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

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

to scream your definition of stream is way overboard. how much time would it take for an entity to go through the individual permitting process in this kind of situation? >> is that a question for me? >> how long would it take a community to go through the individual permitting process? >> this rule doesn't impact the permit process. in fact, we think it causes certainty to decrease the amount of time you question as to whether you need the permit and the time through the process. >> you are talking about permitting the whole country. >> no, sir. we are not expanding the waters we historically regulated. >> well in my districts there

are thousands of the so-called themes that would serve jurisdiction over. how is it that a private property owner would know if they need your approval? >> that is the question this opposed rule is attempting to answer based on science and the law. >> if a private property owner takes some measure on his or her own land to mitigate flooding from a seasonal stream or repair a bridge that their driveway is across would they now have to apply for a permit under this so-called rule? >> one of the things we are doing with this proposal and one reason we switched from a

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

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

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

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

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

provide clarity for this 42-year-old law. we have been approached by every sector of the economy, that might be a slight exaggeration, but many have been struggling to get the permits they need to get the licenses >> we have heard from the same people. and they are in an uproar around the country at this proposal. and we will hear a lot more from people who are direct lel lel p effected by this. someone is going to have to do a map of the so-called waterways you are saying jurisdiction is. >> we have a document people can access. we want today -- wanted to do a

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

will get comment on them. but the point we are trying make is there are other waters where there is uncertainty but the more we bring certainty the better off we would send signals to the communities. >> what is it going to cost? >> that is a cost analysis that is in the rule. it looks at both direct and indirect cost. but frankly, the cost of the uncertainty at this point, i believe is much larger than the cost of bringing certainty. >> what is the cost of mapping the program? >> i can look at up for you, sir, but the indirect benefits are larger. >> what is the cost of doing the mapping that would implement this rule? >> i am not aware that we need

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

the united states so we can protect the waters. we believe the definition will provide clarity and what waters are in and out will be understood better than before and expanding the extensions. that is what this proposed regulation is all about >> i suppose a community defies the agency, maybe unknowingly, and violates the rule, what would the community pay? >> that process will not change as it is currently. we work with people beforehand, try to understand the challenges and mitigate it. the opportunity is here is understand the obligations without the complexity in the system now. we think this will allow people

to comply and to avoid the confusion >> what is the penalty? >> it would be the same -- >> which is what? >> i cannot specifically say. it depends on the interaction with the individual in question, how we can work together, there is many with no penalty and others are large penalties. it all depends on the case, and the willing of the parties to work together. >> this is a simple question. a community violates the rule crossess over a so-called stream you have jurisdiction over, maybe they don't know it is ruled by you, but nevertheless they violated the rule. what do they pay? >> it depends on the circumstances. >> give me a break. this is a simple question and

case. >> we don't like to assess a formula. we like to understand the circumstances and work with the individual. that is how we do our business >> well you are grind to a halt the economic engine of the country. no wonder we are having trouble getting the economy going again. it is sluggish for years now and i think a major part of it is the regulations and the fear of this agency that you had that is depressing the business climate in this country and this rule that you are proposing would magnify that by a hundred. so mark be down as undecided. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. recognize the ranking member for any questions she may have. >> thank you, mr. chair.

one of the most significant opportunities to address, harmful to the ozone, 1800 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. the epa recently issued a proposed rule setting the levels to 19 for the final years thof phase out. i am disappointed the epa wasn't more aggressive. given the significant existing stockpiles of virgin fc-8c the widespread availability of alternatives, why is the epa proposing an additional $90 million pounds of virgin production over the next fives

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

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

leveraging every one dollar epa investments into $70 in other federal state, local, and private partner funding. why does the administration continue to propose budgets that underfund a watershed that one out of 10 americans call home? you probably know that long island sound is one of my favorite water bodies. i have worked in connecticut for the long island study. it is an amazing group. they do great work with the money.

the proposal in the budget this year is the same level as we proposed in 2014. i recognize that congress did million dollars to that fund. i respect their decision. i agree with you. it is a wonderful investment. we had to make some tough choices. hopefully, we are sending a signal about the importance of long island sound with the funding level that we have proposed. importance of long island sound with the funding level proposed. >> thank you very much. i know the will work together to make sure we continue that important work it is essential and the study has made important results. >> thank you for the support

>> administrator mccarthy, i was listening to your testimony and a the question is the chairman was asking about certainty just from listening to that conversation it seems to me the only certainty that comes is of form of more military permits for waterways -- mandatory permits for this new rule. already home builders are announcing the backlog will increase by thousands and thousands of homes, a farmer's are fearful we are hearing from farm groups throughout the united states about the uncertainties regarding agricultural exemptions. they say it is not so form

friendly. with the steady not being finalized it will bring up more questions as peer review goes forward. i know how this works. by starting the clock for the science has ben completed is a way to jump-start the process before the right questions should be asked. volume concerned why we're moving in this direction with the science being done. from your perspective how would you defying a federal?

>> if you are relating to the types of decisions that scions points to a hamid connectivity reports streams or tributaries moving seasonally. >> these are not blue lyons -- lines as they are prepared today. >> hagel sorry i am not that familiar with the mapping. >> traditionally the permit process by the court has been defined what we refer to as the blue line street and that will expand that. >> for the most part these are the borders we have been

considering that our jurisdictional. >> did you don't need to have a new rule if it would not be expanded to. >> it is to provide clarity. we want people to know the revenue streams. >> full-time or part-time is under the jurisdiction? >> it has always been that many streams under the jurisdiction. >> so the states? that the chair been pointed out over years or months have not been consistent? under the jurisdiction of the corps of engineers or that epa. >> no.

>> that is not what the rules said. i read it carefully. >> indicates it provides clarity and instead of following exactly what the supreme court told us 1985 all the way thrale a few years ago for and it got confusing. they said it is not just navigable waters but all water bodies that significantly impact the integrity. >> guy read justice kennedy decision which was not very clarifying but nevertheless i don't take you have made any more clear. how low do you define it? >> does not run 24/7.

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

streambed long dash bet? >> the significant connection has say hydrological connection to have a potential significant impact integrity of the waters below. >> any potential waterway? i wonder if our environmental friends believe that to me that case? >> to redefine the true meaning of navigable waters or nexis or ephermeral. this jurisdiction from my perspective from those in this country is not going to create certainty. with that i would be happy to recognize the ranking member. >> can i jus' say 170 million people rely on

the drinking water supply from streams that don't run full-time. we have to recognize there is a level of a judgment that has to be made. >> i suspect epa would make that judgment? >> the q. -- thank you. i do want to get on into the record the other side. there is a substantial body in the industry that feels this is the rights and necessary thing to do that does not go far enough's. the community wanted a specific expansion of water jurisdiction. about 60% of the miles that make up the streams only

flow seasonally. now the president of trout to a limited said it speaks to the heart of the clean water act making waters more fishable and swimmable. those affected by the proposal have vital spawning habitat for trout and salmon simply stated it will make fishing better. the intermittent streams provide critical fish habitat out west accounting 94 percent of arizona streams come 88 percent new mexico, provide the flow for though larger rivers for the habitats of fishing and insect to help teach german and really do determine quality of downstream habitat for fish. the new proposal exempts

farmers who are undertaking in the of the approved conservation members to seek ephermeral discharge or a field permit. the president of the nonprofit roosevelt partnership of these are a lot of hunting and fishing organization was quoted to say all the headquarters streams where the fish come from they all spawn triggered by snowmelt and other run off. we will hear about that economic impact but hunting and fishing is a $2 billion per year enterprise generating state and federal taxes. and he is in favor. he applauded that epa and he

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

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

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

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

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

substantial industry pressured the epa allows the continued abuse at the same time that the european commission chose to remove its. we have these documents and we chose to continue the use. more than 10 years later. still not removing it from the market. to pay $105 billion with more than 1,000 water systems with filtering atrazine because of their concern over liability as a result of atrazine illness this a.m. birth defects. what does epa know that the european union has not that

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

submit a map of your jurisdiction for the record? >>. >> thank you. i have not said this publicly but it thank you for the work for what they had to talk with the small business administration as much criticism the epa takes from me you have people working in the pacific northwest. they try to solve problems and we enjoyed working with them. having said that. [laughter] i know that you talk about certainty with the changing

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

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

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

your testimony. [laughter] >> tell me why you issued this proposed rule prior to getting the results of the science advisory board i am sure we won all there is blind. -- mind. >> we have moved forward with the implementation of the clean water act but what i want to remind you is the science is all peer review science. what we did was create

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> diagnostic testing i have all the answers but in the tennessee valley if you remember that spill the agency did an assessment of the structural integrity of these facilities to work with the state's we're not just relying on this rulemaking and we have been working to support north carolina the state and working with them with all of the duke facilities in north carolina because concerns have been expressed. so we support the efforts of the state's to look systemically at some of these problems with the resources are available but nobody can do it all but not just to respond to a spill

but the tools. >> but talking about the inability to get the appliances out of the market that causes have they been in the air when i was on the government reform committee we found out quite surprisingly tight now was allowed to continue to import air-conditioner is with chlorofluorocarbons. are you looking at that? >> we have developed rulemaking we can make sure i am as clear as i can be. we are looking a and we do check with customs with the appliances coming in and i believe we have closed that loophole but let me get back to you. i understand the question i believe we have taken care

of it but i want to confirm. >> i was shocked because i worked in the private sector and i watched the refrigerators and freezers and car manufacturers come on board then to find out there was a loophole for chinese air-conditioner is was unbelievable. >> mr. chairman excuse me administrator long dash administrator mccarthy i apologize for i have a couple of questions with regard to the i.r.a. corporate neutrality we have lots of wood piled master spy i hit washington still has a tremendous interdependence on our forest. i as you know, to talk about science i believe they should drive a the habitat

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

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

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

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

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

that represents fishermen from the coast of maine is a huge part of the industry about the commercial discharge. there is an upcoming rule that is of great concern it is my end is standing the epa requires all commercial vessels under 79 feet to receive individual permits as a result of the exploration of the exemption in december. recreational vessels are not required instead the epa develops of management standard for the coast guard that requires compliance with those practices. that makes sense for smaller vessels but you'd be hard-pressed to find a bigger advocate for clean water then me.

i am from a coastal state and cared deeply we'll understand their proper relationship between the clean environment so i am in favor but there has to be a way to balance the great concerns with the up practical concerns. they're not cruise ships it doesn't come under the same requirement. can we talk about how he will implement this? >> we have been working pretty closely with the coast guard to reach out to all constituencies so there is no confusion to be easily implemented with consistency with the coast guard under numerical limits and timeline. if we are missing your constituency in that conversation we will close the gap.

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

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

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

monarch butterflies. >> we could start the of monarch caucus. >> good to see you again. i was the subcommittee chairman i thank you have then a tough job and we want to support you there are things that we may disagree with but i would like to you comeback with more specific questions but make a general observation. i am in the middle of a reelection campaign as is everyone else. i have to go back every two years to convince them i am making the right decision for them. not just with republicans but with independents and

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> let me ask you a question over the past decade new york city has made a significant investment to burn solid waste from landfills to recycling operations. of loan those that has committed to composting organic waste as much as possible including food. this effort to be a successful we need access to a strong composting industry. i know the epa shares the commitment and i applied you but in recent years the persistent herbicides may threaten the continued viability of the industry. as scientist and it they do not break down in the process and that herbicides presence in the finished

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

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

i am particularly interested what the epa has done and what you plan to do in the coming year. please tell us about the success you have had and challenges you face an elaborate on the budget funds you have dedicated to this initiative. >> the urban waters initiative is an extremely important program with the department of interior and across the administration. an opportunity not only to highlight those are bin challenges as have been identified but to get the youth involved in is one that any side would agree to. with that budget request of 4.4 million would be the

same as last year we are utilizing well beyond the funds to generate interest. with that significant resource. so to the extent that we most recently that is the exciting opportunity but i am happy to share these success stories we have had on this program. hybrid be happy to do more brett we are at of the vote to continue to grow that the interest has more opportunities for success. >> also to keep in touch. i told my colleagues before

they're usually think of wide-open spaces i don't know how many years there has been a change that has paid attention nearby. as part of the design to build the of water way to make them recreational and business oriented. >> is an opportunity to engage older children to do voluntary water monitor. the capacity to enter into the private sector.

to build environmental stewardship these areas are focused on the underserved communities that are challenged. it is breathing a sense of hope in some communities that might not have existed to this level before. i love this program it is exactly the way the federal government should be treating states and communities and across agency effort the federal government should duplicate. >> let's hope we continue to build on this. >>. >> i want to do talk about water also. [laughter]

>> also about clean air and clean water last year it is completing a project is edward has spent a celebrated at five or more areas of concern by the end of 2015. that 25 beneficial use some parents have been used to areas of concern one triples of the beneficial use and performance. with all of these huge understand the disappointment did mr. chirac proposed cutting such a successful program with such strong results. why would they want to cut

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

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

take a look cantor research in this area to richer natural gas is done responsibly. i know the first line of defense. . . you are going to be looking at

that in oil and combines natural gas oil wealth as well, but that different regional issues. it is about what technologies are available in taking a look at that moment forward. that is hard of the methane strategy under the climate action plan, so that you will be seeing some white papers come out, but not direct regulation. we will have plenty of time to take a look and to work together on those issues. e will have plenty of time to take a look. >> we certainly have plenty to do hanahan. i would volunteer that this is properly best left to the states i will you back my time. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. this @booktv mr. mccarthy and i want to associate myself with the comments from the chair in our full committee chair on the water issue. it's a big deal in my district in an allen has been dialed up quite a bit.

i don't think i need to bring in a penny more. i did have a question. it is my understanding epa is not yet recommended blend requirements. the november proposal to the comments as proposed by setting a mandate to hold biofuel production cost and because consumers and their vehicles just can't handle any more at the now, yet at a january conference of state departments of agriculture press reports quoted u.s. saying i have heard loud and clear that you don't like -- you don't think we get that right and that given all of the feedback the final rule when released will be in the shape to you will see it we have listened to your comments. to meet these comments suggest the epa may reconsider its previous r m s proposal to appease agricultural interest to the detriment of consumers. check your comments be taken to mean consumers will have to continue using more and more at all regardless of what the vehicles were designed to handle and according to your assessment

of the law does epa have the authority to finalize our will on side of the existing november proposal? >> well, that me answer your first question. i believe that if you take a look at my comment is says that clearly in particular the at the mall and the by a diesel industry cannot believe that the proposal represented the full breath of what the agency could or should be doing to achieve a congressionally mandated level. and so i told them that i would be taking a look of commons and they would see that we properly considered those. i would also suggest that if you asked me if it also can fit other opinions and would be considering those my answer would be the same. we will take a look at all, it's coming in. in terms of the final rule, we are going to do our best to meet requirements under law, but we

need to continue to recognize that at the mall, the ethanol levels and mobs, we are not able to see those of us aren't in the market. we want to bring no risk. we don't think we need to or ever would and we're going to make sure we take reasonable approach the recognizes the infrastructure challenges and inability at this point to achieve the levels of the tunnel that aren't off. >> and then going to switch gears a little bit. represent a part of california, kern county, i share that with kevin mccarthy and obviously well correction is a large part of our economy. you said that hydraulic fracturing can be done safely and have agreed with former epa administrator that there have been no confirmed cases of hydraulic fracturing and he impacting drinking water. given the president's climate action plan relies heavily on the use of natural gas what is your vision for educating the american public that hydraulic fracturing is safe, creates jobs

and as lower american energy costs? >> that's a really great question. gives me the ability to a knowledge that natural gases have been a tremendous economic agenda for this country. and our goal is to make sure that it is consistent and unsafe and effectively so that it remains an environmental clean as well. one of the things we are doing is requesting funds to continue to do science around this because the epa would like to be able to say very clearly about natural-gas and how you extracted in a way that remain safe and responsible. that is our goal, and we speak best when we speak to the science. >> okay. as i understand epa plans to release the fracking study to the public at the same time it is submitted to the science advisor board for peer review. is it normal for the epa to release its scientific studies before the peer review is completed? are you concerned that by releasing the study the peer review completed at the epa

setting itself up for a situation in which it may have to backtrack? could net result in a public being unnecessarily scared and misled? >> my understanding is that a draft study is being planned to be released at the end of this year. you're right, we would put that up for public comment and would also make sure that it goes to the science advisor board because we have established a great panel to take a look at that. it is not my understanding now we are trying to confuse anybody. it is actually becoming public as soon as it coast of the science advisory board. so there the ones that are going to be able to be managing all of those signs commons and anything else will be able to consider as a science advisor board completes its peer review. it is, again, it robust process that will be transparent and in the public purview. who will take a look at those comments, but this will be an

ongoing effort to make sure that we understand the science. >> switching gears again, we'd resistance is a problem unique to biotech crops. assuring farmers have access to multiple modes of action to address read resistance is very important. ensure that they have access to new herbicide tolerant crops. i understand usda has not deregulated products will give farmers an additional ammunition against stubborn weeds and that the epa continues to wait for the usda deregulation commission before checking access on her son approval. can you help me a understand why it's taking so long for these crops to get into the marketplace? is your agency required to wait and usda relic to regulation and deregulation? by usda and epa official record in the deregulation of riverside tolerant crops? if so, what coordination has occurred that can be quantified as an improvement in coordination between agencies? >> again, you are raising a very

good and timely issue. it is an active coordination between u.s. ba and epa because it is important for us to respect the decision of the usda that does not mean that we are not doing anything. we are not making this decision in sequence. we are actually coordinating. they are doing there work. we are importing into it. and you will see that that means that we will be getting some decisions out for both agencies quickly. >> is there any requirements you release together or work together? >> probably no requirement that we do it that way. but in my opinion good management means that we coordinate with one another. that's what the industry is asked to do. this is the smartest way to get it done as quickly as possible recognizing that we both have a decision to make in this process. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i was interested in your comment , cellulosic up and all. i do obviously support renewable fuel and renewable fuel standards, but it does seem as though this corn based requirements is a bit of a rip-off to not only the people who pay for gas but to buy food. i mean, it has to be a major contributing element to the fact the cost of food is gone out by 60% above the general rate of inflation. i think it's largely driven by the standard that is artificially raising the price of corn. i hope we will look ahead that. >> i think congressman, we all

agree in the statute is clear that we're really trying to get to advanced. does the goal. >> good. mr. suraya raised this issue of municipal solid waste. we clearly need to find better ways of dealing with municipal solid waste. he has talked about the commercial use of stuff that comes from restaurants and so on which is terribly important. paying an enormous amount of money to dispose of the stuff. we can convert it to something more useful that's great. i'm glad that the issue was raised. let me ask you further about that issue, the larger issue. over the past two years we have been engaged a lot with a number stakeholders in improving in trying to update the environmental protection

agency's characterization report we want to be able to more closely examine the major types of recycling systems and their resulting in markets because it could lead to more informed decision making at the local and state levels where recycling and solid waste programs are chosen and implemented. we understand there are a lot of different ways of measuring it, but the fact you got these materials is not necessarily mean that they are recycled in the new product. currently the report -- all the reports on what is being picked up, not necessarily what is being alternately recycled. so i wonder what your approach might be in terms of reaching out to those industries that are collecting and processing and sorting and reselling this recyclables collected said that

we can gain a better understanding of being -- of the end product of they're recycling systems. >> i don't know if i can tell you the complete work that we do because clearly our office of solid waste as a lot of work with the industry itself. one issue that's on my radar screen related to this is our definition of solid waste is basically an opportunity to encourage this type of commercial recycling. the prior administration did a rule that we have been looking at because it is not effectively generated the kind of interest that the state level that we thought it would generate to advance recycling of materials that would then be reused, genuine recycling. states are a little reluctant to take advantage of the law that was prior written. we propose to them are looking to finalize the rule. what it does is really set a system of regulation so that you

can properly recycle but in no way that the communities themselves know that if these efforts are under way in their community that it will pose a hazard. and so i think there are ways in which we can look at this in a variety of ways, not just technical assistance but really pushing markets by providing, again, is certain regulatory framework that states can take advantage of where we would have the capacity to define it a little bit better than the states so they can take advantage of it. that is what this particular rule is all about. we're trying to do it both individually through technical assistance as well as systemically to provide a more solid foundation for recycling industries to grow. >> well, that's good to here. i know a lot of folks religiously recycle all their stuff and then a year, well, it's just dumped in the same pile, it just makes the homeowner feel better about it. the end result --

>> its been a consistent problem >> mr. chairman, i have one other issue the want to bring of. this is with regard to catalytic converters and federal standards the epa, you have an aftermarket catalytic converter standard that has not been updated since 1986. as a result, california, the air resources board developed a standard that will take effect in california in 2015. and there is some concern. new york is doing the same thing , putting out their own regulation. our concern is what it might mean if we have a host of, you know, states coming up with their own standards.

there is also a cost factor here if repair facilities have to install the california air resources board certified converter the cost difference can be between 35 and 40 percent more than the one certified by the epa. so i wonder if the epa is working on coming up with the models' standard for the nation so that we don't have 25 or 30 different standards throughout the country. we obviously want to make the converter's more environmentally friendly, but we also need to make sure that they are affordable to the consumer. >> congressman, did not know the answer your question, but we will certainly take it out when we get back to the office. i understand the issue. i was not aware that individual states were moving out and it had been so long since we revisited this, but we will take a look at it. >> good for you. thank you very much, administrator.

chess. >> a thank you for years of service. >> mr. chairman thank you. california on disney's the lead when it comes to clean and. we put out regulations before anyone else does. we have a history of that. >> that was a smooth transition. >> very successful program. senator feinstein, senator boxer and i agree. jerry lewis wrote the original legislation with the california clean air act. why? because it works. we are removing old diesel engines from the inventories

around the country. it especially affects the in two. five. stress and laughs. as i mentioned earlier, $13 of economic benefit per federal dollar. why would you want to remove a program that has such real achievement. >> a want to respect the budget limitations that i've been given and make the best decisions

again. trying to balance a lot of interest year. it has provided a wealth the benefits helping these independent truck drivers changeover to these new modern engines, 90 percent less emissions. it has an incredible effect on air quality. and going to work with mr. marin i suspect you probably knew. such bipartisan support.

>> shuffle my papers. >> my want to come back. apparently 117 million people in herman streams. >> and in streams or line up to support the navigable waters below which is of supporting the surface water and ground water. >> as the science is complete and is being correlated in double checked and the do know is one of the 17 million people

get specific illnesses that are attributable to known elements? >> 170 is simply an indication part of those are the use and german streams. >> are we fixing a problem or just complying? >> i guess what i'm suggesting, one -- designed to the protect drinking water to enter the natural resources are protected. these streams are critical to drinking water supplies.

>> and going to change directions once again on these issues of denying a permit. >> is this the new epa? >> i would not characterize the action. >> and a history of the epa will only use this for 04c process which is what we've just taken a for step to consider. we have not had a permanent and makes this is the second time.

it is a very unique circumstance it is a unique resource. one of the world's largest and most active and producing sockeye salmon fishery where now we should take action, i think it was appropriate to do that. >> this country has -- maybe the acquitted to some, but due process as part of a process. >> it will be thoroughly debated, transparent temple of commons. >> because this unilateral determination without any due process. there's a trend to this alleged

and have a significant effect on our economy. >> according. >> the first thing was a happened to be presiding in the for the house. my phone started barking. it was not preplanned. i want you to know the under chairman calibers direction i went over to spruce things up so there would not have votes in the middle of this. that's the kind of guys we are. >> was a particular expertise?

>> back to the clean water act. saw you have put out a list of agricultural exemptions. and only applies since section 404. >> i have to double check with you. i believe it's an exemption under the waters -- under the clean water act. it may be beyond that. it would not apply to directors charges that would be covered. let me double check. a want to be incorrect. >> the way and understand it. i might be incorrect. the exemption is only applied to the 404. as i and stand it, engaging in

normal activities would have to adhere to the nrc a standard in order to avail him or herself of the exemption. has that always been true? >> actually, this is an expansion of the exemptions we are changing no exemption that currently exists under law. of the current agriculture exemptions continuances. benefits the community which benefits and natural resources and recognizing that it also benefits water quality. it's trying to again provide more certainty. does not mean that all of those 52 prior to would have required a permit. what is as we are providing certain the they don't need to ask anymore as to whether or not this is normal agricultural

practice. redefining it is best we can. one more thing. i really like this proposal. but the other thing we did was we have also put out what we call an interpretive rule. that will allow us to look at the comments the common and continue to work with usda in agriculture to add to that list. as much as we can define agricultural practices and are exempt without question the more that a farmer can do the farming without worrying about whether the doing something wrong. >> the interpretive rule is just that, rule that can be changed it will. can be added to or subtracted from. >> the goal is that we are going to continue to add to those practices. but the only thing that it would do is to again make the exemption clear so that you don't have to say is this an

agricultural practice that is exempt? >> and i understand your interpretation of what is trying to do. but understand the concern that people have that they're just putting this in an interim rule which means it can change any time they want. we think we have these exemptions and a year later they can come back and limit the mall >> the only thing -- >> that's a concern. we will try to work through those. it's clearly an attempt. at least its intent is to do as much as we can to provide certainty to the agricultural community that they can farm the way many different that one section indicates that all waters within a flood plain would be jurisdictional.

we will flood plan now we talking about? one hundred, 200, 500 year flood plain? >> were talking about wetlands and reusing the same definition of our water as the original rule. or not change in and of all. >> one other subject to a different subject so i can find out what the heck did it with my stuff. mr. former chairman, while you're looking -- >> the original rule. >> original rule. >> would you mind yielding for the question? i do want to fully understand. don't 30 states differed to the federal law so that they don't have their own regulations? it rely upon the federal regulation. there's the difference in the west. the states tend to have their own regulations that are different from the federal court

this brings up the question i was just going task. as you know, the state of idaho recently passed legislation that will eventually take the lead in the state. states can do that or they can let the epa do it. idaho is chosen the led the epa do it. i don't know how many states are left that leave it to the epa. tune of? >> well, i'm told is 30. >> thirty is about right. well, they passed this legislation. the state will spend millions on multi-year transitions to privacy. and once it gains promise you will spend millions each year in its own program which is generally why states don't a promising because of cost. i am told that no federal funds are there to assist states with the transition of the ongoing program. i guess my question is this, invest it is going to spend no lanes to run a program run by

the epa as god hired dozens of people to handle program now run by federal employees wise in a savings in your agency or no assistance to the state in running the program were hoping to of this transition the state program? why as the state program grows dozen federal government's shrinking back. >> well, it would certainly work with any state that would want to take primacy on any program that the agency operated. i am, i guess what i would indicate to you is i do not see this rule changing the dynamic between the door government and state. the rule clearly preserves that effective state and federal -- >> this is outside the rule. saw on talking in the state taking primacy over the clean water act which means those spend millions currently spent by the federal government yet i don't see savings in your budget on the savings that the federal

government will save by not having to do that. >> i believe the epa has resources to help with the transition and to support the state in an effort. if we are actually now running a program that they're going to begin to run we would accommodate that. certainly encourage it. the more you can the state level regulation the better off all those like it. provides a better safety net. >> it might be appropriate to point out that the western governors which is a bipartisan group of governors are absolutely opposed to this new proposal. since we are bringing up -- cruxes it is -- it's going to take a lot more discussion and understanding on all sides both from the epa to understand the concerns of the western governors and legislators and also from all of us to understand what this will actually does. if i could have one more question. >> i now realize. is the in the program the your

talking about. they're really only four states that don't have primacy. i'm happy to work with you. the state feels like we are not being responsive. and more than happy to do that. this is a very encouraging step. >> in june 2012 the epa released the integrated municipal storm water and waste water planning approach from mark. that laid out a new model to help communities meet the regulatory obligations in an integrated manner. successfully implemented this month to help communities more affordably manage their clean war obligations. today only a handful of communities have come forward to express an interest in working with the dissing on this initiative. for the most part these communities are ones that are engaged in consent negotiations or are operating under an epa enforcement action. the true test of this framework

will be whether communities that are not facing an enforcement action but have large water quality chances can use the integrated planning as it has come to be known. to meet these challenges more affordable. these communities may need some help to develop plans in order to take advantage of this model. these plans will cost money, upward of hundreds of thousands of dollars. last year we suggested that a small amount money be set aside in the epa budget to support in the 20 pilots communities to demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of this model. the appropriations request had broad bipartisan support. in final conference negotiations we were not able to get across the fence line because we could not convince the agency that supporting pilot communities with planning grants without further their own initiative. we had the support of the agency to undertake this pilot effort

nor did mr. and evaluate the effectiveness to help communities me toward quality goals. >> congressman, of the talk to you about it. it was an issue that we knew was on the rear screen, we would have loved to have had significant of resources to be able to accommodate it. and of the integrated planning effort that has been under way has been a successful one. you're right, we want to move beyond enforcement or compliance when you and make this a much more pro-active approach. while the reasons why were looking in their green infrastructure issues and try to have money that, it's working with 100 communities was we thought that that might be a more effective approach to integrating thinking about storm water and wastewater in a collaborative way. and so we do have funding and a budget to address these issues, perhaps we did not quite agree on the venue or the vehicle for doing that, but i do know that back or has been actively

engaged in thinking about these pilots of a been working with us and workshops across the country , and rapid to continue this discussion. >> i appreciate that. thank you very much from mr. simpson. as mr. simpson knows what he was chair last year i strongly supported this. both sides of this subcommittee that wanted this integrated planning initiative. only 2 million box. the cost of compliance can get substantial. of course the water systems pass it right on to the consumer. does seem to be a way of saving money. for what it's worth this is going do something that both sides agree on. i would suspect dickensian again . thank you. >> thank you. thank you for being here today. thank you for the extra time

that i have here said. i look forward to working with you select and understand were coming from on this new rule. >> only the 404 requirements is the exemption for the nrc as. you were bright. >> thank you. >> there's a of a to questions. one last comment. a house committee remains frustrated with the lack of compliance to the civic with a house oversight committee has asked at least to the outstanding subpoenas as well as an outstanding request for documents. also your office of congressional affairs is preventing the science advisory board from responding to requests for information that

was mentioned earlier from the house science committee. so as the committee continues to consider funding we would like to have your commitment to a fully and time the comply with these requests for documents and information from the house. >> you have my full commitment that we will be responding to these issues if you feel that we have not already. we had been producing significant amounts of documents in a timely way and will continue. >> thank you. with that this hearing is adjourned. >> a couple of live events to tell you about today on our companion network, c-span2,

including a new america foundation for him on marijuana legalization at 9:30 a.m. eastern. at 1:30 p.m. eastern, the women in national security conference. >> without objection. >> mr. speaker, it is time to take the mask off this institution will stop it is time to expose the check writing scandal i like to call rubbergate. hers time to bring some on back to this institution. nine months ago, i stood on this floor with other freshmen into the oath of office for the very first time in our career, and it was probably one of the most important days of my entire life.

to go home to my district over this weekend and having people laughing at congress, laughing at congressmen, laughing at this institution brings dishonor on all of us. i will give you a couple of examples. i was out at a pizza hut this weekend with my son, mark, and my daughter, sarah, my wife, leslie, and the gentleman from the booth behind me asked -- are you going to pay with this with a check, congressman? that is not what we need. mr. speaker, announced the list of names. >> i would like to remind the gentleman from iowa he is not supposed to use exhibits. i know the gentleman will use -- respect the rules of the house. >> find more coverage from 35 years on our facebook page. c-span -- created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.

in a few moments, today's headlines, plus your calls live on "washington journal." eastern, live coverage of the brookings institution forum on the relations between u.s. and china. panelists include a former nba player yamane. at 8:00 p.m., you can hear this week's submarine -- supreme court in the case of sebelius v. hobby journal,"hington americans united for separate -- for separation of church and barry lyndon russell moore discuss the role that faith and religion play in politics, public life and civics today. mission science monitor contributor talks about the

widespread use of heroin in the u.s., especially in the suburbs. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ >> the house and senate have finished their work for the week. the president is in saudi arabia . this morning on the "washington journal" were going to talk about heroin use in the u.s.. as we go through the newspapers with this topic, this is the front page of the new york times, college athletes aim to put price on priceless.