when they will try to advance the nomination of a new commissioner. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, instruct us in the way we should go. direct the steps of our lawmakers, leading them beside still waters, as you restore their souls. as they put their trust in you, be for them a shield of defense.

lord, preserve them, keeping them from stumbling or slipping. enable them to rejoice because your goodness and mercies endure forever. may our senators remember that you love righteousness and justice. may this knowledge motivate them to follow your precepts, earnestly striving to glorify your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god,

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., february 12, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mike rounds, a senator from the state of south dakota, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc -- calendar number 153, 148, 204, 263, 329, 375 and 421. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nominations. the clerk: nominations, international monetary fund, sunil parwell of california to be united states director. department of state, azida raji to be ambassador to the kingdom of sweden. brian james of maryland to be legal advisor. samuel heins of maryland to be ambassador to the kingdom of

norway. john l. estrada of florida to be ambassador to the republic of trinidad and tobago. thomas a. shannon of virginia to be under secretary of state. david mckean of massachusetts to be ambassador to luxembourg. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the nominations en bloc? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the nominations. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on homeland security and government affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 2451 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report rmt. the clerk: s. 2451, a bill to designate the area between the intersections of international drive northwest and van ness street and international drive northwest and international place northwest in washington, district of columbia, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the complete is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: wowcts. is there further debate on the measure? hearing none, all those in favor

say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. con. res. 31. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 31, providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the senate and an ajunment oanadjournment of the f representatives. the presiding officer: there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the congress current resolution be agreed to, the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the senate, the president of the

senate, the president pro tempore and the majority and minority leader be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law by concurrent action twoft houses or by order -- of the two houses or by order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, the junior senator from arkansas the junior senator from missouri be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions on friday, february 12, through monday, february 22. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn, to then convene pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times and that following each pro forma session, the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session. monday, february 15, at 11:00 a.m. thursday, february 18, at

9:00 a.m. i further ask that when the senate adjourns on thursday, february 18, it next convene at 3:00 p.m. monday, february 22, unless the senate receives a message from the house that it has adopted s. con. res. 31 and that if the senate receives such a message, it stand adjourned until 3:00 p.m. monday, february 22. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two liards be reserved for -- two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. follow the prayer and pledge, senator coons be recognized to deliver washington's farewell address. following the reading of washington's farewell address, the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:30 with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if floss further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until monday, february 15, at 11:00 a.m., unless it receives a

message that the house has adopted s. con. res. 31, in which case it stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday, until 3:00 p.m. on monday,

! crime actually begins to fall in the early 1980s. and i think that happens because the baby boom generation, which was the major player here in the crime ride begin to age out.

>> next, we will bring you yesterday passed agriculture committee meeting. epa administrator gina mccarthy testified. >> the economy will come to order. i asked my cross to open us with a prayer. michael appears the mac to your heavenly father, we thank you for the opportunity to serve this great nation. lord, we thank you for the freedoms that we have. we thank you that you have blessed us as you have with the rich resources and the ability to use to make the world a better place the lord, guided and directed them to give us wisdom through this hearing. we ask all this in jesus name. >> thank you, michael appeared >> i want to thank administrator mccarthy for being here this morning. i appreciate you being here.

there is a reason the top issue for every member of our ag committee is to the regulatory agenda. many members of this committee believe over years the epa has pursued an agenda seemingly absent of any recognition of the consequences for rural production agriculture. epa is grading regulations and policies burden seven, overreach in a negatively affect the jobs in rural economy. the most poignant example is epa's recent u.s. role or as the epa likes to call it, the clean water role. i'll be frank and was not about clean water. everyone wants and deserves to drinking water. this is not about safe drinking water in flint michigan, which has some confused with the overreach. rebranding government as part of a social media campaign does not change content of the rule. the role is simply the result of epa ignorance stakeholders including state and nation seeds and the american people to expand the jurisdiction.

i imagine it will be there for a number of years. this is one of the many ends to where the agency has ignored and instead of administering the of administering the law can epa charges congress to pass legislation that gives the agency more authority and if congress doesn't act, epa will legislate the legislation memorandum or summit and the intimidation. this approach is starting to backfire. just as they come the supreme court intervened and regulatory priority in the administration. i'm glad the courts have intervened. however it should have never come to this. just because something sounds great in theory this not mean it will work or have a beneficial impact on our constituents. more times than not, great theories do nothing but increase the cost of doing business. farmers and ranchers take great pride in stewardship for the land. the original conservation manipulate it really depends on

natural resources, there's an undeniable incentive to adopt practices that enhance long-term viability. while it may be popular to blame farmers and ranchers for any and every environmental concern that crops up, you can acknowledge nobody cares more about the environment than those who derive their livelihood from it. rural america's economy is dependent on agriculture. today's committee members will talk about examples in which the approach and justifiably increased the cost of doing business for farmers and ranchers are these include the proposed changes to the ozone standard in the modified standards for farmworkers and many others. some may believe individual government regulations might be justifiable paul regulations must be developed in a manner based on science and mindful of economic consequences. farmers face increasing pressure from pests and disease. the uses were to be prohibited in the increase crop losses will impact food prices and security.

if epa fails to adequately calculate him or consider economic consequences of actions consequences could be devastating. federal state law to take the usda serve as an important adviser to epa in the regulation of pesticides. historically the right has been evident in the action cpa is taken to evaluate pesticides and uses. usc is perspective in the of agriculture is critical since we know that crop protection products can increase as much as 40% to 70% depending on the crowd. it concerns me to hear the communities express urgent concerns about the lack of seriousness with which epa takes and incorporates the advice and opinions especially during interagency reviews. i anticipate every member will engage you in a discussion of areas of concern but i hope the hearing will serve to open more cooperative working relationship with bp generally. farmers and ranchers believe the epa's attacking them in the little credit given to voluntary

conservation activities they've engaged in for years. this committee will be an advocate for farmers as you expect. i turn the ranking member for any questions you may have. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, administrator mccarthy for joining us. appreciate your being here today. we've got our share of disagreements but you've always been willing to listen to my concern and we always get to the same place, but at least you been willing to listen. i'm glad other members of the committee will have an opportunity to share what is happening in their districts today. i'm on record with a lot of others seem to epa as a nation he that is overreached. i simply don't believe there's enough understanding within the agency or the administration about what we do in rural america and the real consequences of new regulations and what they could have on agriculture in the world

economy. the proposed clean powerplant rule which in my opinion was rightly put on hold or the supreme court this week is one of them as well as the proposed waters of the u.s. role which, you know, if i read one more time about the farmer exemptions i'm going to tear my hair out because i got a full-time person on my staff that does nothing but untangle this watery shoes under the current regime and the problem is we have for federation is designing what a wetland is. they don't agree. even within the same age as they become as somebody in one county with one opinion versus somebody in the county that has another. i can guarantee you this rule goes into effect and will make that worse. we've had a memorandum of understanding between the and rcs in the corps of engineers in our district and a flood stuff we've been working on. it just does not work.

we still have people all over the map. i don't have a lot of confidence putting it functions in there is going to fix this. i hope there is some other way we can deal with that. i hope today's hearing is an opportunity to get a better grasp on what you're up to and what we need in agriculture and rural communities. i hear concerns from farmers in districts all the time and ensure members do as well. i thank you for your willingness to testify before the committee today and look forward to today's hearing. i yield back. >> us to want to thank the administrator this morning to welcome her to the table. i suspect she understood the differences of opinion and we have to be respectful but that and with that introduced the honorable gina mccarthy, administrator for the u.s. environmental protection agent he and his deep. may i have -- ma'am, you are ready to go. thank you for being here.

>> thank you on the ranking member conaway and ranking member peterson ranking member peter stanislas sima said the committee. i want to thank you for the honor to be here this morning. mr. was a delay in coming to epa and farmer share a common goal protecting our environment. by five conservationists, ranchers and foresters livelihood depend on healthy demand, clean air and water to produce the food, fuel and fiber rely on. in the 45 years since the epa's signing the claim that 70% of our nation's air pollution and hundreds of thousands of miles of waterways on the wildly economy has shriveled haired agriculture advances to achieve better yields the less water, lower risk pesticide and less fertilizer. i would like to highlight some of the epa initiatives furthering our common goals. working with usda in partnering with the burgundy producers we've recently -- they manage

more than 1 billion tons of manure but that contains soluble nitrogen and phosphorus which if we harness as a renewable fertilizer can minimize water pollution in the healthy soils. participants will be challenged to use the power of competition to bring innovative concepts into designs and ultimately working technology is creating the solutions i went for farmers, the environment as well as our economy. epa partners with usda with the locals whose local faces project promoting healthy inexorably, clay bierman through farmers markets, co-ops and other local food enterprises. by focusing development in existing neighborhoods to help support farm economies and protect undeveloped oil plants to document may not 27 new communities raising the total number of community service 62

in 29 states just since the program started in 2013. the clean water while we finalized last year protects the streams and wetlands that one in three americans rely on for drinking water and farmers and ranchers does the need for their crops and livestock. as members of this committee no recent court rulings created uncertainty regarding the application of the clean water act to streams and wetlands in developing role of the epa and the army corps of engineers responded to the requested scope of the clean water act more clearly, more predictably and more fairly and in doing so the clean water will not only maintain current statutory exemption, it expands regulatory exclusions from the definition of waters of the united states to make it clear the rule does not add permitting requirements and farmers and ranchers and promotes voluntary efforts to protect and enhance clean water. we continue outreach to the

community responding concerns from answering questions and reinforcing the fact that existing agriculture exemptions and exclusions continue to apply under the clean water bowl. last year the epa finalized volume standards for the renewable fuel standard program for calendar years 2014, 10, 16 and biomass-based diesel for 2017. the final requirement is chernobyl field production and provide robust achievable growth of the biofuels industry. overall the final rule requires total renewable standards grow by 1.8 billion gallons in 2014 to 2016 requiring 11% for biofuel production in the market produced in 2014. 2016 of them still standard is nearly 1 billion gallons or 35% higher in 2014 actual volumes. the biomass standards increases

every year to reach 2 billion gallons by 2017. that is a 23% increase over 2014 actual volumes. the epa took steps to improve administration of the program and continues to approve new agricultural feedstocks increasing the number of pathways that biofuel producers may use to qualify their biofuel under the program. we improve quality transparency and efficiency of our petition review process for new biofuel pathways and conducted lifecycle analysis and several new stocks or dpa remains committed to renewable fuels go grab and congress' intent to raise possibly grow renewable fuels over time. i recently announced increase protection for the nation's 2 million agricultural workers and their families. every are thousands of pesticide exposure incidents caused the days, lost wages and medical bills. we can do better. the psf they reflect extensive

stakeholder involvement from the agriculture community, industry and federal state partners. provisions help ensure that farm workers nationwide receive annual safety training, prohibit children from handling agricultural pest side and provide workers with tools needed to protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposures. thank you i'm happy not to be here to answer your questions. >> thank you, man. after members will be recognized in the order of arrival and i appreciate members understanding. i recognize myself for five minutes. thank you for being here. but the sixth circuit's ruling on clean water, supreme court's ruling on the clean power plant. difficult to say for those in west texas. legitimate concern that given both of those involved but we believe is an overreach by the agency around congressional law.

can you talk to us about effort that your agency will make it in the intervening 11 so much that you'll be there to obey the supreme court in the sixth circuit, we've commit to not going to run two other courts for other ways of getting done. >> mr. chairman from and epa is trying to do what congress told us to do with the authorities we have and we feel confident both of those rules will be seen as an appropriate proper necessary application of the law. if you look at the clean water bowl, the reason we did it was to try to clarify confusion that the supreme court actually raised and created in a couple of their decisions beginning of the last decade. on the clean power plant, it is the pause in terms of the implementation and enforcement of the clean power plant, but the rule is in effect that will let them time to resolve those issues for the course but we feel very confident it is going

to be born out to be a legal, lawful law. >> none of expected free to take that position. we've got 31 lawsuits, attorney generals across the country, those who try to look at it. what i asked was what would you do now while those rules or regulations thursday from implementation? do we need to restrict funding in the appropriations bill to say no money is being spent on dr. implementation of the clean water plan or the clean power play in -- clean power plan? >> we are trying to make sure the clean water rule issued in 2008 is implemented as well as we can. we are certainly going to respect the decisions of the court. but as i think we have heard, and there is a lot of confusion, a lot of different business

decisions. we are working with the army corps of engineers to make sure we implement what is currently in place as best we can, try to avoid some of those confusions while we hope to bring additional clarity when the clean water rule makes its way to the courts. on the clean power -- clean power plan, we will work with states on a voluntary basis to move forward with dyson continue to provide tools and outreach. we clearly understand the courts will be winding through the process of looking at the role. the issue yesterday will take little longer for that to happen. we will respect that but in the meantime we will continue to address greenhouse grasses gases with the authority available to us today. >> okay. clearly there is a clear-sighted disagreement that used to issue those rules were overreach and i have a little trouble with that.

can you talk to us about my comments about the take from the usda with respect to pesticides in the work you are doing better? are you ignoring usda? i'd give you a softball because i expect he'll say no. can you help us understand you do via the expertise of the long-standing trust that farmers and ranchers have with usda in this arena and the distress created with epa over the other things going on. you can't separate the issues in a vacuum. our farmers and ranchers feel under attack. talk to us about your respect for the usda and their opinions on pesticides. >> well, sir. i worked very closely with secretary vilsack and my staff worked closely with usda. we have great respect for the agency, scientific expertise they bring in full knowledge of the agriculture community. there are laws that require us before we propose rules to consult with usda and we do that

to work very closely with them in the interagency process to resolve differences. i think we have a close collaborative relationship. at times we may disagree but it's usually what the law requires us to do and this is good discussion and would always try to understand the science together and make the appropriate decisions. >> thank you, man. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. i want to focus on the clean power plan. we are kind of caught between the situation in my district. the rural electric skip power from the coda. obviously we are at minnesota. minnesota is apparently working with you guys on what i've heard they are up to and i think north dakota is one of those big studio. so when you say you are going to

work with states, does that mean you are going to work with minnesota and continue to develop a plan with minnesota while this is going on? >> we will continue to work with them on a voluntary basis, but nothing will be implemented while it is in place. if minnesota wants help and tools, we would always work with every state that does that. in terms of actual enforcement of anything, it is clearly on hold until it resolves it health of the quarters. >> well, one of our concerns, there is apparently a 2014 proposal and then it was finalized. in north dakota unit from 11% to 45%, the biggest increase of any state. and now, rea owned cooperative out there and north dakota, those lands did some updates back in 2005 or something, for

input in 126 -- improvements in firewalls and so forth then you determine from epa determines that was a major overhaul or whatever it was. so you force them to go under some new program to put in scrubbers and a whole bunch of other stuff. they suit you. the end result is they spent $426 million. my real question is what that did distract the equity in the co-op from 24% down to 12%. are you aware of that? >> not the specific instance you're referring to. >> they signed an agreement to get financing for the $426 million you force them to do. it says they can't go below 10% adequately. if this is implemented, they will be down to 5%. they will be in violation of the

situation with the usda. are you aware of that? >> sarah, if you are referring to the clean power plant -- >> more money to comply with other situations. in order to get the money they had to agree not to go below 10%. so now if you implement what the clean power plan says, you will force some way below 10%. they don't have the money to do this anymore. you party taken all their money and there's no other way minnesota. they won't let them build a power plant. the only way they can do it escape from canada. if you go ahead and complete this. so we are stuck in this whole thing. i was going to ask you today to delay this, to give us maybe 10 years to comply with this so we don't go bankrupt. but now i don't know where we

are at anymore. but we need more time. >> sewer, where more than happy to work with the state. in fact, we have been out there. we did extensive outreach on this and there was concern in some states about whether or not they would internally be able to make things work. we added huge amount of flexibility in the assembly also engaged u.s. da to work with us and with the rural co-ops. we understand they have unique challenges and we are not going to leave them behind. they deal with some of the poorest communities that cannot afford to have energy increases. there are a number of programs we are bringing to bear as well as flexibility that will not require every facility to make investments. >> for whatever reason they seem to think you are not going to have flexibility. i listen to them. i don't know why.

some of this power from these plants goes to north dakota. we are kind of stuck in this whole thing. i'm glad to hear you are willing to work with them. that is not what they've heard. after they spent the 426 million, u.n. after them on hayes and we were able to get that stopped. that would've been another thing that would've bankrupt. they feel like they're in the middle of a whole deal and not listening. >> i'm happy to personally engage as well. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your testimony and service. a good number of things pop up in our minds that come to our attention. i'm looking at a few headlights at a few headlines here. sixth circuit puts controversial waters of the united states on

hold. another article addresses the clean air act on hold. as i'm watching this common it seems as though the agency has been pushing back against a specially firmer producers and people who care about the value of productive real estate. a couple phrases here i saw emerge from the epa over the years and i wanted to start with this. waters hydrological he connect did. you're also familiar with the phrase significant excess. would you have a judgment on which one of those is the most ambiguous? >> the clean water world tries to provide clarity to both of those. the supreme court actually raise these issues and suggested that epa need to resolve this. that's what the clean water rules all about. >> i'm about clarity of course,

too. with regard to clarity, with a renewable fuel standard you've taken a position in past years back in 2012 or teen that we had short grain supplies and high grain prices come at there for you roll back the directive on the rss and i will focus on-based ethanol for simplicity sake and made the judgment been assertively even though the statute required those gallons tomorrow. i notice now that we have high-volume oversupply of grain and low prices that have dropped a little more than half of that period of time and i don't notice the same logic is applied when it comes time to adjust the rss for current conditions. if it was a good idea to go with the requirement for corn-based ethanol in grain supplies were short and prices were high, why would it also be a good idea to raise the statutory standard in grain prices are low and supplies are high. >> the renewable fuels and there

is that we came out with provide us an opportunity to get back on track as well as provide steady growth. the numbers you are looking at in here is our assessment of what we can achieve attempting full board to get to the statutory level, the recognizing that beeps like this in the shortest time frame is not possible. so we want to achieve statutory levels. we understand that is what congress intended. but there is a growth that we need to recognize and factors that impact bat. >> you are talking about production capacity. >> i'm not talking about production capacity. >> what are you addressing? >> the ability to get the fuel into the system. >> that is correct. >> you believe you have administered the authority to abolish the blend well?

>> these numbers pushed through the blend wall because we understand that we need to do that to continue investment of infrastructure necessary. >> you believe they have the administrative authority to do that? >> i believe we are doing everything the law says to get to bubbles as quickly as possible but you have to think of factors like how reasonable it is to achieve these within a certain period. >> what about you 15? >> we actually approved the 15 and specific vehicles. >> your round? >> yes. >> there is no vapor pressure requirement that restricts there? >> there is a vapor pressure requirement. yes, there is. we approved the use of the vehicles and it can be used. there are certain places -- >> practically -- practically speaking i should have prefaced

with. also with regard to the testing of fuels, my information is epa relied on a chevron consultant to design test feels. are you familiar with that? >> no, sir. >> i will post some of those to you in a written form so you have an opportunity to digest them in a way that's not a high test area in the hearing here. i have a stack of questions i ask you to respond to with regard to testing requirement in compliance with the rss. i ask you one final question. if you were the administrator of the epa at the time that the rfs expires, dear the authority to extend beyond sunset? >> i am not aware the trend takes sunsets. what are you referring to? >> go? >> go put that in my question to you, too, specific language in

the statute. we look forward to working with you. >> i will too as well. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank the administrator for being here this morning in your efforts to help resolve problems. i want to continue the conversation for a moment on the renewable fuel standards. obviously there is a diversity of opinion as it relates to this committee and members of the congress and how it is applied and implemented. can you explain the process to insure the 2017 rolls are not to lead the way the 2014 rose where? >> i can. one of the things we made sure was already proposed a 2017 standard for bio diesel to make sure to keep on track and we

have every interest now that we are on track to stay that way. >> those of us to of us who believe in alternative fuels and renewable fuels big cellulosic fuels are the next generation of this development. can you explain the inspector general's investigation regarding climate impacts on the renewable fuel standard after using food to produce fuel as the most effective way to do that and whether that doesn't type create more pollution issues. >> i know that there has been a number of books at this issue and investigation. but my job as epa administrator is to implement the law given to me. >> which is the most difficult law. >> yes, but it is very clear that cellulosic fuels have not progressed anywhere near what congress anticipated, which is

one of the reasons the statutory levels are so difficult to meet. i want to move on to some local issues. california is a very diversified state as it relates to agricultural production. the agency recently issued a statement on a risk report indicating sister is in contain higher levels of neo-toys and other honey at risk to pollinators. because of the diversification of our crops, clearly we are sensitive. i think we gave you some. it does require these were sensitive and therefore the impacts collapses. but why go out to commodities that don't require bees at least in my state benefactor to go we go out of our way to accommodate because a lot of the proximity of crops are nearby each other. in fact, recent reports have indicated paul led beeps have

propagated and higher levels now and the decline we experienced a few years ago. >> well, congressmen, and in your area of the country together before and i understand how hard the almond growers were not to address pesticide issues, but certainly to conserve water. i appreciate very much all of that work. we are happy to work more closely. the science is difficult, but it is growing and getting more robust. we think we are following the science in our decisions. >> chairman and i last met were in a conversation with some orange growers dealing with citrus greening and they really think they are being singled out because of the way in which the environmental protection agency has approached this. i will provide more information to follow well. before my time expires, i want to go to the larger issue that affects all of the american

agriculture and that is the application of pesticides and herbicides in epa's registration process. for most of us farmers, we live on our farms. the application of pesticides and herbicides is made with very cautious and cost effective evaluations. we are concerned about the health impacts, the cost economic impacts. you are required to reevaluate your process on regulations or registrations every 10 years since the recent announcement for the cautionary principle. can you comment on your precautionary principle and do you believe zero risk as possible when using application of herbicides and pesticides? >> sir, we do not utilize precautionary principle. decisions are based on the love which is based on this. >> to boost >> to believe zero risk is attainable? >> it is possible with him, but

that is not the way in which our laws require us to look at this and we do not utilize that. >> by time is about to expire. various applications of these pesticides and herbicides have been brought to the court ended some cases we believe epa has refused to defend his scientific decisions on the challenges of the scores. this is very serious. you are supposed to be the clearinghouse. >> we vigorously defend our decisions in court. we do that because we believe we did the right decision based on science and the law. there are times when even made vigorous defense does not carry the dead in the court and we have to abide by those decisions. in no way are we backing off of our decisions in the way in which we've always made, which is based on the law that exists and we are continuing to apply that in vigorously defended.

thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. administrator mccarthy, thank you for being here today. sure it's not a surprise when i tell you many of our farmer constituents are worried and upset over the number regulations coming out of the epa with a negative impact. first of all, are you cognizant that there are concerns by american farmers and is there anything you plan to do to address the days agency and regulations? >> yes, i am aware. there is a lot of work we need to do to establish a stronger trust relationship between agriculture community and epa. i've been working hard for the last few years trying to get out to meetings that were farmer, rancher and forest are the ones to sit down. i'm trying to work for the issues and listen closely and learned. >> are there any fundamental you think you'll make that will

remedy or alleviate concerns? >> implement the laws as effectively as i can. as i noted, with a number of voluntary programs we are initiating back and forth. we have no advisory groups being started. the most important thing we can do is listen to one another and try to identify the password that meets our shared goals because we certainly share the goals of wanting to protect the environment. >> i agree. listening is the first good step but you've also got to be prepared to act. it may mean act in a different way. but anyway, i'm glad you mentioned volunteer programs. we need to encourage programs and provide farmers with the resources to work with stated that the epa on water quality problems. congress did not get epa regulatory authority of her family farmers. i'm concerned epa is moving away from voluntary programs with her flyable results and that intends

to create burdensome regulations. do you agree the programs are important in an effective way to reduce pollution or is the epa trying to expand regulatory authority? >> absolutely i agree voluntary programs as well as technical support and funding support for the federal government is a sensual way in which we need to move forward and that is the vast majority of our relationship. >> where the queen act of congress give the epa authority to regulate sustainability of agriculture of nonproduction practices? >> under the clean air act? i do not know whether the word sustainability is written into any law. i think it was an outcome of understanding that we need to understand the life cycle and all of the challenges associated with clean air and other requirements being placed on

constituencies including farmers, ranchers and foresters. it was an open dialogue to understand how our rules can enhance not just their health and our health, but viability as a factor. that is why it is intended to make sure we think about this and they commonsense holistic way, not a media by media approach. >> i agree. it didn't give legal authority to the epa. do you see in that act political authority to regulate sustainability? >> we do not regulate sustainability. we do regulate pollutants under the clean air act, one of which are greenhouse gases. if that is what you are referring to, that is because under the clean air act, the supreme court clearly told us we have to look at greenhouse gases as a potential pollutant. and if we found favor in danger and that, we had to take appropriate action.

that action. that is what we are actually doing. >> could you have someone on your staff get me a copy of that? i'd appreciate that. finally, gao released a legal decision that the epa was violating publicity or propaganda anti-lobbying provision in a previous appropriations bill. and your agency according to van has been using social media for covert propaganda. what is your aside about? .. believe that we have violated any provisions. the gao looked at thousands of social media that we actually do everyday because that's how we do our outreach and education. that's all that they were. they found two instances that raise questions for them. we disagree with the decision but we certainly are working

with omb to make sure we have followed every one of their procedures and we do everything we need to do. >> thank you ma'am, i yelled back. >> your time has expired. >> thank you chairman and thank you administer for being here with us today. i appreciate i appreciate the significance of farm country and curious about what you're hearing but i remai. i'm c the optimist that i do think it's possible inis this nation o mroduce food to continue to sami feed, feel and clothe the worldg at the same time addressing the real world issues of clean air, water and so stated billy. that's what we're all trying to get it. a statement that comes up often with my producers out there and there's a folks committed, they don't deny the science. is regulatory humility. just a sense, there's, i use the term before, alderman held at all these things coming down

without asking us. i think mr. rogers was getting at it and i agree. i'm very proud of the work this committee did and many of our folks working on the last farm bill on the conservation piece of the. that was lauded by many as one of the strongest ever across the spectrum from producers to environmental groups. are those working courts are the. >> a difference? my attitude is where far better at it we can prevent a problem rather than do with it afterwards. are some of us working? if you could pick up one you think is the way to go. >> i think the conversation efforts are actually working and you can see that in many locations. do we need to do more? absolutely. but that is the approach to which epa prefers to take. i think if i wanted to highlight any, it would be in the great lakes area, areas in which we are actively supporting

conservation efforts and doing that in a way that will help us prevent pollution into the great lakes which are causing these harmful algae blooms. there is a collaborative spirit, funding, technical resources provided to this. these are the programs we need to have to move forward. epa is working every day with usda and the nrcs to see we can advance their mission as we to advance our own. i do not need to duplicate it. i need to respect what they do and help support that and identify ways of expanding that in areas where you find there is a challenge. >> i agree. this is about helping us reach a common goal. i think that telling us attitude whether it's perceived reality is reality. a lot of people feel that way. some of it comes from this. this is one that's confusing. two statements were made.

your agency stated that three to 5% more jurisdictional waters but we were told and the redline for me was if he did need a permit before you will not need one now. you can't have both those statements, can you? >> you actually can. let me just try to explain it. the increase in the jurisdictional laudable determination is because there is much more specific about what is jurisdictional and one is not. so there's not a significant amount of time wasted asking in areas where there is no jurisdiction. we well know that from our history it is a direct hydrologic connection that is significant enough to work protection. in terms of the agriculture community there is no added permit burden. >> unequivocally, i can go to add one of my producers the site the way you are doing things

now, if you were up to standards nothing changes? >> erect. we have expanded clarity on some of the exemptions and exclusions so that we can make that clear. >> i'm going to segue at it because i mentioned in collaboration with usda. what conversations happen on are at best in dealing with -- >> with usda? lots. at every level spent extensive all the way to the process. >> is. i would look at the stocks, lifecycle impacts to the numbers we should put in to what can be produced, what can be consumed, what can usda do like advancing blender pumps? what does epa need to do to make sure those blenders can go out there and all those lands be utilized? we work constantly on rfs together. >> i appreciate that and i think, i know you do to the best of your ability is to get out there and make the statement, show that collaboration and

coming back to that regulatory humility that we're in this together, we've got common goals. >> that is the term i will take to heart as i believe. >> mr. thompson five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. i haven't seen a lot of regulatory stability. unfortunately, just my opinion regulatory areas. thank you for being here. i appreciate you coming, taking tough questions and responses. i want to follow-up on mr. rogers question, in response to the last question on the side regarding the use of social media. i found it interesting, so since epa disagrees with the regulations that have been confronted with and basically they disagree with the regulators who were responsible for that, were wrong in your interpretation, so you're not changing practices. my question is, do my farmers do the same thing? and they? they disagree with the epa where

there's a question of authority as a base of the legislative language, a basis of a now growing trend in a serious numbers of supreme court rulings? do they get the same class as assigned like your agency is choosing to do on when your feed is held to the fire under regulations? >> we are not doing anything that would skirt the decision that gao made. their interpretation of the law. our office of general counsel believes that they are incorrect in their interpretation. nevertheless, we -- >> what you are saying, okay -- >> nevertheless we are working with omb on what the appropriate response is to that. they do have their opinion. with the respond properly to get but we still have a right to say that legally we don't -- >> sounds like farms will be better off if they had an army of government paid attorneys. that's not my question. many believe the chesapeake bay

represents a massive seizure of state government power by your agency. and will serve as a blueprint for regulating watersheds around the nation. through its controls the agency send the states are taking over many if not all land-use decisions nationally. really a private property. in effect become and national zoning board. it's over having devastating impacts on farmers and defending it on appeal to the supreme court. your agency has defended sink estates are developing their own standards. let me read to you what one state in the chesapeake bay watershed, delaware, not my statement of his voluntary procedure in this watershed improvement plans. the state wrote if the program fails to meet standards of federal to the agency been asked to identify the set of potential consequences to impose these consequences range from epa taking of responsibility for

development plans to oversight and extending the regular authority traditional sources of pollution. in short this quote is articulating if this plan doesn't meet standards, epa can then force its own plant on the state along with punitive actions. my question is what all of this authority in what sense was anything all in gary about this process was your agency told states that it wanted, what it wanted company declared there would be consequences for not delivering on what it wanted. standards and plans expected. how is that voluntary? >> let me try to answer that question. the chesapeake bay tmdl was an opportunity for a number of states who share a common both environmental and economic interests in having a healthy chesapeake bay. that program allowed them the opportunity to actually meet compliance with reducing the standards necessary to get that

healthy again in their own way. >> -- includes watersheds, i love the chesapeake. i'm talking about the overreach. >> but we have never actually had to intervene. there's great progress being made through the efforts that each state has been taking. they do care about the chesapeake and they are making progress. the question was asked what the people don't do anything? there is no question tmdl's our regular requirement. so there are things we can do if there isn't any progress as they anticipate. we've never had to use that. >> i would refer you to the transcripts of when our subcommittee on conservation energy watersheds met. your an individual -- your individual in the philadelphia office of this was not a regulation because it was all in gary. it was some of the most confusing testimony would ever

because he is being aggressively implemented as a regulatory action, yet clearly the way, just overreach to the 10th degree. i appreciate your response, but the uncertainty is still there. >> ms. fudge, five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you administrator mccarthy for being here today. i'm going to go strictly local today. i live on the banks of lake erie in ohio. lake erie provides drinking water to millions, supports thousand jobs and contribute over $1 billion toward local economy. yet harmful algae blooms only intensify each year and we're persistently face with the threat of open dumping that we believe to be harmful sediment in open lake erie. we believe that it is an adverse decision why the army corps. despite the great progress made

in reversing passerby will damage we find ourselves locked in an ongoing battle over the seemingly noncontrononcontro versial issue. the epa plays a critical to protecting drinking water and health of our lakes. what are you and your administration doing to ensure the continued growth and recovery of lake erie? >> i am familiar with the issue you raise with the army corps and i'm hoping my understanding is correct that the court is working with the state and all the constituents to identify ways to stop the dredge disposal in western lake erie. but as you also know, we are working very hard to our great lakes initiative to understand the science in western lake erie, understand what the source of the nutrients that are contributing to those algae blooms are, and would support it with $11 the epa's funds to try to help -- $11 million -- of extreme forms of agriculture to

find ways of doing conservation efforts another voluntary action that will begin to make again in the challenge we're facing in western lake erie spirit i hope you a check for that because it's my understanding even though the court has decided that it is not appropriate for them to dump the sediment into the overlay, the army corps has decided they are not going to comply with a court order. i think it's important you expeditiously determined why and why they have not requested the resources that are necessary to contain the sediments. i would ask you check that further. >> i'm happy to do that. >> thank you. the growth of urban agriculture is vital to solving the problem in many low income neighborhoods. in postindustrial cities such as cleveland, historical contaminates install the growth of these programs. what role is e.p. points in ensuring urban land is safe for farmers of? >> one of the efforts i

mentioned early in my oral testimony was the local food and local places effort which i think at enormous opportunities for urban communities that are literally food deserts, and to open up into planning and to bring federal resources to the table that usually focus on the first. instead of as an afterthought. it is a great change happening i think in urban areas understanding the need, the body that can bring not only for the health of the viscount of the committee. i would really encourage anybody's active participation in the local food a local place of initiative. that can bring resources, brownfield redevelopment resources to the table that would address the soil contamination. many of those turn into vital places for communities to gather and grow food.

so do not give up in an urban area on the ability to grow food it can make that part of the community revitalization effort that everybody is looking for. >> and lastly seasonal agricultural runoff is a factor to the growing problem of algae blooms on the lake. what steps is epa taking to address the lingering pollutants still contaminating rivers and streams the sediments. >> we've mentioned the great lakes initiative, but i think most importantly that is our collaboration with usda as well as our looking at areas of concern and the great lakes where we know we have significant sediment and water contamination. it has to be a combination of all of those efforts. it's not just about stopping what my continue to be coming in but it's looking at those hotspots so we can continue to make progress. which we have made tremendous progress on but that's one of

the three areas that the great lakes initiative is focusing on in the coming years. >> i yield back. >> mr. baca bower five minutes. >> thank you for holding this hearing. ms. mccarthy come in my area the prevalence of herbicide resistant big we disputed where are you? i'm sorry i can't see. thank you. >> i even got a taller chair so you could see me. in my area, take we does become a major problem as producer laughing, combating. with everything else going on in the cotton industry right now fighting this problem is the last thing they need it is the one of the greatest cause for many producers. usda has improved herbicide tolerant trait. epa is the sole holed up in getting this new in severely needed technology out to our producers. can you give the committee and

update on where things stand at epa and what is the continued holed up by epa? >> in early 2016 we proposed for public comment a regulatory decision for the exact reasons are talking about. we know they're significant interest in this. there's been tremendous work on the science side. after the comment period we're going to review those comments and continue how the agency can move to a a final so we can get this done and over the finished line. >> can you kind of give me some encouraging timeline so that folks could look forward to? >> we are working as hard as they can and will get it done as soon as we can. if you'd like me to reach back to after there and i can get more details on where we might be. >> that would be helpful.

this is the first time ever epa has attempted to vacate a pesticide registration through a court action. currently under epa is required to comply with a number of procedural safeguards for pesticide restriction can be canceled which is still to be. what was the agency's rationale for taking such an unusual step of asking the court to require epa to review the registration of a product to recently approved for use and why is agency now trying to use the courts as a means of regulation? >> we were not really trying to do that. a decision that we made was a controversial one, as you may know, but we followed the signs and followed the law. the awkward situation we found ourselves in, after the decision was made while it was being challenged in court by those

that disagree with our registration, we identified information that the manufacture have put out and other public venues that raised concern that we did not have the full science data to make the decision in the most solid way we could. and actually addressed what might the synergistic effects. so instead of waiting for the courts to tell us that we have failed in our science decision, we wanted and ability to take that back to get additional information to address the issue and to move it forward which is exactly what we are doing. we are working with dow about what this site is they put out and other venues, what data do they have, what data might we need to redo this decision in a way that we think will be legally solid and respectful of the full range of science. >> i think some of the questions you have not provided, follow

the law procedures on this. do you believe you? >> we do and we think we did it in a way that will get to a decision much more quickly. the challenges that dow did not give us the full range of data, and we found it in another venue that was publicly available. so when we found that out we worked with dow and have a system to move forward respect the full range of signs that we are required to look at. >> i'm always interested in timelines. you said quickly, and i learned quickly in west texas and quickly in washington, d.c. don't necessarily have the same meaning. >> i think, i will double check when i go back but i'm pretty sure we have already received a lot of information we have asked dow to do. so we don't think that is going to be a significant delay in the reconsideration of this kind of thing before.

>> although those two issues, if you could maybe have your folks kind of give me a timeline so that i can report back to the folks. >> i am more than happy to do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, administrator, for being here. i, too, will ask a look at the local question if you don't want. i represent the commute of the san bernardino that has been in the news recently obviously for some terrible acts. while climate change affects us all this is an incredibly personal for me and the community i represent that i can recall small days going u over e were not allowed outside because of the air quality levels -- smog days. this is important to our community sits at the base of the mountain range that captures smog and air quality issues that mostly generate from out of the area and blow in with the trade

winds. i believe the national and the air quality standards are a great benchmark for communities to strive for in order to improve pollution levels. however, san bernardino has been a unique predicament due to the fact that the smog from los angeles also contributes to the pollution in our region. are the resources and tools that the epa can offer san bernardino county as it continues to work toward a management plan to improve air quality? if not does the epa plan to provide any sort of regulatory relief, or is mr. walz going through regulatory humility for counties and areas that are not in compliance? >> let me begin by expressing my sympathies to you and to those in your community. a national anti-air quality standards rightfully established by law standards we all strive for. we well recognize that california is challenged in meeting those and there have been so many tools developed

that we have had the authority to manage that have provided direct assistance for new technologies and other efforts to support the states aggressive effort in looking at these areas. there's also tools to into the law itself so that if you have a difficult challenge he can't meet it, provide additional time and opportunity to get that done. part of the valley of estate planning process and really the aggressive and, maybe aggressive isn't the word, but the collaborative process, the outrage to try to work hand-in-hand to address these challenges is really of great value. i more than happy to make sure that folks, and sit down and see if there are particular issues of support that your community may need to go into a state plan that would help you achieve these standards closely. quickly. but i want to just reinforce the

fact that the law does not know iwhat is epa ever required more than can be done. we know that they are transport challenges and they are unique geographic challenges that california faces. so while we hope to continue to make progress we understand that will take time. they will take a collaboration and it will take new technologies to advance this. whatever is coming in from other communities is going to have to be a collaborative community effort. >> we just want to make sure that is part of the discussion. there has been a discussion and some flexibility in the past. we just want to make sure that the standards are still in place. if we could follow up with your staff to have a little bit of a deeper dive, that would be very helpful to the office. without i will yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator, first of all

thank you for being here. startup equivocation. my colleague from ohio on the lake erie issued from two separate issues. the algae bloom issue, they do dredge it is those on the lake. the other issue was unclear on, cleveland port issue is a dredging issue about pcbs and the state of ohio has sued the army corps of engineers over this issue and it's interesting, the agency has been silent on this issue. i want to bring to your attention. two separate issues on lake erie. i want to talk about, you talk about largely united states will. farmers do want clean water and drink clean water. we agree on that. but my concern is, and it's evident by what's happened, within 24 hours when you filed affordable on the federal register, nearly 30 states filed a lawsuit i think it's around 32 states have filed a lawsuit and

numerous organizations and entities are against this. it's clear that there's concerned about this and he wrote to their states' rights. when the clean water act was passed i think the intent of congress was exposed a partnership between the feds and the state's for the sake for the sake of a woman and a forced water act under the guidance of the epa. one of your answers you insinuated that if the row had to be extended to include rural waters, those are regulated you insinuating states are not regulating water. i as a farmer cannot go out and dump my hog manure in a stream. i would be breaking the law. i want to make it clear that waters that are not under the authority of the federal government are being regulated in a partnership. you of greek? >> in many states. >> you do insinuate that. >> it wasn't intended. we are partners with the states. >> i the concern that what is

going to happen, it's going to require more permits to and inefficiencies. i think we risk going backwards in the progress since 1972, water quality of protecting the environment of this country. when you add on more red tape and bureaucracy, he bought some point through the heads up. i'm not going to do because this is just a bunch of nonsense and a bunch of red tape and the bureaucrats go crazy. i want you to be aware of that fact. this rule can make us go backwards and we are eroding a partnership agreement to set up in 1972 with the states. over 30 states have sued you over this, you've got to pay attention to the. i want to get to the part about the gao inspector general report that came out and said the epa used covert propaganda, biased

and skewed the commentary. i know some of the people are pooh-poohing this is not a big deal. it goes to the integrity of the whole comment period process. the process is there for the stakeholders can put in what they need, comments, regular to use their due diligence to figure out what's the best rule that works and protects the environment. goes to the integrity of the system. my question is what has epa didn't initiate the recording violation under the added efficiency act, copy to the comptroller general and the congress and depression as required by the act, reported to us? what resources were expended? at these legal activities, both monetary and full-time equivalents. what internal actions have been taken in your office to make

sure this doesn't happen again? as any internal action been taken to punish people who broke the law in this case? i will let you enter those questioned. >> i don't think folks in the agency broke the law, let me answer your question directed. we are working with omb. there is a draft letter at omb to make sure that we are following our obligations under the law to respond properly to the gao. i think the word propaganda is always construed as something horrible. the propaganda that they were referring to was not that we lobbied congress, it was not that we -- >> you are going to lobby us because you're trying to educate them. this is what you guys want. now you have all the state epa's assuming you. wakeup. >> ththe propaganda issue with abuse the system that omb approved under the guidelines which was a basic message think i really care about clean water. gao was worried that when other

people -- [talking over each other] did you use a system that could be traced back to the people putting it out? is that true? called under klatt that cannot be traced back to the people putting an outcome is that to? >> no. what happened if we put it out. other people re-tweeted it and didn't gao thought that it wasn't their message, it was epa's message and we didn't properly identified as such. that's what they said but it was a general message, i like clean water. the other was a blog that had a hyperlink when we reference a really cool program -- >> the gao said you broke the law. >> i don't want to minimize the. we will pay attention to gao said and we have a letter in the process to meet all obligations. we just disagree that it was a problem. >> the gentleman's time has expired. ms. adams.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mattered administered, thank you so much for being here. while many are concerned about federal overreach and environmental management actions by north carolina resulted in tens of thousands of tons of coal ash spilling into the river in 2013 and the state refused to use its own authority to enforce proper maintenance and relocation of coal ash ponds at high risk of spilling into other drinking water. administrator mccarthy, it's important to as we together defend and uphold the epa's final under the disposal of coal combustion residuals from electric utilities. epa's final rule on coal ash disposal can only be enforced by states or by citizens to sue the company our state to violate the regulation.

it is for this reason i'm drafting legislation to strengthen protection and enforcement of rural water sources which would provide rural communities across the nation with the same requirements as citizens in north carolina now enjoyed. specifically the bill would require coal ash pond owners and operators to be transparent in their survey and monitoring the quality of water in our community. the bill mirrors laws that have already been passed by the north carolina general assembly. my question is giving the continuing threats what is epa doing to assess and prevent drinking water from contamination and the risks of catastrophic collapse? >> as you know we take this issue very seriously as well. certainly there's been disasters that we need to make sure don't get repeated. we recently finalized a coal ash rule that looks at two things.

one is the structural stability of those units so that we can make sure that they are stable and they are being properly inspected and if necessary repair to the second is to make sure that groundwater is protected and actually cleaned up. that rule has requirements for both of those efforts. we have information on the web so that people can see that, can see what's been done and what we've identified in terms of our assessment of the structural integrity so the information can be available to the surrounding communities. >> will epa provide technical assistance to low-income and minority communities so they are aware of and understand the information about coal ash dumps? >> this is the first time i'm aware you are contemplating this type of legislation to we are happy to work with you on language around and talk about what authorities at the agency might have to support this

effort. >> thank you. the center for public integrity found that your civil rights office has dismissed nine out of every 10 claims by communities alleging environmental discrimination and have never issued a formal finding of a violation of a title six violation. given his poor performance record, do you have any thoughts about why epa has not ever made a finding of discrimination? >> i think it's easy from that record to understand that the agency has faced challenges in dealing with our title vi complaints. one of the things i've done since coming here is to try to aggressively tackle that issue. we are committed to building a model civil rights program, particularly how we handle these. in the last two years we have new leadership in our office.

we develop a strategy to manage that docket of complaints more effectively. we just this fall released our external compliance strategic plan, a new civil rights to get. we are doing what we need to do to get up to speed but that doesn't mean we don't have a history that we need to acknowledge and use that history to inform how we can be a model agency moving forward. we are trying very hard to make sure we do that. >> i certainly hope it improves. it's not very impressivimpressiv e right now but thank you very much for your comments. i yield back. >> mr. skancke five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go back will quickly to what mr. michael barr from texas will talk about with the transcendent issue. -- mr. neugebauer. things have been approved by the

usda for months and farmers start planting cotton in his state in march. in my state it's more enable but it takes time to get the chemicals produced into the distant vision network into the form. if you all take much longer quite honestly they will not be available for us this year. i appreciate your commitment to help the farmer. i hope we will see your act on these pending registrations sooner rather than later. i think that's one of the breakdowns we have between the government and the public and the farmer is it seems the people in agencies have no idea when farmers even plant their crops. what the agencies are doing to the cost of those crops. can you tell you what the cotton is a trading for? >> i can't, no. >> it's below the cost of

production right now. and so are a lot of the other commodities. we take an area like mine that produces a tremendous amount of cotton every year, and cotton is below the cost of production you would look to another commodity. they are also below the cost of production. i appreciate you, you're trying to help the farmer and former the can is getting in the wake of the farmer be able to survive through these tough economic times. ins like approving these chemicals sooner rather than later would at least help us determine what crop we can plant. i want to go to another issue right after i understand the value of pollinators. without vc would lose the majority of food in the world. -- without bees. the preliminary risk assessment, and specifically cotton which

i've talked about earlier is a self pollinating crop and it does require bees. did the epa take that into account as part of its assessment with pollinators that cotton does not require bees for pollination? >> i think we, i will have to go back. which chemical only talking about a particular? >> the whole class. >> we are not making broad brush decision to really get each of them. in fact, the decisions we been proposing have been very specific to look at being specific to the crop as well as the time of year and what we can do to both protect the bee colonies as well as make sure that these are available when they are a properly used. >> out take it as a commitment you continue to work with the industry and i appreciate that. are either with the agencies proposal on greenhouse gas

emissions and fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy-duty engines? >> yes. >> would you agree that congress has excluded non-motor vehicles that are used solely for competition from epa regulatory reach? >> i believe that that is the case but are not passively with that as i am my standard rulemaking process. >> fair enough. according to the epa website congress did. it's one of the things -- >> i believe so. >> there are also things we specifically tell the epa that you didn't have the authority to do. one of those, i agree with what you said that you don't have the authority to regulate competition vehicles. i'm concerned about the fact that in this 629 some odd page

rule that is supposed to do with greenhouse gas emissions for medium and heavy-duty engine that in the kind of catchall provision that the rule has attempted to bring back in to regulation competition vehicles. i agree with you 100 percent that you don't have the authority to do that. i appreciate you telling me. >> let me get back to you. i am sure if that was part of the proposal you ever seen a lot of comments. i am happy to close the loop with

you wanted. if you think there was disconnect am happy to connect with you on individually. >> i agree with you. i appreciate your time.time. it is just very disconcerting as an american to see the 40,000 pages, and heavy-duty vehicle rule that deals with racecars. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> good morning, administrative mccarthy. i want to talk to you about the virgin islands i very much as relation ship with epa because of our complete surrounding by water. our greatest resource. all of the industries that we take. several years ago the virgin islands was devastated by the closure of oil refineries which meant that

we lost hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of millions more and lost economic activity. activity. this recently the facility was in a bankruptcy sale. that may lead to the restoration of more activity on the island. however, there is a concern that we had, and the potential of the epa asking that the government of the virgin islands period permittee. these permits were originally put out in 1999, and that no time during the renewal has the virgin islands government that included in it. does not even make up 5 percent of the land in this area.

we were interested, given title to be interested for the citizens and that no time as the virgin islands ever elected to operator finery, use the facility that is really holding the submerged lands. i understand there is real concern with region to taking the position that the virgin islands must be included. it is our belief that region twos position is based on an overly expansive interpretation of regret and the crop and is an unjustified departure from his long-standing agency policy. i am sure my colleagues would see that this could be a problem in that you have your state and local government which may be forced to become a coat permitting on hazardous

waste areas back home, and so we have really been reaching out to epa and particularly in region two to see how we can resolve this, and i am not sure if you are aware. i you aware of any instance that epa has territory to become based on its owning a small portion, five, 10 percent of the land? >> i do not know all of the uniqueness is of the situation. but it is certainly my understanding that the region has taken a legal position that because part of the land in which the facility is located is us virgin islands land that there is a connection and that they should have been on the permit.

i can tell you whether we have done this before. there are unique responsibilities. i am more than willing to go back and look renewals of the same permit went another owner was operating the facility. ownership has not expanded at any point in this. we've always had the same 5% of those emerge lands, that this body, congress, put on the government of the virgin islands to love and trust for its citizens. and now seemingly when there is no titleholder anymore, the epa

the region just decided the virgin island government must take on responsibility for hazardous waste and activities at the facility owners were operating in. what more can a territory take on? work in a government that's already bankrupt take on its back? now you have the owner leaving, purchasing but another entity and the federal government, the agency can is forcing us to take responsibility, possibly liability for hazardous activity that the prior owner had a 95% of that land. it's an expansion because there isn't a private owner anymore to hold responsibility to put on the backs of a local government that can do nothing but say please don't do this to us. >> this seems like a very unique circumstance. i would suggest that we follow up and it is not a decision or

editor patricia i've been engaged in. why don't we do that? >> i would appreciate that so very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> now recognize the gentleman from arkansas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you administrator mccarthy. i know this is been addressed to some extent but i don't think it's, i think we can take a deeper dive on this issue with the grassroots campaign effort that took place in your agency, specifically prohibited by title 18 of the u.s. criminal code, i don't think we've gotten a satisfactory answer. have you or your legal department made efforts before this, before the grassroots campaign was undertaken to ensure that epa staff is my with the activity that is prohibited under the anti-lobbying act? >> we actually were following omb guidelines spirit prior to?

>> yes. >> that's even worse. if they received training in anti-lobbying act and think engaged in lobbying. >> we believe we follow those guidelines come yes. >> i think the gao disagrees. whether or not there can be an intent proven, the subterfuge in the optics of what took place are certainly worth considering. i think there's some bible lessons in the gao's findings. we already know you're willing to go to great lengths to push that agenda but this brings into completely different perspective. secondlyperspective. secondly, the gao financials these actions set a dangerous precedent for the future will make you. you economize the rulemaking process. >> we did not -- >> you were on my time.

in the age of electric indication it's troubling agencies are willing to use these tools to subvert the concerns of the affected public and drown out opposition to you on this. it's obvious you are opening your own views and that taking into consideration the public view when this is a public rulemaking comment period. i don't know how at all those revelations were made you expect those to believe that during the rulemaking epa to get it to all views by affected stakeholders. were you just concerned about the use of your political allies? it appears that was the case. >> the gao never indicated that we referenced a particular rulemaking. they never indicated that we said anything incorrect. they had one concerned relative to anti-lobbying, which was a hyperlink to a program that we were touting as being really good, one block from one individual and agency out of thousands was done and a reference a hyperlink and they

could not go back and prove or disprove whether or not that ngl at some other place in their webpage may have had an ability for people to contact congress on other related issues or this one. so what was, we are certainly sensitive to the fact that that hyperlink reference to an outside the epa website. there are other agencies that flag that. we are considering and what he would only be on what we can do. if you look at this there was no intent and there was no lobbying on the part of the agency or a reference. reference. >> i think we can take this as an example and a validation of the fact the rulemaking process is deeply flawed and needs to be addressed. this kind of stuff is not reflective of the opportunity that should be granted to the affected stakeholders. let me switch gears quickly and the time i ever made i was told yesterday that the epa took

action against a farmer who didn't comply with fcc rules on on form stored by having a plan for oil storage tank that was a 5000 gallons in size but the 2014 word of this obesity. and require compliance for all the storage tanks in excess of 6000 gallons. until such time as ebay completes its study and a new rulemaking process is undertaken. my distinctives if this is complete which recommends a lower eccentric social that the rulemaking is still not finished. my question to you is what is the day taking a course of action against individuals who are not, who are not out of compliance? isn't that a violation of the law? >> i'm happy to look into and get back to you. if wif it just happened yesterdy i'm not familiar with it. >> is that a regular practice of? >> i think we've been doing a very good job on the rules. many of them because of change threshold like 96% are no longer impacted by this rule.

>> let me ask you this. the epa agency take compliance actions like is because they know farmers are not willing to fight enforcement actions because it cost to more illegal calls that would be then destroyed and succumbed to pressure? am i off-base? >> i don't know why you are suggesting it, but if such a point of view, you can have that but i don't know any point about this -- >> i yield back. >> mr. scott, finest. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, ms. mccarty, i think that you and epa have drastically manhandled and violated the rights of our farmers. especially been dealing with this water issue. you did break the law. you did break the law. now let me tell you,

ms. mccarthy, in section 15 of the financial services and general government appropriations act, it expressly prohibits you from lobbying in support or in opposition to pending legislation or rule. further, not only their did you break the law but in section 401 of the department of the interior's environment and related agencies appropriations act. that's applicable right now. prohibited the use of the epa's appropriations for lobbying. you broke the law. it needs to be admitted. it needs to be recognized. and furthermore, you spit taxpayers money in the lobbying. and the gao reports $64,610 that

you spent in lobbying from february 2014 to 2015. now, let's come clean with this. so we can correct this. there's no way you're going to correct this if you don't realize that you drastically overstepped here. and let's get that cleaned up. now, the other part that really gets in my craw is that i was born on a farm and grow up on a farm, and there is a reason why farmers go and develop ditches and bonds and wells. and they are man-made. because that's an insurance policy for the drought. the animals still have to be fed. they have to drink.

there are many times when it will not rain for four or five, six weeks. and that's why we have that. the other point is, this is a farmers private property, and it's not navigable waters. it's there for the purpose of being able to give us protection when that rain won't come. my little farm was a tobacco farm, and would you put the tobacco, they go to the debacle bed you've got to put the plant in and you've got to of the water right there did go in with the plant. suppose it doesn't rain. now that's on a farmers property. he shouldn't be permitted for his own property. and then he shouldn't be find they've got to pay, farmer got to pay for a permit on his own property for a puddle of water or ditch or a pond or a well

that they made themselves so that they could be able to insurance for a rainy day. and then to violate all of that, the law itself to go and live in spend taxpayers money on it. that is a damnable thing to do to our farmers. who are faced with so many other challenges. the epa needs to reject this rule, the recognize and admit that it broke the law, and then moved to correct and say this will never happen again. now finally in my last second, i don't want to go over time, but i want to raise this issue for our cotton folks. on the dash but i guess a better os think that is more spam.

anyway, we need this for our cotton producers and for pecan producers. has been said before with the chairman and others, our cotton people are going through a very serious time economically. and they don't need a doubt whether not they can use his pesticide. so will you please make sure we use that and hopefully with this business side for the water rule and let's move forward and let these farmers have some peace of mind? >> thank you for your passion, sir. >> gentlemen yield back. >> ms. mccarthy, think you were being here today. one follow-up on mr. scott's question that you pointed out gao determine your violated federal law. who was in charge of the covert propaganda and the grassroots lobbying? >> it is actually just part of our outreach and education. there was no covert propaganda

-- >> so no one was over that particular outreach, nobody in charge? >> we have communication folks. >> who is responsible for that? >> i would have to go back and look at the exact time, but we have actually a large education outreach group, but none of that -- >> no one was punished for it though, right was i understand the person over it was promote and working for the white house, but that's beside the point. in your opening statement you made some congress was imploring you to move forward with this. we are to the idea come from and where basically, who was in charge of drafting this package? >> actually the clean water rule came because the supreme court told us that we need to make improvements in the law based on science but we need to prove a connection.

we needed to do a better job. >> it wasn't carter's legacy in your opening statement. it wasn't us. >> that was followed up by congress asset to take action to address concerns. individual stakeholders, numbers of the agriculture community. people were looking to us to do a better job than the 2008 guidance and to respond to the concerns and criticisms that -- >> but you went around congress and use the rulemaking process? >> no, sir. we are asked to do a rulemaking for clarification. whether you disagree or not is fine but -- >> once the cost of this? >> it's actually a net benefit of something in the order of 184 million. >> a benefit, not a cause. i've heard it costs anywhere from 180 million up to 500 million which that would change the way the rulemaking process works, correct? ..if the cost is over hundred

million you can't go around congress the way you did. >> the 100 million threshold means would go to the interagency process, which we did. >> do you know howard's landscape and mac do. >> have you worked with him on this? >> yes, i did. >> do you know he won't-- why he won't give the required documents which we have been asking for cents march 15? >> i'm not familiar with what you are asking about. >> we had a hearing and this was a major rule and we have been asking and had to announce a subpoena these documents were over a year. you don't have any idea why they are ignoring our request? >> i don't know >> i don't know. >> conversations with him? >> no, sir. >> is this directive more from the white house? >> what directive are you referring to? >> the lotus ruling itself. not for congress. we voted and the senate and house. >> i explained where therom the white house? >> what directive are you referring to? >> the lotus ruling itself. not for congress. we voted and the senate and house. >> i explained where the impetus came from. >> the courts blocked this, correct?