▶ 0:18:55Before we begin, I want to note for the record that I am filling in for subcommittee chairman gary palmer. Gary had a conflict arise in scheduling and was unable to attend this morning's hearing. I now recognize myself for five minutes. Today, we will consider president trump's fiscal year 2027 budget request for the us environmental protection agency.
▶ 0:19:17I'm glad to welcome back our environmental protection agency administrator, lee zeldin, who I and many of us remember fondly from serving with him in the house and working with him in his capacity as administrator. Administrator. When you testified before this committee last year to discuss epa's budget request for fiscal year 2026, I noted that you faced a difficult but important job as the epa administrator. I believe that you've done an excellent job as administrator.
▶ 0:19:49The people across my district have been excited to see the direction that you and president trump have steered the epa under your great american comeback initiative. Thank you and president trump, for returning the epa to its rightful role of protecting human health and cleaning up the environment, not as an anti-jobs agency. It is refreshing to see the trump administration take a measured and thoughtful approach to regulation and enforcement.
▶ 0:20:15Unlike under the previous administration, where the agency operated as a center for pushing uncompromising ideologies, the epa under trump has closely followed its enabling statutes and not stretched the meaning of the law for the benefit of overzealous activists. I commend you for taking a pragmatic and pragmatic approach to regulatory actions that closely uphold the laws the epa is charged with enforcing.
▶ 0:20:41The epa has done great work over this past year, from cleaning up sewage spills in california to expediting superfund site closures and to clarifying clean air act guidance, you were tasked. You were tasked with undoing the regulatory overreach of the biden-harris administration and refocusing epa's work. And I believe you're off to a good start.
▶ 0:21:03Also, I would like to take a moment to personally thank you and president trump for prioritizing the rollback of blatantly anti-coal regulations that were churned out in what seemed what seemed to me to be almost a monthly basis by the biden-harris. Epa under your leadership, epa finalized a repeal of the obama administration's 2009 so-called greenhouse gas endangerment finding under the clean air act, which led to a series of costly regulations that limited consumer choices.
▶ 0:21:33And as I pointed out at the time that originally started coming out, I didn't understand how you could do one side of the science and not the other side of the science. There was no balance counterbalance. It was just one side of the story. Over the past year, the epa has worked, also worked to improve permitting guidance. Under the clean air act, epa has prioritized actions to safeguard drinking water, including proposing to require monitoring of microplastics, pfas and pharmaceuticals under the safe drinking drinking water act.
▶ 0:22:01Administrator, you've also been successful in reining in the wasteful green new deal and dei initiatives that characterized the biden administration for fiscal year 2027. President trump is requesting 4.2 billion in new budget authority for the epa.
▶ 0:22:19This budget proposal would provide more than 2.5 billion for epa environmental management programs, as well as almost 750 million in grant assistance for states and tribes, more than 500 million for science and technology activities, and 290 million for superfund site cleanup. Despite what our friends across the aisle may say, this is a significant amount of taxpayer dollars.
▶ 0:22:42It is important to remember the epa received an a very large 100 billion in appropriations for fiscal years 2022 through 2026 from the infrastructure investment and jobs act and the inflation reduction act. Such heavy funding levels are high funding levels over ten times the average.
▶ 0:23:02Historical epa appropriation was intended to be a one time, once in a generation supplement, with much of the increased funding for specific water infrastructure and cleanup programs. These appropriations were never, never intended to be the new normal for epa funding. This budget request is fiscally responsible and focuses on infrastructure and district distinct clean up goals.
▶ 0:23:28The epa's budget request will continue to support epa's core programs and is in line with limited legal authority and cooperative federalism and a cooperative federalism framework that congress envisioned for the epa. It is important for congress to examine how the laws it enacts are working, and whether they need to be amended or repealed. When I was chairman of the environmental in the environment subcommittee, we began reviewing all of epa's statutory authorities.
▶ 0:23:56Chairman palmer has continued with this important work by holding hearings and markups on reauthorizations for the toxics toxic substances control act, the brownfield laws, the safe drinking water act, and by considering amendments to the clean air act and the federal waste and recycling laws. Thank you again for coming before us today, administrator zeldin.
▶ 0:24:18I look forward to hearing about your priorities for the epa and how congress can help ensure that we have clean air, clean water, and good jobs. With that, I yield back and now recognize my colleague, the ranking member, Mr. tonko, from new york, for his five minute opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chair and administrator zeldin. Welcome. Welcome back to the subcommittee. Fiscal year 2027 budget request proposes a more than 52% cut to epa.
▶ 0:24:45This includes a 91% reduction to categorical grants that states rely upon to support implementation of environmental laws. Epa's budget claims it will empower states through cooperative federalism, but we all know what this really is. It's cost shifting, requiring states to find more revenue to carry out federal requirements at a time when costs from medicaid, nutrition assistance, and other programs are being passed on to those state budgets.
▶ 0:25:15This budget request also claims to return primary responsibility for water infrastructure to state and local governments, and it includes a nearly 90% reduction to the state revolving funds over $2.5 billion, which local governments rely upon to finance water system projects. This budget completely fails to recognize that the federal government is currently responsible for a whopping 4% of water systems, capital and operating expenses.
▶ 0:25:449,696% of water utility expenses are paid for by nonfederal sources, primarily customers. If the federal government further reduces its financial commitment, people inevitably will see their water bills go up, especially as systems work to reduce risks from lead, pfas and other public health issues.
▶ 0:26:09It is an understatement to say that I am concerned by the direction of the epa, and I believe the american people are right to be concerned. Also, let's just look at the agency's track record on protecting people from dangerous chemicals. The trump administration's first commission report correctly identified industry capture of epa's chemical safety program as a problem. Today, there are there is a.
▶ 0:26:35Are several political appointees running epa's chemical safety program who previously worked for the chemical industry, and I suspect they will return to lucrative jobs working for the industry at the end of this administration. And why do I suspect this? Because some of these very same people also worked in the chemical safety office during the trump administration, and then went on to work on behalf of chemical manufacturers during the biden administration.
▶ 0:27:00With such strong past financial ties and the high likelihood that their future incomes will come from the companies they are charged with regulating today, can there be any doubt why people are suspicious that this epa may not put the health and safety of regular americans over those of the interests of powerful chemical and pesticide manufacturers?
▶ 0:27:22This is to say nothing of the industry representatives and industry paid consultants who have been appointed to epa's science advisory bodies, inevitably empowering people with such obvious and deep financial connections to regulated industries erodes public confidence in the agency's willingness to be an effective regulator, and this is a problem that can be found across program offices. Last year, administrator zeldin, you announced a major deregulatory agenda.
▶ 0:27:51Despite analysis that the rules targeted for repeal were estimated to save thousands of american lives and billions of dollars each year. Time and time again, we have seen that to effectuate this agenda, epa has needed to change its cost benefit rules and ignore agency and independent analyzes that have not agreed with the administrator's predetermined outcomes.
▶ 0:28:16In january, epa announced it would stop considering the value of lives saved from putting limits on air pollution. Epa ignored its own analysis that a rollback of limits on mercury pollution threatens public health. It imposes costs on americans. Epa also ignored its analysis of the revocation of the endangerment finding, which found that the costs of the action would indeed outweigh any savings.
▶ 0:28:43So president trump has issued sweeping exemptions to entire industries from complying with hazardous air pollution standards, which were granted with no transparency and seemingly no analysis of how they might harm public health and to repeal vehicle standards.
▶ 0:29:01Epa's analysis found that elimination of these standards would increase consumer costs and gas prices, adding another $3 billion per year in fuel costs by 2035 for american drivers. And you can bet that epa took a rosy estimate of future gas prices. It certainly did not account for president trump's illegal war with iran, which has now raised average gas prices to over $4.10 per gallon.
▶ 0:29:25This deregulatory agenda is giving americans the privilege of paying more to have worse health outcomes, because apparently in the trump administration, the only costs worth considering are how much environmental protections will affect polluting corporations. Bottom lines.
▶ 0:29:42Epa's budget cuts into regulatory actions will result in more pollution, while reducing our scientific capacity to understand just how pollution will impact americans health and well-being, I find that an unacceptable, and I believe most americans would agree with that. Mr. chairman, I thank you and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. guthrie, for his five minute opening statement. >> good morning.
▶ 0:30:08And thank you, chairman griffith, for holding this hearing and for being here today. I welcome back. Administrator zeldin. Great to have you here. We look forward to hearing about your plans for environmental protection agency over the next fiscal year. But first, I want to commend you and your team for restoring epa to its core mission to protect human health and the environment within the statutory authority in the mandates provided by congress.
▶ 0:30:36As a former member of congress, you respect the constitution, including article one, the biden administration, the obama administration before it both pushed laws like the clean air act far beyond what congress had intended, and blindly pursued a hostile regulatory agenda to shut down the fossil fuel energy producers in critical manufacturers. You have reined in the epa within the bounds of the law, while ensuring it fulfills its statutory duty.
▶ 0:31:01You have also been laser focused on making sure taxpayer dollars are invested wisely and have worked hard to end wasteful spending on the green new deal and ai programs. Epa's budget request strikes a balance between building on historic investments in core programs and responding to current environmental and economic challenges.
▶ 0:31:22We especially appreciate the budget request, focusing on improving, permitting the and the cooperative federalism framework that respects the role of states, tribes and local communities. Restoring public confidence in epa's science activities, and positioning epa to both support and benefit from the rise of the ai economy and a strong domestic manufacturing base.
▶ 0:31:43We need for the united states to be a leader in innovation, freedom, and economic prosperity to compete effectively with china and to maintain a healthy environment for our constituents. We appreciate your hard work and willingness to serve in this very important role. We appreciate you being here on capitol hill, your old home, and welcoming you to the committee, and look forward to working with you. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. pallone of new jersey, for his five minute opening statement.
▶ 0:32:14>> thank you, Mr. chairman. President trump's budget, in my opinion, is an insult to the american people at every opportunity. This budget undercuts public health affordability and sensible environmental protections to line the pockets of trump's corporate polluter friends. The budget would cut funding for the environmental protection agency by more than 50%, the largest cut in epa's history.
▶ 0:32:37This would hamstrung epa's ability to fulfill its core mission of protecting human health and the environment, and despite claims to the contrary, it fails to deliver on the trump administration's promise to make america healthy again. The budget eliminates nearly all state categorical grants, all but ending the cooperative federalism that has made epa so successful in cleaning up toxic pollution and providing healthier futures for americans.
▶ 0:33:03Epa is deserting the states to deal with serious climate and pollution issues on their own, while epa focuses on giving polluters free passes to poison our communities with reckless abandon. The budget also takes a sledgehammer to the clean water and the drinking water state. Revolving funds, which are the primary funding sources for water infrastructure projects. At a time when communities are experiencing aging infrastructure and rising water costs and are fearful of threats of contamination.
▶ 0:33:29These funds are critical to ensure all communities have access to safe, affordable water. And the trump administration clearly doesn't recognize this value, especially when you consider epa's plans to rescind and delay the historic pfas drinking water standards that were put in place during the biden administration to protect public health. Now, under administrator zeldin, the epa is going in a dangerously wrong direction at every turn.
▶ 0:33:55Administrator zeldin has demonstrated that he is at the beck and call of special interests, providing broad exemptions and handouts to his polluter friends. He has eliminated epa's climate and clean air work. Turned his back on environmental justice communities and look the other way as bad actors poisoned communities across the united states.
▶ 0:34:12What is potentially most egregious is epa's shockingly irresponsible rollback of the landmark endangerment finding, which has which that rollback, in my opinion, has no basis in law, science or reality, especially in 2026. Epa is abandoning its responsibility to protect human health and the environment from the harm of air pollution, replacing it with nothing. Ensuring the climate crisis gets far worse puts the health of americans in jeopardy.
▶ 0:34:39It will result in even higher food and electricity than we're also seeing. Due to the republican affordability crisis, and it will put homeownership even further out of reach as unchecked pollution wreaks havoc on property values, insurance rates and jobs. It will also cause cascading consequences across all sectors of our economy.
▶ 0:34:59And at a time when trump's reckless war of choice with iran has already caused gas prices to skyrocket, epa eliminated all clean vehicle standards and incentives, increasing costs on families and businesses when they can least afford it. The fact that epa conveniently ignores.
▶ 0:35:16Simultaneously, the zeldin epa has slashed critical protections by leaving radioactive coal ash in unlined ponds and communities, reversing limits on cancer, causing ethylene oxide pollution in cities, and allowing the chemical industry to burn plastic from the agency tasked with protecting our public health and safety, these rollbacks cater to the whims of polluting interests, while american communities pay the price.
▶ 0:35:42And finally, the effectiveness of the agency hinges on epa having the career staff necessary to fulfill its mission. They are the backbone of the agency administrator. Zeldin's actions to indiscriminately fire hundreds of employees and retaliate against those who raise concerns about the mismanagement of epa show a blatant disregard for the critical work career staff conduct conduct on behalf of the american people. Every day.
▶ 0:36:07He's created such a toxic and hostile environment for career staff that epa has lost about a quarter of its staff since trump assumed office, and that doesn't make the government more efficient. It simply decimates epa's ability to effectively do its job. So in my opinion, epa's mission is to protect human health and the environment, and that should be its north star. Yet at every turn, administrator zeldin has placed polluters favors over the needs of the people the agency is tasked with protecting.
▶ 0:36:35The agency should be taking action to protect our air, water and public health. But unfortunately, it seems the administrator's legacy will be selling the health of americans to the highest bidder. And with that, Mr. chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. We now conclude with member opening statements. The chair would like to remind members that pursuant to committee rules, all members opening statements will be made a part of the record. We want to thank our witness for taking his time to testify before the subcommittee today.
▶ 0:37:02Although it is not the practice of this subcommittee to swear in witnesses, I would remind our witness that knowingly and willfully making material false statements to the legislative branch is against the law. Under title 18, section 1001 of the united states code, you will have an opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by questions from members. And our witness today is lee zeldin, a former member of the house and administrator of the U.S. environmental protection agency.
▶ 0:37:28Per committee custom, our witness will have the opportunity for five minute opening statement, followed by a round of questions from members. The light is on the timer in front of you and will turn from green to yellow when you have one minute left. I now recognize you administer administrator zeldin for your five minute opening statement. Well, thank you, chairman. >> griffith, ranking member tonko, chairman guthrie, ranking member.
▶ 0:37:49Pallone, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the president's fiscal year 27 budget request for the U.S. environmental protection agency. From day one, I've made it clear that we are going to fix the mess that we inherited and reaffirm our commitment to cooperative federalism, understanding that the best solutions are found outside of washington.
▶ 0:38:13Last year, epa political and career leadership worked to reorganize the agency workforce to better support epa's mission to fulfill statutory obligations, protect human health and the environment, and power the great american comeback. This past january, at the one year mark of president trump's term in office, I announced 500 top environmental wins from during that first year. These actions directly advance our agency's core mission.
▶ 0:38:42Epa environmental accomplishments these past 15 months, including include the signing of the historic agreement with the mexican government to end the decades long tijuana river sewage crisis. Highlights also include responding to the potomac river interceptor collapse, accelerated enforcement efforts to stop foreigners from profiting off sending poisons and pollution to the united states, and unlocking billions of dollars in funding to reduce lead in drinking water.
▶ 0:39:10Our commitment to gold standard science at epa guided our decision to bolster scientists in our national program offices and established the office of applied science and environmental solutions. We inherited a backlog of chemicals and pesticides from the biden administration, the office of chemical safety and pollution prevention has worked tirelessly to bring down this backlog while keeping pace with new incoming reviews.
▶ 0:39:38With the addition of new technologies and scientists, our team of dedicated career and political staff has made tremendous strides. At the same time, I announced last march the largest deregulatory action in our nation's history. This announcement consisted of 31 actions to apply common sense, unleash U.S. energy dominance, and strengthen the american economy.
▶ 0:40:05In february of this year, we proudly announced the elimination of the 2009 endangerment finding. This has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in regulatory costs for americans. The trump epa believes growing our economy, bringing down costs and protecting the environment is all achievable. And we are proving it every day.
▶ 0:40:30President trump is committed to rebuilding baseload power, including coal, which is vital to our national security and to the wallets of taxpaying americans. The biden epa tried hard to strangulate coal out of existence, and we are urgently reversing that damage. Meanwhile, I fulfilled a commitment that I made during my confirmation to visit all 50 states as epa administrator, and I completed that effort in just nine and a half months.
▶ 0:40:56I heard from many of your constituents about the hardships burdensome regulations cause, faithfully abiding by the supreme court's decision in sackett. We are working to finalize a clear, durable waters of the united states rule. We're reining in federal overreach and gutting the prior administrations so-called good neighbor rule, which was used on an ill advised expansion of federal jurisdiction.
▶ 0:41:24The good news is that epa is once again working closely with our state partners on their state implementation plans. 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. The trump epa is serious about ensuring future generations inherit clean air, land and water, and the foundation for healthy lives.
▶ 0:41:50That is why a recently announced alongside hhs secretary robert f kennedy jr, the epa is adding microplastics and pharmaceuticals to our contaminant candidate list for the first time ever. The president's fy 27 budget will continue to make epa efficient and effective stewards of americans hard earned taxpayer dollars and fulfill all our statutory obligations and our core mission.
▶ 0:42:15This budget proposal captures significant efficiencies and a return focused 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. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. >> thank you very much, administrator. We will now begin questioning.
▶ 0:42:40I'll ask I'd ask that members not begin a new question to our witness as their five minutes is about to expire. So if you look up at the clock and you only have about 15 seconds, you can make a statement. But please don't ask a question. You've got plenty of time to do that as a written question for the record. And that being said, I will now recognize myself for five minutes.
▶ 0:43:01And first, I would like to offer for introduction the list that administrator zeldin mentioned in his opening statement. Of the more than 500 things done in the first year of the epa's accomplishments under the trump administration, and that has been offered to my colleagues. Without objection. We'll add that to the committee document list. Hearing none. All right.
▶ 0:43:25Now, also, we heard comments about, you know, how the budget, uh, slashes epa funds. I mentioned this in my opening where I said that, you know, that the monies that came from the inflation reduction act and the infrastructure act were meant to be a one time, uh, shot in the arm for special projects, no matter how that money was spent. It was never intended to be a new norm at the epa for spending. Is that your understanding as well, administrator.
▶ 0:43:55>> and a budget that was an annual operating budget of about $10 billion a year. Epa in 2024, obligated and spent over $60 billion. It was more money than they knew how to spend. It was money that was disseminated to left wing ngos. It was given out to former biden and obama officials, democratic donors. They created entities that at times would go through up to four passthroughs, where each of them were taking their own cut to administer the dollar by design.
▶ 0:44:23When congressional democrats put forth the inflation expansion act, they were using it to raid the taxpayer till to be able to pay off those people who had supported them through the years. Uh, fortunately, uh, the, the era of tossing gold bars off the titanic, that's the word that the biden administration was using to describe how they were spending the money. Uh, those days are done.
▶ 0:44:49Uh, we are being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars without any apology or regret, even though I know that makes a lot of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle quite sad. >> and you feel that the budget requests from the administration is one that's appropriate for the epa to be able to get its core functions done. Is that correct? >> not only will we be able to fulfill all of our statutory obligations, uh, we will be able to do more with less.
▶ 0:45:11We inherited backlogs of over 14000 pesticide reviews, 500 new chemicals, 175 small refinery exemptions, blown deadlines on setting numbers for renewable volume obligations, hundreds of state implementation plans. The core statutory obligations set by this body were ignored by our predecessors. And guess what?
▶ 0:45:35All of those backlogs are either eliminated or greatly reduced since we came in doing more with less while the concept. >> congratulations. All right, let me move to some stuff important to my district under the biden epa, the coal ash rule was one size fits all in its approach and unfortunately had the effect of discouraging beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals in concrete and drywall. Why should the encapsulation and recycling of coal ash be encouraged? Uh, it's.
▶ 0:46:03>> an important for anyone who cares about the environment, there are good. As you referenced, it's called beneficial reuse. Uh, it is putting to good use, uh, what is being produced by these plants while plants have enacted, for example, the 2012 mercury toxic standards, which were strict.
▶ 0:46:21Uh, and we see them continuing to improve their environmental technology rather than trying to get rid of coal altogether, uh, through a combination of regulations, coal combustion residuals, steam, electric energy, clean power plan 2.0, uh, and more. They were trying to make, you know, this, send this message to coal miners that they should just learn the code. Well, this is reliable, durable baseload power. Uh, that is important to provide to american families.
▶ 0:46:53And we are reversing that damage in earnest. Uh, and one of the ways to do it is to understand the benefits of beneficial reuse and to make sure that we are supporting it, uh, not suffocating it. >> yeah. And in virginia tech in my district is studying how to recover rare earth elements from coal ash, uh, which could strengthen domestic supplies. That's it's not an easy thing to do, but it would strengthen our domestic supplies of rare earth. How would the previous coal ash rule have restricted these uses?
▶ 0:47:25>> well, for, uh, for one, I mean, the goal was and as we saw coming in, the effective implementation of these 2023 and 2024 rules that were put forth by the biden administration was leading to coal plants all across the country to announce that they were closing altogether. That was by design. I mean, there are people who serve in this body, uh, who will talk about a source like wind, as if it is a substitute for baseload power.
▶ 0:47:56Uh, they just don't care that you have many states across this country that rely on coal in order to heat homes. When you're going through a winter, like we just went through, where so many families for so long were so cold, uh, rather than ramping up baseload power, they're trying to get rid of it. And we don't play along with that and we're proud of it. >> I appreciate that my time is up. I yield back and now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. tonko, for his five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 0:48:25Um, administrator zeldin, last june, hundreds of current and former epa employees signed an open letter to you, raising their concerns about the way you've mismanaged the epa, undermine science, and harm communities across our country. Epa emails from that time show that epa's office of general counsel advised that, and I quote, the letter, is likely protected speech under the first amendment.
▶ 0:48:50And that, again, further quote, the agency should not take any personnel actions against employees who signed the letter or take any other action against them that may be viewed as retaliatory or that may have a chilling effect on other employees taking similar action. Likewise, the director of epa's ethics office wrote that the employees are simply exercising their first amendment rights, and in another email wrote that and I quote, there is no ethics concern, Mr.
▶ 0:49:18Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record emails conveying legal guidance and assessments on july 1st and july 2nd of 2025, as well as an e and e! News article published on july 3rd of 2025. >> all right, I'll have the team take a quick look at it, but it shouldn't be a problem. We'll add it to the committee document list. >> and I thank you.
▶ 0:49:41Despite the view of epa's office of general counsel, that these employees were exercising their rights and should not be punished, you placed nearly 150 employees on paid administrative leave for roughly two months and investigated them before most were finally allowed to return to work. So, administrator zeldin, why did you retaliate against epa employees speaking out against your leadership at epa?
▶ 0:50:05Despite clear opinions from the general counsel's office and ethics office that these employees were exercising their constitutional rights? >> well, obviously, I'll disagree with a lot of the premise of your question. What I instructed my team to do was to conduct an investigation. They conducted an investigation. There was personnel all across the agency that recommended different actions for personnel.
▶ 0:50:31Following the investigation, there were then deciding officials that acted on the recommendation of that person, of those people from across the agency, and then different, uh, areas of discipline were then followed through with. It was following an investigation. It was done on the advice of counsel. But I imagine that, you know, that and deciding not to include that. But that's okay.
▶ 0:50:55>> well, but did you consult with the ethics office or the general counsel's office, uh, before taking the action? >> the action that I took was instructing our team to conduct an investigation. >> well, how much did epa spend paying the employees that you put on leave instead of allowing them to continue their work as they should have been allowed to do?
▶ 0:51:19>> we're going to conduct the investigation, and then we're and then you're going to have a recommendation that comes from across the agency and their decisions on those recommendations. It's a it's a process that that I would do again. >> well, if you could get back to the committee in terms of the amount paid, uh, the employees that were put on leave, uh, not only did you violate the law and the rights of these employees, you wasted taxpayer dollars and deprive the public of the work of these employees.
▶ 0:51:44Now, with the tosca program, the new chemicals program, there's a significant backlog of chemicals under review. I know you said that you inherited this backlog from the biden administration. The biden administration would say they inherited it from the first trump administration. We can go back and forth pointing fingers all day, but we'd like to talk about where we go from here. Epa's budget request was developed with the intention to reduce this backlog.
▶ 0:52:09You tell us how important tosca's fee collection authority is to having the personnel and resources necessary for this office to do the work. >> it's very important for the office of chemical safety to have the personnel, as well as the it advancements in order to be able to do their work. Uh, when we went through a reorganization, we added scientists. We added personnel to that office to get through that backlog.
▶ 0:52:35Uh, we also, uh, were implementing a congressional appropriation from march of 2025 of $17 million to update the it inside of that office, which was a very important appropriation by congress, because when the system would go down for days, that will end up resulting in a lot of lost time.
▶ 0:52:57Congress obviously faces decisions to make, uh, between now and the end of september as it relates to an expiring fee. Uh, as far as what we're doing inside of the office of chemical safety, it's been to increase bandwidth since the moment that we have come in, both with scientists, personnel, and it. >> reclaiming my time. I have other questions on timeline and transparency that I'll get, uh, via the subcommittee to your office. And with that, I thank you, Mr. chairman, I yield back.
▶ 0:53:28>> thank you sir. Gentleman yields back. Now, recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thanks for being here, administrator zeldin. And I think when you first came to congress, we connected because I went to college in new york, and I remember talking about long island. I went to, uh, not on long island, but downriver at west point for Mr. tonko just a little bit. And when I was there, the hudson river was polluted. It was being cleaned up. First time I ever remember, I guess, knowing of robert kennedy, other junior other than his father. This famous name is cleaning up the hudson river, and so I.
▶ 0:53:58I ask these questions in the. To know that we should never be in that situation ever again, but I know we have ai coming. We have a surge in need of energy. So can you discuss how reforms. Now, we're not changing the standard of the clean air act, how we how we implement it. So can you discuss how reforms of the clean air act and the toxic substances control act will help the united states support advanced manufacturing and domestic energy? >> well, first off, uh, chairman, thank you for, uh, for, for being here.
▶ 0:54:28I just wanted to, to point out that the work on the hudson river pcbs superfund site has been a very important effort of epa. I'm actually surprised that the the ranking member didn't ask about it, but I appreciate the the chairman from kentucky asking about it. And, uh, in early january of 25, epa came in, uh, obviously inheriting many years of hard work. Secretary kennedy, uh, deserves a ton of credit.
▶ 0:54:57Uh, their recent review, the five year review concluded that the levels of pcbs in water and fish are going down. Um, we have seen news stories in recent weeks where people are catching fish and eating it. The water quality has greatly improved and that work continues. Um, but as far as, uh, your priorities of yours under the clean air act, where do you want me to start? >> well, we want a situation that's nothing like that.
▶ 0:55:23But how do you what do you think we need to do so we can get the permitting done quicker, not change any standards. Get the permitting done quicker so we can compete with china. >> so I know congress is considering a number of different actions and looking at modernizing the clean air act, clean water act, endangered species act, the nepa.
▶ 0:55:43Um, I commend the efforts of this committee as it relates to that permitting, I would say that a good permitting bill will result in a permitting process that takes less time, costs less money, and has more certainty. If it sacrifices any one of those three, you can easily turn a good bill bad. Uh. We threw the white house council of environmental quality have a list of recommendations as it relates to each of these laws I cited. Epa has additional ideas.
▶ 0:56:10On top of that, I believe that we have provided that list. We can provide that again to any members of, uh, of your caucus who are asking for it and involved in this process. There are many ways that you can modernize these landmark laws that have been on the books for a long time, to have a permitting process that takes less time, costs less money, and has more certainty, and we'd like to help. >> so one of the things that drives our economy is automotive, uh, industry.
▶ 0:56:40And last year we repealed the mandates from the electric vehicle mandates. Also, uh, you, you repealed. Can you explain? I just asked you this straight up. Can you explain how the repeal of the endangerment finding helps consumers support? It supports manufacturers and complies with the clean air act. >> for one, it's going to result in $2,400 per new vehicle with savings. Uh, the this is a combination.
▶ 0:57:08As you pointed out, there are multiple actions that have been taken. Congress, through the congressional review act, got rid of the electric vehicle mandate in california. And I absolutely commend those of you in this body who were leaders in that effort to make sure that that happened.
▶ 0:57:23Uh, we've seen an announcement from secretary duffy with the president in the oval office as a result, as it relates to cafe standards, as it relates to 2009 endangerment finding, uh, this was not just a decision to rescind a 2009 endangerment finding, but also all greenhouse gas emission standards in light, medium and heavy duty vehicles that followed and all off cycle credits, including the obama climate participation trophy to manufacturers, uh, to create an incentive to have that annoying
▶ 0:57:54Start stop feature in vehicles, which has gone as well, which, by the way, seems to be the aspect that americans have, uh, related to the most and they've been most passionate about and supporting action. We believe that americans should be able to buy whatever vehicle they want.
▶ 0:58:09And when manufacturers are able to make the vehicles that customers want, as opposed to those vehicles that politicians and bureaucrats demand, uh, you end up with a market where you don't have vehicles that are created to just sit on lots like we're seeing with electric vehicles. Uh, so applying common sense. Uh, following the law and being able to pursue these efficiencies and empowering consumer choice is a great win that americans voted for in november 2024.
▶ 0:58:39And president trump and republicans in congress have been delivering on. >> time has expired, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. poland, for his five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Epa's mission is to protect human health and the environment.
▶ 0:58:55In its 2027 budget request, epa says the agency is, I quote, taking action to ensure cleaner, healthier air improves quality of life for all americans, especially children who are particularly vulnerable to air pollutants and advances. Administration's priorities set forth in the make america healthy again initiative, uh, unquote. So, administrator zeldin, yes, yes or no, please. Do you agree that it is an important part of your job to protect the health and safety of children? >> absolutely. >> thank you. And I agree too.
▶ 0:59:26But unfortunately, in my opinion, under your leadership, epa has taken actions that will increase our children's risk of exposure to harmful toxins. And last march, epa set up an inbox for companies to request exemptions from critical clean air act safeguards to protect americans from pollution.
▶ 0:59:43And while the trump administration provided no transparency into this process, an organization obtained some of these requests through foia, and the documents show that 71 coal plants in 24 states will not be required to comply with the updated mercury and air toxic standards that were set to go into effect next year.
▶ 1:00:04And because of this polluter giveaway, the people living near those power plants will be exposed to higher levels of mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollution that can cause heart and lung disease, cancer and brain damage. And children are especially vulnerable. So every single company that requests an exemption from a suite of clean air act, section 112 standards, and even some facilities that didn't ask were given a two year free pass to poison our air under this initiative.
▶ 1:00:30So let me ask you, administrator, where are the potential health impacts on those living in the communities around those facilities evaluated, particularly with regard to children? And if so, who performed those evaluations and what risks and benefits were considered, if you will. >> under the clean air act, decisions on section 112 presidential exemptions are made by. The epa's role was to accept the submissions and transmit them to the white house.
▶ 1:00:58Consistent with the statute, the white house has publicly posted the proclamations and annexes listing the sources that received exemptions, including actions on april 8th, july 17th, october 24th and november 21st. So 2020. >> the law provides that the president can grant exemptions. That's true, but they must be based on merit. So did president trump or someone in the white house review and evaluate each exemption request?
▶ 1:01:27>> epa as I pointed out, what the the role of epa was to accept the submission and transmit them to the white house. >> you just accepted it. Okay. Does allowing more mercury, arsenic, or other toxic pollution make americans healthy, in your opinion? >> fortunately, since the 2012 mercury toxic standards that were put in place, uh, very strict standards that were put in place, there were substantial reductions.
▶ 1:01:51Uh, fortunately, because these are toxins and reducing them, uh, is an important goal that epa has been leading the way on. >> well, look, I think that poisoning our air and water makes americans sicker. And based on epa's own data facilities that were given these waivers, saw the biggest jump in pollution last year. So there's no question that there was more pollution as as a result of these waivers.
▶ 1:02:17Um, but I think the whole process was an enormous giveaway to polluters with zero consideration for the americans whose health will suffer, will suffer. And frankly, I think it's shameful. >> that there's more pollution, even though it hadn't even gone into effect yet. Is that your position? You just stated?
▶ 1:02:37>> my position is that I see my position is that I see every effort being made to increase pollution as a result of these exemptions, and I believe it's being done by the president or you, or at least as you, enabler because of what the president tells you to do, uh, to help, uh, polluters as giveaways to the corporations that pollute. But look, I have to ask one more question, and this is a local issue, minister. So let me just mention it.
▶ 1:03:06Earlier this month, I sent epa letter about a suspected cancer cluster in keyport, new jersey, which is in my district, demanding that the agency work with other federal and state partners to secure the site and address the ongoing contamination. And corporate polluters have been let off the hook for too long in this area. And the community is paying the price, and I think this matter deserves the full attention and force of our public health and environmental agencies.
▶ 1:03:31So region two, administrator, uh, I do want to say it has been cooperative. He met with my staff last friday to discuss this cancer cluster and possible remediation of the landfill, uh, that we believe may be causing it. So I just wanted to mention it to you and ask you to prioritize this issue as we proceed with the region two administrator to address remediation and the health concerns. If I can ask for your commitment. >> and you're asking about arrow marine landfill.
▶ 1:04:02>> yes, exactly. >> absolutely. We're very well aware of it. Uh, the region two administrator has briefed me on it. I know how much of a priority it is. This is, um, an issue that new jersey dep has been on the lead on enforcement at the landfill. Uh, they have not asked for our assistance. Um, but we stand ready to, to help. >> they've gentleman's time has expired. >> yeah. I just wanted to say they've been working with us, and I appreciate. >> that, chair. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
▶ 1:04:31The chair now recognize myself for five minutes. Um, director, thank you for being here. Thank you for your service and righting the ship. Uh, my colleagues across the aisle claim that this epa's deregulatory actions are killing americans. Couldn't be more false. The truth is actually the opposite. And what kills americans is unaffordable energy and a unreliable electric grid. And that's exactly what the previous administration's epa was delivering.
▶ 1:04:55The biden epa imposed trillions of dollars in regulatory costs and based on wildly inflated benefit calculations, assigning speculative dollar values to statistical lives while ignoring the real world consequences of making energy unaffordable. 25 million american households have reported going without food or medicine to pay their energy bills. That is the human cost of regulatory excess.
▶ 1:05:16This epa is doing what the agency is supposed to rigorous, honest cost benefit analysis, not rubber stamping regulations that strangle reliable energy production while claiming to save lives on a spreadsheet. Affordable, reliable energy is the foundation of american health and safety. And administrator zeldin, your reforms are protecting americans not by speculating about benefits, but by delivering them. And I'll get to loper bright. It's shameful that some of our colleagues have no idea what bright actually is and what it does.
▶ 1:05:45Thank you for the words that you had yesterday at a hearing here on capitol hill. Uh, and loper bright happened because of left wing epa overreach. That's exactly why we are here. Um, and I'd like to ask you, how do you respond to the claim that faithfully reading the clean air act as written somehow harms public health? And what actual authorities did congress provide that this administration is now properly executing to benefit health? >> thank you for asking. For a long time. The chevron doctrine was in place, just got challenged.
▶ 1:06:15For those who aren't familiar with the chevron doctrine, basically agency heads were looking at federal statute and would get creative. The statute wouldn't say that an agency head can't do something. So they'd say, well, I guess that means that we can, uh, we saw that used inside of the 2009 endangerment finding. If you read the endangerment finding throughout it, you'll see that discretion being used. Just because it doesn't say we can't. Well, I guess that means we can. Well, the supreme court weighed in and overbright and said, you can't do that anymore.
▶ 1:06:44Uh, that you have to follow the best reading of statute. Uh, the major questions doctrine, which was also put forth by the supreme court in recent years in their cases, uh, also say that an agency can't impose trillions of dollars of regulation on their own. That's something that should have a debate and a vote in congress. And what does that all mean when a member might be upset that we repealed the 2009 endangerment finding?
▶ 1:07:12Well, if you want an agency like epa to impose trillions of dollars of regulations and regulate the heck out of greenhouse gas emissions, it's really simple. Introduce a bill, debate it, get it passed, change the law, and we'll follow the law. The commitment that I made when I was nominated, the commitment that I reiterate here today is I will follow the best reading of the law, period. >> thank you for that.
▶ 1:07:37And I'll ask, um, can you provide an update regarding what actions the epa is considering on the reconsideration of b and c, which cost hundreds of billions of dollars in excess, and is another example of left wing overreach? >> absolutely. This is, uh, been a multiple phased process. We, uh, delayed a compliance, uh, deadline to allow us to fix the flaws with the code obc regulation.
▶ 1:08:05We just announced that second phase of the the reconsideration. We're about to announce a third phase. Uh, as soon as this week, we'll be putting out updated guidance on to make sure that those who look at code o, b, c and have to comply with code o, b, c understand exactly what that rule means and how the agency interprets it.
▶ 1:08:30Uh, this is a really important topic for a lot of our country, a lot of our economy. Uh, we want more reliable baseload power. We want unleash energy dominance. And b c is a vehicle that was used to cause a lot of harm to much of this country, including a lot of texas. >> and it ignores the facts that, uh, between 2011 and 2020, methane emission intensity has dropped 70% just in the permian basin, while production of oil and gas has increased 320%.
▶ 1:08:58So it ignores those facts. I appreciate the work you've done, administrator, to revisit and improve certain aspects of the act implementation. And I've heard constructive feedback from stakeholders in texas on those efforts. And at the same time, some have raised concerns about the hfc management rule, particularly in compliance challenges that it creates for refrigeration and grocery stores and other places. Can you give us, um, whether the agent, can you give us an idea where the agency is considering near-term reconsideration or adjustments of the hfc management rule?
▶ 1:09:27I'm sorry, I only have 10s left. >> so we, uh, on april 17th, epa sent over a proposal to the, to omb. Uh, we are continuing to work through, uh, fixing the technology transition rule. Uh, the impacts will, uh, will fix the by, by us addressing this, uh, the negative impacts of the technology transition rule on grocery stores, on the semiconductor industry, on residential, on residents across our country.
▶ 1:09:57We are going to fix it to the maximum extent allowed under the law. >> thank you. Director, my time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, Mr. ruiz. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Administrator, in july, you provided a clear example of what the federal government can do in helping to clean up the tijuana river.
▶ 1:10:19Uh, you traveled to san diego, saw the crisis firsthand, coordinated across agencies with the international boundary water commission and the state department, and secured a binding agreement with mexico that delivered real infrastructure upgrades, including expansion of the south bay international wastewater treatment plant. Do you consider it the responsibility for the epa to help address these types of binational water pollutions? >> uh, absolutely.
▶ 1:10:48This is, uh, been a very important focus of our agency. Um, I look forward to, by the way, coming to new river. Appreciate the, uh, the invite. >> that's what we're going to talk about. So you have heard of the new river because the same model is what we need for the new river. You understand? Uh, the new river begins south of mexicali, carrying raw sewage, industrial waste, pesticides and heavy metals north across the border into calexico. And it doesn't stop there.
▶ 1:11:17It continues for 60 miles through imperial county before finally emptying into the salton sea, carrying everything it collected along the way. The new river is considered the most polluted waterway in north america. The new river is governed by the same 1944 water treaty, treaty and ibwc framework as the tijuana river, with the same diplomatic tools available. The difference is not legal authority or technical capacity, but attention and urgency.
▶ 1:11:49Administrator zeldin, the epa under the biden and trump administrations, have invested significantly in addressing the tijuana river crisis, including a federal record of decision, expanded treatment capacity and binational coordination. The new river presents a comparable, if not more severe, transboundary pollution challenge as the tijuana river at the calexico crossing, for example, fecal coliform levels have reached nearly 7000 times the federal treaty limit.
▶ 1:12:19Yet communities along the river overwhelmingly low income have not received comparable action or coordination. There has been reports by cbp agents who take shifts by the river, or who have gone into the river, of complaining of flu like symptoms uh, blurred vision, severe headaches, rashes, open sores, uh, and those that have fallen into the river complained of uti eyes and even skin itching, just itching all
▶ 1:12:50Over the body. Some students who live near there have been complaining of shortness of breath, some even calling 911 from the classroom. So they are asking for the same approach and same urgency that you've already used with the tijuana river. Federal leadership, interagency coordination, accountability with mexico and rural infrastructure solutions.
▶ 1:13:14So in june of this year, soon, uh, there will be the binational summary of the water characterization study, which is going to come out. Do you commit to looking at that and having that same urgency and giving your input to the coordinated organizations? >> I'm happy to, and I know that on may 11th, uh, region nine leadership is planning a visit to meet with you and your staff.
▶ 1:13:39Uh, I believe that there's even discussion of a follow up visit for the may 11th trip. Uh, so the urgency, uh, we're not, we're not going to wait till june and wait for the report. I believe that we're coming to visit here in the next couple of weeks. >> that's excellent. Uh, and that's very good to hear. Uh, because from your input to the study, uh, we're going to need an mou and we're going to need it quickly. Uh, and from the mou, then we can negotiate a minute.
▶ 1:14:09Will you participate in this coordination to develop this minute as soon as as soon as possible? >> no, I hear I've heard you and others loud and clear. There was an assemblyman, uh, who I met with in san diego, who I believe is an assemblyman in the new river area, uh, who was advocating passionately as well. Uh, so this is something that I'm grateful that you're raising here. We know that it's important to your constituents.
▶ 1:14:37I believe that the model that has worked to approach mou and minute in tijuana is a focus that can work in new river, and we look forward to working with you on it. >> great. One last thing. Uh, as I mentioned earlier, there's been a lot of investment that helped get the tijuana river started. Um, the, this is the moment when federal investment is vital to match the scale of this crisis.
▶ 1:15:00Uh, but this administration is proposing to cut the clean water state revolving fund by nearly 90%, or $2.6 billion. That's the lowest level since the reagan era, the same era when we first vowed to clean it up. So this is exactly why the clean water state revolving fund exists, and we need to preserve it. >> well, um, if if I may respond, I, I know that the time is running is okay. Chairman. Okay.
▶ 1:15:25There are good examples, uh, across the country to, to use as it relates to the state revolving fund. I would just offer as it relates to these cross boundary issues that the, the investment that is desperately needed is on the mexico side. We're seeing that in tijuana. Uh, and factoring in population growth. Uh, that was part of what we negotiated to get mexico to commit money that was previously obligated.
▶ 1:15:49Um, and while I look forward to learning more about new river, which I know is important to you as you're bringing up here, uh, if it's anything like what we're experiencing with the situation in the san diego area, that the investment that's needed is going to be massive infrastructure investment on the mexico side, which is why this is. >> contributed 140 million to the tijuana river. The us contributed over 600 million.
▶ 1:16:18So that's that's the intent is to have both countries clean up this mess. >> and I will have to. I appreciate that the colloquy, but I do have to call it in. I will also note for the record that there are two new rivers, and that we are not speaking about the beautiful, pristine recreation driving, uh, new river that runs through north carolina, virginia, and west virginia. And now, uh, recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, pennsylvania, doctor joyce, for his five minutes of questioning. Thank you, chairman, for holding this important hearing.
▶ 1:16:46And to administrator zeldin for testifying with us today. Under your leadership, administrator zeldin, the epa has returned to science based decision making rather than advancing ideological conclusion that ultimately put our nation's energy supply in critical supply chains at risk. Thank you.
▶ 1:17:07Thank you for that strong direction you have provided from the top of the agency on down, and I look forward to continuing to work with you and this committee as we look to bring america back to a scientifically sound regulatory regime in order to highlight the incredible steps that the epa has taken in such a short period of time, I ask unanimous, unanimous consent to enter into the accounting of the epa environmental achievements during the first year of the trump administration that was released on january 20th, 2026.
▶ 1:17:38Into the record. It's in the record. Thank you. Focusing now on some recent actions that have been taken by the epa administrator. Zeldin, what is the legal basis that the epa relies on when requiring the reallocation of small refinery exemptions?
▶ 1:17:57>> so the the way that the the process works under the law, following congressional action that was taken a couple of decades ago, uh, the department of energy produces a document that is utilized to ensure and applied equally across the board. We do not have any individual adjudication. Uh, it is not based off of, you know, people calling me up from, from the hill and, and trying to get, you know, special treatment for, for one over the other.
▶ 1:18:26Um, but I will say that it's, it's something that can be reformed through congressional legislation that I look forward to working with you on. Um, we, you have some small refineries that do not get, uh, approval at all. Some got partial, some got full.
▶ 1:18:46Um, and it was through an application of the doe uh, the doe study, the doe math and to be done fairly across the board, but I'll say it's based on congressional statute from a couple decades ago. And I have plenty of thoughts for anybody who wants to talk about, uh, that entire process with sres, we inherited a backlog of 175. Fortunately, we got rid of all of it.
▶ 1:19:11We've received some new applications since, uh, and the approach, the transparent approach that we will continue to pursue is consistent with the one that we pursued last year. >> based on the epa's understanding of the relevant statute regarding the renewable fuel standard, would congressional action be necessary to prevent such reallocation? >> yes.
▶ 1:19:35>> administrator zeldin, for several years, I've raised concerns about the impact of epa rules governing governing ethylene oxide and how that is utilized for the sterilization of medical devices. Thank you for your recent announcement that the epa will reconsider and revise these rules to reflect the available science and protect the safety of medical device, uh, chain in the sterilization process.
▶ 1:19:58Moving forward, how can epa ensure that regulations are based on gold standard science, so that we can avoid the disruptions that come with unrealistic regulations? >> uh, so there's, there's been uncertainty associated with the iris value for a long time, well recognized, including uncertainties related to the choice of dose response model used to produce the iris value and other uncertainties in the underlying data.
▶ 1:20:26Uh, epa is requesting comment on newer studies and methods that may influence the agency's understanding of itos carcinogen. Carcinogenic potency is consistent with executive order 14303 restoring gold standard science. Epa is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and reliance on the best available scientific information.
▶ 1:20:50So the process is one where we created an office of applied science and environmental solutions, where integrating science and research more directly with program offices, we are empowering the dedicated career staffers of this agency who are experienced. They take their jobs seriously and they do a fantastic job. And I've been it's been an honor to be able to work alongside them.
▶ 1:21:14Uh, we also want to make sure that we are providing radical transparency to the american public on the studies that were were used. And lastly, what I found too often in the past was that if you get a wide range of studies and there's some anomaly of a study where maybe because the sample size was too small or the exposure level was, you know, 100 times reality, uh, you know, that study would get dismissed as an anomaly.
▶ 1:21:40The thing is, is that you have people who are concerned, moms and dads in this country who know of that study. They might go to the epa's web page looking for an answer on that study. They're looking for that study. But because it's been it might be pushed to the side as an anomaly. You don't see it discussed at all.
▶ 1:21:57I think that the agency could do a much better job, not just talking about the best available gold standard science that's being relied upon, but also be acknowledging the studies that you might feel as an agency aren't the most reliable, because that might be the study that that member of the public is looking for. So gold standard science isn't just an internal process. It's also about communication with the public. >> my time is expired.
▶ 1:22:23But administrators, I want to once again express my support for the work that you have already done. Thank you, Mr. chairman, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady from california, miss barragan. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, epa administrator in my district, the epa's risk management program inspected a chlorine transfer facility, jci jones chemical, in 2015 and in 2017.
▶ 1:22:51And they found serious safety problems, including corroded equipment handling hazardous chemicals. When the epa returned in 2024, it found many of the same issues again, but they were not treated as repeat violations because they occurred more than five years apart, and the penalty was just a few thousand dollars. Epa has also acknowledged that it does not inspect every rmp facility more frequently than once every five years.
▶ 1:23:18The question administrator is, can the epa increase the frequency of inspections at facilities with a history of violations like jci? So these problems are identified and enforced as repeat violations. >> the. The work of the office of enforcement and compliance is important. Uh, we take seriously any matters that are raised to us from members of congress.
▶ 1:23:44We are happy to look at any of these cases strictly on the merits. And while we won't be able to communicate publicly about any ongoing enforcement matters, if there is a belief that something needs to be inspected to look at, uh, to be enforced against or working with our agency to comply on, uh, we will make sure that we mobilize those in the agency. >> I don't mean to cut you off. I'm trying to get an answer to my question.
▶ 1:24:10My question is really about not waiting five years for the epa to come back when there's a repeat violator. So I'm trying to ask if maybe you, as administrator, think that if the epa could increase the frequency of inspections, when you have like a facility that's having repeated violations, do. >> you think I never say anything about waiting five years? I'm talking about I'm. >> hearing I understand. >> I'm asking a member of your staff, talk to someone on my team, and we can look into it. >> okay. >> by the way, as a.
▶ 1:24:38>> general rule, if you have a repeat violator, whether it's a good idea for the epa not to wait five years to come back. I mean, it's a simple. >> easy, and it's not a yeah. And I, of course, and I said, I've never said anything about waiting five years. >> yeah. Okay. Well, I hope the epa will look at doing that when there's repeat violators. Um, so moving on. Last week, a hydrogen sulfide leak at an industrial facility in west virginia killed two workers. And it set dozens more people to the hospital. The U.S.
▶ 1:25:06Chemical safety board, an independent agency that investigates chemical disasters, has already announced it is investigating the incident. Do you support the investigation by the chemical safety board into the fatal chemical release in west virginia? >> uh, well, we we have been involved in this process already, uh, based on catalyst refiners, uh, self-reported tier two emergency and hazardous chemical inventory submissions from 25 and 26.
▶ 1:25:30The chemicals and their quantities, including the self-reported submission, did not trigger applicable thresholds. Under the risk management plan rule, osha is. >> so, sir, I'm going to interrupt you because I'm trying to get a very specific answer about the chemical safety board, not your involvement. The chemical safety board. They announced they're doing an investigation into the incident. I'm asking if you support the chemical safety board doing an investigation. It's a yes or no. >> yeah.
▶ 1:26:00Well, if you cut me off right when I was saying that osha is leading the on site investigation, epa is coordinating with osha to determine whether or not the facility was complying with regulations. >> so you don't support the investigation by the chemical safety board, then? >> I'm not saying that. >> at all. I'm trying to get an answer to that question. Will you? This is not that hard. >> the process is that we're following. >> okay. Well, I'm asking you a question. And the question is, do you support the chemical safety board investigation? Either you don't or you do.
▶ 1:26:30I understand osha. >> I don't understand why you would think I wouldn't support that. >> well, I'm just that's what I'm saying. So you do support it. >> sure. I'm. >> okay, great. >> I guess the problem is that. >> it's so easy. This is not a trick question. >> so I thought you were maybe interested in what was going on beyond the grandstanding. But go ahead. >> where's the you're the grandstanding. You're the one reading prepared statements instead of asking questions. >> I'm telling you the process that's going on. I'm telling you, okay, so what we know and. >> you just. >> said you. >> support the chemical safety board's funding.
▶ 1:27:00I mean, rather the chemical safety board's investigation, the president's proposal, the budget proposal is to eliminate the chemical safety board funding. Do you support that? Do you support eliminating. >> every single aspect of the fiscal year 27 budget that I'm that I'm here talking about? I am supportive. >> so do you support the chemical safety? Every single. >> aspect, every single aspect of what the president is proposing. >> so I'm going to reclaim my time. >> because proposal.
▶ 1:27:30>> is clear. The administrator is just killing time instead of what he just said is contradictory. On the one hand, he supports the chemical safety board, uh, investigation. On the other hand, he supports eliminating. >> an osha process that's going on right now. >> it's my time, sir. It's not your time. It's not your time. Don't want it. Even though this chairman doesn't want to enforce it, I will. Everybody just contradicted yourself. And it's very rude. It's very rude to even have the chairman. >> that's going on. >> right now. You even have the chairman have the witness. Stop what. I'm saying.
▶ 1:28:00He's clearly contradicting. >> process that's going on. >> and he looks like a fool in doing so. And in and in that you won't even stop so that I could be heard. It's not appreciated. And with that, I'm going to yield back my time. Lady yields back. And, you know, hopefully the epa administrator can take the smirk off his face and worry about people's health and safety. >> okay, you didn't say anything about osha. >> oh. Oh. >> the actual process. >> the gentleman from ohio, Mr. lad, is recognized.
▶ 1:28:29>> well, thank you very much, Mr. chairman. And, uh, I really appreciate you coming back to the house. We, uh, you were one of our members for a good number of years. I also want to thank you for coming to my district, uh, with the us trade representative with the ford plant. But, uh, one of the things I'd like to start with is on permitting question. Um, you know, I chair the energy subcommittee.
▶ 1:28:51And one of the things that we've talked about in this, this, uh, committee, the full committee that we have to have more energy produced in this country, everybody admits it. We have to get there. But permitting is going to have to be one of the top things we get done. You can't mention energy unless we mention permitting. And I see that one of the goals in the epa's fiscal year 2027 budget proposal is to advance permitting reform. And I was wondering if you'd talk about some of the what epa has taken steps to streamline the.
▶ 1:29:20Especially on the air permits and how epa further improve the process. Under the proposed 2027 budget. >> the epa has the power to really slow things down. Epa has the power to speed things up, and we found many ways that the agency was working to gum up the works all across the entire country. We involved in eyes and nepa reviews. We work closely with states.
▶ 1:29:44We create an office of state partnership, uh, not just state implementation plans, but also to work closely with the state air offices where they are taking the responsibility air permits. We're working with local authorities on water permits. Uh, we have projects that are on superfund sites and brownfield sites. Uh, we work with members of congress, as all of you are working through. And this committee, uh, permitting reform legislation as it relates to modernizing the clean air act and clean water act and nepa and more.
▶ 1:30:13Uh, so our work is robust internally within the agency working with states and local governments, uh, working with all of you. And we, uh, enjoy that aspect of the work and we want to continue to pursue more wins. >> well, I appreciate that. And also as we, uh, look about from permitting, uh, how we can, uh, move things along also with ai.
▶ 1:30:37And I was just wondering, especially with the epa and what you're all looking at with ai and working with other federal departments and agencies as we try to, uh, get these projects going a lot of times a little bit faster because you can use the ai to get it done. >> absolutely. There's, there are projects breaking ground all across the country right now. Uh, you can visit a data center groundbreakings, uh, that are billions of dollars, uh, projects here, uh, in west memphis, arkansas.
▶ 1:31:07Or you could go out to cheyenne, wyoming, and see a new data center that's getting built or idaho falls, idaho. Uh, these projects are all across the country. A lot of them are generating their own power. A lot of them are structuring deals, uh, that are providing net benefits to local ratepayers. Uh, and it's very important too, that they lean into water reuse.
▶ 1:31:31There are so many different program offices within the agency, uh, where we, we can make sure that these projects are done as well for the environment as possible and making sure that we're providing net benefits to, to ratepayers. Uh, there's certainly many ways that these projects can go sideways. You have to also understand that not all states are equal. Uh, I mentioned the west memphis, arkansas example, which is a $4 billion project that broke ground last summer. They're working with the state of arkansas and entergy.
▶ 1:32:00They are able to rely on nuclear power. Well, not all states have access to nuclear power. In that case, they're providing a net benefit to the entergy ratepayer of over $1 billion. Uh, so bringing that experience across the board with the way the deals are structured, where they're sited on the permitting front to get the stuff built quicker, uh, working with these local permitting authorities and more, there are many ways that the agency can assist. >> well, also, uh, going on advanced recycling technologies.
▶ 1:32:30How does epa view advanced non-mechanical recycling technologies within its regulatory and budget framework? >> uh, this is something that we need to be leaning into more as a country. Uh, I visited not too long ago, the bay town facility where advanced recycling is being done. Uh, it appears to be exceptionally in texas. Uh, there's a lot of advanced recycling projects that are getting ramped up in europe.
▶ 1:32:57They're getting ramped up in asia, and we're not heading in. We have not for years been heading in the right direction as far as advanced recycling. Um, but now there's an opportunity to turn it around and there's a way through advanced recycling where, uh, you can take plastic instead of sending it to a landfill. You can now break it down to its raw chemical compound.
▶ 1:33:20Uh, and I think that's a heck of a lot better than sending this plastic to a landfill to instead put it to good use. Uh, so much of recycling's future is in advanced recycling. There's an opportunity to ramp up across the entire country. And I think it would be great to follow the lead of what we're seeing in places like texas and baytown, uh, as a model of what could be expanded. >> Mr. chairman, my time is expired and I yield back. >> thank the gentleman for yielding back. And now recognize the gentleman from florida, Mr.
▶ 1:33:49Soto, for his five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And thank you, Mr. administrator, for being here. You know, in fast growing central florida, we have faced many environmental challenges. We have a water supply challenges, a potential florida offshore drilling and intensifying hurricanes. I was surprised when he had made the fiscal argument for the budget, since trump's billionaire tax breaks have caused the federal deficit to go to $2 trillion a year.
▶ 1:34:18While we're seeing cuts to health care and infrastructure, let's just say for a moment that congress does fund the drinking water state revolving fund, the clean water state revolving fund, and the water resource development act. And with the at elevated levels like we saw before in a new infrastructure law. Uh, I do want to stress that the federal government has been a key partner with florida, and that money has been spent in a bipartisan way because we have such a fast growth.
▶ 1:34:45So if we were, let's say we bumped up the state revolving fund and others, would you have the capacity and the ability to be able to fund that, to help out with some of this demand? >> sure. And what we experienced last year was that the bump up that congress put in was, uh, primarily congressionally directed spending. Uh, there are also a lot of set asides. The state revolving fund hasn't truly been a revolving fund.
▶ 1:35:10Uh, I'm not opining on those decisions made by members of congress. When you advocate for what you believe to be important infrastructure projects for your district, um, it should just be noted that when you turn a, a loan into a grant and give it to a recipient, you pull out of the srf, it's not revolving anymore.
▶ 1:35:33But whatever congress chooses to appropriate, it's our job to, to follow the law and make sure that money is spent. >> and Mr. administrator, I agree with you on that, that the state revolving fund should actually revolve and not just turn into a grant program. Um, that's why we also have to fund where to, you know, from being a member of the house and standing up for long island that we congress has its own role to play.
▶ 1:35:56So I appreciate you mentioned that, uh, there's a, a lot of bipartisan opposition in florida to expanding offshore oil drilling to the gulf. I know normally this is a a department of interior issue, but it it did go before the vote of the endangered species committee, um, which you serve on. I do want to stress tourism, agriculture, our top industries, uh, and there's a potential of whales and manatees and sea turtles, uh, potentially at danger because of this decision.
▶ 1:36:28Um, so given the bipartisan opposition, you know, what, what rationale did you use for a yes vote? And, uh, and what compromise do you think could be made to try to help save these species? >> so as you know, the as you referenced, there's a recent meeting of the endangered species act, the endangered species committee, they referred to as the god squad.
▶ 1:36:52Pretty wild name, but, uh, epa is committed to, uh, boosting american energy production and promoting economic growth by reducing regulatory burdens and prioritizing efficient permitting processes while protecting water quality. Epa is aware of ongoing litigation that's related to the order, and the agency is unable to further comment on pending litigation. >> okay. Well, as you know, historically, there's been a oil drilling in the western part of the gulf, but not on the eastern part. So I hope you keep that in mind.
▶ 1:37:20We have some of our U.S. senators also oppose it, as well as a lot of the delegation, because as opposed to some of these other gulf states, florida's definitely more of a tourism agriculture state than an energy producing state. So I appreciate you keeping an open mind on it. And obviously, you may have to resolve that in litigation. We also get hit by a ton of hurricanes in florida, unfortunately, not as much much more than new york back in the day.
▶ 1:37:44Uh, I know, and so as we look at things like the greenhouse gas endangerment finding, you know, do you believe that greenhouse gases cause climate change, intensify hurricanes? And it's just not the epa's role to be involved in it? Or, or, or do you not believe in that causality.
▶ 1:38:03>> as it relates to the 2009 endangerment finding, uh, the decision to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding and all the greenhouse gas emission standards in light, medium and heavy duty vehicles that followed was based on a review of section 202 of the clean air act. It was a legal decision that was made. >> I understand, but it is it your personal belief that greenhouse gases do still cause some kind of climate change and can affect whether. >> the climate has always been changing?
▶ 1:38:30I've acknowledged that as a real the the hoax of, of course, to it is when you have members of congress who say that the world's about to end in 12 years. And, you know, here we are four years and nine months away from that date. And I'm pretty confident the world isn't about to end. >> well, Mr. administrator, I hope you'd keep in mind, especially epa's role in resiliency to help a lot of these coastal communities and, uh, central communities like I have that certainly would appreciate those dollars. Should we fund them? Thanks. And I yield back.
▶ 1:39:01>> gentleman yields back. Now, recognize the gentleman from georgia, Mr. carter, for his five minutes of questions. >> administrator zeldin, thank you for being here, and I appreciate all your work in trying to bring about common sense and workability in the way that the epa approaches the regulatory agenda. That's something that we've worked on on this committee for many years and will continue to work on. It's it's so very important.
▶ 1:39:22One of the regulations that's been devastating for our nation and for the growth of our nation in manufacturing has been the unworkable pm 2.5 standard, the particulate matter. As you know, the biden administration made some significant changes to this. And and, and it's caused a lot of businesses not to be able to, to locate in areas that they'd like to locate in. And it's something that that we're trying to address here in this committee.
▶ 1:39:48This made it more difficult to create jobs and to build cutting edge factories and to lead the world in development of new products that we know that we need to be doing and we need to, to, to do. Can you provide us with an update on where the agency stands to revisit and revise this rule? >> uh, the trump administration is no longer defending the unlawful. 2024 biden pm 2.4 nax rule.
▶ 1:40:16Uh, this was a necessary decision that we made because the previous administration's actions were discretionary and didn't align with the statutory obligations of the clean air act. Um, epa is remaining hopeful that the dc circuit will soon release a decision on that. >> what about the nasc review process? Are y'all doing anything to to ensure that any new standards allow manufacturing to thrive while protecting the environment?
▶ 1:40:43I mean, you know, that's one of the most aggravating things to me in congress is to hear the other side of the aisle say, we don't care about the environment. And I was I was born and raised on the georgia coast and, and lived there all my life. I loved the environment. Don't tell me I don't love the environment. Want to protect it. >> it's been important for us, one, to handle this backlog of state implementation plan requests that we inherited, uh, to make sure that we are getting through that.
▶ 1:41:12That's why we created the office of state air partnership as part of last year's reorganization. Um, what we saw in the last administration was a very large rejection of state implementation plans in favor of a one size fits all federal implementation plan. Uh, and furthermore, what we see is states being penalized for what have been international sources of air pollution.
▶ 1:41:36Um, the state of arizona, the state of utah have already benefited from decisions that we made by pulling down the 1.79 b guidance a year ago. And we're looking at other non-attainment zones where in areas being crushed, penalized for pollution that is caused by international sources. And that's not right. We have plenty of ideas on tax reform. I know that this is something that you have plenty of ideas on as well.
▶ 1:42:04A number of the proposals that we know that you're advocating for epa has included in our list of priorities in modernizing the clean air act. We look forward to working with you further on that. >> and one of those that you you are alluding to is the clear act that I have. And of course, that'll make some statutory reforms to the process and to make it more workable for, for manufacturers, in other words.
▶ 1:42:28And one example of that is to take review from ten years to five years and and to the baseline that was, was um, was lowered by the biden administration from 12 down to nine. And, and the impact that prescribed burns right now in, in south georgia, we've got wildfires that we're, we're dealing with. And, and, you know, the particulate matter obviously is going to be higher during those times. And we need to take into consideration those things.
▶ 1:42:55Would you agree that reforms like this are are common sense and would help epa to conduct a more efficient mask, um, process? >> yes, definitely. When you combine the ppm 2.5 level with the exceptional events rulemaking, with the regional haze rulemaking, you have western governors who have reached out to me, by the way, on both sides of the aisle, concerned that they are unable to do, uh, prescribed burns, uh, because they're worried that they're going to put a
▶ 1:43:26Community into a non-attainment issue, that they will not be able to meet federal standards and they're going to be penalized because of it. And we do not believe that the best reading of the clean air act, by the best reading of statute put forth by this committee, uh, is, uh, calling on the agency to be putting these western governors in a situation where they just have to allow their communities to burn down.
▶ 1:43:51>> well, I don't have enough time to go to tosca and ask you about that, but I do appreciate the fact that in your briefing that you, um, you elaborated in your budget, you elaborated on how you're going to be, um, ensuring that section six evaluations rely on the gold standard science and reflect real world risks. So thank you for the detail that you brought in that in your budget and appreciate it. >> thank you. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, Mr. claus, for five minutes of questioning.
▶ 1:44:20>> good morning, administrator, thanks for being here. Uh, when you were here last year, you and I spoke about pfas contamination, and I represent massachusetts. You formerly represented new york. It's a it's a problem in both states. Yes. >> oh, absolutely. >> um, I recall that I was pressing you last year on the budget that would cut funding by $2.5 billion for the clean water and drinking water state revolving loan funds.
▶ 1:44:48It's about 90%, which is used by municipal water supplies to remediate pfas. And I was pressing you on that proposed cut because I don't know how we're going to remediate pfas with a 90% cut to the principal program that mitigates it. And you responded that we were going to do it through technology. Um, and so I reached out to your staff and I do want to compliment your staff.
▶ 1:45:11They came to my office, your two of your top administrators, and I had them huddle up with the top technologists in the pfas remediation space. And we talked about it for an hour. It was a good meeting. Uh, an administrator. There's no technology to remediate or mitigate pfas at 10%, the cost at the same efficacy. It doesn't exist. Electrochemical oxidation, incineration, like it's not there. So again, you're proposing to cut again this cycle 90%.
▶ 1:45:39I've now talked to your top staffers. I've talked to the top technologists. The technology isn't there. So how do we get rid of pfas municipal water supplies. Do you agree it's a problem? I agree it's a problem. It affects your state. It affects my state with 90% fewer dollars. >> so it's your position that there's no pfas destruction technologies that merit any conversation here. >> there's tons.
▶ 1:46:05What I am saying is at the point of production. Yes. For dredge at landfills. Yes. I'm talking about municipal water supplies to get to 4 to 8 parts per trillion. I mean, it was your staff and the top technologists that were in my office, they were talking about this. It isn't there. So if you are a town in new york right now, one of the towns that you championed when you were a congressman for pfas dollars, what are they going to do with 90% fewer dollars to get rid of pfas?
▶ 1:46:35>> well, first off, as I referenced earlier, what we don't do in our proposed budget is factor in how much you are going to want to raid the srf for earmarks. That's a decision for you to decide to make. Now, I'm not weighing in on the merits, and I'm going to opine on what you choose to advocate for your district on. But at the same time, the president's fy 27 budget proposal is not going to propose your earmarks for you. We're also not. Your plan set asides.
▶ 1:47:04>> your epa plan for clean water is to hope that members of congress. >> I'm not I'm not hoping that members of congress are going to raid it. I know that members of congress are going to raid it, and they've been doing it for a long time. There's a reason why the revolving fund is not revolving is because there are members who take money out of the revolving fund, and they give it as earmarks to members of their district.
▶ 1:47:25And by the way, there are a lot of fantastic examples of how members, I'm sure of this committee, have secured these earmarks for their district administrator. >> I've gotten about 40 million back in my. >> district fund anymore. >> for clean water. >> I want it to revolve. You can make sure it's properly funded by getting rid of the congressionally directed spending. If congress chooses not to. Administrator going to continue to have this this problem. >> you're in charge of the epa budget. You're not in charge of earmarks.
▶ 1:47:53And hope is not a strategy. I'm asking you the technology does not exist. I agree there's promising technology out there. What is your plan to use technology with 90% fewer dollars to remediate pfas in places like new york that are struggling with the effects on endocrinology and cancer from high contents of pfas in water supplies?
▶ 1:48:11>> the way you're asking the question, you're saying that there are a whole bunch of technologies, but you're saying that right now on this date because you believe that there aren't enough technologies today, that that that there's nothing you could do about some water system that is going to try to remediate one four years from now. >> name one that can operate at a municipal water scale. We can talk about landfills. We can talk about at point of production. Where should we single technology that can operate at municipal water supply for 90% companies? >> or do you want me to name.
▶ 1:48:41>> technology a single technology? >> okay. Um, you have, uh, uh, chemical degradation. Gasification. >> yeah. Not 90%. >> cheaper. Supercritical water oxidation. Not 90% degradation. >> not 90%. >> cheaper landfilling underground injection. >> not administrator. >> all of these things. >> cost more money. They all cost more money because they're early incipient technologies. None of them are 90% cheaper. There is no plan from the epa to protect the state that you championed when you were a member of congress.
▶ 1:49:11>> do you want me to keep going on technologies and companies? They're all, by the way, they're leaning into research and development on top of it. So you have a compliance date that is years from now on, pfoa. >> how are they doing that? When you got rid of the office of research and development. >> go ahead. And what happened next? We stood up a office of applied science and environmental solutions. We added scientists in charge inside of all sorts of program offices across the agency to integrate the research.
▶ 1:49:40>> you haven't given a single solution to cities and towns in new york. >> john rose technology. >> to deal with. >> pfas, earth, viola and north america. >> yield back. >> visits to clean harbors or fort richards. Gentleman yields back or research inside of research triangle park. Do you want. >> are you going to control. Gentlemen. >> gentlemen back. >> I appreciate it. I now recognize the gentleman from texas, Mr. weber, for his five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you, Mr. administrator, for being here. Would you like to finish your thought process that you were on? >> sure.
▶ 1:50:09I mean, you know, for example. Thank you. Congressman. You know, when I had a visit to, uh, richardson in alaska, there was a company that, uh, had a project for 6000 tons of contaminated soil at richardson, alaska has an issue that contaminated soil has to get sent to the lower 48 that they can't fix it on spot.
▶ 1:50:32So they give a, a small, uh, project of 6000 contaminated tons of soil to a local company to utilize prototype zero to work on their prototype and cleaning up these 6000 tons of contaminated soil to get the the prototype improved so that it's now economical to be able to scale up their technology so that they can then get a contract for maybe 600 000 tons of
▶ 1:51:05Contaminated soil. Does that mean that at that moment that I was visiting fort richardson, that that company would prototype zero has it all figured out to be able to clean up 600,000 tons of contaminated soil? Not yet. But you know what? As they were doing it, they were talking about what their next prototype is going to look like in order to be able to get done. So alaska doesn't have to pay to send the contaminated soil to the lower 48. That's the way things work with technology. You have research and you have development.
▶ 1:51:32You have companies that are leaning into new innovations. You have these entities that, that, that know that they can destroy pfas. They, they say with great confidence and excitement. And anyone on this committee, anyone in congress on either side of the aisle who cares about the topic should be cheering on the reality that these technologies are advancing rather than us making believe like it doesn't exist. >> well, thank you for that.
▶ 1:51:58You know, I remember the quote by helen keller once said that there's none so blind as he who will not see. I guess we might add to that there's none so deaf. Who to those who will not listen. So we appreciate you being here, Mr. minister. You've got a great staff behind you, by the way. You've done a great job. As you know, my district produces 27% of the nation's gasoline, 35% of the nation's natural gas, 60% of the nation's jet fuel. And so and 80% of the nation's military grade fuel.
▶ 1:52:27Because of this, my district is poised to be a strategic element in achieving president trump's vision for american energy independence. And I know you're part of that. Unfortunately, certain regulations within the current regulatory climate have limited that development and the innovation of domestic energy production across my district. What plans are in place to eliminate some of those burdensome permitting barriers to encourage new energy production? Take your time.
▶ 1:52:58>> which industry do you want me to, uh, to start with? >> well, let's start with natural gas. >> so we were just speaking earlier in response to congressman pfluger was asking about quarto bc. And we announced on march 12th of last year that we were going to reconsider the quarto bc, which we've done through three parts. We just finished the second stage of bc.
▶ 1:53:20We're going to be putting out new guidance, uh, on that as early as this week to help the regulated community understand the rule, uh, and how epa views, views the rule as we pursue that third phase of quarto bc. Um, that that's just one example, the, the permitting front. Um, we have been going through a rulemaking on for one of the clean water act.
▶ 1:53:45Um, we have, we put out new guidance right away last year as it relates to section 401. That's an opportunity for legislation with any effort by this committee to modernize the clean water act 401, the use of 404 sea waters of the united states. Uh, these are all aspects that relate to permitting for these, uh, gas pipelines. >> well, that's good to know.
▶ 1:54:12And how about on things like jet fuel, petroleum, and of course, oil, gasoline, those kinds of things? >> sure. Well, uh, actually, a lot of what I just stated applies to. >> all. >> industries as well. Now, uh, we're also working with the state of texas right now, where the state has control over their own state permits. And there are flexibilities that the state of texas is pursuing.
▶ 1:54:38And by working with epa to understand interpretation of federal law and federal regulation, it allows the state to put more flexibility in place in texas has been fantastic to work with. >> so let me paraphrase that you all view the states as allies, not enemies. Very quickly, I'm going to say you mentioned earlier that the world was going to end by four years and nine months, I think somebody quoted here, but, uh, yeah. >> no, not my words. >> I'm going to I'm going to ask the gentlelady if she would give us some more time.
▶ 1:55:07Maybe the world won't end. I yield back, gentleman. >> yields back. Now. Recognize Mr. carter of louisiana for his five minutes of questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And thank you, Mr. administrator, for being here. The epa, under the current administration, has abdicated its core mission to protect public health and the environment, dropping enforcement actions, gutting grants, and sidelining, sidelining science.
▶ 1:55:33That's why last week, along with representative fletcher, I introduced the zealously eliminating legal decisions of ineptitude and negligence act. Zeldin act to put guardrails around epa's authority to ensure it does its job and does the job the american people expect it to do. If you needed more proof that guardrails like these are necessary, look no further than epa's disastrous proposed fy 27 budget.
▶ 1:56:02It's a roadmap for gutting enforcement, slashing environmental protections, and leaving communities to fend for themselves. Administration administrator zeldin. I teach a course on government at my alma mater, xavier university in louisiana. Recently, the class learned about cooperative federalism, the system in which federal governments and the states share responsibility for implementing policy in the.
▶ 1:56:27In the epa's context, this means the federal government sets environmental standards and provides funding to states to implement and enforce them. How does the president's proposed elimination of state and local air quality management grants, which states rely on to fund monitoring, enforcement and community transparency of air pollution, align with that cooperative federalism model?
▶ 1:56:56>> we are in a situation where we inherited an agency where money was being lit on fire. I was asked to make a pledge when I was going through my confirmation process, uh, that we would find out what the biden epa was referring to when they said that they were tossing gold bars off the titanic, trying to get billions of dollars out the door before. >> I've got just three minutes. Can I just ask you yes or no? Do you agree with the president's proposal to eliminate that grant program in its entirety?
▶ 1:57:25>> uh, every single aspect of the. >> respectfully, can you do yes or no? You're going to filibuster my time? >> the answer is yes. >> you do. So you said you were trying to put the fire out on, on these grants while putting the fire on communities that depend on these grants to, to have the audacity to drink clean water and clean, drink, clean and breathe clean air. You think that's the right approach?
▶ 1:57:50>> congress has a deliberative process where you all can decide how you want to spend this money. The president has a responsibility to come in with and fiscal responsibility than than. >> okay, let let me let me. I reclaim my time. As we've discussed, states partially rely on federal grants to implement federal environmental standards, conduct inspections, ensure compliance, and enforce them.
▶ 1:58:12How do you expect cash strapped states like louisiana to make up for the enforcement gap you're creating, while cutting the enforcement budget of your agency by 50%? >> so it's your position? Uh. >> no, it's your position. You made. >> the cuts. So, so but no, if I understand your question correctly, you're saying that epa is cutting enforcement. >> you're cutting the dollars. Let me give you a quick lesson in federalism.
▶ 1:58:38Your responsibility to the states are to provide the resources so they can, in fact, enforce. If you cut the resources, they then cannot enforce. It's very basic math, sir. >> okay, so now allow me to respond. >> I would love you to. >> in fiscal year 25, during the first year of president trump's term in office, from january 20th of 25 to january 19th of 26, we sentenced more criminal defendants. We obtained far more in criminal fines and restitution.
▶ 1:59:05As a matter of fact, 57.7 million in the last year of the biden administration, 561.9 million. During the first year of the trump administration. We obtained far more in criminal forfeiture in the last year of the biden administration. What was the. >> criminal forfeiture firm? Who was the criminal forfeiture firm? Who was the criminal forfeiture from? Don't read off your prepared notes. Answer my question. >> $1.1 billion. >> could you tell me from who can you tell me?
▶ 1:59:33Because right now you want me to have a script and I'm asking you. >> I'm giving you the numbers. >> no, you're not. Giving me the answer. Sir, respectfully, could you just answer my question and abandon your script? You're the administrative epa. You should know this. If you cut 50% of a budget, how can they possibly enforce the way it's needed? In my home state of louisiana, people live in communities that need fence line monitoring. >> no way of wording it is. >> you're welcome. >> no cleanup of contaminated. >> reclaiming my time. Mr. chairman. Mr. chairman, I'm reclaiming my time.
▶ 2:00:03Administrator, I am not going to allow you to overstep, sir. I'm not going to allow you to speak me and ignore my questions with prepared scripts. I have very specific questions that require specific answers. You've been a member of congress before. You know better. Shame on you, I yield. >> gentleman yields. >> chairman. >> um. >> briefly. >> the next person could give you some time. Sure. And that would be doctor mariannette miller-meeks of iowa. >> uh, thank you, mister chair.
▶ 2:00:33And, uh, administrator zeldin, how did you know I was going to do precisely that? And you were also trying to make a statement, I think, uh, and factual statement about grants being moved to other parts of the epa which would still be administered. So would you care to respond? >> I appreciate that, congresswoman. Thank you. Uh, so as, uh, as I was saying, and I'm very proud of the work of our enforcement and compliance office.
▶ 2:01:01Um, a further examples of the good work during the first year of the trump administration, cleanup of contaminated soil and water in the first year, the trump administration, it was 59 point 3,000,000yd compared to the last year of the biden administration.
▶ 2:01:18It was 1.9 9,000,000yd, uh, $1 billion more in the value of injunctive relief, hundreds of more civil enforcement case conclusions, more pounds, a lot more pounds of illegal pesticides blocked from entering the united states. On top of the other examples that I was given previously.
▶ 2:01:38So, you know, what you have is, uh, you know, you have you have members who want a grandstand and they want to make a claim about the work of the enforcement and compliance office. And what happens is when they actually meet the hard facts, the reality, and they hear the numbers, they want to cut you off and make sure that you stop reading off the numbers that disprove their false claim.
▶ 2:02:03Um, but you know, I, I understand that that reaction when you come to a committee like this and you actually don't know what you're talking about. >> uh, most members read off scripts that are prepared for them. Uh, and most administrators do.
▶ 2:02:17And I remember questioning the last epa administrator two years in a row, uh, with a power plant, 2.0 rule and a tailpipe emission rule, both which reduced the generation of electricity as they increased demand of electricity and ask if they knew how many passenger vehicles were on the road in the united states at the time, two years in a row, they did not know and asked them if they knew how much power it took to power 100 mile charge for an electric vehicle they did not know two years in a row.
▶ 2:02:45Why would you make rules and put those into place if you don't know the answer to those simple, basic questions? So I'm glad that you have the facts prepared with you. And with that, let me just thank you very much as an agricultural state, for your leadership in finalizing the 2026 and 2027 rvos with record setting biomass diesel volumes in iowa, we're seeing the impact of that leadership in real time.
▶ 2:03:11And it underscores, uh, this administration's policy for domestic american energy production, which we know is part of the diverse mix of liquid fuels and carbon based fuels. I'd also say that these projects are not only expanding markets for farmers, they're driving job creation and economic growth across rural communities. Your commitment to implementing the important.
▶ 2:03:33The import rent reduction beginning in 2028 is a meaningful step towards reinforcing domestic american energy production and ensuring the program works as intended. Does the epa plan to finalize the 2028 rvos by the november 1st statutory deadline? >> we immediately moved to rfs set three as soon as we finished our rfs set two. Uh. We will work as fast as we possibly can to be able to get this back on track.
▶ 2:04:02As you know, and I believe you referenced, we inherited a blown deadline. Uh, and on top of it, we had to also get rid of, uh, the adjudications of 175 of the small refinery exemptions. Now that we're done with rfs two, uh, we were able to remove the 175 backlog in the small refinery exemptions. We moved to rfs set three, which we will work to complete as fast as we can.
▶ 2:04:30>> I'd like to also submit, for the record, uh, the epa's, uh, actions on pfas. Um, if I may. >> uh, we. >> will we'll have to take a look at them, but most likely that would be. Yes. >> uh. Thank you. And then I'll submit questions for the record, but I just want to get this question out because of some of the comments I've heard in our home state of iowa, we've shown you can modernize, air permit, modernize air permitting, and still deliver cleaner air.
▶ 2:04:58Fine particle pollution is down more than 25% since 2000, even as iowa has added new manufacturing and energy projects and iowa's easy air online system, now in its seventh year, has processed more than 5500 permit applications and reports, replacing paper forms with a streamlined 24 over seven digital platform that uses built in data checks and shared emission data to speed reviews. I just want to know, is this something that you would be able to talk about?
▶ 2:05:25You can submit in writing about the epa utilizing, uh, to improve permitting and the environmental review process in the integrated environmental strategies program. And with that, I yield. >> gentlelady yields. Now recognize the gentleman from new jersey, Mr. menendez, for his five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, chairman. Administrator zeldin, I'm from new jersey. You're from long island. And superstorm sandy devastated both of our communities. Just yes or no? Would you agree that sandy endangered communities in new york and new jersey?
▶ 2:05:56>> absolutely. >> I would too. And now we know that climate change worsened sandy's impact, causing an additional $8 billion of damage from sea level rise and exposing 71,000 more people to flooding. Despite that disaster, which impacted long island and new jersey, the epa, under your leadership, has repealed the 2009 endangerment finding and all climate pollution standards for vehicles, undermining the foundation of the epa's ability to mitigate greenhouse greenhouse gas pollution and reduce the risk of more frequent and intense superstorms inflicted by
▶ 2:06:27Climate change. These massive rollbacks are also happening in the midst of an affordability crisis. By the epa's own admission, the rollbacks will actually cost american families $180 billion in net costs. Yet you still insist on misrepresenting this repeal as a good deal for the american people. So I want to highlight some of the flawed assertions. Just yes or no? When the epa analysis analyzed the impacts of this decision, it relied in part on the assumption that oil will cost about $47 per barrel. Is that correct?
▶ 2:06:58>> there were many different models that were used. >> but $47 is what I >> actually have it. Here is the amount that was the baseline. Are you familiar with what current oil prices are per barrel? >> sure. Today. >> yes. >> today higher than that. >> yeah. It's actually today. Us gas prices hit the highest level since the beginning of trump's war with iran. And we know that americans are paying for trump's war at the pump, with average gas prices around $4 a gallon and diesel prices around $5 a gallon.
▶ 2:07:28Now, with the repeal of the endangerment, finding and vehicle greenhouse gas standards, among other clean vehicle policies, the epa's own analysis shows that gas prices will increase another $0.75 a gallon by 2050, adding more than $3 billion per year in fuel costs for american drivers. But I want to move on. We also know that pollution has real impacts on the health of the people that we represent, and research shows that climate change will drive $45 billion in additional health costs by 2050. Just yes or no?
▶ 2:07:57Did the epa fully and comprehensively account for additional health care costs, respiratory illnesses, hospitalizations, premature deaths associated with these rollbacks? >> the decision was made based on the fact that a the best reading of section 202 of the clean air act. Epa does not have the authority for the 2009 endangerment. >> so it did not. Right. So all these impacts to the people that. >> well, because it was. >> legal. You used to represent um are going to see, uh, worse health care outcomes.
▶ 2:08:25Uh, and this comes on the back of last year when republicans in the trump administration cut $1 trillion from medicaid and shift billions in snap administrative costs onto states and counties. Administrator zeldin, I know you ran for governor of new york. So you're familiar with how state budgets works. State officials have been clear that these decisions are creating major budget shortfalls, and states are struggling. So with nearly $3.5 billion in proposed cuts to water infrastructure and categorical grants.
▶ 2:08:53Does that does that mean that residents of new york should expect higher water bills or delayed projects? Which one? >> well, it's interesting how you're posing the question. >> is it's either or because you're cutting funding to. >> energy prices. >> how much energy would you what would you do? What would you do if you were. >> what would you do if you were governor? Right. Of new york, which you ran for? Republicans cut $1 trillion from health care that now states have to backfill.
▶ 2:09:21Now, you want to cut $3.5 billion from water infrastructure. New york, I'm sure, has a ton of projects that are now either going to be delayed or to do those projects. It's going to be on the back of new yorkers, right? So which one is it? Delayed projects or higher costs for residents of new york, the state you sought to represent us. >> right. So the the first part of that, as I referenced earlier, is that the the epa, the president's fy 27 budget does not factor in how much you're going to choose to raise the budget. >> and that's the point you've made before.
▶ 2:09:51So I'm going to move on. I'm going to move on because because you've said other crazy stuff, crazy stuff today. Okay, that that the biden administration, the biden administration, I mean, are you going to do anything at some point? I mean, you ask a question. How many instances you ask a question? >> give me an opportunity to answer. >> because I moved on and you've done this numerous times. So listen, I just want to ask you a question. You've said that the biden administration with the ira, uh, had more funds than the epa knew how to spend, and there was waste, fraud and abuse. Right?
▶ 2:10:18This was going out to people that were in the biden orbit. You had said that earlier. Yet I'm curious if you have any issue with the fact that during the 2024 campaign, the president asked the oil and gas industry for $1 billion in exchange for supporting, uh, these rollbacks that the epa is administering now. Is that at all an issue for you that the president said to the oil and gas industry, give me $1 billion and I will do your work? Is that not the work that the epa is doing today? >> are you actually asking questions? >> I am. >> asking a question.
▶ 2:10:48Are you going to give an answer? >> I'm going to start an answer and then you're going to cut me off is how this works. >> all right. Well, if that's going to be the case, I have another thing for you. What do you think about the $220 million ad campaign that secretary noem had with the dhs that went directly that went directly to trump? I'm talking that went to trump operatives. Did you speak out against that as a member of the administration? >> how about the fact that you. >> speak out? Speak out against. >> that against former obama and biden officials?
▶ 2:11:15How about the conflicts of interest during the biden epa that you don't want to. >> write about in the trump administration? All right. If you want if you want to talk about the biden administration, talk about the trump administration, you're part of the administration. >> and you don't. >> want to say that secretary noem was. >> wrong to. >> say that secretary noem was wrong. You're not going to. >> you don't want to work with the agency. >> Mr. zeldin. Thank you. Mr. zeldin is here to talk about the epa, not other matters. At the same time. >> the biden administration can ask him about things that are. >> if it's related to the epa.
▶ 2:11:45And you certainly can ask. But. But he also has a right to answer the question. So let's try to be a little more civil on all parts. Gentleman. Gentleman. Yields back. Now, recognize the gentlelady of north dakota. Miss the door. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:12:08When I first the first my first day in office, I wrote a letter to president trump and secretary burgum imploring them to focus on 20 onerous biden era regulations that directly attacked energy producers. These regulations forced americans to pay a lot more for their energy and left them much more vulnerable, vulnerable.
▶ 2:12:34Those 20 regulations of those 2017 have been repealed, withdrawn or vacated, or are being worked on. Many of those were the epa. So thank you for your work on that. That includes epa, carbon rule, clean power 2.0, the wotus rule, the mats rule, and the waste methane emissions charge for petroleum natural gas systems rule.
▶ 2:12:56You worked on all of those, and, uh, americans are paying, uh, are enjoying more reliable energy as a result of that. So thank you, Mr. zeldin. And one that remains is, uh, is going to have an impact in nine days after this hearing. There's a compliance deadline on the biden era methane rule. And that that takes effect nine days from today. North dakota operators tell me that this does two things.
▶ 2:13:26First, it creates will immediately shut in 20 to 40 000 barrels per day of production. And it will help drilling outside of the core bakken era area in my state. President trump has also signed a defense production act determination on april 20th, directing for expanded domestic production of petroleum as essential to national defense.
▶ 2:13:55So as the epa administrator, how do you plan to reconcile these two federal directives before may 7th? >> we are preparing guidance document to put out as recently as this week. Uh, it will definitely go out before may 7th. Uh, that will address this concern. >> okay. And is that going to potentially extend that may 7th compliance deadline? >> it will directly address, fully address the concerns that have been expressed on this issue.
▶ 2:14:25>> okay, good. So my producers shouldn't be preparing to shut in that production. >> we we are well aware of the issue, and we are extremely confident that the document that we'll be putting out will be assisting the regulated community in interpreting the law and regulation. >> excellent. All right. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 2:14:44Zeldin, I'd like to turn a little bit to new source review, the new source review issue as currently structured, new source review program penalizes facilities for trying to modernize. Representative griffith's new source review permitting improvements act addresses that directly. And I'm proud to sponsor that.
▶ 2:15:02Can you speak to how streamlining the new source review process could unlock a broader wave of investment in modernization across the energy sector, and probably at the same time, uh, decrease emissions? >> sure. We've received feedback over the course of the 15 months that we were in on many different ways that didn't even require new rulemaking. There were some aspects that do require new rulemaking.
▶ 2:15:32We put out new guidance. We, uh, for example, established guidance that clarified what begin actual construction means. That guidance clarified that companies can build various parts of the facility as long as the building, um, does, does not, uh, with regards to the installation of emissions units or related activities, um, across a particular value or, or threshold, we allowed
▶ 2:16:02Companies at their own risk to construct their facility while they're going through the permitting process, allowing the companies to be able to operate. Um, the, the, the begin actual construction, the interpretation of various aspects of new source review, uh, didn't even require new rulemaking for us to start to be responsive. We've received requests to go beyond that which we were considering and planning to take action. >> excellent.
▶ 2:16:30What additional, um, directive from congress help you address that issue further? >> absolutely. Um, you know, the clean air act, which is landmark law, uh, that was passed, though half a century ago, uh, includes many different opportunities for modernization, which I know is a very important priority of many members of this committee. And I've spoken to, uh, to both the chairman of your subcommittee who's here, chairman palmer, good to see you, as well as the chairman of your full committee.
▶ 2:16:58And I know that this is important to you as well. Uh, so as far as ideas, we have a list put forth, um, put together by the white house council on environmental quality. Epa has ideas even further beyond, uh, the list that was put forth by the white house council on environmental quality. And we look forward to working with you to implement any potential statutory changes to help go further. >> thank you, Mr. zeldin. Appreciate your leadership. This is a common sense, uh, area for improvement, and I yield back. >> chair now recognizes. >> the gentleman from ohio, Mr.
▶ 2:17:29Landsman, for five minutes for his questions. >> I thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, thank you, Mr. zeldin, for being here, talking about the epa budget. Just in sort of pulling back a little bit over the course of the last 14 months. There's you all pushed for a massive spending bill, $4.5 trillion.
▶ 2:17:54Uh, most of it went to tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the super wealthy. You added trillions of dollars to the debt, cut health care by nearly $1 trillion, and now you are going to cut the epa by 50%. You remember congress. Would you have supported all of this as a member of congress? >> the working families tax cut? I absolutely would have voted yes.
▶ 2:18:23And as I'm hearing from americans across the country, they're really happy to get a lot more back in their tax return. And I would say that on behalf of all those americans who have shared that, while I can share that feedback with president trump, I'd also say to the republicans on this committee who voted for it, thank you for doing your part. Understanding the economic concerns of americans across this country and. >> don't spend a lot of time. Mister, mister, you don't spend a lot of time with people right there. That really isn't true. No one's really saying thank you for cutting their health care, for adding trillions.
▶ 2:18:52It shows. >> how out of touch you are that you believe that americans are not happy to get more back in their tax return. >> no, you don't talk to folks. There's no like, I visited. >> all 50 states in my first. >> and people come up to you and they. >> say one. They say, thank. >> you so much for spending trillions of dollars on the super wealthy and cutting our health care. That's what they tell you. No. >> they don't repeat your sound. >> and they and they and thank you for desperately asking you to shift all this. >> money, having more money in our wallet. >> all this money, being able.
▶ 2:19:23>> to afford to heat our home and fill up our gas tank. So absurd. Groceries. >> it's so absurd that. Stop. >> that's what they say. So that's what they say. They don't repeat. >> you don't they don't say that. They absolutely don't. They don't. All members of congress. >> say that they're grateful for having more back in their tax return. No, their position that shows. >> how you're shifting money to to the states. So this is this is russ fulcher, right? He's the head of omb. He sets the policy for all of you. He came to you and said, I got to cut your budget by 50%. The epa, it's there to protect the environment and americans.
▶ 2:19:53And you just say, okay, is that how it works? Like because this is russ vought, who was the architect, one of the key architects of project 2025, which was we're going to decimate the federal government, shift the cost burden back to states, and we'll free up all this money for tax cuts for the super wealthy. And you were like, okay, that's fine. >> no, that is not what happened. >> so russ vote doesn't make this call. >> uh, the budget that I'm here before congress is a budget that I support that that I take responsibility for crafting.
▶ 2:20:24>> I suspect he is glad to hear. >> I'm sure he's, I'm sure he's happy with the budget, uh, that we. >> that he crafted. >> but that's not true. It is true. Okay. Well, you're, you're entitled, entitled to your own version of reality, I guess. >> same with you and, and, and how. >> it's your position that our agency didn't put together a. >> tax plan where they're just getting demolished in terms of their health care. I want to talk about, uh, health care cuts coupled with epa cuts. People are obviously worried about their health.
▶ 2:20:53Don't you agree? That's a concern with the health care cuts. And now you're now you're going to pollute more of the water and air. >> actually, the feedback that I get is that people are happy that where's. >> this feedback coming? I don't I don't. >> like it. So it's america. When you actually get out and you travel the country. And I've been to all 50 states across this country, and when I travel, I get an opportunity to hear feedback from americans. >> you touched ground and you talk to people and. >> they're just coming.
▶ 2:21:21>> running up to you and they're just saying, thank you so much for the epa. Thank you. Want us to. Protect the health care. You're so glad that trillions of dollars are going to the richest people in this. >> country of entire sectors of our economy through regulation. They're happy when they have consumer choice. They they're. Very this is. >> it's quite it's quite alarming. >> it's going to get removed. They want manufacturers. >> so last question. >> they want. >> rather than question, they do demand. Yeah. The manufacturers. >> that I hear from americans. >> yeah. All right. Last question.
▶ 2:21:48The data centers talk about the, uh analysis you've done on air pollution, water air noise. >> so what I've, I've been doing in my travels. >> you have so many binders, I just want to know, like is one of them the analysis work that you've done on data centers? Yeah. Can I see the binder, which binder does now? Yeah. Which one of it. Like I've never seen any. There's so many binders. >> we do a lot of work. We prepare. >> yeah, sure. So which one? I want to. >> draw a blank.
▶ 2:22:17>> can you what what is the analysis? I just. >> off the top of my head data centers. I've been traveling the entire country. The good thing about data centers that are being built across this country. And fortunately. >> for big tech, it's been great for big tech. It's been terrible for our communities because no one's protecting them, which is what you're supposed to do. I yield back. >> arkansas about the $1.1 billion benefit that they're getting as energy ratepayers because of the google center in west memphis. >> the gentleman yields chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado, Mr.
▶ 2:22:47Evans, for five minutes for his questions. >> uh, Mr. zeldin, uh, well, first, thanks to the chairman and to to the ranking member for this hearing. And administrator zeldin, thanks so much for taking the time, uh, not only to come talk to us today, uh, but for the times that you've come out to colorado where we've had roundtables with real constituents and real stakeholders in my community. So really appreciate you taking that time.
▶ 2:23:09Um, you're in those roundtables and other times we've had conversations about common sense updates to the clean air act to ensure that american job creators, the american consumer, the american economy is not unfairly punished for emissions outside their control. Because I think we can all agree that one of the other things that has a negative outcome on people's health is poverty. If they can't get jobs and we can't build or produce or make anything here in the united states, then people don't have money. They don't have insurance.
▶ 2:23:38Uh, and their health also suffers from poverty. So being able to make sure that we can update things like the clean air act to not strangle the american economy is incredibly important to me. Um, just last week, my bipartisan bill, the fire act, which clarifies how emissions from wildfires and controlled burns and other exceptional events are treated in federal air quality standards. It passed the house, and we know the data.
▶ 2:24:02Multiple studies have shown that controlled burns significantly reduce overall emissions when compared to damaging wildfires. And so while I'm appreciative of the work that epa has done to encourage prescribed burns through rulemaking, there's a bipartisan consensus that a statutory fix is necessary to allow states to exempt emissions from prescribed burns and take decisive action to prevent to prevent catastrophic wildfires. So, administrator zeldin, kind of a two part question.
▶ 2:24:30Uh, do you believe that the fire act will increase the use of prescribed burns in the united states? And do you agree that this bill is likely to lower overall emissions in the united states by preventing catastrophic wildfires? >> yes. And by pursuing, uh, more work, uh, as it relates to modernizing the clean air act. Uh, there are there are many opportunities. This I know is an important issue for you and your constituents in colorado.
▶ 2:24:57Uh, we have heard from your constituents in colorado who are very concerned about this issue. And when you add up the, the biden ppm 2.5 level with the exceptional events rulemaking, with the regional haze rulemaking, you're in a situation in colorado where there's what you felt like a disincentive that you'll be penalized, punished by protecting the communities in your district. And that should never be the case. >> thank you for that, administrator.
▶ 2:25:22Um, and my motivation for this is because as you've talked about, as I've talked about as my governor, who's on the opposite side of the aisle has talked about 70% of the emissions in colorado don't come from sources under colorado's control. And one of the other consequences of being in a non-attainment area, even though over two thirds of the emissions come from outside of our control, one of the other problems is reformulated gas.
▶ 2:25:48This is a mandate under the clean air act, reformulated gas costs about $0.40 more per gallon. Not my data, my governor's data point. Uh, and it reduces ozone emissions by 0.1 parts per billion in terms of emissions. So, administrator, I know that the epa has the authority to grant a reformulated gas waiver.
▶ 2:26:09Um, and this would keep my constituents from having to pay $0.40 more per gallon for a 0.1 part per billion reduction in ground level ozone. Is that something that you and your team will commit to providing serious consideration around that rfg waiver for colorado for summertime ozone? Yes. Thank you. Uh, last question, Mr. administrator.
▶ 2:26:30Um, last month I was honored to welcome chairman guthrie, chairman palmer, several other members of the energy and commerce committee to my district to tour suncor. Uh, they run the last two small refineries in the state of colorado. Those two refineries provide a third of the gasoline, a third of the jet fuel, half the diesel fuel in the state of colorado. And as small refineries, they currently benefit from these small refinery exception program, which is administered through the epa.
▶ 2:26:59But they are struggling under the crushing weight of state regulations in the state of colorado. And so do you believe that refineries operating in states with heavy, exceptional state regulations like colorado? Should small refineries like that be considered for regulatory relief at the federal level to protect essential energy infrastructure from shuttering? >> well, I can't speak to an individual small refinery exemption request.
▶ 2:27:27Uh, it is very important for there to be full transparency following the law strictly. There's plenty of court cases that are going on. So, uh, honoring the decisions that are set by court and making sure that we are working closely with those applicants, including applicants that come in from colorado to make sure that their requests are adjudicated fairly and factoring in, uh, certain elements that you just included in your remarks. >> thank you. Administrator. Yield back. >> gentleman yields.
▶ 2:27:56Can I let you go? Now? Recognize myself for five minutes for questions. I'd just like to point out a couple of things, though, Mr. administrator, that, uh, my colleagues keep attacking the working families tax cuts.
▶ 2:28:20And that's the bill that in which the republicans put in $50 billion for transforming rural health care. There are whole areas of the country where women expecting a child might have to drive an hour, hour and a half just to see an ob gyn, and every one of my democratic colleagues voted against it.
▶ 2:28:44There are 51.4 million senior citizens on social security, didn't have to pay any income tax on their social security, and every one of my democratic colleagues voted against that. There are people working in the tip economy, single moms that, uh, saw a tax cut sometimes approaching $2,000, some more than that they could use to buy school supplies for the kids, maybe repair a car or get better housing.
▶ 2:29:13And every one of my democratic colleagues voted against that. The middle 60% of income earners saw the largest after tax income increase raised take home pay significantly for those. And every one of my colleagues voted against that. I want to get back to the purpose of the hearing. Uh, it's in your proposed budget. The epa requests 1.7 billion to implement the good samaritan remediation of abandoned hard rock mines act of 2024.
▶ 2:29:39Can you tell us a little bit more about that program? >> sir. >> we have been working hard at implementing this. We plan on getting out the few, the first few this year. Uh, our goal is to get out the first 15 over the course of this administration. And, uh, we look forward to fulfilling our role and making sure that congressional intent is met in this program is well led and well executed.
▶ 2:30:08>> well, the program would provide permits for remediation and so that they wouldn't face liability under the comprehensive environmental response compensation liability act circle. So I wanted to touch on a related issue. Epa's budget justification also discusses efforts to clean up pfas contamination. At a hearing in december, the committee discussed concerns with regulating pfas under cercla.
▶ 2:30:33As you know, last year, epa announced that it would maintain the previous administration's designation of pfoa and pfos as hazardous substance under circle. At the hearing, members heard that this designation has been problematic because, among other things, pfas are ubiquitous in the environment and there are no federal pfas cleanup standards. From what you and your staff are hearing and have have concerns about.
▶ 2:30:59Liability for pfas contamination hindered efforts to remediate and reuse properties potentially contaminated pfoa and pfos and other substances. And if so, what is epa doing to address this? >> well, first off, it's important to note that the work under pfas doesn't cleanly fit inside of rcra or cercla. Uh, and this is something that I know. And from conversations with members of congress, this is something that there are members of congress in both chambers. They're working to address.
▶ 2:31:29Uh, one of the concerns that are brought up to me most often is that, uh, the passive receiver status of these local water systems where they would have to pass off costs to their ratepayers. If a ratepayer has to pay to clean up pfas contamination from their own water supply, uh, that is against the principle of polluter pays.
▶ 2:31:50So for congress to be able to work through this and amending federal statute to ensure that ratepayers don't have to pay to clean up their own pfas contamination, uh, that is an example of a way that these laws can be amended to fit better as it relates to pfas cleanup.
▶ 2:32:08>> can you talk briefly about the significance of the epa guidance that was transmitted to an arizona semiconductor fabrication plant regarding the definition of pre-construction activities and how it helps to streamline the new source review permitting scheme? >> sure.
▶ 2:32:25Um, in order to be able to move forward with the construction work without having to be delayed for years, waiting for a permit when something is inactive and then it's restarting not to, uh, put them back at the beginning of the process when they're looking to restart a project that had already been permitted in the past.
▶ 2:32:48There are ways, through the use of current rules, uh, where we were able to announce last september these, these changes on the pre-construction permitting, um, through new source review was in direct response to, uh, what we heard from the regulated community to ensure that these projects can move forward rather than getting stalled for years. >> my time has expired. The chair now recognizes members who have waived on to the committee.
▶ 2:33:18I recognize the gentlelady from florida, miss castro, for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, Mr. administrator, the trump administration's policies are inflicting higher costs on our neighbors back home. The way I characterize it, based upon what I'm hearing from my neighbors, is that it's soul crushing.
▶ 2:33:37When when taken all together, whether it's higher grocery bills, the pain inflicted by illegal tariffs, higher electric bills, uh, ripping away health care or leaving them with much higher premiums. And, you know, folks look to, they look for folks up here to, to provide solutions.
▶ 2:33:58And I am so sorry to report to them when from representing a community that's so values our values clean air and clean water that the epa is making it worse. And they're making it more expensive. Uh, epa when you look at this budget, epa will make it more difficult for local communities to build and maintain the clean water, uh, infrastructure that they rely on, the drinking water infrastructure they rely on.
▶ 2:34:27It's a community that was hit hard by hurricanes helene and milton, and we had a lot of critical infrastructure impacted severely by flood and by historic rainfall events. So when I look at your budget that you seek to slash almost in half clean water state revolving loan funds, drinking water, revolving loan funds.
▶ 2:34:53This is the important partnership between epa and our states and our local communities to, to keep that infrastructure online, to help us modernize it and to help us save money, because an important piece of those, um of epa's authorities are to work with local communities to help them become more resilient and also to repair after a natural disaster. And for a community like mine that is I don't think we're unique.
▶ 2:35:22There are natural disasters, climate fueled disasters that are increasingly expensive, increasingly more frequent. And for you all to kind of rip the rug out from under local communities, you're just asking our neighbors back home to pay more again, when they're already grappling with much higher costs.
▶ 2:35:40In my state already, we're seeing more industrial facilities, waste sites and neighborhoods inundated by floods and threatened by wildfires, and that has a significant pollution impact because the when you you know this well, that unleashes toxic chemicals into the air, soil and drinking water at the same time, you're proposing massive cuts to the very initiatives and professionals that lead federal hazardous materials response
▶ 2:36:10And long term cleanup. Um, folks used to be so proud of the epa. They used to rely on the epa because they were the folks who were there after a storm to help them rebuild. And now that work is even harder after 4000 epa professionals have been doged or fired. Uh, it's so difficult to to watch to watch what what the trump administration is doing.
▶ 2:36:40You're, you're unleashing all this pollution, you're making the heating of the climate worse and more expensive. And then when we suffer these costly natural disasters, you're ripping away the help that we need to, to recover and repair and to save taxpayers money by, by building more resilient infrastructure. It's kind of like what you're doing with health care. You rip health care coverage away from people.
▶ 2:37:05And at the same time, you're making making lives less healthy by allowing more toxic chemicals in the air, in the water, in the food we eat. I just urge you to make a course correction, make a course correction, that for the sake of our country, for the sake of our pocketbooks, for the sake of our kids, uh, we don't want we want to restore the pride that we had in our environmental laws and not cut them and side with polluters every single time.
▶ 2:37:35And I also need to correct the record because, um, it is not true what what you said before that, that you are a stalwart in upholding and our environmental laws. I know you had a little conversation with my colleague from louisiana. You're not being straight with people. The and I'll submit this for the record, trump's epa issues record low legal actions against polluters, watchdog group fines.
▶ 2:38:02You said that a lot of the, uh, the 1.16 billion in civil penalties and criminal fines were your initiative. That's that's not true. Most of those cases were started under the under the biden administration. And your record is that you've initiated a record low number against polluters compared to past administrations. >> gentlelady's time has expired. >> I offer this ask unanimous consent to submit. >> this record. >> urge a course correction, Mr. administrator. People deserve better.
▶ 2:38:32>> chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, Mr. langworthy, for five minutes for his questions. Well, thank you very much, Mr. chairman. Administrator zeldin. Uh, welcome. It's great to have a fellow new yorker, uh, testify before the committee. Uh, because you understand something many in washington don't, and that there is a real disconnect between what activists, politicians and states like new york promise on paper and what families and businesses are dealing with on the ground.
▶ 2:38:56Uh, new york continues to brain itself as a national climate leader under policies like the climate leadership and community protection act, which I know you're very familiar with. Uh, but the targets embedded in that law, uh, 100%, zero emission electricity, aggressive electrification mandates, and rapid phase outs of traditional fuel are increasingly colliding with reality.
▶ 2:39:19Uh, your agency's efforts over the past year to streamline new source review permitting, uh, bringing greater clarity and predictability to the clean air act implementation and revisiting overly stringent particulate matter standards are helping to push back on policies that go beyond what is achievable.
▶ 2:39:39And likewise, uh, steps to ensure federal rules do not unintentionally reinforce state level mandates that limit fuel choice or undermine grid reliability are critical for constituents like mine in western new york and in the southern tier. And I'm very grateful that we have a friend and ally at the epa, uh, that knows and understands my district.
▶ 2:40:01Uh, administrator zeldin, how is epa working to restore balance in protecting air quality and environmental standards while also making sure that we're not driving jobs and investment and manufacturing out of states like new york through unworkable regulatory burdens. >> thank you. Congressman. Well, first off, it's important for us to follow the best reading of the law. That's our requirement. And if congress chooses to amend the law, then we'll follow whatever congress chooses to amend that law to.
▶ 2:40:30When the american public voted for president trump and republicans in november of 2024, uh, they were putting forth a trump mandate of wanting an agency like epa to apply common sense, to strike a balance of protecting the environment and growing the economy. They saw an agency that felt like in order to protect the environment, we have to target entire sectors of our economy for extinction.
▶ 2:40:56They want more reliable, durable baseload power. They want to unleash U.S. energy dominance. They want to bring back and empower the american auto industry while also protecting the environment. So what you'll you'll see on the on the other side of, of the aisle is, you know, the you'll have members who will want to ignore the fact that on the one year anniversary of president trump's term in office, we released a list of our top 500 environmental actions.
▶ 2:41:25Not once have any of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle who claim to be so concerned about protecting the environment. Do they want to even acknowledge all of the good work of our dedicated career staffers at the agency, all those scientists who have been there for 20, 30 years, who have secured so many wins?
▶ 2:41:50Everything that we've done with tackling the decades long tijuana river sewage crisis, or responding to the la wildfires, or increasing water quality standards across 30 plus miles of the delaware river basin, how can you be that concerned about protecting the environment? When you want to make believe that this list doesn't exist?
▶ 2:42:09Uh, and I appreciate the fact, congressman, that you, uh, have been so strong in advocating that we strike that balance, that we protect the environment and grow the economy, proving that we can do both. >> well, thank you very much. You're doing a stellar job at the agency. Um, going to, you know, my my district has come an engine, uh, a very large driver, um, of, of manufacturing.
▶ 2:42:35Uh, what is epa doing to provide regulatory certainty for heavy duty truck and engine engine manufacturers so that they can continue to invest and hire and operate in states like new york without being driven out by conflicting and unworkable requirements? >> sure. Well, one is that we believe that manufacturers should be making what customers want, what customers demand, as opposed to what politicians and bureaucrats demand.
▶ 2:43:01We've seen these mandates coming out of the biden administration, coming out of states like california, trying to bend the the vehicle market to ideological whims to to try to achieve climate goals. And as a result, people are paying more for vehicles. They they have a situation where manufacturers are building vehicles that just sit on lots and, and they aren't wanted.
▶ 2:43:29And I commend congress for removing the electric vehicle mandates with the three congressional review act actions that were taken last year. I commend this body that all the republicans in on this committee who have engaged our agency to make sure that we're promoting consumer choice, that we are understanding the need to apply common sense, that we protect the environment and grow the economy that we achieve, both on behalf of of your constituents. And I'm grateful for your advocacy. >> thank you.
▶ 2:43:58I wish I had more time, and I yield back, Mr. chairman. Gentleman yields chair now recognizes the gentlelady from texas, miss fletcher, for five minutes for her questions. >> well, thank you so much, Mr. chairman, and thank you, ranking member tonko, for allowing me to wave on to this hearing. Um, to follow up with administrator zeldin on, um, some critical issues, very important to the people that I represent in houston.
▶ 2:44:21And administrator zeldin, when you appeared before this committee last year, we spoke about the vital role that epa's region six lab in houston plays in keeping people in our region safe. And you committed to working with me to maintain a presence from this lab in houston. So I just want to revisit that conversation and follow up on it.
▶ 2:44:44It is, um, a question that I have asked every epa administrator that has come before me and any committee I've served on in the time I've been in congress because, uh, in 2019, epa announced that it would close the region six houston lab and relocate its employees to a location more than 100, more than 400 miles away in ada, oklahoma. And I know administrator at the time we talked about this last year, um, there was a lot coming at you.
▶ 2:45:11So I'm hoping we can follow up and talk a little bit more about the process, um, and where you are and where the epa is in that process. This announcement was made pursuant to the 2016 law, the federal asset sale transfer act, to reduce federal property holdings. And, um, I also submitted some questions for the record after that. And, you know, unfortunately, I'm sorry to say, I don't think that I was able to get the information I need.
▶ 2:45:37So I'm hoping that you can give me and the people I represent a little more clarity today. Um, and, you know, just really show us that epa is going to continue to work with us on this in terms of keeping our community healthy. As I mentioned, um, epa announced it was going to close this lab, and there's been a huge outcry in houston that we cannot have this happen. And the lab really provides rapid response, air and water quality monitoring and testing.
▶ 2:46:03And I'm sure, you know, administrator in our region, um, we are prone to hurricanes. We have a lot of concerns, um, about what's happening during hurricane season when flooding and storm damage can compromise systems that are meant to protect houstonians, especially from industrial emissions. And it's worth noting that the lab is an active partner in in disasters of all kinds.
▶ 2:46:28Um, of course, we're very concerned about emissions along the port of houston. It's a 52 mile waterway that is, um, has 200 public and private facilities and is the nation's largest port for waterborne tonnage. And unfortunately, in this industrial area, we've had, um, a number of incidents involving petrochemical facilities where rapid air quality testing, water quality testing is absolutely of the essence.
▶ 2:46:56And so we are deeply concerned that not only will we lose the ability to have that rapid testing, flying samples to oklahoma, to do the testing, to get information back, but also epa is going to lose that expertise because, candidly, you're not going to see all of the people who work in that lab able to move their families to oklahoma. And so the move has been delayed over the years. Um, I would encourage you to reconsider it altogether.
▶ 2:47:22But I know when we talked last year, the we talked about the idea that epa is committed to keeping a presence in region six in the lab in houston, even if it, um, closes the existing lab. Now, the existing lab is still working, and I would like to keep the lab open indefinitely.
▶ 2:47:46Um, but can you confirm for me today, uh, that epa will fulfill its commitment on keeping a presence from region six lab in houston? For the reasons I just discussed and more. >> the. Well, as you pointed out, the 2009 notification that epa sent to congressional appropriators to relocate houston to ada, it was reaffirmed in 2022, uh, employee relocation associated with the consolidation is targeted to begin in 2027.
▶ 2:48:12I can commit that epa will maintain employees in houston and support emergency response, criminal investigations, and other operational needs. Uh, the completion of the ada project is contingent on the agency receiving fy 2027 building and facilities appropriations at historically comparable or higher levels. Uh, epa will complete the environmental due diligence process for the houston laboratory as part of the transition and lease exit.
▶ 2:48:41And as you pointed out, this is something that started several years ago before we got here. Um, and in moving forward, we, I can commit, though, that epa will maintain a presence in houston as it relates to the functions that I just stated. >> um, thanks, administrator zeldin. I'm going to run out of time.
▶ 2:48:59You know how this works, but I would like to get your commitment that epa will remain will retain a robust presence in houston, and will follow up for the record, with questions about the number of employees that will remain, the positions that will remain and the timeline. I appreciate your response today. And, Mr. chairman, I yield back. Thank you. >> gentlelady yields the chair now recognizes gentleman from michigan, Mr. james, for five minutes for his questions. >> thank you, chairman palmer and ranking member tonko for holding this important hearing today.
▶ 2:49:27Administrator zeldin, welcome and thank you for thank you for being here. Welcome back. It's an honor to speak with you at a time when the conversation around energy manufacturing and environmental stewardship is so important, not just for michigan, another great lakes state, the great lakes state, in my opinion, but for the entire country. Let me start with something we all agree on. Clean air and clean water are non-negotiable. They are fundamental to the health, safety, and prosperity of the american people. There is no trade off there and there should never be.
▶ 2:49:57But we also know something that doesn't get said as often. The united states, and especially states like michigan, manufacturers and producers of energy, we make it cleaner and safer and more responsible than anyone else in the world. That's a competitive advantage. We should be leaning into that competitive advantage, not regulating our way out of existence.
▶ 2:50:17Over the past several years, we've seen a growing trend from the previous administration, from the whitmer administration in lansing toward theoretical one size fits all regulations that look good on paper, but they don't work in the real world. These mandates too often strangle businesses, delay projects indefinitely, and make it nearly impossible to build, invest, and innovate right here at home at the time when we're competing with china, who's not playing by the same environmental economic rules, the last thing we should be doing is tying our own hands.
▶ 2:50:48If we push production overseas, we will not reduce global emissions. We just outsource them along with american jobs and leadership. That's why I want to commend your administration, sir, for taking a different approach, one that recognizes the need for realistic regulations, regulations that protect our air, protect our drinking water. Yes. Also respect the ability of american workers, manufacturers, and builders to actually get things done and keep prices low.
▶ 2:51:13We need a framework that prioritizes outcomes over ideology, one that reduces frivolous litigation, cuts through unworkable mandates, and restores a sense of balance so that we can build again in this country. At the end of the day, we can protect our environment and grow our economy. In fact, we have to do both. And it's best when we trust americans, when we trust american innovation, we trust american workers, and we use common sense. Administrator zeldin, thank you again for being here and for your leadership.
▶ 2:51:42We look forward to working together to ensure that america remains both the cleanest and the strongest economy in the world. So my first question, section 111 and reducing barriers to reliable and affordable energy. Uh, my home state of michigan. High energy costs threaten families and industries alike. You pledged to reconsider regulations that limit the production of reliable and affordable energy.
▶ 2:52:08For example, I've heard from producers in michigan that it can be more cost effective to flare excess gas than to build a new pipeline. Do you believe that overly burdensome regulations are driving up the price of electricity, sir? >> absolutely. >> if so, how is your agency continuing to prioritize action on those regulations? >> we just completed phase two of a three phase process of reconsideration of quattro bc.
▶ 2:52:41We are also in the process this week of finalizing guidance to release publicly to help the regulated community to interpret both federal law and federal regulation. As it relates to quattro bc, there's an upcoming may 7th deadline that if we don't put that guidance out, uh, some worry that they might not be interpreting the regulation correctly, but that's not the end of the work.
▶ 2:53:06Uh, the reconsideration of quattro bc was partially completed with the second phase, uh, that work of reconsideration, quattro bc, will be completed during the phase. The third phase. >> thank you. >> um, last question, um, one of your goals for fy 2027 is to bring back and protect american auto jobs. Can you describe a little bit how that 103.9 million requested for this purpose will revitalize the american automotive industry?
▶ 2:53:37>> well, it's really a combination of a lot of actions that we're taking inside of epa, as well as other agencies in the federal government, uh, working with congress, congress passed three congressional review acts to revoke, um, biden epa waivers to the state of california. You were one of the key leaders here in this chamber to make sure that this was done to protect the american auto industry, to revoke the california electric vehicle mandate passed signed into law.
▶ 2:54:05Uh, you saw an announcement with the secretary of transportation that reconsider cafe standards. Just a couple of months ago, epa announced the rescission of the 2009 endangerment, finding all the greenhouse gas emission standards in light, medium and heavy duty vehicles, uh, as well as all off cycle credits, including that almost universally despised start stop feature. Uh, we are going through our nox 2027 rule, uh, whether it was the right to repair guidance or it's rolling back death requirements.
▶ 2:54:33Uh, there's so much that we have been doing under president trump's leadership to make sure that we're delivering on that mandate that the american public voted for. Uh, and in so many respects, especially as it relates to the congressional review act, uh, we wouldn't have been able to do without your leadership. >> gentleman's time has expired. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from new york, miss ocasio-cortez, for five minutes for her questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And good afternoon, secretary zeldin.
▶ 2:55:00Um, this week is a big week, uh, in the supreme court and congress regarding considerations of glyphosate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the herbicide roundup, which is produced by bayer, the multibillion dollar foreign chemical company that also owns monsanto. It's used on hundreds of millions of acres of farmland in the us, including corn, wheat, soybeans and even almonds.
▶ 2:55:27And glyphosate is even used to dry out crops before they are harvested. Correct. Administrator zeldin. >> correct. >> thank you. Glyphosate is also internationally recognized as likely carcinogenic to humans, with particular links to non-hodgkin's lymphoma.
▶ 2:55:47In fact, tens of thousands of lawsuits in the united states, many issued by farmers with high exposure um have been filed against bayer for failing to warn them about the cancer risk of exposure.
▶ 2:56:02Now, interestingly, administrator zeldin, um, on february 18th of this year, president trump released an executive order to increase the production of glyphosate in the united states, correct? >> yes.
▶ 2:56:20>> and not only did that executive order call to increase the production of glyphosate, it also called for legal immunity for bayer from the tens of thousands of americans who are seeking justice in court for their toxic exposure. Now, secretary kennedy was here a couple of weeks ago.
▶ 2:56:41Um, and when he was asked about glyphosate and the rollbacks against protections against toxic chemicals, he said that we would, quote, have to ask lee zeldin about that. So you're here before us today. Um, administrator zeldin, have you ever participated in a meeting with bayer where you discussed the legal or litigation issues that the company was facing? >> no, I never did. >> okay. I have.
▶ 2:57:11>> my meeting with them was very brief in that topic did not come up. >> all right, I do. Are you aware of any outreach that they would have in your agency about this? >> I could say that I directly had a brief meeting. Okay. But it was a brief meet and greet and that topic did not come up. >> thank you. >> Mr. chair. I'd like to submit, uh, epa visitor logs from july 7th, 2025, um, to the committee. >> without objection. So ordered.
▶ 2:57:40>> and, um, you're certain they didn't bring up anything regarding your work? >> I'm telling you 100%. Absolutely. I, I maybe there was some brainstorming that was done beforehand of potential topics. >> are you aware of. >> any topic? Was not. >> are you aware of anything brought up to, um, any members of your staff or your team? >> I, I, I'm not aware of that. >> no. Okay.
▶ 2:58:03>> um, I would like to submit to the record some, uh, internal emails from the epa that I have acquired via a freedom of information act submission. >> without objection. So ordered. >> we have. >> uh, documentation here, um, emails from your senior advisor for agriculture and rural affairs saying that you were meeting with the bayer ceo last year.
▶ 2:58:31They he said in these emails that they will be bringing up some legal slash judicial issues, more specifically in this internal email in your epa, it says that bayer was specifically seeking to and discussing supreme court action. They will want an update on epa's regulatory review and that, interestingly, bayer will provide a small.
▶ 2:58:57Thanks for updating the glyphosate web page from the epa and work on maha. Do you have any idea what they might have been referring to in this email? >> well, first off, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, it's possible that the team was doing brainstorming of potential topics. Okay. As somebody who actually attended. >> thank you. I'm sorry, I just. >> have 40s. I'm not trying to be rude.
▶ 2:59:19Uh, this glyphosate update that they're referring to, uh, seems to be correlated to the epa agency withdrawing its support for california's cancer warning on glyphosate. Now, this is important because five days after the epa this year, bayer filed their opening brief to the supreme court, citing the trump's executive order and hinging their case on the epa's warnings, or lack thereof, of glyphosate.
▶ 2:59:43So we have internal emails from your agency saying that bayer wanted to thank you and your agency for removing support for california's warning because their their their case before the supreme court right now hinges on you not warning the american people and withdrawing your support on glyphosate. Do you understand the conflict of interest that is before the american people right now, Mr. secretary.
▶ 3:00:13>> I understand gentlelady's time has. >> you mind if. >> I thank you? >> the gentleman may respond. >> okay. Um, so right now epa is completing a a, uh, an assessment due in 2026. Uh, and I understand this is a very important topic for, uh, many people in this country, this review that the epa is being conducted, my guidance to dedicated career, uh, staffers. And then we have people who've been there for 20, 30 years. Is that I don't want to.
▶ 3:00:44>> it's taking. >> a while, secretary zeldin, because. >> let me answer. >> the supreme court is going to be making decisions this week, and congress is voting this week on legal immunity. >> you made your point. Now I'm asking, do you mind if I answer? This is an important part of this, and I'm sure you also. >> and I think the. Timing is also very important. >> secretary zeldin, the gentleman's time has expired. Thank you. >> should I complete my answer or no? >> Mr. administrator, you can respond in writing. Sure. Okay. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, Mr. mullin, for five minutes for his questions.
▶ 3:01:15>> thank you. >> Mr. chair, for allowing the wave on. Uh, thank you, administrator zeldin, for being here today. So today, our water infrastructure is in crisis. According to your agency's estimates, drinking water systems across the country will need 625 billion, and clean water systems will need 630 billion to meet our water needs. But instead of increasing investment, your budget proposes a 90% cut to the drinking and clean water state revolving funds.
▶ 3:01:43I fear this is $1 trillion liability being shifted directly onto american households. So, uh, Mr. administrator, what impacts can everyday americans expect to see on their monthly water bill if these proposed cuts become a reality? >> uh, as I stated earlier, the president's fy 27 budget does not include the amount that congress is going to raid the revolving fund account.
▶ 3:02:10Now, I'm not opining on the merits of any earmarks of any congressionally directed spending. And I will say that there are many of these the epa administers that are fantastic. The problem is when you when you take money out of a revolving fund and you give it out as a grant, or you take other money out as part of a set aside, it's no longer a revolving fund and the account continues to get depleted.
▶ 3:02:33So a great conversation that could be had right now is how do we ensure that the revolving fund is revolving, that you can fulfill the original congressional intent? Um, but the epa in the president's fy 27 budget is not asking for your earmarks. >> appreciate that. Uh, let me just say we need investments in this area and not cuts to these programs. We can continue that conversation, but I'd like to also highlight a issue in my district.
▶ 3:03:03Uh, I know your your territory is sprawling, but this is an important issue in california. 15 at the mussel rock landfill in daly city. This is a landfill on the pacific ocean that closed decades ago but is now facing severe erosion issues due to stronger storms. We know there are many other sites across the country where legacy contamination is also a risk.
▶ 3:03:27Yet the proposed budget slashes climate resilience and adaptation grants, infrastructure grants and other programs that could help address this problem not just in my district, but across the country. So, Mr. administrator, how does the epa plan to address these legacy contamination sites and the massive risks they pose to the surrounding communities? Uh.
▶ 3:03:50>> well, part of our list of the 500 environmental actions that we took over the course of the first year of the of president trump's term includes a lot of work on superfund sites, on brownfield sites. We added new sites, uh, to the list.
▶ 3:04:04We were able to successfully delete other sites from the list because the superfund work was completed and the, the operation, the staffers doing this work with brownfield sites, superfund sites and more, um, are continuing to be able to do more with less. And, um, but we do ask for robust funding as it relates to superfund and brownfield. >> and sir, can I just get your commitment to continue to have this conversation work on these issues? Yeah.
▶ 3:04:33And, um, your fy 27 budget proposes to eliminate the san francisco bay program, which supports projects to restore ecosystems and improve resilience in my district. While other regional geographic programs would continue to receive federal support. So let me just say, I'm very concerned about san francisco bay, uh, program, the bay habitat restoration program, uh, in my estimation, being singled out.
▶ 3:05:02And I certainly hope politics isn't at play there, that that's somehow in your mind, at least a substantive decision, but very concerned about that and want to get that on the record. And with that, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields. Um, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing document list without objection. So ordered. I'd like to thank administrator zeldin again for being here today. Members may have additional written questions for you.
▶ 3:05:31I'll remind members that they have ten business days to submit questions for the record. And I ask, uh, the administrator to respond to the questions promptly. Members should submit their questions by the close of business on tuesday, may 12th. Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.