EPA Administrator Zeldin testifies on department budget request in Senate hearing

[6:51] Good morning, everyone. The subcommittee will come to order. We're convening for our third hearing for fiscal year 2027, this time to consider the president's request for the Environmental Protection Agency. You'll note that we're beginning the hearing without my ranking member. He is on the floor. He's asked us to go ahead and begin the hearing so that we can respect everybody's time, which I appreciate that. [7:17] So I will make my opening statement and then turn to Administrator Zeldin, and then hopefully Senator Merkley will have returned by then. So, Administrator, thank you for joining us here this morning. I appreciate you being here. Also, a personal thank you for traveling to Alaska. [7:37] Not everybody wants to come in winter. Maybe you didn't want to come in February, but I think you get a little taste of what some of the locals get to enjoy. [7:49] For colleagues, we had 152 consecutive days in Fairbanks where the temperatures did not get above zero. [7:59] So it was a cold winter. So I think you were able to enjoy a little bit of that. But again, thank you for making the trip, not only to my state, but to other colleagues as well to know and understand and to really gather the facts on the ground. It's appreciated. [8:18] I want to acknowledge several, many of the steps that you've taken over the past year to help Alaska specifically. [8:26] The transfer of $100 million to the Denali Commission to start addressing the serious bulk fuel storage issues that face so many Alaskan communities. [8:37] We got more work to do on that, but we're starting that off. [8:40] You drafted new waters of the United States rule to provide regulatory clarity and certainty. [8:48] You're tackling some technical issues like the diesel exhaust fluid sensor requirements to help reduce system failures in cold climate states. [8:56] These things matter, and so I appreciate that. [9:01] But as with government, as with bureaucracy, you know, the world's not entirely perfect. [9:07] We still have more work, as you know, to do when it comes to to the draft WOTUS rule as it relates for Alaska. [9:17] It's just it's not it's not right yet. [9:20] We wrote you as a delegation to outline its shortcomings, particularly the inclusion of permafrost within the definition of WOTUS. [9:28] Again, when you're up there in Fairbanks, you have an opportunity, maybe not in the heart of winter when everything is really pretty dramatically frozen. [9:36] But we see the impact of permafrost, thawing permafrost. [9:43] And so I would urge you and your team to to to fix that and all the concerns that regulated Alaskans raised during the comment period before that rule is is finalized. [9:55] I mentioned bulk fuel storage. [9:58] Alaska has gratefully received a significant down payment on this more than one billion dollar problem. [10:04] This is something that, again, I think is is is is pretty unique to Alaska, where you have all of these communities that are off roaded. [10:15] And so their fuel needs are met when they're able to fill up their their bulk fuel storage. [10:21] But we have we've got a tired history, I guess, with regards to the status of those of those above ground storage tanks. [10:33] So we started funding that program in our FY26 bill. [10:37] I'm going to be looking to build on that this year and and beyond. [10:42] In the immediate term, I will tell you, Administrator Zeldin, people in in Alaska, particularly in our off roaded communities, are very, very anxious about the impacts [10:55] that we're seeing rising from the the impact not only on prices for for fuel, but also being able to source fuel in in so many of these communities. [11:13] Eighty two percent of our communities not not connected by road, but for the coastal and and many of the river communities, [11:20] they get their fuel basically twice a year. [11:23] So you're locked into fuel prices in the spring, which we consider to be June and then in September. [11:29] So right now people have ordered their their fuel for their village and they had to order it probably within the past 30 days or so. [11:39] Right when, of course, the prices are are exorbitantly high. [11:43] And these this is going to a region where we already experience fuel prices in the range of seven to ten dollars a gallon. [11:54] So they're anticipating fuel costs in the in the range of fifteen to seventeen dollars a gallon. [12:02] And and when you put it into context, it's not just it's not just filling up your pickup truck for most of these communities. [12:08] It's not like there's a lot of roads, but it's the community is powered by diesel generation. [12:14] So to keep your lights on, it's costing you to to power that diesel generator to fill up your skiff to go fishing for subsistence or to fill up your four wheeler to go hunting for subsistence, [12:29] to be able to go out and collect firewood so that you can keep your your home, your cabin warm. [12:36] It all requires fuel. So the impact on on people's ability to either provide food, provide for some level of economy or to stay warm is is already challenged before we've even had the delivery. [12:52] And what we're hearing is a concern that so much of this supply is is actually the refined product is is coming from South Korea and South Korea, of course, gets much of their oil from from the Gulf. [13:10] And so they're limiting quantities that they are sending out of Korea. So South Korea. [13:16] So I've shared this with Secretary Burgum. I shared it with Secretary Kennedy, basically anybody who's listening, because I'm I'm going to I'm going to be making asks and encourage the encouraging those in the administration to do what you can to help us provide for some relief, some flexibility to ensure that the fuel not only [13:40] arrives, but also that that people are going to be able to afford it. So there's a lot of stress there. [13:49] You've heard me talk about our issue with cleanup of contaminated lands in Alaska. We've appropriated funding for this for the last few years. My goal is to keep expanding on that. [13:59] And again, this is one when you think about a raw deal. Federal government comes in for a host of different reasons, leaves an area and they leave they leave contaminated waste after the war in some of the building projects, but they just walk away from it. [14:22] And then when we settle up with Alaska Natives, with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, so many of these contaminated lands were were transferred as a part of that settlement. [14:37] But now you've got now you've got a huge problem on your hands. So we've worked beyond the liability issues. Now it's just about the cleanup. And it's just it's an area that is a considerable source of [14:51] frustration. So working with you and your folks on this continues to be a priority of mine. Another area of frustration has been EPA's decision to freeze or cancel grant funding that Congress approved and Alaska communities had secured on a fair and competitive basis. [15:12] We've talked about the situation with Kipnook. They were a small small village in southwest Alaska. They were awarded a grant to address coastal erosion. EPA canceled that grant just months before the community was was literally wiped out, wiped out by ex typhoon Halong. [15:35] And I grant you that that particular grant would not have saved Kipnook, but we have a lot of other coastal communities that need federal help who don't have it. [15:46] And so it's it's it's it's hard when when you have kind of this view from Washington that says, you know, this is a waste of money to go to help a community of of eight or 900 people. [16:03] It was really stunning to hear an EPA spokeswoman who went on the record to claim that the grant cancellation kept taxpayer dollars from being, quote, swept into the Kuskokwim River. [16:16] That was really hard for people in that region to hear. It was it was pretty offensive. [16:22] And it made me question what EPA political staff here in Washington, D.C., think of these these threatened Alaska Native communities. [16:31] So I'm going to be putting a lot of my my muscle into this effort because it's not just Kipnook. [16:37] It is it is small, small Alaska Native communities up and down the coast who are are threatened right now with everything from coastal erosion to these devastating fall storms that we're seeing. [16:50] I I I I'm very appreciative of what you have done and your team within the agency to end what we would call regulatory overreach that we saw throughout the Biden administration. [17:08] It was just just daily. But I also recognize that, well, overreach is not good. [17:15] Underreach sometimes doesn't help us either. [17:18] Every American counts on EPA to ensure clear cleaner air, cleaner water and a livable environment around them. [17:25] And the baseline that determines what happens on those fronts and and all the other things that I mentioned, that's in your annual budget. [17:32] So that brings me back to the president's request. Like I said last year, there's good and bad within it. [17:37] We continue to target inefficiencies, overlap and waste at the agency. We must do that. [17:43] But I I will share with you again, I do not support the elimination of virtually all funding for clean water and drinking water state revolving funds or the categorical grants. [17:54] I think they're good. I think they're reasonable investments. [17:57] And I figure they're probably going to be some big topics today. [18:01] Cutting them would hurt public health and safety, especially with with many states, including a state like Alaska, that are just not on a not able to take over and cover the cost, particularly on short notice. [18:13] So kind of kind of feels like we're in the same place that we were last year. [18:20] So my approach is is going to be the same. We take the president's budget request as as a suggestion. [18:27] We work together to produce a good bill that allows EPA to fulfill its core missions and meet the needs of our communities. [18:34] I think we did that last year and working with your team. We want to be able to to do that again this year. [18:41] So Administrator Zeldin, I will invite you to to give your opening comments to the committee. [18:48] And if Senator Merkley has returned, we will turn to him. Otherwise, we'll just start kicking it off with questions. [18:54] But welcome. And thank you for being here. [18:56] Well, thank you, Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Merkley members of the committee. [19:01] I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the president's fiscal year 2027 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [19:11] At the EPA, under President Trump, we have rejected the false choice between protecting the environment and growing the economy. [19:19] We can and must do both. [19:21] In January, marking one year President Trump back in office, I announced 500 top environmental actions from our first year. [19:30] These actions advance our core mission of protecting human health and the environment. [19:35] Included in this list is the signing of our historic agreement with the Mexican government to end the decades long Tijuana River sewage crisis. [19:45] Highlights also included completing five year reviews for 26 Superfund sites across New England and announcing three billion in new funding for states to reduce lead exposure and drinking water. [19:56] In collaboration with EPA political and career leadership, I worked to reorganize the agency workforce, made it possible to achieve this milestone, [20:05] continue to fulfill statutory obligations, protect human health and the environment, and power the great American comeback. [20:13] To help inform our decisions during my first nine and a half months as administrator, I visited all 50 states. [20:20] I sat with farmers, small business owners and energy providers who feed, support and fuel our country. [20:27] They weren't asking for special treatment. They asked for clear rules and consistent enforcement. [20:33] The Trump EPA wants to get it right when it comes to our rulemaking process so hardworking Americans can do their job without the threat of regulatory whiplash and federal overreach. [20:44] EPA has also been hard at work to create a durable and clear definition of waters of the United States, faithfully abiding by the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. [20:53] EPA has the responsibility to ensure federally jurisdictional water resources are protected while setting clear and practical rules of the road that accelerate economic growth and advance cooperative federalism. [21:06] Following the Supreme Court's overturning of the Chevron Doctrine, they made it clear that agencies like EPA no longer have the freedom to creatively bend the law to fulfill the demands of unelected bureaucrats. [21:19] In accordance with this monumental decision, EPA rescinded the 2009 endangerment finding. [21:26] We are committed to advancing cooperative federalism and recognize the important responsibility EPA shares with our state agency partners to ensure clean air for all Americans. [21:36] That's why we are gutting the prior administration's so-called good neighbor rule, which was used on an ill-advised expansion of federal jurisdiction. [21:46] The good news is that EPA is now once again working closely with our state partners on their state implementation plans. [21:52] This great work is just a fraction of what EPA accomplishes on a daily basis as we continue to fulfill the agency's core mission of protecting human health and the environment. [22:02] The Trump EPA is committed to bringing down costs for American families by ending the insensible policies driven by a radical climate agenda. [22:11] The Biden administration used the EPA to funnel billions of dollars to their well-connected friends, advancing pet projects over meaningful environmental remediation. [22:22] President Trump has ended this practice, realigning the agency to its core statutory obligations. [22:29] I've canceled roughly 30 billion in wasteful grants and contracts and will continue doing everything in my power to ensure the Trump EPA remains an exceptional steward of tax dollars. [22:39] And science remains the foundation of our work. [22:43] We have strengthened scientific capacity across our national program offices and stood up the new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions. [22:51] The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has aggressively worked down the chemical and pesticide review backlog we inherited while keeping pace with incoming submissions. [23:03] And alongside HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., I announced the EPA is adding microplastics and pharmaceuticals to our contaminant candidate list for the first time ever meeting emergent threats with the emergency that they deserve. [23:18] The President's FY27 budget will continue to make EPA efficient and effective stewards of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars and fulfill all our statutory obligations and our core mission. [23:32] This budget proposal captures significant efficiencies and a return focus on what Congress has directed us to do, demonstrating our commitment to a leaner, more efficient and accountable EPA focused on environmental work that directly benefits the American people. [23:46] The budget supports and aligns with President Trump's goal of right-sizing the federal workforce with a staff not one more or less than what is necessary. [23:55] I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. [23:57] Thank you, Administrator. I know that you have voluminous binders there, so I'm sure you will be prepared for each of our very local and parochial questions. [24:08] Before we turn to questions, I would invite a ranking member, Senator Merkley, to offer his opening. [24:15] Thank you very much, Chair, and my apologies, Mr. Secretary. I'm at the whimsy of the majority schedule on the floor, but having adapted to their schedule, I got here a little late. [24:33] Welcome back, and thank you for your recent visit to Oregon, including the Portland Harbor Superfund site. [24:41] I really appreciate your attention to this. This is not an issue in terms of the budget since it's in mandatory spending, but it is an issue of can we get things done? [24:53] When I first came into the Senate, almost 18 years ago, Congressman Blumenauer insisted I immediately go out and inspect the Superfund site. [25:05] It all came down to, okay, we've tested all these areas. We're going to have to cap some, and we're going to have to scour some, and we've got to make the decision and do it. [25:15] And here we are 18 years later, we're still wrestling to get to that point where we actually get to the action stage. [25:21] And so I really appreciated your attention to that, because I think it points to your determination that we take some of those sites and get the work done. [25:31] While that is not an issue in the budget, a lot of things are, and it takes a long-term commitment and Congress and the legislative branch working together. [25:45] And in that sense, I do have some concerns that I'll just share with you. [25:50] The first is a question of resources. Your budget request is for $4.2 billion, which is a cut of $4.61 billion. [26:01] And that's a big change in terms of the enterprise, the complicated enterprise that you lead. [26:10] And so within that larger cut, there are certain accounts that I've become familiar with over time that know are very important. [26:19] One of those is the State Clean Water Revolving Fund. [26:24] And I go to every county every year. Just the weekend before last, I was at the last nine counties meeting with the local leaders [26:32] and then holding a public town hall of my 36 counties. And in every single meeting with local leaders, [26:39] there was some city saying, and some small town saying, how can we get the resources? [26:45] It's so expensive to meet the modern standards with a smaller population that we really need more help from the federal government. [26:53] And that normally comes in the funding of the state revolving funds. [26:57] In some cases, it's an immediate significant challenge. [27:01] In the Umatilla Basin, it's nitrates in the groundwater that are necessitating that we do. [27:08] People can't use their wells. So for years, they've been getting water deliveries. [27:13] But the ultimate strategy is really to put them on a municipal type system, but it's expensive. [27:19] So it's just an example of the challenge that's of one challenge that's faced. [27:24] Other cases, it's just the old infrastructure is worn out. [27:28] I've still got communities where the water is delivered through wooden pipes. [27:33] And that was quite a revelation to me when I first came into office. [27:38] And so sustained investments are important. [27:42] Your budget also eliminates categorical grants to states who implement longstanding human health and environmental protection standards, [27:51] including $237 million to monitor air quality and $175 million to monitor storm runoff, snow melt into rivers and groundwater, [28:01] and $117 million to oversee the drinking water systems. [28:05] And all of that, of course, part of monitoring is to see where is something going wrong so we can collectively work together to address it. [28:13] And your budget eliminates the environmental justice program. [28:17] And we probably have a different perspective on this. [28:20] My perspective is that so often development has occurred near low-income communities, often minority communities, [28:28] who suffer disproportionate health impacts. [28:31] And so I felt that the environmental justice focus was very important in terms of serving all the citizens of the United States. [28:39] So that is a concern to me. [28:42] And I'm also concerned about research. [28:48] The budget reduces the science and technology account by, at our count, 32 percent, including almost two-thirds cut, 66 percent cut to research and data on air quality, [29:02] risk from pollution, and energy-related impacts. [29:06] And if we don't research it, how do we find the answers to work together on? [29:12] And certainly these issues aren't blue and red issues in Oregon. [29:16] They're of concern to every community throughout my state. [29:19] And, of course, money and staff are both essential components. [29:24] And the budget is looking at, well, if I have it right, up to date, about 2,500 staff who have been, if you will, invited to find a new career through the deferred resignation program or just straight-out terminations. [29:45] On the research side, we have EPA labs in Oregon and Corvallis and Newport, and one is to understand how chemical contaminants harm communities and ecosystems along the Pacific coast. [29:58] We all value our coast ecosystems very much, and we have the commercial side, the commercial fishing, we have the crabbing industry, we have all kinds of fishing. [30:10] And those EPA labs ensure that those ecosystems are safe and thriving and productive. [30:15] And sometimes we have to shut down fisheries because we have toxins that are created through certain algae blooms at times that we have to monitor and make sure that people don't get sick. [30:27] So that's key. [30:29] The Columbia River Basin Program, a great water program, is cut by 58 percent. [30:37] The Columbia carries more water than any river in the country, including the Mississippi. [30:42] It's extraordinary where it cuts through the Cascade Mountains. [30:45] And it's a very, very long river. [30:47] It even goes up into Canada and back down into Montana. [30:50] And so all along the way, there are a lot of factors that affect the quality and function of the river. [30:57] That's important to every city and every state it passes through. [31:01] And its final stretch is between Washington State and Oregon. [31:07] The WIFIA program is something that I was very involved in creating because I heard about the larger cities, just massive projects. [31:20] Sometimes it was separating combined sewer runoff, stormwater from the actual sewage side, [31:27] or other really massive rebuilding of outdated infrastructure or infrastructure that was sufficient for the growth of commercial or residential activity. [31:40] And that program has been quite effective. [31:45] Now, there is one project in Oregon, the Port of Moro, that submitted an application through WIFIA. [31:54] And submitting by a port is a novel use. [31:59] They're relying on those infrastructure loans, and they need help. [32:04] So I just wanted to mention that. [32:06] And one more item that deserves attention is the moving Energy Star out of EPA. [32:13] And I do recognize that I think the plan is to move it to the Energy Department. [32:20] But EPA has done an excellent job administrating that program. [32:26] And so I'd love to see it stay right where it is. [32:32] I'm somewhat concerned that it will be a little more exposed, less exposed to the science of EPA, [32:37] and a little more exposed to the politics and the energy side. [32:41] And so maybe your department might be the right place to continue to manage that operation. [32:47] So those are some of the factors that I look forward to us discussing today. [32:54] And thank you for coming before us. [32:58] Thank you, Senator Merkley. [33:01] We will now begin with a round of questions, and I'll lead off here, Administrator. [33:06] I mentioned, as did the ranking member here, about the clean water and drinking water SRFs. [33:14] I've long made the argument that the best way to help ensure clean air, clean water, [33:21] is for the agency to prioritize funding that really has on-the-ground impact. [33:28] And when you look to these funds, I think we certainly see that. [33:32] In fact, this is probably the one area of bipartisan agreement that we have here. [33:40] Certainly the most requested programs that we see each year. [33:45] So I know it's about prioritizing. [33:54] I know that you have to make choices, but I will ask what I probably asked last year, [34:01] which is you've got a budget now that requests that we effectively eliminate the one thing that we all agree on. [34:10] So why would the emergency agency move away from what we consider to be pretty critical on-the-ground programs [34:21] to ensure that Americans have access to clean water? [34:25] And so I guess it's a why, and then how, given your budget direction, [34:35] does the agency plan to address the significant backlog of both the drinking and the wastewater infrastructure challenges that we have around the country? [34:46] So just speak to this program, if you will, because I know that many members have concerns about it. [34:51] Thank you, Chair Murkowski, for the question. [34:54] And we don't want to get rid of the program. [34:58] We are proposing what we would call a significant amount of funding. [35:04] What we don't include in our funding request respectfully is any of the congressionally directed spending. [35:13] I'm not going to opine on individual requests. [35:17] Our agency is focused on making sure that all of the congressionally directed spending that is administered through this program, [35:25] through EPA, is able to get out as quickly and effectively as possible. [35:29] But our budget request doesn't include any of that amount, which is largely what the plus-up was last year, [35:36] from what was originally proposed in the President's FY26 budget and then the final appropriation. [35:42] I would also report that as of the last time the balance of these accounts were given to me, [35:49] the total uncommitted fund balance for the clean water and drinking water SRFs was nearly $14.8 billion. [35:56] Of this amount, the agency has determined that $5.7 billion have sat unused by states now for more than a year, [36:05] and that's an estimated 1,800 projects that could have broken ground but didn't. [36:10] And too many states have been guilty of maintaining excessive uncommitted amounts within their state SRF programs, [36:18] including 14 states within the clean water program and 28 states within the drinking water program. [36:24] So similarly to how we've taken action to reallocate the lead service line replacement funding from states that have been laggard to those that are prioritizing action, [36:36] the agency is currently reviewing options to make sure SRF capitalization dollars go to states that are ready and willing to use them to improve their local communities. [36:45] We look forward to continuing to work with you and this committee, members on both sides of the aisle, [36:50] to make sure that this massive amount of funding that is currently at EPA that has gone undeployed, [36:57] as well as the upcoming decisions for Congress to make, [37:00] which includes congressionally directed spending funding that might be included, [37:05] Congress's decision in the upcoming negotiations, [37:09] making sure that that's done as quickly and effectively as possible. [37:12] Well, I appreciate you raising that. [37:15] And I think what I'd like to do is dig a little deeper in terms of what states are holding these balances, if you will, [37:27] and trying to understand a little bit more there. [37:31] When it comes to the CDSs, you know, we can have our discussions about it, [37:37] but the fact of the matter is we continue to allow for it in both the House and the Senate. [37:44] I don't consider at all congressionally directed spending to be anything in the wasteful spending account. [37:54] Earmarks do not, and you know this because you come from the House side, [37:57] but they don't contribute to the top-line number. [38:00] The projects are already eligible for the funding. [38:04] And so I guess I look at this and say what we want to do is we want to have proper coordination with local community [38:13] and our state water managers and its members of Congress that are in a better position to do that, [38:20] rather than somebody who is sitting in your office over there at EPA. [38:28] But let me ask about congressionally directed spending projects and the execution there, [38:34] because it has come to my attention that we are still really, really backlogged with the EPA executing the CDS spending projects, [38:49] so my understanding is that since 2022 only about a third of Congress's directed projects have received their funding from the EPA. [39:02] Just over a thousand more CDS projects from the FY26 bill just came to you at the beginning of the year, [39:08] so that's a challenge as well. [39:12] So we acknowledge that CDS's are an allowable use. [39:21] Majority of members in the Senate use them. [39:28] And so they have been authorized, appropriated to, [39:33] and my hope is that the agency isn't just sitting on these. [39:39] It's the law now. [39:43] So can you give me any update in terms of progress in funding projects, [39:49] and not only on this newest tranche that you have just received in the FY26, [39:55] but what you're doing to catch up on the backlog of the CDS projects? [40:00] So it's currently 3,400 grants totaling about $5 billion. [40:05] Typically once the application is submitted at grants.gov, [40:09] it takes us about three months to complete the process of pushing out the award. [40:14] We continue to do that. [40:16] Nothing's being held up or stopped. [40:19] I would say that what I've experienced in my first 15 months in the position, [40:22] that the primary hurdles that we've seen is that from one standpoint, [40:28] we have recipients where the congressionally-directed spending funds part of a project, [40:34] but it doesn't fund the entire project, [40:36] and they're still working on securing the rest of the funding. [40:39] In some cases, we actually don't hear back from recipients, [40:42] and that's why working with Congress in a few cases has been helpful, [40:45] where the member of Congress then contacts the recipient and says, [40:48] hey, you should probably return this phone call from EPA. [40:52] In some cases, we've seen costs go up for a particular project. [40:56] The recipient might be in a different financial situation [41:00] than maybe earlier on when that congressionally-directed spending was secured. [41:06] And sometimes they want to spend the money on something completely different [41:11] than what the congressionally-directed spending is for. [41:13] So these are some of the hurdles that I've experienced [41:16] in working with these applications, these applicants, [41:19] over the course of the last 15 months. [41:21] Continuing to engage directly between EPA and this committee, [41:25] members on both sides of the aisle, [41:27] to engage with those recipients to make sure the applications are submitted, [41:30] but typically they will be awarded within three months [41:33] of the completed application being submitted to Grants.gov. [41:37] Well, that's an encouraging timeline. [41:41] I don't think that we're seeing it in three months. [41:43] I appreciate what you're saying about some of the challenges [41:47] that you have with certain recipients, [41:49] and if there are resources that this committee can provide to help provide execution in a more timely manner. [41:58] I'm certainly happy to work with your team on that. [42:01] Let me turn to my ranking member here for his first set of questions. [42:05] Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I'll just jump right into the WIFIA program that I mentioned. [42:13] It's resulted in $7.5 billion in savings for borrowers and created 165,000 jobs working on water infrastructure projects across the nation. [42:22] Thank you for recently closing the city of Medford's $147 million WIFIA application. [42:30] I can tell you there was quite a festive celebration upon that word. [42:35] I did want to highlight the Port of Morrow's effort to undertake and address the nitrate contamination. [42:44] And that's the example of a very expensive undertaking that can really use this help. [42:53] And can I ask you to take a look at that particular application and see if we can get that one wrapped up? [43:01] Yes, Senator, we are definitely tracking the Port of Morrow. [43:06] It's in the process of negotiation and underwriting. [43:09] I would also point out that another one, Sweet Home, has been invited to apply. [43:14] They haven't yet submitted their loan application. [43:17] Definitely well aware of how hard you were advocating for the WIFIA loans that were approved in 2025. [43:26] And as you pointed out, you've been involved with the WIFIA program since its founding. [43:32] It's now been 15 total loans to communities in Oregon, totaling over $2 billion in financing to support nearly $5 billion in water infrastructure investments. [43:41] So it's certainly been a big success story in your state. [43:44] And I think a success story in many other states as well. [43:48] And thank you for mentioning Sweet Home. [43:50] There are nationwide 82 projects in the pipeline. [43:53] And so anything that I or others can do to encourage closing in many of those is possible. [44:01] Because often it's the last piece of the puzzle that enables a project to get launched. [44:06] Every time I meet with the community leaders and they say, [44:09] Well, we've been waiting for the last piece of the puzzle, the construction costs have gone up by X. [44:15] It's always a very frustrated room. [44:17] So it really makes a big difference to be able to get to a conclusion on these key factors. [44:24] Then I wanted to turn, you mentioned in your testimony, the plastics and the contaminant candidate list. [44:31] And I do appreciate that you've included that plastics on that list. [44:37] We held a number of hearings in the Environment Committee where folks really highlighted the recent studies. [44:49] And it seems like each study tells us a little bit more now that we're able to look at micro and nanoplastics more carefully. [44:57] And we're finding them food and water, but also in our blood, in our brains, in our breast milk, in our skin tissue. [45:03] And when it comes to brains, the last study I saw said that currently the cadavers they're examining have the equivalent of plastic in the brain equal to a plastic spoon. [45:16] And that's kind of a scary thought when I think about this much of an endocrine disruptor inside of our brain. [45:23] So it's an important undertaking. [45:24] And you've taken a significant step by putting it on the contaminant candidate list. [45:29] I did want to submit for the record a few of those recent studies, microplastics in arteries linked to heart disease, [45:37] levels of microplastics in human brains are rapidly rising, and microplastics a threat for male fertility. [45:43] A little bit kind of scary reading. [45:47] Can you give us a sense of how you might take forward other efforts beyond the candidate list to address this challenge? [45:55] For one, that research that you are citing, the efforts to continue to learn more, is very important. [46:02] This is something that is of great importance amongst our team at EPA. [46:08] It's a topic that has been of importance with Secretary Kennedy and his team at HHS. [46:14] And continuing to learn more would be key. [46:17] This was a first step, a first-ever step in adding it. [46:21] But we need to build on what we learn now and learn more as rapidly as possible. [46:27] Great. [46:29] I look forward to when-research is essential here. [46:33] And I think it sets the foundation for thinking about things like how we address it under Safe Drinking Water Act [46:40] and other key steps that I'll be happy to follow up on. [46:44] I'm glad you mentioned MAHA. [46:47] And the MAHA report was very explicit about the heightened risk that comes from plastics. [46:57] And so a lot more people are paying attention to this issue as we're discovering more and more and seeing those studies. [47:05] And one of the things that has been raised in the MAHA movement, if we really want to try to diminish the impact of plastics, [47:12] we're also going to have to quit expanding the production of plastics. [47:16] Are you willing to take a look at the question on whether we should keep permitting new plastics operations, [47:23] both in terms of their impact on the local community, [47:26] but also their impact on the massive flow of plastics inundating our air, our water, our soil? [47:33] Well, Senator, I know that this is a very important topic for you. [47:36] Right now our economy and way of life is just so intertwined with the use of plastics [47:44] that it would be a pretty radical idea for me to sit here today and say that we're looking to just get rid of plastics. [47:51] The research on the microplastics issue that you cited is something that we're aware of and we want to do more of. [48:00] But as I sit here today, I wouldn't say that I'd be proposing by any means to propose to just separate plastic from our lives altogether. [48:10] So much of our economy and way of life right now is intertwined with it. [48:13] But we do need to learn more. [48:14] I do acknowledge your point, but that's not the argument anyone's making. [48:18] The argument is simply whether we should keep expanding additional production of plastics [48:24] and whether we should be looking at individual products where we might have the possibility of reducing the exposure, [48:30] either what gets into our air, our soil, our water, or what gets into our bodies, [48:37] not a, if you will, an elimination of plastic. [48:41] It serves many, many functions, but maybe there are functions where it can be replaced with other possibilities [48:47] or reduce the impact on our health. [48:49] Yeah, I understand, Senator. [48:50] And also the effort to remove plastics, the disposal of plastics. [48:55] Everything from, I mean, I went to visit an advanced recycling operation which is ramped up in, [49:02] it's ramping up in Europe, it's ramping up in Asia, it's been stalled for years here inside the United States, [49:09] where they're able to reduce plastic to raw chemical compounds. [49:15] Plastics that end up in landfill, that end up in trash, that can be properly disposed of is important, [49:21] and plastics that are ending up in our water is another important topic. [49:27] And, you know, the Sea Grant is something else that the Appropriations Committee has funded, [49:32] and Save Our Seas Act legislation that's been passed by Congress that we want to continue to work with all of you on. [49:39] You mentioned advanced recycling. I'll just say that merits a longer conversation. [49:44] I have visited advanced recycling. I've looked quite carefully around the country. [49:48] It's actually been used in pretty limited plastic flows, and it also is producing vapors that affect the local community. [49:57] So it's a longer discussion. I'm not convinced it's the right answer. [50:01] Senator Hoeven. [50:04] Thank you, Madam Chair. [50:07] Mr. Administrator, good to have you here today. Appreciate it. [50:11] We've been working in Minot, North Dakota on a site, a Superfund site, [50:16] that was actually approved by the EPA for redevelopment in 2016. [50:22] So we've been working on it now for almost a decade, [50:25] and that would be to utilize it for a disc golf course, mountain biking trails, cross-country running trails, [50:32] and actually there's a community indoor hockey arena right next door that I think also would like to expand. [50:39] So it would be a great use for this site, and it's located near a very nice hockey arena, [50:45] indoor hockey arena, and one of the main golf courses. [50:48] So it's just situated very well, and we'd like to bring this to fruition. [50:54] There's two steps left, and we need your help with. [50:57] One is there's been a modified consent decree filed by DOJ on behalf of EPA that includes a modification [51:07] that specifically allows us to utilize the property for that purpose. [51:12] That was filed by DOJ on April 30th of this year with District Court in North Dakota, [51:21] and the comment period, but it's out for comment right now, which you put it out for comment, [51:29] and the comment period ends June 1. [51:32] So first, we need you to expeditiously respond to comments if there are any, [51:37] and then make a motion to the court to approve the modified consent decree. [51:42] And then the second thing is the city's work plan. [51:45] They put forth, and you have it at EPA. [51:47] You've got their work plan to utilize this property. [51:51] And I just want to ask for you to act on it expeditiously. [51:55] Like I say, we've been working on it for almost a decade, and it's a really great project. [51:59] Senator, thank you for continuing to advocate for this and being a champion to make this happen. [52:05] As you pointed out, we're in the middle of that public comment period as we see here having this discussion. [52:11] We are certainly committed to work with the city to allow for the safe and protective public usage of this land, [52:19] and we look forward to continuing to work with you as we know how important it is for you on behalf of your constituents to get this over the finish line. [52:27] Yeah, this is a good one. [52:28] I mean, this is a good one that I think everybody's going to be excited about. [52:31] And then similarly in Fargo, on the Red River between Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, it's really all one metro area. [52:41] There's a huge site there, it was Mid-America Steel, and it's an actual foundry that goes all the way back to 1871. [52:51] So big old huge area that had a steel foundry there. [52:55] And when we put the permanent flood protection in there, we have a huge 3.2 billion permanent flood protection that will protect the whole region, both sides of the river. [53:03] It's a marvelous project. [53:04] We actually used WIFIA as part of it, which was very helpful. [53:08] But that's coming to completion, and so that property was purchased, and the Mid-America Steel relocated. [53:17] Same thing, we want to utilize here the EPA's brownfield program so that the city can really develop this property. [53:25] It's right along the, it's just a beautiful area, right? [53:28] And we've already, right next door, we did that. [53:32] We used that brownfields program for the Lashkowitz high-rise site. [53:36] It was amazing, and we had this huge high-rise. [53:38] We did the deal where you implode it and it drops the building. [53:41] You know, I mean, it's a huge crowd watching. [53:44] It was pretty cool. [53:45] We already, so we've already been developing affordable housing and senior housing in the area. [53:50] And this whole area all lays out along the park. [53:53] So again, will you work with me and with the City of Fargo and our other partners? [53:58] We've got a variety of partners, but it's a big area on both sides of the river here and would be awesome for parks and all kinds of things. [54:06] But again, great project. [54:08] Ask for your help to expeditiously move on it. [54:11] And Senator, this is another project that you and your team have made sure that EPA is not just aware of, but very engaged with. [54:20] Look forward to continuing to work with you, the City of Fargo, local partners. [54:25] There's been a long history of EPA with Brownfield's projects in North Dakota, including inside of Fargo specifically. [54:34] So to hopefully be able to continue that history and get a positive result here on this ask is something that, yes, I look forward to continue to work with you on to get over the finish line. [54:45] Thank you. And then the other the last thing I'd ask is about the mats plan. [54:50] As you know, you know, we had passed series on on the mats planning and you've taken steps to repeal the Biden era era mercury and air toxic standard mats regulations. [55:03] Can you just update me where you are in terms of completing that? [55:06] So really important, as you know, we're a huge energy producing state. [55:10] Sure. The the 2024 mats standard, the that was repealed recently. [55:16] That was completed. The proposal with regards to repeal of what's been referred to as clean power. [55:24] Clean power 2.0, right. 2.0. [55:26] The update there is that we have sent a draft final rule to OMB, which is now going through the interagency process and and hopefully will be complete. [55:36] And and the last point I would just reference is that even though we repealed the 2024 mercury and air toxic standards, [55:43] the strict 2020 12 mercury and air toxic standards are still on the books. [55:49] And I've received nothing but very positive feedback on how effective it's been across the country. [55:56] Yeah. Common sense regulation. [55:58] Thank you. Appreciate it, Mr. Minister. [56:00] Thanks, Senator. [56:05] Thank you, Administrator Zeldin, for being here. [56:09] I want to talk about the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. [56:14] Nearly for every dollar spent on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, [56:20] nearly four dollars in additional economic activity is produced. [56:25] And these outcomes have been possible because of the strong collaboration between EPA and its regional partners. [56:33] Wisconsin's coastal communities and tribes depend on the restoration initiative to protect the water quality of both Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. [56:44] And the initiative has been essential with regard to safeguarding access to clean water for over 40 million people, [56:54] managing invasive species and cleaning up pollution. [56:59] I was disappointed that rather than increasing our investment in GLRI, the EPA budget would cut funding for the program. [57:08] So at a time when restoration remains a significant need, why is the agency proposing to reduce funding for the GLRI right now? [57:21] What's your thinking? [57:22] Well, Senator, I'm just looking at the numbers here. [57:25] The FY26 appropriations bill, the number was $369 million. [57:31] The President's FY27 budget is $367.7 million. [57:37] And that's pretty level other than $1.3 million. [57:40] I would say this is a very important program. [57:43] And it's one that we absolutely are fully committed to, energetic about. [57:48] It's been a great success. [57:50] There's a lot more work to do. [57:52] And we believe that funding this initiative is incredibly important. [57:57] And we'd love to be able to work with you and this committee to make sure that it continues to receive robust funding. [58:03] All right. [58:05] I want to add my thoughts to the very significant 90 percent cut that the EPA budget proposes for the clean water and drinking water revolving funds. [58:20] These funds have truly been a lifeline for so many communities in Wisconsin, tackling contaminants in their drinking water, including lead. [58:30] States and local governments around the country use these funds to rapidly scale replacement of lead laterals, [58:38] of which Wisconsin still has hundreds of thousands that pose risk to health. [58:44] I wanted to just give you the example. [58:47] In Milwaukee, there are about 70,000 lead laterals. [58:53] It's probably a little less now. [58:55] And there had been replacement at the pace of about 1,000 laterals per year. [59:01] That has increased with investments from the bipartisan infrastructure law to about 3,000 a year. [59:08] But we're still looking at, you know, 25 years before all of these will be replaced. [59:16] And so I'm wondering, with this significant cut, if you've analyzed how it would impact the municipality's ability to replace lead service lines and the pace at which that's going to happen across America. [59:34] Well, Senator, as I'm sure you're intimately familiar with, we have multiple pots of money here, including a dedicated level for the replacement of lead service lines, which we announced in November. [59:47] We sent out $3 billion more to states. [59:51] One of the issues that I would raise to the committee is that there were a lot of states across the country, and I pointed this out in an earlier exchange with the chair. [1:00:02] We have a lot of states that actually haven't spent anything of what they've received since fiscal year 23. [1:00:09] Wisconsin is not one of those states. [1:00:11] That's a good thing. [1:00:13] Wisconsin's been spending that money. [1:00:15] But we're getting this money out the door. [1:00:17] We've been able to get more money out the door by reallocating state money from states where they weren't spending the money. [1:00:25] The other good news is that you have a lot of states where they just don't have issues with lead service lines. [1:00:29] So they were able to return that funding as well, which offers even more for this effort. [1:00:34] That's been the primary source of funding for replacing these lead service lines. [1:00:38] But with a 90 percent cut in the revolving funds, we're going to have a very significant challenge. [1:00:46] One other thing, and you can answer this for the record since I'm running out of time, but you spoke in your opening remarks about coordination with Secretary Kennedy regarding monitoring for plastics and pharmaceuticals in water. [1:01:02] Both departments and sub agencies have water monitoring authorities, so I want to know how you are thinking about dividing those duties between EPA and maybe CDC. [1:01:15] And what pharmaceuticals are you thinking about tracking at this point? [1:01:19] Well, the list of pharmaceuticals is in the many hundreds. [1:01:22] Can you submit that and follow up? [1:01:25] Sure. [1:01:26] I think, if I remember correctly, the number I saw was about 374 pharmaceuticals, but don't hold me to that. [1:01:32] I would need to go back and take a look at the actual number, but I think it was 374. [1:01:38] And was that created in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services or EPA on its own? [1:01:44] Internally within EPA, working with our Office of Water, which is loaded up with amazing, dedicated, talented career staffers who have been there for, you know, 10, 20, 30 years. [1:01:55] They love their job. [1:01:56] They love the mission, and they're awesome. [1:01:58] And that's how we were able to develop this contaminant candidate list six that included everything that was announced, plus more. [1:02:07] There was PFAS. [1:02:08] There were 75 chemicals that were added. [1:02:10] There was a lot to that list, but the career staff inside OW, they have all the talent in the world to be able to put that together. [1:02:17] Thank you. [1:02:21] Thank you, Madam Chairman. [1:02:22] Administrator, welcome. [1:02:23] It's good to see you. [1:02:24] I'm going to start with a subject that I've discussed with you several times, and that's establishing permanent nationwide year-round E15 availability. [1:02:35] As you know, my bill, the Nationwide Consumer and Retailer Fuel Choice Act, would simply allow, not a mandate, the year-round sale of E15. [1:02:46] However, some of my colleagues have referenced my bill and the regulatory efforts EPA has taken under your leadership to allow year-round E15 as mandates. [1:02:59] So, Administrator, is my bill or the actions you have taken at EPA in any way a mandate for a gas station to sell or an American consumer to buy E15? [1:03:12] No, Senator. [1:03:13] No, Senator. [1:03:15] Is it also accurate that we have had year-round E15 through a patchwork of regulations since 2019, meaning this will be the eighth year that we have had E15 year-round? [1:03:29] That is accurate since 2019, yes. [1:03:32] Thank you. [1:03:33] And during these past eight years, are you aware of any refiners that have closed because consumers had a choice to purchase E15 year-round? [1:03:45] I am not aware of any refiner that closed because of that. [1:03:48] So we have basically had E15 year-round for eight years, and the sky did not fall. [1:03:55] Thank you, Administrator. [1:03:57] It is about time to make permanent nationwide year-round E15 because consumers do deserve to have a choice at the gas station and an opportunity to save money. [1:04:12] I also want to take a second to thank you for your work on finalizing the 2026 and 2027 renewable volume obligations. [1:04:23] The RVOs are greatly appreciated, especially in Nebraska. [1:04:27] This reinforces market demand for American-grown feedstocks and it helps create more certainty for our farmers and biofuel producers. [1:04:38] How do you see these RVOs helping with improving domestic energy production? [1:04:45] For one, certainty. [1:04:48] When we came in, certainty for members of Congress, too, they have been advocating for it. [1:04:54] I don't know just how much of your bandwidth has to get occupied fighting for this very important priority of your constituents that I am sure you would rather be able to spend that time advocating for other important priorities of your constituents. [1:05:08] But also certainty for Americans. [1:05:12] And we have already moved on to RFS Set 3. [1:05:19] We cleared a backlog, a very long backlog, a very old backlog, with the small refinery exemption requests. [1:05:25] And it is our goal to make sure that there's more predictability going forward and more transparency going forward. [1:05:34] The same manner in which we adjudicated this process last year is the same process that we're looking forward with. [1:05:42] And subject to Congress's votes, any amendment to federal statute, we will follow our statutory obligations to administer these programs according to how Congress chooses to legislate it. [1:05:57] Thank you. [1:05:58] You know, we hear the tremendous worries, the tremendous stresses throughout rural America, and especially with our ag producers, with our farmers. [1:06:09] And the pleading that has gone on for years and years by farmers to help provide the certainty of that year-round sale of B-15 and how that would make a huge difference to their bottom line when they deal with their ag lenders, for example, to have that certainty. [1:06:31] And a lot of times in that conversation, what we leave out is how important this is to consumers as well. [1:06:39] You know, it's cheaper at the gas pump. [1:06:42] It has been shown that this does not ruin engines. [1:06:47] Any vehicle that's been built after 2001 has no issues whatsoever putting E-15 into their vehicle. [1:06:58] So I appreciate your help on this. [1:07:01] I would also like to turn to the role of EPA has in improving pesticides. [1:07:08] Under FIFRA, EPA is required to conduct a rigorous science-based review to ensure a product meets federal safety standards for human health and the environment before they are approved for usage. [1:07:23] Administrator, can you affirm that the top priority of EPA remains to ensure the safety of Americans? [1:07:31] Absolutely. Our core mission of protecting human health and the environment, which I cited multiple times in the opening remark, it is the opening remarks. [1:07:40] It's our core mission. [1:07:41] And we're very proud to say that the best announcement that we've put out in the last 15 months was on the one-year anniversary of President Trump's term in office releasing that list of our top 500 environmental actions from that first year. [1:07:53] My first conversation with Senator Capito after I was nominated was while we have a lot of priorities across this agency and across the administration that the environmental winds are something that will always, they always need to stay closest to our heart. [1:08:14] You referenced the FIFRA responsibilities. When we came in, we had a backlog of over 14,600. That backlog is now under 8,000. We continue to work that backlog down. [1:08:27] When we went through our reorganization, we added scientists, we added full-time employees to that office. [1:08:33] And Congress appropriated $17 million towards IT in March of 25 that we've used and deployed to make sure that we no longer have a situation where, for days or weeks at a time, the computers just shut down and progress stops. [1:08:48] And for the record, Madam Chair, I would like to submit a question to the Administrator about how your budget's going to ensure that it's sound science that determines the safety of products before they're approved for commercial use. [1:09:05] So thank you, Administrator. Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:09:07] Thank you, Senator Fischer. [1:09:08] We will turn to the ranking member of the full committee, Senator Murray. [1:09:12] Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Welcome, Administrator. [1:09:15] Washington State has been a real leader in responding to contamination from PFAS. These are forever chemicals, and they've been linked to cancer, liver, thyroid problems, fertility issues. [1:09:28] They're very widespread. They're very hard to replace, but that has not stopped my state from really working hard to tackle this problem head-on. [1:09:37] Washington State actually led the way in banning PFAS in food packaging and in firefighting foam. [1:09:43] And in 2024, EPA actually followed Washington State's lead and set federal drinking water standards for six of PFAS chemicals for the first time ever. [1:09:55] Last year, you proposed rescinding standards for four of these chemicals, citing costs and flexibility. [1:10:02] Administrator Zilden, what analysis has EPA conducted on the health cost of rescinding these PFAS drinking water standards? [1:10:10] And specifically, what impacts can we expect to see in developmental delays, decreased birth weights, or early puberty for children? [1:10:19] Well, Senator, the extension of PFOA and PFOS for two years, that was primarily based on costs. [1:10:29] With regards to the rescission of the four other types of PFAS, that was following litigation because the process under the Safe Drinking Water Act that was followed in the last- [1:10:40] Actually, that wasn't the question I was asking you. I was asking you what analysis you've done on the health costs, not on the health costs, the impact, especially to our kids. [1:10:51] Okay. I thought you were asking me about the rescission of the four. [1:10:54] I'm asking you what the health cost is of that rescission. [1:10:57] Have you done an analysis? Have you looked at it? [1:11:00] Well, absolutely. We have extensive work going on across the agency on all sorts of aspects regarding PFAS, and it's a really long list of work that the agencies involved with. [1:11:10] Well, the reason I ask is because EPA's own research found that PFAS standards that you gutted could have saved one and a half billion dollars in avoided health costs. [1:11:22] Again, it was a legal requirement, Senator. [1:11:23] In avoided health costs. And we just can't allow the cost for compliance. [1:11:27] We have to follow the law. [1:11:29] Well, I'm just telling you what the health cost of this is. [1:11:33] I agree that there's a health cost. [1:11:35] And I believe that it is really important that we make sure we are doing the right thing, that we are protecting children's health, not doing what corporations need, because there is not yet any proven treatment. [1:11:48] You know that for PFAS, the only solution is keeping it out of water in the first place. [1:11:53] And that is the point I'm making is the health impacts. [1:11:56] Let me go to another question. [1:11:58] Mr. Administrator, the anti-abortion activists are pushing this really absurd argument that women who use birth control or self-managed abortions or miscarriages at home somehow pose a risk to our public health and the environment. [1:12:16] I am deeply concerned that this radical conspiracy has found an audience at the EPA. [1:12:22] Last October, the New York Times reported that senior EPA officials directed scientists to look into how the federal government could track traces of abortion medication in wastewater. [1:12:35] And last year, House Republicans actually included a provision of that in their EPA funding bill. [1:12:40] Are you actually spending taxpayer dollars looking into medication abortion being in the water? [1:12:47] Unless they're one of the many hundreds of pharmaceuticals on the list of the contaminant candidate list, I'm not aware of the agency doing anything with that. [1:13:00] Do you seriously believe there's abortion in the water like some of the far right activists are suggesting? [1:13:05] I have not. [1:13:06] You just said abortion in the water? [1:13:08] That's what some far right activists are saying, that they have an audience in the EPA on that absurd issue. [1:13:14] Yeah, I have not had a conversation with anyone at the agency as far as abortions in water. [1:13:21] And you're not actively pursuing it or don't have groups of... [1:13:23] I don't even know what you're talking about. [1:13:25] Well, I'm referring to a New York Times article that reported that senior officials have directed scientists in the EPA to look at this. [1:13:34] Okay. [1:13:35] Well, again, unless you're referring to a pharmaceutical that is on the list of the hundreds of pharmaceuticals that are part of the contaminant candidate list six. [1:13:45] But aside from that, I'm not aware of anything else at the agency other than that. [1:13:51] I'm citing a New York Times article and we're happy to get it to you, but I just got to say this is really crazy. [1:13:56] This isn't environmental protection. [1:13:58] I hope that there is nothing going on in your agency. [1:14:01] This is not science. [1:14:02] It's not health care, and it's not the job of the EPA. [1:14:05] Just wanted to make that clear. [1:14:07] I also want to associate the comments of the chair of this committee and Senator Baldwin on the state revolving funds. [1:14:16] Cutting them by 90 percent to me is just absurd. [1:14:19] Have you actually talked to water utilities about what sort of price increase that your proposal would cost them and their utility customers? [1:14:30] Senator, well, we're in touch with thousands of water utilities all the time all across the entire country about this. [1:14:37] But as I pointed out earlier, what we don't propose, I'm not opining on the merits of congressionally directed spending, [1:14:44] and I'm not opining on congressional set-asides, but the account has been getting depleted on grants, not loans, so it hasn't been revolving. [1:14:54] We in our budget do not propose congressionally directed spending. [1:14:59] That's something that Congress is going to decide. [1:15:01] Which I know you took part in when you were a member of Congress. [1:15:04] But that was the primary difference between what the president had proposed in FY26 and the final appropriation. [1:15:12] The delta is primarily made up of congressionally directed spending. [1:15:17] The president's not going to propose it. [1:15:18] I'm not going to sit here and advocate for it, but what I will advocate for is that when Congress does decide to do congressionally directed spending, [1:15:25] then my job is to help make sure that that money gets out as effectively as possible. [1:15:28] Well, that is different than the 90 percent cut that you are proposing in your budget. [1:15:33] Well, that's why your 90 percent number is misleading, because you're not factoring in what is going to be added to the amount that is proposed in congressionally directed spending. [1:15:42] So you're just saying, Congress, if you want this, you've got to each individual senator. [1:15:47] The president's not asking for your earmarks. [1:15:49] OK, no. [1:15:50] But I'm just saying. [1:15:51] I don't know how much you want to raid the SRF. [1:15:53] Mr. Administrator, let me just finish. [1:15:54] That's something for you to fight for. [1:15:55] What I need you to understand is that the clean water revolving funds, state revolving funds are absolutely critical to our states. [1:16:03] And you say there's money hanging out there. [1:16:05] I heard your answer on that. [1:16:06] The fact is that it actually takes communities and states a lot to design and engineer and put this all together. [1:16:15] And they have to have the money first and in order to do that. [1:16:19] And what we do know is because there's a lot of positions that have been eliminated at EPA. [1:16:25] It's taking a lot longer for those funds to get out. [1:16:28] That's not accurate. [1:16:29] Yes, it is. [1:16:30] And so I will. [1:16:32] Absolutely untrue. [1:16:33] I will just. [1:16:34] I need to make this point because I want to agree with the chair that this is a fund that is critical for our states. [1:16:39] And our families just simply cannot afford to make up these funds. [1:16:43] This is something I feel really strongly about. [1:16:45] And by the way, our CDS projects are still water projects. [1:16:49] We don't raid the water funding to do that. [1:16:52] So that is my. [1:16:53] Loans are being turned into grants. [1:16:54] Madam Chair. [1:16:55] Thank you. [1:16:56] Senator Capito. [1:16:57] Bless you. [1:16:59] Ready? [1:17:00] Yeah. [1:17:02] Hi, Mr. Administrator. [1:17:03] Good to see you again. [1:17:04] Thanks for coming over to EPW a couple of weeks ago. [1:17:07] I just want to follow up on an issue during your visit to West Virginia last year. [1:17:11] And thank you. [1:17:12] And you've made it. [1:17:13] I hope you made the point again that you've made it to all 50 states. [1:17:15] I hope you made that point here earlier today when I was not here. [1:17:19] You heard from our energy producers about the Biden administration ELG rule for power plants. [1:17:24] The 2024 rule was very egregious to try to eliminate coal from our nation's energy mix because it came on the heels of a regulation that said ELG for the same power plants in 2020. [1:17:36] And many of the plants made those investments in dollars with the 2020 standard that required water discharge would meet drinking water standards only to have those requirements shift a few years later. [1:17:49] The Biden rule took a completely different approach by requiring plants to eliminate discharges altogether, which would meet stranding those investments that were made in 2020. [1:17:59] At the end of 2025, you finalized a rule that extended compliance periods for 20, the 20 and 2024 ELG rules and provided a pathway for the coal plants to come into compliance. [1:18:11] These actions were extremely helpful in preserving baseload power, which we desperately needed this winter. [1:18:16] We saw and also protecting rate payers. [1:18:19] So looking forward, it will be important to provide assurance that the 2024 zero liquid discharge standard will not go into effect, especially in areas where it's more humid, which may make it even more than impossible to meet that standard. [1:18:34] Can you give us an update on the EPA's next steps addressing the ELG rule for our coal plants? [1:18:40] Absolutely, Senator, and thank you for raising what has been a multi-step process. [1:18:48] The first was extending a compliance as we go through a reconsideration. [1:18:54] There were tremendous costs, as you well know, impacted greatly by your own people with the added cost that was estimated into the billions of dollars. [1:19:06] We are current and the finalization of that rule that you cited was December 23rd. [1:19:11] We are moving through the next phase of EPA's reconsideration of the 24 rule. [1:19:16] It will reevaluate the effluent limitations for unmanaged combustion residual leachate and unlike the Biden administration's going to follow the law in assessing the best available technology economically achievable, which is an important priority that I heard on the ground with you during our visit in West Virginia. [1:19:35] So we will heed that feedback that we got directly from your people as we go to the next phase. [1:19:39] So you're moving on to the next phase then? [1:19:41] Right now? [1:19:42] Yeah, we're working on it right now. [1:19:43] Yes. [1:19:44] Okay, my next one is WOTUS, the waters of the U.S. [1:19:48] Now, I'm going to be honest with you, I'm tired of talking about WOTUS. [1:19:51] I feel like every time an administration changes, it's WOTUS is this, and then four or eight years later, WOTUS is that, and then Supreme Court. [1:20:00] And you can imagine if I'm tired of talking about it, imagine our farmers, our miners, our home builders, and many others are tired of the burden that's associated with trying to comply. [1:20:10] And I know you addressed this in part of your opening statement. [1:20:13] The court decision in Sackett correctly interpreted the Clean Water Act, and last year the EPA and the Corps under your leadership proposed a rule to bring those regulations in line with the Sackett decision. [1:20:24] That proposed rule faithfully applies the Clean Water Act and the Sackett decision. [1:20:29] Not only is EPA doing the right thing by following the best reading of that statute, but the proposal also has the added benefit of providing certainty and durability to the WOTUS definition because of the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Wright. [1:20:43] So I think one of the greatest gifts that you and the President could give to our farmers and those who deal with the WOTUS rule consistently is to have something that has a durable standard that we can kind of lay this to rest, at least for a short, shorter, or at least for a period of time. [1:21:04] So do I have your commitment that that is what you are trying to do, fidelity to the statutory text, which you've already said in your opening statement, but also to try to lock in that durable standard that will provide that certainty to the regulatory committee? [1:21:19] And then any other comments you have on the WOTUS rule right now? [1:21:23] Absolutely, Senator. [1:21:25] Are you tired of talking about WOTUS, too? [1:21:27] Yes. [1:21:28] It is absolutely our commitment, it is our desire for as simple of a definition, following Sackett to the T, and making sure that we are, we have a new reality in this country where farmers and ranchers and landowners and states don't have to go out and hire attorneys and consultants, pay them money to tell them whether or not there's a WOTUS on their property. [1:21:57] We've gone through the public comment period. We take those public comments very seriously. [1:22:01] There are a lot of discussions that go on internally, not just within the agency, but also the interagency process, on making sure that every single word of every sentence of this definition is thought through, and is done correctly, and is made as durable as possible. [1:22:17] Well, thank you. That's very welcoming. Thank you very much. Thanks for serving. [1:22:20] Thank you, Senator. [1:22:22] Thank you, Senator Capito. [1:22:24] We'll begin a second round, but I will note that there is a vote on, so we hopefully won't take too much more time here this morning. Administrator, I mentioned the Alaska Contaminated Lands, the ANCSA Land Assistance Program, that we had appropriated funding for assessment and remediation of these legacy contaminated sites. [1:22:50] This is, again, this is just such an important priority to me, to so many in my state. [1:23:02] Do you have an update for me as to how many applications EPA has received so far under the program, and if there's any outreach or engagement efforts that the agency is undertaking to make sure that Alaska Native corporations, along with our [1:23:21] along with our federally recognized tribes, are aware of and able to access the funds? [1:23:29] We're currently working with ADEC plus 10 Alaska Native entities on 11 projects that total 26 million in cleanup work. We're working on several projects for funding in 26, as well as starting to plan ahead for 2027. We're working to continue to streamline this process. We know how important this is to you. [1:23:50] What a very important program this is for the state of Alaska. [1:23:54] So are you at EPA kind of assuming that ADEC is doing the outreach, or are you doing some? Do you know how that's working? [1:24:06] It's, well, we have been assisting ADEC. [1:24:10] Okay. [1:24:11] We, but we also are working directly with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, working with Alaska Native Village Corporation Association to provide the support to Alaska Native entities through field work, site planning, proposal development. [1:24:28] These are all the different aspects of our roles and responsibilities in supporting them to make sure that the projects, the funding are deployed and completed successfully. [1:24:37] Well, just know that we want to continue to work with you as you continue to prioritize this. [1:24:45] There's so much that has to be done. [1:24:47] And again, so making sure that entities do know that these funds are available is something that we've been trying to push out. [1:24:54] So anything that you can help us on that. [1:24:56] I also mentioned the priority with the bulk fuel storage issues. [1:25:01] So last year, you finalized the transfer of $100 million to the Denali Commission. [1:25:07] And then through our bill, we established a new grant program at Denali for this. [1:25:12] Can you give me an update on how EPA is implementing this new grant program? [1:25:19] And I guess even more important than that is we've got the transfer of funds to Denali. [1:25:30] That's great. [1:25:31] We've got the grant program that is important, but we're going to need to do more in this account. [1:25:38] EPA has proposed to zero out the new program. [1:25:43] I'm having a difficult time seeing why you would do that unless you are assuming that what has been established is sufficient. [1:25:56] But this is, again, as I mentioned earlier, this is a billion-dollar problem for us. [1:26:01] Chair, regarding the grant funding, we are currently coordinating with the Alaska Energy Authority about this funding to remediate above-ground leaking fuel tanks. [1:26:15] As you referenced, the $40 million that was given to the Denali Commission work plan for high-priority Alaska infrastructure projects, [1:26:24] at least one of those projects that we're aware of currently includes bulk fuel upgrades, specifically Chenega and several communities in the Bering Straits region. [1:26:35] And you also referenced the $100 million, of course, which is very substantial, that this funding alone doesn't complete that work. [1:26:43] So we look forward to making sure that this is deployed successfully and continue to work with you and this committee, [1:26:50] and, of course, Senator Sullivan as well, to make sure that the work that's still ahead is completed. [1:26:56] Well, know that it doesn't help us in the President's budget request when you zero it out. [1:27:02] So you should not be surprised to see that replenished when we are able to get a good bill out of our committee here. [1:27:13] I mentioned in my opening statement just the looming—I'm going to put the crisis word on it—in terms of the costs that are coming to rural Alaska right now. [1:27:26] They're already experiencing, but we're going to get the real hit when the first fuel barge delivers fuel, [1:27:33] and the winter locked-in prices are going to shoot up. [1:27:37] And so I'm urging, really, a whole-of-government approach here at the state level. [1:27:44] We are engaging at the federal levels, but I think EPA can play a role here as well. [1:27:51] So I would just ask for your commitment to put some folks on your team. [1:27:56] They're probably already looking at this for ways that perhaps administrative relief might be available, [1:28:04] flexibility to help some of these rural off-roaded Alaska Native communities. [1:28:11] One of the options that could be considered is a waiver for ultra-low sulfur diesel. [1:28:18] We're—again, I almost feel like we're grasping at anything right now. [1:28:25] The president has a proposal for elimination of the—or pausing of the federal gas tax. [1:28:36] We're looking at the impact that that might have on us, and it would be—it would be very minimal. [1:28:42] Every little bit helps, but can you take a look at perhaps what some of the flexibilities might be, [1:28:50] or administrative relief, including something like a waiver of the ultra-low sulfur diesel? [1:28:57] Chair Murkowski, we have been looking at that potential waiver. [1:29:01] That would be a waiver that would have to be redone every—you know, more than at least once a month. [1:29:08] I guess once every 20 days in perpetuity. [1:29:11] It would be a 20-day waiver if we were to do it. [1:29:14] So we are aware we've been working on it, and I appreciate you raising that again here. [1:29:20] As you point out in your opening remarks with regard to diesel exhaust fluid, [1:29:23] we've heard from the haul truckers of Alaska and the cold weather impacts. [1:29:27] We've taken some actions. We're going to do more. [1:29:29] We have the upcoming 2027 heavy-duty knocks rule, which will include further responsive proposal [1:29:37] with regards to what the haul truckers and others in Alaska have provided us feedback on. [1:29:43] And the one other point that is very relevant to what you said in your opening remarks, [1:29:46] and again to the theme that you're referencing here. [1:29:50] I was just recently in Tokyo with the White House National Energy Dominance Council. [1:29:54] We met with 17 Indo-Pacific nations. They had their energy ministers and others, as well as a lot of U.S. companies. [1:30:00] I will say that there was a strong interest in Alaska energy supply. [1:30:04] There's a real opportunity for upgraded infrastructure, not just with the demand inside of Alaska, [1:30:09] and not just even in the lower 48, but also internationally. [1:30:13] Countries like, for example, Japan, where it takes them 28 days to get their storage, their source from the Middle East, [1:30:22] where they don't have safe passage, they don't have safe freedom of navigation. [1:30:26] They're looking to Alaska, where they have been getting it in eight days now for 60 years, [1:30:31] and they've always had total freedom of navigation. [1:30:33] And the word is spreading amongst these Indo-Pacific nations as they talk about diversifying their energy supply. [1:30:38] The countries that have been looking to Alaska and looking to the U.S. are talking about how they want more, [1:30:45] they want to get more, and these other countries are looking at it for the first time. [1:30:48] So I think that there's a very big opportunity for Alaska, not just to increase infrastructure for Alaskans, [1:30:53] but also as it relates to the Alaskan economy, to look to exporting even out of the country. [1:30:59] Well, I appreciate that and recognize as well the opportunities that we have in the out years. [1:31:10] And I think they are exciting, and I'm grateful that the administration is taking a very robust view about how we can help to facilitate it. [1:31:19] But I am very worried about the immediate short term and what we need to do to get people through, literally through the summer months, [1:31:28] before we enter yet another cold winter period. [1:31:31] But thank you. [1:31:32] And I'm going to go, I'm going to excuse myself and go vote, and I will return. [1:31:36] Senator Van Hollen. [1:31:37] Thank you. [1:31:39] Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:31:40] And welcome, Administrator Zeldin. [1:31:42] We agreed last year on the importance of the Chesapeake Bay Program, and I'm glad to see your budget provides almost existing levels of funding. [1:31:50] There are big Bay-related funding gaps in other federal agencies that are part of the Bay Program, [1:31:56] and I look forward to working with the chair and ranking member to close those gaps. [1:32:01] But on the Bay, Mr. Administrator, I think you would agree that the EPA Bay Program works best when EPA acts as a trusted partner [1:32:11] to the watershed states and key stakeholders and organizations. [1:32:15] And this is a simple question. [1:32:17] Can you commit to making sure that happens, that we have that trusted working relationship? [1:32:21] Absolutely. [1:32:22] I appreciate that. [1:32:23] Now, I do want to turn to a more troubling topic, [1:32:27] and I want to talk about the administration's disregard for scientific facts as you develop policy at the EPA. [1:32:36] At your confirmation hearing, you said, and I'm quoting, [1:32:39] I am someone who believes strongly that we should work with the scientists, leaving the science to the scientists, unquote. [1:32:46] But this administration has driven hundreds of scientists out of EPA. [1:32:51] You dissolved your agency's main science office. [1:32:55] You fired the agency's top science advisors without cause. [1:32:59] And now this budget request proposes a whopping 30 percent cut to the EPA science and technology account, [1:33:07] which includes funding related to air quality management, [1:33:12] which leaves me to a question about science and public health, [1:33:15] because I heard you as I was coming to the hearing about how EPA's mission is protecting, [1:33:23] first and foremost, the public health and the environment. [1:33:26] And I agree. [1:33:27] Would you agree, Mr. Administrator, that air pollution, like particulate matter, [1:33:32] can have a harmful impact on the public health? [1:33:34] Yes. [1:33:35] Do you know how much it costs a family when their kid has asthma? [1:33:40] It depends on whether or not they have health coverage. [1:33:46] It depends on the severity, what the treatment is, where they live in the country, [1:33:51] where the available providers are. [1:33:54] It varies from one family to the next. [1:33:56] Well, CDC, another federal agency, was able to do the calculation on average. [1:34:01] Obviously, there are differences in terms of the intensity of asthma. [1:34:05] But I don't think you would dispute the fact that it imposes costs on families. [1:34:10] And according to CDC, it costs a family over $3,000 a year in additional health costs. [1:34:16] But you at the EPA no longer use the same measure to quantify the health benefits of proposed air pollution regulations [1:34:27] as you do to calculate the cost to industry. [1:34:30] So, Mr. Administrator, why are you no longer considering the cost of pollution to a child's health [1:34:36] when you consider the benefits of air pollution regulations? [1:34:43] You're considering the cost to industry. [1:34:45] Why are you not using the same measure to quantify the benefits to a kid's health? [1:34:51] So, for one, we inherited a level of concern from the Science Advisory Board [1:34:56] with regards to the modeling that was used, that the modeling be updated, [1:35:01] and that it was a misleading number to just set an arbitrary dollar amount as it relates to PM 2.5 and ozone. [1:35:09] This is not unprecedented. [1:35:10] The Biden administration did the same exact thing when they're going through the Quad OBC regulations. [1:35:15] We are factoring in the impacts. [1:35:18] We did not stop factoring the impacts. [1:35:20] That's one of the other things that have been inaccurately reported. [1:35:26] And we will continue to do so. [1:35:28] And as we update the modeling, working with our dedicated career scientists at EPA, [1:35:32] rather than setting an arbitrary number to it, we look forward to being able to put a number to it [1:35:38] that has the support of the Science Advisory Board and the scientific community. [1:35:43] So, Mr. and Minister, I want to make sure I understand in you, [1:35:45] because I think you would agree that in order to do a cost-benefit analysis, [1:35:51] you have to compare apples to apples. [1:35:53] That is why we have worked over many administrations. [1:35:59] I heard you referring to the Biden era stuff. [1:36:01] And the reason is pretty straightforward, as you know. [1:36:05] It's because you need some measure, the cost to industry of your proposed regulation, [1:36:11] but also the savings to the public health when you propose a regulation. [1:36:18] And you've got to compare apples. [1:36:20] So let me just make sure I understand you. [1:36:22] Let me make sure I understand you. [1:36:23] Okay. [1:36:24] You are striving to move to a what you're calling a better proposal, [1:36:30] but you are going to look at the dollar impact of public health, [1:36:33] and we pair that to the dollar cost for industry? [1:36:36] We currently review the impacts. [1:36:39] But I'm asking you how. [1:36:41] I mean, I know you used to look at the impact on public health, Mr. Administrator, and say, [1:36:46] this is going to cost this family who has a kid with asthma $3,000 more. [1:36:51] And so if we implement this regulation, we're going to help that family. [1:36:55] If you say you're going to calculate it, I'd like to know how, because you've thrown out. [1:37:00] We calculate the emissions reductions. [1:37:02] We calculate the cost of achieving reductions. [1:37:04] How? [1:37:05] How? [1:37:06] So we have dedicated career scientists who work on this. [1:37:09] But how do you measure that and then compare it to the cost? [1:37:12] You can't put it. [1:37:13] So, like, what's the value of a life to you? [1:37:15] It's not arbitrary. [1:37:16] And I'm not trying to ask you a trick question, but that's the problem from the scientific community. [1:37:21] Is that the modeling that they were using, the scientific community said to me, to EPA, that instead of having an arbitrary number that is misleading the public, that you need to improve the modeling. [1:37:33] So we can continue to factor in the impact, but the monetization of it, we're not going to put an arbitrary dollar amount. [1:37:40] Again, not a novel concept. [1:37:42] This is exactly what happened with the Biden administration as well. [1:37:45] Mr. Administrator, you keep saying arbitrary. [1:37:47] The cost to a kid's health from asthma is not arbitrary. [1:37:51] No, no, the number. [1:37:52] The number is. [1:37:53] How much would you say is the value of a life? [1:37:55] That's the problem that science is having right now. [1:37:58] They're trying to figure out what the exact number is to you. [1:38:01] I know you want to jump to the big question about the value of life. [1:38:04] I'm talking about the cost. [1:38:05] But that's what you're asking. [1:38:06] No. [1:38:07] I'm talking about the cost to a family of a kid who has asthma, and then you pass a regulation to make sure they don't get asthma or don't get it aggravated. [1:38:16] You can do those costs. [1:38:17] It's not arbitrary. [1:38:18] Absolutely. [1:38:19] Okay. [1:38:20] So let's make sure that we get to that where we can compare apples to apples. [1:38:23] That's not the hard part. [1:38:24] Because you guys have been putting your. [1:38:26] The hard part is monetizing the value of a life. [1:38:29] Well, look. [1:38:30] Precisely. [1:38:31] Exactly what the value of a life is. [1:38:33] So you're willing to monetize the cost to health, like a kid who has asthma. [1:38:38] We're monetizing what you can monetize. [1:38:41] The science community is saying that the modeling the EPA was using to monetize the cost of life was they are saying was arbitrary. [1:38:50] The science advisory board saying you need to fix your modeling. [1:38:54] So we're fixing. [1:38:55] We're working on fixing the modeling. [1:38:57] If you'd like to help participate in that. [1:38:59] And that then you're more than welcome to is a senator. [1:39:02] I would. [1:39:03] I would. [1:39:04] I would welcome that. [1:39:05] But what we can. [1:39:06] But what you can put a price to. [1:39:08] That's that's easy. [1:39:09] That's the easy part. [1:39:10] The hard part is. [1:39:11] And if I know you haven't been able to answer it and that's okay. [1:39:14] If I asked every member of this committee, what is the value was the dollar amount that you put to a life. [1:39:19] It's possible every member of this committee would give a different number. [1:39:21] Well, and I understand. [1:39:22] Here's the thing. [1:39:23] We have to come up with. [1:39:24] I already told you what the CDC, a federal agency, says the additional cost to a family is of a kid who has asthma. [1:39:30] They say it's over $3,000. [1:39:31] You started off your remarks by saying that I should be listening to the dedicated career staffers at the agency. [1:39:39] And now you're telling me that I shouldn't. [1:39:41] No. [1:39:42] We have the dedicated career staffers in the government. [1:39:44] Exactly. [1:39:45] The guys who do the costing of public health are the CDC. [1:39:47] Yeah. [1:39:48] So look, Mr. Administrator, you guys did clean house of a lot of scientists. [1:39:53] I mean, it's there's ample evidence of that. [1:39:55] I think you got rid of the board that I think you're citing now. [1:39:58] Well, we reset it and there and it's recent right now. [1:40:01] There are the science advisory board has stood up. [1:40:03] Yeah. [1:40:04] The members. [1:40:05] By the way, it's the same exact thing that the Biden administration did and you didn't care. [1:40:08] This is not the same exact thing because you have is I understand it. [1:40:13] You have abandoned the idea across the board of using a common measure. [1:40:20] That's not true. [1:40:21] Okay. [1:40:22] It's only PM 2.5 and ozone. [1:40:24] Okay. [1:40:25] Specifically with regards to the monetization of life. [1:40:27] Just those two. [1:40:28] Just those two. [1:40:29] That's it. [1:40:30] Okay. [1:40:31] I look forward to following up with you. [1:40:32] I appreciate it. [1:40:34] Thank you. [1:40:35] Thank you very much, Senator Van Hollen. [1:40:36] And I'll just summarize the impression that many of us have had. [1:40:40] And I know you've disagreed with this in your comments is that the calculus that were based [1:40:45] on the measurable health impacts of various forms of pollution are no longer being conducted. [1:40:53] And I think you're saying, no, we are conducting them. [1:40:55] And I'll look forward to following up with you because certainly things like lead and like mercury and like particulates do have a lot of health consequences that are pretty measurable. [1:41:08] And I think it's important we measure them. [1:41:10] But I think you're saying you are. [1:41:11] Absolutely. [1:41:12] That. [1:41:13] A hundred percent. [1:41:15] Okay. [1:41:16] So I wanted to turn to the 2025 Make America Healthy Again report. [1:41:21] And it particularly emphasized glyphosate. [1:41:25] Glyphosate has been kind of a key in our agricultural community as an herbicide. [1:41:32] But we're starting to see the studies that are associated with cancer and liver inflammation and metabolic disturbance. [1:41:40] And actually, I'm just quoting from the Maha report right now. [1:41:43] Do you have a plan on how to address this challenge? [1:41:50] On the one hand, an effective herbicide. [1:41:54] On the other hand, an herbicide with growing reports of human health impacts. [1:42:00] The agency right now is going through a scientific review, periodic review of glyphosate. [1:42:08] And continuing the theme of the exchange that I just had with Senator Van Hollen. [1:42:14] If you were to ask any of the career scientists who have met with me. [1:42:19] And that has been a frequent meetings with a bunch of them. [1:42:22] I am over the top in emphasizing to them how important it is that they follow gold standard signs. [1:42:30] That we are radically transparent with the public. [1:42:32] We're communicating those results on the webpage. [1:42:35] If there's a study that they feel like has less weight than other studies, rather than ignoring it in the public communication, [1:42:43] we should be communicating exactly why you think a study is flawed and should be treated as an anomaly. [1:42:48] If they're saying it's the sample size or it's the exposure level or whatever, that has to be communicated to the public. [1:42:56] I've also told these career scientists that I do not want myself or any other member of this political team to be influencing the scientific research. [1:43:08] I want them to do their job. [1:43:09] I have a lot of trust and faith in these dedicated career scientists. [1:43:14] And whatever your science shows, whatever it reveals, I want to communicate that to the public as much as possible. [1:43:22] I think that's exactly the right philosophy and I applaud that. [1:43:26] I'll say certainly the perception has been that the science advisory board that had serious scientists was replaced by folks who have a lot of industry connections that perhaps have diluted the gold standard of science. [1:43:42] I know from your exchange with Senator Van Hollen that you don't agree with that, but that's certainly been my impression. [1:43:50] I wanted to turn to... [1:43:51] Senator, can I ask you if I could just add just a few little stats because I know it's important. [1:43:54] I'll keep it quick. [1:43:56] Is it okay, Senator? [1:43:57] Well, I'm not here to take questions. [1:43:59] I'm really here to... [1:44:00] No, no, I'm not going to ask you a question. [1:44:01] I'm not going to ask you a question. [1:44:02] I just want to answer your point. [1:44:03] Sure. [1:44:04] Okay. [1:44:05] So of the people who were appointed, and this was a career staff-driven process, [1:44:10] 34 of the 37 hold doctoral degrees, 21 have academic appointments in leading universities, [1:44:18] 3 serve in state environmental health agencies, 2 serve in public utilities, [1:44:22] and I just wanted to add that to complete the record as far as telling you about the makeup, [1:44:30] led by Chair Dr. Charles Bott of the Hampton Road Sanitation District. [1:44:35] Yes. [1:44:36] I will say that we have a lot of folks with doctoral degrees and academic appointments [1:44:45] who have been very closely associated with different industries, so... [1:44:49] And that is kind of the question, whether that influence gets carried over into this role. [1:44:53] May I respond, Senator? [1:44:55] Well, how about if we follow up in a question after the... [1:44:58] Okay. [1:44:59] I just want to point out that there was also members of industry in the Biden SAB and the [1:45:04] Obama SAB. [1:45:06] This is not a new concept that there's anyone from the private sector in the SAB. [1:45:12] Thank you. [1:45:13] I want to turn to the EPA's Wildfire Smoke Preparedness and Community Buildings Program. [1:45:18] So for us in the West, as I know you are very aware, the issue of wildfire smoke has become an [1:45:26] increasing annual event. [1:45:28] And as was mentioned before, certainly the wildfire smoke issues range from the big changes in kind of the [1:45:39] outdoor activities during the summer months to triggering a lot of intensified asthma problems, [1:45:46] including hospitalizations. [1:45:48] So this program has responded by serving as a resource for local communities to plan for [1:45:54] those events. [1:45:55] They retrofit community buildings so that folks who have serious issues that might have asthma [1:46:01] trigger have a place to get to where they can get to smoke-free air. [1:46:05] And I was delighted to see that there was a new Notice of Funding Opportunity which closed [1:46:12] last month in the EPA. [1:46:13] Do you have a sense of when the awards will be announced for that program? [1:46:17] We can get that answer to you right away. [1:46:20] I don't have that. [1:46:22] Thank you. [1:46:25] Obviously I am encouraging it to be quick because we have the FY25 money that hasn't been [1:46:31] fully allocated yet and also we are in FY26 so communities would love to have those grants. [1:46:40] So we had a series of stories last year about the impact of wildfire smoke also on firefighters. [1:46:47] I was really surprised to find out kind of the operational norm had been to not have firefighters [1:46:56] wearing any sort of smoke protection when they are fighting fires. [1:46:59] I think that that has now changed. [1:47:02] There was kind of an official statement from the Forest Service saying it was almost a ban, [1:47:07] like that ban had been lifted. [1:47:10] But the EPA has been working with the Forest Service to address this issue. [1:47:14] Will you continue to do so? [1:47:15] That is an important topic. [1:47:18] Yes, Senator. [1:47:19] Thank you. [1:47:20] And there is the Air Now Fire and Smoke Map which is prepared by the EPA and that has been assisting folks. [1:47:29] Does that continue to be part of your products? [1:47:31] Yes. [1:47:33] I haven't heard otherwise from any member of the team recommending differently. [1:47:36] Okay. [1:47:37] Will you let me know if that changes? [1:47:39] I will. [1:47:40] And we found that especially with the California, I'm sorry, with the Canada wildfires last year [1:47:47] and the impacts coming across the border that these products were being relied upon heavily [1:47:54] by states and the communities to figure out what the current status is, where it is coming, and how badly. [1:48:01] I noticed when the wildfire smoke came down from Canada here to D.C., suddenly people who were like, [1:48:06] oh, we never understood this issue, and they're going, oh, my goodness, I'm in trouble. [1:48:11] And this is not okay. [1:48:13] And it's like I've adopted the habit of smoking on my health. [1:48:17] And I was kind of thankful for a way, not that that happened often, [1:48:22] but that it happened at least that once in order to have people here try to understand how big of an issue it is for us, [1:48:29] where wildfires are more common. [1:48:31] In the Office of Research and Development, as I understand it, there were 1,700 team members there, [1:48:37] and then it's down to about 100, but others have been transferred to air and to chemicals [1:48:43] and to the Office of Applied Scientists and Environmental Solutions. [1:48:48] That 1,700, if we take and we're looking at the kind of diaspora, how many- did the 1,700, [1:48:56] because this office got split up into these different areas, is that 1,700 now reduced to a significantly lower number? [1:49:03] Is the number inside of ORD lower? [1:49:06] Well, I know in ORD it's lower, because at least this report has gone from 1,700 to 100, [1:49:11] but I also know that a number of those folks were dispersed to other offices. [1:49:15] I'm just trying to get a sense of, in terms of the research enterprise, did we lose a lot of those 1,700 along the way, [1:49:22] or are they just in serving under different headings? [1:49:26] Well, okay, so we had the ORD head count as of the President's swearing in was 1,602. [1:49:35] We had 532 leave the agency, 454 of those were DRPs. [1:49:42] We had three transfer to other agencies. [1:49:45] We had one death in service. [1:49:48] We had three appointment expiration terminations. [1:49:51] But just trying to maybe summarize, I want to make sure I get to the chair. [1:49:54] 935, I'm sorry, I'm going down the list. [1:49:57] Okay. [1:49:58] I'm sorry, this is the most responsive. [1:49:59] 935 were reassignments, realignments to other EPA offices. [1:50:04] Okay. [1:50:06] So roughly we went from around 1,650 or 1,700 down to about 935? [1:50:11] 1,602 to 935, not including the 1,32 remaining, which 8 are Title 42, 90 are reassignments to program regions, and 34 are geographic reassignments. [1:50:25] I'll try to give you a very easy one-word last question or one-word answer, maybe, potentially. [1:50:32] In Corvallis and Newport, we have leading research labs incredibly important to our coastal ecosystems, our fishing. [1:50:41] And will EPA keep those Corvallis and Newport research centers operating? [1:50:46] As far as I know, every lab in the whole country is slated to stay open. [1:50:53] Thank you. [1:50:55] Thank you, Senator Merkley. [1:50:56] And, Administrator, thank you for your time here this afternoon. [1:51:00] I don't have any further questions to ask, but I will just let you know some of the things that continue to be on our radar. [1:51:08] I know you've got your team here, so they'll be taking notes, but we have the EPA 2024 Bulk Gasoline Terminal Rule. [1:51:20] This is one where we're looking at it really critically about the impacts that these regulations have on operations in Arctic and sub-Arctic conditions, where resources are limited and infrastructure retrofits can only occur during a short time window. [1:51:39] But also just a real challenge with how you're able to meet these requirements in environments where it's cold, you've got heavy snow load. [1:51:51] So know that that's something that we're going to be talking with your teams about. [1:51:56] I can't leave a hearing with the Administrator of the EPA without talking about PM 2.5 and state implementation plans and what happens in the Interior. [1:52:10] And this is why I so appreciate the fact that you went to the Interior. [1:52:15] You were in Fairbanks in February when it's cold, and you can see the challenges that we have with primarily wood smoke and the contribution to the air quality. [1:52:30] But so we continue to work with you on balancing Clean Air Act obligations with the need to maintain affordable and reliable energy supplies in regions like that. [1:52:46] I am Senator Merkley talks a lot about plastics. [1:52:52] I am talking trash all the time in Alaska because we have a real issue with our our landfills. [1:53:03] Everything in rural Alaska seems to be maxing out all at the same time. [1:53:08] And so I I get to go to these small isolated communities. [1:53:15] I fly in, you know, we'll go up to the school. [1:53:18] We'll meet with the tribal administrator, and then I want to go see the dump because the dump to me kind of is an example of where communities are in their in their overall health and the ability to to just just do things. [1:53:36] And it's really challenging right now. [1:53:39] So I'm looking at all kinds of different options and innovations and technologies and just some bright ideas as to how we do a better job with trash. [1:53:51] As you know, when it comes to hazardous waste, we just we lack the ability to to process so much of our hazardous waste and contaminated soil goes to your state. [1:54:03] I know you don't like it, but we're grateful that you're willing to take it. [1:54:06] But it's a heck of a long ways to take it from northern Alaska all the way across the Gulf and then down into the Pacific Northwest. [1:54:15] We don't really want to do that. [1:54:17] Backhaul Alaska has been hugely important to us by by helping to move some of the waste material out of of isolated communities. [1:54:31] But we just have a lot of work that we have to do there. [1:54:35] So if you can identify who your your your your your trash troublemakers are in EPA know that we want to work with them to just think creatively about how we address some of these growing issues with with trash and waste disposal. [1:54:52] So you've got a lot on your plate. [1:54:55] You've got a hard job over there. [1:54:56] You've got a good team of people keep encouraging them and know that as a as a appropriations subcommittee we want to work with you again to get a good budget that works for you works for all of us and and does right by the country. [1:55:15] So with that thank you for your time and the committee stands adjourned. [1:55:19] the committee stands adjourned!