[Senate Hearing 109-1080]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1080
NOMINATIONS OF ROGER ROMULUS MARTELLA JR., BISHOP WILLIAM H. GRAVES,
AND
ALEX BEEHLER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 13, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-641 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
September 13, 2006
OPENING STATEMENTS
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 3
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana,
prepared statement............................................. 17
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 9
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 2
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey, prepared statement..................................... 18
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph, U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut, prepared statement................................ 18
Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois...... 15
WITNESSES
Beehler, Alex, Nominee for Inspector General of the Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 32
Senator Inhofe........................................... 27
Senator Jeffords......................................... 31
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 31
Senator Lieberman........................................ 30
Graves, Bishop William H., Nominee for Member of the Board of
Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority.................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Response to an additional question from Senator Jeffords.... 25
Martella, Roger Romulus, Jr., Nominee for Assistant
Administrator, Office of the General Counsel of the
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 20
Senator Jeffords......................................... 20
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 24
Senator Obama............................................ 22
NOMINATIONS OF ROGER ROMULUS MARTELLA JR., BISHOP WILLIAM H. GRAVES,
AND ALEX BEEHLER
----------
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:15
a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James M.
Inhofe (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Boxer, Carper, Obama,
Alexander.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. We will now convene the hearing of the
nominees. We are going to hear from the three nominees this
morning. First will be Roger Martella, who has been nominated
to be the EPA General Counsel. Mr. Martella currently serves as
Principal Deputy General Counsel of the EPA. Prior to joining
the EPA he worked at the Department of Justice, Environment and
Natural Resource Division.
We will also hear from Alex Beehler, who has been nominated
to be the EPA Inspector General. Mr. Beehler is currently with
the Department of Defense serving as the Assistant Deputy under
Secretary of Defense for Environment, Safety, and Occupational
Health. He was also a trial attorney with the Department of
Justice for ten years. Let me just say that Mr. Beehler is very
qualified for this position, and I look forward to having an
Inspector General that will carry out his duties without
political bias.
Last but certainly not least we will hear from William
Graves, who has been nominated to be a member of the board of
directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He is the 42nd
Bishop of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. Bishop
Graves serves as vice chairman of the Board of Commissioners of
Memphis Light and Gas and Water, TVA's largest customer. Bishop
Graves is nominated to fill the 9th and final slot on the newly
organized TVA Board. I look forward to hearing them.
I understand that Senator Jeffords has an opening
statement, and Senator Alexander, if you would like to come up
here to be recognized, you will be after Senator Jeffords.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Senator James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from
the State of Oklahoma
We are going to hear from 3 nominees this morning. First will be
Roger Martella, who has been nominated to be the EPA General Counsel.
Mr. Martella currently serves as Principal Deputy General Counsel of
the EPA. Prior to joining EPA, he worked for the Department of
Justice's (DOJ's) Environment and Natural Resources Division for 7
years, leaving as Principal Counsel for Complex Litigation. He has a
substantial background as an environmental attorney and will make an
excellent addition to EPA.
We will then hear from Alex Beehler, who has been nominated to be
the EPA Inspector General. Mr. Beehler is currently with the Department
of Defense, serving as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Environment, Safety and Occupational Health. He was also a Trial
Attorney with DOJ for ten years. Let me just say that Mr. Beehler is
very qualified for this position, and I look forward to having an
Inspector General that will a carry out his duties without political
bias.
Last, but certainly not lease, we will hear from William Graves,
who has been nominated to be a Member of the Board of the Tennessee
Valley Authority. He is the 42nd Bishop of the Christian Methodist
Episcopal Church. Bishop Graves served as Vice-Chairman of the Board of
Commissioners of Memphis Light Gas & Water, TVA's largest customer.
Bishop Graves is nominated to fill the 9th and final slot on the newly
reorganized TVA board.
I look forward to hearing from each of you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
all of the nominees here this morning for their commitment to
public service. Two of our nominees will face great challenges
at the EPA.
Mr. Martella, nominated for the position of General
Counsel, you will be the primary legal advisor through the
Administrator.
I want to commend these individuals and wish them well. You
will be responsible for evaluating every issue the Agency must
tackle, and I hope your evaluation will always make the health
and the safety of the public and the environment your top
priority. You will play a political role in making sure that
the EPA's legal decisions are based on the laws that Congress
enacted.
In recent years, many of the EPA's legal decisions have
been highly questionable and have not survived court review. I
hope you will address that issue before this Committee.
Mr. Beehler, you have some big shoes to fill. Your
predecessor, Niki Tinsley, performed a great service at the EPA
and the citizens of this country. She epitomized what was
envisioned when the Office of the Inspector General was created
in 1978 by providing independent and impartial analysis. The
Inspector General provides a great service to the public. You
will be the eyes and the ears for the public within the Agency,
and that responsibility is not to be taken lightly. You have
been closely involved in some controversial proposals at the
Department of Defense. I look forward to examining your record
in that regard.
Bishop Graves, if confirmed you will join several other new
TVA Board members confirmed earlier this year. In my view, your
main responsibility is to ensure that TVA continues to provide
its core product, electric power, competitively, efficiently,
and reliably. But I also feel that the TVA needs to set a
standard of public responsibility in the areas of environmental
and fiscal performance. The TVA should be a model for the
country in the area of cleaner and carbon-free power
generation.
I look forward to hearing from all of you and learning how
you will respond to these challenges if confirmed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Senator James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from
the State of Vermont
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank all of the nominees
here this morning for their commitment to public service.
Two of our nominees will face great challenges at the EPA.
Mr. Martella, nominated for the position of General Counsel, you
will be the primary legal advisor to the Administrator. You will be
responsible for evaluating every issue the Agency must tackle. I hope
your evaluation will always make the health and safety of the public
and the environment your top priority.
You play a critical role in making sure that the EPA's legal
decisions are based on the laws that Congress has enacted. In recent
years, many of the EPA's legal decisions have been highly questionable
and have not survived court review. I hope you will address that issue
before this committee.
And Mr. Beehler, you have some big shoes to fill. Your predecessor,
Nicki Tinsley, performed a great service to the EPA and the citizens of
this country. She epitomized what was envisioned when the Office of the
Inspector General was created in 1978, by providing independent and
impartial analysis.
The Inspector General provides a great service to the public. You
will be the eyes and ears for the public within the Agency and that
responsibility is not to be taken lightly. You have been closely
involved in some controversial proposals at the Department of Defense.
I look forward to examining your record in that regard.
Mr. Graves, if confirmed, you will join several other new TVA Board
Members confirmed earlier this year. In my view, your main
responsibility is to ensure that the TVA continues to provide its core
product--electric power--competitively, efficiently and reliably.
But I also feel that the TVA needs to set a standard for public
responsibility in the areas of environmental and fiscal performance.
The TVA should be a model for the country in the area of cleaner and
carbon-free power generation.
I look forward to hearing from all of you and learning how you will
respond to these challenges if confirmed.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
Senator Alexander, thank you for joining us.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
your courtesy in allowing me to be a part of the Committee.
It is my privilege to be here today to speak in support of
one of Tennessee's most distinguished citizens who has been
nominated by President Bush for the Board of the Tennessee
Valley Authority. Bishop William Graves is from Memphis. He is
well known in our State and in the entire mid-south region.
First, he has plenty of experience in the job that he has
been nominated to take, because over the last ten years he has
been a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Memphis
Light, Gas and Water Company, which is the Tennessee Valley
Authority's largest customer. So if he should be confirmed,
Bishop Graves would be one of two members of the TVA Board with
experience with distributors of TVA's power.
Secondly, as the Chairman said, Bishop Graves is the 42nd
bishop of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. He was
elected to that position in 1982. He served pastorates in
Georgia, which is one of the States served by TVA, and Indiana
and Wisconsin and California. He has represented the CME church
in the World Methodist Conference on several occasions. He is
the immediate past president of the board of directors of the
National Congress of Black Churches, and currently presides
over the First Episcopal District, with headquarters and
residence in Memphis.
Mr. Chairman, Bishop Graves' nomination by the President
represents two important milestones. First, Bishop Graves will
be the first Memphis citizen ever to serve on the Tennessee
Valley Authority Board, and since Memphis is the largest
customer of TVA's electricity, that is especially appropriate.
Second, Bishop Graves will be the first African American member
of the Tennessee Valley Authority Board. He is a distinguished
citizen, and on behalf of Senator Frist and myself we welcome
him.
If I may just add to Senator Jeffords' comment, I too hope
that the Tennessee Valley Authority with the new board--Mr.
Chairman, you and Senator Jeffords can remember that we
confirmed several of them just a while ago--they are off to a
terrific beginning. They are a very good board. They are doing
exactly what a modern governance structure of an $7 billion a
year company ought to do. They are developing a strategic plan.
TVA is becoming a national leader in the production of
carbon-free energy by reopening a nuclear power plant, which is
on time, on schedule. Nuclear power, of course, produces 70
percent of our carbon-free energy in the country, and TVA as a
Federal Agency is taking the lead in doing that, so I salute
that, Mr. Chairman, and I applaud this nomination as I know all
Tennesseeans do.
[The prepared statement of Senator Alexander follows:]
Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator from
the State of Tennessee
Mr. Chairman, members of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to be here today to speak in
support of the nomination of Bishop William Graves to serve as a
Director on the Board of the Tennessee Valley Authority. I'm honored to
be here today to introduce one of Tennessee's most distinguished
citizens who have been nominated by President Bush for the board of the
Tennessee Valley Authority. Bishop William Graves is from Memphis. He's
well known in our state and in the entire mid-south region.
First, he has plenty of experience in the job that he's been
nominated to take, because over the last ten years, he's been a member
of the board of commissioners of the Memphis Light Gas and Water
company, which is the Tennessee Valley Authority's largest customer. If
confirmed, Bishop Graves would be one of two members of the TVA Board
with experience as distributors of TVA's power.
William Graves is the 42nd Bishop of the Christian Methodist
Episcopal Church. He was elected to this position at the 1982. He has
served pastorates in Georgia--which is one of the states served by
TVA--Indiana, Wisconsin, and California. He has represented the
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church in the World Methodist Conference
on several occasions. He is the immediate past president of the board
of directors of the National Congress of Black Churches and currently
presides over the First Episcopal District, with headquarters and
residence in Memphis, Tennessee.
Mr. Chairman, Bishop Graves' nomination by the President represents
two important milestones. First, Bishop Graves will be the first
Memphis citizen ever to serve on the Tennessee Valley Authority Board,
and since Memphis is the largest customer of TVA's electricity, that's
especially appropriate. And second, Bishop Graves will be the first
African-American member of the Tennessee Valley Authority Board.
He is a distinguished citizen, and on behalf of Senator Frist and
myself, we welcome him.
The new TVA Board is off to a terrific beginning. They're a very
good board. They are doing exactly what a modern governance structure
of a $7 billion-a-year company ought to do. They're developing a
strategic plan. TVA is becoming a national leader in the production of
carbon-free electricity by reopening a nuclear power plant. Nuclear
power, of course, produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity in
the country and TVA, as the Federal Agency, is taking the lead in doing
that. So I salute that, Mr. Chairman, and I applaud this nomination, as
I know all Tennesseans do.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Alexander, for that
excellent statement.
We will now hear from our witnesses. We will start with
you, Mr. Martella. We would like to ask you to confine your
opening statements to five minutes. Your entire statement will
be made a part of the record.
Mr. Martella.
STATEMENT OF ROGER ROMULUS MARTELLA, JR., NOMINEE FOR ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF THE GENEARL COUNSEL OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Martella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords,
and members of the Committee. Thank you for providing me with
this opportunity and the honor to appear before you today.
At the outset, I respectfully would like to introduce my
wife behind me, Ann, and my children, Eva Angelina and Santino.
And, for the record, I would like to recognize our third child
who is on the way and due in January.
I am also joined by my parents behind my wife, Roger and
Mary Ann Martella, who are small business owners, who continue
to run their Italian corner bakery after some 30 years. Next to
them are my in-laws, John and Gayl Worthington, who are retired
public school teachers from Battle Creek, Michigan, and made
the journey to be here today.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, well behind me are a number of young
men and women who are homeschool students from Virginia and
also members of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, who are here both
to show support to me and to observe this important Senate
process of advice and consent on the President's nominations.
Mr. Chairman, I feel an extraordinary honor at being asked
by the President and the Administrator to lead EPA's attorneys
in support of the Agency's mission to accelerate environmental
protection while maintaining economic competitiveness. For
almost a year, as the acting General Counsel and as the
Principal Deputy General Counsel, I have had the good fortune
to work shoulder to shoulder with the talented staff at what
is, in effect, the Nation's strongest environmental law
practice. The work that our office performs every day raises
important and cutting edge issues critical to the Agency's
overriding mission, and I am fortunate that I have members of
the General Counsel staff, several of whom are here today to
show support to me, behind me.
If confirmed as General Counsel, I would bring to the post
my perspective as an environmentalist, my attorney skills
developed as counsel to both the Federal Government and the
private sector on complex environmental issues, and the unique
breadth of perspective of how our Federal decisions affect
local Governments.
First, I am a passionate advocate for the environment. As
the father of a young and growing family, I think constantly
about the ramifications of decisions on my children, their
young friends, and all their future families, and believe our
decisions today must give equal time to protecting their legacy
tomorrow.
At the same time, I also wish a strong and viable economy
for my children. Environmental decisions should not be made
without regard to their economic and social consequences and
should be crafted to conserve our Nation's economic
competitiveness while protecting the environment. When I return
home to my parents' bakery and to a now struggling industrial
town built by entrepreneurial immigrants, I reflect on the
impact of our decisions on American small businesses, in
particular. I feel strongly that good Government demands that
we avoid doing harm to this backbone of our Nation's economy,
while at the same time promoting the health of our environment.
I have no doubt that these two goals can be mutually
achievable.
Second, as an attorney I am a passionate advocate for my
clients, in this case EPA. During my seven years at the Justice
Department I took pride in maintaining an unbroken record of
successfully litigating all the cases I took to court, which
largely defended important Agency decisions and regulations.
But I am also proud that, where feasible, I sought to resolve
many cases in a way that not only resulted in a win for the
Government but also addressed the interests of all stakeholders
to the dispute. Ironically, it frequently takes a lawyer to
suggest to parties that litigation is not the best solution and
to facilitate a negotiated compromise that supports the
interests of all stakeholders to the fullest extent possible.
My experience has taught me that solving a problem through
consensus has the added benefit of strengthening long-term
relationships and avoiding future disputes. At EPA, I have
worked to expand the use of environmental conflict resolution
tools to address complex environmental disputes across the
Nation.
Finally, as a citizen who, during almost my entire career
has played an active role in civic service at a local level, I
appreciate firsthand the importance of working together with
local, State, and tribal Governments, as well as other
stakeholders, to achieve environmental results. I am fortunate
to have the opportunity to apply my skills at the local level,
including as an elected member of the Warrenton, VA Town
Council and formerly as a member of a committee that brought
together farmers, utilities, and the Government to help
preserve my county's agricultural heritage. I constantly
reflect upon this local public service when I am at work at
EPA. Having this local perspective reminds me of how decisions
by the Federal Government have real and significant impacts on
people in communities far flung from Washington.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I
respectfully would request that my full statement be submitted
as part of the record, and I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Martella.
Bishop Graves.
STATEMENT OF BISHOP WILLIAM H. GRAVES, NOMINEE FOR MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Bishop Graves. Good morning. I am honored to be here today
as one of President Bush's nominees to the Board of the
Tennessee Valley Authority. I would like to thank Senator
Frist, Senator Alexander, and my own Congressman, Harold Ford,
Jr.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today, sir, but may I also add
I am scared.
[Laughter.]
Bishop Graves. May I present my wife, who joins me, Donna
Graves, and one of our daughters, Mira, who is sitting behind
me.
Senator Inhofe. Which one is the wife and which one is the
daughter?
Bishop Graves. My wife, my daughter. I hope I am able to go
back home after that, Mr. Chairman.
I was born in Brownsville, TN, the eighth of nine children,
in the depths of the Great Depression. My family moved to
Detroit when I was young, but I frequently returned, visiting
relatives and friends. After completion of high school, I
returned for my college years at Lane College in Jackson,
Tennessee.
I understand what TVA has meant to the people of Tennessee
Valley from the years of economic struggle to the present day.
As a resident of the Tennessee Valley, I would consider it a
great honor and humbling challenge to serve on the Board of
TVA, if confirmed.
My background as a pastor and as bishop of the Christian
Methodist Episcopal Church gives me a profound appreciation for
TVA's mission of service to the 8.6 million people in the
Valley. It is a mission based on making life better, improving
our communities, and supporting our families as they live and
work in concert with God's natural world. It is a worthy
mission, indeed, and I will use all of my faculties, my
strength, and the power that is in me to consider the
challenges facing TVA and make sound and careful
determinations.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to also tell you that I had the
opportunity to hear about your concern during the last
confirmation hearing about the proper financial management of
agencies like TVA. I want to assure you that if I am confirmed
I will work hard to make sure that the TVA Board and employees
manage our resources wisely and ethically.
Based on my work, my life experience, and my knowledge of
TVA, I believe I can make a valuable contribution to the Board
of the Tennessee Valley Authority if you choose to confirm me.
Throughout my professional life I have worked with people from
all walks of life. As a board member of Memphis Light, Gas and
Water, TVA's largest single customer, I learned much about the
challenges facing TVA as a power provider keeping pace with the
exuberant growth of our region's economy.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to
answering any question you may have for me.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Bishop Graves. I am very
familiar with your hometown. My daughter received her Ph.D from
Memphis State University, and I have had a lot of barbecue
there.
Mr. Beehler.
STATEMENT OF ALEX BEEHLER, NOMINEE FOR INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Beehler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Senator
Jeffords, members of the Committee, thank you for providing me
with the opportunity to appear before you today.
I would like to recognize my wife, Stephanie Beehler, who
is seated three to the left of me.
It is a great honor and privilege to be here today as the
nominee to be Inspector General of the Environmental Protection
Agency. In my current and previous positions involving
environmental law and policy, my vision has been to seek
environmental improvement.
If I am confirmed, I pledge to you that I will do
everything in my power to work with the dedicated, expert staff
in the Office of the Inspector General to provide the Agency,
Congress, and the American people an independent, objective
review of EPA programs. I will work to prevent and detect
fraud, waste, and abuse, and to provide the leadership to
promote effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in program
administration. Each is an important component in assisting the
Agency's mission of protecting human health and safeguarding
the environment, and I pledge to work with the Committee and
its staff in carrying out our shared goal of environmental
protection and improvement.
During my 28 years of professional experience in
Washington, DC, I have had the privilege to spend 17 of those
years engaged in environmental law enforcement and policy
positions from several different perspectives. I have served as
a special assistant to the Associate Administrator for Legal
and Enforcement Counsel at EPA, as a Federal environmental
prosecutor for the Department of Justice, as an environmental
regulatory advisor to a major corporation, as the top
environmental policy official at two non-profit organizations,
and currently as a senior environmental official at the
Department of Defense.
These opportunities plus positions on the Senate Judiciary
Committee and in private litigation practice have provided me
with a wide range of legal, investigative, and Government
experience that have prepared me to perform the critical role
of helping protect human health and the environment as
Inspector General of the EPA.
While at the Department of Justice, I was lead attorney on
many CERCLA cost recovery cases requiring the substantive
review of financial and audit records. One case in particular,
the Picillo Superfund Site in Rhode Island, involved the court
appointment of a special master solely to address all
accounting matters and the judicial rendering of one of the
most comprehensive examinations of CERCLA cost recovery issues
to date.
My non-profit work afforded me the opportunity to devise
and implement environmental policy strategies focused on
environmental improvement, where substantive results were
defined, measured, and emphasized.
In my current capacity at the Department of Defense, I
continue to stress results over process by pushing for putting
facts on the table and collecting the best available data and
science in a holistic, integrated manner for all of the
Department's operations, from design to disposal.
I have proactively pursued building trust with interested
parties to encourage sharing of the issues and information
leading to solutions and environmental improvement. If
confirmed, I would continue the same truth-seeking approach as
Inspector General, with independence and integrity. I would
ferret out problems and target areas for improvement through
proactively seeking knowledge from other internal EPA offices,
from other Federal agencies and components, from State
agencies, and from non-Government sources and entities. I would
provide leadership through breadth of vision, while drawing
upon the considerable expertise of staff for depth and
execution.
Throughout my career and life I have strived to use
responsibilities entrusted in me to make things better. Through
independent and measured thinking, sound judgment and common
sense, respect for the rule of law with the highest ethical
standards. My goal is to lead by example and learn from others.
I hope to have that opportunity as EPA's Inspector General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I ask
that my entire written statement be made part of the record. I
would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Beehler. Of course, all
statements will be made part of the record.
We have two required questions or questions that have
required answers I would like to ask each one of you and I
would like to have you respond audibly for the record.
Are you willing to appear at the request of any duly
constituted committee of Congress as a witness?
Mr. Martella. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Bishop Graves. Yes, sir.
Mr. Beehler. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Secondly, do you know of any
matters which you may or may not have thus far disclosed which
might place you in any conflict of interest if you are
confirmed for this position?
Mr. Martella. No, Mr. Chairman.
Bishop Graves. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Beehler. No, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
It is my understanding that Senator Boxer would like to
make an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Well, since I missed that turn, I will be
happy to wait until you finish your questions, and then if I
could take five minutes for an opening and five minutes for
questions that would be great.
Senator Inhofe. That would be fine.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. That would be fine.
First of all, Senator Alexander, since you are here,
anything you'd like to comment on or ask of any of the
witnesses, particularly Bishop Graves?
Senator Alexander. That is a great courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
I don't think so. Bishop Graves and I have had a chance to
talk. I know him well, know his experience. As I mentioned, he
will go on the TVA Board as the most experienced member in
terms of having direct experience on a day-to-day basis with
the distributor. My hope, Mr. Chairman, with this new Board,
which is a diverse board from all across the region, is that
they have a chance to spend a year or two looking carefully at
TVA and developing a strategic plan, and then coming back to
this Committee and other Members of the Congress who have
jurisdiction and letting us know the direction that you go. So
I thank you for your courtesy, but I think I will not have
questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
Senator Jeffords. I have no questions.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
Mr. Martella, in my office we discussed this and we have
had some hearings, as you know, in the last couple hearings
over how the various regions vary from one another in terms of
things that they are involved in, the roles they play. I would
ask you what role this position, if confirmed, you would be
able to do to help us, recognizing that there are some
differences from region to region, but certainly not the
differences that would justify the behavior of some of these
regions relative to each other.
Mr. Martella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question.
As you know, I share your concern and I believe that ensuring
national consistency with EPA headquarters and our ten regional
offices should be a goal of the Agency. At the same time, you
and I agree there needs to be some flexibility. Senator
Murkowski and I have talked about flexibility involving
situations in Alaska, for example.
Even as Deputy General Counsel I have taken a proactive
role in working towards national consistency with headquarters
and our regional offices. For example, I have worked very
proactively with high-level headquarters officials and high-
level regional officials towards developing a list of
nationally significant projects and issues. The idea would be
if an item is flagged as nationally significant there would be
headquarters coordination to ensure that we were taking
consistent positions across the Nation. I also rely Mr.
Chairman, on my regional counsels in each of our ten regional
offices to keep me informed and ensure that headquarters has a
role in ensuring consistency in positions across the Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Mr. Beehler, you and I also talked about this, the grants
management and the problems. There has been criticism for the
last ten years. And then, most recently, in the last three
years we have been trying to set up a system where we have
daylight and we know what types of grants are out there and who
has access to them. What would be your role in grants
management?
Mr. Beehler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
Grants management at EPA is one of the most important
activities that the Agency does, consuming almost half of their
annual budget. If I am confirmed, I certainly will make the
careful review of grants management one of my top priorities
and would work with you, Mr. Chairman, the other Senators on
the Committee, and the respective staff to seek out any
questions and concerns that you may have, either on specific
grants or on the general grant management program, as well, and
then take that back and give it careful review throughout the
Office of Inspector General to make sure that the grants
management program is the most effective and efficient it can
be, given the resources at hand.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Beehler.
Bishop Graves, you know, we had a hearing and I think we
had six nominees that were confirmed to the TVA on the
restructuring of this board not too long ago, and it was called
to attention in my State of Oklahoma we have what some people
refer to as the Little TVA. It is called the Grand River Dam
Authority. There has been a lot of ethical problems there, and
so that made me most interested in the history of the TVA and
some of the problems that were there, so I ask you the same
question I asked the other six prior to their confirmation.
What steps would you take to ensure that you don't slip back--
not you, individually, but the board does not slip back into
some of the problems it had in the past?
Bishop Graves. Would you repeat the question?
Senator Inhofe. The ethical problems of the past of the
board, what steps can you take to ensure that we don't revert
back to some of those problems as a member of the board?
Bishop Graves. Well, first thing I would do, Mr. Chairman
is make sure that I understand the past and compare, and would
use all my abilities to check out and to do whatever research
and use my best judgment to keep and raise high ethical
standards.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. I have no doubt about that, and I have
felt we concentrated most of the last hearing of those nominees
up for confirmation to some of the problems of the past and how
we can avoid those in the future, so I am very pleased, as is
Senator Alexander, with this new formation and look forward to
many years of relating with you.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. I am hoping I can have
ten minutes now, because----
Senator Inhofe. You can have 10 minutes if you want 10
minutes. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I do.
Senator Inhofe. Of course.
Senator Boxer. I do.
First of all let me say to the Bishop and to Mr. Martella I
will be supporting you and I think your nominations are most
appropriate. I have some questions about Mr. Beehler, so the
two of you can breathe a sigh of relief.
I will make my comments.
Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about the Office of the
Inspector General in the various departments of Government. I
mean, it is very clear to me that the Inspector General should
be an advocate for the mission of the Agency and not come to
the job with a record of really working in many ways to weaken
environmental enforcement, so I want to talk about my concerns,
Mr. Beehler, and of course give you an opportunity to respond,
but I'm going to wait for the chairman.
I was saying that to me an Inspector General who is someone
that Members can rely on from both sides of the aisle to look
at their work to ensure that the mission is being accomplished
by the Agency in which they are assigned, and the object to me
is to ensure that EPA, its employees, and actions remain free
of waste, fraud, and abuse, any person nominated I believe must
be impartial, must be independent, and I just look at Mr.
Beehler has a very successful record in his life and I applaud
that but I don't see it meshing with this job, so I'm going to
talk to you about that.
I know that you have been closely involved in efforts by
the Department of Defense to obtain exemptions from
environmental statutes, and what is disturbing to me is already
in the law there is a broad exemption granted. If ever there is
a problem with national security the DoD can come to us and can
act, so there is no impediment, but yet still what we've seen
lately is a DoD that keeps trying to win exemptions from
specific environmental statutes. That is disturbing to me
because, as Inspector General, you know, since you've done
that, I just don't think--and maybe I'm wrong again--that you
would have a deep-seated belief that these statutes should be
defended.
You were in the key DoD position when the Department
delayed stronger standards for perchlorate, for
trichloroethylene, if I've said it right. We know that those
contaminations exist on hundreds of sites, of DoD sites. And
you left the Department of Justice to work as director of
environmental compliance at Koch Industries, which had recently
paid record fines for environmental violations and was facing
criminal environmental charges.
While at Koch, you helped to steer money to organizations
that routinely seek to weaken our environmental laws. So I just
have a problem. I mean, you might be great in some other
position, but I see in this particular job the need for a
principled environmental steward, independent, impartial, and I
just unfortunately don't see it. I see a nomination of an
individual with close tie to the very industries that you will
be charged to oversee. I think we need an independent EPA IG
who will stand up to political pressures, give us the plain
truth about EPA and environmental issues.
So, with the time I have remaining, I would like to ask you
about the issue of perchlorate, which is a very deep-seated
issue in my State and in others. It is a widespread contaminant
that could cause damage, mental and physical. It is especially
lethal to pregnant women.
On March 20, 2006, a California Federal court agreed with
the Natural Resources Defense Council that the Department of
Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Environmental Protection Agency have improperly withheld a
number of documents that describe perchlorate contamination
health effects and cleanup methods and costs. For example, the
court ruled that DoD had improperly withheld ``a draft
memorandum concerning perchlorate treatment technologies for
DoD facilities in California.''
An Inspector General must be an advocate for openness, but
not someone who supports keeping the public in the dark. The
public has a right to know. I mean, that is the beauty of this
greatest country in the world here. We let the public know. We
don't lie to them. We don't hide things. And when we do, we are
not advancing the cause of freedom or democracy. So I am very
concerned, while at DoD did you advise or consent to withhold
any information that the Federal Court recently ruled was
improperly withheld from the public?
Mr. Beehler. No, Senator, I did not.
Senator Boxer. So you had nothing to do with what they did
on the perchlorate issue?
Mr. Beehler. Concerning the withholding of documents or
providing documents?
Senator Boxer. Well, what was your position on the cleanup
of perchlorate?
Mr. Beehler. Senator, my position when I came in, I helped
establish the first program office that the Department of
Defense had concerning emerging contaminants to help work in a
cooperative fashion, in a very open fashion, with other Federal
and State regulators to address such issues of concern as
perchlorate, TCE, and the other chemicals that you mentioned.
To date, my office and the services in response to this office
and initiative have worked very closely with the State of
California to set up a sampling protocol at over 1,000 sites
where perchlorate may have been present to put a sampling
priority for perchlorate at those sites and to implement it
with the maximum amount of coordination, review - -
Senator Boxer. Okay, so thank you. Do you disagree with the
court's decision then to find against the Department of Defense
that you didn't, in fact, do this, what you are saying you did?
Do you think they were incorrect, the correct was wrong?
Mr. Beehler. Senator, I am not in a legal position at the
Department of Defense and I do not have general knowledge of
the particulars of the court's decision.
Senator Boxer. Okay. Did you ever agree to provide or
directly provide or were you aware that people were providing
third parties who advocate for DoD contractors with information
on the perchlorate issue?
Mr. Beehler. Would you repeat the question please?
Senator Boxer. Sure. Did you ever agree to provide or
directly provide third parties who advocate for DoD contractors
with information? In other words, did you agree to share that
information with third parties?
Mr. Beehler. Concerning this lawsuit?
Senator Boxer. Perchlorate, concerning perchlorate.
Mr. Beehler. We certainly have shared any information that
we have obtained from the data sampling efforts with the State
regulators, and I believe that is public information.
Senator Boxer. Okay, but not with third parties?
Mr. Beehler. I really do not have knowledge one way or the
other about that.
Senator Boxer. Okay. I would like you to go back and----
Mr. Beehler. Senator, I would be happy to take----
Senator Boxer. Because I don't want to give you a question
that you are--so if you could go back, because the court held
that that is exactly what happened, that the public didn't get
the information but yet the private contractors did get it. So
if you could go back and let us know on that one.
Mr. Beehler. I would be happy to, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
[The requested information was not submitted in time for
print.]
Senator Boxer. TCE is an industrial cleaning agent that we
know causes cancer and other health effects. TCE contaminates
at least 323 Superfund sites. A 2003 DoD document notes the
Department has 1,400 TCE contaminated sites across the country.
In 2001, the EPA issued a draft risk assessment that found TCE
can cause cancer, damage the human nervous and immune system,
and children are especially vulnerable. In December, 2002,
EPA's Science Board called their risk assessment ground-
breaking work, particularly in analyzing the risk to children.
In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences concluded that
evidence of carcinogenic risk and other health hazards from TCE
has strengthened since 2001.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the White House
developed a working group which included DoD officials to fight
EPA's efforts to increase protections against perchlorate, and
this works State and business to fight the TCE risk assessment.
Did you agree with the decision to have DoD continue to
participate in this working group?
Mr. Beehler. Senator, the only working group that I am
aware of is one that is ongoing, working with EPA and other
Federal agencies to seek out the best available science and
actually have requested that the National Academy of Science
provide such information.
Senator Boxer. Okay. So did you participate in the working
group?
Mr. Beehler. No, Senator, I did not.
Senator Boxer. So you were never part of it and you didn't
know about it?
Mr. Beehler. Well, Senator, as I've answered, the only
group that I am aware of is the one that I have described. I am
not aware of what the one that has been characterized in the
news article.
Senator Boxer. I'm sorry. Which one did you describe?
Mr. Beehler. I described the one that is ongoing right now.
It is at a staff level with several Federal agencies, including
EPA. It is on an ongoing basis to look at TCE and seek out the
best available science, and therefore has approached the
National Academy of Sciences.
Senator Boxer. Well, don't you think there has already been
ground-breaking work on TCE? You are still looking for more
science? I mean, there has been ground-breaking work on TCE,
but you think there needs to be more science?
Mr. Beehler. Well, in fact, Senator, during this time
around 2002 EPA's own Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development openly questioned the conclusions of some of the
draft work conducted by----
Senator Boxer. Okay. So the National Academy of Sciences in
2006 concluded that evidence of carcinogenic risk and other
hazardous from exposure from TCE strengthened since 2001, and
you want more science?
Mr. Beehler. Well, Senator, my understanding is it is a two
step process, and TCE--the National Academy of Sciences is in
the second phase of that.
Senator Boxer. Okay. Well, it sounds like you are in the
working group but you don't define it the same way the L.A.
Times does, so I will write to you and see if we can get this
better explained, because you are in a group that is looking
for better science, and yet the scientists have already said
that TCE is a problem. A USA Today article said, on DoD's
efforts to stall regulations on perchlorate and TCE, quotes you
as saying the military ``diving into the science is one small
but appropriate way for DoD to be a responsible player in these
debates.'' I would only just say, you know, I look at DoD in
this case, I mean, as trying to challenge the science. I think
you are saying you are diving into it when EPA made these
landmark findings.
I am troubled by it, Mr. Chairman, and I don't question Mr.
Beehler's integrity as a human being at all or fault his
career, but I just don't see how his career thus far gets him
ready for this important task.
I thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Obama.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Obama. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to
all who have been nominated I congratulate you for being in
this position.
I am going to just focus my questions to Mr. Martella, and
I want to focus on a public health issue that is not of your
making but you will not have line responsibility for and I am
frustrated about, so don't take this personally, but I want to
talk to you about blood poisoning among children.
During my short time in the Senate, a major focus of my
work in this Committee has been to improve our Government's
efforts to protect children from lead poisoning. I notice you
just passed some water backwards so, as I suspect, you've got a
couple. One is really excited by this hearing, by the way.
Mr. Martella. That is a good thing.
Senator Obama. Yes, exactly. I've got two children about
the same age, so I think you will share with me the concern
about this issue.
The CDC estimates that 400,000 children under the age of
five have elevated levels of lead in their blood. The
consequences of this poison are all too well understood:
learning disabilities, speech delays, hyperactivity, seizures.
The majority of the research indicates that the damage, once
done, is irreversible. My home State of Illinois has the
unfortunate distinction of having the highest number of lead
poisoning children in the Nation.
The source of most child lead poisoning is no mystery; it
is the lead paint in old houses. A number of my colleagues and
I have pressed the EPA in the past as to what is being done to
protect against poisoning by lead and paint. Last year, I put a
hold on an EPA nomination and even threatened EPA funding in
order to get some action by the Agency in this regard. As a
result, EPA issued a draft rule last December to address lead
removal during home renovation and repairs. That was progress.
That was a good start. I have been disturbed to hear from
outside groups, however, that this rule may not be finalized
until December of 2007.
Now, I know obviously you are relatively new to EPA. That
is why I said don't take this personally. But part of your job,
I think, is to understand sort of the statutory mandates that
the EPA has and to develop this rule that, by the way,
originally was enacted in 1992. It is now a decade later, so we
have been waiting 14 years for these rules, which is, frankly,
ridiculous. So recently Senator Boxer, Congressman Waxman, and
I wrote two letters to Administrator Johnson asking a very
simple question: when will this rule be finalized? We have not
yet received an answer to our question and I just think the
delay is unacceptable.
You are being nominated for General Counsel of the EPA. You
will be in charge of complying with statutory mandates. I have
no doubt that you will want to do a good job. I've got to just
as you a very simple question: when is the lead renovation rule
to be finalized?
Mr. Martella. Senator Obama, I appreciate your question. I
understand your concerns, as you recognize with my own young
and growing family, and I will also share with you something,
which is that we have made the decision to live in a house
built in the 1920s.
Senator Obama. So you've got a personal concern.
Mr. Martella. We have a very personal concern.
Senator Obama. Keep them away from the paint chips.
Mr. Martella. And we do. We take very strong precautions.
So this is an issue that is also something that I acutely want
to focus on if confirmed as General Counsel, and I appreciate
the fact you recognize that the specific concerns you raise are
not something I have had a role in.
But what I can tell you is that if I am confirmed as
General Counsel my role will be to work and put forward all the
legal resources we have at our disposal to help the program
finalize this rule and finalize protections against lead and do
what I can from the Office of General Counsel and the legal
issues to support the Agency's efforts to address this very
serious issue.
Senator Obama. That is the response I wanted to hear, and I
appreciate that. I am going to take you at your word that you
are going to work diligently on this, and I just want to make
clear my attitude that waiting for more than another year is
unacceptable. From my perspective, this has been dragging on
for 14 years. It is time to just go ahead and get this done.
And so my office is going to be working diligently, and I
would actually like, in the interim between this hearing and
your confirmation, for you to take the initiative to get more
answers from your colleagues who are currently working on these
rules and get back to my office to find out how soon these
actual rules are going to be released. If you already are
knowledgeable about that, then I would like you to tell me
either in--it sounds like at this point you are not exactly
sure what the status is. Am I correct about that?
Mr. Martella. Senator, I'm not sure of the status of the
rules. I do understand, I believe, our program office, which
has immediate control over the rules, is meeting with your
staff in the near future.
Senator Obama. Okay.
Mr. Martella. But I will follow up on your request and go
back and try to get more information.
Senator Obama. Yes. I just think you are here in front of
me now. I expect to support your confirmation, but prior to the
actual vote taking place I would like to get a sense that you
are following up on this issue.
Mr. Martella. Thank you.
Senator Obama. All right.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Obama.
I thank all of our nominees for taking the time to be here
today. We look forward to your service. We will be having our
confirmation before too long.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:03 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Statement of Senator Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from
the State of Montana
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this business meeting to
consider several important pieces of legislation and nominations. I
congratulate all of the nominees--Mr. Martella, Mr. Graves, and Mr.
Beehler. Thank your for your willingness to serve.
Many issues face us today. But I would like to focus on Mr.
Beehler's nomination to be the Inspector General at the EPA and the
bipartisan Good Samaritan legislation before us.
Mr. Beehler, countless times I have sat at this dais and told
stories about Libby, Montana. I've told the Story of Les Skramstad, the
miner in Libby. When the news of the contamination in Libby broke, Les
told me that he would be watching me to make sure that I kept my
promises to help the community. I consider Les my good friend. It broke
my heart to hear just the other day that he had to be hospitalized due
to his asbestos related illnesses.
I've told the story of Mel and Leehra (L-E-E-R-A) Parker. Mel and
Leehra had to abandon their tree nursery on the banks of the Kootenai
River, because their property was so contaminated. Only weeks ago, the
Parkers found more asbestos on their property in an area that was
supposed to have been remediated.
Mr. Beehler, the story I would very much like to tell one day is
the story of EPA getting the job in Libby done right. That is why last
month in a letter to the Office of the Inspector General, I requested a
review of EPA's work in Libby. I want to make sure that the EPA has the
necessary data to develop a baseline risk assessment and exposure
criteria for tremolite asbestos. Mr. Beehler, the town of Libby does
not need a rubber stamp. They need an advocate who will examine EPA's
work with an objective eye to make sure that this tragedy is not
prolonged.
Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to take a moment to comment on the Good
Samaritan legislation before us. I'd like to try to allay some of the
concerns that I've heard about this bill. Let me state what this bill
is not. It's not a substitute for the Superfund program. In fact this
legislation prohibits issuing Good Samaritan permits to remediate sites
on the Superfund National Priorities List.
This bill is also not a loophole to protect polluters. Any person
who had a role in the creation of the pollution is not eligible for a
permit. If a person is liable under any Federal, State, tribal, or
local law for the remediation of the site, then that person is not
eligible for a Good Samaritan permit.
Neither is this bill a re-mining bill. A Good Samaritan could
reprocess tailings and ``previously mined ores and minerals that
directly contribute to the contamination'' to capture any value, but
this must be incidental and secondary to the primary purpose of
remediating a historic and abandoned mine site.
This bill is an attempt to work together to help clean up the
thousands of abandoned mines throughout the West. The scope of the
problem is staggering. In Montana alone there are more than 5,000
abandoned hard rock mines.
This legislation alone will not solve this problem. But it is an
important tool that will give Good Samaritans the liability protections
that they need to encourage them to undertake these cleanups. In
exchange for these liability protections, any potential Good Samaritan
must meet rigorous standards to make sure that the cleanups are done
right. Any project must improve the environment to a significant degree
and meet applicable water quality standards. The bill also includes a
public hearing and comment process. Finally, EPA and the relevant state
or Indian tribe must concur with the issuance of, and sign, the permit.
If local rules or ordinances are implicated by the permit, then local
authorities must also concur with, and sign, the permit. The bill also
includes a provision sunsetting the Good Samaritan program after 10
years. This is a good bill protective of human health and the
environment.
I'm proud to have worked together with Senators Inhofe, Allard, and
Salazar to craft a bill that both industry and Trout Unlimited have
endorsed. Mr. Chairman, this bill will not solve the problem of
abandoned mines. But it will help. I urge my Colleagues to support it.
----------
Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from
the State of New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today's hearing.
Today we'll hear testimony from three nominees, two for
positions at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and one
for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The EPA positions for
which these nominees are being considered are central to how
the Agency functions. The General Counsel provides legal
guidance, while the Inspector General serves as both auditor
and watchdog.
As we consider nominees to fill these positions, I believe
we need to look at more than just their paper qualifications or
someone's expertise in a courtroom. We need nominees who
understand that communities across the country face
environmental problems that pose threats to the health, or even
survival, of people and wildlife.
I think most people would agree that the quality of the air
they breathe is critical to their quality of life. As a quasi-
Federal Agency, the TVA is exempt from parts of the Clean Air
Act. But that doesn't mean TVA should not work with the EPA to
reduce smog and carbon emissions.
I look forward to hearing Mr. Graves' plans for the future
of the TVA, particularly his plans for protecting the
environment and conserving energy at TVA.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for calling today's hearing.
----------
Statement of Hon. Joseph Lieberman, U.S. Senator from
the State of Connecticut
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak briefly
about the nomination of Mr. Alex Beehler to the post of
inspector general at the Environmental Protection Agency.
According to the Inspector General Act, one of the duties
of EPA's inspector general is to keep the Agency's
administrator and the Congress fully informed of any serious
deficiencies in EPA's administration of the programs for which
it is responsible. So that the inspector general might
discharge that duty, the Act gives him tools that even this
Committee often is denied in practice, namely, unimpeded access
to all of the Agency's records as well as to EPA's
administrator and other employees.
The public and the Congress rely upon EPA's inspector
general to employ these powerful tools, and to disclose any
serious Agency shortcomings that they reveal. If he does not,
then critical problems will remain under wraps, and EPA, the
nation's primary protector of public health and the
environment, will fail to exhibit the effectiveness that the
American people deserve.
In his current position as the head of the Defense
Department's office for safety, occupational health, and the
environment, Mr. Beehler has fought to win exemptions for the
Department from Federal anti-pollution statutes, and he has
participated in the Pentagon's effort to induce EPA to weaken
and delay national health-based standards for the carcinogenic
solvent, trichloroethylene. With Mr. Beehler's assistance, the
Defense Department has enjoyed some success on these fronts.
Under the current administration, some political appointees
within EPA have supported, to varying degrees, the Pentagon's
resistance to the public-health protections that EPA
administers. I am concerned that if this collaboration gives
rise to deficiencies in EPA's administration of those
protections, Mr. Beehler might, owing to his recent
professional background and institutional loyalties, be too
slow as EPA inspector general to uncover and disclose the
deficiencies. In other words, I am not sure I am comfortable
taking a protagonist in recent bureaucratic battles against
EPA's public-health programs and making him EPA's internal
watchdog, particularly at a time when certain key program
officials within EPA exhibit insufficient enthusiasm for the
Agency's mission to protect public health and the environment.
That said, I honestly hope that Mr. Beehler's responses to
my questions and those of my colleagues on this Committee will
alleviate my concerns. For Mr. Beehler's record reveals that he
is an experienced, highly intelligent, and diligent lawyer. I
believe that if he were to marshal those strengths toward the
full and faithful execution of the duties set forth in the
Inspector General Act, then Mr. Beehler would make a fine EPA
inspector general.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
----------
Statement of Roger Romulus Martella, JR., Nominee for Assistant
Administrator Office of the General Counsel Environmental Protection
Agency
Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, members of the Committee.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity and the honor
to appear before you today. At the outset, I respectfully would
like to introduce my wife, Ann, my children Eva Angelina and
Santino, and for the record would like to recognize our third
child who is on the way and due in January, name and gender yet
to be determined. I am also joined by my parents, small
business owners who continue to run their Italian corner bakery
after some 30 years.
Perhaps the best way to give you a sense of how humbled I
am to be the President's nominee for the General Counsel of the
Environmental Protection Agency is to share with you a short
story from my senior year in college. Late in my final semester
at Cornell University, I decided to attend law school with the
ultimate goal of working as an environmental attorney for the
Government. I remember very distinctly approaching a recruiter
from one of the top environmental law schools, told her that my
goal was to work at EPA, and asked whether the school place
students at the Agency. I can still hear her response as clear
as the instant she said this to me: EPA is so selective in who
they hire, and hires so few people, that you need to have other
goals.
So, with that background in mind, I hope you can appreciate
the extraordinary honor I feel at being asked by the President
and the Administrator to lead EPA's attorneys in support of the
Agency's mission to accelerate environmental protection, while
maintaining economic competitiveness. For almost a year, as the
Acting General Counsel and as the Principal Deputy General
Counsel, I have had the good fortune to work shoulder to
shoulder with this talented staff at what is, in effect, the
nation's strongest environmental law practice. The work that
our office performs every day raises important and cutting edge
issues critical to the Agency's overriding mission. For
example, in the past several months I have worked with our
attorneys to defend key Agency positions on clean water before
the Supreme Court, to assess the Agency's legal authorities in
addressing the rapidly emerging field of nanotechnology, and to
implement the Brownfields statute.
If confirmed as General Counsel, I would bring to the post
my perspective as an environmentalist, my attorney skills
developed as counsel to both the Federal Government and the
private sector on complex environmental issues, and a unique
breadth of perspective of how our Federal decisions affect
local Governments.
First, I am a passionate advocate for the environment. As
the father of a young and growing family, I think constantly
about the ramifications of decisions on my children, their
young friends, and all their future families and believe our
decisions today must give equal time to protecting their legacy
tomorrow. At the same time, I also wish a strong and viable
economy for my children. Environmental decisions should not be
made without regard to their economic and social consequences,
and should be crafted to preserve our nation's economic
competitiveness while protecting our environment. When I return
home to my parent's bakery and to a now struggling industrial
town built by entrepreneurial immigrants, I reflect on the
impact of our decisions on American small businesses in
particular. I feel strongly that good Government demands that
we avoid doing harm to this backbone of our nation's economy
while at the same time promoting the health of our environment.
I have no doubt these two goals can be mutually achievable.
Second, as an attorney I am a passionate advocate for my
clients, in this case EPA. During my seven years at the Justice
Department, I took pride in maintaining an unbroken record of
successfully litigating all the cases I took to court, which
largely defended important Agency decisions and regulations. In
fact, senior managers created a special position for me
Principal Counsel for Complex Litigation--to make the most use
of my skills in handling and supervising a docket of natural
resource cases among the Environment Division's most complex.
But I also am proud that, where feasible, I sought to resolve
many cases in a way that not only resulted in a win for the
Government, but addressed the interests of all stakeholders to
the dispute. Ironically, it frequently takes a lawyer to
suggest to parties that litigation is not the best solution and
to facilitate a negotiated compromise that supports the
interests of all stakeholders to the fullest extent possible.
My experience has taught me that solving a problem through
consensus has the added benefit of strengthening long-term
relationships and avoiding future disputes. At EPA, I have
worked to expand the use of environmental conflict resolution
tools to address complex environmental disputes across the
nation.
Finally, as a citizen who during almost my entire career
has played an active role in civic service at a local level, I
appreciate firsthand the importance of working together with
local, State, and tribal Governments as well as other
stakeholders to achieve environmental results. My breadth of
perspective includes public service to the Town of Warrenton
and Fauquier County, beautiful and environmentally sound
communities in the Virginia Piedmont. I am fortunate to have
the opportunity to apply my skills at the local level,
including as an elected member of the Warrenton Town Council
and formerly as a member of a committee that brought together
farmers, utilities, and Government to help preserve the
County's agricultural heritage. I constantly reflect upon this
local public service when I am at work at EPA. Having this
local perspective reminds me of how decisions by the Federal
Government have real and significant impacts on people in
communities far flung from Washington.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
------
Response by Roger Romulus Martella Jr. to an Additional Question
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. With only one political official governing, on
average, 1,000 career staff in each region, I have concerns
that bureaucrats--rather than elected officials--are making
significant policy decisions. As EPA General Counsel, what
would you do to ensure that policies set by the Administration,
are in effect and consistent in the regions?
Response. As I referenced in my oral testimony, I believe
that ensuring national consistency, while accommodating some
flexibility where appropriate, is an important goal. During my
tenure at EPA as Deputy General Counsel and as Acting General
Counsel, I have taken proactive steps to further this goal. For
example, I have played a lead role in working with headquarters
and regional offices toward developing a definition of
``national significance'' that would flag issues for
headquarters review to ensure consistency of positions across
the Agency. I also work closely with OGC's network of regional
counsels and encourage open communication to identify issues
among the regions that would benefit from headquarters
coordination in order to ensure national consistency.
If confirmed as General Counsel, I would continue to
promote strong coordination and communication between
headquarters and the 10 EPA regions to help achieve the goal of
national consistency. At present, I hold a weekly telephone
conference with senior OGC staff in Washington and with each
regional office. The Office of General Counsel also holds a
monthly call where legal developments are discussed to ensure
consistent implementation across the Agency, and headquarters
and regional senior staff meet in person twice a year to
coordinate on legal developments and regional issues. Thus, if
confirmed as General Counsel, I plan to take steps to ensure
national consistency and will work to facilitate a strong flow
of coordination and communication between the regions and
headquarters to further this goal.
------
Responses by Roger Martella to Additional Questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. In recent years, a number of EPA's rules have
been overturned, with strongly worded court opinions that
question EPA's legal interpretations of key environmental
statutes, such as the Clean Air Act.
Do you believe it is the General Counsel's duty to counsel
against Agency action that the General Counsel believes is
legally at odds with the statute and unlikely to survive court
challenge? Would you be willing to clearly indicate to the
Administrator that a rule should not go forward because of high
legal risk?
Response. I believe that one of the General Counsel's
primary roles is, in consultation with the office's staff, to
advise the Agency's decision makers on a range of options that
are fairly supported by pertinent statutes, regulations and
case law. As part of this analysis, I believe it is incumbent
upon the General Counsel to provide an assessment of the
strengths and weaknesses of each option under the pertinent
statutes, regulations and case law, including an assessment of
any litigation risk. I do not intend to shy away from
communicating directly the varying legal risks associated with
different options to decision makers. Thus, if the
Administrator or other Agency decision maker were considering
an action for which a legal argument could fairly be
articulated under the applicable statutes, regulations and case
law, but that I believed nonetheless bore a high legal risk, I
would be fully candid about the litigation risk and the
downside potential of pursuing such a position. However, I am
mindful that these statutes give the Administrator and other
decision makers the ultimate authority to decide how to
implement their provisions in light of all relevant information
before the Agency, including any legal risks that I would have
identified.
One of my primary goals, if confirmed as General Counsel,
would be to work to further support implementation of Agency
decisions. Thus, I would work closely with the staff in the
General Counsel's Office and Regional Counsel's Offices to
ensure that the Agency compiles strong administrative records,
to develop solid legal frameworks for rules and decisions, and
to provide support to and coordination with the Department of
Justice in defending the Agency in any litigation.
Question 2. In a brief filed recently by the EPA's Office
of General Counsel before the U.S. Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board, the Agency argued, contrary to
significant legal precedent, that there has been no clear,
unequivocal waiver of Federal sovereign immunity from
whistleblower liability under the Clean Air Act, CERCLA, the
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Toxic
Substances Control Act and thus that whistleblower claims must
be dismissed. Do you intend to maintain that Federal workers
may not pursue whistleblower claims under these statutes to
report concerns such as the Administration's statutory
violations, lax enforcement, or manipulations of data, any or
all of which may result in threats to public health or the
environment?
Response. If confirmed as General Counsel, I would seek to
ensure full and fair enforcement and implementation of all
laws, including pertinent whistleblower provisions. I cannot,
however, speculate on the specific position EPA will take in
any hypothetical future litigation brought by a Federal
employee under the whistleblower protection provisions of the
environmental statutes. EPA's position will necessarily depend
on the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable
laws. I would anticipate that I would also seek and respect the
guidance of the United States Department of Justice, including
opinions issued by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal
Counsel concerning waivers of Federal sovereign immunity.
In the case to which you refer, EPA submitted arguments to
the United States Department of Labor Administrative Review
Board concerning waiver of Federal sovereign immunity from
liability under the whistleblower provisions of various
environmental statutes. EPA submitted these arguments in direct
response to a specific invitation by the Administrative Review
Board to EPA and other parties to address the issue in a case
that was pending before the Administrative Review Board. The
Administrative Review Board invited views on this issue based
on one of its recent decisions holding that there was no waiver
of State sovereign immunity under various environmental
whistleblower provisions. The employee has appealed the
Administrative Review Board's decision to the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals. The Eleventh Circuit has recently asked the
parties to address a threshold jurisdictional question relating
to the procedure for seeking review of Department of Labor
decisions.
Question 3. Over the past several years, EPA has had to
grant a number of petitions for reconsideration of
controversial rules. Some of these rules were subject to court
deadlines because EPA did not meet statutory deadlines. Some
allege that EPA is knowingly issuing defective rules and then
using its own powers of reconsideration to give itself more
time. Do you believe such use of petitions for reconsideration
is appropriate? What will you do to ensure that when a rule is
issued pursuant to a court ordered deadline, it is at least
good enough that EPA itself does not need to recall it?
Response. When EPA issues a final rule, it seeks to account
for all of the relevant information, including comments
received during the public comment period and information
obtained during the course of the rulemaking. In some
instances, however, new and relevant information comes to light
after the close of the public comment period, and the
Administrator decides on a course of action that rests on that
new information. In those instances, parties interested in the
rule may seek reconsideration on the basis they did not have
the opportunity to comment on the new information. The Agency
may grant reconsideration where appropriate to ensure that the
public has a full and fair opportunity to comment on such
information.
The final rules that the Administrator issues reflect an
appropriate consideration of the pertinent information and
rationales available to the Agency at the time the
Administrator issues the final rule. The Agency utilizes the
reconsideration process in appropriate circumstances to ensure
that the public has an adequate opportunity to react to
information on which it was not practicable to provide comment
in advance of the final rule. The Clean Air Act, for example,
explicitly provides the opportunity for a reconsideration
proceeding to provide further ventilation of the new
information.
Question 4. EPA has been on the cutting edge of many
important legal issues that are relevant to the Federal
Government as a whole. One such issue is the constitutional
requirement that a person have ``standing'' to have his or her
case heard by a Federal court. Depending on how the standing
requirement is interpreted, the ability of citizens to
challenge Federal Agency actions--particularly EPA actions--
could be greatly curtailed. What are your views on the
significance of this issue and how the doctrine of standing is
evolving?
Response. I agree that standing is a significant issue to
be considered in litigation. As a judicial law clerk on the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, I came to appreciate first hand
that parties and the court both have obligations to consider
standing as a constitutional requirement that is a necessary
prerequisite to jurisdiction and justifiability.
If confirmed as General Counsel, I would work closely with
the Justice Department to evaluate whether parties in
litigation have met the constitutional and prudential
requirements for standing in a given action. My analysis would
be informed by Article III of the Constitution and
interpretations by the Supreme Court and other Federal courts.
I anticipate that part of the analysis would include analyzing
the complaint and pleadings to assess whether a plaintiff has
established the standing requirements. At the same time, in
response to your question, my evaluation of standing would not
be driven by a sense of curtailing parties from bringing
legitimate claims, but rather would be governed by established
case law and principles relevant to the standing determination.
------
Responses by Roger Romulus Martella Jr. to Additional Questions
from Senator Obama
Question 1. Due to growing concerns over child lead
poisoning caused by lead in the paint of older homes, the EPA
was mandated by statute in 1992 to issue a rule for home
renovation and remodeling. Senator Boxer, Congressman Waxman,
and I have written twice to the EPA, requesting additional
information about the timing for finalizing the rule. The
Agency's reply, while timely, did not suffice to answer our
questions, and I will therefore repeat them here.
Is EPA considering conducting additional studies in support
of this rulemaking? If EPA plans to conduct additional studies,
please detail each such proposed study, including the timing
and cost. What portions of the rulemaking will the additional
studies support?
Response. As I testified during the hearing, I am acutely
sensitive to issues regarding lead. My role as General Counsel,
if confirmed, would be to ensure that OGC provides adequate
legal resources to help finalize this rule and finalize
protections against lead.
It is my understanding that staff from the Office of
Pollution Prevention Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)
met with your staff and staff from Senator Boxer and
Representative Waxman's office on Thursday, September 14, 2006
to discuss your questions regarding this proposed rulemaking
(Lead Renovation Repair and Painting Program). I am told that
it was a positive meeting and am appreciative of your
willingness to sit down with EPA to discuss this issue further.
I am told that on August 1, the Agency also provided a written
response to your letter of July 24, 2006.
As stated in the August 1 letter and consistent with the
staff discussion of September 14, public comments on the
proposed rule raised many important issues regarding the
required work practices, cleaning verification, and activities
that are prohibited during abatement but permitted by the
proposed rule. Consistent with our recent written and verbal
communications, the Agency is conducting a study to better
characterize dust lead levels generated during a range of
renovation, repair and painting activities. EPA is conducting
the study in parallel with other aspects of the rulemaking
effort. The results of the study will provide important data,
which will be available at a key point, to inform Agency
decisions on how these issues will be addressed in the final
rule.
The objectives of the study include:
Characterizing the effect of a range of renovation,
repair and painting jobs that disturb lead-based paint on dust
lead levels. Jobs will include practices that are prohibited
under abatement regulations but permitted in the proposed rule;
Characterizing the effect on dust lead levels of the use
or non-use of plastic sheeting containment during interior and
exterior jobs;
Characterizing the differences in lead levels between
surfaces cleaned with the proposed rule cleaning methods, and
surfaces cleaned with baseline (broom and shop-vacuum) cleaning
methods;
Characterizing the amount of lead dust in adjacent rooms
as a result of different renovation, repair and painting jobs,
use or non-use of plastic sheeting containment and use or non-
use of proposed rule cleaning methods;
Characterizing the accuracy of the cleaning verification
method when used by workers in the range of renovation, repair
and painting activities in the study.
This study design underwent peer review last spring; data
collection has started and will be completed in December 2006.
EPA expects to receive the study results in January 2007. The
estimated cost of the study is $1.2 million.
I understand from my colleagues that EPA has committed to
following up on last week's agreement to discuss the results of
the study with you or your staff once the study is finalized.
We anticipate that the timing should be in late January 2007.
At that time, we would also be happy to discuss in more detail
the comments that you provided in your May 24, 2006 letter to
EPA Administrator Steve Johnson.
Question 2. Are there equally or more protective
methodologies for which EPA already has sufficient supporting
data, but which the Agency did not propose in an attempt to
minimize the costs of the rule to industry?
Response. Consistent with our discussions with your staff,
the Agency proposed or took comment on the range of
methodologies that it is aware of for conducting renovation,
repair and painting activities in a protective manner. However,
in order to be effective in protecting children, a rule
governing these activities must be practical to implement and
understandable to homeowners and residents and to the
predominantly small businesses that conduct renovation
activities. In addition, EPA's goal in this rulemaking process
is to develop an approach that will encourage homeowners to
employ contractors who follow lead safe work practices. Thus,
EPA believes that cost and practicability are relevant to the
protectiveness of its proposed rule. EPA's goal for the
proposed and final rules is to establish a comprehensive
program that protects children and that can be effectively
implemented. Any methodologies or technologies required by the
final rule will be subject to this consideration.
Question 3. What information does the Agency staff believe
it needs in order to support a final rule that it did not need
to write the proposed rule? Has every step been taken to ensure
the data/information does not already exist?
Response. As discussed with your staff last week, EPA has
received a large number of substantive comments addressing
virtually every aspect of the proposed rule. Many comments
address the need for and efficacy of the required work
practices and other issues that will be informed by the study
of lead dust generation that is currently underway. EPA has
evaluated the existing data and does not believe that
equivalent data exist.
Question 4. Has EPA met with officials from industry who
urged the Agency to delay the rulemaking through additional
studies or other actions? If so, please provide the dates and
attendees at those meetings, and describe the requests made in
such meetings.
Response. As communicated to your staff on September 14, we
had the opportunity to meet with various stakeholders,
including industry representatives, as part of the rulemaking
process. We were not asked by these officials to delay the
rulemaking through additional studies.
We were, however, asked instead to extend the comment
period on the proposed rule. On March 27, 2006, during the
public comment period on the proposed rule, EPA met with
representatives of the National Association of Homebuilders
(NAHB) at the Office of Management and Budget. At that meeting,
and in a subsequent letter, NAHB requested a 90-day extension
of the public comment period in order to have sufficient time
to complete and submit to the Agency a study that NAHB planned
to undertake. Other commenters also requested a 90-day
extension of the comment period. EPA extended the comment
period an additional 45 days.
As further communicated to your staff on September 14, EPA
has not and would not agree to additional studies or actions
for the purpose of delaying a rulemaking.
Question 5. When does EPA plan to complete the rulemaking?
Response. EPA is committed to issuing a final rule as
expeditiously as possible. As discussed in the meeting with
your staff, EPA is currently analyzing a large number of
significant comments on virtually every aspect of the proposed
rule. The Agency is also determining what additional
information-gathering and analysis may be needed to adequately
respond to the comments and make informed and supportable
decisions on how best to address commenters' issues in the
final rule. EPA expects to complete the analysis of the
comments soon and will then be in a better position to predict
the time required for the Agency to develop a final rule. At
that time, EPA will be happy to share with you our thinking on
the potential timing of a final rule.
As I indicated in my oral testimony, if confirmed as
General Counsel, I will ensure that the Office of General
Counsel provides full and adequate legal resources to support
the Agency's efforts in finalizing the lead rule.
------
Response by Roger Romulus Martella Jr. to an Additional Question
from Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. You testified that environmental decisions
should be crafted to preserve our nation's economic
competitiveness as well as protecting our environment. However,
in some instances, Congress has directed that health standards
should be set without considering the cost of implementing the
standards. If you are confirmed as General Counsel, how would
you advise the Agency regarding statutes that prohibit
consideration of costs in setting health standards?
Response. If confirmed as General Counsel, one of my
primary responsibilities would be to advise decision makers at
EPA on the range of discretion and factors they may consider in
the decision-making process. In offering such counsel, I will
review applicable direction provided by Congress in relevant
statutes. Frequently, such statutes provide decision makers
with wide discretion to consider numerous relevant factors,
including environmental, health, and economic ramifications of
a decision. In other instances, Congress in certain statutes
has chosen to limit the Agency's discretion to certain
enumerated factors and criteria. I would anticipate that if
confirmed I would examine each relevant statute in offering
legal counsel to determine whether Congress intended to provide
broader discretion in making a decision or whether Congress
intended to limit the analysis to certain factors and preclude
other factors, such as economic costs.
----------
Statement of Bishop William H. Graves, Nominee for member of the Board
of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority
Good morning. I am honored to be here today as one of
President Bush's nominees to the Board of the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
I am very grateful to Tennessee's Senators, Majority Leader
Bill Frist and Lamar Alexander, and to my Congressman, Harold
Ford, Jr., for their support.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today.
I was born in Brownsville, Tennessee, the eighth of nine
children, in the depths of the Great Depression. My family
moved to Detroit, Michigan, when I was young, but I frequently
return, visiting relatives and friends. After completion of
high school, I returned for my college years at Lane College in
Jackson, Tennessee.
I understand what TVA has meant to the people of the
Tennessee Valley from the years of economic struggle to the
present day. As a resident of the Tennessee Valley, I would
consider it a great honor and a humbling challenge, to serve on
their Board.
My background as a pastor and as Bishop of the Christian
Methodist Episcopal Church gives me a profound appreciation for
TVA's mission of service to the 8.6 million people of the
Tennessee Valley.
It is a mission based on making life better, improving our
communities, and supporting our families as they live and work
in concert with God's natural world.
It is a worthy mission indeed, and I will use all my
faculties, my strength, and the power that is in me to consider
the challenges facing TVA and make sound and careful
determinations.
Based on my work, my life's experiences, and my knowledge
of TVA, I believe I can make a valuable contribution to the
Board of the Tennessee Valley Authority if you choose to
confirm me.
Throughout my professional life, I have worked with people
from all walks of life. As a Board Member of Memphis Light, Gas
& Water, TVA's largest single customer, I learned much about
the challenges facing TVA as a power provider keeping pace with
the exuberant growth of our region's economy.
Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have for me.
------
Responses by Bishop William H. Graves to Additional questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. The new Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages
the development of distributed generation by allowing
individuals to connect windmills or solar panels at their home
to the grid and expanding combined heat and power projects by
standardizing the interconnection process. Do you think this
legislation should apply to the TVA?
Response. I do not have enough information at this time to
comment on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but I am very
interested in exploring the potential benefits of distributed
generation to the Tennessee Valley. I Look forward to
participating in theTVA Board's consideration of these
standards if I am confirmed.
Question 2. Would you support the TVA electing to
voluntarily adopt further measure to increase energy-efficiency
at its power generating facilities and among its rate payers,
and increase the supply of electricity in the region?
Response. Energy conservation, wherever it makes sense, is
an important goal for TVA to take into account when considering
the operations of its facilities. I have not yet had the
opportunity to assess the potential for implementing greater
energy conservation measures within TVA, but it is something I
will look into if I'm confirmed.
Question 3. Do you think that TVA, which has more than $24
billion in debt, should take on additional debt to finance new
power plants when private industry is willing to accept the
financial risk of constructing new plants?
Response. I have not been privy to details about TVA's debt
or financing strategies, nor do I have information about the
timeline for needing new generation. However, I believe TVA has
a commitment to its customers to provide affordable and
reliable power. If confirmed, I will use my position on the
Board to make sure we are meeting the electricity needs of the
Valley while working to keep costs low.
Question 4. Do you feel the TVA should institute some kind
of competitive bidding for new projects to ensure that the
taxpayers of the Tennessee Valley region are paying the lowest
possible price for their power, and that new generation is
constructed in a cost-effective manner?
Response. If confirmed, I will look into the way TVA makes
investments in new projects. As I've mentioned, my experience
in working with Memphis Light, Gas & Water, TVA's largest
customer, has given me a unique perspective on how important it
is for TVA's customers to have access to both affordable and
reliable power. I would work to make sure TVA continues to meet
this goal.
Question 5. The effect of restructuring of the electric
production and transmission industry in our country on the
reliable delivery of electric power will continue with lessons
learned form the blackout in New York, the California power
crisis and reliability struggles elsewhere. TVA must continue
its earnest efforts to ensure reliable power delivery. What
else do you feel that TVA can be doing with neighboring
utilities to ensure that we do not suffer additional regional
blackouts?
Response. I know how important electric reliability is to
the people of the Southeast, especially for residents in the
hot summer months and for industries located in the TVA region.
I know this is something TVA has been involved in and that they
continue to make efforts to increase the reliability of the
power grid. At this point, I do not know specifically what else
TVA can do with its neighboring utilities, but if confirmed to
the Board I will make sure we have qualified people working
closely on this issue.
Question 6. What will you do to ensure that TVA
aggressively reduces air pollution and aims to achieve at least
1990 levels of carbon dioxide emissions?
Response. If confirmed, I will support the ambitious
efforts already in place by TVA to reduce air pollution as well
as future efforts to make additional reductions. The reduction
of emissions is a very important issue, which I plan to give
serious consideration. From what I understand about these
issues now, I think TVA's decision to add more nuclear and
renewable energy generating capacity to its system is a prudent
thing to do.
Question 7. What will you do to ensure that TVA is being
operated as a very efficient business so that financial
resources are available to continue its investments in state-
of-the-art air pollution control technology?
Response. If confirmed, I will carefully study TVA's
business model and will work diligently to further the TVA
goals of keeping costs low and keeping debt at appropriate
levels so that we can support the efficient operations of our
plants and continue to install pollution controls.
Question 8. In addition to hydropower, what portion of
TVA's generation base should come from renewable energy
sources?
Response. Unfortunately at this time, I do not have
adequate information to be able to provide you with a
percentage. I do support renewable energy sources and hope to
make sure that TVA is doing its part for renewable energy if I
am confirmed to the Board.
Question 9. Do you support TVA's Green Power Switch
program, which allows families and companies to voluntarily
accept a small surcharge on their monthly bill in order to
purchase blocks of electricity generated from renewable
sources?
Response. From what I know about TVA's Green Power Switch,
I support the program. I do not have the details or the
magnitude of this offering by TVA, but I think it is an
important way in which we can help promote renewable energy.
Question 10. TVA announced plans in 1997 to cut its debt in
half by 2007 and increased rates for its distributors
specifically in order to reduce its debt. TVA has acknowledged
that it will not meet its debt reduction targets and is only on
track to make a small dent in its overall debt. As part of the
TVA board, do you plan to meet the original plan of reducing
TVA's debt?
Response. I have not had the opportunity to read this plan,
so I cannot commit to supporting those goals. However, it is
important that TVA keep its debt at a level that ensures the
financial health of the Agency. If confirmed, I will work to
make sure TVA is financially sound and that the rate payers are
not at a financial risk.
Question 11. TVA is an $8 billion entity. TVA charges
higher electricity rates in some portions of the service
territory. Would you, as a member of the TVA Board, seek to
make uniform TVA customers' rates?
Response. It is my understanding that TVA does charge
uniform rates throughout the Valley. However, I will be glad to
look further into this issue if I am confirmed.
----------
Statement of Alex Beehler, Nominee for Inspector General,
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, members of the committee.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to appear
before you today. It is a great honor and privilege to be here
today as the nominee to be Inspector General of the
Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
In my current and previous positions involving
environmental law and policy, my vision has been to seek
environmental improvement. If I am confirmed, I pledge to you
that I will do everything in my power to work with the
dedicated expert staff in the Office of Inspector General to
provide the Agency, Congress, and the American people, an
independent, objective review of EPA programs. I will work to
prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in EPA programs, and
to provide the leadership to promote effectiveness, efficiency,
and economy in program administration. Each is an important
component in assisting the Agency's mission of protecting human
health and safeguarding the environment. And I pledge to work
with the Committee and its staff in carrying out our shared
goal of environmental protection and improvement.
The legislation creating the Federal inspectors generally
recognizes the importance of the audit and investigative
functions to be carried out by the Office of Inspector General,
and specified in the Act the appointment of personnel to
oversee those operations. Likewise, Congress recognized the
skills necessary for an effective Inspector General, and
required a background in accounting, auditing, law, public
administration or investigations.
During my 28 years of professional experience in
Washington, DC. I have had the privilege to spend 17 of those
years engaged in environmental law enforcement and policy
positions from several different perspectives. I have served as
a special assistant to the Associate Administrator for Legal
and Enforcement Counsel at EPA, as a Federal environmental
prosecutor at the Department of Justice, as an environmental
regulatory advisor to a major corporation, as the top
environmental policy official at two non-profit organizations,
and currently as a senior environmental official at the
Department of Defense. These opportunities, plus positions on
the Senate Judiciary Committee and in private litigation
practice, have provided me with a wide range of legal,
investigative, and Governmental experience that have prepared
me to perform the critical role of helping protect human health
and the environment as Inspector General of EPA.
While at the Department of Justice, I was lead trial
attorney on many CERCLA cost recovery cases requiring the
substantive review of financial and audit records. One case in
particular, the Picillo Superfund Site in Coventry, RI,
involved the court appointment of a special master solely to
address all accounting matters and the judicial rendering of
one of the most comprehensive examinations of CERCLA cost
recovery issues to date. The outcome of the litigation was
highly favorable to the U.S. Government on several accounts:
award to the Government of almost 100 percent of contested
costs; validation of the Government's financial management of
Superfund costs and strong precedential case law favoring the
Government on cost recovery. My nonprofit work afforded me the
opportunity to devise and implement environmental policy
strategies focused on environmental improvement where
substantive results were defined, measured, and emphasized. In
my current capacity at the Department of Defense, I have
continued to stress results over process by pushing for putting
``facts on the table'', and collecting the best available data
and science in a holistic, integrated manner for all the
Department's operations--from design to disposal.
In order to be effective, I have proactively pursued
building trust with interested parties to encourage sharing of
issues and information leading to solutions and environmental
improvement. If confirmed, I would continue the same truth-
seeking approach as Inspector General, with independence and
integrity. I would ferret out problems and target areas for
improvement through proactively seeking knowledge from other
internal EPA offices, from other Federal agencies and
components, from State agencies, and from non-Government
sources and entities. I would provide leadership through
breadth of vision while drawing upon the considerable expertise
of staff for depth and execution.
Throughout my career and life, I have strived to use
responsibilities entrusted to me to make things better -
through independent and measured thinking, sound judgment and
common sense, respect for the rule of law, with the highest
ethical standards. I try to listen to all sides of an argument
and respect the views of those with different perspectives,
before making a judgment. My goal is to lead by example and
learn from others. I hope to have that opportunity as EPA's
Inspector General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I
would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
------
Responses by Alex Beehler to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. In your past position with a non-profit
organization, you had responsibility to ensure that the grants
your organization awarded were properly funded, managed, and
appropriately spent. How would this experience help the IG's
office improve its oversight of grants management at EPA?
Response. In my previous position, I was responsible for
ensuring grant dollars were awarded and managed in a way that
promoted maximum benefits for the dollars spent. The same goals
apply to the billions of dollars EPA invests in grants each
year. Many of the best practices I employed in my position at
the non-profit are transferable to EPA grants. Past Office of
Inspector General (OIG) work identified a number of weaknesses
in EPA grants management, some of which I understand continue
to exist. I look forward to using my expertise to contribute to
EPA's initiative to improve grants management and ensure the
American taxpayers dollars are well spent by EPA.
Question 2. I understand that in your current position you
are responsible for reviewing tens of millions of dollars in
contracts for the Installation and Environment Division at
Department of Defense. Do you see any of the criteria you use
in these reviews as transferable to grants management oversight
at EPA?
Response. In my current position, I do not review
individual contracts. I authorize the contracting agencies to
contract for various products and services to support the
functions of my office. In that role, I am responsible for
ensuring that the products and services sought are necessary
and useful and represent the most beneficial application of the
taxpayers' resources provided to my office. In addition, I
review and approve various grants, cooperative agreements, and
interagency agreements to obtain products and services
necessary to carry out the functions of the DoD in the area of
environment, safety, and occupational health. In all these
actions, I apply first and foremost the criteria that the
expenditures will provide useful and valuable products for the
taxpayers' funds. I anticipate that the criteria I have applied
at DoD are just as applicable in other settings such as EPA.
Question 3. As most here are aware, I have been very
critical of how EPA prioritizes its spending requests. For
example, every year, in order to say they have ``cut
spending,'' EPA cuts the State revolving loan funds for water
infrastructure, knowing that Congress will restore that money.
These cuts to core programs with demonstrable environmental
benefit occur, while certain small programs, with little to no
benefit to the environment, go on completely funded. To your
knowledge has EPA ever done a cost-benefit analysis of its
various programs, including voluntary programs, research
activities, and grants. Is this something that should be
examined by the IG to determine where waste might be occurring?
Response. To my knowledge, EPA has not conducted such a
cost-benefit analysis. If confirmed, I plan to focus the OIG's
work on helping ensure EPA uses data and measures to
effectively manage its programs and resources.
Question 4. In my opinion, the former EPA Inspector General
produced a number of reports that not only were shoddily
investigated, but demonstrated a clear motivation to achieve
policy objectives that not only was she unqualified to judge.
In particular, a report was issued criticizing EPA's mercury
proposal process in which the IG's staff interviewed only the
small number of Clean Air Act Advisory Committee members who
disagreed with EPA's process and not one of the large majority
of members who both attended the 13 days of meetings over 18
months and supported the process. What will you do to rein in
this kind of behavior on your staff?
Response. It is critical that the EPA Inspector General
demonstrate independence and objectivity to effectively help
the Agency achieve its mission. While I cannot speak to the
quality of the OIG work you cite, I can say that in the limited
contact I have had with the OIG staff, I have been impressed
with the professionalism and dedication to their mission. As
IG, I will ensure only objective, balanced, and suitable facts
are used to support OIG reports.
Question 5. Mr. Beehler, the subject of the The National
Academy of Sciences report on assessing the Human Health Risks
of Trichloroethylene (TCE) and its recommendations was
discussed at the hearing.It has been suggested that NAS found
that the science is ``complete'' on this chemical and that the
NAS report suggests that there is enough science to force
companies and other parties to cleanup potential TCE
contamination to an even greater degree.In its recommendations,
however, the NAS Committee stated that while the ``evidence on
carcinogenic risk and other health hazards from exposure to TCE
has strengthened since 2001,'' the committee recommended ``that
Federal agencies finalize their risk assessment with currently
available data so that risk management decisions can be made.''
It does not appear to recommend cleanup levels or a particular
course of action with respect to cleanup, but rather suggests
that EPA finish its risk assessment.In fact, the report makes
clear that ``the committee was not asked to address risk
management issues.'' Is that correct?
Response. Yes, that is correct.
Question 6. Additionally, the report includes several
research and methodological recommendations regarding exactly
how EPA should conduct this risk assessment, including new
epidemiologic data analysis, sensitivity analysis, dose-
response relationships, species differences and modes of
action. If all this data analysis is yet to be complete, how
can the science be considered ``decided''?
Response. I agree that further data analysis must still be
done before the science is considered ``decided.'' It is my
understanding that EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) agrees too.The NAS report recommends that as part of
doing an updated assessment, EPA should do a new meta-analysis
of currently available epidemiology studies. It is my
understanding that ORD plans to do an updated assessment for
peer review based on currently available data.
Question 7. Prior to serving at the DoD, you worked at Koch
Industries as the Director of Environmental and Regulatory
Affairs.You also were employed by the Charles G. Koch
Foundation as Vice President for environmental programs. Koch
Industries' record on the environment has included paying some
of the largest civil fines ever imposed on a company under any
Federal environmental law, and the filing of criminal charges
for illegal releases of benzene in Texas, which were later
settled with the Department of Justice for $20 million in
penalties and a guilty plea for concealing information.
Although you arrived at Koch after the company had been
charged with these violations, the settlement of the criminal
indictment occurred during your tenure as Director of
Environmental Affairs.What role, if any, did you play in any
environmental enforcement settlements during your tenure at
Koch Industries?
Response. None.
Question 8. If confirmed as Inspector General, would you
plan on recusing yourself from investigating matters relating
to Koch industries?
Response. Yes.
Question 9. If not, how would you plan on avoiding any
appearance of impropriety or bias?
Response. Not applicable.
Question 10. With regard to your work as Director of
Environmental Programs for the Charles G. Koch Foundation, we
understand that during your tenure the foundation provided
funding to a number of organizations such as the Mercatus
Institute, among others, that are actively involved in debates
regarding environmental regulations.
Please provide a detailed description of the organizations
or projects that the foundation funded or helped to fund that
take positions or provide analysis regarding environmental
protection laws. Please summarize the work product, or reports
or other analysis that were funded during your tenure.
Response. During my tenure, the Charles G. Koch Foundation
(Foundation) was involved in extensive grant making in a wide
range of fields with which I had no knowledge or involvement.
To the best of my recollection, the relevant grants thatI was
involved with included regarding an analysis of EPA's
permitting processes. This grant was provided to Resources for
the Future. A second grant is one that involved Harvard
University in conjunction with Resources for the Future, EPA
and the American Chemistry Council. This grant analyzed lessons
learned and successes shared toward better environmental
management and improvement.
Question 11. Your financial documents indicate that you
have investments in a number of companies that could be
directly affected by EPA regulations or enforcement actions.
These include major manufacturing companies that have
previously been subject to EPA enforcement actions, energy
companies and mining companies. I understand you have elected
not to divest yourself of these investments but rather to
manage any potential conflicts of interest by recusing yourself
from all matters that have a direct and predictable effect on
your financial interests or by seeking a written waiver.
Given the scope of environmental statutes that the EPA
administers and the breadth of regulatory and enforcement
actions it takes, how do you plan on evaluating all of your
work for potential conflicts of interest?
Response. In keeping with the terms of the ethics letter I
signed on Aug. 3, 2006, I will issue a recusal statement that
clearly sets forth the names of the companies from which I
would be recused. I will remain vigilant with respect to my
potential conflicts of interest and appearance concerns. I will
consult the OIG's Counsel and/or the Agency's ethics officials,
as appropriate. In addition, I will rely upon the career senior
managers in the OIG to assist me in abiding by the terms of my
ethics agreement and my recusals.
Question 12. Will this place a resource burden on the
Office of Inspector General and the EPA ethics staff to screen
all your work against the backdrop of your investments? If not,
please detail how you will manage the Inspector General Office
resources to avoid this.
Response. The burden of remaining vigilant about my own
recusals remains with me, as I am responsible for ensuring that
I understand and abide by the Federal ethics standards. OIG
Counsel assures me that he does not believe that my ethics
considerations will create an undue burden on his workload.
Question 13. How will you make strategic decisions for the
Office of the Inspector General that relate to allocating
scarce audit and investigation resources among different
industry sectors, some of which may include companies that you
maintain investments in?
Response. The OIG does not normally allocate resources
against industries. Resources are allocated based on customer
(both internal and external) requests, potential monetary and
environmental/health benefits or risk, and within the scope of
the IG's authority. Resource allocation and work decisions are
not made based on the IG's personal likes or preferences, but
rather on the mission of EPA and the OIG.
Question 14. How would you handle a recommendation by the
Inspector General staff that you institute an investigation of
the EPA's enforcement actions related to energy companies?
Response. I have been advised by OIG Counsel and EPA's
ethics officials that I am not automatically recused from
matters of general applicability involving energy companies.
However, I would recuse myself from any matters in which I
could not be objective, or perceived as being objective,
whether they are due to a financial interest or my previous
work. In such case, the work of OIG would continue to be
handled by the experienced career executives of OIG.
Question 15. In your view, would a recommendation, given by
you, to investigate EPA enforcement activities related to a
different industrial sector in which you do not have
investments, also pose a conflict of interest, given the
limited amount of investigation resources available to the
Inspector General? If not, please explain why and be specific.
Response. No, I do not believe that there would be any
conflict of interest if I were to recommend OIG action with
respect to an industry in which I do not have any financial
interest. The term "financial interest" is defined in the
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive
Branch as limited to financial interests that are held by an
employee, his spouse or minor children. (5 CFR 2635.403(c)).
However, if I could not be objective, or be perceived as
being objective, whether the reasons are due to a financial
interest or my previous work, I would recuse myself from the
matter before me. In such case, the work of OIG would continue
to be handled by the experienced career executives of OIG.
Question 16. If during the course of your work as Inspector
General, you are provided, either orally or in writing, with
confidential enforcement information related to any company
that you have investments in, how would you plan on making
future investment decisions related to such a company,
particularly decisions to divest or reduce your investments in
such a company?
Response. EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
handles enforcement matters for the Agency, not the OIG. As the
IG, it would be highly unusual for such information to come to
my attention. If it did, I would not involve myself in the
matter nor would I use such information to make personal
financial decisions. In the event that I am provided
information related to a company identified on my recusal list,
I would notify OIG Counsel and adhere to his advice on how to
proceed. I would refrain from reading the information because I
would be recused.
Question 17. Did you invest in these sectors and/or
companies while employed at DoD? How did you avoid conflicts of
interest arising with your investments in these companies or
other companies with financial relationships with DoD?
Response. These investments were made prior to my
employment at DoD. I relied on counsel of DoD General Counsel's
ethics office for guidance on avoiding conflicts of interests.
------
Responses by Alex Beehler to Additional Questions
from Senator Lieberman
Question 1a. Are you planning, in the event that you become
EPA's Inspector General, to recuse yourself from any decisions
concerning any IG investigation, inquiry, audit, or report
touching upon EPA's reaction either to any Defense Department
request for changes to the statutes that EPA implements or to
any Defense Department request for particular EPA action or
inaction?
Response. In addition to recusing myself from any matter
concerning exemptions sought by the DoD under the environmental
laws, such as the Clean Air Act, RCRA and Superfund for so
called ``readiness activities,'' I will also recuse myself from
any matters in which I could not be objective, or be perceived
as being objective, whether due to a financial interest or my
previous work.
Question 1b. If so, then what assurances can you provide me
now that other employees of the Inspector General's office
would have adequate legal authority and practical ability to
initiate and effectively complete such an investigation,
inquiry, audit, or report?
Response. Under this circumstance, I will delegate all
powers and authorities granted to be under the Inspector
General of 1978, as amended or any other authority to the OIG
official designated to handle the matter.
Question 1c. If not, then why not, considering the concerns
expressed in the opening statement that I submitted to the
record of your confirmation hearing?
Response. Not applicable.
Question 2. The Inspector General Act empowers and directs
EPA's inspector general to keep the Congress fully informed of,
among other things, ``serious problems . . . and deficiencies
relating to the administration of programs and operations
administered'' by EPA. Please describe the principles and
factors that will guide you, if you are confirmed to the post
of EPA's inspector general, in determining whether individual
controversial policy decisions made by EPA officials qualify as
or reveal ``serious problems'' or ``deficiencies,'' as those
terms are used in the Inspector General Act.
Response. The principles and factors would be those matters
which implicate fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement or
inefficiency relating to EPA's program and operations.
Additionally, I would consider the level of risk involved, the
amount of potential monetary costs or recovery involved, and
the importance of an issue to Congress, the Agency and the
public in developing OIG work assignments. The OIG formally
reports to Congress semiannually on the activities undertaken,
and the results of their work.
------
Responses by Alex Beehler to Additional Questions
from Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. During your tenure, the Department of Defense
(DoD) has sought exemptions from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water
Act, Superfund and other environmental laws. If you are
confirmed as Inspector General, would you continue to advocate
for DoD to be exempt from laws administered by the EPA?
Response. No. Under the IG Act, IGs are strictly prohibited
from engaging in programmatic work and I will abide by the IG
Act. Specifically, any decision I make as IG will be based upon
my responsibilities as the IG and not on my previous work
experiences.
Question 2. While at the Defense Department, you opposed
EPA's revised risk assessment for the chemical
trichloroethylene (TCE). If you are confirmed as Inspector
General, and EPA decides to move forward with a revised risk
assessment, or a strengthened drinking water standard for TCE,
will you oppose EPA's efforts?
Response. See above. Policy deliberations and decisions are
programmatic activities and are expressly prohibited under the
IG Act.
Question 3. As you know, The National Research Council
(NRC) was ultimately called upon to study the issue of TCE. In
July, the NRC essentially confirmed EPA's view that a revised
risk assessment for TCE was in order. Has your view of the
matter changed in any way based upon the NRC report?
Response. EPA, DoD, and DoE together sought the NRC review
to analyze the science upon which the EPA draft risk assessment
was based. The NRC brought certain matters into question and
the EPA has taken that additional information to apply in
improving its risk assessment.
------
Responses by Alex Beehler to Additional Questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. The EPA Inspector General's duty is to serve as
an independent, impartial and accountable source for audits,
evaluations and, investigations of EPA. The Inspector General
functions as a ``watchdog'' in alerting the public and Congress
to areas of concern at EPA. Your predecessor showed admirable
independence in producing important reports that were critical
of the EPA in the areas of mercury control, New Source Review
and EPA's evaluation of air quality after the World Trade
Center attacks.
What about your record makes clear that you are willing to
take EPA to task for not fulfilling its public health
responsibilities under the environmental laws? How does your
record demonstrate the qualities of independent thought and
communication that are required of an Inspector General?
Response. During my extensive work experience in positions
involving environmental law and policy, I have sought
environmental improvement. Much of my professional experience
has been spent enforcing our nation's environmental laws. I was
a prosecutor at the Department of Justice for 10 years.
Prosecuting cases is a similar process: you collect the facts;
build a case; and present your findings. It is like evaluating
any organization concerning its operational decisions and
actions.
Question 2. During your time at the Department of Defense
(DoD), you have advocated that the Defense Department be
exempted from the major environmental statutes, including the
Clean Air Act, Superfund, the Clean Water Act and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Were these exemptions designed
in any way to improve or enhance environmental protection?
Would they have increased or decreased environmental oversight
by EPA and the States?
Response. The overwhelming focus (more than 95 percent) of
my time and effort at DoD has been spent on program
administration and outreach to States, localities, tribes, non-
Governmental organizations (NGOs), and other stakeholders--not
the legislative proposals known as the Range and Readiness
Preservation Initiative, which were developed and adopted by
DoD and the Administration two years before I joined DoD.
As explained to me, these legislative proposals were simply
designed to codify the existing regulatory policies and
practices of DoD, EPA, and the State regulators--policies
maintained under Federal and State administrations of both
parties, including the previous Administration--which were,
however, being challenged in various lawsuits.
These proposals were therefore not intended to increase or
decrease EPA and State environmental oversight. These proposals
were designed to either have neutral or positive environmental
consequences.
------
Responses by Alex Beehler to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. Mr. Beehler: You currently serve as Assistant
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environment, Safety and
Occupational Health.During your tenure in that position, the
Department of Defense has repeatedly sought exemptions under
the environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, RCRA and
Superfund for so called "readiness activities" and you have
publicly advocated for such exemptions. However, the record has
shown that military readiness has not been impacted by
environmental requirements and that DoD rarely, if ever, has
used exemptions already available to it under existing
regulatory provisions.
If confirmed, do you plan on recusing yourself from issues
related to these exemptions in light of your previous advocacy
for them?
Response. Yes.
Question 2. If not, will you integrate these views into
Inspector General Reports on EPA matters where these views may
be relevant?
Response. Not applicable.
Question 3. Do you disagree in any way with former EPA
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman's testimony before the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee stating that ``I
do not believe there is a training session anywhere in the
country that is being held up or not taking place because of
environmental regulation.'' February 26, 2003). If yes, please
be specific in your response.
Response. It has been reported to me by DoD that there is
at least one situation where training has been restricted at
the Massachusetts Military Reservation, Camp Edwards, due to
Administrative Order No. 2 issued by EPA in April 1997 pursuant
to the Safe Drinking Water Act. That order relates to munitions
constituents in a sole source drinking water aquifer.
Question 4. On April 21, 2004, DoD Deputy General Counsel
Ben Cohen indicated in testimony before the House Energy and
Commerce Committee that in response to a request from Deputy
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, no branch of the DoD had submitted
any information that warranted using the existing national
security exemptions under CERCLA,RCRA or the Clean Air
Act.After that testimony I understand you continued to publicly
advocate for such exemptions.
What was your factual basis at that time for continuing to
advocate for these exemptions in light of the prior testimony
of Administrator Whitman and Mr. Cohen on these subjects?
Response. I have been advised that Mr. Cohen's testimony
referred to existing exemptions in various environmental
statutes, not to the legislative proposals that DoD was
advocating.
My overwhelming focus, more than 95 percent of my time and
effort, has been spent on program administration and outreach
to States, localities, tribes, NGOs, and other stakeholders--
not these legislative proposals, which were developed and
adopted by DoD and the Administration two years before I joined
DoD.
As these proposals have been explained to me, these
legislative proposals were simply designed to codify the
existing regulatory policies and practices of DoD, EPA, and the
State regulators--policies maintained under Federal and State
administrations of both parties, including the previous
Administration--which were, however, being challenged in
various lawsuits.
These proposals were therefore not intended to increase or
decrease EPA and State environmental oversight. These proposals
were designed to either have neutral or positive environmental
consequences.