won't have that this debate can comment to

the science advisory board is strictly on the science into a us with the science as well as the application and the decisions we need to make. >> we will have another round. >> should i pack a bag? [laughter] >> it will be a long day. >> administrator mccarthy if they give for being here today. i take -- you for taking all these questions. the primary agency responsibility to implement the environmental law, the epa is a critical mission to improve our ability to protect the nation in human health and environment. you have been forced to make tough decisions because you are under attack the interagency.

already operating and underfunded levels and significant the understaffed. the full time it employers is lower than the eighties putting the health and safety of americans at risk. one is cuts to the safe drinking water front it is clear the staffing cuts hurt the ability fill the of core mission. and then to see the largest utility company of duke energy of 39,000 tons of coal ash affecting 70 miles of streams into the river of north carolina. and duke energy doing we pomps 21 billion gallons of cold dash water. and now for those two might not know it is highly

radioactive, includes arsenic with other heavy metals as well as we also heard what happened to the residents of west virginia of 300,000 to have water contaminated by a chemical spill. still unable to drink tap water. the epa clearly needs to have what it needs to do its job to insure we enforce regulations to have the air we can breathe and water we can drink. as i cannot stress enough to have the resources it needs to do its job.

what could we expect your ruling and how he will implement the issue of coal ash say and what other functions are threatened or delayed or eliminated because of the epa? >>. >> the president's budget request with that bipartisan agreement and to take advantage of this budget proposal to monitor equipment to do jobs effectively that there will be budget limitations. with that calash what do we call it? the residual it is by

agreement to be finalized at the end of this year it has been long awaited but it is not the answer to all challenges we have seen there are many ways we need to assess the average and sees one thing up with like 2.0 is we are requesting a bump in the of urgency response funding and cleanup of reradiation find. we are seeing some challenges and will work with the state. >> then the taxpayers cleaning up with the duke energy pollution and threat to clean and safe to drinking water. when the rule comes out at the end of the year they are still up to doing self regulation and if it is

challenged u.s. taxpayers can be on the hook. >> diagnostic testing i have all the answers but in the tennessee valley if you remember that spill the agency did an assessment of the structural integrity of these facilities to work with the state's we're not just relying on this rulemaking and we have been working to support north carolina the state and working with them with all of the duke facilities in north carolina because concerns have been expressed. so we support the efforts of the state's to look systemically at some of these problems with the resources are available but

nobody can do it all but not just to respond to a spill but the tools. >> but talking about the inability to get the appliances out of the market that causes have they been in the air when i was on the government reform committee we found out quite surprisingly tight now was allowed to continue to import air-conditioner is with chlorofluorocarbons. are you looking at that? >> we have developed rulemaking we can make sure i am as clear as i can be. we are looking a and we do check with customs with the appliances coming in and i believe we have closed that

loophole but let me get back to you. i understand the question i believe we have taken care of it but i want to confirm. >> i was shocked because i worked in the private sector and i watched the refrigerators and freezers and car manufacturers come on board then to find out there was a loophole for chinese air-conditioner is was unbelievable. >> mr. chairman excuse me administrator long dash administrator mccarthy i apologize for i have a couple of questions with regard to the i.r.a. corporate neutrality we have lots of wood piled master spy i hit washington still has a tremendous interdependence on our

forest. i as you know, to talk about science i believe they should drive a the habitat policy with regard to protecting the forest and the people who depend on the forest. enforced product residuals are not used for energy alternative they just lay there and die in the mitt methane. it would release more greenhouse gases then using the tree or the biomass on the forest floor for energy production. methane is 24 times more potent than carbon dioxide. i believe the review of the science shows the biomass is more carr been neutral and let it die so we should use that energy is my point.

so with that i know there have been acts in the process but what is the timeframe of the of by a genetic co2 emissions? >> shaky for raising that. the decision that you asked us to make is one we are pretty anxious because we know there is confusion as we have had meetings. the company's we have been beating with are terrific also using the selling is of pfizer freeboard to identify how you provide incentives. on bell holding it is very good from the greenhouse gas perspective but the challenges to put that into

a framework to continue with the exemption that the courts have overturned how we look at biomass but bond fell whole to encourage these sustainability b.c. out there to move forward. >> is there a time line? >> i am hoping this year. is a very difficult science challenge but we are not in a different place how we perceive that challenge. >> i think there would be less foil the age for catastrophic wildfires. >> there is a lot of reasons why it is a good thing. >> last year i ask your predecessor and i needed answer. washington state was given actually the western

washington epa was told you have to live under the storm water manual to derive their power from the clean water act. this and that my largest county you cannot wash your car in the driveway. but the manual says that if you develop something or build a road you have to have a permit york mitigation has to be equal to pre-lewis and clark water runoff. we have no idea how to do that and it continues to be the up bedrock for the western washington and manual. the rest of us have to develop to the standard for diaster predecessor if he was aware of this rule. they all played back to you.

i i actually believe it is the state but they say they derived it from the clean water act that they have to do when i say i have not found that. i would like clarification from your office to the committee specifically whether or not they have the authority based on your interpretation or is it the state choosing to do this or are they accurate you give the authority? you don't have to answer that years. >> i apologize with no response we will take care of that. >> i just need to know whose authority. >> spending to thank you for your presence your aunt i appreciate your steadfast

appreciation i need to last about a very parochial issue that represents fishermen from the coast of maine is a huge part of the industry about the commercial discharge. there is an upcoming rule that is of great concern it is my end is standing the epa requires all commercial vessels under 79 feet to receive individual permits as a result of the exploration of the exemption in december. recreational vessels are not required instead the epa develops of management standard for the coast guard that requires compliance with those practices. that makes sense for smaller

vessels but you'd be hard-pressed to find a bigger advocate for clean water then me. i am from a coastal state and cared deeply we'll understand their proper relationship between the clean environment so i am in favor but there has to be a way to balance the great concerns with the up practical concerns. they're not cruise ships it doesn't come under the same requirement. can we talk about how he will implement this? >> we have been working pretty closely with the coast guard to reach out to all constituencies so there is no confusion to be easily implemented with consistency with the coast guard under numerical limits and

timeline. if we are missing your constituency in that conversation we will close the gap. i know how important clean water is too vague and how seriously you take it. >> i appreciate it them happy to follow up i think it is critically important they are not locked in with every other bow to under 79 feet to give them more time. it is a potentially expensive endeavor with fuel costs so high. there is plenty of burden. i want to talk about monarch butterflies just for a minute. in 1996 the nef monarchs made that journey from the northern states to cover 50 acres of pine forest today it is one football field. there is a lot to of reason

is an indicator species but there is reason to be concerned i am interested on the agriculture side. if you plot another chart you will see increased use of ground up -- roundup charts the same decrease of monarchs almost 90 percent disappeared in ohio because of milkweed eliminated with the increased use of roundup because more farmers are planted gm of roundup resistant cornyn soybeans. there is a $5 million increase of the chemical safety line to a fax on the environment. will you use any of these to invest or the herbicides?

>> we are actually looking at some of the chemicals that you are referencing also with the department of interior. to make sure we understand the ecological impact and work with endangered species and others more effectively. i don't disagree with the issues you have raised. you have a challenge with the multi factor issued to impact but you pelosi the entire administration is plate -- paying close attention in those funds are dedicated to those suffered. >> i will book for to following that closely i have lots more questions. then i will submit to you for further discussion. thank you. >> there will be no coal miners left for those canary

is. [laughter] >> i planted milkweed in my backyard to attract the monarch butterflies. >> we could start the of monarch caucus. >> good to see you again. i was the subcommittee chairman i thank you have then a tough job and we want to support you there are things that we may disagree with but i would like to you comeback with more specific questions but make a general observation. i am in the middle of a reelection campaign as is everyone else. i have to go back every two years to convince them i am making the right decision for them.

not just with republicans but with independents and democrats unfairly trying to represent them. if they don't like the decisions i make for what i advocate there is a solution exercised all the time they vote me out of office. the house is the people's house. we boast accurately the -- reflect the will of the american people which is why it is so disturbing when they see your boss and to what he did during the state of you again to say he would bypass the will of the american people and implement policies and regulations contrary to the will of the house who represent the bill of the american people. to my democratic allies who would stand up and applaud that i think that is insane i cannot imagine it wanted to give those

responsibilities to a the president. some of these regulations we have talked about are so controversial because they don't reflect though bill of the american people and have grave concerns. do you wonder stand our concerns on that? you understand how we feel this betrays the intent of our founding fathers to bypass congress to take more of that power to the of white house? >> to be very honest, no. we don't agree on that issue because what i heard the president say and what i heard him say over and over he is more than willing to work with congress with issues like climate change but if they don't act he feels a compelling need to act because of inaction. the using the current authority, not to expand that authority is limited

you using current authority we what except that but we don't believe that you are. we believe you are expanding. and if i could respond to your characterization of the president using climate change isn't some of the initiatives he held the house and the senate for two years they did not move that legislation because they do it was not popular with the american people. they like to blame the republicans but that is not true. they had a two-year window. now that they can blame us to be the obstructionist they say we will do it ourselves but they were not able to do it even with the democratic congress and senate. i don't think it is honest when he says the republicans stood in the way but to a more specific question

previous to our panel here, but i have legislation that would review and refine the process. i have to tell you again matt an administrator i am disappointed with the response for example, we have vast them to address charged questions and in some cases they have a response they have to get your permission before they will respond. do you agree or does congress have the authority for them to respond? >> you have last day fairly complicated issue. i will be as clear as i can. the science advisory board, the role of the board is to look at science. not at how bad is applied.

i think we try to respect their independence. to the extent we can work together, that is the most important thing we can do a. >> directory. to me, eddy dependents is we are able to respond to the congress independent of the administrator and they tell us we have to use a your approval first. i believe that is the opposite. >> we have done the best we could win questions have been raised we have considered those bets we have a job to do at the science advisory board to let them do the business the better off the american public is. >> are you familiar with the

reforms that we a suggested in this legislation? >> i apologize. i am not specifically familiar. >> it may not matter now but i would be interested in your response because it is a very sincere and important effort. we believe they have demonstrated in a sense they are not responsive. when they have many opportunities over a period of months. even a year that answer they give is to check with the administration first. clearly the intent is to a tear to the administration of. it is set up to provide the congress with scientific analysis.

>> they give for calling back to my attention. >>. >> let me ask you a question over the past decade new york city has made a significant investment to burn solid waste from landfills to recycling operations. of loan those that has committed to composting organic waste as much as possible including food. this effort to be a successful we need access to a strong composting industry. i know the epa shares the commitment and i applied you but in recent years the persistent herbicides may threaten the continued viability of the industry. as scientist and it they do

not break down in the process and that herbicides presence in the finished product renders it unusable in the garden and agriculture. as it undertakes the review what steps are you taking to resolve this problem? >> i really appreciate you bringing this up. it is a complicated issue but we have taken a look at these herbicides and have taken a couple of steps. we no longer allow their registration for residential use to keep that out of the composting that we want to have happened and also making labels changes also when they come up for review looking at these issues. i am happy to say we're on the road to address this effectively. in 2013 we did not get specific concerns raised.

but if there is other work we should be doing it is important to to work together. it is they could solve led praised management strategy. to consider that we could not agree with you more. >> i would like to find of way to keep in touch. this issue came up that has now created a problem with there should not have been a problem at all. your agency is taking a leading role that secretary salazar kicked off several years ago. respect years with a collaborative oriented fashion. this federal partnership is

designed to build on the model to bring success we have had. i am particularly interested what the epa has done and what you plan to do in the coming year. please tell us about the success you have had and challenges you face an elaborate on the budget funds you have dedicated to this initiative. >> the urban waters initiative is an extremely important program with the department of interior and across the administration. an opportunity not only to highlight those are bin challenges as have been identified but to get the youth involved in is one that any side would agree to.

with that budget request of 4.4 million would be the same as last year we are utilizing well beyond the funds to generate interest. with that significant resource. so to the extent that we most recently that is the exciting opportunity but i am happy to share these success stories we have had on this program. hybrid be happy to do more brett we are at of the vote to continue to grow that the interest has more opportunities for success.

>> also to keep in touch. i told my colleagues before they're usually think of wide-open spaces i don't know how many years there has been a change that has paid attention nearby. as part of the design to build the of water way to make them recreational and business oriented. >> is an opportunity to engage older children to do

voluntary water monitor. the capacity to enter into the private sector. to build environmental stewardship these areas are focused on the underserved communities that are challenged. it is breathing a sense of hope in some communities that might not have existed to this level before. i love this program it is exactly the way the federal government should be treating states and communities and across agency effort the federal government should duplicate. >> let's hope we continue to build on this. >>.

>> i want to do talk about water also. [laughter] >> also about clean air and clean water last year it is completing a project is edward has spent a celebrated at five or more areas of concern by the end of 2015. that 25 beneficial use some parents have been used to areas of concern one triples of the beneficial use and performance. with all of these huge understand the disappointment did

mr. chirac proposed cutting such a successful program with such strong results. why would they want to cut such an impressive program to clean up more issues to stop inflation in it -- invasive species? >> we are faced with some tough choices. but i do not disagree with it is a tremendous lever viable program. looking at the 2015 presidential budget request that is down from the 300 million the private year before just a reflection to continue to build that the 275 can build with infrastructure and information we have already gathered before but not a sense of a lack of interest or commitment to this is not

a great program. spec part of the great victory last year, especially when facing a difficult budget i hope we can work together to increase. >> i represent the great state of ohio. their primary regulators it allows them to be tailored to each individual state. having said that imposing regulations told me with the plans of oil and gas development in the you have new rules? which we expect coming apart

of the epa over the next two years it? >> we have requested significant funds just to take a look cantor research in this area to richer natural gas is done responsibly. i know the first line of defense. . .