tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 3, 2015 11:00pm-1:01am EST
11:00 pm
a completed report or just leaks about an investigation that's still under way. so i'd be reluctant to comment on it from here. >> reporter: about netanyahu's speech. both you and the president have used the word "theater" to describe the speech, which implies entertainment value. is that really how the president looks at it? >> well i had an opportunity to see some parts of the speech and i know that there are others who noticed that there seemed to be some members of congress who sort of seemed to be smiling and laughing and applauding along which certainly doesn't seem to be an appropriate response to a speech on such a significant topic. now, i noticed that the prime minister certainly didn't have that demeanor, but i do think that contributed to the more theatrical aspects of today's events. >> ali, nice to see you here i read you got engaged. best wishes. >> reporter: thank you so much. i know this came up very briefly about former cia director
11:01 pm
petraeus's pleading guilty to mishandling classified information. i wanted to know if the white house has a broader reaction to his plea today? >> no, that's it. for more details about the investigation i'd refer you to the department of justice. j.c., i'll give you the last one. >> reporter: i've been married for 23 years. >> congratulations to you and your wife. [ laughter ] >> reporter: if i may change the topic to isil something we haven't talked about in a while about a week ago, the head of egypt, presidency sisi, recommended a strong coalition of the willing in arab nations to combat isil in the region. was there any discussion today over that video conference with the leaders, the misdemeanor many leaders, that that might be a good idea to join that coalition for really a universal coalition of the willing to fight asill? >> i don't have a detailed readout of the teleconference but we'll have something later on this afternoon. i can tell you as a general
11:02 pm
matter that the president is certainly very appreciative of the commitment that we've seen from members of the coalition to this effort to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. it's taken a variety of forms, everything from trying to combat the movement of foreign fighters to countering the online activities of isil to radicalize citizens across the globe. it's including a comprehensive effort to shut down sources of funding for isil. but it also is of course, included substantial of -- substantial commitment of military resources to fight isil and we are counting on countries in the region to take some responsibility for fighting isil and whether that is training local fighters, we know that there are some countries in the region that have committed to host training programs for members of the moderate syrian opposition so that they can be trained and equipped by our coalition partners so that they can take the fight to isil on the ground in their own country and we certainly would welcome
11:03 pm
those kinds of contributions to this broader effort. thanks, everybody. the supreme court is set to hear the oral arguments in king v. burwell, a case challenging the federal subsidies for the purchase of health care through the affordable care act. on the next "washington journal," jess bravin of the "wall street journal" is here to talk about the case and the potential outcome. then more about the affordable care act and subsidies with mary agnes carey of kaiser health news. "washington journal" is live every morning and you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. the political landscape has
11:04 pm
changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there's also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on cspan.org, the congressional chronicle page has lots of useful information, including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. new congress best access on c-span, c-span 2, c-span radio and cspan.org. next environmental protection agency administrator gina mccarthy testifies before two house energy and commerce subcommittees on her agency's 2016 budget request. the proposed budget is about 5.5% larger than in 2015. this hearing runs just under three hours.
11:05 pm
11:06 pm
thank you very much for being with us today. you've been before our committee many times and we certainly enjoy working with you. you are an able administrator. we have very significant differences of views on what you're doing up there -- or down there. but we'll all have an opportunity today to ask questions and thank you once again for taking time to be with us. we appreciate it. and that the time, i recognize myself for three minutes of opening questions. i mean for an opening statement. i would say first of all we all are very much aware that president obama has made it very clear that he considers climate change to be number one -- one of the major issues facing mankind today. i was reading an article just a few days ago how this administration has spent 14
11:07 pm
times more on green energy per year than embassy security around the world. as a matter of fact, over the last five years, the administration has spent roughly $39 billion a year financing grants subsidizing tax credits guaranteeing loans bailing out solar energy boondoggles and otherwise underwriting every renewable energy idea under the sun. now, we all recognize that climate change is occurring. but the difference, the fundamental difference is we don't believe it's the number-one issue facing mankind and the president does. and because of his going around all over the world and entering into international agreements that the congress has not agreed to, that he has not consulting with congress about he's
11:08 pm
committing the u.s. to meet certain requirements. and so many of the rules coming out of epa, which are so controversial, are really being implemented to implement the president's june, 2013 speech in which he outlined his climate action plan. so i was reading a legal opinion recently and it said a president's speech is certainly not a matter of law. but the president making these international agreements has, through regulation pursued his commitments that he's making. but other countries that are part of these agreements they're not doing the same thing, so the u.s. is being penalized because of these extreme actions. so what you all are doing you're forcing -- and i'm
11:09 pm
reading from a legal opinion that larry tribe mr. tribe wrote. you're forcing a select set of victims, including coal-reliant consumers, communities regions businesses and utilities to bear a substantial part of what is a global problem that even you and your predecessor indicated that these regulations would not solve. so you're asking for $425 million more than last year. a lot of that money is going to go to hire additional lawyers to defend and litigate these extreme regulations. so we look forward to the opportunity today of exploring this situation with you and with that at this time i recognize -- we'll do it in three minutes today, mr. rush, so i recognize the gentleman for three minute opening statement. >> well, thank you mr.
11:10 pm
chairman, administrator mccarthy, it's always a pleasure to see you come before this sub subcommittee and bring great news and sharing with the subcommittee the great work that you all are doing over at the epa and i just want to thank you so much, you and your agency, for all the great work that you do in protecting the air, land, and water on behalf of the american people. if it was appropriate, i would get up and ask for a standing ovation, but i don't think that would be appropriate at this point in time. but you understand how we feel about you on this side. well this is a budget hearing, we might as well address the elephant in the room and discuss the topic that is on the minds of many of my colleagues and that's the proposed rule 111d,
11:11 pm
the clean power plan. madam administrator, on behalf of those of us which includes most of the american people who do not believe that the world's scientists and climatologists have all conspired together to perpetrate a hoax by saying that climate change is real and humans have contributed to it, i'd like to commend the leadership of president obama yourself for working to address this serious issue that impacts all of america, all of our citizenry and, indeed, everyone else around the globe. the clean power plan represents a significant opportunity to shift away from some of the dirtiest carbon-emitting energy sources that have contributed
11:12 pm
greatly to polluting the atmosphere to cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy that will help pull us back from the brink of disaster and send us on a more stable footing. madam administrator, i applaud epa for striking a flexible state based approach that provides states utilities, and grid operator with time and options for finding ways to reduce their co 2 emissions. i and also maintain affordable and reliable energy for consumers. i just want to thank you madam chairman, i look forward to engaging you during the questioning portion of today's hearing. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. rush. i'd like that recognize the gentleman from illinois mr.
11:13 pm
shim kas, the chairman of the environment and economy subcommittee. >> thank you for recognizing me, i, too, want to welcome administrator mccarthy. i appreciate your willingness to work with us on the past on such things as electronics emission of hazardous waste manifest, that can be very helpful. as i spoke to you earlier, we look forward to collaborating with you on the coal ash collaboration and toxic substance control act. it's not just an administrative exercising while we do bean counting. while we don't write the checks the agency cashes, most of the major legal authority that underpins the work delegated to the agency rests within in this committee. today's hearing gives us a chance to compare the agency's individual budget request with epa's underlying statutory authority. as a legislator i have many questions where i think more investigation is needed to eval evaluate how mandates are being carried out. i have questions about the statutory nexus with the following budget requests and
11:14 pm
policies that are being implemented. like the clean power plan, the climate-ready water utilities program and regulations under the clean air act implementing the executive order 13650 which i think is chemical safety. legal authorities aside, we know these regulations can become complicate to implement with unclear guidance adding unnecessary cost to stray industries and ultimately the consumer. this chart is what we think show house cumbersome your proposal on the clean power plant could be just by itself. maybe you have a better chart that makes it a little more simplistic. if this plan puts reliability at base and the lode energy from sources such as coal and nuclear power in danger communities may face higher costs and potentially suffer brownouts when most in need. we have to ask ourselves if this plan leads to the energy future americans expect. i believe there is a better way and that we can find solutions to these challenges without placing the burden on the backs
11:15 pm
of consumers or by sacrificing power plants that provide good-paying jobs to families across the country. i also have questions ant funding and pace of activity on chemicals under the toxic substances control act specifically on the agency's transparency concerning prioritizing and setting policy choices. these areas will be particularly important as we look to work across the aisle on both sides of the capital to update this law. again, i thank the administrator for being here. i look forward to today's conversation and the ones that will follow and i yield the remainder of my time to chairman emeritus barton, i think. >> i'm here. all 27 seconds of me. >> you're welcome. >> madam administrator, we're always glad to see you, you're very accessible and very personable in public and when we have private conversations. i'm going to ask you about the china policy the president recently had and i'm going to talk to you about the renewable fuel standard and the rand situation which, as you well know under current law is not
11:16 pm
workable. but we appreciate your accessibility and look forward to the interchange. >> gentleman's time has expired. recognize the gentleman from new york, the ranking member of the environment and economy subcommittee. >> thank you and good morning. thanks to chair whitfield and chair shim kiss for holding this hearing. and welcome administrator mccarthy we appreciate your keen intellect and i respect your passion to provide sound stewardship for our environment all while growing jobs. i thank you for being here today to discuss the president's fiscal year 2016 budget request for the agency. the epa plays a vital role in the lives of our citizens and in maintaining the resource base that sustains our society and indeed our economy. as you state in the opening of your testimony administrator mccarthy public health and a clean environment are linked. i agree. and the record of environmental
11:17 pm
achievement and economic growth over the years demonstrates that environmental protection is consistent with a strong and vital economy. in fact, if we are willing to make investments in vital environmental infrastructure such as our drinking water treatment and delivery source water protection sewage treatment and waste energy systems we can create thousands of jobs and improve the condition of our rivers, our lakes and our coastlines. we're not saving money by avoiding these investments. at best we are transferring these costs to state and local governments, to businesses and to individual citizens. but even worse, by delaying needed maintenance and repairs, we are raising the cost of the very systems upon which we depend. when polluted land and water are not cleaned up, the resources become unavailable for productive use. a contaminated property is unoccupied, undeveloped and generates no revenue for our economy. and for our community. pollution that is not intended to spread is leading to
11:18 pm
additional problems and it does not become less expensive to clean these up at a later time. the cost only rises. our failure to repair vital infrastructure and to address the complex challenges of climate change has already cost us a great deal. infrastructure does not repair itself and the pace and impact of climate change is indeed, both are increasing. we need to address these issues now before the costs rise further. i know there are many members who believe that cutting the epa budget is a good thing for the economy because a lower budget will block the agency from issuing regulations and enforcing environmental laws. in fact, much of the epa budget supports state and local governments. either through grants and loans or with information and technical assistance that's so welcome. cuts to the epa budget translate into extra burden on our states our local and tribal governments is. the administration and congress should be working together to ensure that we maintain and improve upon our record of
11:19 pm
environmental protection. epa's budget is an important part of that effort and i indeed look forward to your testimony administrator mccarthy, and to working with you to continue our progress as a nation in environmental protection and thank you again for joining us. >> gentleman's time has expired. at this time i recognize the chairman of the full committee mr. upton for three minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, and we do appreciate the administrator epa for appearing before us today to discuss the budget requests and the priorities. yes, we have sharp areas of disagreement but together the two of us we have never been disagreeable and i look forward to the continued relationship. i'm sad to say that the budget request to me looks like we can expect more of the same red tape and costly rules. and that concerns me because i think some of these regs are going to cost american households and families big time. they're going to cost our businesses particularly manufacturing, manufacturing in
11:20 pm
michigan as you know and across the country finally does have an edge for the first time in years. major global manufacturers are eyeing michigan and other states to set up or relocate operations. it's on the side of our workers but epa regulatory threatens to shift the advantage back to foreign manufacturers. epa seems intent on locking in a long list of new regs that will bind future administrations. along with a clean power plant epa has proposed new ozone stan cards that may prove to be the most expensive rule ever. i'd like to see epa focus on its current responsibilities before taking on new ones. the agency is working on this new ozone rule even though it is well behind schedule implementing the existing standards. the agency routinely miss its deadlines under the rfs making this problematic program even more difficult. i remember your testimony last year when we thought we would
11:21 pm
have an answer last spring. well, we do have our clear differences, your testimony today also presents an opportunity to explore areas of common ground. for example, we can embrace much of the epa rule on coal ash, but go a step further and place permitting authority in the states. this should work for epa, making sure that the epa's control standards are effectively enforced, it should also work much better for the states who will have explicit benchmarks to meet and the authority to manage the implementation. it will also work for the people responsible for handling the combustion residuals everyday including plant operators, recyclers and other job creators who will be given the opportunity that they -- in the regulatory certainty that they need. like wise it was clear last year that your goals and ours for tosca reform overlap. so let's sit down and work together on good legislation that's bipartisan to improve safety for the public and to ensure a rerowe bust interstate
11:22 pm
market for chemicals and products that contain them. thanks for being with us today. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. at this time i recognize the ranking member mr. palone of new jersey for three minutes. >> thank you chairman whitfield and shim kiss and thank you administrator mccarthy for being here today. a clean environment is not a luxury, it's essential to public health and a strong economy and the epa is on the front lines of the effort to make our air safer to breathe and our water safer to drink. the president's fiscal year 2016 budget funds the epa at $8.6 billion, an increase of more than $450 million over the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. and that is the minimum amount, in my opinion, that epa needs to begin to address the many environmental challenges we ear facing today, which happen to include the greatest known environmental threat and challenge to our planet, and that's climate change. meanwhile, funds requested for epa represent a small portion of the overall federal budget, less
11:23 pm
than one quarter of one percent. yet over 40% is shared with states and tribes to help them implement federal environmental laws and achieve national goals and those funds support local economies and communities big and small. for example, the budget includes significant funding for superfund and brownfields cleanup. in addition to protecting human health and the environment these cleanup projects are also promoting substantial economic growth and gains in community and property value. according to a recent analysis on site businesses and organizations on current and former superfund sites in just one of epa's nine regions provides over 6,200 jobs and contributed an estimated $334 million in annual employment income. another study found that properties within three miles of superfund sites experienced an 18.6% to 24.5% increase in value when the sites are cleaned up. the fiscal year 2016 budget would also invest in our
11:24 pm
nation's aging drinking water infrastructure by providing over a billion for state revolving funds under the safe drinking water act. and these funds will support needed infrastructure projects for public drinking water systems well beyond the fiscal year. also important, i want to commend the president for prioritizing actions to reduce the impacts of climate change in this budget. the budget provides funding for epa's clean power plant, including money to help states develop their own strategies and requests that new clean power state incentive fund for state efforts to go above and beyond their carbon pollution reduction goals in the power sector. some say the clean power plant is problematic for an economy, but the reality is, over the past 40 years, clean air regulations have produced tremendous public health benefits while also supporting america's economic growth. closer to home, i appreciate the efforts to help smaller communities build climate resiliency. my district has the dubious distinction of being one of that hardest hit by superstorm sandy and epa's plan can help
11:25 pm
communities integrate climate adaptation planning into their efforts to upgrade their infrastructure. this planning will be essential to protecting the economies of communities facing the devastating cost of climate change. this is a sound budget. i support it and i look forward to learning from administrator mccarthy. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. palone. at this time that concludes the opening statements so this time ms. mccarthy, you're recognized for your five mjzinutes of testimony. thank you. >> thank you chairman whitfield, thank you ranking members and the members of the committee for giving me the opportunity today to appear before you to discuss the environmental protection agency's proposed fiscal year 2016 budget. i'm joined by the agency's acting chief financial officer david bloom. the epa's budget request of $8.592 billion in discretionary funding for the 2016 fiscal year provides the resources that are vital to protecting human health
11:26 pm
and the environment while building a solid path forward for sustainable economic growth. since 1970 when epa was founded we have seen over and over again that a safe environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. this budget supports essential work to address climate change, improve air quality, protect our water, safeguard the public from toxic chemical, support communities' environmental health, maintain core enforcement strength, support needed research and work towards a sustainable future for all americans. effective environmental protection is a joint effort of epa, states and our tribal partners. we're setting a high bar for continuing our partnership efforts and looking for opportunities for closer collaboration and targeted joint planning and governess process seize through enterprise like e-enterprise governance approach. that's why the largest part of our budget, $3.6 billion, 42%, is provided by directly to state
11:27 pm
and tribal partners. the fiscal year 2016 request includes an increase of $108 million for state and tribal categorical grants. this budget requests $1.1 billion to address climate change and improve air quality. these resources will help protect those most vulnerable to climate impacts in the harmful health effects of air pollution through common-sense standards, guidelines, and partnership programs. climate change is not just an environmental challenge, it's a threat to public health. our domestic and global economy and to national and international security. the request supports the president's climate action plan and, in particular, the clean power plan which establishes carbon pollution standards for power plants. in addition, the president's budget calls for a $4 billion clean power state incentive fund to support state efforts to accelerate carbon pollution reductions in the power sector.
11:28 pm
protecting the nation's waters remains a top priority for epa. in fiscal year '16 we will finalize and support implementation of the clean water rule which will clarify the types of waters covered under the clean water act and foster more certain and efficient business decisions to protect the nation's waters. recognizing the need for water infrastructure, the srf and related efforts are funded at over $2.3 billion and we will work with our partners to help communities by focusing on issues such as financial planning for future public infrastructure investments and expanded efforts who w states to identify fiennesing opportunities for resilient drinking water water and storm water infrastructure. last month, the agency launched the water infrastructure and resiliency finance center. it's a key component of our expanded efforts moving forward. we're proposing a multifaceted effort to help our communities including low income neighborhoods, rural communities, and communities of
11:29 pm
color. this includes targeted funding in on-the-ground community assistance through epa regional coordinators and a network of circuit riders. an investment of $16.2 million will help local communities improve safety and security at chemical facilities to prevent and prepare for oil spills. these efforts represent a shared commitment among those with a stake in chemical facility, safety and security ranging from facility owners to first responders. the fiscal year 2016 budget request will let us continue to make a real invisible difference to communities everyday. it will give us a foundation to improve infrastructure across the country and it will sustain state tribal and federal environmental efforts all across our programs. with this proposed budget, the president is not only sending a clear signal about the resources epa needs to work effectively and efficiently with states and tribes to protect public health
11:30 pm
and the environment, it's also a part of an overall federal budget proposal that does not accept the bad public policy embodied in sequestration and does not hold back needed resources in non-defense spending in order to increase needed defense spending or vice versa. instead, the president's proposed fiscal year 2016 budget finds a path forward to avoid sequestration and properly support both domestic and national security interests. mr. chairman, i thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to answering your questions. >> well, thank you very much for your testimony ms. mccarthy and i will recognize myself five minutes for questions. first question i would just ask you is how confident are you that you can defend the use of 111b to implement existing coal plant rule? >> i'm sorry, could you repeat that question? >> how confident are you that suck successfully defend the use of a 111d to implement the existing coal plant rule? >> thank you.
11:31 pm
i feel very confident. one of the reasons i say that is because of the extensive outreach that the agency has done to each and every state, to all the stakeholders, including the environmental and energy stakeholders. i feel confident that we are seeing plans develop now that will be very sound and that we can move this forward in a way that will both be beneficial -- >> so you think the outreach would preempt what the explicit language says? that's your position i take it? >> i think the outreach has helped inform the explicit language so it's reasonable and fair and will allow states to move forward. >> now, in your submission you talk about further efforts are required consistent with the president's long term climate goals. i assume you're talking about the commitments he made in copenhagen and china in which he said he wanted to reduce carbon
11:32 pm
dioxide emissions in america by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and then 26% to 28% below those levels by 2025. is that correct? >> i think i am referring to the president's understanding that climate change is a significant issue that the administration has the authority and responsibility to address and i'm trying to make sure that we deliver our portion of that plan effectively. >> well, how did the president -- how did he decide on 17% below 2005 levels by 2020? >> that was an international goal that the u.s. government put forth in those discussions. >> so the u.s. government presented that. that was what the goal was. >> yes, as part of the international -- >> and how was that determined by the u.s. government? how did they reach that conclusion? >> i think you'd have to speak
11:33 pm
with the department of state to know the ins and outs of that have discussion. >> have you had any discussions with them about that? >> certainly, we have talked about the rules that the agency had under way at that time -- >> i mean, i could make the argument that it's pretty arbitrary. could i make that argument or not? >> i think that what we're talking about now and the plan that's before you, the budget plan, is very concrete, authorities at the epa has our responsibilities and will be concrete steps moving forward that are measurable. >> you know one thing that bothers us when you testified in the senate in july of 2014 you mentioned that this is not about pollution control. you said in your statement, this is not about pollution control. so this must be about honoring the president's commitment. >> my statement was referring to the fact that when you seek to address carbon pollution, there are many ways in which it is an investment opportunity instead
11:34 pm
of an end of pipe pollution control technology. >> so in other words this is about investment opportunities from your perspective? >> what i'm suggesting is that states can look at this as an opportunity. >> but it's not about pollution control? >> it's not about the installation of pollution control technology. >> all right. would the president's clean power plan meet his international commitments without the adoption of this rule? these rules that you're proposing? >> i think that the president has established some aggressive goals for this nation that are commensurate with our interests in addressing climate domestically and also in meeting our commitment internationally to address this issue. but epa is not focusing our legal efforts on any particular international or domestic goal. they are just implementing the authorities under the clean air act that are given to us. >> see, the reason many of us in
11:35 pm
the congress are so upset about this is that the cap-and-trade system was rejected by the congress. and yet the president goes out and makes international commitments, does not consult with congress comes back, announces at his georgetown speech this is my plan and then epa follows up and we're going to issue these regulations to meet the president's plan so he can meet his international agreements. >> well, the clean power plan is a direct application of the authority that congress gave us to look at how to establish a best system of emission reductions for the power sector. to address carbon pollution, which is a regulated pollutant under the clean air act. >> i want to ask more questions but my time is out so at this time i recognize mr. rush for five minutes. >> again, i want to thank you. also i want to express my gratitude for the meeting that i
11:36 pm
had with acting assistant administrator janet mckeen last january, i believe it was, where we discussed my concerns regarding the nuclear provision in the proposed 111d rule. and as i stated in my opening statement, it's important that the finalized rule gives due credit to all zero emission sources of energy which not only includes renewables such as solar, wind geothermal, all of which i fully support but also nuclear power generation. as you know, my home state of illinois is home to the highest number of nuclear reactors 11. they provide up to 48% of the state's electricity. these carbon-free nuclear
11:37 pm
generators run up to or above 90% capacity, which is extremely efficient in comparison to any other type of energy source. if the goal of the clean power plan is to reduce carbon emissions while also ensuring that states can continue to provide reasonably-priced safe, reliable electricity to its consumers then nuclear power must play a central role in helping to achieve this objective. while i realize there are other market-based considerations that have resulted in nuclear being somewhat less competitive, i feel as though the epa must work to finalize the rule that incentivizes states to preserve nuclear power in their energy portfolios by valuing nuclear generation on par with other carbon-free sources.
11:38 pm
it is critical that will the final 111d rule help promote the continued use of zero-emission generation such as renewbles and nuclear energy if we're going to achieve the carbon reductions that the regulation was intended to produce. my question to you madam administrator, do you agree nuclear power must play a vital role in the key power plan and that it allows states to provide zero emissions based on power general tlagstion that is affordable, safe, and reliable? >> i think it is a part of every state strategy moving forward, yes. >> can you assure the subcommittee that epa is taking into account the concerns of states like illinois who might be negatively impacted if nuclear power is not fully credited and the state's plan to
11:39 pm
meet its targeted carbon reductions? >> i would certainly agree that nuclear power is zero carbon and it is important part of the base load for many of the states and it should be considered by those states carefully in the development of their plans. >> thank you. i also would like to continue to engage your office on this issue to make sure that nuclear power is appropriately valued due to its carbon-neutral emissions and any final rule that is proposed. moving along, madam administrator, another keen priority for me is the issue of environmental justice and making sure that states are providing adequate direction in order to achieve the interests of local income -- local low-income and minority communities. in cases where states may not be
11:40 pm
sure how to conduct environmental justice analysis or how to define an environmental justice community then i believe that it would be very helpful if the epa provided by states with guidance technical assistance and resources to help protect their most vulnerable communities, which we all know have the least amount of affluence and influence to help themselves. can you speak to this issue and assure me that, one epa is indeed listening and working with the environmental justice groups as an agency preparing to finalize the rule and two, the agency will provide states with guidance, data tools and resources to help identify and protect these communities? >> i can assure you of that ranking member and i will also point out that our environmental justice budget is given an increase of $7.3 million this year which will go a long way to helping us provide those tools
11:41 pm
and technical assistance. >> the gentleman's time has expired. recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. barton for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, again, madam administrator. i could really have some fun with you today but you're too nice a person. >> for a short period of time, anyway. >> yeah, you have always been responsive professionally and at least accommodating to take my phone calls and to visit with me. so i'm -- i'm not going to grandstand. but i do have a question that's -- several, but the first one the president made this big announcement about china and ballyhooed it as a major breakthrough and a major agreement but i'm told there's actually no written agreement. there's no signed document. is that true? >> i'm not aware that that's the case. i don't know. i have not verified that. >> okay. well i have it on good authority
11:42 pm
from the professional staff of the majority of this committee that in reality all it was was a press release. now, if that's true -- and i'm going say if -- but we can't find any copy, nor can we obtain a copy of any document that was officially signed can you check that out and let us know? it's one thing to have a disagreement about policy. it's another thing to have a disagreement over what are in these documents when our president signs things. the kyoto accord as you well remember, was signed by the vice president on behalf of president clinton but it never was ratified by the senate. in this case, we don't even have something that we can debate the pros and cons of and given the fact that this is a fairly
11:43 pm
visible issue, i think it's a fair question if there's a signed agreement let's see it. do you agree with that. >> well my understanding is that it was a commitment at the highest levels in both countries and that the decisions was made to ensure that it -- that the actions that are commensurate with those obligations are captured in already existing agreements that we have with the country and that we will have an action plan moving forward develop through our formal negotiation process. >> is that a long answer to say there's no signed agreement? >> there's very much a commitment and that was announced and we have agreements to work towards that commitment to actually put the actions in in the work we're already taking. >> well, whatever -- when the president of the united states or the secretary of state or you as the administrator of the epa represent the united states in
11:44 pm
international exchanges, if agreements are made, something is signed. something is signed. you don't just stand up and say, you know, we have this agreement and hug and everybody just loves each other. you actually have a document that at least if the senate -- if it needs to be ratified by the senate or the house is a commitment and what you have here, i am told, is a press release, a photo-op which is not unusual for this president, i'll grant you but in this case a 30-year agreement should actually be documented. that's all. that's all. so you'll -- if there is something that's signed you'll get it to the committee. >> well i'm sure that there was an agreement that was announced and i've seen those documents. >> you have seen documents? >> you've seen documents that obama and whoever the chinese official is, you've actually seen a signed document? >> i have seen the documents
11:45 pm
expressing both of their commitments to this goalment and i am well aware that we have ongoing relationships where action items can be documented and tracked. >> i can take you over to the national archives and show you the signed declaration of independence. i can show you the constitution. i can show you lots of documents that have signatures on them. i can also -- you and i can agree that i'm not going to go out and rob a bank and you can agree that you're not going to rob a bank and we can hold a press conference we've agreed we're not going to rob a bank. >> i don't think that this has been discussed as that type of a binding agreement. i think it has been discussed as a path forward. >> i've got 30 seconds left so i'm going to switch gears. renewable fuel standards, we have a situation on mandates that simply can't be met. you have said publicly and privately that you want to fix it and you have promised the chairman of the committee and i think even in a hearing that you would have a program to fix it
11:46 pm
we have yet to see that, when can we expect to see something that gives some real relief to this rfs mandate that simply can't be met? >> well, i think congressman you know that i have a real commitment to moving this issue forward. i wish it could have happened last year, the approach that epa took received considerable comment so you'll see something very soon in this spring that will address that issue and hopefully move us forward on a stronger -- >> can you give us a day very soon this spring? i mean, by the end of march? >> i don't have a particular timeline timeline, senator -- i mean congressman. >> don't profane me now. >> i was giving you a little boost. i just want to make sure we cross our "t"s and dot our "i"s. i want to get this out in a strong way and make sure it moves forward. we both have real interest in
11:47 pm
this. >> keep us informed. >> the senator's time has expired at this time i recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you administrator mccarthy. again, welcome and thank you for your leadership and for joining us this morning. i wanted to focus on drinking water programs. i'm pleased to see this year's budget includes a modest increase over the current year's funding level for the drinking water state revolving loan fund. it seems every week i hear about significant water main breaks across our country. a few weeks ago or over the last few weeks several have hit my district including my hometown of amsterdam. while i'm pleased the administration is asking for more funding for the primary account dedicated to supporting drinking water infrastructure i'm concerned we are continuing to fall further and further behind on the maintenance and upkeep of these systems. it costs far more to deal with a pipe once it has burst than it
11:48 pm
is to have a systematic program of repair and replacement of infrastructure that takes care of our systems. also, we have many communities that are not able to take on more debt so a loan program isn't going to do it for them. they do need grants. so in this agency's budget there is mention of new technologies and new financing mechanisms that the agency will be exploring. for example, the new water infrastructure and resilience finance center won't provide funding but will provide assistance to communities seeking outside funding for their projects. subpoena that correct? is my interpretation of that budget correct? >> if this year we're standing up the program itself, yes. but we're also looking at what other states and localities are doing so that we can share that information effectively and see if we can't duplicate some of those public/private partnerships that are happening already. >> okay, well, that's leading us in the right direction.
11:49 pm
i've seen estimates of water leakage from drinking water systems that range from anywhere to from 30% o-to-50%. this is treated water leaking so it represents both lost revenues because that water is never delivered to a customer and it's lost investment because utility paid to purify that water. so water and dollars are flowing out of these pipes. programs like water sense that encourage water conservation by customers are good but if the biggest water loss is from the delivery system, we need to address this. does the agency have some options for helping utilities to identify these leaks and address them? >> well, we are actually having a fairly comprehensive program. it begins with our office of research and development that conducts research on what types of technologies are available to identify where those leaks are happening. and then we try to provide technical assistance out of our programs to help identify opportunities for reducing those leaks. so we will be looking at this and you're absolutely right that
11:50 pm
as -- as the climate changes our water challenges get considerable. if you look at what's mapping in the western part of the u.s., there's a desperate need for water conservation and the last thing any of us would want to do was to see water that is suitable for drinking being leaked out of the system. >> right it's indeed a precious commodity and we need to have a good collaborative effort to address those issues. the best way to address the high cost of treating drinking water, in my opinion, is to ensure the source water is as clean as possible to begin with. i support the waters of the u.s. rule because i believe it is critical to efforts at source water protection. what other initiatives is the agency putting forth considering to assist communities with preventing water pollution and protecting source waters? >> in a number of different directions. one of our biggest concerns is that we see a lot of spills near
11:51 pm
source waters that are -- and in source waters that are challenging us from a drinking water perspective. we also see new pollutants coming in. so we are looking with states to ensure that they get the guidance they need and that we do our job in terms of setting national standards so that the states who have the primacy in terms of establishing their own water quality standards and identifying and categorizing their own waters have the information they need to protect themselves. we know we've had some recent spills that indicate that it's not enough so we're trying to identify what other assistance we can give to states and we're also trying to get them to think a little bit more creatively about how they plan their water infrastructure needs so that drinking water sources are protected. plus we also get an opportunity to move forward with some of the challenging storm water issues are contributing to some of the pollution that's entering into our drinking water supplies.
11:52 pm
>> well, again, we appreciate the partnership that the agency has with the states. when you asked for those dollars in the budget, when they -- the budget increases somewhat, we know that a lot of those efforts go towards our states so we appreciate that. and, again, thank you for your input here this morning. with that i yield back mr. chairman. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from illinois mr. shimkus for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator, again welcome. do you agree that -- there's 84,000 chemicals listed, approximately, in the tosca inventories. how many do you think are currently in commerce? out of the 84 listed, how many are actually used in commerce? >> i'm sorry, i don't have the exact -- >> i mean, that's part of the problem. that's why we're trying to move in a bicameral bipartisan nature on tosca to try to get a handle on this. the -- if we work with the industry on chemical data reporting, that should help us
11:53 pm
get a better eid of what that number is. do you agree? >> yes. >> so in your budget plan you have originally 83 work plan chemical risk assessments that you want done by 2018. i look at the budget report of -- we've got like, five are completed, five to ten and 15 maybe 10 and 16 which gives us 25, that i can from 83 that's still 69 that budget wise we don't seem to be able to get in a timely manner. i just raise this because -- i appreciate the effort but, again, i just want to use this opportunity as i think we can get there and this is the perfect example of how we can work with you and work with my colleagues on the other side to move this forward. and so as i mentioned a couple times. i want to move to 111d debate
11:54 pm
just a little bit and this is where we appreciate some of the responsibility because there is the concern that under 111d coal-fired generation, there's going to be decommissioning and they are major, as you know they're major generators, they're a base-load production. across the country nuclear power is also stressed. and you can look at my own state, the state of illinois, where the state is trying to go through some gyrations to make sure that nuclear power is still online. has the epa taken into consideration the base lode loss of not just 111d but the what could happen if we lose nuclear power and what do you think can be used to supplant that? >> we actually have looked at that issue and we've received a lot of comment on this as well because we -- the way in which
11:55 pm
the 111d analysis looks at this issue is it indicates that there is likely to continue to be over 30% generation through coal even at -- in 2030 at the end of the target timeline under 111d. but base lode coal, there's no question there's investments made in the base lode and one of the biggest challenges is to make sure we don't do this in a way that sends different signals to the communities we all care about, the energy world that's bringing reliable and cost-effective energy. i want them if they're investing in these facilities to know they can continue and investment won't be stranded and we're looking very closely at that issue because there are many ways in which we can achieve these goals that don't result in lower energy generation and base load from coal other than what's been projected which is still going to be very strong in 2030.
11:56 pm
11:57 pm
authorization of importation of argentine biodiesel without really having the rrvos established. is this a point of one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing? and how do we put that supply in as part of the calculation when you do 14 15 and 16? >> well rfs is going to look at the range of availability of fuel supplies of the biodiesel fuel supplies available both domestically and internationally which is what the rule requires. in terms of that itself, that decision i think was misunderstand and we can certainly talk about this. but there was -- there was already biodiesel coming in from argentina. what we approved was actually a more stringent way of tracking that to ensure that it was a renewable fuel consistent with the underlying rfs principles. so it was not intended to open
11:58 pm
up a new market. it was intended to reflect the way in which the companies were assuring their compliance in a way that was more stringent than others had already been doing. and we think it's a model moving forward to make sure that everybody is bringing into this country the kind of fuel that we are trying to support domestically for production purposes. >> gentlemen's time has expired. recognize the gentleman from texas mr. green for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman ranking member for holding the hearing. administrator mccarthy thank you for being here today and it's always good to see you before our subcommittee. to say that epa has a lot on its plate is an understatement. the rules and regulations promulgated by the agency seem to affect every sector of our nation and i'm happy to ask some questions about the balance we are trying to strike between protecting the environment but helping our business and industrial sector capitalize on what's required to be done. on april 12, epa released a new source performance standards for
11:59 pm
volatile organic chemicals from the oil industry, oil and gas industry. the 2012 nsps target in hydraulic fractured natural gas wells. the rule targeted voc emissions reductions through green come plegs and expected a yield of 95% reduction, including an estimated 1.7 million tons of methane. my first question is the voc in nsps was supposed to be implemented in a two-step process. is this accurate that the nsps won't be implemented until the end of 2015? >> my understanding is -- and i'm sorry, congressman, i may be counting wrong -- but i think that's right for the full implementation. we did recognize in that rule that there was equipment that needed to be manufactured and installed and we work with the industry to make sure we weren't being overly aggressive about the ability to have the technologies available for full
12:00 am
implementation. >> has epa actually quantified how much of the voc reduction the nsps has yielded to this point 1234. >> we do have a good signal from our greenhouse gas reporting program that's it's been tremendously effective at reducing carbon pollution because carbon pollution is reduced as you're capturing those volatile organic compounds.
50 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN3 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on