Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140331 :

on c-span. >> bend is a timber town. you wouldn't know it to look at it today. the timber qualities are almost completely removed, but, yes, bend was a timber town to begin with. at the height of the timber industry, so if you were to drop into bend in, say, 1928, you would have smell the mills, you would have smelled sawdust. if you went through certain parts of town, you'd get sawdust on your clothes. you would here periodic mill whistles from the two gigantic super mills that were on the banks of the river. it would have permeated everything. it would have been ten minutes off from the downtown core where all the shops were, but you would have seen the smoke from the smokestacks and the burners, you would have smelled it, you would have known right away that you were in the middle of timber town usa. >> this weekend booktv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of bend, oregon. saturday at noon eastern on c-span2 and sunday at 2 on c-span3. >> epa administrator gina mccarthy recently appeared before a senate committee to talk about her agency's budget request for 2015. the $7.9 billion proposal marks a 3.7% reduction compared with current levels. she was asked about funding cuts to programs involving clean drinking water and diesel emission reductions. this hearing of the senate environment and public works committee was chaired by barbara boxer. it's about an hour and 20 minutes. >> committee will come to order. we're on a fast track because we have votes. could i ask members to take their seats, please? i welcome administrator mccarthy to this oversight hearing on the 2015 epa budget, its mission to protect the environment through programs that address clean air, children's health, safe drinking water, toxics and water quality. like other federal agencies, epa has beened to do more with less. five years ago their budget was $10 to.3 billion, and the 2015 budget request we're going to discuss today has been reduced to $7.9, a 23% cut, and i am particularly concerned about the proposed cuts to the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds expect diesel emissions reduction grant program. these programs are critical to protecting our public health. in addition to funding cuts, epa has faced other challenges in recent years including a rogue career employee, john peel, who's been sentenced to prison for defrauding the american taxpayers. i appreciate the work the office of inspector general did to ferret out this employee, and i would like to commend administrator mccarthy for bringing his outrageous actions to light. epa has over 15,000 employees and just like any organization public, private, even the military, there are bound to be a few outliers who must be held accountable. but with thousands of dedicated employees, epa has demonstrated repeated success at improving our families' health by keeping the nation's air and water clean and safe. for example, in 2010 alone the clean air standard and program under the clean air act prevented 13 million lost workdays, prevented more than 160,000 deaths from air pollution, prevented 3.2 million lost school days, prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks. administrator mccarthy, i can't find very many agencies that could say that. and i wanted to show a picture of the clean air, of what happens when you don't pay attention to the air. this is another photograph of china. we don't need to have a theory on in this. we see what happens when countries don't value their people enough to protect them from dirty air. and, actually, there was a new study that shows 3.7 million people worldwide have died prematurely from outdoor air pollution. we also know over the last 40 years while there are people railing against epa, the economy has grown 212% while air pollution has dropped 68%. a responsible budget must not lose sight of our top priorities including protecting the health and safety of the people. what's at stake if we do not have adequate safeguards in place? just look at west texas where 15 people died in a chemical explosion, or look at west virginia where a chemical spill contaminated the water supply for 300,000 people. by taking preventive action, we can help communities avoid similar disasters, and i intend next week to mark up a bill, it's the pan chin bill that he wrote -- manchin bill that he wrote with senator rockefeller and myself, the chemical safety and drinking water protection act. i really do pray we can get that done next week here in a bipartisan way. we'll get it done, but i'm hoping for bipartisanship. pause when you have chemicals -- because when you have chemicals or that are not regulated and they're sitting on top of a drinking water supply, look what happened to that town economically when their drinking water was destroyed. and i think we need to act. i also want to thank epa for proposing a rule to clarify the jurisdiction of the clean water act. many colleagues on both sides of the aisle along with dozens of organizations including ducks unlimited, the teddy roosevelt conservation partnership, the farm bureau, the national mining association, the national association of home builders have repeatedly calledden epa -- called on epa and the corps to go through a formal rulemaking to clear up the uncertainty created by two confusing supreme court decisions. this proposed rule will now proceed through an open and transparent process where all views can be heard, including those whose views differ from yesterday's proposal. the proposed ruling insures protections for the wetlands and small streams that could be a source of drinking water for over 117 million americans. for the first time, epa has listed bodies of water that are exempted from this regulation including upland ditches, artificial lakes and ponds, reflecting pools and swimming pools, and i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the full list of exemptions. without objection. epa has a record that americans can be proud of, and i want to show you the support that epa has in the public. we have it on a chart here. the person people know what you're doing, and they appreciate what you're with doing. 66% of voters favor epa updating air pollution standards by setting stricter limits, 72% of voters support new standards for carbon pollution from power plants. so, madam administrator, i have to stop. i'm holding myself to five minutes. i'll hold everyone to that. and thank you for being here. and with that, i would call on our ranking member, senator vitter. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you all for being with us. this is a very important oversight hearing about epa's budget and overall what's going on at epa, its management practices, how it's being run. this committee, obviously, has that fundamental oversight responsibility. the starkest example of concerns about how epa is being run, what i would characterize as a long-term culture at epa, is the case of the former senior epa official, john biel. of course, he's turned out to be a manipulator and charlatan of renowned proportions. we now know that epa dithered for years rather than take action against a fake cia agent who stole over a million dollars of taxpayer money. this and other failings are detailed in a series of memoranda issued by my committee staff which i would like to enter into the record. >> without objection to, so ordered. >> thank you. this memorandum exposes an indisputable timeline that raises questions not just about john biel, about epa. in january 2011 ms. mccarthy was informed that biel had been receiving erroneous bonus payments that actually elevated husband salary -- his salary above a statutory cap and was advised by her human resources staff and legal counsel to cancel the bonus. instead, she deferred to an epa official equal to her in rank at the time, allegedly payoff uncertainty -- because of uncertainty over biel's cia discuss. however, an official directly of informed ms. mechanic car think think -- mccarthy that there were no cia staff at the epa. when b be iel announced his repayment in may 2011, she learned in march 2012 that biel had not retired and, in fact, collected full pay plus the illegal retention bonus of $42,768. ms. mccarthy took no action against biel for nearly a year after this. finally, canceling the illegal bonus in february 2013. and instead of firing biel, ms. mccar thu allowed him to retire two months later with full benefits. now, it's now clear that biel also led one of epa's most significant rule makings prior to that. the 997 national ambient air standards for to zone and particulate matter. this codified epa's practice of using foreign par lick tates to inflate nearly all clean air act regulations. almost two decades later, the agency still refuse pas to share all the scientific data underpinning these very costly regulations. collectively, biel and his best friend robert brenner's work on the standards introduced a series of dubious actions that the agency has continued to follow and comprised with my committee staff have referred to as epa's playbook as detailed in a comprehensive staff report issued last week on this issue, and i'd like to enter that into the record. >> without objection. >> the obama epa has embraced the strategies of this playbook and pursued ideologically-driven can agendas in much the same way as b be iel did in the 990s -- 1990s, pushing through controversial regulations. this is done by assenting to subtle agreements, excluding public participation, employing heavy-handed management of the interagency review process, inflayeding purported benefits and, quite frankly, just hiding science. epa's continued use of the playbook has led to dire consequences for americans. for example, on march 10th of this year "the new york times" reported on the story of 81-year-old erin steven country tiff of columbus, ohio, a diabetic with deteriorating health living on a fixed income. she now struggles to pay her energy bills as a direct result of epa air regulations that have shut down electricity generation in her part of the country. to advance epa's extreme agenda, it's also clear that this epa extends its regulatory arm with complete disregard for american taxpayer dollars, and we have many examples of that. these examples of waste and abuse be make congressional oversight absolutely critical. that's why this hearing and follow-up work so enormously important to get at this concerning culture of which, unfortunately, john biel is just the poster child, not the full extent. thank you, madam chair. >> thanks, senator. i want to place in the record a counter to some of these things. an article in "the washington post" that says outside of gina mccarthy, there wasn't ever, ever in all the years under the bush administration, republican and democratic administrations, no one ever stopped biel except gina mccarthy. we'll put that in the record. we'll call on senator whitehouse. >> thank you, madam chair. and thank you, administrator mccarthy, for being here. you exercise one of the most important responsibilities of the federal government to protect human health and the environment, and i applaud your service, and i'm sorry that this issue has become so partisan. i have the seat of senator john chafee who was both a republican and an environmentalist, and i'm sorry that that combination of features no longer seems possible in washington. you've had to do more with less, and i appreciate that. there are people here who want you to do less with less. they don't want epa to be efficient, they want it to be wounded and to be unable to protect the american public. but i urge you to continue with your work. your tier iii motor vehicle rule, for instance, will prevent as many as 2,000 premature deaths and 30,000 respiratory illnesses in chirp every year. in children every year. the health men be fits of the rule can actually be with quantified and have been to between 6.7 and $19 billion in value to the american public every year. this is a particularly important public health victory in states like rhode island where more than one in ten of our citizens sump from asthma -- suffer or from asthma. there may be people here who don't care about that, but i do, and i think it's more -- it's important that the public health side of the equation be recognized as well. i also applaud your efforts to regulate the carbon emissions that are coming from first to be new power plants and then shortly the regulations we hope for on existing power plants. we hope that we can do some work on your funding. it's unfortunate that because of cuts funding for clean water and drinking water, state-revolving funds, had to be reduced by 30% and 17% respectively. those are important rams for our -- programs for our home states. .. that will allow appropriators to work through budgets rather than have mad dashes, brinksmanship at the end between the president and the speaker, for instance, without senators having an opportunity to participate. i'm looking for to working on that process and please continue to go forward on climate change. it is way past denial as the american academy report shows has nasa scientists have repeatedly showed. i find it remarkable that people contend that nasa doesn't know what it's doing when they have an suv sized vehicle driving around on the surface of mars. that's pretty good sign these people know their science. so thank you for being here and you have fans and supporters and we are glad you're back. >> senator, thank you for saying -- stance well within your time. the reason i'm going to do a tough gavel is we have votes. if we get down to the floor by 11:20 we will just make it. we will turn now to senator crapo -- >> i think i'm next step he came he for you did but either way. >> thank you, madam chairman from this important hearing on the epa's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, and thank you, administrator mccarthy for joining us today. i would like to go my colleagues concerns regarding john beale and his deep connections to regulatory decisions affecting all americans. it seems difficult to conclude that any of mr. beale's work on the initiatives can be trusted at face value. as such i would like to take this opportunity to urge for a robust review of all rulemaking and regulatory actions connected with mr. beale's service at the epa. moving to the budget in particular the federal government continues to face challenges and further attention is needed by congress in order to improve our long-term fiscal outlook, and knowing the funding priorities of the executive branch agency is an important resource as congress prepares its own budget of fiscal measures. i understand that epa like all federal agencies that are working to do its part in achieving deficit reduction. however, i'm perplexed by some of what i see in the epa's budget proposals. in reviewing the epa's budget proposal i'm concerned agency has proposed funding reductions for programs that enjoyed strong bipartisan support and/or critical programs while increasing funding for programs on an issue does the remain controversial. specifically, at a time we just heard about a new proposal for what i consider to be nothing more than a jurisdictional power grab over water with regar regao our clean water act and safe drinking water statute, we also see in the budget proposal the proposed reduction of funding for the clean water and safe drinking water state revolving loan funds. that's a big concern to me. i think we all in america know we are facing over $200 billion of infrastructure needs in these arenas and we been working for years to try to get adequate budgets to help our nation deal with it aging water infrastructure, and to see over $580 million in reduction of the budget went other parts of the epa budget could have been looked to for the necessary savings is disturbing. the small communities who need this assistance to ensure that their water systems meet state and federal environmental regulations are going to be badly harmed by this budget decision. additionally the proposed reduction in funding for the brown field program is discouraging. just last summer i co-chaired a subcommittee hearing in which we heard about the positive impact this program has had in idaho and across the nation. also many of my colleagues and i continue to have streets concerned with the president's climate action plan. and the use of executive authority to circumvent congress. the epa's 2013 budget proposal clearly advocates the continuation of this alarming process. there are many other things i could say but in terms of trying to pay attention to the chairman's admonition to keep it brief i will end with this. i encourage you to help find a way to correct the budget decisions that will short fund our state revolving fund and to help us move forward in correcting that trend and, in fact, help us to get increased resources into this critical part of our nation's water infrastructure. thank you. >> senator, thank you so much. senator booker. >> thank you very much, chairwoman, for this opportunity. i want to thank not only the chairwoman but ranking member vitter for holding this hearing. administrator mccarthy, i'd like to welcome you. i'm excited about your leadership and the opportunity to serve with you because for me it's obvious the peace mission to protect public health isn't the urgent. in the state of new jersey with more superfund sites in any other state and it's appalling how we in the past have not stepped up to people accountable for the methods they are making and where spending billions of taxpayer money. i would unnecessarily. so i believe right now it's appropriate and important to proposed epa budget for 2050 needs to make addressing climate change is when the agency's top objectives. we must address the threat posed by climate change before it's too late anywhere clean up the more expensive damage that it will do in the future. i'm pleased to see in your budget proposed request to allocate increased resources to climate change and air quality work, and this evening specifically dedicated, and this gets me very excited, or preparing for the impacts of climate change. that includes technical assistance for at that station, planning, risk for storm surges, threat we are very firmly within new jersey. new jersey is particularly bubble to the impacts of climate change. scientists at rutgers estimated the new jersey shore will likely experience a sea level rise of 1.5 the by 2015, at 3.5 feet by 2100. the projections are higher than the projections for average sea level rise globally. the projected sea level rise of 1.5 feet for 2050 put the coast in places like atlantic city, if there was a 10 year storm surge, not a 50 year storm 4100 year storm, but just the scale of storm on average we see every 10 years, blood levels would be worse than any flooding that has ever been experienced in atlantic city and it would be far more routine. epa's budget -- to addressing issues of environmental justice, an area i would like to work closely with you on as we move forward. climate change does that impact everyone equally. low-income and minority communities will be disproportionately impacted by future extreme weather events. natural disasters may seem like equal opportunity destroyers, they are not. in today's economy many people live in vulnerable communities and our will one paycheck away from the devastating impact of poverty. in cities such as newark and new orleans as we saw from hurricanes sandy and katrina, one major storm can destroy the fragile networks, destroying access to food, medicine and shelter. we must be prepared for increasing climate change. low income and minority communities are systematically more likely to lack parks and trees and green spaces, and have a higher concentration of pavement than wealthier community. new work where i was mayor is approximately 70% of its service is impervious and 15% canopy coverage. the temperature of a paved surface absorbing summer heat can be 50-90 degrees above the temperature of a green service. this leads is a difficult higher air temperatures, which can result in increased air pollution, spikes in asthma rates, and more cases of heat stroke and even death among the elderly. the epa has taken important first steps towards reduction of carbon emission by setting standards that will cut carbon pollution from automobiles in half by 2025 but we know the power plants make up at least a third of the nation's co2 emissions. the epa has both the authority and responsibility of the clean air act to reduce pollution from these plants. administrator mccarthy, i look for the working with you on these issues. i admire your courage in this overly partisan debate. the truth is we share one common destiny in this country. whether you're a red state of with you, the threats to our climate are real and they are obvious, and we can do things to address them to actually increase economic opportunity for our nation and lift our higher aspirations to make this a country with liberty and justice for all. and for that i thank you for stepping forward to lead another forward again to working with you. >> thank you very much, senator. senator inhofe. >> thank you, madam chair. ms. mccarthy can even though we have a good personal relationship ongoing increase in the concerned about the epa's systematic distortion and the costs and benefits. the cost we heard about the benefits but not the cost. while it is quick to turn over every stone to find every conceivable benefit that could come from a new rulemaking, the agency exerts just as much effort to cut corners and ignore the reality so it can downplay the true economic costs of these regulations. this distortion enables the agency to enact outlandish rules of obscene cost and harm to the economy, and the american public without any respect to the cost-benefit balance enshrined in the foundation of our environmental laws. this topic has been one of focus to the committee as evidenced by the recent report we've talked about, john beale. i won't elaborate on that but more damage than the money he stole from the taxpayers is that he and others wrote the playbook on how to get away with this distortion of cost and benefit. for the sake of the american public it's time to address and rein in this practice. let me consider utility mact will. utility mact is a will that requires power plants to reduce certain components of their missions. in its cost estimate the epa stated the rule would create 46,000 temporary construction jobs and 8000 new net new permanent jobs. now that this rule has set in, we are starting to see its real impact, and the facts reveal that the rule does not only had a devastating impact on coal production across the country, but it does resulted in dozens of power plants being shut down which has caused significant increases in electricity prices around the country. "the new york times" reported on the impacts archduke. they wrote and i'm quoting, underlined the growing concern among the consumers and regulators is a second phenomenon that could lead to even bigger price increases. scores of old coal-fired power plants in the midwest will close in the next year or so because the federal pollution rules. still others could close because the separable, water rule for utilities. another frigid winter like this could lead to a squeeze in supply making it even harder and much more expensive to supply power. that's all in a quote from "the new york times." this is already happening. the article reported that in rhode island, a utility received permission to raise prices 12% over the previous year. in pennsylvania, the utility bills have tripled in some places. what's shocking to me is "the new york times" is connecting these increases back to the epa's regulations. so i have to wonder, is it even remotely possible that the utility mact rules created 8000 net permanent jobs as the epa said it would? if this is cause electricity prices to triple in some areas, how is that possible? if or again the congress, i was in business. when input cost will up, it doesn't create jobs. it lowers profits, put strains on the margins of the business. the same is to withhold economy. winning input cost as significant as electricity begins to soar in cost or wobble in reliability, the impact is negative and then felt across the entire economy. it destroys jobs, doesn't create 8000 new jobs. the obama epa can get away with this kind of distortion proves the agency in my opinion is out of control. this is something i'm going to focus on for the rest of the year. it's so much important for us not to. dpas impact may be cold now -- old now but when it's going to be natural gas next, with its hydraulic fracturing, methane emissions, the epa' epa is inted to at what the sierra club has named its beyond natural gas campaign just as the epa did with sierra club's beyond cool campaign. we in the senate have been charged with storing this nation which was watching out for those are most probable and that would be elderly and the poor. are at most risk losing their homes. which is exactly what will happen under the epa's war on fossil fuels. it's our job to watch out for them. these are the most vulnerable people i suggest to my good friend from new jersey. so i would only say, i want to say, madam chairman, i'm going to excuse myself for an armed services obligation but i'm going to be coming right back. and hopefully will have a chance to respond to some of these comments i made concerning climate change. >> thank you. i'm excited would you said about the elderly and the poor so we worked together on that. let me say, unless there's objection them were going to hear from the two senators who haven't been heard from and then going to shut down the comments here so that we can get the gina mccarthy. colleagues coming in can do the opening statement with their questions. is that okay with everyone? okay, excellent. we were there from senator wicker followed by senator sessions. >> i think that's a very good solution. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to place into the record at this point an op-ed from "the wall street journal.com" entitled how carbon dioxide became a, quote, pollutant. >> without objection. >> thank you. and i do it for this purpose, madam chair, and administrator mccarthy. we've had a lot of discussion already this morning in the form of opening -- opening statements about the proven dreaded results of particulates pollution and poisons put into our environment. an issue where everyone in this room agrees. we've heard discussion in statements about respiratory illnesses. we've heard endorsements by the american lung association. we talked about asthma, particular pollution in china. this awful picture that the chairman showed, showing smog in china. discussions of coal ash, super funds sites, and then without making any distinction at all between these poisons and particulate pollution's, my friends on the other side of the dais switch almost in the same sentence to climate change, where the target there is greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide, making no distinction between the fact, and making no mention of the fact that co2 and greenhouse gases have nothing to do with respiratory illnesses, or lung disease or asthma or smog in china or coal ash at superfund sites, something we all are very much interested in. and i would point out to my colleagues that toward the end of this op-ed which is now part of the record, the epa acknowledged some positive impacts from higher co2 concentrations. one is faster growing trees in tropical forests, which helps offset deforestation. epa has acknowledged that. it will be good for the rain forced to another is that marshes can grow more quickly above rising sea levels providing an insurance policy of shores against potential ravages of rising sea levels. so at any rate i would just point out that there are differences on this committee about the effects of co2 on climate change, but no one is suggesting that co2 causes lung disease, asthma, or the kind of smog that the chairman talk about. i'll tell you what we do agree on, administrator mccarthy, we agree that there are some mighty fine programs that the administration is proposing cuts for. to -- the budget of the michigan proposes cutting $430 million for the clean water revolving loan fund. $150 million from the drinking water revolving fund and 5 million from the brownfields program, something we can all agree on. these are proven programs that are well received by state and local communities and encourage the epa to work with communities in a cooperative manner rather than a confrontational one. these cuts are even more troubling considering that some as we did not need to bring local water infrastructure into compliance with epa regulations is over $2.5 trillion. we need to be helping local communities rather than putting unfunded mandates on them. all across the federal government, agencies are having to make tough decisions to rein in the countries spending. i would rather we help communities with the safe drinking water and would save air rather than putting some funding of dubious value into secure to regulation in the name of climate change. i'm also concerned that epa address is out of compliance communities, often with subpoenas and civil action, when we should be coming to them with technical assistance and grants. epa's enforcement actions may help achieve compliance but when small and rural communities must funnel meager funds away from schools and hospitals, i questioned the efficacy of this approach. i erased many of these same issues in the record during administrator mccarthy's nomination hearing and i look forward to hearing from her about these in the future. and, finally, hope we can work together to strengthen the partnership between epa and small rural communities in the building and comply with regulations to protect our environment and our citizens. this is an issue upon which republicans and democrats can agree. >> senator, thank you. and finally, senator sessions. >> thank you. senator wicker, i think -- thank you for saying what you said. it was very important. co2 is odorless, tasteless gas we emit when we breathe, and plans great event and grow faster when there's more co2, a fact of which they cannot be denied. we need to differentiate that between the kinds of actual pollutants that make people sick. and we can do that. we've made a lot of progress in america to clean up the air, and we need to keep at it but we need to be smart about it. it's a bit disingenuous when i hear people say carbon, carbon, carbon. and what they really mean is a co2. they use the word carbon and it makes people think of soot and particulates and things of that nature. i think it really misrepresents the issue somewhat. 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 that decision was reversed. i simply asked how much did this cost, how many in the two years that it was undertaken before it was abandoned, how much money was wasted, how much money was spent on that? if i inquired, i have it on several different occasions. i would offer for the record a letter that i wrote and a letter that you wrote to me. a letter that was written by the members of, the republican members of this committee to you asking about an analysis of what you spent. and, in fact, you responded this way. or at least your assistant administrator, janet mccabe, it's difficult for epa to estimate with any meaningful precision the expenses and full-time equivalent employees used for the reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standard specifically. well, it's not difficult for you to answer that question. i think that is a direct refusal to answer. and you said at the hearing here, when i asked you about it, that you would do that. i asked you to provide a response, if you would respond to the question for the record. and you answered, i absolutely will. and you were specifically asked, did epa incur significant costs as part of the ozone reconsideration? if so, how much? and you ignored that question. can you not provide us the information that we ask? that would be a question i will be asking you. i think it's a responsible action for us to ask about, and we will continue to press it. madam chairman, i will wrap up. thank you for the opportunity to ask these questions, and i will share roger wicker's, senator wicker's concern that we are moving money from state programs for clean water and water treatment onto the bureaucracy at epa. i think that's the wrong path to take. >> senator, thank you so much for keeping it under the time limit. and yes, administrator mccarthy, it is your turn. welcome. >> thank you. chairman boxer, ranking member vitter and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the environmental protection agency's proposed fiscal year 2015 budget. i'm joined by agencies acting chief financial officer, maryann froehlich. epa's budget request of $7.890 billion for the 2015 fiscal year starting october 1, 2014 meets the challenges of domestic spending constraints while still fulfilling our mission to protect public health and the environment. the fiscal year 2015 budget reflects epa's plans to take advantage of new technologies and new regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. it recognizes that epa is part of a larger network of environmental partners and states, tribes and communities. this budget will provide the support for a smaller workforce by focusing on real progress in priority areas, in communities, about climate change and air quality, toxic and chemical safety as well as clean water. we are asking for $7.564 million step in fiscal year '15 to help provide green infrastructure technical assistance for up to 100 communities to promote cost-effective approaches for water management. in addition the budget request continues our environmental justice efforts. we will do more to partner with states, tribes and local governments and other federal agencies. funding for state and tribal assistance grants, or stag dollars is once again the largest percentage of the epa budget. addressing the threat from a changing climate is one of the greatest challenges of this and future generations. the request designates $199.5 million of specifically for this work. the agency has added $10 million in 24 ftes in fiscal year 2015 to support the president's climate action plan with $2 million designated for adaptation planning. the agency will focus resources on development of common sense and achievable greenhouse gas standards for power plants. the single largest source of carbon pollution. when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the president's budget provides support fo for the states to hep them intimate the clean air act. the epa budget requests almost $673 million to support work to improve chemical safety for all americans, and especially our children. we are requesting $23 million in -- and 24 ftes in 2015 to support activities under the president's executive order on chemical safety. as well as agency efforts on chemical prioritization, air toxics come of radon in volatile compounds in drinking water. the water resources are the lifeblood of our communities. we are requesting $1.775 billion for the clean water and cooking water state revolving fund. the agency is also directing $8,000,000.10 ftes to advance clean water infrastructure in sustainable design. like the municipal separate storm sewer systems program for technical support to communities. the enterprise is a major joint initiative between epa and the states to modernize our business practices to get us into the 21st century to develop a new business model that looks towards the future. the benefits of implementing that initiative can be seen in the budget. just be the enterprise alone includes annual savings estimated at $75 million for over 160,000 waste handlers. in this. 2015 the agency is requesting $1.33 billion to continue to apply effective approaches for clean up of superfund, leaking under construction thanks and other authorities. this strategy will ensure land is returned to beneficial use. 1.1 6.0 verse is requested for superfund which includes $43.4 million increase for remedial work an increase of $9.2 million for emergency response and removal. the fiscal year 2015 budget includes a total of $1.13 billion in categorical grants. within the total is over $96 million for tribal general assistance program grants. $18 million increase for pollution control, $16 million increase for environmental information grants, and a $50 million increase for state and local air quality management. science is that the foundation of her work at epa, and science is supported on the president's budget request of $537.3 million. lastly, across the administration we recognize the importance of the two-year budget agreement congress reached in december. but the resulting funding levels are not sufficient to expand opportunities to all americans or to really drive the growth of our economy in the way that's needed. for that reason across the federal government the budget also includes a separate fully paid $56 billion initiative that is supporting climate resilience. epa would be the beneficiary of approximately $15 million. chairman boxer, i think you for the opportunity to testify, and i'll take your questions. >> thank you. i'm sorry i kind of rushed you at the end. >> that's all right. >> so i am so taken by some my colleagues comments. and i've such great relationship across the aisle personal relationships, but this idea that the republicans support cracking down on ozone and smog and particulate matter just isn't too. all you have to do is listen to these comments. they are opposed to everything epa does, not just climate. i want to point out and put in the record the endangerment finding started under the bush administration of too much carbon pollution. we know you need a certain amount in the air, but too much is dangerous but this is what it says, and it started with bush and it was completed under obama. climate change threatens human health and well being in many ways, including impact from increased extreme weather events, wildfire, decreased air quality, diseases transmitted by insects, food and water. some of these impacts are already underway, and there are cases of kids swimming in lakes that used to be much colder. now they're warming and there's different kinds of bacteria and in the biz, and one child got a brain disease swimming in a lake in ohio. we'll put all that into the record. there's an endangerment finding for people to sit here and say it's no danger, they simply contradicted by the facts and by science. also want to ask a couple of things here. there's an attempt now to blame all the clean air regulations, blamed them on this road employee who is now in jail. is it not true that any kind of proposed rule goes through public comment, peer review, interagency review, and is subjected to judicial review? is that not so? >> that's true. >> okay. and that is the case with all of these rules. i also want to show you what is happening in california, administrator mccarthy. i think you know this but a want to shape what happened in the clean air with the dirty air. in our state, we just have days where there were health advisories and people could not put out. every time i hear senator in half and others complained about these rules and say, this is baloney, there were no benefits. excuse me, open your eyes. look at what happened in l.a. and in southern california. in 1976, we had 166 advisories. people were warned not to go out. everyone says they care about the elderly, and we all do, this was huge for the elderly population to be able to go out and breathe the air. and now in 2010, guess what? we have zero health advisories. so i would say, administrator mccarthy, are you aware of this in southern california, and are there other places where you could find similar results in the country? >> yes. >> okay. i also wanted to share something else with you, which is again a poll, poll numbers on all this. and this is about climate change where my colleagues are raising against it. that's a fact, they are. we had an all nighter that was organized i senators white house and others, and we did hear from and in all of which i've very grateful he came down, and he railed against what we're doing and said, in other words, it's a hoax and all the rest and we respect him and his views. but no one came down here. this is where people are. people are not with republicans on this. let's just be clear. i am so sorry to have to say this in partisan terms. because i served with the great john chafee. i served with the great john warner. and i saw bipartisan support to move, and i see nothing but now. it's sad. it's sad. and the reasons, i don't even want to go into because i think i know why. at the bottom line is 81% of americans think climate change will be a certain problem if nothing is done to reduce it. so thank you for doing what you do. despite all the pressure, despite all the insults. 75% of americans say the u.s. should take action on climate change even if other nations do less, because they are smart. we don't way for china to decide that a treat our people and our economy and human rights and religious freedom. we do it. we are america. we lead. so the american people get it, and i guess, i do have a lot of questions for you because you will get plenty. i just want to say keep going, keep doing what you're doing, based on the science. and i would ask -- spent thank you, madam chair thank you, madam chair, and thank you, madam administrator. i'm going to my very limited time to asking questions about the john beale case, because i do think this case reflects a deeply broken bureaucracy, long-term. that it's not an isolated incident, and the john beale with his good friend robert brenner were instrumental in developing key epa regulations. isn't it true that you received a memo on january 122011 informing you that beale's salary was illegal, it exceeded the statutory cap? and recommending that bonus be terminated? >> it is true that i became aware of the bonus, yes. >> and isn't it true that you did not cancel that illegal bonus and kill over two years later, february 2013? >> actually what is true is i did pursue that issue effectively, and i think the agency was addressing it effectively. >> but the illegal bonus, you knew it was illegal january 12, 2011 but it was canceled fit your 2013 spent yes, i went ahead and i avoided that. >> you consider that effective? >> it took a while to get to the bottom of the john beale issue because he was a criminal that had systemically intended to fund the agency. but the good news is that he is in federal prison right now having paybacks -- >> but you knew the bonus was illegal and it went on for two years? >> actually i understood that he was being investigated, and i had sent it to the correct people to investigate it. >> okay. lie in early 2011 were you reluctant to finalize, cannot cancel the bonus? why were you reluctant to take action? >> actually i understood that the issue is going to be referred to the office of the inspector general. when that happens, you need to give them the opportunity to investigate it and see if it's going to be managed criminally. i would never want to interfere with an investigation with the office of inspector general. >> now, susan smith has stated quote, gene is reluctant to finalize cancellation of the bonus and less oarm gives her the okay that the white house is aware and it will not be any political fallout, closed quote. is that correct? >> i don't know what you're reading but i don't think i've had -- >> that wasn't enough from susan smith. that was a direct quote from her. >> i have never had a conversation with her so i don't want to speak to her e-mail. >> were you concerned to act until the white house looked into it and make sure they would not be any political fallout? >> i had no interaction with the white house on this issue whatsoever, to the best -- >> that wasn't the question. were you concerned that the white house looked at this first regarding political fallout? >> it was never a concern of mine. >> did you ever talk to scott monroe about that? >> many times. no, sorry, not about the white house. i spoke to him about mr. beale and his bonus. >> the saints is the e-mail says scott monroe told her that you have those concerns. is that just not to? >> i never had concerns about the white house as interference or -- >> so if scott monroe said that he is not speaking directly? >> not based on any conversation he had with me, no. >> fundamentally, why did it take two years to cancel this bonus that was just flat out illegal? the number is about the cat. why did it take two years to cancel that? >> senator, i referred this to the appropriate authorities and we did get to the bottom of it, and we did it, and while it might have taken longer than any of us would have liked, he didn't go off into the sunshine of retirement spent well, he did actually. he was allowed to retire. he did go out in the sunshine of retirement. >> actually i don't know how much sunshine h using right now. >> he was allowed to retire because he was allowed to go to federal prison. >> first he was allowed to retire having gotten $90,000 of bonus illegally after you knew it was about the cap. >> senator, every employee has the right to retirement, and i'm sure he exercised that right. >> now, madam administrator, and you told oig that you relied on craig hooks for advice and that you're advised by craig hooks to stand out on the matter since it was a criminal matter, is that accurate? >> that was my recollection, yes. >> okay. are you aware that on monday, craig hooks told the chairman that he absolutely never told you to stand down? are you aware that? >> i am not aware that, no. >> do you stand by your previous statement that he told you to stand down because it was a criminal matter of? >> i'm sorry, we have to move on. >> any chance for the final question? do you stand by the present statement of yours? >> yes, sure. >> senator whitehouse. >> thanks very much. like me, looks like we'll hear a lot more about a convicted former epa employee that we will have a epa budget in the hearing, so let me ask you, even long expense with epa. is this mr. beale character representative of the employees at epa in terms of work ethic and integrity or any other feature? sure the misconduct that he engaged in find attribution by association to the rest of the employees of epa? is that there? >> i am so glad you asked that question. he is in no way indicative of employees at epa. they are hard-working professionals, dedicated public servants. i have 16,000 people who in no way represent him or anything having to do with them. and, in fact, the most devastating part of all of this is that any indication that that's the case. i'm proud of the people that work in the hc, and i'm extraordinarily honored to be in the position i'm in with them. >> let me say for the record i'm ai epa employees and i don't epa employs over the years. the effort to tar all epa and plays with the misconduct of one criminal i think is reprehensible. let me for the ascii, let's go to the merit of all this. the epa's work. where are you guys on methane leakage? if nothing is burnt it is a dramatic improvement over burning coal from the point of view polluting our environment and oceans with excess carbon dioxide. but if it's not burned, if it just leaks, it's actually worse than carbon dioxide. and so getting after the leaks and making sure that it's not leaking is important because without that natural gas industry can't make its argument that it's actually an improved fossil fuel. it actually loses the battle and suddenly becomes just as bad, perhaps even worse than coal. so the question of methane leakage becomes really vital to the reputation of this industry and to our success at battling climate change. can you let us know where you are on that? we have about two and half minutes. >> it is a big issue and one that we have begun to tackle. you know the epa has already issued rules that are driving the recapture of methane and natural gas wells. we are also working with the larger administration to look at all of the challenges that the administration sees as potential solutions for reducing methane across a number of industry sectors. the president's climate action plan indicated that the ministers would be putting out a methane strategy. you will be seeing that shortly. >> very good. i appreciate it. and i yield back my time. >> thank you so much, senator. sender inhofe. >> thank you, madam chairman. i want to ask three questions real quick and talk fast here. ms. mccarthy come on january 10, 2014 to send a letter to the president of the natural resources defense council to which he detailed several initiatives bp is undertaken led to shale gas, gas development. in this letter you state that epa is continuing to work on its national research study on the potential, potential impacts of hydraulic reduction or drinking water sources but as you know we can call as many things up as potential impacts as we won't. would you commit to meeting, to the extent the state evaluates potential impacts, the epa will work with industry to determine the probability of these potential actions occurring and feature those together with the potential impacts of the report? it's very similar to what you and i actually did successfully not too long ago spent yes. i always have and will make a commitment to work with you on this. >> in the same of you state the epa is working closely with the blm in supporting their efforts on onshore oil and gas order, which is the proposed guidelines for venting and clearing natural gas. can you provide the committee with any data or summaries, procedure there is that the epa said to be olympic debut. my concern is i would like to have industry, and we can talk about how to set this up, evaluate that data that would be going out. would you be willing to get? >> i am quite sure that blm is doing their outrage to industry. we're just providing comment to blm. and as you know -- >> you have data you are giving. i would like to see the date and have an evaluation. i could do that myself. >> it would be data that is already readily available. >> fair enough. ms. mccarthy, the reason i'm introducing, and i think we did it yesterday, 321 legislation, is because i know the epa isn't looking at the cascading impacts of the rules to determine the costs that it will have on the economy. you look every way for the benefits but not for the costs. i want to ask you, do you think that the regulations have a cost on the economy beyond the regulated entity? you know what i'm talking about spent yes. >> looking down the road, what will it be costing all these people. do you agree with that? >> we do the best we can do it by which all costs and benefits, and you will be happy to senator vitter, this is an issue he raised with us, this whole become modeling and we are pursuing that with the science advisory board panel. >> okay. they will be meeting in chapel hill, north carolina, to debate the epa's latest policy assessments. this is the on the ozone standard. it's my understanding that epa staff has recommended a review a stand as low as 60 parts per billion. i can remember during the bush administration it was 80 parts, and then we went down to some 60 parts. behind me you see him out on what would happen if the united states, is the standard were lowered to that level. we're talking 60 parts per billion to nearly every county would be out of attainment, certainly all the counties in my state of oklahoma. if you will notice, even the grand canyon area. if this happened, businesses would not be able to expand. it would essentially close the whole nation for business and result in millions of job losses. do you think lowering the next standard would impose things on it, that are just not acceptable? >> we are in the middle of the sites process. i would rather not speak but in the outcome of the ozone standard. >> i'll give you a hypothetical. if it should come to 60 common i don't think you can refute the accuracy of these charts. would you find that to be unacceptable economically? >> as you know, the standard is established based on size, not on call to relocate cross on the application. >> and this is the problem. do you think that's wise? i've lived with the staffers of years. they said no, we can't talk about the cost of these things. why not? you know, people out there are hurting. descended from new jersey was talking about -- i disagree with them because i think all of these standards in these new regulations are going to cost the poor more than the more affluent people. because they spend a higher percentage of their spendable and, on heating their homes and this type of thing. do you think it's right we should do that? maybe it ought to be looked at and ought to be changed. >> i think it is actually write that a science question that asks what is healthy for all americans should be answered by the science. >> and it should. we're talking about how the exclusion of looking at it speeded we are going to move on. the vote has started. we have to move on. please keep it to five minutes. spent certainly will. real quickly because my colleagues were talking about my possibly mistaking the impact of co2 in the air being good for force and stuff like that but please help me understand, just this new guy on this committee. co2 in the air causes warming, correct? >> that's correct. >> if you have a preponderance of co2 in the air, preponderance of warming, it has effects on the climate, correct? >> it does. >> it affects everything from health of our oceans, coral reef to the fishing patterns that private sector industries of a state like mine in new jersey, correct? >> that is correct. >> in fact when you were talking to issues of respiratory health, when the air gets warmer, i seen it. again a just a guy who is new on committee but i have a lot of experience in public schools and when the temperatures warm, you have a lot more cases of respiratory problems including things like asthma, right? >> scientist would agree with you. >> there's a direct correlation between too much co2 and respiratory problems and destruction of fisheries and destruction of economy and sea levels rising. >> that's correct. >> thank you. the other thing i would like to ask is when epa issues proposed carbon pollution stand for assisting power plant later this year due countably states that are not participating in reggie's will be able to use that to me turn it obligations? >> we think that regional approaches could be quite profitable and were going to make sure that the standard is flexible enough for states to consider those choices. >> i think those are phenomenal things but i guess my point of the question is, if new jersey fails to rejoin the regional work on this, what types of actions would new jersey likely need to take in order to comply with the new regulations? >> we haven't put out the new regulations but they will have to look at other opportunities for greenhouse gas reductions that are as cost-effectiv cost s they can be. having participate in the ridge and -- reggie process is a pretty cost effective program to achieve significant reduction. >> in other words, it's an easy way for new jersey to meet these new precautions by being part of our surrounding states. we have a lot more burden if we're not part of that, and a lot more level to hit in order to comply. >> based on information i have, it shortly would be a good choice. >> and then lastly, i know that you and epa have a tremendous amount on your plate right now but 30 years is simply too long to wait. can i have your commitment that finalizing and releasing for public comment the pending ffs and proposed remedy for the lower eight miles of the river will be a priority? it's another thing where my colleague is rightly concerned about poor and disadvantaged people in a city when you see what happens when we allow pollutants to enter rivers like that, poor people suffer because no folks were wanted years ago when they couldn't get through to go to the river and fish and enjoy the fruit and the bounty of the river. that's been taken away by corporations that pollute our river. this is a big priority for the whole region running through -- >> as it should be. you should rest assured that i've already had two briefings because of my great regional administer, if i don't put us and she will drive me crazy. that's official. and i look forward to talking to you about it but we will get that spin you should give her a raise but obviously -- spent i can't make that commitment. >> with the people who just joined us, we will have to end of this when there's four minutes left to vote. i think we can hear from two of our senators. senator wicker spent i would be happy to reside over this hearing if you would like to go. >> thank you for the offer. i'll take it under advisement. >> thank you so much. >> don't you want to vote? >> administrator mccarthy, i'm going to vote when the chair votes. somehow i believe the president of the senate is going to wait for senator boxer to vote. senator booker is from newark, new jersey. sometimes it's 10 degrees in newark. sometimes it's 85 or 90 degrees. a wide range of temperatures in newark. is it your testimony, let's see temperatures have risen by 1.5 degrees. let's just stipulate that they've risen, the average temperature in new jersey has risen by 1.5 degrees over the last two decades because of climate change. are you telling me that there's scientific evidence that that fact causes more lung disease among children? >> well, senator, to really properly look at climate change, we look generally at three decades or longer spent three decades? >> information we know is that climate change is happening. one of the lines of evidence of that is increased temperature. it is rising. >> but no, in the brief time you have to answer the question, my question is, the center's line of questioning is that increases in the average temperature cause more lung disease among children. and is that supported by the science of? >> what the science tells us is when the temperature gets warmer, it increases the level of ozone and that ozone pollution is actually has an impact on respiratory health, as well as cardiac health spent okay. i would be interested in your supplying to the committee any scientific basis for the statement that increased average temperatures actually increase respiratory disease among children. >> i'm happy to do that. >> if you would supply that. >> you can find it on our webpage. >> let me just ask you briefly then, madam administrator, if i can talk about their grant money. >> yes. >> and again, this is something we ought to be able to agree on, that many -- money i to go where the problem is. there's a decades old epa allocation formula that gives the southeast region 12%. when actually we have 20% of the nation's population. how can epa continue to develop strict new rules and standards while at the same time limiting access to resources for the states to get their fair share of? >> senator, we've actually been proposing to change that formula and to allocate resources differently, given the changes that have happened over the past decade on population. we certainly feel that there is a need for change. we were just looking to do that over a period of time. congress is actually provided language in our budget that does not allow us to do that last year. we will see what happens in fiscal year '15. >> okay. was this a writer to an appropriation bill or was this a statute? >> it's a congressional report act language that's prohibited epa from implementing the revised allocation methodology. they've done that since fiscal year 11 when we first proposed it spent finally, i would like to work with you on that problem, madam administrator. let's talk about helping local governments implement the upgrades required to wastewater treatment facilities, more stringent water regulations. a significant, pervasive problem has been that many counts don't have the tax base. you and i have talked about this. they don't have the tax base to meet the cost of upgrading their wastewater systems. however, not acting results in harsh fines imposed by bp. in your nomination and i asked several questions regarding the clean water and drinking -- clean water and drinking water state revolving funds, and you said you would work with me on that. i'm just concerned that we don't have a proposal going forward and as a matter of fact, we are now seeing a proposal from epa and from the administration to cut this by $581 million to the state revolving fund. >> i'm sorry, we have to move on if we're going to hear from her to college. we'll go next to senator fischer. >> does the witness get to answer the question? >> she does not at this point. .. >> on the innovations that could possibly lessen our dependence on coal. we have an example here for you regarding regional haze. we have a nebraska utility which is les, the city of lincoln. it owns a little more than 10% of the coal-fired power plant in wyoming, the laramie river station. the wyoming department of environmental quality prooazed plan to address regional haze that would require technology costing approximately $100 million, and so the nebraska utility shares in about $10 million. the e be pa reswrected -- the epa rejected the wyoming deq plan and substituted its own plan that requires technology at a cost of $800 million which then is about $80 million for the city of lincoln, the les utility that would have to provide that. there would be a very small improvement in visibility, but this difference is going to deprive this nebraska utility of moving forward on their investments in wind which they have and in solar, in energy dirt city. you know -- energy efficiency. you know, we're talking a fairly small city, the city of lincoln. it's large for nebraska, small nationally. that's just one example. so i believe that that's replicated across the country though. you know, les is a leader in looking at renewables. the citizens in the city of lincoln want to move forward in that direction, but polls have shown they are not willing to pay for it. and i think that is also replicated across the country. the costs that are incurred sometime and especially when they have to meet requirements from the epa. finish what are your feelings on that? do you, do you see that policy moving forward with epa? are you going to try and, you know, reach out more to help utilityies be responsible in their coal-fired plants but also to move forward? >> senator, we're doing the best we cannot just to reach out to the utilities to understand what their business plans are moving forward and how we can keep the lights on and keep it reliable, but we're also working very closely with the states on these regional haze issues. we understand that there are important environmental benefits, but they have to be looked at in the context of how much they cost and what they do in terms of moving the clean energy system forward. so if we need to work more closely together, we're person willing to do that. -- we're more than willing to do that. >> thank you. we hear about the war on coal, and you hear about that as well. [laughter] is there war on coal? you know, a lot of people in nebraska think there is because we have those coal-fired plants, and do you think it's fair to say maybe the epa has somewhat of a war on coal so that we can lessen our dependence upon coal in this country? >> senator, i don't think that that's fair to say. what we're trying to do is our job, to protect public health by reducing pollution from some of the largest sources of -- >> okay. and i have a few seconds left. i am very concerned about the water rules. >> yes. >> that are coming out from epa. water is a state resource this in n. i believe -- in nebraska. i believe we manage it in a very responsible way. i hope that you will have a long period there. would you commit to a long period for comments, 180 days? >> we'll have to do that answer for the record. >> thank you, madam chair. >> and also, senator boozman, we'll put your questions and get those into the record as well. >> yes, ma'am. >> and the last four minutes, senator barrasso. >> i ask unanimous consent my entire statement -- >> without objection, absolutely. >> thank you. andy v. is epa, a resident faces $75,000 in daily fines for his pond. so i want to ask you about the epa's specific web site for the new proposed waters of the u.s. rule. >> yes. >> the epa has a section entitled fact sheet, how the proposed rules benefits agriculture. the site states the army corps exempt 53 farming practices as established by the natural resource conservation services. which means that any farmer or rancher who used those 53 practices in a newly-expanded federally-covered water would be exempt. this list, however, of 53 does not cover all existing agriculture practices. there are a number of farming and ranching practices that aren't covered on the list that occur every day without penalty. under the new proposed rule, will those farmers and ranchers need to get a permit or find that they're penalized if they continue to use those noncovered 53 practices and newly federally-covered waters under this proposed new rule? >> actually, senator, it's not taking away any of the agriculture exemptions. what it's trying to do is provide clarity so you don't have to go and ask. that's what this rule does. it actually worked with the agricultural community to identify those practices that we could highlight. it even set up a really good process to expand on that, but it didn't take away a single agriculture exemption that currently exists. >> so what about the farmers and ranchers who use these 53 new covered practices -- >> yes. >> -- but the farmers and ranchers don't specifically follow the natural resource conservation service's federal definition of these farming practices, you know, perfectly, to a t in the newly-expanded federal waters. would they need to get new clean water act permit -- >> nobody needs to get a permit be today or under this rule should it go forward as proposed that didn't need it today. >> we heard a previous senator ask the question specifically about would you expand to 180 days the comment period, and her time ran out. would you like to comment on that and -- >> actually, i can certainly respond to the senator. i don't believe that that's what we're currently proposing, but as always, if people comment, we'll respond to that. >> thank you. well, i would request it as well. and, senator boozman, i'm on the last minute and a half if you have a specific question that you would like to ask. go right ahead, please. >> the only thing i'd like to do, madam chair s ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter that is signed by every minority member requesting that the agency provide all documents relating to epa's proposal to cut funding for the clean water and -- >> sure. without objection to. >> thank you, madam chair. >> absolutely. i want to thank both senators for your cooperation. i'm going to put in the record this statement by the academy of pediatrics, american academy. quote: heat caused by climate disruption is especially harmful to children, and i think, administrator, if you could send that to senator wicker. and lastly, i must put in the record in response to senator vitter's attack on you, administrator mccarthy, on john biel, page 26 of the committee's briefing where the ig said you were the first person and the only senior person to call attention to this rogue employee, and i want to again thank you. i'm really sorry that you've been vilified by certain members. it's -- you should be lauded as the ig lauded you. and also to point out that, you know, in an organization of 15,000, 16,000 people whether it's public, private, it's military, you're going to have some outliers. you're going to have some bad actors. but the vast majority of all these people in the private sector, in the public sector, in the epa, in the military are fantastic. so let's just try not to brush everybody with the ugliness of a john biel, and i thank you for doing what you did to call attention to -- >> thank you, senator. i'm incredibly proud of the folks that work at epa. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> well, you have to remember two things, i think. first, we're there because we were attacked in new york city and 3,000 americans were murdered. that's why we went to afghanistan, to get those people who were killing us. and second, president obama has said there's a limit to this. within two years, we're not doing it anymore. so i agree with you, julie, at some point you have to let them do it. but in our, our first goal if we get away from the afghans, etc., and look at what our first goal was, if i had told you or any of the listeners in 2001 that we would not be attacked again in the united states of america for the next decade, none of, you know, none of us would have believed that. because at that point al-qaeda had more of the advantage. now we really have al-qaeda and the terrorists definitely on the defensive. and so we can at this point get out most of our forces from afghanistan. so i agree with you. but we've been successful in what we really wanted to do as a country, and that is to protect ourselves. >> vietnam vet, assistant defense secretary during the reagan administration, analyst and author bing west will take your questions "in depth" live for three hours sunday on c-span2's booktv. >> the secretary of the air force, deborah lee james, says one of her goals is to recruit and retain quality female members. she says current data reveals that women at the mid point in their careers are leaving the air force at a higher rate than men. she gave these comments during an address to the women in international security organization last week in washington d.c. she spoke for about an hour. [applause] >> >> thank you, and, indeed, i think this is the first of many events that we will do together. i think we're natural parking lotter ins -- partners, women in international security and the be harvard women in defense, diplomacy and development. just maybe a few words about w.i.s.e., w.i.s.e. was created in the '80s and has the mission to support and promote women in the international peace and security field, broadly defined. we are an international membership organization composed of both women and men. w.i.s.e. actually welcomes men in its midst. we have a presence in some 47 different countries, and also we have active chapters here in the united states, particularly in massachusetts, new york, florida and california. we're engaged in three main activities. one is research, the second is capacity building and leadership training, and the third is professional development, outreach and networking. and for more on w.i.s.e., i refer you to our web site, wiseglobal.org. now, today we are at the end of women's history month which celebrates the struggles and is achievements of american women. but in the president's proclamation declaring march women's history month, he also called upon us to celebrate the women who make progress today. and i think our speaker of today certainly does that. i think she's an example and role model for many, and i would also like to add a personal thanks to her for the support that she has given women in international security over time. she became the 23rd secretary of the air force in december 2013 and is only the second woman in that job. she is responsible for more than 290,000 active duty guard/reserve civilian airmen and women as well as their family. she oversees an annual budget of around 110 -- i understand you're currently in discussions about that. [laughter] operations of 5,500 aircraft, 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles and 63 satellites. she heads up the air force at a difficult time for the force, but i think that her experience and and her expertise pick her particularly -- make her particularly well equipped to head up the air force at a time when it is facing many challenges. challenges that have to do with people and personnel, but also challenges that have to do with technology and the changing nature of warfare and the use of the military instrument. she's very well equipped. she started out her career as a congressional staffer working on defense issues from 1993 til 1998 she was assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs. and then spent ten years in the private sector, most recently as the president of saic, the science applications international corporation. today she will address the role of women in national security, tell us a little bit about the our force plans with respect to the implementation of the 2011 u.s. national action plan on women, peace and security. she will tell us a little bit about women, the integration of women in combat units and also share her personal story. so please join he in welcoming secretary deborah james. she will speak for about 20 minutes, and then we'll take q&a. of thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, chantal, thank you, and i only call chantal chantal and that way i don't have to practice her beautiful last name. [laughter] no, it really is a treat for me to be here, and i do very much appreciate the invitation and just snuck under the wire as we are concluding women's history month. so very glad to be here in the last, in the last few days of that month. and i'm told and i look around the room that there are people here that really represent various sectors of government and nonprofits as well as the private sector all with the threat of national security -- all with the thread of national security connecting us together. and be as you heard, i've been very pleased and privileged in my life to have had some of each of those in my background. plus you heard i've been involved with w.i.s.e. through the years, so it's especially a pleasure for me to be able to spend some time with you this afternoon. but as chantal said, the real honor of my lifetime came in lace december when i was -- in late december when i was sworn in as the 23rd secretary of the air force which is a huge privilege, i will tell you. i've never worked harder than i'm working now in my life, but what a privilege it is to serve alongside, actually, 690,000. we've been growing, chantal, 690,000 men and women who represent the active duty, the national guard, the reserve and our civilian work force. you talk about our families which, to me, are also part of our total force, the numbers are even higher than that. so it's a tremendous privilege to be part of that team, and i have been getting out and about quite a bit on my first three months because i am now three months on the job. i have been both to a variety of the states and the military bases here in the united states. i think i'm up to 18 bases in 13 states over the three month period, and last week i did have the opportunity to go into afghanistan. i saw about four bases if afghanistan where our air force is serving on the front be lines as well as some of the air bases that we have in some of the middle eastern countries. so i was in the uae, i was if kuwait and qatar -- i was in kuwait and qatar. but basically it was a trip where i got to see the five core missions of our air force in action on the front lines and in quite austere environments. and just as a reminder, the five core functions, the five things that our air force brings to the table are, number one, we are in charge of air and space superiority, controlling the skies and controlling space for purposes of peace and for purposes of advancing our u.s. and allied interests. we're in charge of command and control, so this is the fusing of information from a variety of sources, bringing that information together and being able to push it out to decision makers so that they can, in fact, make informed decisions. we're in charge of global strike which represents our icbm, our intercontinental ballistic missile community as well as our bomber force both conventional and strategic nuclear. we're in charge of isr, that's surveillance, reconnaissance, intelligence; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, i should say. so this is a variety of ways that we get situational awareness, that we can see from the skies and from space and provide information on what is happening in the world, what is happening on the battlefield in particular. and then we also are in charge of mobility. so the army needs the air force to get wherever it's going, and the cargo that must be transported. this, too, comes from the air force. so anyhow, i got to see all of this happening overseas. i also was reminded and learned myself when i took over that the contributions of the air force also touch our civilian lives in ways that we might not necessarily even know. it's almost imagine you can sometimes, the way these things happen. for example, when you're if many your car and you're using -- in your car and you're using your map application to get from point a to point b, that actually is dependent upon global positioning satellites that are flown and maintained by the u.s. air force. be not to mention the timing aspect of gps that allows your cable box to tune in your morning news in the morning as you're, you know, having your cup of coffee and trying to catch up on world events. so all of this pertains to the air force, and what an impressive air force it is. i'm a huge fan. i've certainly been one throughout my entire career, but, boy, to now be with part of it is very, very special for me. so as chantal mentioned, today i wanted to talk to you a little bit about people in our national security. i'm going to zero in particularly on women and particularly women in our air force. i'm going to talk about the uniform side mostly today. i'm a real people person, by the way, so i have learned over the course of my 30-plus years sometimes it's been in government, sometimes it's opinion in the private sector, but -- been in the private sector, but no matter what you're talking about, even when you're talking about technology and r&d and weapons system, you're still talking about people. so i'm a real people perp. i think that's pretty much the crux of anything, any problem that we're addressing, my solution that we need to find, it always comes down to people. so i want to talk about the part of our people that are women in our air force. give you a brief update on where we are in the air force with respect to opening up additional jobs to women. that's part of the so-called combat integration that the secretary of defense ordered, secretary panetta, before he departed. opening up those additional jobs is one part of the puzzle, but it doesn't solve all of the issues for women, so i'd like to talk to you about some other challenges that our women are facing and what i'm going to try to bring to the table to try to work on that area. and after that just because i am a people person and i always like to hear stories, i wanted to tell you some of my, part of my story and some of the lessons that i've learned in my life that have helped me throughout both as an individual contributor and as a leader as i've gone along. and then lastly, i would like to open it up and let's hear what's on your minds and have a q&a period. so as i mentioned, when i returned from afghanistan last week, i was just so impressed with the professionalism and the dedication of our young airmen at all levels from pilots flying combat air patrols to maintainers who have to fix all of equipment to the logistics personnel which are hugely important to make sure that we have the spare parts and the supply line and how do we get the fuel where it needs to be. all of this is so important. these are largely young people. they are largely between the ages of 18 and 25 who are doing this work. and this tremendous combat power that they hold this their hands on behalf of the united states. so let's talk about combat power, and let's talk about integrating women into the force in a fuller capacity. but before that, let's go back in time a little bit. so i'm going to start with year 1993 where the department of defense lifted the ban on women flying in combat positions, opening up over 2,000 cockpits to women. and i'm both old enough and proud enough to tell you that i was actually there in 1993. this is when i was assistant secretary of defense. less aspen was our secretary of defense be at the time, so i was kind of part of his, i'll say, inner circle at the time. and this was not an easy thing to achieve. by the way, other portions ohmed up a-- positions opened up across the services, but not everybody was fully onboard, so there was a certain amount of socialization of the idea. it didn't go as far as some people wanted, farther than others cared for it to go. but the way we dud it in '93 with aspen at the helm was what the traffic would bear at the time. anyway, i was very proud to be part of that, and that effort did open up thousands of different jobs to women in our air force, particularly the flying force. that same year, dr. sheila biddal became the first secretary of the air force who was a woman and really the first female service secretary in any of the services. so i'm number two. that is to say the army has never had a female service secretary, nor has navy. so there's still more to do. since that time women have served honorably and have proven that they can pretty much do any job where they are qualified, where they're trained. they can do it, and they can excel. and then in january of 2013 the sec-def rescinded what is called the 994 direct combat exclusion for women. and that has different effects on different military services, right? he told all of us open up those jobs, get it done within a certain time frame, and if there's a select few that for some reason you think you can't open up, come back. but the presumption is these jobs need to open up over time. now, for the air force -- as some of you may know -- we were already leading the pack in terms of integration of women. we pretty much today have 99% of our available positions open to women. so put that another way, there's currently about 4,400 jobs that are not open to women. so the vast majority are already open to, but there are still some that are closed. the ones that are closed are in the areas of some special operations forces and some positions that serve with army and marine ground combat forces. so we do have certain air force jobs that are on the ground with the ground forces. so basically, we're currently working on an implementation plan to validate gender-neutral job performance standards, and we're working closely with the other services in the office of secretary of defense to get this done. so it would be my expectation that these remaining positions of which there's seven career codes, seven career fields will be open to women no later than january 1, 2016. and, again, we will have some gender-neutral standards so that doesn't mean that all women would wish to or could compete for these jobs. but those who would be qualified to do so and wish to do so, these jobs should be opening up. now, opening up jobs to a wider group of skilled and qualified people, as far as i'm concerned, maximizes our military capabilities, because after all, it provides the greatest available pool possible from which to choose from. so it makes good national security sense. it especially makes good national security sense since we are going to be looking at a smaller military in the future. and it's crucial that we have highly qualified, very smart and effective people in our jobs. so this is really, as far as i'm concerned, a strategic imper the tiff. imperative. and we have come a long way. and that's good news. of course, there's more to go. but the real goal is for the ip collusion of women -- inclusion of women in national security roles not to be some program that we talk about the program over here and we update it periodically. eventually, i don't want it to be any kind of a program, i want it to be just the way we operate, the way that we are and how we do business. and women should be expected, by the way, not just in the entry-level positions in these various jobs, but i also, my vision is for an air force in which we have women represented at all levels appropriately within these roles. but, of course, there's challenges to creating this kind of an inclusive organization. i just talked about one, we've got to open up the remaining jobs. but there's some others. so let me tell you what i think actually may be the toughest nut of all to crack more women serving in the our force. and by the way, women in the air force today comprise about 19% overall of our force which is the highest of any service. but again, percentages of women and opening up jobs, this isn't the whole story the. so here's what i think we need to do going forward. this is the toughest nut to crack, i think. several nuts. some are more tough than others. first, we need to recruit high quality women into our force to begin with. that's both on the officer side, and it's on the enlisted side. and i think we're doing pretty well. my assessment is we're doing pretty well on that today. i've been both out to the air force academy which is the number one, i'll call it premier way we get new officers into our force. there's other ways as well, but i've been out there, i've reviewed their programs. and i've also been out to lackland air force base to see how we bring our new enlisted members into the force. so we're getting pretty good numbers. the numbers could, they could be higher, but we're doing pretty well. that's my assessment when it comes to get being people in the front door. but when we get them in the front door, we also need to develop them properly. so that means we have to get them over time the right opportunities for command, command is very, very important in the military, we have to make sure at the appropriate gates they get the right joint assignments. again, that's a very important thing if our -- in our military. they have to periodically go for professional military education at different gates in their career. again, these are all important be things. there are others, but developing our women and make sure that they get those opportunities so that when it comes time for promotion, they promote well and that they compete well for promotion. so once again, i think we're doing fairly well in this category, developing our women in the early years. in the early years. where we start to run into problems is not so much in the early years, where we start to run into problems is in, i'll call it, the mid-career time for our women in the military. and this is particularly true when it comes to retention. so there's where i think the toughest nut of all is to crack, it's retention in that mid-career area. in fact, women in this middle ground period if life attrit at twice the rate of men, and this is true across the air force in all kind of job categories. so women are getting out at twice the rate men are when they reach that mid-career point. so not only is this a challenge for us because our numbers are kind of down at that mid-career point, but as you can imagine as you work your way up through the ranks, the pool of available women to compete for those higher level jobs is smaller and smaller and smaller. and so it has a ripple effect which leads us to not having, at least i think, the right number of women, as many as i'd like to see, in the upper echelons as well. and as you know, it takes years to grow military officers and to grow seasoned ncos. it just doesn't happen overnight. so i think that's really it. i think it's retention this that mid-career if we can crack that, we will have, we will have done a good day's work, as they say. so why do women leave? why do women leave at that mid career field? so we do exit surveys. let me tell you the top reasons women leave. compatibility with their spouse's career. remember, military moves people around a lot. so we can't always send our military couples to the same location, and there are, there are separations that occur. personal suckers. could be -- circumstances. could be children, could be a parent who needs care. that's the number two reason why women leave. the number of deployments. you know, we're coming out of 13, 14 years of persistent war, of persistent operations, and women have been fully engaged with that, and they, too, have been deployed. so that's the third reason. these are really the top three reasons why women leave us. and as i look around the room, we have a lot of civilian women here. i'm a civilian woman myself. do any of these sound familiar, right? trying to balance, essentially, your professional life with your personal life. and in the military, you add in those deployments which for the most part we don't see as much at least in the civilian world. and be before you know it, it becomes a very difficult thing to balance. so i think we need to get creative here. we need to get creative to try to come up with some solutions and try some different things. so as an example, i recently approved what we're calling the career intermission pilot program. i actually first heard about this when i was serving on the defense advisory committee on women in the services. so i did that for about three years, and i learned about a navy program which has some similarities to this. so we just approved this pilot program in the air force. it allows active component airmen to take up to a three-year break, but without losing their place in line, so to speak, for promotion opportunities. and then return to active duty. you can do whatever you would wish in this three-year period. you could pursue an educational degree, you could care for family members, you could do it for other personal reasons. and i want to make clear this is open to all airmen, not just women. but we will see in this pilot program whether or not we get quite a few women who apply. by the way, this won't be open to the entire force. this will be a certain number of people, and once we reach our numbers, we will shut this down. again, it's a pilot program, but i'm sort of standing back and watching to see whether or not a good deal, a good many women apply and take advantage of this. because this is the type of example where a little on the creative side thanks to our navy, friends in the navy. we came up with this idea. but it's a way to see whether we can do better when it comes to keeping more women in the force. another way to do it is try if women are leaving the active duty is try very hard to recruit them into our national guard and reserve. so we have a number of initiatives ongoing here. but basically, i think this is the toughest nut, and it's one that i want to try to work on hard over the next several years. okay. let me now shift a little bit and tell you a little bit about me and our chief of staff, mark welsh, is fond of saying every airman has a story. so i'm a new airman, and i would love to share just a little bit of my story with you. so for me, it all started in a little town called rumson, new jersey. i am a jersey girl. my mom is 89 years old and ailing, so i totally sympathize and empathize with all of us who are at that stage of life where we have to reverse roles and now care for parents who are getting old and need a lot of support. anyway, i started out in new jersey. i went right off to college and from college right into graduate school. so i went to duke university and then on to columbia university for a master's degree. and my background in school was international affairs. that's actually what i got my degree in. and when i left columbia, i moved down to washington, d.c., and i started applying for jobs. and the first job i landed was through a program called the presidential management internal program. it still exists today, although i think it's called the presidential management fellowship program, i think. yeah, i'm seeing head nods. back in the stone ages when i went through it, it was called the pmi program. and by first job was with the department of the army. so i started out as an army civilian. but the great thing about the pmi program is you could rotate to other organizations. the idea was to give a broad view of government. so i did some time in the army, but i also had a time to go to what we used to call the national security council staff. it's knockout the nss -- it's now the nss, not the nsc. but i actually spent about six months in the reagan white house on the nsc staff. and you can imagine as a young person, that was very exciting. and i also had about a six month stint where i went to the house armed services committee staff. and i worked on the military personnel and compensation subcommittee as an intern. well, as luck would have it for me, i left and went back to the army, and the house armed services committee staff within months had a real opening for a real job. and because i had been an intern and is because they knew me and liked me and i was young and trainable and so forth, they offered this new job to me. and it was an entry-level job, and that's what launched me on what became a ten-year career on the house armed services committee. for the most part, focusing on people issues, military personnel and compensation. from there i went to the pentagon where i did five years as the assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, so here we go again with the national guard and reserve forces. i became deeply ingrained in the issues that affect our national guard and reserve. all of the issues, but in particular people. remember what i said, it all comes down to people, in my opinion. finish and then i got out of government, had done 17 years at that point. i got out and went into the private sector. and i actually had three jobs in the private sector. started out with united technologies corporation, did a couple years there. i went on to the business executives for national security which is a nonprofit organization. and then i went to saic which is science applications international. had a variety of jobs there ending as being the president of the technical and engineering sector. so i was actually running a segment of our business there at saic. saic does i.t. solutions and technology services and solutions for the government, mostly the military. of so you see the thread that has always linked my career together has always been military issues. it's our national defense. i have always been a civilian, never served in uniform be, always been a civilian in support of defense, but i've served as well, is the way i look at it, including my time in industry. because industry, we can't get our work done in government without our industry partners. so i look back on my career, i'm very, very blessed to have done all the things and met the people and learned all that i've learned, and i'm very blessed to be doing what i'm doing now. but along the way i have developed -- by the way, i like late night comedians. you watch letterman and kimmel, okay. so i usually dvr it, because i can't stay up that late. but, of course, i like the top ten. so i have to have a top ten list. i have my top ten lessons that i have learned in my life, and i've learned some of these the hard way and some of them the not-so-hard way, but they've served me pretty well both as an individual contributor, a leader, they've served me well as a mother and, you know, members of my family. so i want to offer these to you because there might be some nuggets in there that would be helpful to you in your lives and if your career. so the first lesson i learned is i call it be prepared to zigzag in your life. if you haven't already been thrown a curveball or two in your life, i'm pretty sure you will be. i've been thrown, actually, many curveballs. i've been thrown curveballs professionally as well as personally. and you have to be prepared to pivot. you have to be prepared to dig stag. whatever your -- zigzag. whatever your original idea of what you want to do or the track you think you ought to take, it may not work out that way. so be prepared to seize whatever that new opportunity is, and if one door closes, keep in mind another door will open. and it's, ultimately, what you will make out of it. i've changed jobs, i've been in government, i've been out of government. saic, i was there 11 years, i think i had seven different jobs at saic. some were very welcomed. others i got caught up in downsizing shifts. some i liked, some were rather distressing to me at the time they happened, but the point is, be prepared to zigzag. it's not necessarily the way you think it's going to be, but that doesn't mean that it can't be great. my second lesson is seek a mentor. seek a mentor and do this no matter where you are in your career. and then when you get to the point in your career where you've had enough experience,a mentor to somebody else. so men or to haveship has been huge -- mentorship has been huge for me, huge. and you need to help one another throughout the process as well. i have never been many in a formal mentorship process. people say, yeah, my company or my organization doesn't have a mentorship program, or i applied for it s and i didn't get in it, so i'm shut out. no, you're not. all of mine have been informal arrangements. so i would really recommend anybody who has been there, done it, has knowledge that you don't yet have or contacts and open doors for you, seek that person out. you'dsurpriseed how willing -- you'd be surprised how willing most people are to sit down and have coffee and give you some advice. and that's really what mentorship is all about. number three is build and value a network both inside your current organization and outside your current organization. and for heaven sakes, as you build and value this network, value means keep in touch p with them regularly. in other words, don't just call them up every ten years when you're about to need a job or some kind of a favor or something like that. you've got to build and value and keep in touch over time. my network is really i consider all of my network my friends. i really do. all the friends i have in life. most of the friends i have in life i have met in different jobs over time. my very first boss when i was an intern on the house armed services committee staff was a great mentor to me. i'm giving you one example. and i kept in touch with him even as we went our separate ways, and we always had lunch come hell or high water every year so we kept in touch. and would you believe 20 years later after i was an intern and he had long since gone, he is the one who during an annual lunch introduced me to the company of saic and introduced me to an opportunity at saic. that's the power of keeping in touch with people. not only will you learn from them, but they will introduce you to people, introduce you to opportunities. so seek a mentor and then build and value those mentors into your greater network and keep in touch with people as you go forward. my fourth lesson learned the is the importance of competition, build competence in whatever you're doing. that might mean getting an extra degree in your field of study. it might mean just, you know, as you pivot and zigzag in your career, it's on-the-job training, it's volunteering maybe for extra activities if you can. so it can be education training, or it can be on-the-job training, but be sure you are competent if what you're doing. terribly, terribly important because that network can help open doors. if you don't perform on the job, you're not going to last very long. number five is the importance of communication. communicate, communicate, communicate. i know you've heard this before. but i'm going to the el you that this -- tell you that in my opinion at least half, if not more than half of communication is listening, be an active and good listener. you will learn a lot, you will better be able to put yourself in other people's shoes, meaning, you know, empathize with their position, what they're going through as well as learn from them. so communicate, that's written, that's verbal, and it's very important to be an active listener as you go through your career. number six is be a role model for the way you want others to behave be. and that means on the job. and, by the way, it means off duty as well as far as i'm concerned. this is particularly important the higher up you go because the higher up you go people will recognize you in your profession. they will, you know, be watching you. they'll be watching your movements and how you talk to people and how you conduct yourself in your private life. so always keep that in mind. and in the air force, we have what we call our core values; integrity, service and excellence. i think those are pretty good core values really no matter what

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , New York , United States , Qatar , North Carolina , Texas , Afghanistan , China , Rhode Island , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , California , Columbus , Ohio , Virginia , Oregon , Michigan , Chapel Hill , Washington , West Virginia , Oklahoma , New Jersey , Nebraska , Atlantic City , Idaho , Massachusetts , Wyoming , Pennsylvania , Newark , Jersey , Kuwait , Americans , America , Afghans , American , Robert Brenner , Gina Mccarthy , Deborah Lee James , John Biel , John Chafee , John Beale , Susan Smith , Scott Monroe , John Warner , Deborah James , Chantal , Maryann Froehlich ,