ms. mccarthy, i'm concerned about spending. wwe're going to see interest on our debt grow from $211 billion last year, according to the congressional budget office, to $880 billion in one year, 10 years from now. every agencies got to watch its spending, and congress has a clear duty to monitor spending. the ozone standard that you saw it or your department sought to advance our early is an example, i believe, of wasted money. in 2008 after a process that took eight years, he epa tightened significantly the ozone standards. that was done in a proper way. and under the clean air act, the ozone standard was to be reviewed again in five years, yet almost immediately upon coming into office, the obama epa began a costly and premature process of reconsidering the ozone standard to make it even more stringent. and this reconsideration was recognized as one of the most expensive environmental regulations ever proposed, with some estimates reaching $90 billion in annual cost. i objected to the. 30 senators wrote to object to that, and

ms. mccarthy's first meeting. thank you for being here. we look forward to the budget and discussing your ongoing work. the budget proposal is a level of 7.89 million which is 3.8% below the enacted level. the budget is reduced for the fifth consecutive year. the budget proposal is good bringing the budget in line with historic level and in line with the levels under sequestration but avoids employees furloughs and other things with across the board cuts. we make targeted cuts about how we spend the money as we rein in the deficideficit. i apprec appreciated eyeate the agency's payroll tax being investigated. this has been a priority for the subcommittee since 2011. i am glad to see we are aligned. i am pleased to say that the fy 2015 fte reduction compared to 2011. previous budgets often proposed payroll levels above the onboard personal leaving us to wonder how epa would use the funds. as we move forward, i have concerned about the state of the aging water infrastructure and the california drought. we had a hearing to discuss of ways to

ms. butler? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mccarthyi have a couple of questions with regard to the neutrality of biomass. we have a lot of woody biomass and despite a hard hit in the last 20 years, cap southwest washington -- southwest washington has a tremendous dependence on our forest. science should drive our forest policy with regard to protecting the forests and the people who depend on the forests. thates have shown manufacturing residuals are not used for energy. they just lay there and died. they imitate nothing. it actually would release more greenhouse gases then using that tree or the biomass on the fourth floor for energy production. methane is 20 more times more potent than co2. i believe the science shows, a review would show that the manufacturing residuals are more carbon neutral then letting it just died. we should use that energy. i know there have been setbacks in the process. what is the timing of the accounting framework for the biogenetic co2 emissions? >> thank you for raising it. the decision you are asking us