EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin Testifies Before House Committee On Energy And Commerce

[20:45] Subcommittee will come to order, but before we begin I want to note for the record that I am [20:49] filling in for Subcommittee Chairman Gary Palmer. Gary had a conflict to rise in scheduling and was [20:56] unable to attend this morning's hearing. I now recognize myself for five minutes. Today we will [21:05] consider President Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection [21:10] Agency. I'm glad to welcome back Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, [21:16] who I and many of us remember fondly from serving with him in the House and working with him [21:22] in his capacity as Administrator. Administrator, when you testified before this committee last [21:27] year to discuss EPA's budget request for fiscal year 2026, I noted that you faced a difficult but [21:33] important job as the EPA Administrator. I believe that you've done an excellent job as Administrator. [21:41] The people across my district have been excited to see the direction that you and President Trump [21:45] have steered the EPA under your Great American Comeback Initiative. Thank you and President Trump [21:53] for returning the EPA to its rightful role of protecting human health and cleaning up the [21:57] environment, not as an anti-jobs agency. It is refreshing to see the Trump administration take a [22:03] measured and thoughtful approach to regulation and enforcement, unlike under the previous administration [22:09] where the agency operated as a center for pushing uncompromising ideologies. The EPA, under Trump, [22:16] has closely followed its enabling statutes and not stretched the meaning of the law [22:21] for the benefit of overzealous activists. I commend you for taking a pragmatic approach [22:28] to regulatory actions that closely uphold the laws the EPA is charged with enforcing. [22:33] The EPA has done great work over this past year from cleaning up sewage spills in California [22:38] to expediting Superfund site closures and to clarifying Clean Air Act guidance. You were tasked with undoing [22:48] the regulatory overreach of the Biden-Harris administration and refocusing EPA's work, [22:54] and I believe you're off to a good start. Also, I would like to take a moment to personally thank you [22:58] and President Trump for prioritizing the rollback of blatantly anti-coal regulations that were churned out [23:05] in what seemed to me to be almost a monthly basis by the Biden-Harris EPA. Under your leadership, [23:13] EPA finalized a repeal of the Obama administration's 2009 so-called greenhouse gas endangerment finding [23:19] under the Clean Air Act, which led to a series of costly regulations that limited consumer choices. [23:27] And as I pointed out at the time that originally started coming out, I didn't understand how you could [23:31] do one side of the science and not the other side of the science. There was no balance-counterbalance. [23:35] It was just one side of the story. Over the past year, the EPA has also worked to improve permitting [23:41] guidance under the Clean Air Act. EPA has prioritized actions to safeguard drinking water, including [23:46] proposing to require monitoring of microplastics, PFAS, and pharmaceuticals under the Safe Drinking [23:53] Water Act. Administrator, you have also been successful in reining in the wasteful Green New Deal and [23:58] DEI initiatives that characterized the Biden administration. For fiscal year 2027, President [24:05] Trump is requesting $4.2 billion in new budget authority for the EPA. This budget proposal would [24:13] provide more than $2.5 billion for EPA environmental management programs, as well as almost $750 million in [24:19] grant assistance for states and tribes, more than $500 million for science and technology activities, [24:25] and $290 million for Superfund site cleanup. Despite what our friends across the aisle may say, [24:31] this is a significant amount of taxpayer dollars. It is important to remember the EPA received a [24:39] very large $100 billion in appropriations for fiscal years 2022 through 2026 from the Infrastructure [24:46] Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. Such heavy funding levels or high funding levels, [24:53] over 10 times the average historical EPA appropriation was intended to be a one-time, [24:59] once-in-a-generation supplement with much of the increased funding for specific water infrastructure [25:05] and cleanup programs. These appropriations were never, never intended to be the new normal for EPA funding. [25:13] This budget request is fiscally responsible and focuses on infrastructure and distinct cleanup goals. [25:20] The EPA's budget request will continue to support EPA's core programs and is in line with limited [25:27] legal authority and cooperative federalism and a cooperative federalism framework that Congress [25:33] envisioned for the EPA. It is important for Congress to examine how the laws it enacts are working [25:39] and whether they need to be amended or even repealed. When I was chairman of the Environmental [25:44] in the Environment Subcommittee, we began reviewing all of EPA's statutory authorities. [25:50] Chairman Palmer has continued with this important work by holding hearings and markups on reauthorizations [25:56] for the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Brownfield laws, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and by considering [26:04] amendments to the Clean Air Act and the federal waste and recycling laws. Thank you again for coming before us [26:10] today, Administrator Zeldin. I look forward to hearing about your priorities for the EPA and how [26:15] Congress can help ensure that we have clean air, clean water, and good jobs. With that, I yield back [26:23] and now recognize my colleague, the Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko from New York, for his five-minute opening statement. [26:29] Thank you, Mr. Chair and Administrator Zeldin. Welcome. Welcome back to the subcommittee. Fiscal year [26:34] 2027 budget request proposes a more than 52% cut to EPA. This includes a 91% reduction to categorical [26:43] grants that states rely upon to support implementation of environmental laws. The EPA's budget claims it [26:50] will empower states through cooperative federalism, but we all know what this really is. It's cost [26:56] shifting, requiring states to find more revenue to carry out federal requirements at a time when costs [27:02] from Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and other programs are being passed on to those state budgets. [27:07] This budget request also claims to return primary responsibility for water infrastructure to state [27:14] and local governments, and it includes a nearly 90% reduction to the state revolving funds over $2.5 [27:21] billion, which local governments rely upon to finance water system projects. This budget completely fails [27:29] to recognize that the federal government is currently responsible for a whopping 4% of water systems [27:35] capital and operating expenses. 96% of water utility expenses are paid for by non-federal sources, [27:45] primarily customers. If the federal government further reduces its financial commitment, [27:51] people inevitably will see their water bills go up, especially as systems work to reduce risks from lead, [27:57] public health issues. It is an understatement to say that I am concerned [28:04] by the direction of the EPA, and I believe the American people are right to be concerned also. [28:09] Let's just look at the agency's track record on protecting people from dangerous chemicals. [28:14] The Trump administration's first Maha Commission report correctly identified industry capture of [28:20] EPA's chemical safety program as a problem. Today, there are several political appointees running EPA's [28:30] chemical safety program who previously worked for the chemical industry, and I suspect they will return [28:36] to lucrative jobs working for the industry at the end of this administration. And why do I suspect this? [28:42] Because some of these very same people also worked in the chemical safety office during the first Trump [28:48] administration and then went on to work on behalf of chemical manufacturers during the Biden administration. [28:54] With such strong past financial ties and the high likelihood that their future incomes will come [28:59] from the companies they are charged with regulating today, can there be any doubt why people are [29:04] suspicious that this EPA may not put the health and safety of regular Americans over those of the interest of [29:11] powerful chemical and pesticide manufacturers. This is to say nothing of the industry representatives [29:18] and industry paid consultants who have been appointed to EPA's science advisory bodies. [29:24] Inevitably, empowering people with such obvious and deep financial connections to regulated industries [29:30] erodes public confidence in the agency's willingness to be an effective regulator. And this is a problem that can be found across [29:38] the United States. Last year, Administrator Zeldin announced a major deregulatory agenda, [29:44] despite analysis that the rules targeted for repeal were estimated to save thousands of American lives [29:52] and billions of dollars each year. Time and time again, we have seen that to effectuate this agenda, [29:59] EPA has needed to change its cost benefit rules and ignore agency and independent analyses that have not [30:06] agreed with the Administrator's predetermined outcomes. In January, EPA announced it would stop considering [30:13] the value of lives saved from putting limits on air pollution. EPA ignored its own analysis that a [30:19] rollback of limits on mercury pollution threatens public health and imposes costs on Americans. EPA also [30:27] ignored its analysis of the revocation of the endangerment finding, which found that the cost of the action [30:33] would indeed outweigh any savings. President Trump has issued sweeping exemptions to entire industries [30:41] from complying with hazardous air pollution standards, which were granted with no transparency [30:47] and seemingly no analysis of how they might harm public health. And to repeal vehicle standards, [30:53] EPA's analysis found that elimination of these standards would increase consumer costs and gas prices, [31:00] adding another $3 billion per year in fuel costs by 2035 for American drivers. And you can bet that EPA [31:08] took a rosy estimate of future gas prices. It certainly did not account for President Trump's illegal war [31:13] with Iran, which has now raised average gas prices to over $4.10 per gallon. This deregulatory agenda is [31:21] giving Americans the privilege of paying more to have worse health outcomes, because apparently in the Trump [31:27] administration, the only costs worth considering are how much environmental protections will affect [31:33] polluting corporations' bottom lines. EPA's budget cuts and deregulatory actions will result in more [31:39] pollution while reducing our scientific capacity to understand just how pollution will impact Americans' [31:45] health and well-being. I find that an unacceptable, and I believe most Americans would agree. With that, [31:51] Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back. [31:53] The gentleman yields back. Now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Guthrie, [31:58] for his five-minute opening statement. [32:00] Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Griffith, for holding this hearing and for being here today. [32:05] Welcome back, Administrator Zeldin. Great to have you here. We look forward to hearing about your plans [32:10] for the Environmental Protection Agency over the next fiscal year. But first, I want to commend you and your [32:18] team for restoring EPA to its core mission to protect human health and the environment within [32:24] the statutory authority in the mandates provided by Congress. As a former member of Congress, you [32:31] respect the Constitution, including Article I. The Biden Administration and the Obama Administration [32:35] before it both pushed laws, like the Clean Air Act, far beyond what Congress had intended and blindly [32:42] pursued a hostile regulatory agenda to shut down the fossil fuel energy producers and critical [32:47] manufacturers. You have reigned in the EPA within bounds of the law, while ensuring it fulfills its [32:53] statutory duty. You have also been laser-focused on making sure taxpayer dollars are invested wisely [33:00] and have worked hard to end wasteful spending on the Green New Deal and DEI programs. EPA's budget [33:06] request strikes a ballast between building on historic investments in core programs and responding to [33:12] current environmental and economic challenges. We especially appreciate the budget request focusing on [33:18] improving permitting and the cooperative federalism framework that respects the role of states, [33:24] tribes, and local communities. Restoring public confidence in EPA's science activities and [33:29] positioning EPA to both support and benefit from the rise of the AI economy and a strong domestic [33:35] manufacturing base. We need for the United States to be a leader in innovation, freedom, and economic [33:41] prosperity to compete effectively with China and to maintain a healthy environment for our constituents. [33:47] We appreciate your hard work and willingness to serve in this very important role. We appreciate [33:52] you being here on Capitol Hill, your old home, and welcoming you to the committee and look forward [33:57] to working with you, and I yield back. The gentleman yields back now recognize the ranking member of [34:02] the full committee, Mr. Pilon of New Jersey, for his five-minute opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [34:07] President Trump's budget, in my opinion, is an insult to the American people. At every opportunity, [34:13] this budget undercuts public health, affordability, and sensible environmental protections to line the [34:19] pockets of Trump's corporate polluter friends. The budget would cut funding for the Environmental [34:24] Protection Agency by more than 50 percent, the largest cut in EPA's history. This would hamstrung [34:30] EPA's ability to fulfill its core mission of protecting human health and the environment, [34:35] and despite claims to the contrary, it fails to deliver on the Trump administration's promise to make [34:40] America healthy again. The budget eliminates nearly all state categorical grants, all but ending the [34:46] cooperative federalism that has made EPA so successful in cleaning up toxic pollution and providing [34:52] healthier futures for Americans. EPA is deserting the states to deal with serious climate and pollution [34:58] issues on their own, while EPA focuses on giving polluters free passes to poison our communities with [35:04] reckless abandon. The budget also takes a sledgehammer to the clean water and the drinking water state [35:10] revolving funds, which are the primary funding sources for water infrastructure projects. [35:15] At a time when communities are experiencing aging infrastructure and rising water costs, [35:19] and are fearful of threats of contamination, these funds are critical to ensure all communities have [35:25] access to safe, affordable water. And the Trump administration clearly doesn't recognize this value, [35:30] especially when you consider EPA's plans to rescind and delay the historic PFAS drinking water standards [35:37] that were put in place during the Biden administration to protect public health. [35:40] Now under Administrator Zeldin, the EPA is going in a dangerously wrong direction. At every turn, [35:46] Administrator Zeldin has demonstrated that he is at the beck and call of special interests, [35:51] providing broad exemptions and handouts to his polluter friends. He has eliminated EPA's climate and [35:56] clean air work, turned his back on environmental justice communities, and looked the other way as bad actors [36:02] poisoning communities across the United States. What is potentially most egregious is EPA's shockingly [36:08] irresponsible rollback of the landmark endangerment finding, which has, which that rollback in my [36:14] opinion has no basis in law science or reality, especially in 2026. EPA is abandoning its responsibility to [36:22] protect human health and the environment from the harm of air pollution, replacing it with nothing. Ensuring the [36:28] climate crisis gets far worse puts the health of Americans in jeopardy. It'll result in even higher [36:34] food and electricity than we're also seeing due to the Republican affordability crisis. And it'll put [36:39] home ownership even further out of reach as unchecked pollution wreaks havoc on property values, [36:45] insurance rates, and jobs. It will also cause cascading consequences across all sectors of our economy. [36:52] And at a time when Trump's reckless war of choice with Iran has already caused gas prices to skyrocket, [36:58] EPA eliminated all clean vehicle standards and incentives, increasing costs on families and [37:04] businesses when they can least afford it, the fact that EPA conveniently ignores. Simultaneously, [37:10] the Zeldin EPA has slashed critical protections by leaving radioactive coal ash in unlined ponds and [37:17] communities, reversing limits on cancer-causing ethylene oxide pollution in cities, and allowing the [37:23] chemical industry to burn plastic. From the agency tasked with protecting our public health and safety, [37:29] these rollbacks cater to the whims of polluting interests while American communities pay the price. [37:34] And finally, the effectiveness of the agency hinges on EPA having the career staff necessary to fulfill [37:40] its mission. They are the backbone of the agency. Yet Administrator Zeldin's actions to indiscriminately [37:46] fire hundreds of employees and retaliate against those who raise concerns about the mismanagement of [37:51] EPA show a blatant disregard for the critical work career staff conduct on behalf of the American [37:58] people every day. He's created such a toxic and hostile environment for career staff that EPA has [38:04] lost about a quarter of its staff since Trump assumed office. And that doesn't make the government [38:08] more efficient. It simply decimates EPA's ability to effectively do its job. So in my opinion, EPA's [38:15] mission is to protect human health and the environment. And that should be its north star. [38:20] Yet at every turn, Administrator Zeldin has placed polluters favors over the needs of the people the [38:25] agency is tasked with protecting. The agency should be taking action to protect our air, water, and public [38:31] health. But unfortunately, it seems the Administrator's legacy will be selling the health of Americans [38:36] to the highest bidder. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. [38:42] Chairman yields back. We now conclude with member opening statements. The chair would like to remind [38:46] members that pursuant to committee rules, all members opening statements will be made a part of [38:50] the record. We want to thank our witness for taking his time to testify before the subcommittee today. [38:55] Although it is not the practice of this subcommittee to swear in witnesses, I would remind our witness [38:59] that knowingly and willfully making material false statements to the legislative branches against the [39:04] law under Title 18, Section 1001 of the United States Code. You will have an opportunity to give [39:10] an opening statement followed by questions from members. And our witness today is Lee Zeldin, [39:16] former member of the House and Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [39:21] Per committee custom, our witness will have the opportunity for a five-minute opening statement [39:25] followed by a round of questions from members. The light is on the timer in front of you and will [39:28] turn from green to yellow when you have one minute left. I now recognize you, Administrator Zeldin, [39:34] for your five-minute opening statement. Well, thank you, Chairman Griffith, [39:39] Ranking Member Tonko, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, members of the committee. [39:44] I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the president's fiscal year [39:49] 27 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. From day one, I have made it clear [39:55] that we are going to fix the mess that we inherited and reaffirm our commitment to cooperative federalism, [40:01] understanding that the best solutions are found outside of Washington. Last year, EPA political [40:08] and career leadership worked to reorganize the agency workforce to better support EPA's mission, [40:14] fulfill statutory obligations, protect human health and the environment, and power the great American [40:21] comeback. This past January, at the one-year mark of President Trump's term in office, I announced 500 [40:28] top environmental wins from during that first year. These actions directly advance our agency's core [40:35] mission. EPA environmental accomplishments these past 15 months include the signing of the historic [40:42] agreement with the Mexican government to end the decades-long Tijuana River sewage crisis. [40:47] Highlights also include responding to the Potomac River interceptor collapse, accelerated enforcement [40:54] efforts to stop foreigners from profiting off sending poisons and pollution to the United States, [41:00] and unlocking billions of dollars in funding to reduce lead in drinking water. [41:04] Our commitment to gold standard science at EPA guided our decision to bolster scientists in our [41:10] national program offices and established the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions. [41:17] We inherited a backlog of chemicals and pesticides from the Biden administration. [41:22] The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has worked tirelessly to bring down [41:27] this backlog while keeping pace with new incoming reviews. With the addition of new technologies and [41:34] scientists, our team of dedicated career and political staff has made tremendous strides. [41:42] At the same time, I announced last March the largest deregulatory action in our nation's history. [41:48] This announcement consisted of 31 actions to apply common sense, unleash U.S. energy dominance, [41:55] and strengthen the American economy. In February of this year, we proudly announced the elimination [42:01] of the 2009 endangerment finding. This has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions [42:08] and trillions of dollars in regulatory costs for Americans. The Trump EPA believes growing our economy, [42:15] bringing down costs, and protecting the environment is all achievable, and we are proving it every day. [42:22] President Trump is committed to rebuilding baseload power, including coal, which is vital to our national [42:28] security and to the wallets of tax-paying Americans. The Biden EPA tried hard to strangulate coal out of [42:35] existence, and we are urgently reversing that damage. Meanwhile, I fulfilled a commitment that I made [42:41] during my confirmation to visit all 50 states as EPA Administrator, and I completed that effort in just [42:48] nine and a half months. I heard from many of your constituents about the hardships burdensome regulations [42:55] cause. Faithfully abiding by the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett, we are working to finalize a clear, [43:02] durable Waters of the United States rule. We're reigning in federal overreach and gutting the prior [43:08] administration's so-called good neighbor rule, which was used on an ill-advised expansion of federal jurisdiction. [43:17] The good news is that EPA is once again working closely with our state partners on their state [43:21] implementation plans. We are committed to advancing cooperative federalism and recognize the important [43:28] responsibility EPA shares with our state agency partners to ensure clean air for all Americans. [43:34] The Trump EPA is serious about ensuring future generations inherit clean air, land, and water, [43:40] and the foundation for healthy lives. That is why I recently announced, alongside HHS Secretary Robert F. [43:46] Kennedy Jr., that EPA is adding microplastics and pharmaceuticals to our contaminant candidate list [43:53] for the first time ever. The President's FY27 budget will continue to make EPA efficient and effective [44:00] stewards of Americans' hard-earned taxpayer dollars and fulfill all our statutory obligations and our core [44:07] mission. This budget proposal captures significant efficiencies and a return focused on what Congress has [44:14] directed us to do, demonstrating our commitment to a leaner, more efficient, and accountable EPA focused [44:20] on environmental work that directly benefits the American people. I look forward to answering your [44:27] questions. Thank you. Thank you very much, Administrator. We will now begin questioning. I'd ask that members not [44:35] begin a new question to our witness as their five minutes is about to expire. So if you look up at the clock and you only [44:42] have about 15 seconds, you can make a statement, but please don't ask a question. You've got plenty of time [44:46] to do that as a written question for the record. And that being said, I will now recognize myself [44:53] for five minutes. And first, I would like to offer for introduction the list that Administrator Zeldin [45:00] mentioned in his opening statement of the more than 500 things done in the first year of the EPA's [45:07] accomplishments under the Trump Administration. And that has been offered to my colleagues. Without [45:12] objection, we'll add that to the committee document list. Hearing none. All right. Now, also, we heard [45:20] comments about, you know, how the budget slashes EPA funds. I mentioned this in my opening where I said [45:27] that, you know, that the monies that came from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Act were [45:33] meant to be a one-time shot in the arm for special projects. No matter how that money was spent, [45:38] it was never intended to be a new norm at the EPA for spending. Is that your understanding as well, [45:46] Administrator? In a budget that was an annual operating budget of about $10 billion a year, [45:52] EPA in 2024 obligated and spent over $60 billion. It was more money than they knew how to spend. [45:59] It was money that was disseminated to left-wing NGOs. It was given out to former Biden and Obama [46:05] officials, Democratic donors. They created entities that, at times, would go through up to four [46:11] pass-throughs, where each of them were taking their own cut to administer the dollar. By design, [46:16] when Congressional Democrats put forth the Inflation Expansion Act, they were using it to raid the [46:23] taxpayer till to be able to pay off those people who had supported them through the years. Fortunately, [46:30] the era of tossing gold bars off the Titanic, that's the word that the Biden administration [46:37] was using to describe how they were spending the money, those days are done. We are being [46:43] responsible steward of taxpayer dollars without any apology or regret, even though I know that makes [46:48] a lot of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle quite sad. And you feel that the budget [46:52] requests from the administration is one that's appropriate for the EPA to be able to get its core [46:56] functions done. Is that correct? Not only will we be able to fulfill all of our statutory obligations, [47:02] we will be able to do more with less. We inherited backlogs of over 14,000 pesticide reviews, [47:08] 500 new chemicals, 175 small refinery exemptions, blown deadlines on setting numbers for renewable [47:16] volume obligations, hundreds of state implementation plans. The core statutory obligations set by [47:23] this body were ignored by our predecessors. And guess what? All of those backlogs are either [47:29] eliminated or greatly reduced since we came in. Doing more with less. Wild concept. [47:35] Congratulations. All right, let me move to some stuff important to my district. Under the Biden EPA, [47:40] the coal ash rule was one size fits all in its approach and unfortunately had the effect of [47:44] discouraging beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals in concrete and drywall. Why should the [47:50] encapsulation and recycling of coal ash be encouraged? It's important for anyone who cares about the [47:56] environment. There are good, as you referenced, it's called beneficial reuse. It is putting to good use [48:03] what is being produced by these plants. While plants have enacted, for example, the 2012 mercury near [48:11] toxic standards, which were strict, and we see them continuing to improve their environmental technology, [48:18] rather than trying to get rid of coal altogether through a combination of regulations, coal combustion [48:25] residuals, steam electric, ELG, Clean Power Plan 2.0, and more. They were trying to make this, send this [48:35] message to coal miners that they should just learn the code. Well, this is reliable, durable, baseload power [48:41] that is important to provide to American families. And we're reversing that damage in earnest. And one of [48:49] the ways to do it is to understand the benefits of beneficial reuse and to make sure that we are [48:54] supporting it, not suffocating it. Yeah. And Virginia Tech in my district is studying how to recover rare [49:02] earth elements from coal ash, which could strengthen domestic supplies. Now, it's not an easy thing to do, [49:09] but it would strengthen our domestic supplies of rare earth. How would the previous coal ash rule have [49:14] restricted these uses? Well, for one, I mean, the goal was, and as we saw coming in, the effective [49:25] implementation of these 2023 and 2024 rules that were put forth by the Biden administration was leading [49:33] to coal plants all across the country to announce that they were closing altogether. That was by design. I [49:38] mean, there are people who serve in this body who will talk about a source like wind as if it is a [49:46] substitute for baseload power. They just don't care that you have many states across this country that [49:53] rely on coal in order to heat homes. When you're going through a winter like we just went through, [49:59] where so many families for so long were so cold, rather than ramping up baseload power, they're trying to [50:05] get rid of it, and we don't play along with that, and we're out of it. I appreciate that. My time is up. [50:12] I yield back and now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for his five minutes [50:16] of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Administrator Zeldin, last June, hundreds of current and former EPA [50:22] employees signed an open letter to you raising their concerns about the way you've mismanaged the EPA, [50:29] undermined science, and harmed communities across our country. EPA emails from that time show that [50:35] EPA's office of general counsel advised that, and I quote, the letter is likely protected speech [50:41] under the first amendment, and that again further quote, the agency should not take any personnel [50:46] actions against employees who signed the letter or take any other action against them that may be [50:52] viewed as retaliatory or that may have a chilling effect on other employees taking similar action. [50:58] Likewise, the director of EPA's ethics office wrote that the employees are simply exercising their [51:04] first amendment rights, and in another email wrote that, and I quote, there is no ethics concern. [51:10] Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter in the record emails conveying legal guidance and [51:17] assessments on July 1st and July 2nd of 2025, as well as an E&E news article published on July 3rd of 2025. [51:27] All right, I'll have the team take a quick look at it, but it shouldn't be a problem. We'll [51:30] add it to the committee document list. I thank you. Despite the view of EPA's office of general counsel [51:37] that these employees were exercising their rights and should not be punished, you placed nearly 150 [51:43] employees on paid administrative leave for roughly two months and investigated them before most were [51:48] finally allowed to return to work. Administrator Zeldin, why did you retaliate against EPA employees [51:55] speaking out against your leadership at EPA despite clear opinions from the general counsel's office [52:01] and ethics office that these employees were exercising their constitutional rights? [52:06] Well, obviously, I'll disagree with a lot of the premise of your question. What I instructed my team [52:12] to do was to conduct an investigation. They conducted an investigation. There was personnel all across the [52:18] agency that recommended different actions for personnel following the investigation. There were then [52:25] deciding officials that acted on the recommendation of those people from across the agency and then [52:33] different areas of discipline were then followed through with. It was following an investigation. [52:40] It was done on the advice of counsel, but I imagine that you know that and deciding not to include [52:45] that, but that's okay. Well, but did you consult with the ethics office or the general counsel's office [52:53] before taking the action? The action that I took was instructing our team to conduct an investigation. [53:01] Well, how much did EPA spend paying the employees that you put on leave instead of allowing them to [53:06] continue their work as they should have been allowed to do? We're going to conduct the investigation, [53:13] and then you're going to have a recommendation that comes from across the agency and their decisions [53:17] on those recommendations. It's a process that I would do again. Well, if you could get back to the [53:24] committee in terms of the amount paid the employees that were put on leave, not only did you violate the [53:30] law and the rights of these employees, you wasted taxpayer dollars and deprived the public of the work [53:35] of these employees. Now, with the TSCA program, the new chemicals program, there is a significant backlog [53:42] of chemicals under review. I know you said that you inherited this backlog from the Biden administration. [53:48] The Biden administration would say they inherited it from the first Trump administration. We can go back and [53:53] forth pointing fingers all day, but I'd like to talk about where we go from here. EPA's budget request [53:59] was developed with the intention to reduce this backlog. Can you tell us how important TSCA's fee [54:05] collection authority is to having the personnel and resources necessary for this office to do the work? [54:12] It's very important for the Office of Chemical Safety to have the personnel as well as the IT [54:18] advancements in order to be able to do their work. When we went through a reorganization, we added [54:24] scientists. We added personnel to that office to get through that backlog. We also were implementing [54:31] a congressional appropriation from March of 2025 of $17 million to update the IT inside of that office, [54:39] which was a very important appropriation by Congress, because when the system would go down for days, [54:47] that will end up resulting in a lot of lost time. Congress obviously faces decisions to make [54:54] between now and the end of September as it relates to an expiring fee. As far as what we're doing inside [55:02] of the Office of Chemical Safety, it's been to increase bandwidth since the moment that we have come in [55:08] both with scientists, personnel and IT. Reclaiming my time, I have other questions on timeline and [55:13] transparency that I'll get via the subcommittee to your office. And with that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, [55:19] and yield back. Thank you, sir. The gentleman yields back. Now recognize the chairman of the [55:24] full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for being here, [55:27] Administrator Zeldin. And I think when you first came to Congress, we connected because I went to [55:31] college in New York. I remember talking about Long Island. I went to not only Long Island, but down [55:36] river at West Point for Mr. Tonko just a little bit. And when I was there, the Hudson River was polluted. It was [55:42] being cleaned up. First time I ever remember, I guess, knowing of Robert Kennedy, Jr., other than his [55:47] father, this famous name is cleaning up the Hudson River. And so I ask these questions in the, to know that [55:53] we should never be in that situation ever again. But I know we have AI coming. We have a surge in need of [56:00] energy. So can you discuss how reforms, now we're not changing the standard of the Cleaner Act, how we [56:06] and we implement it? So can you discuss how reforms of the Cleaner Act and the Toxic Substance [56:11] Control Act will help the United States support advanced manufacturing of domestic energy? [56:16] Well, first off, Chairman, thank you for being here. I just wanted to point out that the work on the [56:23] Hudson River, a PCB Superfund site has been a very important effort of EPA. I'm actually surprised that the [56:32] the ranking member didn't ask about it, but I appreciate the chairman from Kentucky asking about [56:37] it. And in early January of 25, EPA came in, obviously inheriting many years of hard work. [56:46] Secretary Kennedy deserves a ton of credit. Their recent review, the five-year review concluded that the [56:53] levels of PCBs and water and fish are going down. We have seen news stories in recent weeks where people [57:01] are catching fish and eating it. The water quality has greatly improved and that work continues. [57:08] But as far as priorities of yours under the the Clean Air Act, where do you want me to start? [57:13] Well, we want a situation that's nothing like that. But how do you what do you think we need to do [57:17] so we can get the permitting done quicker, not changing any standards, get the permitting done quicker [57:22] so we can compete with China? So I know Congress is considering a number of different actions in looking [57:28] at modernizing the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the NEPA. [57:37] I commend the efforts of this committee as it relates to that permitting. I would say that a good [57:42] permitting bill will result in a permitting process that takes less time, costs less money, [57:47] and has more certainty. If it sacrifices any one of those three, you can easily turn a good bill bad. [57:53] We, through the White House Council of Environmental Quality, have a list of recommendations as it relates [58:00] to each of these laws I cited. EPA has additional ideas on top of that. I believe that we have provided [58:09] that list. We can provide that again to any members of of your caucus who are asking for it and involved [58:17] in this process. There are many ways that you can modernize these landmark laws that have been on [58:22] the books for a long time to have a permitting process that takes less time, costs less money, [58:27] and has more certainty, and we'd like to help. So one of the things that drives our economy is the [58:31] automotive industry. And last year, we repealed the mandates from the electric vehicle mandates. [58:39] Also, you repealed, can you explain, I'll just ask you this straight up, [58:44] can you explain how the repeal of the endangerment finding helps consumers support, [58:49] it supports manufacturers and complies with the Clean Air Act? [58:52] For one, it's going to result in $2,400 per new vehicle with savings. [59:00] This is a combination. As you pointed out, there are multiple actions that have been taken. Congress [59:05] through the Congressional Review Act, it got rid of the electric vehicle mandate in California, [59:09] and I absolutely commend those of you in this body who were leaders in that effort to make sure that [59:15] that happened. We've seen an announcement from Secretary Duffy with the President and the Oval [59:22] Office as a result as it relates to CAFE standards. As it relates to 2009 endangerment finding, this was [59:29] not just a decision to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, but also all greenhouse gas emission standards [59:35] on light, medium and heavy duty vehicles that followed and all off cycle credits, including the [59:40] Obama climate participation trophy to manufacturers to create an incentive to have that annoying start [59:47] stop feature in vehicles, which is gone as well, which by the way, seems to be the aspect that Americans [59:53] have related to the most and they've been most passionate about supporting action. We believe that [59:59] Americans should be able to buy whatever vehicle they want. And when manufacturers are able to make the [1:00:04] vehicles that customers want as opposed to those vehicles that politicians and bureaucrats demand, [1:00:11] you end up with a market where you don't have vehicles that are created to just sit on lots like we're seeing [1:00:17] with electric vehicles. So applying common sense, following the law and being able to pursue these [1:00:25] efficiencies and empowering consumer choice is a great win that Americans voted for November 2024 and [1:00:32] President Trump and Republicans in Congress have been delivering on. [1:00:34] The time is expired. Now yield back. The gentleman yields back. Now recognize the [1:00:40] ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for his five minutes of questioning. [1:00:43] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. [1:00:48] In its 2027 budget request, EPA says the agency is, I quote, taking action to ensure cleaner, [1:00:54] healthier air improves quality of life for all Americans, especially children who are particularly vulnerable to air [1:01:00] pollutants and advances administration priorities set forth in the Make America Healthy Again initiative, [1:01:07] unquote. So Administrator Zeldin, yes, yes or no, please. Do you agree that it is an important part of [1:01:12] your job to protect the health and safety of children? Absolutely. Thank you. And I agree, too. [1:01:18] But unfortunately, in my opinion, under your leadership, EPA has taken actions that will increase [1:01:23] our children's risk of exposure to harmful toxins. And last March, EPA set up an inbox for companies to [1:01:31] request exemptions from critical Clean Air Act safeguards to protect Americans from pollution. [1:01:36] And while the Trump administration provided no transparency into this process, an organization [1:01:42] obtained some of these requests through FOIA. And the documents show that 71 coal plants in 24 states [1:01:49] will not be required to comply with the updated mercury and air toxic standards that were set to [1:01:54] go into effect next year. And because of this polluter giveaway, the people living near those power plants [1:02:00] will be exposed to higher levels of mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollution that can cause heart and [1:02:06] lung disease, cancer and brain damage. And children are especially vulnerable. So every single company that [1:02:13] requests an exemption from the suite of Clean Air Act section 112 standards, and even some facilities that [1:02:19] didn't ask, were given a two year free pass to poison our air under this initiative. So let me ask you, [1:02:25] Administrator, were the potential health impacts on those living in the communities around those [1:02:30] facilities evaluated, particularly with regard to children? And if so, who performed those evaluations [1:02:36] and what risks and benefits were considered, if you will? Under the Clean Air Act, decisions on section 112 [1:02:43] presidential exemptions are made by the president. EPA's role was to accept the submissions and transmit [1:02:50] them to the White House consistent with this statute. The White House has publicly posted the proclamations [1:02:55] and annexes listing the sources that received exemptions, including actions on April 8th, July 17th, [1:03:01] October 24th, and November 21st, 2025. Okay, so the law provides that the president can grant exemptions, [1:03:08] that's true, but they must be based on merit. So did President Trump or someone in the White House review [1:03:14] and evaluate each exemption request? As I pointed out, the role of EPA was to accept the submission [1:03:24] and transmit them to the White House. So you just accepted it, okay. Does allowing more mercury, [1:03:29] arsenic, or other toxic pollution make Americans healthy? Fortunately, since the 2012 [1:03:36] mercury near toxic standards that were put into place, very strict standards that were put into [1:03:41] place, there were substantial reductions, fortunately, because these are toxins and reducing them [1:03:49] is an important goal that EPA has been leading the way on. Well, look, I think that poisoning our air and [1:03:56] water makes Americans sicker. And based on EPA's own data facilities that were given these waivers, [1:04:01] saw the biggest jump in pollution last year. So there's no question that [1:04:06] there was more pollution as a result of these waivers. But I think the whole process [1:04:14] was an enormous giveaway to polluters with zero consideration for the Americans whose health [1:04:19] will suffer. And frankly, I think it's shameful. There's more pollution, even though it hadn't even [1:04:26] gone into effect yet? Is that your position? You just stated that the- My position is that I see- [1:04:31] My position is that I see every effort being made to increase pollution as a result of these exemptions. [1:04:40] And I believe it's being done by the president or you, or at least as you enabler because of what [1:04:45] the president tells you to do, to help polluters as giveaways to the corporations that pollute. [1:04:51] But look, I have to ask one more question. And this is a local issue, Administrator. So let me just [1:04:57] mention it. Earlier this month, I sent EPA a letter about a suspected cancer cluster in Keyport, New [1:05:04] Jersey, which is in my district, demanding that the agency work with other federal and state partners [1:05:09] to secure the site and address the ongoing contamination. And corporate polluters have [1:05:14] been let off the hook for too long in this area, and the community is paying the price. And I think this [1:05:20] matter deserves the full attention and force of our public health and environmental agencies. [1:05:24] So, Region 2 Administrator, I do want to say it has been cooperative. He met with my staff last [1:05:31] Friday to discuss this cancer cluster and possible remediation of the landfill that we believe may [1:05:38] be causing it. So I just wanted to mention it to you and ask you to prioritize this issue as we proceed [1:05:45] with Region 2 Administrator to address remediation and the health concerns. If I can ask for your [1:05:51] commitment. And you're asking about Aero Marine Landfill? Yes, exactly. Absolutely. We're very well [1:05:56] aware of it. The Region 2 Administrator has briefed me on it. I know how much of a priority it is. This is [1:06:04] an issue that New Jersey DEP has been on the lead on enforcement at the landfill. They have not asked for [1:06:11] our assistance, but we stand ready to help. The gentleman's time has expired. Yeah, I just wanted [1:06:18] to say they've been working with us and I appreciate that. Thank you. The gentleman's time has [1:06:22] expired. The chair now recognizes myself for five minutes. Director, thank you for being here. Thank [1:06:28] you for your service in riding the ship. My colleagues across the aisle claim that this EPA's deregulatory [1:06:36] actions are killing Americans. Couldn't be more false. The truth is actually the opposite. What kills Americans [1:06:42] is unaffordable energy in an unreliable electric grid. And that's exactly what the previous [1:06:46] administration's EPA was delivering. The Biden EPA imposed trillions of dollars in regulatory costs [1:06:51] and based on widely inflated benefit calculations assigning speculative dollar values to statistical [1:06:57] lives while ignoring the real world consequences of making energy unaffordable. 25 million American [1:07:03] households have reported going without food or medicine to pay their energy bills. That is the human [1:07:08] cost of regulatory excess. This EPA is doing what the agency is supposed to, rigorous honest cost [1:07:13] benefit analysis, not rubber stamping regulations that strangle reliable energy production while [1:07:19] claiming to save lives on a spreadsheet. Affordable reliable energy is the foundation of American health [1:07:24] and safety. And Administrator Zeldin, your reforms are protecting Americans not by speculating about [1:07:30] benefits but by delivering them. And I'll get to Loper Bright. It's shameful that some of our colleagues have no [1:07:34] idea what Loper Bright actually is and what it does. Thank you for the words that you had yesterday at [1:07:40] a hearing here on Capitol Hill. And Loper Bright happened because of left-wing EPA overreach. That's [1:07:46] exactly why we are here. And I'd like to ask you, how do you respond to the claim that faithfully [1:07:52] reading the Clean Air Act as written somehow harms public health? And what actual authorities did [1:07:57] Congress provide that this administration is now properly executing to benefit health? [1:08:02] Thank you for asking. For a long time, the Chevron doctrine was in place. This got challenged. [1:08:07] For those who aren't familiar with the Chevron doctrine, basically agency heads were looking at [1:08:12] federal statute and would get creative. The statute wouldn't say that an agency head can't do [1:08:20] something. So they'd say, well, I guess that means that we can. We saw that used inside of the 2009 [1:08:25] endangerment finding. If you read the endangerment finding throughout it, you'll see that discretion [1:08:30] being used just because it doesn't say we can't. Well, I guess that means we can. Well, the Supreme [1:08:34] Court weighed in in Loper Bright and said you can't do that anymore, that you have to follow the [1:08:39] best reading of statute. The major questions doctrine, which was also put forth by the Supreme [1:08:46] Court in recent years in their cases, also say that an agency can't impose trillions of dollars of [1:08:53] regulation on their own. That's something that should have a debate and a vote in Congress. [1:08:59] And what does that all mean when a member might be upset that we repealed the 2009 [1:09:04] endangerment finding? Well, if you want an agency like EPA to impose trillions of dollars of regulations [1:09:11] and regulate the heck out of greenhouse gas emissions, it's really simple. [1:09:15] Introduce a bill, debate it, get it passed, change the law, and we'll follow the law. The commitment that [1:09:21] I made when I was nominated, the commitment that I reiterate here today, is I will follow the best [1:09:27] reading of the law period. Thank you for that. And I'll ask, can you provide an update regarding [1:09:34] what actions the EPA is considering on the reconsideration of Quad O, B and C, which cost [1:09:39] hundreds of billions of dollars in excess and is another example of left-wing overreach? [1:09:44] Absolutely. This has been a multiple phased process. We delayed a compliance deadline to allow us to [1:09:54] fix the flaws with the Quad O, B and C regulation. We just announced that second phase of the [1:10:01] reconsideration. We're about to announce a third phase. As soon as this week, we'll be putting out [1:10:08] updated guidance to make sure that those who look at Quad O, B and C and have to comply with Quad O, B [1:10:18] understand exactly what that rule means and how the agency interprets it. This is a really important [1:10:24] topic for a lot of our country, a lot of our economy. We want more reliable base load power. We want to [1:10:32] unleash energy dominance. And Quad O, B, C is a vehicle that was used to cause a lot of harm to much of this [1:10:40] country, including a lot of Texas. And it ignores the facts that between 2011 and 2020, methane emission [1:10:46] intensity has dropped 70 percent just in the Permian Basin, while production of oil and gas has [1:10:51] increased 320 percent. So it ignores those facts. I appreciate the work you've done, [1:10:55] Administrator, to revisit and improve certain aspects of the AIM Act implementation. And I've [1:10:59] heard constructive feedback from stakeholders in Texas on those efforts. And at the same time, [1:11:04] some have raised concerns about the HFC management rule, particularly in compliance challenges [1:11:09] that it creates for refrigeration in grocery stores and other places. Can you give us [1:11:13] an idea of whether the agency is considering near-term reconsideration or adjustments of the HFC [1:11:20] management rule? I'm sorry, I only have 10 seconds left. So we, on April 17th, the EPA sent over a [1:11:27] proposal to the, to OMB. We are continuing to work through fixing the technology transition rule. The [1:11:36] impacts will, will fix the, the, by, by us addressing this, the negative impacts of the technology [1:11:44] transition rule on grocery stores, on the semiconducting industry, on residents, on residents [1:11:50] across our country. We are going to fix it to the maximum extent allowed under the law. [1:11:53] Thank you, Director. My time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Ruiz. [1:11:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, in July, [1:12:03] you provided a clear example of what the federal government can do in helping to clean up the Tijuana [1:12:11] River. You traveled to San Diego, saw the crisis firsthand, coordinated across agencies with the [1:12:19] International Boundary Water Commission and the State Department, and secured a binding agreement [1:12:24] with Mexico that delivered real infrastructure upgrades, including expansion of the South Bay [1:12:30] International Wastewater Treatment Plan. Do you consider it the responsibility for the EPA to help [1:12:35] address these types of binational water pollutions? Absolutely. This has been a very important focus [1:12:44] of our agency. I look forward to, by the way, coming to New River. Appreciate the, the invite. Well, that's [1:12:49] what we're going to talk about. So you have heard of the New River, because the same model is what we need [1:12:56] for the New River. Yeah, I understand. The New River begins south of Mexicali, [1:13:01] carrying raw sewage, industrial waste, pesticides, and heavy metals north across the border into [1:13:07] Calexico, and it doesn't stop there. It continues for 60 miles through Imperial County before finally [1:13:13] emptying into the Salton Sea, carrying everything it collected along the way. The New River is considered [1:13:19] the most polluted waterway in North America. The New River is governed by the same 1944 Water Treaty [1:13:29] and IBWC framework as the Tijuana River, with the same diplomatic tools available. The difference [1:13:36] is not legal authority or technical capacity, but attention and urgency. Administrator Zeldin, [1:13:42] the EPA under the Biden and Trump administrations have invested significantly in addressing the Tijuana [1:13:48] River crisis, including a federal record of decision, expanded treatment capacity, [1:13:53] and binational coordination. The New River presents a comparable, if not more severe, [1:13:59] transboundary pollution challenge as the Tijuana River. At the Calexico Crossing, for example, [1:14:05] fecal coliform levels have reached nearly 70,000 times the federal treaty limit. Yet communities along the [1:14:14] river overwhelmingly low-income have not received comparable action or coordination. There has been [1:14:21] reports by CBP agents who take shifts by the river or who have gone into the river of complaining of flu-like [1:14:29] symptoms, blurred vision, severe headaches, rashes, open sores, and those that have fallen into the river [1:14:37] complained of UTIs and even skin itching, just itching all over the body. Some students [1:14:44] who live near there have been complaining of shortness of breath, some even calling 911s from [1:14:49] the classroom. So they're asking for the same approach and same urgency that you've already used [1:14:57] with the Tijuana River, federal leadership, interagency coordination, accountability with [1:15:02] Mexico and rural infrastructure solutions. So in June of this year, soon, there will be [1:15:10] the binational summary of the water characterization study, which is going to come out. Do you commit [1:15:17] to looking at that and having that same urgency and giving your input to the coordinated organizations? [1:15:23] I'm happy to. And I know that on May 11th, Region 9 leadership is planning a visit to meet with you [1:15:30] and your staff. I believe that there's even discussion of a follow-up visit for the May 11th trip. [1:15:36] So the urgency, we're not going to wait until June and wait for the report. I believe that we're coming [1:15:43] to visit here in the next couple of weeks. That's excellent. And that's very good to hear because [1:15:49] from your input to the study, we're going to need an MOU and we're going to need it quickly. And from the [1:15:58] MOU, then we can negotiate a minute. Will you participate in this coordination to develop this minute [1:16:06] as soon as as soon as possible? No, I hear I've heard you and others loud and clear. There was an [1:16:13] assemblyman who I met with in San Diego, who I believe is an assemblyman in the New River area, [1:16:20] who was advocating passionately as well. So this is something that I'm grateful that you're raising [1:16:26] here. We know that it's important to your constituents. I believe that the model that has [1:16:31] worked to approach MOU and MINUTE in Tijuana is a focus that can work in New River and we look forward [1:16:38] to working with you on it. Great. One last thing. As I mentioned earlier, there's been a lot of [1:16:43] investment that helped get the Tijuana River started. This is the moment when federal investment is vital [1:16:51] to match the scale of this crisis. But this administration is proposing to cut the Clean Water [1:16:56] State Revolving Fund by nearly 90 percent or $2.6 billion. That's the lowest level since the Reagan [1:17:03] area, the same era when we first vowed to clean it up. So this is exactly why the Clean Water State [1:17:09] Revolving Fund exists and we need to preserve it. If I may respond, I know that the time is running. [1:17:16] Is it okay, Chairman? Yes, please. There are good examples across the country to use as it relates to [1:17:24] the State Revolving Fund. I would just offer, as it relates to these cross-boundary issues, that [1:17:29] the investment that is desperately needed is on the Mexico side. We're seeing that in Tijuana [1:17:35] and factoring in population growth. That was part of what we negotiated to get Mexico to commit money [1:17:41] that was previously obligated. And while I look forward to learning more about New River, which [1:17:46] I know is important to you as you're bringing up here, if it's anything like what we're experiencing [1:17:53] with the situation in the San Diego area, the investment that's needed is going to be [1:17:59] massive infrastructure investment on the Mexico side, which is why this is more international. [1:18:03] They contributed $140 million to the Tijuana River. The U.S. contributed over $600 million. [1:18:10] So that's the intent, is to have both countries clean up this mess. [1:18:15] And I will have to, I appreciate the colloquy, but I do have to call it in. I will also note for the record that [1:18:21] there are two new rivers and that we are not speaking about the beautiful, pristine, recreation, [1:18:27] driving new river that runs through North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. And now [1:18:32] recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Joyce, for his five minutes of questioning. [1:18:37] Thank you, Chairman, for holding this important hearing, and to Administrator Zeldin for testifying [1:18:42] with us today. Under your leadership, Administrator Zeldin, the EPA has returned to science-based [1:18:48] decision-making rather than advancing ideological conclusion that ultimately put our nation's [1:18:55] energy supply and critical supply chains at risk. Thank you. Thank you for that strong direction you [1:19:01] have provided from the top of the agency on down. And I look forward to continuing to work with you [1:19:06] and this committee as we look to bring America back to scientifically sound regulatory regime. In order [1:19:13] to highlight the incredible steps that the EPA has taken in such a short period of time, I ask for [1:19:19] unanimous consent to enter into the accounting of the EPA environmental achievements during the first [1:19:25] year of the Trump administration that was released on January 20, 2026, into the record. It's in the [1:19:32] record. Thank you. Focusing now on some recent actions that have been taken by the EPA. Administrator [1:19:38] Zeldin, what is the legal basis that the EPA relies on requiring the reallocation of small refinery exemptions? [1:19:49] So the way that the process works under the law, following congressional action that was taken a couple [1:19:55] of decades ago, the Department of Energy produces a document that is utilized to ensure and applied equally [1:20:06] across the board. We do not have any individual adjudication. It is not based off of people calling [1:20:14] me up from the Hill and trying to get special treatment for one over the other. But I will say [1:20:21] that it's something that can be reformed through congressional legislation that I look forward to working [1:20:29] with you on. We you have some small refineries that do not get approval at all. Some got partial, [1:20:38] some got full. And it was through an application of the DOE, the DOE study, the DOE math, and to be done [1:20:47] fairly across the board. But I'll say it's based on congressional statute from a couple decades ago. [1:20:53] And I have plenty of thoughts for anybody who wants to talk about that entire process with SREs. We [1:21:01] inherited a backlog of 175. Fortunately, we got rid of all of it. We've received some new applications [1:21:06] since. And the approach, the transparent approach that we will continue to pursue is consistent with [1:21:12] the one that we pursued last year. Based on the EPA's understanding of the relevant statute regarding the [1:21:18] renewable fuel standard, would congressional action be necessary to prevent such reallocation? [1:21:24] Yes. Administrator Zeldin, for several years, [1:21:28] I've raised concern about the impact of EPA rules governing ethylene oxide and how that is utilized for [1:21:35] the sterilization of medical devices. Thank you for your recent announcement that the EPA will reconsider [1:21:41] and revise these rules to reflect the available science and protect the safety of medical device [1:21:48] chain in the sterilization process. Moving forward, how can EPA ensure that regulations are based on [1:21:55] gold standard science so that we can avoid the disruptions that come with unrealistic regulations? [1:22:03] So there's been uncertainty associated with the iris value for a long time, well recognized, [1:22:10] including uncertainties related to the choice of dose response model used to produce the iris value and [1:22:16] other uncertainties in the underlying data. EPA is requesting comment on newer studies and methods [1:22:23] that may influence the agency's understanding of ETO's carcinogenic potency. It's consistent with [1:22:31] Executive Order 14303, restoring gold standard science. EPA is committed to the highest standards of [1:22:38] scientific integrity and reliance on the best available scientific information. So the process is one where we [1:22:45] created an office of implied science and environmental solutions. We're integrating science and research [1:22:51] more directly with program offices. We are empowering the dedicated career staffers of this agency who [1:22:59] are experienced. They take their jobs seriously and they do a fantastic job and it's been an honor to [1:23:05] be able to work alongside them. We also want to make sure that we are providing radical transparency to the [1:23:11] American public on the studies that were used. And lastly, what I found too often in the past was that [1:23:18] if you get a wide range of studies and there's some anomaly of a study where maybe because the sample size [1:23:25] was too small or the exposure level was a hundred times reality, that study would get dismissed as an [1:23:33] anomaly. The thing is that you have people who are concerned moms and dads in this country who know of [1:23:38] that study, they might go to the EPA's webpage looking for an answer on that study. They're looking for [1:23:44] that study, but because it's been, it might be pushed to the side as an anomaly, you don't see it discussed [1:23:50] at all. I think that the agency could do a much better job not just talking about the best available gold [1:23:57] standard science that's being relied upon, but also be acknowledging the studies that you might feel as an [1:24:04] agency aren't the most reliable because that might be the study that that member of the public is [1:24:09] looking for. So gold standard science isn't just an internal process. It's also about communication with [1:24:14] the public. My time has expired, but Administrator Zeldon, I want to once again express my support for [1:24:20] the work that you have already done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. [1:24:24] The gentleman yields back now. Recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Baragon. [1:24:28] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. EPA Administrator, in my district, the EPA's risk management program [1:24:35] inspected a chlorine transfer facility, JCI Jones chemical, in 2015 and in 2017, and they found [1:24:45] serious safety problems, including corroded equipment handling hazardous chemicals. When the EPA returned in [1:24:52] 2024, it found many of the same issues again, but they were not treated as repeat violations because [1:24:58] they occurred more than five years apart, and the penalty was just a few thousand dollars. EPA has [1:25:04] also acknowledged that it does not inspect every RMP facility more frequently than once every five years. [1:25:12] The question, Administrator, is can the EPA increase the frequency of inspections at facilities with a [1:25:18] history of violations like JCI. So these problems are identified and enforced as repeat violations? [1:25:26] The the work of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance is important. We take seriously any matters that are raised to us from [1:25:35] members of Congress. We are happy to look at any of these cases strictly [1:25:40] on the merits. And while we won't be able to communicate publicly about any ongoing enforcement matters, [1:25:46] if there is a belief that something needs to be inspected, to look at, to be enforced against, [1:25:52] or working with our agency to comply on, we will make sure that we mobilize those in the agency. [1:25:58] I don't mean to cut you off. I'm trying to get an answer to my question. My question [1:26:02] is really about not waiting five years for the EPA to come back when there's a repeat violator. [1:26:08] So I'm trying to ask if maybe you as Administrator think that if the EPA could increase [1:26:14] the frequency of the inspections when you have like a facility that's having repeated violations. [1:26:18] Do you think that's- Yeah, I never say anything about waiting five years. [1:26:21] I'm talking about at the end of this hearing, if you want to have a member of your staff talk to [1:26:25] someone on my team and we can look into it. Okay. I'm asking as a general rule, if you have [1:26:31] a repeat violator, whether it's a good idea for the EPA not to wait five years to come back? I mean, [1:26:35] it's a simple, easy question. It's not a trick question. Yeah, of course. And I said, [1:26:38] I've never said anything about waiting five years. Yeah. Okay. Well, I hope the EPA will [1:26:43] look at doing that when there's repeat violators. So moving on, last week, a hydrogen sulfide leak [1:26:50] at an industrial facility in West Virginia killed two workers and it sent dozens more people to the [1:26:56] hospital. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board, an independent agency that investigates chemical disasters, [1:27:02] has already announced it is investigating the incident. Do you support the investigation by the [1:27:07] Chemical Safety Board into the fatal chemical release in West Virginia? Well, we have been [1:27:14] involved in this process already. Based on Catalyst Refiners, self-reported tier two emergency [1:27:21] and hazardous chemical inventory submissions from 25 and 26, the chemicals and their quantities, [1:27:27] including the self-reported submission, did not trigger applicable thresholds under the risk [1:27:31] management plan rule. OSHA is meeting on-site investigation. Sir, I'm going to interrupt you, [1:27:35] because I'm trying to get a very specific answer about the Chemical Safety Board. Not your involvement, [1:27:42] the Chemical Safety Board. They announced they're doing an investigation into the incident. I'm asking [1:27:48] if you support the Chemical Safety Board doing an investigation. It's a yes or no. Yeah, well, [1:27:52] if you cut me off right when I was saying that OSHA is leading the on-site investigation. EPA is [1:27:59] coordinating with OSHA to determine whether or not the facility was complying with regulations. So you [1:28:06] don't support the investigation by the Chemical Safety Board then? I'm not saying that at all. I'm [1:28:10] trying to get an answer to that question. This is not that hard. I'm telling you what the process is [1:28:14] that we're following. Okay, well, I'm asking you a question. And the question is, do you support the [1:28:19] Chemical Safety Board investigation? Either you don't or you do. I understand OSHA's doing some things. [1:28:24] I don't understand why you'd think I wouldn't support that. Well, I'm just, that's what I'm saying. So you do [1:28:29] support it. Sure. Okay, great. I guess the problem is that I was- That's so easy. This is not a trick [1:28:33] question. So I thought you were maybe interested in what was going on beyond the the grandstanding, [1:28:37] but go ahead. Where's the- You're the grandstanding. You're the one reading prepared statements instead [1:28:41] of asking questions. I'm telling you the process that's going on. I'm telling you more about what we [1:28:46] know and you don't want to know about it. You just said you support the Chemical Safety Board's [1:28:49] funding. I mean, rather, the Chemical Safety Board's investigation. The President's proposal, [1:28:56] the budget proposal, is to eliminate the Chemical Safety Board funding. Do you support that? Do you [1:29:02] support eliminating- Every single aspect of the fiscal year 27 budget that I'm here talking about, [1:29:11] I am supportive. So do you support the Chemical Safety Board's elimination? Every single aspect, [1:29:15] every single aspect of what the President is proposing- Okay, so I'm going to reclaim my time, [1:29:21] because it's clear the Administrator is just killing time instead of, what he just said is [1:29:26] contradictory. On the one hand, he supports the Chemical Safety Board investigation. On the other [1:29:32] hand, he supports eliminating- Actually, when you cut me off when I was talking about an OSHA process [1:29:35] that's going on right now- It's my time, sir. It's not your time. It's not your time. Even though this [1:29:40] Chairman doesn't want to enforce it, I will. Everybody settled down. You've just contradicted yourself, [1:29:44] and it's very rude. It's very rude to even have the Chairman- I'm telling you the actual process [1:29:48] that's going on right now. Even have the Chairman have the witness stop what he's saying. He's clearly [1:29:53] contradicting himself. The actual process that's going on. And he looks like a fool in doing so. [1:29:56] Looking like- And in that, you won't even stop so that I could be heard. It's not appreciated. And [1:30:03] with that, I'm going to yield back my time- He yields back. And you know, hopefully the EPA Administrator [1:30:09] can take the smirk off his face and worry about people's health and safety. Okay, you didn't say [1:30:13] anything about OSHA. Oh, the actual process that's going on right now. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. [1:30:20] Ladd is recognized for- Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And we really appreciate you coming [1:30:25] back to the House. You were one of our members for a good number of years. I also want to thank you [1:30:32] for coming to my district with the U.S. Trade Representative over at the Ford plant. But one of [1:30:39] the things I'd like to start with is on the permitting question. You know, I chair of the Energy [1:30:43] Subcommittee, and one of the things that we've talked about in this committee, the full committee, [1:30:49] that we have to have more energy produced in this country. Everybody admits that we have to get [1:30:53] there. But permitting is going to have to be one of the top things we get done. You can't mention [1:30:56] energy unless we mention permitting. And I see that one of the goals in the EPA's fiscal year [1:31:02] 2027 budget proposal is to advance permitting reform. And I was wondering if you'd talk about some of the, [1:31:09] what EPA has taken steps to streamline these, especially on the air permits, and how will EPA further [1:31:15] improve the process under the proposed 2027 budget? The EPA has the power to really slow things down. [1:31:22] EPA also has the power to speed things up. And we found many ways that the agency was working to gum up [1:31:28] the works all across the entire country. We are involved in EIS and NEPA reviews. We work closely with [1:31:37] states. We created an Office of State Air Partnership, not just state implementation plans, but also to work [1:31:43] closely with these state air offices where they are taking the responsibility with air permits. We're [1:31:48] working with local authorities on water permits. We have projects that are on Superfund sites and [1:31:54] brownfield sites. We work with members of Congress, as all of you are working through in this committee, [1:32:01] permitting reform legislation as it relates to modernizing the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and ESA, [1:32:06] NEPA and more. So our work is robust internally within the agency, working with states and local [1:32:13] governments, working with all of you. And we enjoy that aspect of the work and we want to continue to [1:32:20] pursue more wins. Well, I appreciate that. And also, as we look about from permitting how we can move [1:32:27] things along also with AI. And I'm just wondering, especially with the EPA and what you're all looking at [1:32:33] with AI and working with other federal departments and agencies as we try to get these projects going, [1:32:41] a lot of times, a little bit faster because you can use the AI to get it done. [1:32:45] Absolutely. There are projects breaking ground all across the country right now. [1:32:50] You could visit data center groundbreakings that are billions of dollars projects here [1:32:58] in West Memphis, Arkansas, or you could go out to Cheyenne, Wyoming and see a new data center [1:33:04] that's getting built, or Idaho Falls, Idaho. These projects are all across the country. A lot of them [1:33:10] are generating their own power. A lot of them are structuring deals that are providing net benefits to local [1:33:18] ratepayers. And it's very important, too, that they lean into water reuse. There are so many different [1:33:25] program offices within the agency where we can make sure that these projects are done as well [1:33:33] for the environment as possible and making sure that we're providing net benefits to ratepayers. [1:33:39] There are certainly many ways that these projects can go sideways. You have to also understand that [1:33:43] not all states are equal. I mentioned the West Memphis, Arkansas example, which is a $4 billion [1:33:48] Google project that broke ground last summer. They're working with the state of Arkansas and Entergy. [1:33:53] They are able to rely on nuclear power. Well, not all states have access to nuclear power. In that case, [1:34:00] they're providing a net benefit to the Entergy ratepayer of over $1 billion. So bringing that [1:34:05] experience across the board with the way the deals are structured, where they're sited, on the permitting [1:34:11] front to get the stuff built quicker, working with these local permitting authorities and more, [1:34:17] there are many ways that the agency can assist. [1:34:18] Well, also, going on advanced recycling technologies, how does EPA view advanced [1:34:25] non-mechanical recycling technologies within its regulatory and budget framework? [1:34:29] This is something that we need to be leaning into more as a country. I visited not too long ago the [1:34:37] Baytown facility where advanced recycling is being done. It appears to be exceptionally in Texas. [1:34:44] There's a lot of advanced recycling projects that are getting ramped up in Europe. They're getting [1:34:50] ramped up in Asia. We have not, for years, been heading in the right direction as far as advanced [1:34:57] recycling, but now there's an opportunity to turn it around. There's a way through advanced recycling where [1:35:05] you can take plastic, instead of sending it to a landfill, you can now break it down to its raw [1:35:11] chemical compound. And I think that's a heck of a lot better than sending this plastic to a landfill [1:35:18] to instead put it to good use. So much of recycling's future is in advanced recycling. There's an opportunity [1:35:24] to ramp up across the entire country. And I think it would be great to follow the lead of what we're seeing [1:35:30] in places like Texas and Baytown as a model of what could be expanded. [1:35:34] Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back. [1:35:39] Thank the gentleman for yielding back. And now I recognize the gentleman from Florida, [1:35:42] Mr. Soto, for his five minutes of questioning. [1:35:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being here. [1:35:48] You know, in fast-growing Central Florida, we have faced many environmental challenges. We have [1:35:54] water supply challenges, potential Florida offshore drilling, and intensifying hurricanes. [1:36:01] I was surprised when you had made the fiscal argument for the budget, since [1:36:04] Trump's billionaire tax breaks have caused the federal deficit to go to $2 trillion a year, [1:36:10] while we're seeing cuts to healthcare and infrastructure. Let's just say for a moment that [1:36:15] Congress does fund the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, [1:36:22] and the Water Research Development Act, and WIFIA at elevated levels, like we saw before in a new [1:36:28] infrastructure law. I do want to stress that the federal government has been a key partner with [1:36:33] Florida, and that money has been spent in a bipartisan way because we have such a fast growth. [1:36:38] So if we were, let's say we bumped up the State Revolving Fund and others, would you have the capacity [1:36:45] and the ability to be able to fund that to help out with some of this demand? [1:36:50] Sure. And what we experienced last year was that the bump up that Congress [1:36:54] put in was primarily congressionally-directed spending. There are also a lot of set-asides. [1:37:00] The State Revolving Fund hasn't truly been a revolving fund. I'm not opining on [1:37:07] those decisions made by members of Congress when you advocate for what you believe to be important [1:37:13] infrastructure projects for your district. It should just be noted that when you turn a loan [1:37:20] into a grant and give it to a recipient and you pull out of the SRF, it's not revolving anymore. But [1:37:26] whatever Congress chooses to appropriate, it's our job to follow the law and make sure that money is spent. [1:37:34] And Mr. Minister Trader, I agree with you on that, that the State Revolving Fund should [1:37:37] actually revolve and not just turn into a grant program. That's why we also have to fund WERDA. [1:37:43] You know from being a member of the House and standing up for Long Island that we, [1:37:47] Congress has its own role to play, so I appreciate you mention that. [1:37:50] There's a lot of bipartisan opposition in Florida to expanding offshore oil drilling to the Gulf. I know [1:37:58] normally this is a Department of Interior issue, but it did go before the vote of the Endangered Species [1:38:04] Committee, which you serve on. I do want to stress tourism, agriculture, our top industries, [1:38:12] and there's a potential of whales and manatees and sea turtles potentially at danger because of this [1:38:19] decision. So given the bipartisan opposition, you know, what rationale did you use for a yes vote and [1:38:25] and what compromise you think could be made to try to help save these species? [1:38:29] So as you know, the, as you referenced, there was a recent meeting of the Endangered Species Act, [1:38:40] the Endangered Species Committee, they refer to as the God Squad, pretty wild name, but EPA is committed to [1:38:47] boosting American energy production and promoting economic growth by reducing regulatory burdens and [1:38:53] prioritizing efficient permitting processes while protecting water quality. EPA is aware of ongoing [1:38:59] litigation that's related to the order, and the agency is unable to further comment on pending [1:39:04] litigation. Okay. Well, as you know, historically there's been an oil drilling in the western part [1:39:09] of the Gulf and not on the eastern part, so I hope you keep that in mind. We have some of our U.S. [1:39:14] senators also oppose it, as well as a lot of the delegation, because as opposed to some of these other [1:39:19] Gulf states, Florida is definitely more of a tourism agriculture state than an energy producing state. [1:39:24] So I appreciate you keeping an open mind on it, and obviously you may have to resolve that in [1:39:29] litigation. We also get hit by a ton of hurricanes in Florida, unfortunately, not as much, much more [1:39:35] than New York back in the day, I know. And so as we look at things like the greenhouse gas [1:39:41] endangerment finding, you know, do you believe that greenhouse gases cause climate change, [1:39:47] intensify hurricanes, and it's just not the EPA's role to be involved in it, or do you not believe [1:39:53] in that causality? As it relates to the 2009 endangerment finding, the decision to repeal the [1:40:00] 2009 endangerment finding and all the greenhouse gas emission standards on light, medium, and heavy [1:40:04] duty vehicles that followed was based on a review of section 202 of the Clean Air Act. It was a legal [1:40:10] decision that was made. I understand, but is it your personal belief that greenhouse gases do still cause [1:40:17] some kind of climate change and can affect weather? The climate has always been changing. I've [1:40:23] acknowledged that as real. The hoax, of course, to it is when you have members of Congress who [1:40:31] say that the world's about to end in 12 years and, you know, here we are four years and nine months away [1:40:36] from that date, and I'm pretty confident the world isn't about to end. Well, Mr. Administrator, [1:40:40] I hope you keep in mind especially EPA's role in resiliency to help a lot of these coastal communities and [1:40:47] central communities like I have that certainly would appreciate. Those dollars should refund them. [1:40:51] Thanks, and I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, [1:40:56] Mr. Carter, for his five minutes of questions. Administrator Zeldin, thank you for being here, [1:41:00] and I appreciate all your work in trying to bring about common sense and workability and the way that [1:41:04] the EPA approaches the regulatory agenda. That's something that we've worked on on this committee [1:41:10] for many years and will continue to work on. It's so very important. One of the regulations that's been [1:41:16] devastating for our nation and for the growth of our nation in manufacturing has been the [1:41:21] unworkable PM 2.5 standard, the particulate matter. As you know, the Biden administration made some [1:41:27] significant changes to this, and it's caused a lot of businesses not to be able to locate in areas [1:41:35] that they'd like to locate in, and it's something that we're trying to address here in this committee. [1:41:41] This made it more difficult to create jobs, to build cutting edge factories, and to lead the world [1:41:47] in development of new products that we know that we need to be doing, that we need to do. Can you [1:41:53] provide us with an update on where the agency stands to revisit and revise this rule? The Trump administration [1:42:01] is no longer defending the unlawful 2024 Biden PM 2.4 NACS rule. This was a necessary decision that we [1:42:12] made because the previous administration's actions were discretionary and didn't align with the [1:42:16] statutory obligations of the Clean Air Act. EPA is remaining hopeful that the DC Circuit will soon [1:42:23] release a decision on that. What about the NACS review process? Are y'all doing anything to ensure that [1:42:31] any new standards allow manufacturing to thrive while protecting the environment? I mean, you know, [1:42:37] that's one of the most aggravating things to me in Congress is to hear the other side of the aisle say, [1:42:42] we don't care about the environment. Man, I was born and raised on the Georgia coast and lived there [1:42:48] all my life. I love the environment. Don't tell me I don't love the environment and want to protect it. [1:42:54] It's been important for us, one, to handle this backlog of state implementation plan [1:43:01] requests that we inherited, to make sure that we are getting through that. That's why we created the [1:43:05] Office of State Air Partnership as part of last year's reorganization. What we saw in the last [1:43:11] administration was a very large rejection of state implementation plans in favor of a one size fits [1:43:17] all federal implementation plan. And furthermore, what we see is states being penalized for what have [1:43:26] been international sources of air pollution. The state of Arizona, the state of Utah have already benefited [1:43:35] from decisions that we made by pulling down the 179b guidance a year ago. And we're looking at other [1:43:42] non-attainment zones where an area is being crushed, penalized for pollution that is caused by international [1:43:49] sources. And that's not right. We have plenty of ideas on NAACS reform. I know that this is something that [1:43:55] you have plenty of ideas on as well. A number of the proposals that we know that you're advocating for, [1:44:00] EPA has included in our list of priorities in modernizing the Clean Air Act. And we look forward [1:44:07] to working with you further on that. And one of those that you are alluding to is the Clear Act that [1:44:13] I have. And of course, that'll make some statutory reforms to the NAACS process and to make it more [1:44:18] workable for manufacturers. In other words, and one example of that is to take the review from 10 years to [1:44:25] five years and to the baseline that was lowered by the Biden administration from 12 down to 9 and the impact that [1:44:36] prescribed burns. Right now in South Georgia, we've got wildfires that we're dealing with. And, you know, [1:44:42] the particulate matter obviously is going to be higher during those times, and we need to take into [1:44:47] consideration those things. Would you agree that reforms like this are common sense and would help [1:44:54] EPA to conduct a more efficient NAACS process? Yes, definitely. And when you combine the PM 2.5 level [1:45:03] with the exceptional events rulemaking, with the regional haze rulemaking, you have Western governors [1:45:08] who have reached out to me, by the way, on both sides of the aisle, concerned that they are unable to do [1:45:14] prescribed burns because they're worried that they're going to put a community into a non-attainment [1:45:20] issue, that they will not be able to meet federal standards and they're going to be penalized because [1:45:24] of it. And we do not believe that the best reading of the Clean Air Act, by the best reading of statute [1:45:30] put forth by this committee, is calling on the agency to be putting these Western governors in a situation [1:45:39] where they just have to allow their communities to burn down. Well, I don't have enough time to go to [1:45:45] TSCA and ask you about that, but I do appreciate the fact that in your briefing that you elaborated in [1:45:53] your budget, you elaborated on how you're going to be ensuring that Section 6 evaluations rely on the [1:46:00] gold standard science and reflect real-world risks. So thank you for the detail that you brought in that in [1:46:05] your budget and appreciate it. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Now I recognize the [1:46:08] gentleman of Massachusetts, Mr. Aukenclos, for his five minutes of questioning. Good morning, [1:46:13] Administrator. Thanks for being here. When you were here last year, you and I spoke about PFAS [1:46:19] contamination. I represent Massachusetts. You formerly represented New York. It's a problem in both [1:46:24] states, yes? Oh, absolutely. I recall that I was pressing you last year on the budget that would cut [1:46:36] funding by $2.5 billion for the clean water and drinking water state revolving loan funds. It's [1:46:41] about 90%, which is used by municipal water supplies to remediate PFAS. And I was pressing you on that [1:46:48] proposed cut because I don't know how we're going to remediate PFAS with a 90% cut to the principal [1:46:54] program that mitigates it. And you responded that we were going to do it through technology. [1:46:59] And so I reached out to your staff, and I do want to compliment your staff. They came to my office, [1:47:05] two of your top administrators. And I had them huddle up with the top technologist in the PFAS [1:47:11] remediation space. And we talked about it for an hour. It's a good meeting. An administrator, [1:47:17] there's no technology to remediate or mitigate PFAS at 10% the cost at the same efficacy. It doesn't [1:47:25] exist. Electrochemical oxidation, incineration, like it's not there. So again, you're proposing to cut, [1:47:31] again, this cycle, 90%. I've now talked to your top staffers. I've talked to the top technologists. [1:47:38] The technology isn't there. So how do we get rid of PFAS in municipal water supplies? Do you agree [1:47:43] it's a problem? I agree it's a problem. It affects your state, it affects my state with 90% fewer dollars. [1:47:51] So it's your position that there's no PFAS destruction technologies that merit any conversation [1:47:57] here. There's tons. What I am saying is, at the point of production, yes, for dredge at landfills, [1:48:05] yes. I'm talking about municipal water supplies to get to four to eight parts per trillion. [1:48:09] I mean, it was your staff and the top technologists, they were in my office, [1:48:13] they were talking about this. It isn't there. So if you are a town in New York right now, [1:48:18] one of the towns that you championed when you were a congressman for PFAS dollars, [1:48:23] what are they going to do with 90% fewer dollars to get rid of PFAS? [1:48:27] Well, first off, as I referenced earlier, what we don't do in our proposed budget is factor in how [1:48:33] much you are going to want to raid the SRF for earmarks. That's a decision for you to decide to [1:48:39] make. Now, I'm not weighing in on the merits, and I'm going to opine on what you choose to advocate for [1:48:45] your district on. But at the same time, the president's FY27 budget proposal is not going to propose [1:48:53] your earmarks for you. We're also not going to factor in set-asides. [1:48:56] Your EPA plan for clean water is to hope that members of Congress are going to mark it? [1:49:00] I'm not hoping that members of Congress are going to raid it. Sounds like you are. [1:49:02] I know that members of Congress are going to raid it, and they've been doing it for a long time. [1:49:06] There's a reason why the revolving fund is not revolving, is because there are members who take [1:49:13] money out of the revolving fund, and they give it as earmarks to members of their district. And by the way, [1:49:18] there are a lot of fantastic examples of how members, I'm sure, of this committee have secured [1:49:26] these earmarks for their district. The problem is- [1:49:28] Administrator, I've gotten about 40 million back from my district- [1:49:29] It's not a revolving fund anymore- [1:49:31] For clean water. [1:49:32] If you want it to revolve, you can make sure it's properly funded by getting rid of the [1:49:37] Congressional Indirected Spending. If Congress chooses not to, you're going to continue to have [1:49:41] this problem. [1:49:41] Administrator, you're in charge of the EPA budget. You're not in charge of earmarks, [1:49:45] and hope is not a strategy. [1:49:46] I just said that. [1:49:46] I'm asking you, the technology does not exist. I agree there's promising technology out there. [1:49:51] What is your plan to use technology with 90% fewer dollars to remediate PFAS in places like New York [1:49:56] that are struggling with the effects on endocrinology and cancer from high contents of PFAS and water supply? [1:50:03] It's interesting the way you're asking the question. You're saying that there are a whole [1:50:05] bunch of technologies, but you're saying that right now on this date, because you believe that [1:50:11] there aren't enough technologies today that there's nothing you could do about some water [1:50:17] system that is going to try to remediate four years from now. [1:50:20] Name one that can operate at a municipal water scale. We can talk about landfills, [1:50:24] we can talk about a point of production. [1:50:25] Where should we start? [1:50:26] Name a single technology that can operate at municipal water supply for 90% [1:50:30] Do you want me to name companies, or do you want me to name technology? [1:50:32] A single technology. [1:50:32] Okay. You have mechanochemical degradation, gasification. [1:50:41] Yeah, not 90% cheaper. [1:50:42] Supercritical water oxidation. [1:50:45] Not 90% cheaper. [1:50:46] Degradation. [1:50:46] Not 90% cheaper. [1:50:48] Landfilling, underground injection. [1:50:51] Administrator, all these things cost more money. [1:50:53] They all cost more money because they're early incipient technologies. [1:50:56] None of them are 90% cheaper. [1:50:58] There is no plan from the EPA to protect the state that you champion when you're a member of Congress. [1:51:03] You want me to keep going on technologies and companies? [1:51:06] They're all, by the way, they're leaning into research and development on top of it. [1:51:10] So you have a compliance date that is years from now on PFOA and PFOX. [1:51:14] How are they doing that when you got rid of the Office of Research and Development? [1:51:18] Go ahead. And what happened next? [1:51:21] We stood up an Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions. [1:51:24] We added scientists inside of all sorts of program offices across the agency to integrate their [1:51:32] research. [1:51:32] You haven't given a single solution to cities and towns in New York to deal with PFAS. [1:51:37] Clean Earth, Viola in North America. [1:51:39] I yield back, Chairman. [1:51:40] Visits to Clean Harbors or Fort Richards or research inside a research triangle park. [1:51:46] Are you going to control this, Chairman? [1:51:47] The gentleman yields back. [1:51:50] I appreciate it. [1:51:52] And now I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, for his five minutes of questioning. [1:51:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:51:56] Thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being here. [1:51:58] Would you like to finish your thought process that you were on? [1:52:01] Sure. [1:52:02] I mean, for example, thank you, Congressman. [1:52:04] You know, when I had a visit to Richardson in Alaska, there was a company that [1:52:11] had a project for 6,000 tons of contaminated soil at Richardson. [1:52:18] Alaska has an issue that contaminated soil has to get sent to the lower 48, that they can't [1:52:24] fix it on spot. [1:52:26] So they give a small project of 6,000 contaminated tons of soil to a local company to utilize prototype [1:52:36] zero to work on their prototype in cleaning up these 6,000 tons of contaminated soil to [1:52:44] get the prototype improved so that it's now economical to be able to scale up their technology [1:52:51] so that they can then get a contract for maybe 600,000 tons of contaminated soil. [1:52:57] Does that mean that at that moment that I was visiting Fort Richardson, that that company with [1:53:03] Prototype Zero has it all figured out to be able to clean up 600,000 tons of contaminated soil? [1:53:09] Not yet. [1:53:09] But you know what? [1:53:10] As they were doing it, they were talking about what their next prototype is going to look like [1:53:15] in order to be able to get done so Alaska doesn't have to pay to send the contaminated soil to the [1:53:19] lower 48. [1:53:20] That's the the way things work with technology. [1:53:22] You have research and you have development. [1:53:24] You have companies that are leaning into new innovations. [1:53:27] You have these entities that that that know that they can destroy PFAS. [1:53:32] They they say with great confidence and excitement and anyone on this committee, [1:53:37] anyone in Congress on either side of the aisle who cares about the topic [1:53:41] should be cheering on the reality that these technologies are advancing rather than [1:53:47] us making believe like it doesn't exist. [1:53:49] Well, thank you for that. [1:53:50] You know, I remember the quote by Helen Keller once said that there's none so blind as he who will not [1:53:56] see. [1:53:57] I guess we might add to that there's none so deaf who to those who will not listen. [1:54:01] So we appreciate you being here, Ms. and Ms. Fair. [1:54:03] You've got a great staff behind you, by the way. [1:54:05] You've done a great job. [1:54:07] As you know, my district produces 27 percent of the nation's gasoline, [1:54:11] 35 percent of the nation's natural gas, 60 percent of the nation's jet fuel, [1:54:17] and so and 80 percent of the nation's military grade fuel. [1:54:20] Because of this, my district is poised to be a strategic element in achieving [1:54:25] President Trump's vision for American energy independence. [1:54:28] And I know you're part of that. [1:54:30] Unfortunately, certain regulations within the current regulatory climate have [1:54:34] limited that development and the innovation of domestic energy production across my district. [1:54:39] What plans are in place to eliminate some of those burdensome permitting barriers [1:54:44] to encourage new energy production? [1:54:46] Take your time. [1:54:47] Which industry do you want me to start with? [1:54:52] Well, let's start with natural gas. [1:54:54] So we were just speaking earlier in response to Congressman Pflueger [1:55:00] was asking about Quad OBC, and we announced on March 12th of last year that we were going [1:55:06] to reconsider the Quad OBC, which we've done through three parts. [1:55:10] We just finished the second stage of Quad OBC. [1:55:13] We're going to be putting out new guidance on that as early as this week to help the [1:55:19] regulated community understand the rule and how EPA views the rule as we pursue that third phase [1:55:26] of Quad OBC. That's just one example. The permitting front, we have been going through a rulemaking [1:55:35] on 401 of the Clean Water Act. We put out new guidance right away last year as it relates to Section 401. [1:55:43] That's an opportunity for legislation with any effort by this committee to modernize the Clean Water Act, [1:55:51] 401, the use of 404C, Waters of the United States. These are all aspects that relate to permitting [1:56:00] for these gas pipelines. [1:56:03] Well, that's good to know. And how about on things like jet fuel, petroleum, [1:56:07] and of course, oil, gasoline, those kinds of things? [1:56:11] Sure. Well, actually, a lot of what I just stated applies to all industries as well. [1:56:16] I got you. [1:56:17] Now, we're also working with the state of Texas right now, where the state has control over their [1:56:24] own state permits. And there are flexibilities that the state of Texas is pursuing. And by working [1:56:31] with EPA to understand interpretation of federal law and federal regulation, it allows the state to put [1:56:38] more flexibility in place. And Texas has been fantastic to work with. [1:56:42] So let me paraphrase that. You all view the states as allies, not enemies. Very quickly, [1:56:48] I'm going to say, you mentioned earlier that the world was going to end by four years and nine months. [1:56:52] I think somebody quoted here about the state. [1:56:54] Yeah, not my words. [1:56:56] I'm going to ask the gentlelady if she would give us some more time. [1:56:59] Maybe the world won't end. I yield back. [1:57:01] The gentleman yields back. Now recognize Mr. Carter of Louisiana for his five minutes of questions. [1:57:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being here. [1:57:14] The EPA, under the current administration, has abdicated its core mission to protect public health [1:57:19] and the environment, dropping enforcement actions, gutting grants, and sidelining science. [1:57:26] That's why last week, along with Representative Fletcher, I introduced the Zealously Eliminating [1:57:32] Legal Decisions of Ineptitude and Negligence Act, the Zeldin Act, to put guardrails around EPA's authority [1:57:41] to ensure it does its job and does the job the American people expect it to do. [1:57:47] If you needed more proof that guardrails like these are necessary, look no further than EPA's [1:57:52] disastrous proposed FY27 budget. It's a roadmap for gutting enforcement, slashing environmental [1:58:00] protections, and leaving communities to fend for themselves. Administrator Zeldin, I teach a course on [1:58:07] government at my alma mater, Zeva University in Louisiana. Recently, the class learned about [1:58:12] cooperative federalism, the system in which federal governments and the states share responsibility [1:58:19] for implementing policy. In the EPA's context, this means the federal government sets environmental [1:58:26] standards and provides funding to states to implement and enforce them. How does the president's [1:58:33] proposed elimination of state and local air quality management grants, which states rely on to fund [1:58:40] monitoring, enforcement, and community transparency of air pollution aligned with that cooperative [1:58:46] federalism model? We are in a situation where we inherited an agency where money was being lit on fire. [1:58:55] I was asked to make a pledge when I was going through my confirmation process that we would find out [1:59:01] what the Biden EPA was referring to when they said that they were tossing gold bars off the Titanic, [1:59:07] trying to get billions of dollars out the door. I've got just three minutes. Can I just ask you, [1:59:11] yes or no, do you agree with the president's proposal to eliminate that grant program in its entirety? [1:59:18] Every single aspect of the president's FY27 budget. Respectfully, can you do yes or no? You're going to filibuster my time. [1:59:22] The answer is yes. The answer is yes. You do. So you said you were trying to put the fire out on on these [1:59:28] grants while putting the fire on communities that depend on these grants to to have the audacity [1:59:36] to drink clean water and clean drink clean and breathe clean air. You think that's the right approach? [1:59:42] Congress has a deliberative process where you all can decide how you want to spend this money. The [1:59:48] president has a responsibility to come in with a little more fiscal responsibility than- [1:59:54] Okay, let me- let me- I reclaim my time. As we've discussed, states partially rely on federal grants [1:59:59] to implement federal environmental standards, conduct inspections, ensure compliance, and enforce them. [2:00:05] How do you expect cash strapped states like Louisiana to make up for the enforcement gap [2:00:11] you're creating while cutting the enforcement budget of your agency by 50 percent? [2:00:16] So it's your position- No, it's your position. You made the cuts. [2:00:21] So you- but no, if I understand your question correctly, you're saying that EPA [2:00:26] is cutting enforcement? You're cutting the dollars. Let me give you a quick lesson in federalism. [2:00:31] Your responsibility to the states are to provide the resources so they can in fact enforce. [2:00:37] If you cut the resources, they then cannot enforce. It's very basic math, sir. [2:00:42] Oh, okay. So now allow me to respond- I would love you to. [2:00:46] In fiscal year 25, during the first year of President Trump's term in office from January 20th [2:00:51] of 25 to January 19th of 26, we sentenced more criminal defendants. We obtained far more in [2:00:57] criminal fines and restitution. As a matter of fact, $57.7 million in the last year of the Biden [2:01:03] administration, $561.9 million during the first year of the Trump administration. We obtained far [2:01:09] more in criminal forfeiture. In the last year of the Biden administration- [2:01:12] Where was the criminal forfeiture from? Who was the criminal forfeiture from? [2:01:15] $1 million. Who was the criminal forfeiture from? [2:01:18] Don't read off your prepared notes. Answer my question. [2:01:21] $1.1 billion- Could you tell me from who? [2:01:25] Can you tell me? Because right now you're reading the script, and I'm asking you a question. [2:01:29] I'm giving you the numbers. No, you're not giving me the answer. [2:01:32] Sir, respectfully, could you just answer my question and abandon your script? You're the administrative EPA. [2:01:37] You should know this. If you cut 50% of a budget, how can they possibly enforce the way it's needed? [2:01:43] In my home state of Louisiana, people live in communities that need fence line monitoring. [2:01:48] Another way of wording it is you're welcome. [2:01:49] Sir, no. Clean up of contaminated soil. [2:01:51] I'm reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. [2:01:52] The last- Mr. Chairman, I'm reclaiming my time. [2:01:55] Administrator, I am not going to allow you to- [2:01:57] What's your question? [2:01:58] Sir, I'm not going to allow you to over-speak me and ignore my questions with prepared scripts. [2:02:03] Mr. Chairman, I have very specific questions that require specific answers. [2:02:07] You've been a member of Congress before. You know better. Shame on you. I yield. [2:02:11] Mr. Chairman, you'll respond, Chairman, briefly. [2:02:16] The next person could give you some time, and that would be Dr. Marionette Miller-Meeks of Iowa. [2:02:23] Thank you, Mr. Chair and Administrator Zeldin. How did you know I was going to do precisely that? [2:02:30] And you were also trying to make a statement, I think, a factual statement about grants being [2:02:37] moved to other parts of the EPA, which would still be administered. So would you care to respond? [2:02:44] I appreciate that, Congresswoman. Thank you. [2:02:46] So as I was saying, and I'm very proud of the work of our Enforcement and Compliance Office. [2:02:55] Further examples of the good work during the first year of the Trump administration, [2:02:59] cleanup of contaminated soil and water. In the first year of the Trump administration, [2:03:04] it was 59.3 million cubic yards. Compared to the last year of the Biden administration, [2:03:10] it was 1.99 million cubic yards, a billion dollars more in the value of injunctive relief, [2:03:18] hundreds of more civil enforcement case conclusions, more pounds, a lot more pounds of illegal pesticides [2:03:25] blocked from entering the United States, on top of the other examples that I was given previously. [2:03:32] So what you have is you have members who want a grandstand, and they want to make a claim about [2:03:39] the work of the Enforcement and Compliance Office. And what happens is when they actually meet the hard [2:03:45] facts, the reality, and they hear the numbers, they want to cut you off and make sure that you stop [2:03:51] reading off the numbers that disprove their false claim. But you know, I understand that reaction [2:03:59] when you come to a committee like this and you actually don't know what you're talking about. [2:04:04] Most members read off scripts that are prepared for them, and most administrators do. And I remember [2:04:10] questioning the last EPA administrator two years in a row with a power plant 2.0 rule and a tailpipe [2:04:17] emission rule, both which reduced the generation of electricity as they increased demand of electricity, [2:04:24] and asked if they knew how many passenger vehicles were on the road in the United States at the time, [2:04:29] two years in a row, they did not know, and asked them if they knew how much power it took to power [2:04:35] 100-mile charge for an electric vehicle, they did not know two years in a row. Why would you make rules [2:04:41] and put those into place if you don't know the answer to those simple basic questions? So I'm glad [2:04:47] that you have the facts prepared with you. And with that, let me just thank you very much as an [2:04:52] agricultural state for your leadership in finalizing the 2026 and 2027 RVOs with record-setting biomass [2:05:00] diesel volumes. In Iowa, we're seeing the impact of that leadership in real time, and it underscores [2:05:06] this administration's policy for domestic American energy production, which we know is part of the [2:05:12] diverse mix of liquid fuels and carbon-based fuels. I'd also say that these projects are not only [2:05:18] expanding markets for farmers, they're driving job creation and economic growth across rural [2:05:23] communities. Your commitment to implementing the import reduction beginning in 2028 is a meaningful [2:05:31] step towards reinforcing domestic American energy production and ensuring the program works as an [2:05:36] intended. Does the EPA plan to finalize the 2028 RVOs by the November 1st statutory deadline? [2:05:45] We immediately moved to RFS Set 3 as soon as we finished RFS Set 2. We will work as fast as we [2:05:53] possibly can to be able to get this back on track. As you know, and I believe you referenced, we inherited [2:05:58] a blown deadline. And on top of it, we had to also get rid of the adjudications of 175 of the small refinery [2:06:07] exemptions. Now that we're done with RFS Set 2, we were able to remove the 175 backlog and the small [2:06:15] refinery exemptions. We moved to RFS Set 3, which we will work to complete as fast as we can. [2:06:22] I'd like to also submit for the record the EPA's actions on PFAS, if I may. [2:06:31] We will, we'll have a take a look at them, but most likely that would be yes. [2:06:37] Thank you. And then I'll submit questions for the record, but I just want to get this [2:06:41] question out because of some of the comments I've heard. In our home state of Iowa, we've shown you [2:06:46] can modernize air permit, modernize air permitting and still deliver cleaner air. Fine particle pollution [2:06:51] is down more than 25% since 2000, even as Iowa has added new manufacturing and energy projects. And Iowa's [2:06:59] easy air online system now in its seventh year has processed more than 5,500 permit applications and [2:07:05] reports, replacing paper forms with a streamlined 24 seven digital platform that uses built in data [2:07:11] checks and shared emission data to speed reviews. I just want to know, is this something that you would [2:07:17] be able to talk about? You can submit in writing about the EPA utilizing to improve permitting and the [2:07:23] environmental review process in the integrated environmental strategies program. And with that, I yield. [2:07:30] Agenda lady yields now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez for his five minutes of [2:07:34] questioning. Thank you, Chairman. Administrator Zeldin, I'm from New Jersey. You're from Long Island and [2:07:40] Superstorm Sandy devastated both of our communities. Just yes or no, would you agree that Sandy [2:07:45] endangered communities in New York and New Jersey? Absolutely. I would too. And now we know that [2:07:51] climate change worsened Sandy's impact causing an additional $8 billion of damage from sea level rise and [2:07:56] exposing 71,000 more people to flooding. Despite that disaster, which impacted Long Island and New [2:08:03] Jersey, the EPA under your leadership has repealed the 2009 endangerment finding and all climate [2:08:08] pollution standards for vehicles undermining the foundation of the EPA's ability to mitigate [2:08:13] greenhouse greenhouse gas pollution and reduce the risk of more frequent and intense super storms [2:08:19] inflicted by climate change. These massive rollbacks are also happening in the midst of an affordability [2:08:24] crisis. By the EPA's own admission, the rollbacks will actually cost American families $180 billion in [2:08:31] net costs. Yet you still insist on misrepresenting this repeal as a good deal for the American people. [2:08:37] So I want to highlight some of the flawed assertions. Just yes or no, when the EPA now analyzed the [2:08:42] impacts of this decision, it relied in part on the assumption that oil will cost about $47 per barrel. [2:08:49] Is that correct? There were many different models that were used. But $47 is what I actually have it [2:08:55] here is the amount that was the baseline. Are you familiar with what current oil prices are per barrel? [2:09:04] Sure. Today? Yes, today. They're higher than that. Yeah, it's actually today, [2:09:08] U.S. gas prices hit the highest level since the beginning of Trump's war with Iran. And we know [2:09:13] that Americans are paying for Trump's war at the pump with average gas prices around $4 a gallon, [2:09:19] and diesel prices around $5 a gallon. Now with the repeal of the endangerment finding and vehicle [2:09:24] greenhouse gas standards, among other clean vehicle policies, EPA's own analysis shows that gas prices [2:09:30] will increase another 75 cents a gallon by 2050, adding more than $3 billion per year in fuel costs [2:09:36] for American drivers. But I want to move on. We also know that pollution has real impacts on the health of [2:09:42] the people that we represent, and research shows that climate change will drive $45 billion in additional [2:09:48] health costs by 2050. Just yes or no, did the EPA fully and comprehensively account for additional [2:09:54] health care costs, respiratory illnesses, hospitalizations, premature deaths associated [2:09:58] with these rollbacks? The decision was made based on the fact that the best reading of Section 202, [2:10:04] the Clean Air Act, EPA does not have the authority for the 2009 Endangerment Fund. So it did not, [2:10:10] right? So all these impacts to the people that- Well, because it was- [2:10:12] You represent all that you used to represent are going to see worse health care outcomes. [2:10:19] And this comes on the back of last year when Republicans in the Trump administration cut a [2:10:23] trillion dollars for Medicaid and shift billions in SNAP administrative costs onto states and counties. [2:10:29] Administrator Zeldin, I know you ran for governor of New York, so you're familiar with how state [2:10:33] budgets works. State officials have been clear that these decisions are creating major budget shortfalls, [2:10:38] and states are struggling. So with nearly $3.5 billion in proposed cuts to water infrastructure [2:10:45] and categorical grants, does that mean that residents of New York should expect higher water bills or [2:10:51] delayed projects? Which one? Well, it's interesting how you're posing the question. Why- [2:10:58] It's either or, right? Because you're cutting funding to states- [2:11:01] Energy prices. You know how much energy prices are up in New Jersey in the last five years? [2:11:06] What would you do if you were governor, right, of New York, which you ran for? [2:11:09] Republicans cut a trillion dollars from health care that now states have to backfill. Now you want [2:11:14] to cut $3.5 billion from water infrastructure. New York, I'm sure, has a ton of projects that are now [2:11:20] either going to be delayed or to do those projects, it's going to be on the back of New Yorkers, right? [2:11:25] So which one is it? Delayed projects or higher costs for residents of New York? The state you [2:11:30] sought to represent as the governor. Right, so the first part of that, as I've referenced earlier, [2:11:34] is that the EPA, the president's FY27 budget does not factor in how much you're going to choose to [2:11:40] raid the budget. Okay, and that's a point you made before, so I'm going to move on. I'm going to move [2:11:43] on because you've said other crazy stuff. You've said other crazy stuff today, okay? That the Biden [2:11:49] administration, that the Biden administration, I mean, are you going to do anything at some point? [2:11:54] I mean, how many instances- You ask a question, give me an opportunity to answer. [2:11:59] Because I moved on, and you've done this numerous times. So listen, I just want to ask you a question. [2:12:03] You've said that the Biden administration with the IRA had more funds than the EPA knew how to spend, [2:12:08] and there was waste fraud and abuse, right? This was going out to people that were in the Biden [2:12:13] orbit. You had said that earlier, yet I'm curious if you have any issue with the fact that during the [2:12:18] 2024 campaign, the president asked the oil and gas industry for a billion dollars in exchange for [2:12:24] supporting these rollbacks that the EPA is administering now. Is that all an issue for [2:12:29] you? That the president said to the oil and gas industry, give me a billion dollars and I will do [2:12:33] your work. Is that not the work that the EPA is doing today? I don't know. Are you actually asking [2:12:37] questions where you want answers? I am asking a question. Are you going to give an answer? [2:12:40] I'm going to start an answer, and then you're going to cut me off. Is that how this works? [2:12:42] All right, well, if that's going to be the case, I have another thing for you. What do you think [2:12:45] about the $220 million ad campaign that Secretary Noem had with the DHS that went directly to Trump? [2:12:52] I'm talking that went to Trump operative. Did you speak out against that as a member of the [2:12:57] administration? Did you speak out against that as a member of the administration? [2:13:04] How about the conflicts of interest during the Biden EPA that you don't want to apply? [2:13:07] All right, what about in the Trump administration? If you want to talk about the Biden administration, [2:13:11] talk about the Trump administration. You're a part of the administration. [2:13:14] And you don't want to say that Secretary Noem was wrong. You're not going to. [2:13:19] You don't want to work with the agency. Mr. Zeldin, thank you. Mr. Zeldin is here to [2:13:29] talk about the EPA, not other matters. At the same time, if it's related to the EPA, [2:13:37] and you certainly can ask, but he also has a right to answer the question. So let's try to be a little [2:13:44] more civil on all parts. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady of North Dakota as the [2:13:56] door check. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I first the first my first day in office, [2:14:03] I wrote a letter to President Trump and Secretary Burgum, imploring them to focus on 20 onerous [2:14:12] Biden era era regulations that directly attacked energy producers. These regulations forced Americans [2:14:20] to pay a lot more for their energy and left them much more vulnerable. Those 20 regulations of those [2:14:29] 20, 17 have been repealed, withdrawn, or vacated, or are being worked on. Many of those were the EPA, [2:14:36] so thank you for your work on that. That includes the EPA Carbon Rule, Clean Power 2.0, [2:14:42] the WOTUS Rule, the MATS Rule, and the Waste Methane Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas [2:14:48] Systems Rule. You worked on all of those, and Americans are enjoying more reliable [2:14:58] energy as a result of that. So thank you, Mr. Zeldin. And one that remains is going to have an [2:15:06] impact in nine days after this hearing. There's a compliance deadline on the Biden era methane rule, [2:15:12] and that takes effect nine days from today. North Dakota operators tell me that this does two [2:15:19] things. First, it creates, will immediately shut in 20 to 40,000 barrels per day of production, [2:15:27] and it will help drilling outside of the core Bakken area in my state. President Trump has also signed a [2:15:36] Defense Production Act determination on April 20th, directing for expanded domestic production [2:15:44] petroleum as essential to national defense. So as the EPA Administrator, how do you plan to reconcile [2:15:51] these two federal directives before May 7th? We are preparing a guidance document to put out as [2:15:58] recently as this week. It will definitely go out before May 7th. That will address this concern. [2:16:05] Okay. And is that going to potentially extend that May 7th compliance deadline? [2:16:10] It will directly address, fully address the concerns that have been expressed on this issue. [2:16:17] Okay, good. So my producers shouldn't be preparing to shut in that production? [2:16:22] We are well aware of the issue, and we are extremely confident that the document that we'll be putting [2:16:29] out will be assisting the regulated community in interpreting the law and regulation. [2:16:35] Excellent. All right. Thank you, Mr. Zeldin. I'd like to turn a bit to new source review, [2:16:41] the new source review issue. As currently structured, new source review program penalizes [2:16:47] facilities for trying to modernize. Representative Griffiths, new source review permitting improvements [2:16:53] act addresses that directly, and I'm proud to sponsor that. Can you speak to how streamlining [2:16:59] the new source review process could unlock a broader wave of investment in modernization across the energy [2:17:06] sector and probably at the same time decrease emissions? Sure. We've received feedback over the [2:17:16] course of the 15 months that we're in on many different ways that didn't even require new rulemaking. [2:17:23] There are some aspects that do require new rulemaking. We put out new guidance. We, for example, [2:17:29] established guidance that clarified what begin actual construction means. That guidance clarified that [2:17:35] companies can build various parts of the facility as long as the building does not, with regards to [2:17:44] the installation of emissions units or related activities, cross a particular value or threshold. We'd [2:17:54] allowed companies at their own risk to construct their facility while they're going through the [2:18:00] permitting process, allowing the companies to be able to operate. The begin actual construction, [2:18:09] the interpretation of various aspects of new source review didn't even require new rulemaking for us to [2:18:16] start to be responsive. We've received requests to go beyond that, which we were considering and planning to [2:18:20] take action. Excellent. Would additional directive from Congress help you address that issue further? [2:18:28] Absolutely. The Clean Air Act, which is landmark law that was passed, though, half a century ago, [2:18:36] includes many different opportunities for modernization, which I know is a very important [2:18:41] priority of many members of this committee. I've spoken to both the chairman of your subcommittee, [2:18:47] who's here. Chairman Palmer, good to see you, as well as the chairman of your full committee, and I know that [2:18:51] this is important to you as well. So as far as ideas, we have a list put forth, put together by the White [2:18:58] House Council of Environmental Quality. EPA has ideas even further beyond the list that was put forth by the [2:19:05] White House Council of Environmental Quality, and we look forward to working with you to implement any potential [2:19:10] statutory changes to help go further. Thank you, Mr. Zeldin. I appreciate your leadership. This is a common [2:19:15] sense area for improvement, and I yield back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, [2:19:21] Mr. Lansman, for five minutes for his questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Zeldin, [2:19:29] for being here, talking about the EPA budget. Just in sort of pulling back a little bit over the course of the [2:19:37] last 14 months, you all pushed for a massive spending bill, $4.5 trillion. Most of it went to tax cuts [2:19:50] that overwhelmingly favored the super wealthy. You added trillions of dollars to the debt, cut healthcare [2:19:58] by nearly a trillion dollars, and now you are going to cut the EPA by 50 percent. You were a member of [2:20:06] Congress. Would you have supported all of this as a member of Congress? The working families tax cut? I [2:20:14] absolutely would have voted yes, and as I'm hearing from Americans across the country, they're really happy to [2:20:18] get a lot more back in their tax return, and I would say that on behalf of all those Americans who have [2:20:24] shared that, while I can share that feedback with President Trump, I'd also say to the Republicans on this [2:20:28] committee who voted for it, thank you for doing your part, understanding the economic concerns of [2:20:33] Americans across this country. Mr. Zeldin, you don't spend a lot of time with people right there. [2:20:40] That really isn't true. No one's really saying thank you for cutting their health care, for adding [2:20:45] trillions of dollars like that. That shows how out of touch you are, that you believe that Americans are [2:20:48] not happy to get more back in their tax return. No, you don't talk to folks. I visited all 50 states in [2:20:56] my first nine months. People come up to you and they say thank you so much for spending trillions of [2:21:02] dollars on the super wealthy and cutting our health care. That's what they tell you? No. [2:21:06] They don't repeat your soundbites. And they're just desperately asking you to shift [2:21:10] all this money. We appreciate having more money in our wall. We appreciate being able to [2:21:14] afford to heat our home and fill up our gas tank. It's so absurd. It's so absurd. Stop. [2:21:19] That's what they say. So that's what they say. They don't repeat your talking points. They don't. They [2:21:22] don't say that. They absolutely don't. They're all members of Congress. They don't say that they're grateful for [2:21:26] having more back in their tax return. That's your position. That shows how out of touch you are. [2:21:30] You're shifting money to the state. So this is this is Russ Vogt, right? He's the head of OMB. [2:21:35] He sets the policy for all of you. He came to you and said, I got to cut your budget by 50 percent. [2:21:41] The EPA, it's there to protect the environment and Americans. And you just say, okay, is that how it [2:21:50] works? Like, because this is Russ Vogt, who was the architect, one of the key architects of Project [2:21:54] 20, 25, which was we're going to decimate the federal government, shift the cost burden back [2:21:59] to states, and we'll free up all this money for tax cuts for the super wealthy. And you were like, [2:22:04] okay, that's fine. No, that is not what happened. So Russ Vogt doesn't make this call? [2:22:09] The budget that I'm here before Congress is a budget that I support, that I take responsibility [2:22:15] for crafting. Well, I suspect he is glad to hear you say that. I'm sure he's happy with the budget [2:22:22] that he crafted. But that's not true. It is true. Okay, well, you're entitled to your own version [2:22:28] of reality, I guess. Same with you and how happy people are. It's your position at our agency to put [2:22:34] together our budget. This tax plan where they're just getting demolished in terms of their healthcare. [2:22:37] I want to talk about healthcare cuts, coupled with EPA cuts. People are obviously worried [2:22:45] about their health. Don't you agree that's a concern with the healthcare cuts? And now you're [2:22:51] now you're going to pollute more of the water and air? Actually, the feedback that I get is that [2:22:56] people are happy that- Where's this feedback coming from? I don't, I don't like- [2:22:59] So it's America, when you actually get out and you travel the country, and I've been to all 50 states [2:23:04] across this country. And when I travel, I get an opportunity to hear feedback from Americans- [2:23:08] You touch ground, and you talk to people, and they're just running up to you, and they're just [2:23:11] saying, thank you so much for cutting the EPA. Thank you so much for cutting our healthcare. [2:23:16] We are so glad that trillions of dollars are going to the richest people in this country. [2:23:20] They don't want us to get rid of entire sectors of our economy through regulation. They're happy [2:23:24] when they have consumer choice. They are thrilled when they know- [2:23:27] This is very, it's quite, it's quite alarming. [2:23:30] It's going to get removed. They want manufacturers- [2:23:32] The last question. They want, rather than the ones that you demand. [2:23:36] Yeah, the manufacturing- That's the feedback that I hear from Americans, yeah. [2:23:39] All right, last question. The data centers, talk about the analysis you've done on the pollution, [2:23:46] water, air, noise. So what I've been doing in my travels- [2:23:51] We have so many binders, I just want to know, like, is one of them the analysis work that you've done [2:23:56] on data centers? Yeah. [2:23:57] Can I see the binder? Which binder does- [2:24:00] You want me to- Yeah, which one of it does- [2:24:02] Like, I've never seen any, there's so many binders. [2:24:04] We do a lot of work. We prepare them. [2:24:06] Yeah, I'm sure. So which one- [2:24:07] What do you think they're all blank? [2:24:09] Can you, what is the analysis- [2:24:11] How about I just answer off the top of my head? [2:24:13] Data centers, I've been traveling the entire country. The good thing [2:24:17] about data centers, they're being built across this country, and fortunately- [2:24:20] For big tech. It's been great for big tech. It's been terrible for our communities, [2:24:23] because no one's protecting them, which is what you're supposed to do. I yield back. [2:24:27] Ask Arkansas about the $1.1 billion benefit that they're getting as Entergy ratepayers [2:24:33] because of the Google Center in West Memphis. [2:24:35] The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, [2:24:40] Mr. Evans, for five minutes for his questions. [2:24:42] Mr. Zeldin, well, first, thanks to the chairman and to the ranking member for this [2:24:48] hearing. And Administrator Zeldin, thanks so much for taking the time, not only to come talk to us [2:24:52] today, but for the times that you've come out to Colorado, where we've had roundtables with [2:24:56] real constituents and real stakeholders in my community. So really appreciate you taking that [2:25:01] time. In those roundtables and other times, we've had conversations about common sense updates to the [2:25:08] Clean Air Act to ensure that American job creators, the American consumer, the American economy, [2:25:14] is not unfairly punished for emissions outside their control. Because I think we can all agree that [2:25:19] one of the other things that has a negative outcome on people's health is poverty. If they can't get jobs, [2:25:25] and we can't build or produce or make anything here in the United States, then people don't have [2:25:29] money, they don't have insurance, and their health also suffers from poverty. So being able to make [2:25:34] sure that we can update things like the Clean Air Act to not strangle the American economy is [2:25:39] incredibly important to me. Just last week, my bipartisan bill, the Fire Act, which clarifies how [2:25:45] emissions from wildfires and controlled burns and other exceptional events are treated in federal air [2:25:50] quality standards, it passed the House. And we know the data. Multiple studies have shown that [2:25:56] controlled burns significantly reduce overall emissions when compared to damaging wildfires. And [2:26:02] so while I'm appreciative of the work that EPA has done to encourage prescribed burns through rulemaking, [2:26:08] there's a bipartisan consensus that a statutory fix is necessary to allow states to exempt emissions [2:26:15] from prescribed burns and take decisive action to prevent catastrophic wildfires. So Administrator Zeldin, [2:26:21] kind of a two-part question. Do you believe that the Fire Act will increase the use of prescribed [2:26:27] burns in the United States? And do you agree that this bill is likely to lower overall emissions [2:26:33] in the United States by preventing catastrophic wildfires? Yes. And by pursuing more work [2:26:41] as it relates to modernizing the Clean Air Act, there are many opportunities. This I know is an [2:26:46] important issue for you and your constituents in Colorado. We have heard from your constituents in [2:26:51] Colorado who are very concerned about this issue. And when you add up the Biden PM 2.5 level with the [2:26:58] Exceptional Events rulemaking, with the Regional Haze rulemaking, you're in a situation in Colorado [2:27:03] where there's what you felt like a disincentive that you'll be penalized, punished by protecting the [2:27:10] communities in your district, and that should never be the case. Thank you for that, Administrator. [2:27:15] And my motivation for this is because, as you've talked about, as I've talked about, is my governor, [2:27:21] who's on the opposite side of the aisle, has talked about, 70 percent of the emissions in Colorado [2:27:26] don't come from sources under Colorado's control. And one of the other consequences of being in a [2:27:33] non-attainment area, even though over two-thirds of the emissions come from outside of our control, [2:27:37] one of the other problems is reformulated gas. This is a mandate under the Clean Air Act. [2:27:43] Reformulated gas costs about 40 cents more per gallon, not my data, my governor's data point, [2:27:49] and it reduces ozone emissions by 0.1 parts per billion in terms of emissions. So, Administrator, [2:27:57] I know that the EPA has the authority to grant a reformulated gas waiver, and this would keep my [2:28:04] constituents from having to pay 40 cents more per gallon for a 0.1 part per billion reduction [2:28:11] in ground-level ozone. Is that something that you and your team will commit to providing serious [2:28:15] consideration around, that RFG waiver for Colorado for summertime ozone? Yes. Thank you. Last question, [2:28:22] Mr. Administrator. Last month, I was honored to welcome Chairman Guthrie, Chairman Palmer, [2:28:29] several other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee to my district to tour Suncor. They run [2:28:34] the last two small refineries in the state of Colorado. Those two refineries provide a third of [2:28:39] the gasoline, a third of the jet fuel, half the diesel fuel in the state of Colorado. And as small [2:28:44] refineries, they currently benefit from the small refinery exception program, which is administered [2:28:51] through the EPA. But they are struggling under the crushing weight of state regulations in the state of [2:28:58] Colorado. And so do you believe that refineries operating in states with heavy exceptional state [2:29:05] regulations like Colorado, should small refineries like that be considered for regulatory relief at the [2:29:10] federal level to protect essential energy infrastructure from shuttering? Well, I can't speak to an [2:29:17] individual small refinery exemption request. It is very important for there to be full transparency, [2:29:24] following the law strictly. There's plenty of court cases that are going on. So honoring the decisions [2:29:32] that are set by court and making sure that we are working closely with those applicants, [2:29:36] including applicants that come in from Colorado, to make sure that their requests are adjudicated [2:29:41] fairly and factoring in certain elements that you just included in your remarks. Thank you, [2:29:46] Administrator. Yield back. Chairman Yields. Now I recognize myself for five minutes for [2:30:04] questions. I'd just like to point out a couple of things, though, Mr. Administrator, that my colleagues [2:30:11] keep attacking the working families tax cuts. And that's the bill that in which the Republicans put [2:30:18] in $50 billion for transforming rural health care. There are whole areas of the country where women [2:30:27] expecting a child might have to drive an hour, hour and a half just to see an OBGYN. And every one of my [2:30:33] Democratic colleagues voted against it. Their 51.4 million senior citizens on Social Security didn't [2:30:40] have to pay any income tax on their Social Security. And every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against [2:30:45] that. There are people working in the tip economy, single moms that saw a tax cut sometimes approaching [2:30:55] $2,000, some more than that, they could use to buy school supplies for the kids, maybe repair a car or get better [2:31:05] housing. And every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against that. The middle 60 percent of income [2:31:11] earners saw the largest after-tax income increase raised take-home pay significantly for those. And [2:31:18] every one of my colleagues voted against that. I want to get back to the purpose of the hearing. [2:31:25] It's in your proposed budget, the EPA requests $1.7 million to implement the Good Samaritan [2:31:30] Remediation of Abandoned Hard Rock Mines Act of 2024. Can you tell us a little bit more about that program? [2:31:36] Sure. We have been working hard at implementing this. We plan on getting out the few, [2:31:43] the first few this year. Our goal is to get out the first 15 over the course of this administration. [2:31:51] And we look forward to fulfilling our role and making sure that congressional intent is met and [2:31:58] this program is well led and well executed. Well, the program would provide permits for [2:32:03] remediators and so that they wouldn't face liability under the comprehensive environmental response, [2:32:08] compensation liability act, circular. So I wanted to touch on a related issue. [2:32:13] EPA's budget justification also discusses efforts to clean up PFAS contamination. At a hearing in [2:32:21] December, the committee discussed concerns with regulating PFAS under circular. As you know, [2:32:26] last year, EPA announced that it would maintain the previous administration's designation of [2:32:31] PFOA and PFAS as hazardous substances under circular. At the hearing, members heard that this designation [2:32:39] has been problematic because, among other things, PFAS are ubiquitous in the environment and there are no [2:32:45] federal PFAS cleanup standards. From what you and your staff are hearing and have have concerns about [2:32:51] liability for PFAS contamination, hindered efforts to remediate and reuse properties potentially [2:32:56] contaminated the PFOA or PFAS and other substances? And if so, what is EPA doing to address this? [2:33:05] Well, first off, it's important to note that the work under PFAS doesn't cleanly fit inside of RCRA [2:33:12] or CERCLA. And this is something that I know and from conversations with members of Congress, [2:33:17] this is something that there are members of Congress in both chambers they're working to address. [2:33:22] One of the concerns that are brought up to me most often is that the passive receiver status of these [2:33:30] local water systems, where they would have to pass off costs to their ratepayers, if a ratepayer has to [2:33:36] pay to clean up PFAS contamination from their own water supply, that is against the principle of polluter [2:33:43] pays. So for Congress to be able to work through this in amending federal statute to ensure that [2:33:49] ratepayers don't have to pay to clean up their own PFAS contamination, that is an example of a way that [2:33:55] these laws can be amended to fit better as it relates to PFAS cleanup. [2:33:59] Could you talk briefly about the significance of the EPA guidance that was transmitted to an Arizona [2:34:06] semiconductor fabrication plant regarding the definition of pre-construction activities and how [2:34:12] it helps to streamline the new source review permitting scheme? [2:34:16] Sure. In order to be able to move forward with the construction work without having to be delayed [2:34:25] for years waiting for a permit when something is inactive and then it's restarting, not to put them [2:34:33] back at the beginning of the process when they're looking to restart a project that had already been [2:34:40] permitted in the past. There are ways through the use of current rules where we were able to announce last [2:34:47] September these changes on the pre-construction permitting through new source review. It was in [2:34:54] direct response to what we heard from the regulated community to ensure that these projects can move [2:35:00] forward rather than getting stalled for years. [2:35:02] My time has expired. The chair now recognizes members who have waved onto the committee. [2:35:10] I recognize the general lady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for five minutes for her questions. [2:35:14] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, the Trump administration's policies [2:35:20] are inflicting higher cost on our neighbors back home. The way I characterize it based upon what I'm [2:35:27] hearing from my neighbors is that it's soul-crushing when taken altogether, whether it's higher grocery [2:35:33] bills, the pain inflicted by illegal tariffs, higher electric bills, ripping away health care or leaving [2:35:41] them with much higher premiums. And, you know, folks look to—they look for folks up here to provide [2:35:49] solutions, and I am so sorry to report to them when—from representing a community that so values our—values [2:35:59] clean air and clean water that the EPA is making it worse, and they're making it more expensive. [2:36:05] EPA, when you look at this budget, EPA will make it more difficult for local communities to build and [2:36:13] maintain the clean water infrastructure that they rely on, the drinking water infrastructure they rely on. [2:36:19] It's a community that was hit hard by hurricanes Helene and Milton, and we had a lot of critical [2:36:26] infrastructure impacted severely by floods and by historic rainfall events. So when I look at your [2:36:34] budget that you seek to slash almost in half clean water state revolving loan funds, drinking water [2:36:44] revolving loan funds, this is the important partnership between EPA and our states and our [2:36:49] local communities to keep that infrastructure online to help us modernize it and to help us save money, [2:36:56] because an important piece of those of EPA's authorities are to work with local communities [2:37:04] to help them become more resilient and also to repair after a natural disaster. [2:37:10] And for a community like mine that is—I don't think we're unique—there are natural disasters, [2:37:16] climate-fueled disasters that are increasingly expensive, increasingly more frequent. And for [2:37:23] you all to kind of rip the rug out from under local communities, you're just asking our neighbors back [2:37:29] home to pay more again when they're already grappling with much higher costs. In my state already, [2:37:35] we're seeing more industrial facilities, waste sites, and neighborhoods inundated by floods and threatened [2:37:41] by wildfires. And that has a significant pollution impact because those—when you—you know this well—that [2:37:49] unleashes toxic chemicals into the air, soil, and drinking water. At the same time, you're proposing massive [2:37:56] cuts to the very initiatives and professionals that lead federal hazardous materials response and long-term [2:38:03] cleanup. Folks used to be so proud of the EPA. They used to rely on the EPA because they were the folks [2:38:12] who were there after a storm to help them rebuild. And now that work is even harder after 4,000 EPA [2:38:22] professionals have been doged or fired. It's so difficult just to watch—to watch what—what the Trump [2:38:32] administration is doing. You're unleashing all of this pollution. You're making the heating of the [2:38:37] climate worse and more expensive. And then when we suffer these costly natural disasters, you're ripping [2:38:44] away the help that we need to recover and repair and to save taxpayers money by building more resilient [2:38:51] infrastructure. It's kind of like what you're doing with health care. You rip health care coverage away [2:38:56] from people. And at the same time, you're making—making lives less healthy by allowing more toxic [2:39:05] chemicals in the air, in the water, in the food we eat. I just urge you to make a course correction. [2:39:13] Make a course correction for the sake of our country, for the sake of our pocketbooks, for the sake of our [2:39:19] kids. We don't want—we want to restore the pride that we had in our environmental laws and not cut them [2:39:26] and side with polluters every single time. And I—I also need to correct the record because [2:39:33] it is not true what—what you said before that—that you are a stalwart in upholding our environmental [2:39:41] laws. I know you had a little conversation with my colleague from Louisiana. You're not being straight [2:39:45] with people. The—and I'll submit this for the record—Trump's EPA issues record-low legal actions [2:39:52] against polluters, watchdog group fines. You said that a lot of the—the $1.16 billion in civil [2:40:00] penalties and criminal fines were your initiative. That's—that's not true. Most of those cases were [2:40:06] started under the—under the Biden administration. And your record is that you've initiated a record [2:40:11] low number against polluters compared to past administrations. [2:40:15] The gentle lady's time is expired. [2:40:16] I'll—offer this—ask unanimous consent to submit this for the record— [2:40:19] Without objection, so I would— [2:40:20] And urge a course correction, Mr. Administrator. People deserve better. [2:40:24] Chair now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy, for five minutes for his questions. [2:40:28] Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Zeldin, welcome. It's great to have a fellow New [2:40:33] Yorker testify before the committee, because you understand something many in Washington don't, [2:40:38] and that there is a real disconnect between what activist politicians in states like New York [2:40:45] promise on paper and what families and businesses are dealing with on the ground. [2:40:48] New York continues to brand itself as a national climate leader under policies like the Climate [2:40:55] Leadership and Community Protection Act, which I know you're very familiar with. [2:40:59] But the targets embedded in that law—100 percent zero-emission electricity, aggressive electrification [2:41:05] mandates, and rapid phase-outs of traditional fuel—are increasingly colliding with reality. [2:41:12] Your agency's efforts over the past year to streamline new source review permitting, bringing greater clarity [2:41:19] and predictability to the Clean Air Act implementation and revisiting overly stringent particulate matter [2:41:26] standards are helping to push back on policies that go beyond what is achievable. And likewise, [2:41:33] steps to ensure federal rules do not unintentionally reinforce state-level mandates that limit fuel choice or [2:41:40] undermine grid reliability are critical for constituents like mine in western New York and in the southern tier. [2:41:46] And I'm very grateful that we have a friend and ally at the EPA that knows and understands my district. [2:41:54] Administrator Zeldin, how is EPA working to restore balance in protecting air quality and environmental [2:42:00] standards, while also making sure that we're not driving jobs and investment in manufacturing out of states [2:42:06] like New York through unworkable regulatory burdens? [2:42:09] Thank you, Congressman. Well, first off, it's important for us to follow the best [2:42:13] reading of the law. That's our requirement. And if Congress chooses to amend the law, then we'll follow [2:42:19] whatever Congress chooses to amend that law to. When the American public voted for President Trump and [2:42:25] Republicans in November of 2024, they were putting forth a Trump mandate of wanting an agency like EPA to [2:42:34] apply common sense to strike a balance of protecting the environment and growing the economy. They saw [2:42:41] an agency that felt like in order to protect the environment, we have to target entire sectors of our [2:42:47] economy for extinction. They want more reliable, durable baseload power. They want to unleash U.S. [2:42:54] energy dominance. They want to bring back and empower the American auto industry while also protecting the [2:43:01] environment. So what you'll see on the other side of the aisle is you'll have members who will want to [2:43:09] ignore the fact that on the one year anniversary of President Trump's term in office, we released a list [2:43:16] of our top 500 environmental actions. Not once have any of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle [2:43:23] who claim to be so concerned about protecting the environment, do they want to even acknowledge [2:43:28] all of the good work of our dedicated career staffers at the agency? All those scientists who have been [2:43:37] there for 20, 30 years, who have secured so many wins, everything that we've done with tackling the [2:43:45] decades-long Tijuana River sewage crisis or responding to the LA wildfires or increasing water quality [2:43:51] standards across 30 plus miles of the Delaware River Basin. How can you be that concerned about [2:43:59] protecting the environment when you want to make believe that this list doesn't exist? And I [2:44:04] appreciate the fact, Congressman, that you have been so strong in advocating that we strike that balance, [2:44:11] that we protect the environment and grow the economy, proving that we can do both. [2:44:15] Well, thank you very much. You're doing a stellar job at the agency. [2:44:20] Going to, you know, my district has come an engine, a very large driver of manufacturing. [2:44:28] What is EPA doing to provide regulatory certainty for heavy-duty truck and engine manufacturers so [2:44:34] that they can continue to invest and hire and operate in states like New York without being driven out by [2:44:40] conflicting and unworkable requirements? Sure. Well, one is that we believe that manufacturers should be [2:44:47] making what customers want, what customers demand, as opposed to what politicians and bureaucrats demand. [2:44:54] We've seen these mandates coming out of the Biden administration, coming out of states like [2:44:59] California, trying to bend the vehicle market to ideological whims, to try to achieve climate goals. [2:45:10] And as a result, people are paying more for vehicles. They have a situation where manufacturers are [2:45:17] building vehicles that just sit on lots and they aren't wanted. And I commend Congress for removing [2:45:25] the electric vehicle mandates with the three Congressional Review Act actions that were taken [2:45:29] last year. I commend this body, all the Republicans on this committee who have engaged our agency to make [2:45:38] sure that we're promoting consumer choice, that we are understanding the need to apply common sense, [2:45:43] that we protect the environment and grow the economy, that we achieve both on behalf of your [2:45:48] constituents. And I'm grateful for your advocacy. Thank you. I wish I had more time and I yield back, [2:45:53] Mr. Chairman. Someone yields. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Fletcher, [2:45:57] for five minutes for her questions. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, [2:46:02] Ranking Member Tonko, for allowing me to wave onto this hearing to follow up with Administrator Zeldin on [2:46:09] some critical issues, very important to the people that I represent in Houston. And Administrator Zeldin, [2:46:15] when you appeared before this committee last year, we spoke about the vital role that EPA's Region 6 [2:46:22] Lab in Houston plays in keeping people in our region safe. And you committed to working with me [2:46:30] to maintain a presence from this lab in Houston. So I just want to revisit that conversation and follow [2:46:36] up on it. It is a question that I have asked every EPA Administrator that has come before me and any [2:46:43] committee I've served on in the time I've been in Congress, because in 2019, EPA announced that it [2:46:49] would close the Region 6 Houston Lab and relocate its employees to a location more than 400 miles away in [2:46:57] Ada, Oklahoma. And I know, Administrator, at the time we talked about this last year, there was a lot coming [2:47:02] at you. So I'm hoping we can follow up and talk a little bit more about the process and where you [2:47:09] are and where the EPA is in that process. This announcement was made pursuant to the 2016 law, [2:47:15] the Federal Assets Sale Transfer Act to reduce federal property holdings. And I also submitted some [2:47:22] questions for the record after that. And you know, unfortunately, I'm sorry to say, I don't think that [2:47:27] I was able to get the information I need. So I'm hoping that you can give me and the people I represent [2:47:33] a little more clarity today. And you know, just really show us that EPA is going to continue to [2:47:38] work with us on this in terms of keeping our community healthy. As I mentioned, EPA announced [2:47:45] it was going to close this lab. And there's been a huge outcry in Houston that we cannot have this [2:47:49] happen. And the lab really provides rapid response air and water quality monitoring and testing. And [2:47:56] I'm sure you know, Administrator, in our region, we are prone to hurricanes. We have a lot of concerns [2:48:04] about what's happening during hurricane season, when flooding and storm damage can compromise systems [2:48:09] that are meant to protect Houstonians, especially from industrial emissions. And it's worth noting that [2:48:15] the lab is an active partner in in disasters of all kinds. Of course, we're very concerned about [2:48:24] emissions along the port of Houston, it's a 52 mile waterway that is has 200 public and private [2:48:31] facilities and is the nation's largest port for waterborne tonnage. And unfortunately, in this [2:48:37] industrial area, we've had a number of incidents involving petrochemical facilities, [2:48:43] where rapid air quality testing, water quality testing is absolutely of the essence. And so [2:48:51] we are deeply concerned that not only will we lose the ability to have that rapid testing, [2:48:56] flying samples to Oklahoma to do the testing to get information back, but also EPA is going to lose that [2:49:03] expertise because candidly, you're not going to see all of the people who work in that lab able to move [2:49:08] their families to Oklahoma. And so the move has been delayed over the years, I would encourage you to [2:49:14] reconsider it altogether. But I know when we talked last year, the we talked about the idea that EPA is [2:49:24] committed to keeping a presence in region six in the lab in Houston, even if it closes the existing lab. [2:49:32] Now, the existing lab is still working, and I would like to keep the lab open indefinitely. [2:49:39] But can you confirm for me today that EPA will fulfill its commitment on keeping a presence [2:49:45] from region six lab in Houston for the reasons I just discussed and more? [2:49:51] Well, as you pointed out, the 2009 notification that EPA sent to congressional appropriators to relocate [2:49:57] Houston to ADA. It was reaffirmed in 2022. Employee relocation associated with the consolidation is [2:50:04] targeted to begin in 2027. I can commit that EPA will maintain employees in Houston to support emergency [2:50:11] response, criminal investigations and other operational needs. The completion of the ADA project is [2:50:19] contingent on the agency receiving FY 2027 building and facilities appropriations at historically [2:50:26] comparable or higher levels. EPA will complete the environmental due diligence process for the [2:50:31] Houston laboratory as part of the transition and lease exit. And as you pointed out, this is something [2:50:37] that started several years ago before we got here. And in moving forward, I can commit, though, [2:50:43] that EPA will maintain a presence in Houston as it relates to the functions that I just stated. [2:50:50] Thanks, Administrator Zeldin. I'm going to run out of time. You know how this works. [2:50:53] But I would like to get your commitment that EPA will remain, will retain a robust presence in Houston [2:50:58] and will follow up for the record with questions about the number of employees that will remain, [2:51:03] the positions that will remain, and the timeline. I appreciate your response today. And, [2:51:07] Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. [2:51:08] The gentlelady yields. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. James, [2:51:14] for five minutes for his questions. [2:51:16] Thank you, Chairman Palmer and Ranking Member Tonko for holding this important hearing today. [2:51:20] Administrator Zeldin, welcome, and thank you for being here. Welcome back. [2:51:24] It's an honor to speak with you at a time when the conversation around energy manufacturing and [2:51:28] environmental stewardship is so important, not just for Michigan, another Great Lakes State, [2:51:32] the Great Lakes State, in my opinion, but for the entire country. Let me start with something we all [2:51:38] agree on. Clean air and clean water are non-negotiable. They are fundamental to the health, [2:51:45] safety, and prosperity of the American people. There is no trade-off there, and there should never be. [2:51:50] But we also know something that doesn't get said as often. The United States, and especially states [2:51:55] like Michigan, manufacturers and producers of energy, we make it cleaner and safer and more [2:52:01] responsible than anyone else in the world. That's a competitive advantage. We should be leaning into [2:52:06] that competitive advantage, not regulating our way out of existence. Over the past several years, [2:52:11] we've seen a growing trend from the previous administration, from the Whitmer administration in [2:52:16] Lansing toward theoretical one-size-fits-all regulations that look good on paper, but they [2:52:21] don't work in the real world. These mandates too often strangle businesses, delay projects indefinitely, [2:52:27] and make it nearly impossible to build, invest, and innovate right here at home. At the time when we're [2:52:33] competing with China, who's not playing by the same environmental economic rules, the last thing we should [2:52:38] be doing is tying our own hands. If we push production overseas, we will not reduce global emissions. [2:52:46] We just outsource them along with American jobs and leadership. That's why I want to commend your [2:52:50] administration, sir, for taking a different approach, one that recognizes the need for realistic [2:52:55] regulations, regulations that protect our air, protect our drinking water. Yes, also respect the [2:53:01] ability of American workers, manufacturers, and builders to actually get things done and keep prices low. [2:53:07] We need a framework that prioritizes outcomes over ideology, one that reduces frivolous litigation, [2:53:12] cuts through unworkable mandates, and restores a sense of balance so that we can build again in this [2:53:17] country. At the end of the day, we can protect our environment and grow our economy. In fact, [2:53:24] we have to do both. And it's best when we trust Americans, when we trust American innovation, [2:53:29] when we trust American workers, and we use common sense. Administrator Zeldin, thank you again for being [2:53:34] here and for your leadership. We look forward to working together to ensure that America remains [2:53:39] both the cleanest and the strongest economy in the world. So my first question, section 111 [2:53:46] and reducing barriers to reliable and affordable energy. My home state of Michigan, high energy costs [2:53:52] threaten families and industries alike. You pledged to reconsider regulations that limit the production of [2:53:59] reliable and affordable energy. For example, I've heard from producers in Michigan that it can be more [2:54:05] cost effective to flare excess gas than to build a new pipeline. Do you believe that overly burdensome [2:54:12] regulations are driving up the price of electricity, sir? Absolutely. If so, how is your agency continuing to [2:54:20] prioritize action on those regulations? We just completed phase two of a three-phase process of [2:54:28] reconsideration of Quad OBC. We are also in the process this week of finalizing guidance to release publicly to [2:54:39] help the regulated community to interpret both federal law and federal regulation as it relates to Quad OBC. [2:54:47] There's an upcoming May 7th deadline that if we don't put that guidance out, some worry that they [2:54:54] might not be interpreting the regulation correctly, but that's not the end of the work. The reconsideration of [2:55:01] Quad OBC was partially completed with the second phase. That work of reconsideration of Quad OBC will be [2:55:09] completed during the third phase. Thank you. Last question. One of your goals for FY 2027 is to bring back and [2:55:19] protect American auto jobs. Can you describe a little bit how that $103.9 million requested for [2:55:26] this purpose will revitalize the American automotive industry? Well, it's really a combination of a lot of [2:55:32] actions that we're taking inside of EPA as well as other agencies in the federal government. Working with [2:55:39] Congress, Congress passed three Congressional Review Acts to revoke Biden EPA waivers to the state of [2:55:47] California. You were one of the key leaders here in this chamber to make sure that this was done [2:55:52] to protect the American auto industry to revoke the California electric vehicle mandate passed, [2:55:57] signed into law. You saw an announcement with the Secretary of Transportation to reconsider CAFE standards. [2:56:04] Just a couple of months ago, EPA announced the rescission of the 2009 [2:56:08] endangerment finding, all the greenhouse gas emission standards on light, medium and heavy duty vehicles, [2:56:13] as well as all off-cycle credits, including that almost universally despised start-stop feature. [2:56:19] We are going through our Knox 2027 rule, whether it was the right to repair guidance or its rolling [2:56:25] back death requirements. There's so much that we have been doing under President Trump's leadership [2:56:30] to make sure that we're delivering on that Trump mandate that the American public voted for. [2:56:35] And in so many respects, especially as it relates to the Congressional Review Act, [2:56:38] we wouldn't be able to do without your leadership. [2:56:40] The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now recognizes General Lady of New York, [2:56:45] Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, for five minutes for her questions. [2:56:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, Secretary Zelten. [2:56:55] This week is a big week in the Supreme Court and Congress regarding considerations of glyphosate. [2:57:02] Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, which is produced by Bayer, [2:57:08] the multi-billion dollar foreign chemical company that also owns Monsanto. It's used on hundreds of [2:57:16] millions of acres of farmland in the U.S., including corn, wheat, soybeans, and even almonds. And [2:57:21] glyphosate is even used to dry out crops before they are harvested. Correct, Administrator Zelten? [2:57:29] Correct. [2:57:29] Thank you. Glyphosate is also internationally recognized as likely carcinogenic to humans, [2:57:37] with particular links to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In fact, tens of thousands of lawsuits in the United [2:57:44] States, many issued by farmers with high exposure, have been filed against Bayer for failing to warn them [2:57:53] about the cancer risk of exposure. Now, interestingly, Administrator Zelten, [2:57:59] on February 18th of this year, President Trump released an executive order to increase the [2:58:07] production of glyphosate in the United States, correct? [2:58:10] Yes. [2:58:11] And not only did that executive order call to increase the production of glyphosate, [2:58:18] it also called for legal immunity for Bayer from the tens of thousands of Americans who are seeking [2:58:27] justice in court for their toxic exposure. Now, Secretary Kennedy was here a couple of weeks ago, [2:58:35] and when he was asked about glyphosate and the rollbacks against protections against toxic chemicals, [2:58:41] he said that we would, quote, have to ask Lee Zeldin about that. So you're here before us today. [2:58:49] Administrator Zelten, have you ever participated in a meeting with Bayer where you discussed the legal [2:58:56] or litigation issues that the company was facing? [2:59:00] No, I never did. [2:59:01] Okay. I have some- [2:59:03] My meeting with them was very brief and that topic did not come up. [2:59:06] All right. I do, are you aware of any outreach that they would have in your agency about this? [2:59:13] I could say that I directly had a brief meeting. [2:59:16] Okay. [2:59:16] But it was a brief meet and greet and that topic did not come up. [2:59:20] Thank you. [2:59:21] Mr. Chair, I'd like to submit EPA visitor logs from July 7th, 2025 to the committee. [2:59:31] Without objection, so ordered. [2:59:32] And you're certain they didn't bring up anything regarding your work? [2:59:37] I'm telling you 100%, absolutely. [2:59:41] Maybe there was some brainstorming that was done beforehand of potential topics. [2:59:45] Are you aware of any- [2:59:46] That topic was not brought up. [2:59:47] Are you aware of anything brought up to any members of your staff or your team? [2:59:52] I- [2:59:53] Your senior team? [2:59:53] I am not aware of that, no. [2:59:55] Okay. I would like to submit to the record some internal emails from the EPA that I have acquired [3:00:04] via a Freedom of Information Act submission. [3:00:07] Without objection, so ordered. [3:00:09] We have documentation here, emails from your senior advisor for agricultural rural affairs [3:00:18] saying that you were meeting with the Bayer CEO last year. [3:00:24] He said in these emails that they will be bringing up some legal slash judicial issues. [3:00:29] More specifically, in this internal email in your EPA, it says that Bayer was specifically seeking to [3:00:38] and discussing Supreme Court action. [3:00:41] They will want an update on EPA's regulatory review. [3:00:45] And that, interestingly, Bayer will provide a small thanks for updating the glyphosate webpage [3:00:52] from the EPA and work on Maha. [3:00:56] Do you have any idea what they might have been referring to in this email? [3:00:59] Well, first off, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, [3:01:03] it's possible that the team was doing brainstorming of potential topics. [3:01:06] Okay. [3:01:07] As somebody who actually attended- [3:01:08] Thank you. [3:01:08] I'm sorry. [3:01:09] I just have 40 seconds. [3:01:10] I'm not trying to be rude. [3:01:11] This glyphosate update that they're referring to seems to be correlated to the EPA agency [3:01:17] withdrawing its support for California's cancer warning on glyphosate. [3:01:22] Now, this is important because five days after the EPO this year, [3:01:25] Bayer filed their opening brief to the Supreme Court citing Trump's executive order and hinging [3:01:33] their case on the EPA's warnings or lack thereof of glyphosate. [3:01:38] So we have internal emails from your agency saying that Bayer wanted to thank you and your agency [3:01:46] for removing support for California's warning because their case before the Supreme Court right [3:01:53] now hinges on you not warning the American people and withdrawing your support on glyphosate. [3:02:00] Do you understand the conflict of interest that is before the American people right now, [3:02:05] Mr. Secretary? [3:02:06] I understand- [3:02:06] The gentlelady's time has- [3:02:07] You mind if I respond- [3:02:08] Thank you. [3:02:09] The gentleman may respond. [3:02:11] Okay. [3:02:11] So right now, EPA is completing an assessment due in 2026. [3:02:20] And I understand this is a very important topic for many people in this country. [3:02:26] This review that the EPA is being conducted, my guidance to dedicated career staffers, [3:02:32] and then we have people who have been there for 20, 30 years, is that I don't want to pre- [3:02:36] It's taking a while, Secretary Zeldin, because- [3:02:38] Let me answer. [3:02:39] The Supreme Court is going to be making decisions this week, [3:02:41] and Congress is voting this week on legal immunity. [3:02:43] Okay, but you made your point. [3:02:45] Now, I'm asking, do you mind if I answer? [3:02:47] This is an important part of this, and I'm sure you also care. [3:02:49] And I think the timing- [3:02:50] The gentleman's time- [3:02:51] Is also very important, Secretary Zeldin. [3:02:53] The gentlelady's time has expired. [3:02:54] Thank you. [3:02:55] Should I complete my answer or no? [3:02:57] Mr. Administrator, you can respond in writing. [3:02:59] Sure. [3:02:59] Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Mullen, for five minutes for his questions. [3:03:07] Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing the wave on. [3:03:10] Thank you, Administrator Zeldin, for being here today. [3:03:13] So today, our water infrastructure is in crisis. [3:03:16] According to your agency's estimates, drinking water systems across the country [3:03:20] will need $625 billion, and clean water systems will need $630 billion to meet our water needs. [3:03:28] But instead of increasing investment, your budget proposes a 90% cut to the drinking and clean water [3:03:35] state revolving funds. [3:03:37] I fear this is a trillion-dollar liability being shifted directly onto American households. [3:03:42] So, Mr. Administrator, what impacts can everyday Americans expect to see on their monthly water bill [3:03:49] if these proposed cuts become a reality? [3:03:52] As I stated earlier, the President's FY27 budget does not include the amount that Congress is going to [3:04:01] raid the revolving fund account. [3:04:03] Now, I'm not opining on the merits of any earmarks of any congressionally directed spending, [3:04:08] and I will say that there are many of these EPA administers that are fantastic. [3:04:15] The problem is, when you take money out of a revolving fund and you give it out as a grant, [3:04:20] or you take other money out as part of a set-aside, it's no longer a revolving fund, [3:04:24] and the account continues to get depleted. [3:04:27] So a great conversation that could be had right now is, how do we ensure that the revolving fund [3:04:32] is revolving, that you can fulfill the original congressional intent, but the EPA in the President's [3:04:39] FY27 budget is not asking for your earmarks? [3:04:43] Appreciate that. [3:04:47] Let me just say we need investments in this area and not cuts to these programs. [3:04:51] We can continue that conversation. [3:04:53] But I'd like to also highlight an issue in my district. [3:04:57] I know your territory is sprawling, but this is an important issue in California 15 [3:05:02] at the Muscle Rock landfill in Daly City. [3:05:05] This is a landfill on the Pacific Ocean that closed decades ago, but is now facing [3:05:10] severe erosion issues due to stronger storms. [3:05:14] We know there are many other sites across the country where legacy contamination is also a risk, [3:05:19] yet the proposed budget slashes climate resilience and adaptation grants, infrastructure grants, [3:05:25] and other programs that could help address this problem, not just in my district but across the [3:05:31] country. [3:05:31] So, Mr. Administrator, how does the EPA plan to address these legacy contamination sites [3:05:37] and the massive risks they pose to the surrounding communities? [3:05:41] Well, part of our list of the 500 environmental actions that we took over the course of the first [3:05:49] year of President Trump's term includes a lot of work on Superfund sites and brownfield sites. [3:05:54] We added new sites to the list. We were able to successfully delete other sites from the list [3:06:01] because the Superfund work was completed. And the operation, the staffers doing this work with [3:06:08] brownfield sites, Superfund sites and more are continuing to be able to do more with less. [3:06:15] But we do ask for robust funding as it relates to Superfund and brownfield. [3:06:19] And sir, could I just get your commitment to continue to have this conversation and work on these [3:06:24] issues? [3:06:25] A hundred percent. [3:06:25] Yeah. And your FY27 budget proposes to eliminate the San Francisco Bay Program, [3:06:33] which supports projects to restore ecosystems and improve resilience in my district, [3:06:39] while other regional geographic programs would continue to receive federal support. So let me just [3:06:45] say I'm very concerned about San Francisco Bay Program, the Bay Habitat Restoration Program, [3:06:52] in my estimation, being singled out. And I certainly hope politics isn't at play there, [3:06:56] that that's somehow, in your mind, at least a substantive decision. But very concerned about [3:07:01] that. I want to get that on the record. And with that, I yield back. [3:07:06] The gentleman yields asking NAMS consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff [3:07:13] hearing document list without objection. So ordered. I'd like to thank Administrator Zeldin again for being here [3:07:20] today. Members may have additional written questions for you. I'll remind members that they have 10 [3:07:26] business days to submit questions for the record and ask the Administrator to respond to the questions [3:07:33] promptly. Members should submit their questions by the close of business on Tuesday, May 12th. [3:07:38] With that objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.