Talks about recommendations for improving efficiency at the Environmental Protection agency. Congressman tim murphy chairs the subcommittee on oversight. This is an hour and a half. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our hearing oversight and investigation subcommittee on energy commerce. The subcommittee convenes to examine unimplemented recomme recommendations and Government Accountability office. Acting on these recommendations would improve the ability to carry out the core mission, protecting human health and the environment. This mission is never more important than during times of national disaster, Natural Disaster like the one the gulf coast are experiencing in Hurricane Harvey and about to hit with another hurricane on the florida coast. First of all, on behalf of the committee i want to express my sincere sorrow. Hurricane harvey is one of the worst National Disasters the United States has ever faced and it is still too early to tell the full extend of the devastation that displaced thousands of people. Members of this committee represent experience of loss and destruction from the storm and thoughts and prayers are with the families as they begin to rebuild their lives from the national tragedy. During the storm and in the after math epa continues to play a Critical Role in the federal response to Hurricane Harvey. While epa is in the midst of initial response efforts its work has only just begun. We look forward to monitoring the agencys response and learn the full extent of the Environmental Impact and challenges that lie ahead. The loss and destruction of Hurricane Harvey make todays hearing even more important. The committee has the opportunity to learn about ways to strengthen the epa including highlighting recommendations and may improve the ability to protect environment and human health during Recovery Efforts or future National Disasters. I go back and reflect on what we are about to face in florida and puerto rico and the disasters looming there. The constitution provides congress with the authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch and in partnership with Accountability Office we Work Together to root out waste, fraud and abuse at federal agencies such as epa. Through investigations and audits both often make recommendations on ways to improve efficiency and effectiveness of epa. After the recommendations are issued work with agency to ensure that epa acts on their findings. Today the committee will learn that even when epa agrees with recommendations it may take years to implement them and some are never fully adopted by the agency. As a result many open recommendations span multiple administrations some dating as far back as the bush administration. While epa adopts recommendations at a rate around the federal government average there are unimplemented recommendations. According to the orgs most recent report to congress released in may 2017 epa has potential to save 103. 3 million by implementing recommendations. The report showed with past two completion dates with 56 with due dates set in the future. Will testify epa implemented 191 of the 318 recommendations made since 2007 with 127 recommendations still unimplemented. Oig, gao have highlighted efficiencies including concerns about the Information Security posture and grant administration. For example, epaoig recently conducted an audit focussing on flaws to the Security Posture during 2015 and 2016. Reported the agency lacks understanding of which contractors the epa have significant Information Security responsibilities, raising questions about the agencys network integrity. Recommend developing a process for identifying these contractors and is not expected to implement this recommendation until 2018. Uncovered waste and mismanagement in grant programs. This is particularly troubling because grants compromise almost half of the budget, about 4 billion annually. In 2016 found the grant monitoring practice may impact the agencys ability to monitor results and increase administrative costs. In 2017 reported epa did not have information needed to allocate grant and Management Resources effectively. Recommendations range from standardized grant recipient progress reports and developing process. All 12 recommendations remain unimplemented. These are some of the many reports. We will discuss more of them today. They have done excellent work to highlight problems within and find solutions to solve the issues. I am grateful for your work and look forward to hearing more about findings. With things looming in florida and tragedies in texas i can speak for the committee we better not find out epa has done anything causing harm. We have concern about the increase in zika mosquitos in texas. We dont know if some of that has to do with issues with Water Management or other things within the jurisdiction of epa. We will keep a close watch and see if there are errors that occurred related to weaknesses in agencies. So i thank our witnesses for working to ensure that epa is carrying out its mission. We appreciate their service and sacrifice during Hurricane Harvey. I turn to my colleague from florida. Thank you for convening this hearing and thank you to our witnesses for their work. The hearing subject while important pails in comparison of the true oversight needed of the trump Environmental Protection agency. Epa is and always has been a critical partner to our states and communities back home. Most of what epa does is to support our communities back home in cleaning up polluted sites, helping protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. I thank the professionals and scientists at the Environmental Protection agency for their work, but President Trump and administrator scott peruitt hav a very different vision. They have been acting to weaken support. It is particularly troubling that epa administrator pruitt has not appeared before the energy and Commerce Committee to date. This committee has direct oversight and simply unprecedented and unacceptable that the administrator did not appear. The importance is particularly clear. There is nothing like a Disaster Response that demonstrates how critical toxic chemical superfund initiatives are to the health and safety of our neighbors. I know all too well the devastation that massive hurricanes can bring to homes, businesses and communities and the recovery from such a storm is long, expensive and challenging. And our thoughts are with the residents of puerto rico, Virgin Islands as they are in the path of another extremely dangerous storm in Hurricane Irma. Hurricane harvey slammed into the gulf coast as a category 4 and left at least 60 people dead and millions of dollars in damage and the death toll is likely to continue to rise in the coming weeks. Ranking member of subcommittee on health i just saw him at the other subcommittee meeting represents the city of houston and has seen much of his district flooded and our thoughts are with him and his constituents. I want to recognize you, mr. Gomez, for being here today what is surely a difficult time for you and your family. The epa has been a key agency responding to harvey and for this reason this hearing should be a timely and important step in exploring how to strengthen the agency as it supports local responders and begins to assess the possible Environmental Impact of the flooding, toxic releases. This hearing unfortunately is devoted to a much less significant topic, the scope of potential environmental risk caused while still coming into focus are considerable. People are evacuating through dirty and contaminated flood waters. There are also reports of fires at chemical facilities. Additional reports have suggested possible damage to leaking gas tanks at fuel facilities which if true may pose Environmental Concerns that the epa will need to address. I am particularly concerned about reports of flooding and what damage they might have caused. According to epa, 13 of the 41 former come current toxic waste sites have flooded and may have experienced some damage. Additionally the city of houston contains approximately 450 pet trochemical plants and news reports they have instances of air pollutants since harvey hit. Our local communities need the expertise of the epa to prevent and mitigate such releases. But the Trump Administration has been working overtime to weaken epas ability to help back home. Now it is really showing at a time of disaster. The storm also raises ongoing concerns of Drinking Water safety. According to epa 4,500 Drinking Water systems are potentially threatened by flood waters. After Hurricane Katrina energy and commerce professional staff were on the ground to help. This committee should consider oversight. Todays hearing rather than focussing implemented recommendations. At a time of the real issue is the decimation of the workforce proposed. Yet we respond to the grave environmental and Human Health Risk of Hurricane Harvey and other catastrophes at this time, but the overall epa has never been more important. Mr. Chairman, i am deeply troubled by the direction of the agency under the Trump Administration. I implore you and my republican colleagues to conduct true oversight of the damage being done to our bedrock Environmental Protections built through decades of bipartisan work. We need to do it before deep and lasting damage is inflicted across america. The trump epa is waging an aggressive role through plitization of the agency, extreme proposed budget and staffing cuts the Trump Administration proposed extreme budget cuts that cut to the heart of our local communities and threaten the health and environment of americans in every state. The trump budget would slash epas budget by nearly 2 2. 6 billion, reduce the professional workforce by over 3 thou,000 employees and damage done to air quality, diesel emission reductions, lead safety and on and on. There is evidence of cob flinf of interest and grants to exact political revenge. This is not acceptable. The ongoing crisis unfolding on the gulf coast demonstrates the dangers of the Trump Administrations extreme assault on Environmental Protection. Mr. Chairman, we want towork with you to make sure the epa implements workforce and contractor recommendations. If we are serious about insuring that the agency is able to protect human health and the environment then we must Work Together to conduct true oversight of the fundamental damage being done to this agency and our neighbors back home. Thank you. I thank gentleman. I would just in response to my friend from florida, our committee staff, the Oversight Committee has worked diligently throughout the last several weeks in Clear Communication with the various agencies involved in the hurricane. This hearing was put together before harvey had a name. So we will do our oversight and continue to at the appropriate time. I anticipate a delegation will hold hearings or do appropriate review. Im one when there is an emergency going on tries to stay out of the way of the First Responders and let them do their job. And so at the right time we will do that and we will have administrator pruitt before our committee sooner rather than later. I share frustration that it has been a long delay in getting some of these positions filled partly by our friends in the senate. But the time has come for the agency heads to come before our committee and they will. Now, as to this hearing, i appreciate subcommittee chairman murphy in the opening comments. We care deeply about what is happening in texas. We care deeply about what is about to happen in florida. My own district is on fire. Much destruction going on there. All these things matter. You want to talk about air quality, we can use your support on some of our forestry legislation to reduce fuel loads so we dont poison people with fires. We know that these Recovery Efforts will continue for years. Recovery from any disaster whether Hurricane Harvey or irma or destructive wild fires requires coordination at every level of the government and epa is a critical part of that. I hope the Agency Seizes on Lessons Learned in responses to previous Natural Disasters such as hurricanes katrina and sandy. Todays hearing represents the first opportunity to hear from epa office of Inspector General and Government Accountability office regarding outstanding recommendations that if implemented could enable the agency to better achieve or do its job better. We will also examine some areas of concern that have been identified and commented upon by the oig and gao but whose recommendations remain unimplemented by the epa. We should be mindful that many unimplemented recommendations span multiple administrations and therefore represent long standing challenges for the agency. For example, we learned the epa has failed to complete an agency wide work load analysis in more than 20 years. Similarly, both oig and gao identified issues that generate concerns as to whether they adequately monitor despite the significant portion of the annual budget. Addressing these issues will increase transparency and accountability to epa in addition to enabling the agency to make better informed decisions. I believe all americans want a healthy environment for themselves and families in their communities. I would like to thank Allen Larsson from epa and to expand upon findings and recommendations. I would like to recognize and thank mr. Gomezs nephews who i understand are serving the houston Fire Department. Thank you for their work as First Responders who bravely assisted so many fellow citizens during Hurricane Harvey. I am looking forward to productive discussion regarding actions epa can take which would enable the agency to better accomplish core mission. I yield back the balance of my time. I recognize Ranking Member. Its been a week and a half since Hurricane Harvey hit texas. As the scope of the environmental disaster only begins to become known thousands remain displaced. I know firsthand the immense devastation caused by such natur Natural Disasters. In 2012 my district was hit hard by hurricane sandy. For many this was a worst case scenario, lives lost, homes flooded, businesses lost. Our nation is experiencing destruction and loss on the gulf coast. Our fellow members of congress including five members of the texas delegation on this committee are working hard with federal, state and local officials to help those effected by the storm. As the cleanup continues many grave environmental and Human Health Risks exist. In the days since Hurricane Harvey came ashore we have seen chemical plants on fire, pollutants in the air and flooded federal superfund sites. I am concerned about the risks caused by exposure to hazardous materials. This committee must work to understand impacts some of these facilities may have on Public Health. The Trump Administration recently delayed amendments to the Risk Management program which included safety requirements for companies that store large quantities of dangerous chemicals. The Environmental Issues resulting from the hurricane under score the need for robust implementation of the Emergency Planning and community right to know act. Communities have the right to know important details about the harmful chemicals released. All of these risks under score the need for strong and capable epa. We are discussing recommendations by the Inspector General and the Government Accountability office. I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony and work on the recommendations. I would argue that recommendations for improving epas performance are part of a much wider need to ensure that the agency is high performing, efficient and effective in accomplishing the agencys mission of protecting human health and the environment. Over the last six months epa has been doing Everything Possible to operate in secrecy. Administrator pruitt has no interest in transparency and that should be unacceptable to every member of the committee. He repeatedly disregards oversight inquiries and that should be unacceptable to anyone who believes we have an oversight responsibility. The trump epa has proposed aggressive cuts to environment and human health protections, dismissed scientists and proposed budget and staffing reductions. These actions taken in totality serve to directly undermine the ability to protect human health and the environment. A robust and effective epa is key in responding to Natural Disasters like Hurricane Harvey. Epa has 143 personnel supporting response efforts for Hurricane Harvey and established unified command with state and local partners. That number is going to increase as after Hurricane Katrina about 1,600 staff and contractors work in the Gulf Coast Region assisting with response. In addition to thousands of additional employees supporting response efforts in epa headquarters and Regional Offices. The employee cuts and byouts we need to ensure the epa will have employees in place to conduct this critical work. I want to work with you to make sure we have a robust and effective epa. The committee must conduct an active oversight of the agency particularly Drinking Water, infrastructure and regulation, clean air protections and impacts of Climate Change. Must conduct ongoing oversight over epa and other efforts to assist the gulf coast rebuild. And the Trump Administrations ongoing efforts to weaken Environmental Health protections, attack fundamental science and to propose extreme budget and staff reductions will do nothing in my opinion but undermine epas efforts to protect human health and the environment not only with regard to Hurricane Harvey but in so many other areas. I am concerned and i hope that we can Work Together. Again, thanks to everyone and yield back, looking forward to your comments to the panel. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that written Opening Statements entered into the record. I would like to introduce our panel. First we have mr. Allen larsson, the council to the Inspector General. We have mr. Gomez who serves director of Natural Resources and environment for the Government Accountability office. Thank you for being here today and providing testimony. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss open and unimplemented recommendations. You aware the committee is holding an do you have objection to testimony under oath . Either advised by council during testimony . In that case please rise and raise your right hand. Swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth . Both answered in the affirmative and now under oath. Five minute summary of written statement. We begin with you mr. Larsson. Could you turn your microphone on, please . Thank you. Pull it close to you. Thank you. Good morning, again, chairman murphy, members of the subcommittee. I am Allen Larsson, council to the Inspector General for both the Environmental Protection agency and the chemical safety and hazard investigation board. I thank this committee for highlighting the importance of acting on unimplemented oig recommendations. As you know office of Inspector General cannot direct agencys actions. Our influence is through recommendations which can result in substantial cost savings and major improvements but only if an agency chooses to implement them. Our oig undertakes a riskbased planning process to determine which issues to review during the coming year. Our plan, however, is always subject to change as we receive hotline requests and congressional requests. We conduct those reviews and issue final reports which generally will include one or more recommendations to address our findings. As required by the Inspector General act it publishes a cumulative list of unimplemented recommendations in our semiannual reports to congress. Our most recent report cited 43 omen recommendations with pastdue completion dates and 56 with future dates. Notably potential cost savings for unimplemented recommendations amount to 100 million. I will briefly discuss recommendations to the epa that remain unimplemented. Some are quite recent. I highlight them because of their potential impact. In july 2017 we completed a review of the processes theopy uses to verify Agency Contractors have training needed to protect the agency from cyber attacks. We found that the epa is unaware of the number of contractors who require specialized training. Recommended that the epa implement a process to maintain a listing of contractors who require the specialized training and that the Agency Report this information through its chief Information Security officer. While the agency has committed to implement a process for verifying that Agency Contractors are appropriately trained, our recommendations remains unimplemented posing continuing risk to the agencys information, data and network. Through another audit completed in august of 2014, we looked at the agencys oversight of Cloud Computing initiatives. We found that the lack of oversight over vendors resulted in missed opportunities for significant savings. The epa paid over 2 million for services not fully rendered or did not comply with federal requirements. We recommended several corrective actions to the agency such as improving policies and performing documented cost benefit analysis. To date the agency has not fully implemented all of our recommendations. In april 2017 we completed a review of puerto ricos state revolving funds based on hotline complaint from the epa. The epa reported that the bank did not have funds to honor a combined balance of approximately 188 million. The oig determined over 774 million is at risk due to puerto ricos financial crisis and that the restoration of funds in the near future is highly unlikely. The oig recommended that epa evaluate options to restore availability of revolving funds or implement new strategies better suited for the needs of puerto rico. While the agency committed to considering future the recommendations is as yet unimplemented. These are a few examples of recommendations to the agency. We will continue to work with the epa and Keep Congress fully advised regarding actions to address our recommendations. Accomplishing our work requires sufficient appropriate funds from congress. Our funding clearly represents a fruitful investment for the american taxpayer as the oig returned 22 for every dollar given to us in fiscal year 2016. While im aware that this is not an appropriations committee, i respectfully ask for any help you can provide us in this regard. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Chairman murphy members of the subcommittee good morning and i am pleased to talk to you about the status of recommendations gao has made to the Environmental Protection agency. As you know the mission of the epa is to protect human health and the environment. We have conducted reviews focussed on various aspects of epas operations such as managing grants, workforce planning and its programs and through these reviews we have made numerous recommendations to improve epas puerformance and efficiency and effectiveness. My statement will focus on two main areas. First the status of impleme implementation since fiscal year 2007 and how these recommendations relate to epas operations and programs. Examples of benefits realized by epa and others based on our work. As part of our process we follow up on recommendations we have made and report on their status to congress. Agencies also have a responsibility to monitor and maintain accurate records on the status of our recommendations. We now follow up with epa twice a year to determine the extent to which our recommendations have been implemented and the benefits that have been realized. We consider a recommendation implemented when the agency has taken actions. With regard to the first area on the status of gaos recommendations we found that of the 318 recommendations we made to epa they had implemented 191. The remaining 127 recommendations remain open or not itch lmplemented. For recommendations that we made over four years ago, that is recommendations from fiscal year 2007 to 2012, epa has implemented 77 . For recommendations made within the last four years, that is since fiscal year 2013 epa has implemented 34 . Experience has shown it takes time for some recommendations to be implemented. For this reason we actively track each unaddressed or open recommendation for four years. The 318 recommendations we have made fall into six broad categories such as management and operations, waterrelated issues and environmental contamination and cleanup. For example, in january 2017 we reported an epas management of grants to states, local governments and others which. We found epa does not have sufficient information about the work load associated with the grants. The agency is not able to effectively allocate staff across offices and regions to manage these grants. Because the agency did not know its grants work load it sometimes has to shift staff from other Mission Areas to address the work. We recommended that epa collect and analyze data about grants management work loads and use these data to inform staff allocations. Epa agreed with this recommendation and initiated steps to address it and we will continue to monitor epas actions to figure out what the status is. We have identified many benefits such as programmatic and process improvements based on epa taking actions on our recommendations. For example, we issued several reports on Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure issues. In particular, we reported on Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure needs for rural and small communities. We found that some communities faced potentially duplicate programs resulting in delays and increased cost to communities. We recommended that epa and the department of agriculture Work Together with state and other officials to develop guidelines to assist states in developing uniform environmental analysis and they have done so. In summary, our recommendations provide a Good Opportunity to improve the governments fiscal position, better serve the public and make Government Programs more effective and efficient. Epas implementation of our recommendations will help the agency continue to improve its performance and efficiency and effectiveness of its operations and we will continue to work with congress to monitor and draw attention to the important issues. Chairman murphy, congressman caster, members of the subcommittee this concludes my statement and i am happy to answer any questions and thank you for your words of support to my family in texas and my nephews and all the other families in texas. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Larsson. I recognize myself for five minutes. Your organizations have consistently highlighted epas failures to perform adequate workforce and work load analysis as being an area of concern warrants corrective action. Could you explain how epas failure to assess workforce and work load hinders the ability to respond to Natural Disasters like Hurricane Harvey and irma . So what we have talked about in our work looking at workforce planning and grants management is that it is really important for the agency as you said to have good information on work load. So data on work load is important because the agency doesnt really ensure that it has the right people in the right places with the right skills and competencies to accomplish the mission. To focus on areas that are short term or long term. Something the agency struggled with for decades we continue to make recommendations. We think that is really important to ensure that it has the right people and the right places with the right skill sets and the right locations. Mr. Larsson, can you comment on how it effects our ability to respond to the hurricanes . The igs work i think is directly aligned with gaos work in this area. We have issued reports with recommendations as of july of this year the agency has responded to and acted on the last of the open recommendations. However, for the last several years including the current management challenges report that we gave to the agency we continue to highlight workforce planning as a challenge that the agency needs to address. I guess the simple answer to your question is that if the agency doesnt know what its work requirements are it cannot assign and align people to those requirements. And we are urging them to as mr. Gomez says, identify the data that allows them to make those comparisons and align their work with their workforce. Do you often times find weakness in a time of challenge. Every year since 2014 the gao sent a letter highlighting recommendations and considers them critical to the mission to protecting human health and the environment. As epa responds to Hurricane Harvey and prepares to respond to Hurricane Irma any high priority recommendations that could have what are hot priorities right now that need to be done . The high priority letter sent we have done since 2015. We have really looked at the recommendations made and identify those areas that we saw as high priority either areas that gao has identified as high risk. We have a number of recommendations focussing on Water Infrastructure. I think one of the priority recommendations that we think does have relevance to harvey and other future disaster is the area of Water Infrastructure. So for example, we have done work looking at how small and rural utilities use Asset Management which is a really important tool to understand what infrastructure these utilities have, perhaps where the areas are in that infrastructure that are vulnerable or high risk so that when a disaster does take place they are better prepared both to respond to it but also if they have to rebuild they can rebuild with resilience in mind. So we have made a number of recommendations to epa. Getting epa to work with the department of agriculture to come up with better guidelines and information and to encourage the states and the utilities to use Asset Management. Small utilities are challenged because they dont have the nec, but we should do whatever we can in the federal family and others to help these communities better prepare for these disasters. Finally, in june of 2007 gao released a report on Hurricane Katrina that made several recommendations related to enhancing Disaster Response. One of the recommendations is still open after ten years. Mr. Gomez, why is that recommendation still open and what was it and is it going affect how things are in texas, louisiana, florida, puerto rico . Sure. What we did in that report from 2007 is we were looking at epas response to katrina and also to the subsequent cleanup. One of the recommendations that we kept open over the years was we had recommended that epa work with other federal Land Management agencies, dhs and fema to better coordinate responses to cleanup. The reason we did that is because we found in the work that National Wildlife refuge, which there are several in louisiana, have been contaminated and the contamination lasted over a year. So there was not really good planning to come together and cleanup that contamination. Some of the refuges were closed over a year. What happened since then is Congress Passed the postkatrina act which put in place Better National preparedness and also put in place the National Response framework, of which epa has a key role now in responding to Hazardous Waste and oil spills. So in theory we expect that epa is putting in place, for example, in florida any response thats needed as the hurricane may come to that region. So were going to look at that recommendation based on whats happened now and potentially close it because we think it might address what we had been talking about. Thank you. I notice my time has expired. Ms. Cast, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thanks again, gentlemen. As the agency goes forward to implement what has not been implemented to date, it would seem that the Trump Administrations kind of assault on the professional staff there and personnel would have a real impact on the ability to follow through with your recommendations. The Trump Administration has still failed to provide nominees for almost all senateconfirmed leadership positions at epa. Most regional administrator positions are also without political leadership, including epa region 6 in dallas, responding to Hurricane Harvey. The Trump Administration a lot of this, we blame a lot on the senate but you cant put too much blame on the senate here because the Trump Administration has not nominated people for deputy administrator, assistant administrator for the office of air and radiation, assistant administrator for the office of chemical safety and pollution prevention, the chief financial officer, the assistant administrator for environmental information, international and tribal affairs, land and emergency management, research and development and water. Do you all agree when you dont have folks in charge that it is it kplilcomplicates the ay of the agency to follow through with your recommendations . Well, the short answer is yes. The longer answer is we have career people who remain in place who do carry out the work of the agency, but, as you indicate, the statutory mandates remain in place. It is up to the agency to figure out a way to carry out those mandates, and it is more difficult if you dont have the leadership. Yep. Yes, i would agree it is important to have all of the staff that you need at all levels of the agency to carry out its mission. Mr. Gomez, you said explanation to hald all grants to the Regional Office that covers alaska, washington, oregon and ohio. It was quickly narrowed to alaska and remained in place for nearly two weeks. The former bush epa administrator, Christine Todd whitman, said it is out of the ordinary. We didnt do a political screening on every grant because many were based on science and political appointees dont have that kind of background. Have you all opened any kind of investigation into what is happening here yet . Weve read those reports. Weve not received complaints from congress so far or from members of the public or from organizations about this. Okay. If you could or if you would, i offer a general and a specific answer to your question. Quickly because i have one more question. Okay. The general answer is epa has always been a lightning rod. We get complaints on the one hand that epa is ignoring its statutory obligations and allowing let me i thank you for that. You have, i believe, opened an investigation last week into administrator pruitts travel because it is so out of the ordinary that he has it says, officials in the epas office of Inspector General notified Agency Leadership last week that pruitt was in oklahoma or en route there for nearly half of his first three months and looks like he has been using taxpayer funds for this excessive travel. How long will it take for to get to the bottom of this investigation . Maam, in our world we distinguish between investigations and audits, and it is probably a distinction most people dont care about, but were doing an audit. They tend to take longer. Were going to look not only at the specifics of mr. Pruitts travel but the robustness of the controls that govern travel generally and whether theyre sufficient. Thank you very much. I yield back. Thank you. Chair recognizes mr. Griffith for five minutes. Let me follow up on that real quick, and correct me if im wrong, but an investigation means youre looking into something that might have wrong doing and an audit means youre checking epas office of Inspector General that would be yall reported epa has not conducted workload analysis in over 20 years, making it difficult for epa to implement corrective actions and allocate its budget effectively. I guess what im looking at there is weve heard talks today about a few months where certain positions arent filled, but here were looking at 20 years, both republican and democratic administrations, that have not at the epa gone in and looked at their workload analysis. Then we see with Hurricane Harvey that we had 13 Super Fund Sites affect. Am i not correct if we performed a workload analysis over time im not saying all 13 of them would be cleaned up, but we might have more superfunds being cleaned up . I also reference because were talking about harvey so much now, but i remember testimony in a previous hearing in a different subcommittee where they were talking about a site in st. Louis that hadnt been acted on or in the st. Louis vicinity that hadnt been acted on in decades as well that was a superfund site as well. Can you help me out with the things that would have helped before disaster and in general if we had a workload analysis, to say these are the worst ones and lets put people there. Im happy to take answers from either of you. I will give my short answer and mr. Gomez can respond. My short answer is it is difficult to draw a direct line between the lack of a workforce plan and a specific failure to be able to cover something. I think we can all say if if you knew more precisely where your requirements are and how many people and what kinds of people you need to address those you would probably have a better result, but i i cant draw a direct, you know, onetoone correlation. Mr. Gomez. I would pivot from that last comment. I think that our point on our work on workforce planning has been exactly that point, is to understand, again, where from data where your people are, what skill sets you need, the locations you need them in, so that you have a better sense of how to meet that mission. That mission could be that you focus on cleaning up Hazardous Waste sites. But doing a workforce analysis i think would help you hopefully do that better. Well, in a workforce analysis would help us as legislators as well, although this is not an appropriating committee. We hear all the time folks need more money. Well, if i know you need more money because youre going to help Rural Communities and i appreciate you mention Rural Communities with water and wastewater help those communities instead of just send edicts down from the towers in washington, here is anything. That, you know, back when the republicans first took the congress, i know it is ancient history now, with Newt Gingrich as the speaker it expired. I begged him and democrats begged him at the time to renew it and he refewed. He refused. I still have the bill out there and i would ask at any time if our chairman or the speaker would allow us to reauthorize the superfund trust fund, because then we would have the money to do these cleanups. You know, on an annual basis i go before the aappropriate raters because thats the only way to get the money now through general revenue unfortunately and ask for more funding and we always get less, significantly less than we ask for. So, you know, it is nice to talk about superfund cleanup, but the reality is it has been you know, it was essentially stopped by the republican congress. Not to say that, you know, theyre totally to blame, but they certainly were the ones that and you can bring it up any time and ill support you, passing it in committee or on the floor. I just wanted to say i wanted to thank the epa oig for recently accepting the committees request to review the appropriatity of administrator pruitts use of taxpayer funds for travel to and from his home state of oklahoma. I know we have mentioned that. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has launched a continuous assault against fundamental science and threatens to undermine the agencys efforts to protect human health and the environment. In your testimony, mr. Gomez, you testify gao has made 300 recommendations since fiscal year 2007, including 49 recommended on cleanup and these include taking actions for cleaning cleanup management at Hazardous Waste sites, enhancing responses to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. My answer is, is that correct . How would it inform the agencys ongoing response to Hurricane Harvey . Yes, that is correct. Again, i think as i mentioned earlier one of the areas where we see epas recommendations contributing to the response in harvey and other future disasters is in the area of Water Infrastructure, where weve recommended the epa work with states and others to really assist the small communities. Weve all heard that in texas there were many Water Systems that were under boil water notices, and then over 50 systems i believe were actually shut down. So we think it is really important in the area of Asset Management, which is a really important tool for these utilities to use to understand, again, what they have, what are the areas that are vulnerable so they can address them and they can use funds to then build them or restore them and, again, building in resilience so theyre better prepared. So i think thats the one area where i would sort of call attention based on our recommendations where theres some immediate benefit. All right. Thank you. You know, i dont want to keep repeating all of the budget cuts that the Trump Administration has proposed to the epa, buyouts, you know, all kind of things that would result in fewer employees, and that could include hundreds of positions in epas region six headquarters in dallas where employees are currently responding to Hurricane Harvey. Let me ask you about these proposed cuts to your office, to mr. Larsen. How are current and expected budget limitations impacting Staffing Levels and the ability of epas office of Inspector General specifically . How are they impacting your ability to conduct audits, evaluations and investigations, if you will . Thank you for that question. It is a serious challenge to us. We have had to cut our workforce year by year by year, and we are down from 360 or so down to 270, and we anticipate having to go fewer than that based on the most likely budget scenarios. If the original president s Budget Proposal were to be adopted by congress wed have to cut very substantially the amount of work we did. As you know, we gave you a fairly detailed explanation of where those cuts would occur, which offices, which kinds of projects. What we do is on an annual basis plan for the work we would hope to do based on how much value the project would bring in terms much cost savings or changes in how epa does business. We will have to do many fewer such projects in any given year based on the likely budget outcomes. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Collins, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Maybe im going to go down a little bit different road, but really talking about, mr. Gomez, if i look back over ten years and im looking right now just in the environmental area and looking at the suggestions you made for spill preventage, none of which have been implemented. I guess the question is this. You know, youre doing this audits, making these recommendations. Do you prioritize them in some way, with any kind of ranking system, like a one star, five stars . And when you see Something Like this and now ten years have gone by could i assume these would have been considered perhaps lower priority . And then at some point do you go revisit that with someone, and who is that someone, to say, you know, hey, its been ten years you havent done any of these things . Or are these just thrown into the hopper and then kind of catch as catch can, they work on these, they dont work on those . Im trying to wrap my mind around the daybyday, yearbyyear interaction between your agency and those folks that are supposed to implement it to make sure highpriority things are done, you know, the squeaky wheel, that youre jabbing at them, why didnt you get this done and so forth. Could you maybe just help us all a little better understand how that all works, the interaction . Sure. So, first of all, i want to say we take recommendations to epa very seriously, and so what we do is we have a process in place where were actively following recommendations we made in the last four years. What can happen to some of the older recommendations is if we learn from the agency that either theyre not going to implement it or that we make an assessment that, you know, things have changed or it is no longer a priority, well go ahead and close it as not implemented. Now, there are recommendations though that are old, older than four years that were still keeping track of because we have an indication that epa is still working and we hope that they actually do take action. We can go back at any time and open up any old recommendation that was not implement if if we think it is important or if others have brought it to our attention. Our recommendations and the status of the recommendations are public, so you can go to any of our reports. You can click on the recommendation status, you can see what the rec was and what the status was. So we do have this separate letter that we mentioned earlier, which is a priority rec letter that our comptroller general sends to all of the cabinet agencies and other offices, calling attention to recommendations we see as a high priority. For epa weve identified those recommendations that deal with the highrisk area of managing toxic chemicals and some of the recommendations that deal with Water Infrastructure and also pollution of our waters. So that letter can also change year from year. If we go through the history and identify other recs we think are important, so we do that process as well. Now, i also mentioned that we work with epa sort of on an ongoing basis as were doing audits, but formally we go to them twice a year with a long list of all of our recommendation goes to say, here they are, theyre still open, let us know whats happening, let us know which we can close. We do that twice a year formally, but were in contact with them throughout the year. Thats very helpful because i think sometimes we may not understand how that all works and think you just throw it in and go on about your business, and i think it is actually reassuring to me certainly for one that youve got it sounds like pretety good interaction. Yes. Would you say that . Yes. Youre making them aware, theyre listening and it is right back forth . Yes, there are some recommendations where the agency may disagree with us. We may be at a point where they disagree, we disagree. We still think it is a good recommendation. So there are some like that. Those might be closed as not implemented, but epa has taken our recommendations seriously and they want to they want to close them out. They want to do what were saying. It is just in some cases, some of our recommendations might take a little longer to do, for example, if were recommending an i. T. System, for example, be revised or a new i. T. System be put in place. That may take a while longer than if we just recommended that the agency use existing web tools, for example, to provide better information to the public. We dont see that as taking a long time, or it shouldnt take a long time. I appreciate that overview. That was very helpful for me. Mr. Chairman, i yield back the balance much my time. Now recognize ms. Clarke for five minutes. I thank you, mr. Chairman. I thank our Ranking Member ms. Castor and i thank our witnesses for joining us today. Like mr. Pallone, my district in new york sustained very substantial damage as a result of superstorm sandy, so im very sensitive to the conditions on the ground in houston as well as concerned about the rest of hurricane season, quite frankly. So standing up a robust operation with the epa i know is critical at this time. There have been a number of reports about unfolding Environmental Concerns stemming from harvey right now. So, mr. Larson, i recognize your role at epa has not directly involve you in Emergency Response efforts. However, to the extent you able, could you please inform us of the epas role in responding to unfolding environmental threats . Sure. As mr. Gomez alluded to earlier, i think the primary set of responsibilities that epa has here stem from the National Response framework which came after some of the earlier Natural Disasters, and that means that epa has a responsibility as a support agency for certain functions and its got a primary responsibility for certain functions. The areas where we would expect to see epa involved are assessing and addressing fuel shortages, monitoring public Water Systems, securing Super Fund Sites and assessing conditions at Major Industrial facilities. Very well. Mr. Gomez, how will gao evaluate the epas efforts to respond to the environmental threats posed by hurricane season, Hurricane Harvey being the most recent example . Sure. So gao in the past, you know, we looked at the katrina Recovery Efforts. That was something that we did. Were happy to assist congress in any reviews or oversight that you would like us to do as a result of Hurricane Harvey. Mr. Larson, addressing the numerous cleanup issues related to harveys flooding will likely be very costly to both local and the federal government. What roles do you envision your office will be playing to ensure that federal money the epa uses to contract for harvey cleanup will be safeguarded from fraud and abuse . Yes, thank you. Were going to do two things. One is epa oig specific work. The other thing i wanted to mention is that the organization of igs across the federal government, the sigi, has learned from the past. In the past has had a Disaster Assistance working group, which is basically the igs from the various agencies that are going to have to play a role here. So epa will be participating in that effort, this agencywide ig or governmentwide oig effort to make sure that everybodys doing what they need to do and not duplicating each other. For ourselves, well probably, as you allude to, be looking at contracting issues, whether there was fraud involved. That could take the form of audits or investigations as we distinguished earlier, that is was there criminal activity going on or was there sloppy practice with regard to contracting. So those are the areas that we would see fairly early on getting involved in. Very well. Mr. Gomez, given that postharvey cleanup will be lengthy and costly, and i am assuming if were hit with irma and any other hurricanes coming down the pipe, what areas do you anticipate your gao team will be interesting in examining . Well, again, you know, were here to assist congress. So whatever Congress Asks us to do. As weve seen from at least whats becoming clear in texas with the superfund sites and all of the Water Infrastructure systems that are down, that maybe those are areas where potentially we could look at. But, again, we can have discussions with anyone in congress whos interested in having gao look at the response efforts. Very well. I cannot emphasize enough that we need to address any environmental threats posed to the residents of the harveyaffected region and perhaps even florida coming down the pipe. My thoughts are with the people of houston, the responders assisting on the scene. Lets be sure to get these folks what they need to help them get back on their feet. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Ill recognize gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Costello, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony here today. Mr. Gomez, i would like to start with you. Your written testimony mentions in 2015 the epa awarded approximately 3. 9 billion or nearly half of its budget in grants to state and local governments for important projects such as repairing aging wood or infrastructure, preventing pollution, improving air quality and cleaning up Hazardous Waste sites. How, gao found weaknesses in epas ability to manage these grants efficiently and effectively. My question is, would you please elaborate on the weaknesses gao identified in epas Grant Management procedures . Second, how have these Grant Management inefficiencies and weaknesses impacted grant recipients, grant money or made it more difficult for recipients to use Grant Funding for intended purposes . Sure. Thank you for those questions. So weve done a body of work on grants management, and that particular report where we looked at also, were looking to see for recipients, for example, where they were doing duplicative reporting. Currently under the grants management at epa recipients grant recipients have to provide performance reports, and then they also have to provide more information and data when epa asks for it. We identified a number of places where there was duplicative reporting by recipients. We recommended epa identify those places and try to do away with duplication so recipients arent having to spend additional time and resources in doing reporting. Thats one area where we called attention to it. Really, for epa to streamline. Epa does have a streamline initiative in place in its grants management. Were calling attention to the places where they can do away with duplicate so that the recipients can carry on with the grants and not have to do a lot of reporting. Mr. Larson. The oig made similar findings with respect to areas for improvement in epas management of grants. Do you have anything to add to the line of questioning that i posed to mr. Gomez relative to the management of grants . I wish i did. As representative clarke noted, im an expert in some areas, not so much in others. I would say that myself. What i would be happy to do is organize and get back to you and your staff with the primary findings that weve had in those areas. Thank you. I yield back the balance much my time. The gentleman yields back. Now remember nice the gentleman from california for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for taking the time to join us this morning. We have heard about the epas role in the Emergency Response programs for Natural Disasters like Hurricane Harvey and your coordinating efforts with fema, state and local. Im interested in your efforts to coordinate. What have you done to reach out and engage tribes with your efforts in Hurricane Harvey . So far weve not reached out to anybody. As i said, you know, at this point we dont want to wander on to the battlefield while the battle is underway. The ig communitywide effort that i alluded to earlier is, among other things, going to coordinate among the various igs and also with the tribes and the states. I think thats important to take back to this group, to not to neglect the sovereignty of tribes and the role that tribes have in maintaining their environment during Natural Disasters as well. So reaching out to them and coordinating. Some tribes actually have equipment and the technology that can help the Disaster Response. In my district with the indians utilizing helicopters and other surveying technology in coordination with the Fire Department to put out some wildfires. So i would highly recommend that you take it back and you start coordinating also with tribes as a sovereign nation and a governmental entity themselves also. They can be very, very helpful for the region. What are you know, given the oigs review of the epas response to environmental threats, what are some of the Lessons Learned from some of the that we might see for future storm threats in an area where the ig might consider additional audit work . Sure. Weve, unfortunately, had katrina. Weve had superstorm sandy. Weve learned from both. Among the things that we learned were that the coordination between epa and the corps of engineers wasnt necessarily what it could have been or should have been. Coordination with state and local officials probably could have been done better. Weve addressed those to the agency. Presumably this time around youll see better coordination. Most likely well be coming in and seeing whether in fact are you prepared to assess that . And the difference on whether or not those recommendations are followed . I cant commit that theyre going to. I expect that we will. Some mr. Pa lones question earlier where resources are constrained, but it would be a high priority for us. This is kwae fa question for of you. If you were to pick a number one barrier for you to do your job as epa involved in either coordination or protecting superfund sites or protecting Water Infrastructure, et cetera, so that theyre not contaminated, what would that barrier be . If you were to pick the biggest barrier, what would it be, mr. Larson . Im sorry. I dont mean to sound dense, but are you talking about epas sponsor the oigs valuation of the epas response . Well, the epas response. You evaluate the epa. So what would you say would be the epas barrier in doing its job . Youre putting me in position of speaking for them, but i i would think it is resources, people and money. People and money. Mr. Gomez . I would say, you know, in the areas that were seeing unfolding, right, which is in Water Infrastructure and the superfund sites, at least in texas, that are flooded, is making sure they have enough people there on the ground to respond to those two immediate areas where potentially there are risks involved. So i would say that that would be that is a barrier that they should have enough folks there to address it right now. And so what can congress do to address that barrier . Mr. Larson . Well, in my view youve already got the requirements in place. You have the clean air act, you have the clean water act, and it is up to epa to execute on that. They need the people and they need policy determination to carry forward. I think it is what you are doing now. It is the oversight of looking to see how it is being done, and even after the fact how was it done and could something be done better. So the oversight is a diagnostic workup, right . And youre telling us the diagnosis is a lack of funding, a lack of people. So treatment is the next step. You cant just diagnose a problem and walk away. You have to act on it and give the treatment to the patient. So the treatment is the funding and policy that will help bring more people on site to manage the situation, not only in the short view of a disaster but in the longterm of Public Health recuperation. I have disaster training in my background. I did a fellowship at harvard in humanitarian Disaster Response. Thats where im speaking from. Thank you very much. The chair will now recommend ms. Brooks for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank our panelists for being here today and for your work to improve the epa. Weve been very focused on the people, and agencies arent just agencies, they are people. As my colleagues have noted, it is about the people. But im concerned that this agency for a long period of time has not accepted your recommendations when it comes to people and when it comes to their workforce. In 2010 gao issued a report recommending the epa establish mechanisms to evaluate workforce planning. People, placement of people. The recommendations currently closed and unimplemented. So, mr. Gomez, why was this recommendation closed before epa was able to implement it, if you know . So, again, we track recommendations for four years, and if we have an indication that the agency is not going to do it we close it as not implemented. Obviously weve done some recent work that focuses on Grant Management, but also looking at workforce issues in particular, which is a large part of epa. So epa has told us that currently they are giving workforce planning a priority. So were going to look to see how much of a priority that is and, in fact, what theyre going to do. You know, weve been talking about that it is basically about data. They dont have good workforce data. They dont have good information on the types of work that each of the staff is doing across offices and across regions. So if you dont have that data, then you, again, dont ensure that you have the right people in the right places with the right skill sets to accomplish the mission thats needed. Which those are the management challenges that you are dealing with them and have dealt with them for years. It sounds like this is not new, is that correct . That is correct. And do you have any sense what percentage of epas funding goes to private sector contract work versus the Public Sector work . So, in our 2010 report we did look at contractors, and at the time there were 6,000 contractors at epa. So im not sure exactly what that translates to in terms of budget, but i think it is a considerable chunk of their budget. So what we also found in that report was that contractors were not part of epas planning either, were not incorporated. So and we learned from epa theyre still not incorporated in their planning, and we shink it should be something they do. When they employ 6,000 contractors theyre not taken into consideration in their Strategic Plans . Correct. And have they agreed recently to take all of those thousands of contractors and to account in their plans . So far what weve learned is they havent done it yet still. So im not sure if theyre agreeing or disagreeing. The explanation they gave us was that omb didnt require them in their planning to include contractors and thats why they didnt do it. Is it fair to say and im going to ask you, mr. Larson, relative i have always been very concerned about Information Security issues, and for the ig thats what you focus on as well. There are a number of contractors, as i understand, and if some bad actors were wrong doers, want to wreak a bit of havoc in the system they could certainly do it through information technology. Can you talk with us about the lack of understanding at epa relative to Sensitive Data, the access to Sensitive Data and what you have found about the information or lack of information about the knowledge of epa and those access to Sensitive Data . Sure. I think what we talk about is risk as opposed to actual problems that have manifested. That is, you know, we have not investigated an Insider Threat where an individual breached his obligation and created a vulnerability. What were talking about is if we dont address the vulnerability, then the potential is out there. So thats what weve been looking at. We find that the agency doesnt know how serious a problem that is and they dont havent taken the steps to mitigate the potential risk we have identified. And that was just in your july 17 report that the agency just issued . Thats correct. Thank you. I yield back. Gentlemen woman yields back. Represent mr. Tonko for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair. I want to express my deepest condolences to our fellow americans suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Harvey. Anyone who has witnessed this daybyday reporting with deep concern and sadness for the folks who are enduring. Epa has, therefore, an important play to play in Disaster Response and recovery, ensuring the Environmental Monitoring and remediation needed to protect Public Health, and these storms, these Natural Disasters dont know a republican from democrat. So it ought to be a universal an agreed approach we take in washington, but that can only be done if the epa has the resources and personnel to do so. This epa released a statement highlighting some of the work they will need to do in the days, weeks and months ahead. That includes assessing the existing superfund sites that were flooded and could be damaged, addressing the many drinking and wasteWater Systems that remain shut down or damaged or are dealing with health advisories, assisting with testing for private wells and supporting local First Responders with monitoring and cleanup following chemical fires at the facility in cross by, texas. The need for a strong, robust epa is outstandingly clear, and massive budget and workforce cuts and proposals to weaken or limit Regional Offices are not the answer. Beyond that i have to believe it is tremendously demoralizing to the professional staff of the agency, many of whom offer their lifetime career to the agency and the betterment of americans across the country. I want to thank you, mr. Gomez and mr. Larson, for being here this morning. The recommendations proposed by igo and the epas office to continue to make it a efficient office. Sadly, the Trump Administration is aggressively working to dismantle the epa through extreme budget cuts and staff eliminations and ongoing assault on science. These are foolish cuts, proven to be foolish when we see disasters displayed before our very eyes. Mr. Gomez, gao released a report on epa on workforce planning in march of 2010 that con clulded the agencys efforts have particularly fallen short in aligning the agencys workforce plan with Strategic Plans. The report includes that the agency is at risk for not having the appropriately Skilled Workforce they need to effectively achieve their mission. Are you generally familiar with that report of 2010 . Yes. Mr. Gomez, did epa take action to address that . They have not yet. What about further actions in regard to will they be doing anything you know of in respect to workforce planning to correct those the numbers they require . No. Thats still an outstanding recommendation. Again, to properly align its workforce plan with its Strategic Plan and its budget. And has the Trump Administration proposed cutting to the agency by 2. 6 billion, thats about a 31 reduction. And proposed reducing the workforce by 3800 employees. This program is to protect our air and water, address Climate Change or highlight for elimination, this unbelievable cut, this includes the chemical safety board, the agency tasked with the chemicals such as the recent plant in texas. You found that the march 2010 report found that the ability of federal agencies to achieve their mission and carry out responsibilities depends in large part on whether they can sustain a workforce that possesses the they education, knowledge, skills and other competencies. Is that correct . Yes, thats correct. Well, i thank you, mr. Chair. We should all be concerned about how extreme the budget cuts proposed are and that the staffing reductions proposed would undermine epas ability to accomplish its mission, especially in the face of disasters. These are troubling cuts and proven daybyday now with these disasters to be the most foolish approach to an agency that was envisioned by president nixon to address safe water that we drink, clean air that we breathe and all of the environmental benefits that should be associated with our rights as americans to enjoy that environment as fully as possible. So i do appreciate the work youre doing to draw the attention of the American Public to these cuts and to the essential element that these agencies require in order to respond fully and effectively to their mission. With that i yield back. Chairman yields back. Seeing we have no more members here, we will conclude this hearing. I would like to thank all of the witnesses and members and participants in todays hearing. I realize a lot was along the lines of what else are we going to be doing. It was important to get it on the record, for epa to hear. We expect them to take care of the issues, to fill positions needed, to take account of what is going on because we will be asking more and tougher questions about what has happened in terms of preparedness and response here. None of us want to see any loss of life or property caused by them fulfilling their duties. So we thank you for your observations and your comments today. I remind members they have ten Business Days to submit questions for the record. I ask that the witnesses agree to respond promptly to the questions. With that, this committee is adjourned. Sunday night on q and a, adam, founder and ceo of open the books, on how taxpayers dollars are spent and the need for government transparency. Veterans affairs, weve audited their checkbook for the past four years. Last summer we found that during a period where up to 1,000 sick veterans died while waiting to see a doctor that the va spent 20 million on a highend art portfolio. A 27foot Christmas Tree costing an amount, priced like cars, 21,000. It was sculptures priced like fivebedroom homes. It was huge sculptures for 700,000, procured by a va center that serves blind veterans. It was a huge rock sculpture all in with landscaping for 1. 2 million. This is the type of waste thats in our government. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern on cspans q a. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979 cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. On tuesday, the center for strategic and International Studies hosted a day long panel on the u. S. South korea alliance. You will hear from south koreas Foreign Affairs vice minister. This part of the event is one hour and 45 minutes. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you all for coming back after president li and ambassador armitage. We will start the first substantive panel and inti