The Fiscal Year 2027 Environmental Protection Agency Budget
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
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. It 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 MAHA commission record correctly identified industry capture of the EPA's chemical safety program as a problem. Today, there are 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 first Trump administration, and then went on to work on behalf of chemical manufacturers during the Biden administration. With 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. This 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 Zeland, you announced a major deregulatory agenda despite 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 analyses that have not agreed with the administrator's predetermined outcomes. In 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 and imposes costs on Americans. EPA also ignored its analysis of the revocation of the endangerment finding, which found that the cost of the action would indeed outweigh any savings. 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, EPA's analysis found that elimination of these standards would increase consumer costs and gas prices, adding another $3,000,000,000 per year in fuel costs by 2035 for American drivers. And you can bet that EPA took a rosy estimate of future gas prices.
This 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. This 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. EPA's budget cuts and deregulatory 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 unacceptable, and I believe most Americans would agree. With that, Mister Chairman, I thank you and yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mister Guthrie, for his five-minute opening statement.
Speaker 3
Good morning, and thank you, chairman Griffith, for holding this hearing and for being here today. Welcome back, administrators. Eldon, great to have you here. We look forward to hearing about your plans for the Environmental Protection Agency over the next fiscal year. But first, I wanna commend you and your team for restoring EPA to its core mission to protect human health and the environment within the statutory authority and the mandates provided by Congress.
As a former member of Congress, you respect the Constitution, including Article One. The Biden administration and 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 and critical manufacturers. You have reigned in the EPA within the bounds of the law while ensuring it fulfills its statutory duty. You have also been laser focused on making sure taxpayer dollars are invested wisely and have worked hard and against wasteful spending on the Green New Deal and DEI programs. EPA's budget request strikes a balance between building on historic investments in core programs and responding to current environmental and economic challenges.
We especially appreciate the budget requests focusing on improving permitting. 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. We need 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 welcome you to the committee, and look forward to working with you. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Polony of New Jersey, for his five-minute opening statement.
Speaker 4
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 the EPA's history. This would hamstring 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 the EPA so successful in cleaning up toxic pollution and providing healthier futures for Americans. EPA 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 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, these 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 the 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 Zelden, the EPA is going in a dangerously wrong direction. At every turn, administrator Zelden has demonstrated that he is at the beck and call of special interest, 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 looked the other way as bad actors poison communities across the United States. What is potentially most egregious is EPA's shockingly irresponsible rollback of the landmark endangerment finding, 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. It'll result in even higher food and electricity prices than we're also seeing due to the Republican affordability crisis, and it'll 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. And 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, a fact that EPA conveniently ignores.
Simultaneously, the Zeldon 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. And finally, the effectiveness of the agency hinges on the EPA having the career staff necessary to fulfill its mission. They are the backbone of the agency. Yet administrator Zelens' 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 clinical work career staff conduct on behalf of the American people every day. He's created such a toxic and hostile environment for career staff that the 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, minister Zelden has placed polluters' favors over the needs of the people the agency is tasked with protecting. The 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, mister chairman, I yield back the balance of my.
Speaker 1
Time. Chairman yields back. We now conclude with members' opening statements. The chair would like to remind members that pursuant to committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. We wanna thank our witness for taking his time to testify before the subcommittee today.
Although 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 Lise Eldon, former member of the House and administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Per committee custom, our witness will have the opportunity for a five-minute opening statement, followed by a round of questions for members. The light is on the timer in front of you, we'll turn from green to yellow when you have 1 minute left.
I now recognize you, Administrator Zelden, for your five-minute opening statement.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Chairman Griffith, ranking member Tonko, Chairman Guthrie, ranking member Pologne, 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 US 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 Washington. Last year, EPA political and career leadership worked to reorganize the agency workforce to better support EPA's mission, 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 that first year.
These actions directly advance our agency's core mission. EPA environmental accomplishments these past 15 months 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, offsetting poisons and pollution to the United States, and unlocking billions of dollars in funding to reduce lead in drinking water. Our commitment to gold standard science at EPA guided our decision to bolster scientists in our national program offices and establish 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. With 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 US energy dominance, and strengthen the American economy. In February, 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 are all achievable, and we are proving it every day. President Trump is committed to rebuilding baseload power, including coal, which is vital to our national security and to the wallets of tax-paying Americans. The Biden EPA tried hard to strangle 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 9 and a half months.
I 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 administration's so-called good neighbor rule, which was used on an ill-advised expansion of federal jurisdiction. The 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 the 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. That's why I recently announced alongside HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that 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. This 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.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, administrator. We will now begin questioning. I'll 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 5 minutes. And first, I would like to offer for introduction the list that administrator Zeldon 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. Alright.
Now, also, we heard comments about, you know, how the budget 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 onetime 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?
Speaker 5
And then a budget that was an annual operating budget of about $10,000,000,000 a year. EPA in 2024 obligated and spent over $60,000,000,000. 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 pass-throughs where each of them were taking their own cut to administer the dollar. By design, when 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. Fortunately, 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. Those days are done. 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.
Speaker 1
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?
Speaker 5
Not only will we be able to fulfill all of our statutory obligations, but we will be able to do more with less. We inherited backlogs of over 14,000 pesticide reviews, 500 new chemicals, 175 small refinery exemptions, blown deadlines on setting numbers for renewable volume obligations, and hundreds of state implementation plans. The core statutory obligations set by this body were ignored by our predecessors. And guess what? All of those backlogs are either eliminated or greatly reduced since we came in, doing more with less.
Wild concept.
Speaker 1
Congratulations. Alright. 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?
Speaker 5
It's an import for anyone who cares about the environment, there are goods as you referenced, it's called beneficial reuse. It is putting to good use what is being produced by these plants. While plants have enacted, for example, the 2012 mercury narrow toxic standards, which were strict, and we see them continuing to improve their environmental technology. Rather than trying to get rid of coal altogether, through a combination of regulations, coal combustion residuals, steam electric, ELG, clean power plan 2.0, 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, that is important to provide to American families. And we're reversing that damage in earnest, 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, not suffocating it.
Speaker 1
Yeah. And Virginia Tech in my district is studying how to recover rare earth elements from coal ash, which could strengthen domestic supplies. Now 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?
Speaker 5
Well, for one, I mean, the goal was and then 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 who will talk about a source like wind as if it is a substitute for baseload power. They just don't care that you have many states across this country that rely on coal 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, 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 Yeah. Proud of it.
Speaker 1
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.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Administrators Eldon, 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, undermined science, and harmed 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. And that, again, further, quote, the agency should not take any personnel actions against employees who signed a 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. Mister chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter in the record emails conveying legal guidance and assessments on July 1 and 07/02/2025, as well as an E and E news article published on 07/03/2025.
Speaker 1
Alright. 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.
Speaker 2
I thank you. Despite 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 administrators Eldon, why did you retaliate against EPA employees speaking out against your leadership at EPA, despite clear opinions from the general counsel's office and ethics office that these employees were exercising their constitutional rights?
Speaker 5
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 following 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 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 decided not to include that, but that's okay.
Speaker 2
Well, but did you consult with the ethics office or the general counsel's office before taking the action?
Speaker 2
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?
Speaker 5
We're gonna conduct the investigation, and then you're gonna have a recommendation that comes from across the agency and their decisions on those recommendations. It's a process that I would do again.
Speaker 2
Well, if you could get back to the committee in terms of the amount paid, the employees who were put on leave. Not only did you violate the law and the rights of these employees, you wasted taxpayer dollars, and deprived the public of the work of these employees. Now with the TASCA 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 of reducing this backlog. You tell us how important Tosca's fee collection authority is to having the personnel and resources necessary for this office to do the work.
Speaker 5
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. When we went through a reorganization, we added scientists. We added personnel to that office to get through the backlog. We also were implementing a congressional appropriation from March 2025 of $17,000,000 to update the IT inside that office, which was a very important appropriation by Congress because when the system would go down for days, that would end up resulting in a lot of lost time. Congress obviously faces decisions to make between now and September as it relates to an expiring fee.
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.
Speaker 2
Reclaiming my time. I have other questions on timeline and transparency that I'll get, beat via the subcommittee to your office. And, with that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, sir. Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for being here, administrator Zeland. And I think when you first came to Congress, we connected because I went to college in New York. I remember talking about Long Island. I went to, not on Long Island, but downriver at West Point for Mister 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 Jr. other than his father's, this famous name is cleaning up the Hudson River. And so I ask these questions 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 cleaner at where we implement it. So can you discuss how reforms of the Cleaner Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act will help the United States support advanced manufacturing of domestic energy?
Speaker 5
Well, first off, Chairman, thank you for being here. I just wanted to point out that the work on the Hudson River, PCB Superfund site, has been a very important effort of EPA. I'm actually surprised that the ranking member didn't ask about it, but I appreciate the chairman from Kentucky asking about it. And, in '25, EPA came in, obviously inheriting many years of hard work. Secretary Kennedy deserves a ton of credit.
Their recent five year review concluded that the levels of PCBs in water and fish are going down. We have seen news stories in recent weeks where people are catching fish and eating it. The water quality has greatly improved, that work continues. But, as far as your priorities under the Clean Air Act, where do you want me to start?
Speaker 3
Well, we want a situation that's nothing like that. But how do you think we need to do so we can get the permitting done quicker? Not changing any standards, get the permitting done quicker, so we can compete with China.
Speaker 5
So I know congress is considering a number of different actions in looking at modernizing the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the NEPA. 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. We, through 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 on top of that. I believe that we have provided that list. We can provide that again to any members 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.
Speaker 3
So one of the big things that drives our economy is the automotive industry. And last year, we repealed the mandates from the electric vehicle mandates. Also, you repealed can you explain? I'll just ask you this straight up. Can you explain how the repeal of the endangerment finding helps consumers, supports manufacturers, and complies with
Speaker 5
The Clean Air Act? For one, it's going to result in $2,400 per new vehicle with savings. But this is a combination. As 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 happened.
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, this was not just a decision to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, but also all greenhouse gas emission standards on light, medium, and heavy duty vehicles that followed and all off cycle credits, including the Obama climate participation trophy to manufacturers, to create an incentive to have that annoying start stop feature in vehicles, which is gone as well, which, by the way, seems to be the aspect that Americans have related to the most, they've been most passionate about supporting action. We believe that Americans should be able to buy whatever vehicle they want. And when manufacturers are able to make the vehicles that customers want, as opposed to those vehicles that politicians and bureaucrats demand. 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.
So applying common sense, following the law, and being able to pursue these efficiencies and empowering consumer choice is a great win that Americans voted for November 2024, and President Trump and Republicans in Congress have been delivering on.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Poland, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. In its 2027 budget request, EPA says the agency is, I quote, taking action to ensure cleaner, healthier air improves the 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, unquote. So administrators, 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. But, unfortunately, in my opinion, under your leadership, the 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.
And while the Trump administration provided no transparency into this process, an organization obtained some of these requests through the 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. And 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 requested an exemption from the 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.
So let me ask you, administrator, were 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?
Speaker 5
Under the Clean Air Act, decisions on section 112 presidential exemptions are made by the president. EPA's role was to accept the submissions and transmit them to the White House, consistent with this statute. The White House has publicly posted the proclamations and annexes listing the sources that received exemptions, including actions on April 8, July 17, October 24, and November 21.
Speaker 4
So 2021. 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?
Speaker 5
E p as I pointed out, what the role of EPA was to accept the submission and transmit them to the White House.
Speaker 4
You just accepted it. Okay. Does allowing more mercury, arsenic, or other toxic pollution make Americans healthy?
Speaker 5
In your opinion? Fortunately, since 2012, mercury neurotoxic standards that were put in place, very strict standards that were put in place. There were substantial reductions, fortunately, because these are toxins and reducing them is an important goal that EPA has been leading the way on.
Speaker 4
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 a result of these waivers. But I think the whole process was an enormous giveaway to polluters, with zero consideration for the Americans whose health will suffer. And, frankly,
Speaker 5
I think it's shameful. There's more pollution even though it hadn't gone into effect yet. Is that your position?
Speaker 4
didn't go any further. 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, to help 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.
Earlier this month, I sent EPA a 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. So region two administrator, 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 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.
Speaker 5
And you're asking about Aero Marine Landfill? Yes. Exactly. Absolutely. We're very well aware of it.
The region 2 administrator has briefed me on it. I know how much of a priority it is. This is an issue that New Jersey DEP has been on the lead on enforcement at the landfill. They have not asked for our assistance, but we stand ready to help.
Speaker 4
Yeah. I just wanted to say they've been working with us, and I appreciate it. The chair now, thank you.
Speaker 6
The gentleman's time has expired. The chair now recognizes me for five minutes. Director, thank you for being here. Thank you for your service in riding the ship. My colleagues across the aisle claim that the EPA's deregulatory actions are killing Americans.
Couldn't be more false. The truth is actually the opposite. What kills Americans is unaffordable energy in an unreliable electric grid, that's exactly what the previous administration's EPA was delivering. The Biden EPA imposed trillions of dollars in regulatory costs and, based on widely inflated benefit calculations, assigned speculative dollar values to statistical lives while ignoring the real world consequences of making energy unaffordable. 25,000,000 American households have reported going without food or medicine to pay their energy bills.
That is the human cost of regulatory excess. This 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 Zelden, 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 Loper Bright actually is and what it does.
Thank you for the words that you had yesterday at a hearing here on Capitol Hill. And Loper Bright happened because of left wing EPA overreach. That's exactly why we are here. 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?
Speaker 5
Thank you for asking. For a long time, the Chevron doctrine was in place. This got challenged. For 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. We saw that used inside the 2009 endangerment finding. If you read the endangerment finding throughout it, you'll see that discretion is being used just because it doesn't say we can't. Well, I guess that means we can. Well, the Supreme Court weighed in in Operbright and said you can't do that anymore, that you have to follow the best reading of the statute.
The major questions doctrine, which was also put forth by the Supreme Court in recent years in their cases, also says 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? Well, if you want an agency like the 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.
Speaker 6
Thank you for that. And I'll ask, can you provide an update regarding what actions the EPA is considering on the reconsideration of Quad O B and C, which cost hundreds of billions of dollars in excess, and is another example of left wing overreach?
Speaker 5
Absolutely. This has been a multiple phased process. We delayed a compliance deadline to allow us to fix the flaws with the Quad O BC regulation. We just announced that second phase of the reconsideration. We're about to announce a third phase.
As soon as this week, we'll be putting out updated guidance, to make sure that those who look at Quad OBC and have to comply with Quad OBC, understand exactly what that rule means and how the agency interprets it. This is a really important topic for a lot of our country, a lot of our economy. We want more reliable baseload power. We wanna leash energy dominance, and QUAD O BC is a vehicle that was used to cause a lot of harm to much of this country, including a lot of Texas.
Speaker 6
And it ignores the fact that between 2011 and 2020, methane emission intensity has dropped 70% just in the Permian Basin, while production of oil and gas has increased 320%. So it ignores those facts. I appreciate the work you've done, administrator, to revisit and improve certain aspects of the AIM Act implementation. 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 the compliance challenges that it creates for refrigeration in grocery stores and other places.
Can you give us an idea whether the agency is considering near term reconsideration or adjustments of the HFC management rule? I'm sorry. I only have 10 seconds left.
Speaker 5
So we, on April 17, EPA sent over a proposal to the OMB. We are continuing to work through fixing the technology transition rule. The impacts will fix the by us addressing this, the negative impacts of the technology transition rule on grocery stores, on the semiconducting industry, on residence on residents across our country, we're gonna fix it to the maximum extent allowed under the law.
Speaker 6
Thank you, director. My time has expired. The chair now recognizes Jim from California, Mr. Ruiz.
Speaker 7
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. 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 of the EPA to help address these types of binational water pollutions?
Speaker 5
Absolutely. This has been a very important focus of our agency. I look forward to, by the way, coming to New River. Appreciate the environment. What we're.
Speaker 7
gonna talk about. So you have heard of the New River because the same model is what we need for the New River. I understand. 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. It 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 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. Administrator Zelden, the EPA under the Biden and Trump administrations has 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 than the Tijuana River.
At the Calexico Crossing, for example, fecal coliform levels have reached nearly 70,000 times the federal treaty limit. Yet communities along the river, overwhelmingly low-income, have not received comparable action or coordination. There have been reports by CBP agents who take shifts by the river or who have gone into the river of complaining of flu-like symptoms. Blurred vision, severe headaches, rashes, open sores. And those that have fallen into the river complained of UTIs and even skin itching, just itching all over their body.
Some students who live near there have been complaining of shortness of breath, some even calling 911 ones from the classroom. So they're 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 real infrastructure solutions. So in June, soon, there will be the binational summary of the water characterization study, it is gonna come out. Do you commit to looking at that and having that same urgency, and giving your input to the coordinated organizations?
Speaker 5
I'm happy to. And I know that on May 11, Region 9 Leadership is planning a visit to meet with you and your staff. I believe that there's even discussion of a follow-up visit for the May 11th trip. So the urgency, we're not gonna wait till June and wait for the report. I believe that we're coming to visit here in the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 7
That's excellent, and that's very good to hear. Because from your input to the study, we're gonna need an MOU, and we're gonna need it quickly. And from the MOU, then we can negotiate a minute. Will you participate in this coordination to develop this minute as soon as possible? No.
I hear I've heard you and others loud and clear.
Speaker 5
There was an assemblyman, who I met with in San Diego, who I believe is an assemblyman in the New River area, who was advocating passionately as well. So this is something that I'm grateful that you're raising here, and we know that it's important to your constituents. I 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.
Speaker 7
to working with you on it. Great. One last thing. As I mentioned earlier, there's been a lot of investment that helped get the Tijuana River started. This is the moment when federal investment is vital to match the scale of this crisis.
But this administration is proposing to cut the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by nearly 90% or $2,600,000,000. 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.
Speaker 5
If I may respond, I'd I know that the time is renewal. Is it okay, chairman? Okay. Ask the police. There are good examples across the country to use as it relates to the state revolving fund.
I would just offer as it relates to these cross boundary issues that the investment that is desperately needed is on the Mexico side. We're seeing that in Tijuana, and factoring in population growth. That was part of what we negotiated to get Mexico to commit money that was previously obligated. And while I look forward to learning more about New River, which I know is important to you as you're bringing up here, 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 more international.
Speaker 7
140,000,000 to the Tijuana River. The US contributed over 600000000. So that's the intent, is to have both countries clean up this mess.
Speaker 1
And I will have to I appreciate the colloquy, but I do have to call it in. I will also note for the record that there are two new rivers and that we are not speaking about the beautiful, pristine, recreation-driving New River that runs through North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia. And now, recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Doctor Joyce, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 8
Thank you, chairman, for holding this important hearing, and to administrator Zelden for testifying with us today. Under your leadership, administrator Zelden, the EPA has returned to science-based decision making rather than advancing ideological conclusions that ultimately put our nation's energy supply and critical supply chains at risk. Thank you. Thank you for that strong direction you have provided from the top of the agency 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 consent to enter into the accounting of the EPA environmental achievements during the first year of the Trump administration that was released on 01/20/2024 into the record.
Speaker 8
Focusing now on some recent actions that have been taken by the EPA. Administrator Zelden, what is the legal basis that the EPA relies on for requiring the reallocation of small refinery exemptions?
Speaker 5
So the way that the process works under the law following congressional action that was taken a couple of decades ago, 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. It is not based off of, you know, people calling me up from the hill and trying to get, you know, special treatment for one over the other. But I will say that it's something that can be reformed through congressional legislation that I look forward to working with you on. We have some small refineries that do not get approval at all.
Some got partial. Some got full. And it was through an application of the DOE, 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 that entire process with SREs. We inherited a backlog of 175.
Fortunately, we got rid of all of it. We've received some new applications since, and the transparent approach that we will continue to pursue is consistent with the one that we have pursued last year.
Speaker 8
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. Administrators Eldon, for several years, I've raised concern about the impact of EPA rules 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 the medical device chain in the sterilization process. Moving 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?
Speaker 5
So 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. EPA is requesting comment on newer studies and methods that may influence the agency's understanding of ETO's carcinogenic potency. It's 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. So the process is one where we created an office of implied, science and environmental solutions.
We're integrating science and research more directly with the 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. We also want to make sure that we are providing radical transparency to the American public on the studies that 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, you know, that study would get dismissed as an anomaly. The thing 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 webpage 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. I 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 a member of the public is looking for.
So gold standard size isn't just an internal process. It's also about communication with the public.
Speaker 8
My time has expired, but administrator Zelman, I want to once again express my support for the work that you have already done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize the gentle lady from California, Miss Barracon.
Speaker 9
Thank you, mister chairman. EPA administrator in my district, The EPA's risk management program inspected a chlorine transfer facility, JCI Jones Chemical, in 2015 and in 2017, and 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 5 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 5 years.
The 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.
Speaker 5
The work of the office of enforcement and compliance is important. We take seriously any matters that are raised to us from members of congress. We 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, to be enforced against or working with our agency to comply on, we will make sure that we mobilize those in the agency.
Speaker 9
I don't mean to cut you off. I'm trying to get an answer to my question. My 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 the inspections when you have, like, a facility that's having repeated violations.
Speaker 5
that's anything about waiting 5 years. I'm talking about the end of this hearing.
Speaker 9
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 question. It's not too close.
Speaker 5
And I, of course. And I said, I've never said anything about waiting 5 years.
Speaker 9
Yeah. Okay. Well, I hope the EPA will look at doing that when there are repeat violators. So moving on, last week, a hydrogen sulfide leak at an industrial facility in West Virginia killed two workers, and it sent dozens more people to the hospital. The US Chemical 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?
Speaker 5
Well, we have been involved in this process already. Based on Catalyst Refiners' self-reported tier two emergency and hazardous chemical inventory submissions from '25 and '26, the chemicals and their quantities, including the self-reported submission, did not trigger applicable thresholds under the risk management plan rule. OSHA is.
Speaker 9
Meeting. So, sir, I'm gonna interrupt you because I'm trying to get a very specific answer about the chemical safety board. Not your involvement. The chemical safety board 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.
Speaker 5
Yeah. Well, 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.
Speaker 9
So you don't support the investigation by the Chemical Safety Board then?
Speaker 9
I mean, I'm trying to get an answer to that question. Will you, this is not that hard.
Speaker 9
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. I understand Ocean's Y.
Speaker 5
So I thought you were maybe interested in what was going on beyond the grandstanding, but go ahead.
Speaker 9
Where's the grandstanding. You're the one reading prepared statements instead of asking questions.
Speaker 5
I'm telling you the process that's going on. I'm telling you more about what we know.
Speaker 9
And you just said you support the Chemical Safety Board's funding. I 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?
Speaker 5
Every aspect of the fiscal year 27 budget that I'm here talking about, I am supportive.
Speaker 9
I'm gonna repay my time because of proposal. Understood. Administrator is just killing time instead of what he said is contradictory. On the one hand, he supports the chemical safety board investigation. On the other hand, he supports eliminating.
Speaker 9
Contradicted yourself, and it's very rude. It's very rude to even have the chairman.
Speaker 9
Well, and in that, you won't even stop so that I could be heard. It's not appreciated. And with that, I'm gonna yield back my time.
Speaker 9
And, you know, hopefully, the EP administrator can take the smirk off his face and worry about people's health and safety.
Speaker 12
Thank you very much, mister chairman, and we really appreciate you coming back to the house. We, you're one of our members for a good number of years. Also, I wanna thank you for coming to my district with the US trade representative over at the Ford plant. But one of the things I'd like to start with is on the permitting question. You know, I chair the energy subcommittee, and one of the things that we've talked about in this committee, the full committee, is that we have to have more energy produced in this country.
Everybody admits that 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 what the EPA has taken steps to streamline, especially on the air permits. How will EPA further improve the process under the post-2027 budget?
Speaker 5
The EPA has the power to really slow things down. EPA also 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 are involved in EIS and NEPA reviews. We work closely with states.
We create an office of state air partnership on not just state implementation plans, but also to work closely with these state air offices where they are taking the responsibility with air permits. We're working with local authorities on water permits. We have projects that are on Superfund sites and brownfield sites. We work with members of Congress. All of you are working through in this committee, permitting reform legislation as it relates to modernizing the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and ESA, NEPA, and more.
So our work is robust internally within the agency, working with states and local governments, working with all of you, and we enjoy that aspect of the work, and we wanna continue to pursue more wins.
Speaker 12
Well, I appreciate that. And, also, as we look about from permitting, how we can move things along also with AI. And 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 get these projects going. It's a lot of times a little bit faster because you can use the AI to get it done.
Speaker 5
Absolutely. There are projects breaking ground all across the country right now. You could visit data center groundbreakings that are billion-dollar projects here in West Memphis, Arkansas. You could go out to Cheyenne, Wyoming, and see a new data center that's getting built or Idaho Falls, Idaho. These projects are all across the country.
A lot of them are generating their own power. A lot of them are structuring deals that are providing net benefits to the local ratepayers. And it's very important too that they lean into water reuse. There are so many different program offices within the agency where 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 ratepayers. There are certainly many ways that these projects can go sideways.
You have to also understand that not all states are equal. I mentioned the West Memphis, Arkansas example, which is a $4,000,000 Google project that broke ground last summer. They're working with the state of Arkansas and energy. They 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 energy ratepayer of over $1,000,000,000. So bringing that experience across the board with the way the deals are structured, where they're cited, on the permitting front to get this stuff built quicker, working with these local permitting authorities, and more. There are many ways that the agency can assist.
Speaker 12
Well, also, going on advanced recycling technologies, how does EPA view advanced non-mechanical recycling technologies within its regulatory and budget framework?
Speaker 5
This is something that we need to be leaning into more as a country. I visited not too long ago the Baytown facility where advanced recycling is being done, appears to be exceptional in Texas. There's a lot of advanced recycling projects that are getting ramped up in Europe. They're getting ramped up in Asia, and we're not heading in the, we had not, for years, been heading in the right direction as far as advanced recycling. But now, there's an opportunity to turn it around.
And there's a way through advanced recycling where you can take plastic instead of sending it to a landfill, you can now break it down to its raw chemical compound. 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. 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, as a model of what could be expanded.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for yielding back. And now recognize the gentleman from Florida, mister Soto, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 13
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you, mister administrator, for being here. You know, in fast growing Central Florida, we have faced many environmental challenges. We have water supply challenges, potential Florida offshore drilling, and intensifying hurricanes. I was surprised when you had made the fiscal argument for the budget, since Trump's billionaire tax breaks have caused the federal deficit to go to 2,000,000,000,000 a year while 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 Research Development Act and WIFIA at elevated levels like we saw before in a new infrastructure law.
I do wanna stress that the federal government's been a key partner with Florida, and that money has been spent in a bipartisan way because we have such a fast growth. So 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?
Speaker 5
Sure. And what we experienced last year was, the bump up that congress put in was, primarily congressionally directed spending. There are also a lot of set-asides. The state revolving fund hasn't truly been a revolving fund. 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.
It should just be noted that when you turn a loan into a grant, give it to a recipient, you pull out of the SRF, it's not revolving anymore. But, whatever congress chooses to appropriate, it's our job to follow the law and make
Speaker 13
Sure that money is spent. And, mister minister, I agree with you on that the state revolving fund should actually revolve and not just turn into a grant program. That's why we also have to fund WERDA. You know, from being a member of the house and standing up for Long Island, that we congress has its own role to play. I appreciate you mention that.
There's a lot of bipartisan opposition in Florida to expanding offshore oil drilling to the Gulf. I know normally this is a Department of Interior issue, but it did go before the vote of the endangered species committee, which you serve on. I do wanna stress tourism, agriculture, our top industries, and there's a potential of whales, manatees, and sea turtles potentially at danger because of this decision. So given the bipartisan opposition, you know, what rationale did you use for yes vote, and what compromise do you think could be made to try to help save these species?
Speaker 5
So as you know, as you referenced, there was a recent meeting of the Endangered Species Act, the Endangered Species Committee they refer to as the god's god, pretty wild name. But, EPA is committed to 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 the pending litigation.
Speaker 13
Okay. Well, as you know, historically, there's been oil drilling in the Western Part Of The Gulf and not on the Eastern Part. So I hope you keep that in mind. We have some of our US senators also oppose it, as well as a lot of the delegation, because as opposed to some of these other Gulf states, Florida is definitely more of a tourism, agriculture state than an energy producing state. So I appreciate you keeping an open mind on it. Obviously, you may have to resolve that in litigation.
We also get hit by a ton of hurricanes in Florida, unfortunately. Not as much more than New York back in the day. 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 do you not believe in that causality?
Speaker 5
You said as it relates to the 2009 endangerment finding, 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.
Speaker 13
I understand. But it is your personal belief that greenhouse gases do still cause some kind of climate change and can affect weather?
Speaker 5
The climate has always been changing. I've acknowledge that as a real hoax of course it is when you have members of congress who say that the world's about to end in twelve years. And, you know, here we are four years and 9 months away from that date, and I'm pretty confident the world isn't about to end.
Speaker 13
Well, mister administrator, I hope you'd keep in mind, especially EPA's role in resiliency, to help a lot of these coastal communities and central communities like I have, that certainly would appreciate those dollars should we fund them. Thanks, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mister Carter, his five minutes of questions.
Speaker 14
Administrators, Eldon, thank you for being here, and appreciate all your work and 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 this committee for many years, and we'll continue to work on. It's so very important. One of the regulations that's been devastating for our nation and for the growth of our nation in manufacturing has been the unworkable PM2.5 standard, the particulate matter. As you know, the Biden administration made some significant changes to this, and it's caused a lot.
Speaker 14
businesses not to be able to locate in areas that they'd like to locate in. And it's something that we're trying to address here in this committee. This made it more difficult to create jobs, to build cutting edge factories, and to lead the world in development of new products that we know that we need to be doing, that we need to do. Can you provide us with an update on where the agency stands to revisit and revise this rule?
Speaker 5
The Trump administration is no longer defending the unlawful 2024 Biden PM 2.4 NACS rule. 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. EPA is remaining hopeful that the DC Circuit will soon release a decision on that.
Speaker 14
What about the NASC review process? Are y'all doing anything to ensure that any new standards allow manufacturing to thrive while protecting the environment? I 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 born and raised on the Georgia Coast and lived there all my life. I love the environment.
Don't tell me I don't love the environment. Wanna protect it.
Speaker 5
It's been important for us to handle this backlog of state implementation plan requests that we inherited, to make sure that we are getting through that. That's why we created the Office of State Air Partnership as part of last year's reorganization. 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. And, furthermore, what we see is states being penalized for what have been international sources of air pollution. The state of Arizona, the state of Utah have already benefited from decisions that we made by pulling down the 179b guidance a year ago.
And we're looking at other non-attainment zones where areas are being crushed, penalized for pollution that is caused by international sources, and that's not right. We have plenty of ideas on NACS reform. I know that this is something that you have plenty of ideas on as well. A 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.
Speaker 14
And one of those that you are alluding to is the CLEAR Act that I have. And, of course, that'll make some statutory reforms.
Speaker 14
NASC process and to make it more workable for manufacturers. In other words, one example of that is to take review from ten years to five years and to the baseline that was lowered by the Biden administration from 12 down to nine, and the impact that prescribed burns. Right now in South Georgia, we've got wildfires that we're dealing with. And, you know, the particulate matter obviously is gonna be higher during those times, and we need to take into consideration those things. Would you agree that reforms like this are common sense and would help EPA to conduct a more efficient NASC process?
Speaker 5
Yes. Definitely. When you combine the PM 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 prescribed burns, because they're worried that they're gonna put a community into a nonattainment issue, that they will not be able to meet federal standards, and they're gonna be penalized because of it. And we do not believe that the best reading of the cleaner act, by the best reading of statute put forth by this committee, is calling on the agency to be putting these western governors in a situation where they just have to allow their communities to burn down.
Speaker 14
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 elaborated in your budget. You elaborated on how you're going to be, 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 your budget, and appreciate it.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mister Algon calls for five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 15
Good morning, administrator. Thanks for being here. When you were here last year, you and I spoke about PFAS contamination. I represent Massachusetts. You formally represent in New York.
It's a problem in both states. Yes?
Speaker 15
I recall that I was pressing you last year on the budget that would cut funding by $2,500,000,000 for the clean water and drinking water state revolving loan funds. It'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 gonna remediate PFAS with a 90% cut to the principal program that mitigates it, and you responded that we were gonna do it through technology. And so I reached out to your staff, and I do wanna compliment your staff. They came to my office, your top administrators, and I had them huddle up with the top technologist in the PFAS remediation space.
And we talked about it for an hour. It's a good meeting. An administrator, there's no technology to remediate or mitigate PFAS at 10% the cost or the same ethic. It doesn't exist. Electrochemical oxidation, incineration, like, it's not there.
So, again, you're proposing to cut this cycle 90%. I'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 in 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.
Speaker 5
So it's your position that there's no PFAS destruction technologies that merit any conversation here? There are tons. What I am saying is at the.
Speaker 15
Point of production, yes. For dredge at the 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 technologist. We're 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?
Speaker 5
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 make. Now I'm not weighing in on the merits, and I'm gonna opine on what you choose to advocate for your district. But at the same time, the president's FY27 budget proposal is not going to propose your earmarks for you. We're also.
Speaker 15
Your EPA plan for clean water is to hope that members of Congress, I'm not.
Speaker 5
I'm not hoping that members of Congress are gonna, like, raid it. I know that members of Congress are gonna raid it, and they've been doing it for a long time. There's a reason why the revolving fund is not revolving: it is because there are members who take money out of the revolving fund, and they give it as earmarks to members of their district. And 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.
Speaker 5
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's gonna continue to have this problem.
Speaker 15
You're in charge of the EPA budget. You're not in charge of earmarks, and 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 the water supply?
Speaker 5
The way you are 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 there's nothing you could do about some water system that is gonna try to remediate. Name one. Four years from now.
Speaker 15
Name one that can operate at a municipal water scale. We can talk about landfills. We can talk about a point of production. Where should we start? Technology that can operate at municipal water supply for 90% to dollars.
Speaker 5
Okay. You have mech mechanochemical degradation, gasification. Yeah. Not 90% cheaper. Supercritical water oxidation, micro not 90% cheaper.
Dégradation. Not 90%. Landfilling, underground injection.
Speaker 15
None, all these things cost more money. They all cost more money because they're 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 in congress.
Speaker 5
You wanna 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.
Speaker 5
I'll go ahead. And what happened next? We stood up an office of applied science and environmental solutions. We added scientists in chart inside of all sorts of program offices across the agency to integrate their research. You
Speaker 5
In New York. Technology to deal with PFAS. Clean Earth, the viola in North America. Veo back-check. Visits to clean Harbors or Fort Richards or research inside a Research Triangle Park.
Do you wanna, are you gonna control?
Speaker 1
This gentleman? Back. I appreciate it. And I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, mister administrator, for being here. Would you like to finish your thought process that you were on?
Speaker 5
Sure. I mean, you know, for example, thank you, Congressman. You know, when I had a visit to Richardson in Alaska, there was a company that had a project for 6,000 tons of contaminated soil at Richardson. Alaska has an issue that contaminated soil has to get sent to the lower 48 because they can't fix it on spot. So they give a small project of 6,000 contaminated tons of soil to a local company to utilize prototype zero to work on their prototype in cleaning up these 6,000 tons of contaminated soil to get 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 contaminated soil.
Does that mean that at that moment that I was visiting Fort Richardson, that company with 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 gonna look like in order to be able to get it 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. You have companies that are leaning into new innovations. You have these entities that book that know that they can destroy PFAS. 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.
Speaker 17
Well, thank you for that. And, now, 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 will not listen. So we appreciate you being here, mister Trevor. 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 80% of the nation military grade fuel. Because 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.
Speaker 5
So we were just speaking earlier in response to Congressman Pfluger, was asking about Quaddo, BC. And, we announced on March 12 that we were gonna reconsider the Quad OBC, which we've done through three parts. We just finished the second stage of Quad OBC. We're gonna be putting out new guidance on that as early as this week to help the regulated community understand the rule, and how EPA views the rule as we pursue that third phase of Quaddo BC. That is just one example.
The permitting front, we have been going through a rulemaking on 401 of the Clean Water Act. 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 404c, waters of The United States. These are all aspects that relate to permitting for these gas pipelines.
Speaker 17
Well, that's good to know. And how about on things like jet fuel, petroleum, and, of course, oil, gasoline, those kinds of things?
Speaker 5
Sure. Well, actually, a lot of what I just stated applies to all industries.
Speaker 5
As well. Now, 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. And by working with EPA to understand the interpretation of federal law and federal regulation, it allows the state to put more flexibility in place, and Texas has been fantastic to work with.
Speaker 17
So let me paraphrase that. You all view the states as allies, not enemies. Very quickly, I'm gonna say, you mentioned earlier that the world was gonna end in four years and nine months. I think somebody quoted here, but it's yeah. Not my words.
I'm gonna ask the gentlelady if she would give us some more time. Maybe the world won't end. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize, Mister Carter of Louisiana for his five minutes of questions.
Speaker 18
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you, mister 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 science. That's why last week, along with representative Fletcher, I introduced the zealously eliminating legal decisions of ineptitude and negligence act, the Zeldon 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. It's a road map for gutting enforcement, slashing environmental protections, and leaving communities to fend for themselves.
Administrator Zelden, I teach a course on government at my Alma Mater's 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 MP in 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.
Speaker 5
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, 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 the proposal. Ask you,
Speaker 18
yes or no. Do you agree with the president's proposal to eliminate the grant program in its entirety?
Speaker 18
You were trying to put the fire out on these grants while putting the fire on communities that depend on these grants to have the audacity to drink clean water and clean drink clean and breathe clean air. You think that's the right approach?
Speaker 5
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 a little more fiscal responsibility than you.
Speaker 18
Let me, let me 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. How 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. No.
It's your position. You made the comments.
Speaker 5
So, but, if I understand your question correctly, you're saying that EPA is cutting enforcement. You're cutting the dollars. Let me give you a.
Speaker 18
Quick lesson in federalism. Your responsibility to the states is 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.
Speaker 5
In fiscal year 25, during the first year of president Trump's term in office from January 20, '25 to January '26, we sentenced more criminal defendants. We obtained far more in criminal fines and restitution. As a matter of fact, 57,700,000 in the last year of the Biden administration, 561,900,000 in the first year of the Trump administration. We obtained far more in criminal forfeiture. In the last year, the Biden administration.
Speaker 18
Well, where was the criminal forfeiture from? Who was the criminal forfeiture from? Billion dollars. Criminal forfeiture from? Don't read off your prepared notes.
Answer my question.
Speaker 18
Can you tell me from whom? Can you tell me? Because right now, you're reading the script, and I'm asking you.
Speaker 18
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.
Speaker 18
I'm reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. The last Mister chairman, I'm reclaiming my time. Administrator, I am not gonna allow you to over... Sir. I'm not gonna allow you to overspeak 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.
Speaker 1
Briefly? The next person could give you some time. Sure. And that would be Doctor Marionette Miller-Meeks of Iowa.
Speaker 19
Thank you, mister chair and administrator Zelden. How did you know I was going to do precisely that? And you were also trying to make a statement, I think, a factual statement about grants being moved to other parts of the EPA, which would still be administered. So, would you care to respond?
Speaker 5
I appreciate that. Congresswoman, thank you. So, as I was saying, and I'm very proud of the work of our enforcement and compliance office. Further examples of the good work during the first year of the Trump administration: cleanup of contaminated soil and water. In the first year of the Trump administration, it was 59,300,000 cubic yards.
Compared to last year of the Biden administration, it was 1,990,000 cubic yards. A billion dollars more in the value of injunctive relief, hundreds 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. So, you know, what you have is, you know, you have members who want a grandstand, and they wanna 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 wanna cut you off and make sure that you stop reading the numbers that disprove their false claim. But, you know, I understand that reaction when you come to a committee like this and you actually don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 19
Most members read off scripts that are prepared for them, and most administrators do. And I remember questioning the last EPA administrator two years in a row, 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 asked if they knew how many passenger vehicles were on the road in the United States at that 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 2 years in a row. Why would you make rules and put those in 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, and it underscores 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 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 RBOs by the November 1 statutory deadline?
Speaker 5
We immediately moved to RFS set three as soon as we finished RFS set two. We will work as fast as we possibly can to be able to get this back on track. As you know, and I believe you referenced, we inherited a blown deadline. And on top of it, we had to also get rid of the adjudications of 175 of the small refinery exemptions. Now that we're done with RFS set two, we were able to remove the 175 backlog in the small refinery exemptions.
We moved to RFS set 3, which we will work to complete as fast as we can.
Speaker 19
I'd like to also submit for the record the EPA's actions on PFAS, if I may.
Speaker 1
We will have to take a look at them, but most likely, that would be yes.
Speaker 19
Thank you. And then I'll submit questions for the record, but I just wanna 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 permitting and still deliver cleaner air. Fine 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 5,500 permit applications and reports, replacing paper forms with a streamlined twenty-four-seven digital platform that uses built-in data checks and shared emission data to speed reviews.
I just wanna know, is this something that you would be able to talk about? You can submit in writing about the EPA utilizing to improve permitting and the environmental review process in the integrated environmental strategies program. And with that, I yield.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, Yields. Now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 16
Thank you, chairman. Administrator Zelden, 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? Absolutely.
I would too. And now we know that climate change worsened Sandy's impact, causing an additional $8,000,000,000 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 gas pollution and reduce the risk of more frequent and intense super storms inflicted by climate 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 $180,000,000,000 in net cost, 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 analyzes the impacts of this decision, it relied in part on the assumption that oil will cost about $47 per barrel. Is that correct?
Speaker 16
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?
Speaker 16
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. Now 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 75¢ a gallon by 2050, adding more than $3,000,000,000 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 45,000,000,000 in additional health costs by 2050. Just yes or no. Did the EPA fully and comprehensively account for additional health care costs, respiratory illnesses, hospitalizations, and premature deaths associated with these rollbacks? The decision was made based on.
Speaker 5
The fact that the best reading of section 202 of the Clean Air Act, EPA does not have the authority for the 2009 endangerment fund.
Speaker 16
What represent, are gonna see worse health care outcomes. And this comes on the back of last year when Republicans in the Trump administration cut a trillion dollars for Medicaid and shifted billions in SNAP administrative costs onto states and counties. Administrator Zelden, I know you ran for governor of New York, you're familiar with how state budgets work. State officials have been clear that these decisions are creating major budget shortfalls, and states are struggling. So with nearly three and a half billion dollars in proposed cuts to water infrastructure and categorical grants, does that mean that residents of New York should expect higher water bills or delayed projects?
Which one?
Speaker 16
Why is it either or. Right? Because you're trying to see the energy prices. Well, you know,
Speaker 16
Energy prices are opening. What would you do if you were governor, right, of New York, which you ran for? Republicans cut a trillion dollars from health care that now the states have to backfill. Now you wanna cut 3.5 billion dollars from water infrastructure. New York, I'm sure, has a ton of projects that are now either gonna be delayed or to do those projects, it's gonna 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 as.
Speaker 5
Right. So the first part of that, as I've referenced earlier, is that the EPA, the president's FY 27 budget does not factor in how much you're gonna choose to raid the budget.
Speaker 16
And that's a point you made before, so I'm going to move on. I'm gonna move on because you've said other crazy stuff. You said other crazy stuff today. Okay? Worries.
That the Biden administration, I mean, can you gonna do anything at some point? I mean, 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, I just want to ask you a question.
You've said that the Biden administration with the IRA had more funds than the EPA knew how to spend, there was waste, fraud, and abuse. Right? And this was going out to people who 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 a billion dollars in exchange for supporting 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 a billion dollars, and I will do your work. Is that not the work that the EPA is doing today? I don't know.
Speaker 5
I'm gonna start an answer, and then you're gonna cut me off. Let's have this work.
Speaker 16
Alright. Well, if that's gonna be the case, I have another thing for you. What do you think about the $220,000,000 ad campaign that Secretary Gnome had with the DHS that went directly to Trump? I'm talking.
Speaker 5
How about the conflicts of interest during the Biden EPA that you don't want to upload?
Speaker 16
Alright. What about in the Trump administration? Gold. Alright. Well, if you want to talk about the Biden administration, talk about the Trump administration. You're part of the administration.
Speaker 1
Mister Zelden, thank you. Mister Zelden is here to talk about the EPA and other matters. At the same time.
Speaker 1
If it's related to the EPA, and you certainly can ask, but he also has the right to answer the question. So let's try to be a little more civil on all parts. Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady from North Dakota, Miss Fedorchak.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I first the first my first day in office, I wrote a letter to President Trump and Secretary Bergham, employing them to focus on 20 onerous Biden area 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. Those 20 regulations of those 20, seventeen 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 the EPA carbon rule, clean power 2.0, the WODUS rule, the MATs rule, and the waste methane emissions charged for petroleum natural gas systems rule. You worked on all of those, and Americans are paying and are enjoying more reliable energy as a result of that. So thank you, Mr. Zeldon. One that remains 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 takes effect nine days from today.
North Dakota operators tell me that this does two things. First, it will immediately shut in 20 to 40,000 barrels per day of production, and it will help drilling outside of the core Bakken area in my state. President Trump has also signed a Defense Production Act determination on April 20, directing expanded domestic production of petroleum as essential to national defense. So, as the EPA administrator, how do you plan to reconcile these two federal directives before May 7?
Speaker 5
We are preparing a guidance document to put out as recently as this week. It will definitely go out before May 7. That will address this concern.
Speaker 20
Okay. And is that going to potentially extend the May 7 compliance deadline?
Speaker 5
It will directly address fully address the concerns, that have been expressed on this issue.
Speaker 20
Okay. Good. So my producers shouldn't be preparing to shut in the production?
Speaker 5
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.
Speaker 20
Excellent. Alright. Thank you, Mr. Zeldon. I'd like to turn a little bit to new source review, the new source review issue. As currently structured, the 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 it. Can 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, decrease emissions.
Speaker 5
Sure. We've received feedback, over the course of the 15 months that we're in on, many different ways that didn't even require new rulemaking. There are some aspects that do require new rule making. We put out new guidance. We, for example, established guidance that clarified what actual construction means.
That guidance clarified the companies can build various parts of the facility as long as the building does not, with regards to the installation of emissions units or related activities, cross a particular value or threshold. We'd allowed companies at their own risk to construct their facility while they're going through the permitting process, allowing the companies to be able to operate. The begin actual construction, the interpretation of various aspects of new source review 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 on.
Speaker 20
Excellent. Would additional directive from Congress help you address that issue further?
Speaker 5
Absolutely. You know, the Clean Air Act is a landmark law that was passed though half a century ago, includes many different opportunities for modernization, which I know is a very important priority of many members of this committee. I've spoken to both the chairman of your subcommittee who's here, chairman Palmer. Good to see you, as well as the chairman of your committee. And I know that this is important to you as well.
So as far as ideas, we have a list put forth, put together by the White House Council of Environmental Quality. EPA has ideas even further beyond the list that was put forth by the White House Council of Environmental Quality. We look forward to working with you to implement any potential statutory changes to help go further.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Zeldon. Appreciate your leadership. This is a common-sense area for improvement, and I yield back.
Speaker 11
Chair, now recognize this gentleman from Ohio, Mister Lansman, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mister Zelden, 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 dollars. 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 $1,000,000,000,000, and now you are gonna cut the EPA by 50%. You're a member of Congress. Would you have supported all of this as a member of Congress?
Speaker 5
The work of families tax cut, I absolutely would have voted yes. And as I'm hearing from Americans across the country, they're really happy to get a lot more back in their tax returns. 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. You don't spend a.
Speaker 21
Lot of time, Mister John, 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.
Speaker 5
of you are that you believe that Americans are not happy to get more back in their.
Speaker 21
They been thank you so much for spending trillions of dollars on the super wealthy and cutting our health care. That's what they tell you?
Speaker 5
That's what they serve. So that's what they say. They don't repeat your talk.
Speaker 21
They don't say that. They absolutely don't. They're all members of Congress.
Speaker 5
Say that they're grateful for having more back in their tax return. Now that's your position. That shows how much.
Speaker 21
you're shifting money to the state. So this is Russ Vote. Right? He's the head of the OMB. He sets the policy for all of you.
He came to you and said, I gotta cut your budget by 50%. The EPA, it's there to protect the environment and Americans. And you just say, okay. Is that how it works? Like because this is Russ Vote who was the architect, one of the key architects of project 2025, which was we're gonna 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.
Speaker 5
The budget that I'm here before congress is a budget that I support, that I take responsibility for crafting.
Speaker 5
I'm sure he's happy with the budget, that he crafted. But that's not true. It is true. Okay. Well, you're entitled to your own version of reality.
Speaker 21
own plan where they're just getting demolished in terms of their health care. I'm gonna talk about health care cuts coupled with EPA cuts. People are obviously worried about their health. Don't you agree that's a concern with the health care cuts, now you're gonna pollute more of the water and air? Actually, the feedback that I get is.
Speaker 5
That people are happy, that we're... Where's this feedback coming from? I don't.
Speaker 5
It's called so, it's America. When you actually get out and you travel the country, I've been to all 50 states across this country. And when I travel, I get an opportunity to hear feedback from Americans.
Speaker 21
Running up to you, and they're just saying thank you so much for coming to the EPA.
Speaker 21
for cutting our health care. And they're so glad that trillions of dollars are going to the rich.
Speaker 5
Of entire sectors of our economy through regulation. They're happy when they have consumer choice. They're thrilled. They know it's quite. These stops are alarming. Things are gonna get removed.
They want manufacturers.
Speaker 21
Yeah. The manufacturing that I hear from Americans. Yeah. Yeah. Alright.
Last question. The data centers, talk about the analysis you've done on the pollution, water, air, noise.
Speaker 21
But you have so many binders. I just wanna know, like, is one of them the analysis work that you've done on data centers?
Speaker 21
Read, yeah. Which one of it does like, I've never seen any, there's so many binders.
Speaker 5
Top of my head. Data centers, I've been traveling the entire country. The good thing about data centers is, they're being built across this country. And, unfortunately, we're talking tech.
Speaker 21
It's been terrible for our communities because no one's protecting them, which is what you're supposed to do. I yield back.
Speaker 5
Arkansas about the $1,100,000,000 benefit that they're getting as energy ratepayers because of the Google Center in West Memphis.
Speaker 11
The gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 23
Mister Zelden, well, first, thanks to the chairman and to the ranking member for this hearing. And administrator Zelden, thanks so much for taking the time, not only to come talk to us today, 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 the time. 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, are 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, 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. Just last week, my bipartisan bill, the FIRE Act, which clarifies how emissions from wildfires, controlled burns, and other exceptional events are treated in federal air quality standards, passed the house. And we know the data. Multiple 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 catastrophic wildfires. So administrator Zelden, kind of a two-part question. 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?
Speaker 5
Yes. And, by pursuing more work, as it relates to modernizing the Clean Air Act, there are many opportunities. This I know is an important issue for you and your constituents in Colorado. We have heard from your constituents in Colorado who are very concerned about this issue. When you add up the Biden PM 2.5 level with the exceptional events rulemaking, with the regional Hayes 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.
Speaker 23
Oh, thank you for that, administrator. 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 nonattainment area, even though over two thirds of the emissions come from outside of our control, one of the other problems is reformulated gas. This is a mandate under the Clean Air Act. Reformulated gas costs about 40¢ more per gallon, not my data, my governor's data point.
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, and this would keep my constituents from having to pay 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 the RFG waiver, for Colorado for summertime ozone? Yes. Thank you.
Last question, Mr. administrator. Last month, I was honored to welcome chairman Guthrie, chairman Palmer, and several other members of the energy and commerce committee to my district to tour Suncor. 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 the small refinery exception program, which is administered through the EPA.
But 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?
Speaker 5
Well, I can't speak to an individual small refinery exemption request. 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 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 certain elements that you just included in your remarks.
Speaker 11
Someone yields. Okay. Can I let the wave go on first? Okay. Now I recognize myself for five minutes of questions.
I'd just like to point out a couple of things, though, mister administrator, that my colleagues keep attacking the working families tax cuts, and that's the bill in which the Republicans put in $50,000,000,000 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. There are 51,400,000 senior citizens on Social Security who 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 saw a tax cut sometimes approaching $2,000, some more than that. They could use it to buy school supplies for the kids, maybe repair a car or get better housing, and 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 wanna get back to the purpose of the hearing. It's in your proposed budget, the EPA requests 1,700,000 to implement the Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hard Rock Mines Act of 2024. Can you tell us a little bit more about the program?
Speaker 5
Sure. We have been working hard at implementing this. We plan on getting out the first few this year. Our goal is to get out the first 15 over the course of this administration, and we look forward to fulfilling our role and making sure that congressional intent is met, this program is well led and well executed.
Speaker 11
Well, the program would provide permits for remediators so that they wouldn't face liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act, CERCLA. 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 circular. As you know, last year, EP announced that it would maintain the previous administration's designation of PFOA and PFAS as hazardous substances under circular.
At the hearing, members heard that this designation has been problematic because, among other things, PFOS are ubiquitous in the environment, and there are no federal PFOS cleanup standards. From what you and your staff are hearing and have concerns about liability for PFOS contamination, hindered efforts to remediate and reuse properties potentially contaminated, the PFOA, PFOS, and other substances? And if so, what is EPA doing to address this?
Speaker 5
Well, first off, it's important to note that there's work under PFAS that doesn't cleanly fit inside of RICRA or Circula. 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. One of the concerns that are brought up to me most often is that 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. That is against the principle of polluter pays.
So for Congress to be able to work through this in amending federal statute to ensure that ratepayers don't have to pay to clean up their own PFAS contamination, that is an example of a way that these laws can be amended to fit better, as it relates to PFAS cleanup.
Speaker 11
Could you talk briefly about the significance of the EPA guidance that was transmitted to an Arizona semiconductor fabrication plant regarding the definition of preconstruction activities and how it helps to streamline the new source review permitting scheme?
Speaker 5
Sure. 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 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. There are ways through, the use of current rules, where we were able to announce last September these changes on the preconstruction permitting, through new source reviews. In direct response to what we heard from the regulated community to ensure that these projects can move forward rather than getting stalled for years. My
Speaker 11
Time has expired. The chair now recognizes members who have waved on the committee. Recognize the general lady from Florida, Miss Castro, for five minutes for her questions.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister administrator, the Trump administration's policies are inflicting higher cost 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 when taken altogether, whether it's higher grocery bills, the pain inflicted by illegal tariffs, higher electric bills, ripping away health care, or leaving them with much higher premiums. And, you know, folks look to, they looked for folks appear to provide solutions, and I am so sorry to report to them when from representing a community that so values our values clean air and clean water that the EPA is making it worse, and they're making it more expensive. EPA, when you look at this budget, EPA will make it more difficult for local communities to build and maintain the clean water infrastructure that they rely on, the drinking water infrastructure they rely on.
It'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, this is the important partnership between EPA and our states and our local communities to keep that infrastructure online, to help us modernize it, and to help us save money because an important piece of those, 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. There 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.
In 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, though, when 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 and long-term cleanup. 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 4,000 EPA professionals have been dodged or fired. It's so difficult to watch what the Trump administration is doing. You're unleashing all of 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 recover and repair and to save taxpayers money 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, and at the same time, you're 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 for the sake of our country, for the sake of our pocketbooks, for the sake of our kids. We don't want to restore the pride that we had in our environmental laws and not cut them inside with polluters every single time.
And I also need to correct the record because it is not true what you said before that you are a stalwart in upholding our environmental laws. I know you had a little conversation with my colleague from Louisiana. You're not being straight with people. And I'll submit this for the record. Trump's EPA issues record low legal actions against polluters, watchdog group fines.
You said that a lot of the 1,160,000,000 in civil penalties and criminal fines were your initiative. That's not true. Most of those cases were started under the Biden administration, and your record is that you've initiated a record low number against polluters compared to past administration.
Speaker 22
I'll ask unanimous consent to submit this to the director and urge a course correction, mister administrator. People deserve better.
Speaker 11
Chair, now I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mister Langworth, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 24
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Zelden, welcome. It's great to have a fellow New Yorker testify before the committee because you understand something many in Washington don't, and that there is a real disconnect between what activist politicians in states like New York promise on paper and what families and businesses are dealing with on the ground. New York continues to brand itself as a national climate leader under policies like the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which I know you're very familiar with. But the targets embedded in that law, 100 percent zero emission electricity, aggressive electrification mandates, and rapid phase outs of traditional fuel are increasingly colliding with reality.
Your agency's efforts over the past year to streamline new source review permitting, 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. And, likewise, 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, you know, we have a friend and ally at the EPA that knows and understands my district. Administrator Zeldon, 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 in manufacturing out of states like New York through unworkable regulatory burdens? Thank you, congressman.
Well, first off, it's important.
Speaker 5
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. When the American public voted for President Trump and Republicans in November 2024, 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.
They want more reliable, durable baseload power. They want to unleash US energy dominance. They want to bring back and empower the American auto industry, while also protecting the environment. So what you'll see on the other side of the aisle is, 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. Not once have any of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle who claim to be so concerned about protecting the environment, wanted to even acknowledge all of the good work of our dedicated career staffers at the agency?
All those scientists who have been there for twenty, thirty years, who have secured so many wins, everything 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? And I appreciate the fact, congressman, that you 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.
Speaker 24
Well, thank you very much. You're doing a stellar job at the agency. Going to, you know, my district has common engine, a very large driver of manufacturing. What is EPA doing to provide regulatory certainty for heavy-duty truck and 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?
Speaker 5
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. We've seen these mandates coming out of the Biden administration, coming out of states like California, trying to bend the vehicle market to ideological whims, to try to achieve climate goals. And as a result, people are paying more for vehicles. They have a situation where manufacturers are building vehicles that just sit on lots and they aren't wanted.
And 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 your constituents. And I'm grateful for your advocacy.
Speaker 11
Someone yields. The chair now recognized the general lady from Texas, Miss Fletcher, for five minutes for her questions.
Speaker 25
Well, thank you so much, mister chairman, and thank you ranking member Tonko for allowing me to weigh in on this hearing to follow-up with administrator Zeldin on some critical issues very important to the people that I represent in Houston. And administrator Zeldin, when you appeared before this committee last year, we spoke about the vital role that EPA's Region 6 lab in Houston plays in keeping people in our region safe. And you committed to working with me to maintain a presence in this lab in Houston. So I just wanna revisit that conversation and follow up on it. It is 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, in 2019, EPA announced that it would close the Region 6 Houston lab and relocate its employees to a location more than 400 miles away in Ada, Oklahoma.
And I know administrator at the time we talked about this last year, there was a lot coming to you. So I'm hoping we can follow up and talk a little bit more about the process, 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 and Transfer Act, to reduce federal property holdings. And 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.
So I'm hoping that you can give me and the people I represent a little more clarity today, and, you know, just really show us that EPA is gonna continue to work with us on this in terms of keeping our community healthy. As I mentioned, EPA announced it was gonna close this lab, 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. And I'm sure you know, administrator, in our region, we are prone to hurricanes. We have a lot of concerns 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 disasters of all kinds. Of course, we're very concerned about emissions along the Port of Houston. It's a 52-mile waterway that 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 a number of incidents involving petrochemical facilities where rapid air quality testing, water quality testing is absolutely of the essence. And 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 gonna lose that expertise because, candidly, you're not gonna 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. I would encourage you to reconsider it altogether. But I know when we talked last year, we talked about the idea that EPA is committed to keeping a presence in Region 6 in the lab in Houston even if it closes the existing lab. Now the existing lab is still working, and I would like to keep the lab open indefinitely. But can you confirm for me today that EPA will fulfill its commitment on keeping a presence from Region 6 Lab in Houston for the reasons I just discussed and more.
Speaker 5
The well, as you pointed out, it's a 2009 notification that EPA sent to congressional appropriators to relocate Houston to the EDA. It was reaffirmed in 2022. Employee relocation associated with the consolidation is targeted beginning in 2027. I can commit that EPA will maintain employees in Houston to support emergency response, criminal investigations, and other operational needs. The completion of the ADA project is contingent on the agency receiving FY 2027 building and facilities appropriations at historically comparable or higher levels.
EPA will complete the environmental due diligence process for the Houston laboratories as part of the transition and lease exit. And, as you pointed out, this is something that started several years ago before we got here. And in moving forward, we I can commit that EPA will maintain a presence in Houston, as it relates to the functions that I just stated.
Speaker 25
Thanks, administrator Zeldon. I'm gonna run out of time. You know how this works. But I would like to get your commitment that EPO will remain, will retain a robust presence in Houston, and we'll 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, mister chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Gentle lady yields. The chair now recognized the gentleman from Michigan, Mister James, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Chairman Palmer, and Ranking Member Tonko for holding this important hearing today. Administrator Zeldon, welcome, and 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. But 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, 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. Over 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 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.
If 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 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. We 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, when we trust American workers, and when we use common sense.
Administrator Zeldon, thank you again for being here and for your leadership. We 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 1.11, and reducing barriers to reliable and affordable energy. 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.
For 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?
Speaker 5
Completed phase two of a three-phase process of reconsideration of Quad BC. We 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 Quad BC. There's an upcoming May 7 deadline that if we don't put that guidance out, some worry that they might not be interpreting the regulation correctly, but that's not the end of the work. The reconsideration of Quad 0 BC was partially completed in the second phase. That work of reconsideration of Quad 0 BC will be completed during the third phase.
Speaker 26
Thank you. Last question. One of your goals for FY 2027 is to bring back and protect American auto jobs. Can you describe a little bit how that 103,900,000 requested for this purpose will revitalize the American automotive industry?
Speaker 5
Well, it's really a combination of a lot of actions that we're taking inside EPA as well as other agencies in the federal government. Working with Congress, passed three congressional review acts to revoke Biden EPA waivers to the state of California. And 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. You've seen an announcement with the secretary of transportation to reconsider CAFE standards. Just a couple of months ago, EPA announced the rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding, all the greenhouse gas emission standards on light, medium, and heavy duty vehicles, as well as all off cycle credits, including that almost universally despised start stop feature.
We are going through our NOx 2027 rule. Whether it was the right to repair guidance or its rolling back of death requirements. There's so much that we have been doing under President Trump's leadership, to make sure that we're delivering on that Trump mandate that the American public voted for. And in so many respects, especially as it relates to the Congressional Review Act, we wouldn't be able to do without your leadership.
Speaker 11
Gentlemen, time has expired. Chair now recognizes General Lady from New York, Miss Ocasio-Cortez, for five minutes for her questions.
Speaker 10
Thank you, mister chairman, and good afternoon, secretary Zelens. This week is a big week, 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. And glyphosate is even used to dry out crops before they are harvested.
Correct, administrator Zeldin?
Speaker 10
Thank you. Glyphosate is also internationally recognized as likely carcinogenic to humans, with particular links to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In fact, tens of thousands of lawsuits in the United States, many issued by farmers with high exposure, have been filed against Bayer for failing to warn them about the cancer risk of exposure. Now interestingly, administrator Zeldin, on February 18, President Trump released an executive order to increase the production of glyphosate in the United States. Correct?
Speaker 10
And not only did that executive order call to increase the production of glyphosate, it also called for legal immunity, forbear 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, 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. Administrator Zeldin, have you ever participated in a meeting with Bayer where you discussed the legal or litigation issues that the company was facing?
Speaker 10
Alright. I do, are you aware of any outreach that they would have in your agency about this?
Speaker 5
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.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Mister chair, I'd like to submit EPA visitor logs from 07/07/25 to the committee.
Speaker 5
I'm telling you 100%. Absolutely. I maybe there was some brainstorming that was done beforehand of potential topics.
Speaker 10
Are you aware of anything brought up to any members of your staff or your team? Your senior team?
Speaker 10
Okay. I would like to submit to the record some internal emails from the EPA that I have acquired via the Freedom of Information Act as submission.
Speaker 10
We have documentation here, emails from your senior adviser for agricultural and rural affairs saying that you were meeting with the Bayer CEO last year. They 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 and discussing Supreme Court action. They will want an update on EPA's regulatory review, and that, interestingly, Bayer will provide a small thanks for updating the glyphosate webpage from the EPA, and work on MAHA. Do you have any idea what they might have been referring to in this email?
Speaker 5
Well, first off, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, it's possible that the team was doing a brainstorming of potential topics.
Speaker 10
Thank you. I'm sorry. I just have 40 seconds. I'm not trying to be rude. This glyphosate update that they're referring to 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 EPO this year, Bayer filed their opening brief to the Supreme Court citing Trump's executive order and hinging their case on the EPA's warnings or lack thereof of glyphosate. So 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 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?
Speaker 5
Okay. So right now, EPA is completing an assessment due in 2026. And I understand this is a very important topic for many people in this country. This review that the EPA is being conducted, my guidance to dedicated career staffers, and then we have people who've been there for twenty, thirty years, is that I don't wanna pre.
Speaker 10
Answer you. Supreme Court is gonna be making decisions this week, and Congress is voting this week on legal immunity.
Speaker 5
You made your point. Now I'm asking, do you mind if I, this is an important part of this, and I'm sure you also.
Speaker 11
Chair, now recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Mullen, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 27
Thank you, mister chair, for allowing the wave on. Thank you, administrator Selden, 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 625,000,000, and clean water systems will need 630,000,000 to meet our water needs. But instead of increasing investment, your budget proposes a 90% cut to the drinking and clean water state revolving fund.
I fear this is a 1 trillion dollar liability being shifted directly onto American households. So, mister administrator, what impacts can everyday Americans expect to see on their monthly water bill if these proposed cuts become a reality?
Speaker 5
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. Now I'm not opining on the merits of any earmarks or 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 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. So 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, but the EPA in the president's FY 27 budget is not asking for your earmarks.
Speaker 27
Appreciate that. Let me just say we need investments in this area, and not cuts to these programs. We can continue the conversation. But I'd like to also highlight an issue in my district. I know 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, yet 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, mister administrator, how does the EPA plan to address these legacy contamination sites and the massive risks they pose to the surrounding communities?
Speaker 5
Well, part of our list of the 500 environmental actions that we took over the course of the first year of the press of president Trump's term includes a lot of work on Superfund sites and brownfield sites. We added new sites to the list. We were able to successfully delete other sites from the list because the Superfund work was completed. And the operation, the staffers doing this work with Brownfield sites, Superfund sites, and more are continuing to be able to do more with less. And, we do ask for robust funding as it relates to super fund in Brownfield.
Speaker 27
And, sir, could I just get your commitment to continue to have this conversational work on these issues?
Speaker 27
And, 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 the San Francisco Bay program, the Bay Habitat Restoration Program, in my estimation being singled out. And 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. I wanna get that on the record, and with that, I yield back.
Speaker 11
Gentlemen Yields, 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 Zeland again for being here today. Members may have additional written questions for you. I'll remind members that they have ten business days to submit questions for the record and ask the administrator to respond to the questions promptly.
Members should submit their questions by the close of business on Tuesday, May 12. With that objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.