[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 26, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-121
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-504 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina RAUL RUIZ, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
_____
Subcommittee on Environment
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOE BARTON, Texas RAUL RUIZ, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee SCOTT H. PETERS, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi GENE GREEN, Texas
PETE OLSON, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
BILL FLORES, Texas TONY CARDENAS, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DORIS O. MATSUI, California
TIM WALBERG, Michigan FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia officio)
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Answers to submitted questions \1\........................... 142
Submitted Material
Report of the Government Accountability Office, ``U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency--Installation of Soundproof
Privacy Booth,'' April 16, 2018, by Thomas A. Armstrong,
General Counsel, submitted by Ms. DeGette...................... 90
Letter of April 25, 2018, from Lexi Shultz, Vice President,
Public Affairs, American Geophysical Union, to Mr. Walden, et
al., submitted by Ms. DeGette.................................. 98
Statement of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, April 20, 2018, submitted by Mr. McNerney............. 100
Article of April 25, 2018, ``Virginia Tech team gets EPA grant to
engineer citizen-science water quality project,'' by Robby
Korth, The Roanoke Times, submitted by Mr. Griffith............ 101
List of questions asked by Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Ms.
Castor......................................................... 104
Letter of April 23, 2018, from Lauren Atkins, South
Connellsville, PA, to Mr. Walden and Mr. Pallone, submitted by
Mr. Pallone.................................................... 105
Letter of April 23, 2018, from William Armbruster, Ph.D., et al.,
to E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency, submitted by Mr. Shimkus............................... 107
----------
\1\ Mr. Pruitt's response to submitted questions has been
retained in committee files and also is available at https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108218.
THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Shimkus, McKinley, Barton,
Blackburn, Harper, Olson, Johnson, Flores, Hudson, Cramer,
Walberg, Carter, Duncan, Walden (ex officio), Tonko, Ruiz,
Peters, Green, DeGette, McNerney, Cardenas, Dingell, Matsui,
and Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Long, Costello, Bilirakis,
Lance, Griffith, Rush, Eshoo, Schakowsky, Butterfield, Castor,
Sarbanes, Welch, Lujan, Loebsack, Kennedy, and Engel.
Staff present: Jennifer Barblan, Chief Counsel, Oversight
and Investigations; Mike Bloomquist, Staff Director; Samantha
Bopp, Staff Assistant; Daniel Butler, Staff Assistant; Karen
Christian, General Counsel; Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk,
Energy/Environment; Jerry Couri, Deputy Chief Counsel,
Environment; Jordan Davis, Senior Advisor; Lamar Echols,
Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Wyatt Ellertson,
Professional Staff Member, Energy/Environment; Margaret Tucker
Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and
Coalitions; Ali Fulling, Legislative Clerk, Oversight and
Investigations, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection;
Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator, Environment; Zach Hunter,
Director of Communications; Peter Kielty, Deputy General
Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, Digital Commerce and
Consumer Protection; Tim Kurth, Deputy Chief Counsel,
Communications and Technology; Ben Lieberman, Senior Counsel,
Energy; Ryan Long, Deputy Staff Director; Milly Lothian, Press
Assistant and Digital Coordinator; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel,
Energy/Environment; Drew McDowell, Executive Assistant; Brandon
Mooney, Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Annelise Rickert,
Counsel, Energy; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff
Member, Energy; Jason Stanek, Senior Counsel, Energy; Austin
Stonebraker, Press Assistant; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor,
External Affairs; Andy Zach, Senior Professional Staff Member,
Environment; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection; Priscilla Barbour, Minority
Energy Fellow; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director;
Jacqueline Cohen, Minority Chief Environment Counsel; Jean
Fruci, Minority Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment; Tiffany
Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health
Advisor; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Professional Staff Member;
Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director,
Energy and Environment; Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff
Assistant; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator; Jon
Monger, Minority Counsel; Kaitlyn Peel, Minority Digital
Director; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim
Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; Michelle Rusk, Minority FTC
Detailee; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications;
Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor;
C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary; and Catherine Zander,
Minority Environment Fellow.
Mr. Shimkus. The subcommittee will come to order. Before we
begin, I would like to take a moment to address the guests in
our audience. First of all, thank you for coming. We think
engaged citizens are a welcome and valuable part of the
political process. I only wish every hearing drew this much
interest.
The purpose of this hearing is to hear from the
Administrator of the EPA on important matters currently before
the Agency, including the subcommittee's continued interest in
the workings of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is an
opportunity for the subcommittee to ask questions and have a
thoughtful discussion on these issues. The number of people in
the audience this morning demonstrates the strong interest in
these topics, and we welcome that interest and your attendance
today.
I do want to remind our guests in the audience that the
Chair is obligated under the rules of the House and the rules
of the committee to maintain order and preserve decorum in the
committee room. I know that we have deep feelings on these
issues and that we may not agree on everything, but I ask that
we abide by the rules and be respectful of our audience
members, our viewers, and our witnesses.
The Chair appreciates the audience's cooperation to
maintaining order as we have a full discussion on these
important issues. And I would like to recognize myself for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Good morning, Administrator Pruitt, and welcome back to the
Environment Subcommittee. I am glad you are here today and look
forward to our discussion. From a policy perspective and from
my seat outside the Agency, I am generally pleased with the
direction you are taking at the EPA. As I mentioned when you
were here 5 months ago, the American people don't want
ideologues rewriting or reinterpreting our laws, they expect
and deserve folks at agencies like the EPA who will faithfully
implement what Congress has passed.
I am especially happy with the reinvigorated Superfund
program and in particular, after more than 20 years on the
National Priorities List, I am very glad to see progress
finally being made on the West Lake Landfill which we have
talked about numerous times. Superfund sites are a tangible
environmental and public health problem that may pose multiple
immediate threats.
One of the bills I worked on when I joined this committee
was to help make the Superfund program operate more rationally,
so to see that you also care about this program is important to
me. I also want to applaud your initiative to look at the EPA's
workforce and identify ways to make the Agency more efficient
and effective. As I mentioned back in December, this exercise,
sadly, has not been undertaken in more than 20 years. I believe
a lack of consistent review can lead to complacency or foster
regulatory overreach and I look forward to learning more about
efforts to reshape the bureaucracy.
As the author of the changes to Title I of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, I also want to commend you for reducing
the backlog of applications for new chemicals. I understand the
backlog has crept back up by one-third of its normal level, but
I look forward to seeing what actions you take including the
use of new user fees to help EPA operate its new chemicals
review process more expeditiously.
Finally, I am glad to hear that the regulatory process you
are running is not looking to short-circuit public comment.
Past administrations have issued enforceable guidelines or
employed other tricks to get their way on policy when many
Americans and their representatives in Congress may have
disagreed.
Now as public servants our jobs are not based solely on the
things we do or the things we have done, but also the way we
conduct our business. It is no secret that there have been many
stories in the press about the management and operation to the
Agency and your dealings with potentially regulated sectors. I
consider much of this narrative to be a distraction, but one
this committee cannot ignore.
I look forward to hearing your side of the story on the
rumors and allegations you are facing. Before yielding back my
time I want to make a couple of environmental budget and policy
observations. First, even though Federal law requires the
President to propose a budget, the U.S. Constitution vests the
actual budget and spending authority with the Congress,
particularly the House of Representatives. Second, the
President's budget was released on February 12th, 2018 without
full knowledge what Congress would do in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act that became law 6 weeks later. Had the
Administrator joined us in February or March, he would not have
had to face this dynamic. But regardless of what Members think
of the administration's budget proposal, I hope today they will
remember our own role in the budget and spending debate.
Finally, I want to say something about administrative
efforts regarding transportation fuels. Recently, the White
House is engaged with the EPA and Department of Agriculture to
consider administrative changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard.
I take these efforts quite seriously, not only as subcommittee
chairman but also as a representative of a corn and soybean
growing district in southern Illinois that also happens to have
two oil refineries.
I believe that no matter how well intentioned any
regulatory effort may be, the only way to get a lasting
solution, especially one that will not spend more time in court
than on the books, is by having Congress settle this issue by
statute. I urge you, Mr. Administrator, and the other members
of the executive branch to patiently work with us in good faith
on a legislative solution to the Renewable Fuel Standard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Good morning Administrator Pruitt and welcome back to the
Environment subcommittee. I am glad you are here today and look
forward to our discussion.
From a policy perspective, and from my seat outside the
Agency, I am generally pleased with the direction you are
taking the EPA.
As I mentioned when you were here 5 months ago, the
American people don't want ideologues rewriting or
reinterpreting law. They expect and deserve folks at agencies
like EPA who will faithfully implement what Congress has
passed.
I am especially happy with the reinvigorated Superfund
program and in particular, after more than 20 years on the
National Priorities List, I'm very glad to see progress finally
being made at the West Lake Landfill. Superfund sites are
tangible environmental and public health problems that may pose
multiple immediate threats. One of the first bills I worked on
when I joined this committee was to help make the Superfund
program operate more rationally; so, to see that you also care
about this program is important to me.
I also want to applaud your initiative to look at the EPA's
workforce and identify ways to make the Agency more efficient
and effective. As I mentioned back in December, this exercise,
sadly, has not been undertaken in more than 20 years. I believe
a lack of consistent review can lead to complacency or foster
regulatory overreach, and I look forward to learning more about
efforts to reshape the bureaucracy.
As the author of the changes to title I of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, I also want to commend you for reducing
the backlog of applications for new chemicals. I understand the
backlog has crept back up by one-third of its normal level, but
I look forward to seeing what actions you take, including the
use of new user fees, to help the EPA operate its new chemicals
review process more expeditiously.
Finally, I am glad to hear that the regulatory process you
are running is not looking to short circuit public comment.
Past administrations have issued enforceable guidelines or
employed other tricks to get their way on policy when many
Americans and their representatives in Congress may have
disagreed.
Now, as public servants, our jobs are not based solely on
the things we do, or the things we have done, but also on the
way we conduct our business.
It is no secret that there have been many stories in the
press about the management and operations of the Agency and
your dealings with potentially regulated sectors. I consider
much of this narrative to be a distraction, but one this
committee cannot ignore. I look forward to hearing your side of
the story on the rumors and allegations you're facing.
Before yielding back my time, I want to make a couple of
environmental budget and policy observations.
First, even though Federal law requires the President to
propose a budget, the U.S. Constitution vests the actual budget
and spending authority with the Congress, particularly the
House of Representatives.
Second, the President's budget was released on February 12,
2018 without full knowledge what Congress would do in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act that became law six weeks
later. Had the Administrator joined us in February or March, he
would not have had to face this dynamic. But regardless of what
Members think of the administration's budget proposal, I hope
today they will remember our own role in the budget and
spending debate.
Finally, I want to say something about administrative
efforts regarding transportation fuels. Recently, the White
House has engaged with the EPA and Department of Agriculture to
consider administrative changes to the Renewable Fuels
Standard. I take these efforts quite seriously, not only as
subcommittee chairman, but as the representative of a corn and
soybean growing district in Southern Illinois that also happens
to have oil refineries.
I believe that no matter how well intentioned ANY
regulatory effort may be, the only way to get a lasting
solution--especially one that will not spend more time in court
than on the books--is by having Congress settle this issue in
statute. I urge you, Mr. Administrator and the other members of
the Executive Branch, to patiently work with us in good faith
on a legislative solution to the RFS.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time and
recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. With that, I have 50 seconds left. Seeing no
one wishing that time, I yield back the balance of my time and
recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are here today to
discuss EPA's budget for fiscal year 2019. The President has
called for a nearly 30 percent cut at EPA which would severely
impair the Agency's ability to fulfill its mission, to
safeguard public health, and our environment. We know all too
well the costs of failing that mission, of the pain of
communities, of children and families who suffer illness
resulting from pollution in their air and water. So yes, I am
concerned that EPA is increasingly allowing polluters to set
the agenda and threaten public health with minimal
accountability.
Under Administrator Pruitt, common-sense public health and
environmental protections are being slated for elimination with
no regard for scientific evidence and little justification
beyond the wishes of regulated entities. These actions include
reopening clean car standards without any mention of health or
pollution, continuing to repeal the Clean Power Plan and
dismissing the science of climate change, implementing TSCA
reform that ignores bipartisan congressional intent, and a
number of attempts to undermine the Clean Air Act.
I expect the courts will agree that many, if not all, of
these actions are unjustified. In addition, I am troubled by
the dismissal of science by the Agency's political leadership.
Hundreds of scientists have left EPA with no apparent plan to
replace them. Expertise on the science advisory boards has been
eroded and the recently proposed rule to undermine the use of
science in rulemakings will severely limit the Agency's ability
to safeguard public health.
I know many career employees at EPA simply want to work
hard to ensure the air we breathe is clean and the water we
drink is safe. To them I say thank you. But the Agency's
political leadership is pursuing a different agenda and the
mounting evidence of serious ethics violations, incredible
investigations at the highest level cannot go unscrutinized.
Mr. Chair, I value this subcommittee's bipartisan record.
There are times that we disagree, but we have worked through
tough issues together and are often able to find bipartisan
balance. I know there are those in the majority who support
rollbacks of EPA rules, but all of us should be troubled by the
numerous reports of misuse of taxpayer dollars and apparent
conflicts of interest that have made the Administrator a
frequent subject of investigation.
I am of course referring to the Administrator's pattern of
wasteful spending on luxury travel, personal security and yes,
office upgrades. To say nothing of his well-documented
sweetheart rental from a lobbyist with business before EPA and
huge unapproved raises for top political staff, amongst others.
Perhaps most concerning have been the reports of retaliation
against employees both career and political that have dared to
question Administrator Pruitt's most troubling abuses and
expenditures. And in almost all cases, the more we have learned
the worse they get.
At this point, we must ask if the Inspector General will
have the resources needed to investigate the Administrator's
seemingly endless misconduct. At the heart of all these issues
is an apparent pattern of an Administrator refusing
accountability and putting personal and special interests ahead
of the American people. I would ask my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle to imagine, if a Democrat acted in this
manner, would you stand for it? I think the answer is clear:
You would not. My colleagues and I may disagree about many of
the policy decisions coming out of this EPA, but one thing I
hope we can agree on is that we cannot afford to turn a blind
eye to the reports of this Administrator's fiscal mismanagement
and abuse of his position.
Mr. Administrator, the evidence is clear. You have failed
as a steward of American taxpayer dollars and our environment.
You claim to believe in the mission of the EPA, but your
actions including your mistreatment of EPA's dedicated career
staff tell a very different story. Evidence from your time in
State government should have made this obvious, but only in
recent weeks have we come to fully understand the extent of
your political ambitions, your tendency to abuse your position
of personal gain, and to advance the agendas of your political
benefactors, and what appears to be a propensity for grift.
But, most importantly, your conduct as Administrator has
demonstrated a lack of respect for American taxpayers and the
Agency you were appointed to lead and has affirmed the
regrettable but inevitable conclusion that you were never fit
for this job and your refusal to provide any serious
transparency, accept any accountability, or show even the
slightest contrition is inexcusable.
Mr. Chair, no one is above the law. Congress must hold this
Administrator accountable on behalf of the American people, and
I hope our committee can continue to investigate and bring the
truth of these important issues to light in a bipartisan
manner. With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
We are here today to discuss EPA's budget for fiscal year
2019. The President has called for a nearly 30 percent cut at
EPA, which would severely impair the Agency's ability to
fulfill its mission to safeguard public health and our
environment.
We know all too well the costs of failing that mission, of
the pain of communities, of children and families who suffer
illness resulting from pollution in their air and water.
So yes, I am concerned that EPA is increasingly allowing
polluters to set the agenda and threaten public health with
minimal accountability.
Under Administrator Pruitt, commonsense public health and
environmental protections are being slated for elimination with
no regard for scientific evidence and little justification
beyond the wishes of regulated entities.
These actions include reopening clean car standards without
any mention of health or pollution, continuing to repeal the
Clean Power Plan and dismissing the science of climate change,
implementing TSCA reform that ignores bipartisan Congressional
intent, and a number of attempts to undermine the Clean Air
Act.
I expect the courts will agree that many, if not all, of
these actions are unjustified.
In addition, I am troubled by the dismissal of science by
the Agency's political leadership.
Hundreds of scientists have left EPA with no apparent plan
to replace them. Expertise on the Science Advisory Boards has
been eroded. And the recently proposed rule to undermine the
use of science in rulemakings will severely limit the Agency's
ability to safeguard public health.
I know many career employees at EPA simply want to work
hard to ensure the air we breathe is clean and the water we
drink is safe. To them, I say thank you.
But the Agency's political leadership is pursuing a
different agenda. And the mounting evidence of serious ethics
violations and credible investigations at the highest levels
cannot go unscrutinized.
Mr. Chairman, I value this subcommittee's bipartisan
record. There are times that we disagree, but we have worked
through tough issues together and are often able to find
bipartisan balance.
I know there are those in the Majority who support
rollbacks of EPA rules. But all of us should be troubled by the
numerous reports of misuse of taxpayer dollars and apparent
conflicts of interest that have made the Administrator a
frequent subject of investigation.
I am of course referring to the Administrator's pattern of
wasteful spending on luxury travel, personal security, and
office upgrades. To say nothing of his well-documented
sweetheart rental from a lobbyist with business before EPA and
huge unapproved raises for top political staff, among others.
Perhaps most concerning have been the reports of
retaliation against employees, both career and political, that
have dared to question Administrator Pruitt's most troubling
abuses and expenditures.
And in almost all cases, the more we have learned, the
worse they get.
At this point, we must ask if the Inspector General will
have the resources needed to investigate the Administrator's
seemingly endless misconduct.
At the heart of all these issues is an apparent pattern of
an Administrator refusing accountability and putting personal
and special interests ahead of the American people.
I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
imagine if a Democrat acted in this manner. Would you stand for
it? I think the answer is clear- you would not.
My colleagues and I may disagree about many of the policy
decisions coming out of this EPA. But one thing I hope we can
agree on is that we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the
reports of this Administrator's fiscal mismanagement and abuse
of his position.
Mr. Administrator, the evidence is clear: you have failed
as a steward of American taxpayer dollars and our environment.
You claim to believe in the mission of the EPA, but your
actions, including your mistreatment of EPA's dedicated career
staff, tell a very different story.
Evidence from your time in State government should have
made this obvious, but only in recent weeks have we come to
fully understand the extent of your political ambitions, your
tendency to abuse your position for personal gain and to
advance the agendas of your political benefactors, and what
appears to be a propensity for grift.
But most importantly, your conduct as Administrator has
demonstrated a lack of respect for American taxpayers and the
Agency you were appointed to lead, and has affirmed the
regrettable but inevitable conclusion that you were never fit
for this job.
And your refusal to provide any serious transparency,
accept any accountability, or show even the slightest
contrition is inexcusable.
Mr. Chairman, no one is above the law. Congress must hold
this Administrator accountable on behalf of the American
people. I hope our committee can continue to investigate and
bring the truth of these important issues to light in a
bipartisan manner. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Greg Walden from
Oregon, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pruitt, welcome back to the House Energy and Commerce
Committee. As you know, we scheduled this hearing to focus on
the EPA's policy and budget priorities some time ago, but you
surely understand that Members on both sides of the aisle have
some serious questions about the management and operations of
the Agency. We expect you to answer these questions fully and
truthfully.
I am concerned that the good progress being made on policy
front is being undercut by allegations about your management of
the Agency and use of its resources. These issues are too
persistent to ignore and I know many Members are looking
forward to hear more clarity from you today. You will have
ample opportunity to help provide us with any information that
can help answer these questions. Additionally, there are
numerous ongoing investigations into these issues and I want
you to commit to the committee that you will provide us with
all the same information you provide to the EPA Inspector
General and other congressional committees.
Having said that, let me also say that I appreciate your
good work to focus EPA on the mission Congress has tasked it
with in statute, that being clean air for Americans to breathe,
safe water for our citizens to drink, and soils free from
pollution. As an example, I want to commend your efforts to
reinvigorate the Superfund program and specifically to
accelerate the cleanup of the Willamette River at the Portland
Harbor. This has gone on long enough and you stepped in and
made a difference to the satisfaction of the people of
Portland, Oregon. And even some of your most liberal detractors
applaud your efforts on this critical cleanup and I thank you
for taking the lead.
I also appreciate your desire to rebalance the power
between Washington, DC, and the States, making our efforts more
efficient and helping deliver tangible results to communities
across the country. To truly succeed, we need stronger local,
State, Federal, and private partnerships where we can team up
and leverage all available resources to accomplish the goals of
cleaner water, cleaner air, and cleaner soils. Importantly, I
appreciate your stated commitment to administer the law as
Congress intended and to have the Agency concentrate on its
statutory obligations under environmental and public health
laws as well as the Administrative Procedures Act.
Bringing new transparency to your public processes,
especially when it comes to the data and science that underpins
policies, is truly a welcome change from past EPAs. Mr.
Administrator, too many of your predecessors believed a clean
environment was also incompatible with a healthy economy. I
share your view that we can and must have both in America. We
need common sense regulation that protects the public, actually
cleans up the environment, and does so in a way that does not
unnecessarily suffocate the economy. I believe the EPA should
focus on innovative problem solving and partnership with
States, the private sector, and other stakeholders that
leverage their resources and expertise. I look forward to our
discussion today about the Agency's budget and the EPA's
direction now and in the future.
As with our hearing with you 5 months ago, I remain
interested in the goals you are establishing for the programs
at EPA and the metrics you intend to use to measure their
progress. Particularly, I noticed objective number 5 in the
proposed budget discusses staffing and internal management
issues. It is important that EPA not be bloated, but it is
essential that EPA have the staff with proper expertise,
implementing and enforcing programs that correlate with their
experience; finding that critical staffing balance is one of
the most important roles of anyone given the enormous task of
managing a large, taxpayer-funded enterprise.
Finally, I want to applaud those objectives in the Agency's
budget that reduce red tape result in the regulated community
better knowing what is expected of them and promoting prompt,
even, and fair enforcement of the law. I look forward to
learning more about all of that today. So I thank you for
joining us again before the Energy and Commerce Committee, and
I look forward to your testimony.
With that Mr. Chairman I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Welcome back to the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
Mr. Administrator. As you know, we scheduled this hearing to
focus on the EPA's policy and budget priorities. But you surely
understand that Members on both sides of the aisle also have
serious questions the management and operations of the Agency.
We expect you to answer these questions fully and truthfully.
I am concerned that the good progress being made on the
policy front is being undercut by allegations about your
management of the Agency and use of its resources. These issues
are too persistent to ignore, and I know many Members are
looking for more clarity from you today. You will have ample
opportunity today to provide us with any information.
Additionally, while there are numerous ongoing investigations
into these issues, I want you to commit to providing this
committee with all the same information you provide to the EPA
Inspector General and other congressional committees.
Having said that, let me also say that I appreciate your
good work to focus EPA on the mission Congress has tasked it
with in statute: clean air for Americans to breathe, safe water
for our citizens to drink, and soils free from pollution. As an
example, I want to commend your efforts to reinvigorate the
Superfund program, and specifically to accelerate the cleanup
of the Willamette River at the Portland Harbor. Even your most
liberal detractors applaud your efforts on this critical clean
up.
I also appreciate your desire to rebalance the power
between Washington, DC, and the States, making our efforts more
efficient and helping deliver tangible results to communities
across the country. To truly succeed, we need stronger local,
State, Federal and private partnerships where we can team up
and leverage all available resources to accomplish the goals of
cleaner water, air and soil.
Importantly, I appreciate your stated commitment to
administer the law as Congress intended, and to have the Agency
concentrate on its statutory obligations under environmental
and public health laws, as well as the Administrative
Procedures Act. Bringing new transparency to your public
processes, especially when it comes to the data and science
that underpins public policy, is truly a welcome change from
the past practices at the EPA.
Mr. Administrator, too many of your predecessors believed a
clean environment was incompatible with economic growth and job
creation. I share your view that we can and must have both. We
need common sense regulation that protects the public, actually
cleans up the environment and does so in a way that doesn't
unnecessarily suffocate the economy.
I believe the EPA should focus on innovative problem
solving and partnerships with the States, the private sector,
and other stakeholders that leverage their resources and
expertise. I look forward to our discussion today about the
Agency's budget and EPA's direction now and into the future.
As with our hearing five months ago, I remain interested in
the goals you are establishing for the programs at EPA and the
metrics you intend to use to measure their progress.
Particularly, I noticed Objective #5 in the proposed budget
discusses staffing and internal management issues. It is
important that EPA not be bloated, but it is essential that EPA
have staff with proper expertise implementing and enforcing
programs that correlate with their experience. Finding that
critical staffing balance is one of the most important roles of
anyone given the enormous task of managing a large, taxpayer-
funded enterprise.
Finally, I want to applaud those objectives in the Agency's
budget that reduce red-tape, result in the regulated community
better knowing what is expected of them, and promote prompt,
even, and fair enforcement of the law. I look forward to
learning more about that today.
Again, thank you for being here today. I look forward to
your testimony.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Congressman Pallone from New Jersey, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Pruitt has brought secrecy, conflicts of
interest, and scandal to the EPA. In any other administration,
Republican or Democrat, you would be long gone by now. So far,
140 House Democrats have signed on to a resolution introduced
by Ms. Castor expressing no confidence in you, Mr. Pruitt.
Additionally, four Republican House Members have also called on
you to step down.
And the voices are growing. Just look at the critiques from
former Bush EPA Administrator and New Jersey Governor Christine
Todd Whitman who called Administrator Pruitt's tenure, and I
quote, a slap in the face to fiscal responsibility and
responsible governance, and said also that evidence is abundant
of the dangerous political turn of an Agency that is supposed
to be guided by science. Another former Republican EPA
Administrator William Reilly called Administrator Pruitt, and I
quote, a third-rate ideologue.
Past Administrators of both parties believed in the EPA's
mission and understood that they had been given a sacred trust
by the people of our country. Unfortunately, this is not the
case with you, Mr. Pruitt. Clearly, you do not believe in EPA's
mission and appear to have forgotten that you are here to serve
all the American people, not merely a select few or just
yourself. And the fact is, Administrator Pruitt has used this
office as nothing more than an opportunity to either enrich
himself or his corporate friends and President Trump seems to
be perfectly fine with all these actions. So much for draining
the swamp.
When we met in December, you pledged to be more
transparent. You promised to do a better job providing
technical assistance, sending witnesses to hearings, and
responding to congressional requests. But you have followed
through on none of these promises. What you have done is
generate scandal after scandal. When confronted about them you
have repeatedly failed to take responsibility for your actions
and instead you have blamed your staff, your security detail,
your critics, pretty much anyone but yourself, and you are
accountable for your Agency and all of these scandals, in my
opinion. The buck stops at your desk.
There are so many outstanding questions that we need
truthful answers to today but because so far we have only
gotten half-truths, misleading answers, or outright falsehoods.
For instance, you rented a condo at well below market value and
then emphatically claimed on Fox News that your landlord's
lobbyist husband had no business before the EPA, a statement
that was proven to be untrue. And it is that kind of conduct
that prompted Ranking Members Tonko, DeGette, and Vice Ranking
Member Castor and I to request that you be placed under oath
for this hearing and that it be expanded to include the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
The chairman did not agree to that request, but I would
remind you what Chairman Walden said to the press when he
declined our request. He said lying to Congress is a crime
regardless of whether or not you are sworn in. So now committee
Republicans have conveniently told the press that they are
investigating you for some of your outrageous ethical abuses,
yet I have seen no evidence from committee Republicans that
that is really happening.
Fortunately, committee Democrats have been demanding
answers, and five independent Federal investigations are now
being done into your conduct at our request. Yesterday, I
joined with Ranking Member Cummings of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee to request an additional
investigation by the Office of Special Counsel into your
troubling pattern of apparently retaliating against EPA
employees who question your extravagant spending, and I am
confident that these investigations will affirm what I have
come to believe is true: that you are unfit to hold public
office and undeserving of the public trust.
And I don't say those words, you know, because I
particularly dislike you or, you know, hold you in ill repute.
I just think that every indication we have is that you really
should resign and you are undeserving of the public trust. And
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Administrator Pruitt has brought secrecy, conflicts of
interest and scandal to the EPA. In any other administration,
Republican or Democrat, you would be long gone by now.
So far, 140 House Democrats have signed onto a resolution
introduced by Ms. Castor expressing ``no confidence'' in you,
Mr. Pruitt. Additionally, four Republican House Members have
also called on you to step down.
And the voices are growing. Just look at the critiques from
former Bush EPA Administrator and New Jersey Governor Christine
Todd Whitman, who called Administrator Pruitt's tenure a ``slap
in the face to fiscal responsibility and responsible
governance'' and said, ``Evidence is abundant of the dangerous
political turn of an Agency that is supposed to be guided by
science.'' Another former Republican EPA Administrator, William
Reilly, called Administrator Pruitt a, ``third rate
ideologue.''
Past Administrators of both parties believed in the EPA's
mission and understood that they had been given a sacred trust
by the people of our country.
Unfortunately, this is not the case, Mr. Pruitt, clearly
you do not believe in EPA's mission, and appear to have
forgotten that you are here to serve all the American people,
not merely a select few, or just yourself. The fact is
Administrator Pruitt has used this office as nothing more than
an opportunity to enrich himself and his corporate friends, and
President Trump seems to be perfectly fine with all of his
actions. So much for draining the swamp.
When we met in December, you pledged to be more
transparent. You promised to do a better job providing
technical assistance, sending witnesses to hearings, and
responding to Congressional requests. You have followed through
on none of those promises.
What you have done is generate scandal after scandal. When
confronted about them, you have repeatedly failed to take
responsibility for your actions. Instead, you have blamed your
staff, your security detail, your critics--pretty much anyone
but yourself. You are accountable for your Agency and all of
these scandals. The buck stops at your desk.
There are so many outstanding questions that we need
truthful answers to today, because so far, we've only gotten
half-truths, misleading answers, or outright falsehoods. For
instance, you rented a condo at well below market value, and
then emphatically claimed on Fox News that your landlord's
lobbyist husband had no business before the EPA--a statement
proven to be untrue.
It is that kind of conduct that prompted Ranking Members
Tonko, DeGette, and Vice Ranking Member Castor and I to request
that you be placed under oath for this hearing and that it be
expanded to include the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee. The chairman did not agree to that request, but I
would remind you what the chairman said to the press when he
declined our request: lying to Congress is a crime, regardless
of whether or not you are sworn in.
Now, committee Republicans have conveniently told the press
they are investigating you for some of your outrageous ethical
abuses. Yet, I've seen no evidence from committee Republicans
that this is really happening.
Fortunately, committee Democrats have been demanding
answers and five independent Federal investigations are now
being done into your conduct at our request. Yesterday, I
joined with Ranking Member Cummings of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee to request an additional
investigation by the Office of Special Counsel into your
troubling pattern of apparently retaliating against EPA
employees who question your extravagant spending.
I am confident that these investigations will affirm what I
have come to believe is true: You are unfit to hold public
office and undeserving of the public trust.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. 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 would also now like to thank and welcome our
distinguished witness, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, for
being here today. You will have an opportunity to give an
opening statement followed by a round of questions by Members.
You are joined by the Honorable Holly Greaves, Chief Financial
Officer. Welcome to you also, we appreciate you being here.
And, Mr. Administrator, we now recognize you for 5 minutes
for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF E. SCOTT PRUITT, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Pruitt. Well, good morning to you, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Pallone, members of the committee, it is good to
be with you today and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
these matters that you have raised.
There is consequential and important work being done at the
EPA since the beginning of the Trump administration, both in
terms of improved environmental outcomes as well as substantial
regulatory reform. We are stripping burdensome costs from the
American economy at an unprecedented pace, and we are doing
this while inspiring confidence in the American people that
it's Government going to work with them as opposed to against
them, to achieve harmony between jobs and growth and
environmental stewardship.
In the short time of the Trump administration we have made
enormous progress as far as improved environmental outcomes.
These are just a few: We have removed over three times the
number of polluted sites in contaminated communities across the
country as compared to the previous administration for 2017,
and for 2018 we are on pace to remove as many as ten times the
number of polluted sites. We are working cooperatively with the
States to improve air quality through the approval of 350 State
Implementation Plans. And with regard to water we are leading a
multiagency approach that has set a goal of eradicating lead
from our drinking water within 10 years, largely through the
utilization of a tool that you provided, WIFIA. It is my goal
to prioritize applications for critical water infrastructure
over the 10 years to hopefully see $4 billion a year dedicated
to the replacement of lead service lines in order to reduce
lead in our drinking water.
President Trump has set an ambitious goal for the EPA under
his administration, and our measurable achievements are a
testament to the effectiveness which a results-driven EPA can
achieve. President Trump did not only task us with
accomplishing the core mission of the EPA acting more
efficiently and more effectively than ever before, he also
demanded comprehensive regulatory reform. That transformational
change is happening. In just 1 year, the Trump administration
has saved the American people almost $8 billion in regulatory
savings. And the EPA alone is responsible for nearly two dozen
regulatory actions, saving Americans one billion of that eight
billion in regulatory cost.
These actions are providing America's job creators with the
regulatory clarity they deserve. By repealing and replacing the
so-called Clean Power Plan we are ending a one-size-fits-all
regulation on energy providers and restoring rule of law. By
rescinding and rewriting the 2015 Waters of the United States
rule we are ending Washington's power grab over land use
decisions across the country. It is indisputable that we have
made enormous progress in advancing President Trump's reform
agenda and pruning back decades of regulatory overreach that
was unnecessary, burdensome, and ultimately harmful to
hardworking Americans across the country.
When the President nominated me to this position I believed
the work was going to be impactful and it has been and
tremendous progress has been made. But I did not expect the
work to be easy and I knew there would be meaningful
opposition. However, as I sit before you today, I recognize
there have been very troubling media reports over the past few
weeks. I promise you that I, more than anyone, want to
establish the hard facts and provide answers to questions
surrounding these reports.
Let me be very clear. I have nothing to hide as it relates
to how I have run the Agency for the past 16 months. I am not
afraid to admit that there has been a learning process, and
when Congress or independent bodies of oversight find fault in
our decisionmaking, I want to correct that and ensure that it
does not happen again. Ultimately, as the Administrator of the
EPA, the responsibility for identifying and making changes
necessary rests with me and no one else. With that being said,
facts are facts, and fiction is fiction, and a lie doesn't
become truth just because it appears on the front page of a
newspaper. Much of what has been targeted towards me and my
team has been half-truths, or at best stories that have been so
twisted they do not resemble reality. And I am here, and I
welcome the chance to be here to set the record straight in
these areas.
But let's have no illusions about what is really going on
here. Those who have attacked the EPA and attacked me are doing
so because they want to attack and derail the President's
agenda and undermine this administration's priorities. I am
simply not going to let that happen. I look forward to your
questions today, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pruitt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
thanks the Administrator. I will start the series of
questioning, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for the
first round.
We have obviously a lot of media presence here. I have been
asked the last couple days what am I going to do, what am I
going to say, and I said, ``Well, I am going to talk policy and
stewardship.'' So half my 5 minutes is going to be on a policy
issue, and hopefully that will save some time for us to talk
about some stewardship issues.
Since you last testified before the subcommittee, the White
House has hosted a number of meetings, some of which have
included you and other Cabinet officials, senators, and various
stakeholders, to discuss changes in the Renewable Fuel
Standard. As I alluded to in my opening statement, those
potential administrative actions hang like the sword of
Damocles over efforts on Capitol Hill to reach an enduring,
legislative solution to the problems of that program.
Are any of these administrative changes imminent, or will
you commit to allowing Congress time to work on a legislative
solution?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think both are important,
and I do think there are some regulatory options that we can
pursue. Many have talked about transparency as an example with
respect to the trading platform and the RFS trading platform,
how long you can hold a RIN as an example, who can buy, who can
sell RINs. There are those kinds of, I think, evaluations that
we can engage from a regulatory perspective. And, as you know,
there is also consideration about the RVP waiver and the E15
being allowed year-round.
I think that is something, it is a legal determination. It
is not a policy determination. And we have been earnest the
last several months evaluating that in hopes that we can get to
a conclusion on our ability to take those kinds of actions. But
I really believe that Congress' role in this is terribly
important because as you look at the issues that we are facing
with respect to the Renewable Fuel Standard and the viability
of the RINs platform we need both Congress and our regulatory
responses to be working together.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, let me just tell you from my perspective
what happens as we are trying to get our disparate groups
together is that every time someone gets hauled down to the
White House the other side goes crazy. And then, you probably
get to see the same thing, the other side gets hauled down and
the other side goes crazy. And we are trying to get everybody
in the room and that is the perspective that I come from.
The follow-up on this is what actions, if any, are you
taking now to prepare for the Renewable Fuel Standard post
2022?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, as you know, under the statute we have an
ability to reset those volume obligations, and we are
evaluating that. There is a cap of 15 billion for conventional
presently. But another area, Mr. Chairman, that I know you have
been interested in is high octane. And with respect to--it was
mentioned in some other comments about the CAFE standards.
There needs to be a serious consideration of us pursuing as a
country fuel choices and options to meet those CAFE standards
and provide high octane as an option to the American people. I
think there is a potential that will serve both the ag sector
as well at the auto sector and consumers across this country
that we could pursue together.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, thank you. Now I want to move to the
administrative portion of my two questions. Obviously you have
already alluded to and some of my colleagues have alluded to
all the recent stories and issues and your willingness to set
the record straight. So, in my minute and 45 seconds left, I
want to give you the time to address those as you will.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in
my opening comment, I want to address each of these respective
issues and provide information, and we will work with Congress
both with Oversight as well as this committee to provide any
and all information that helps answer those questions. Those
have been a distraction to our agenda, I think the Congressman
mentioned that earlier, and that troubles me. Ultimately, as
Administrator of the EPA, I have to take responsibility to make
changes internal to the Agency to get accountability in our
processes to ensure that in each of these areas we get better
results and that we show the American people that we are
committed to being good stewards of taxpayer resources, staying
true to our mission at the Agency, which I believe that we are
and have, and I am committed to doing that. That is why I am
here to talk to you about it today.
Mr. Shimkus. I thank the Administrator and I yield back my
time and now turn to the ranking member of the subcommittee,
Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Recently it came out that
two EPA employees who came with you to Washington from Oklahoma
were given significant raises over the White House's objection.
When you were interviewed by Ed Henry on Fox News you claimed
to have been unaware of those raises. At the time, Ed Henry
asked you whether you intentionally went around the White House
or whether you simply had no idea what your staff was up to.
The EPA Inspector General is looking into those raises and
last week the IG released preliminary information showing that
the forms to grant the raises were signed by your chief of
staff, Mr. Ryan Jackson, who wrote that he was signing on your
behalf. This is your opportunity to set the record straight.
Did you, Administrator, authorize Mr. Jackson to sign those
documents for you?
Mr. Pruitt. Congressman, those were delegated to Mr.
Jackson, and the Inspector General did reference that in his
management alert and he recognized the authority.
Mr. Tonko. So you did authorize him then to sign them?
Mr. Pruitt. Those decisions, that decision was made by my
chief of staff.
Mr. Tonko. Yes or no, did you authorize him?
Mr. Pruitt. There are delegations giving him that
authority.
Mr. Tonko. So that is a yes.
Mr. Pruitt. The Inspector General recognized that,
Congressman.
Mr. Tonko. So you authorized Mr. Jackson to sign those
documents for you. In internal emails, Sarah Greenwalt, one of
the aides who received a substantial raise, stated that you
were aware of and supported the raises. Was that true?
Mr. Pruitt. I think with respect to the raises, what is
important----
Mr. Tonko. Was that true?
Mr. Pruitt. Congressman.
Mr. Tonko. I have 5 minutes, so I have to move along.
Mr. Pruitt. I was not aware of the amount, nor was I made
aware----
Mr. Tonko. Not the amount, were you aware of the raises?
Mr. Pruitt. I was not aware of the amount, nor was I aware
of the bypassing or the PPO process not being respected.
Mr. Tonko. Well, then, I am concerned that you have no idea
of what is going on in your name at your Agency, especially on
an issue already under IG investigation. You have spent this
week claiming to champion transparency, but on Tuesday you
blocked the press from attending an event where you announced a
new proposal that will severely limit the Agency's use of
public health studies in policymaking.
When internal emails came out about this new policy last
week, they revealed that it had been developed entirely by
political staff, seemingly without a robust outside stakeholder
process, and once the press started covering those emails they
were removed from the Agency's public FOIA portal. I do not
know if you were personally involved in the decision to remove
those emails, but it certainly was not transparent.
Mr. Administrator, you like to claim that you support the
rule of law and acknowledge the limits of EPA's authority. Many
of our environmental statutes are clear. EPA must use the best
available science as a foundation of policymaking. This
proposal would prevent that. Are you aware, yes or no, that
Nancy Beck raised concerns that such a policy could also impact
data that would be important to industry such as confidential
business information? Yes or no.
Mr. Pruitt. This effort----
Mr. Tonko. Yes or no.
Mr. Pruitt. This effort, Congressman, was about ensuring
that----
Mr. Tonko. Were you aware that----
Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. At the Agency----
Mr. Tonko. Were you aware that Nancy Beck raised the
concern? Were you aware?
Mr. Pruitt. As I indicated, Congressman, this effort is
actually a reflection of Congress' commitment to transparency
at the Agency.
Mr. Tonko. Sir, I need to move on. I take that as a yes. To
mitigate that concern it appears that the proposal has been
crafted so that you, the Administrator, has the discretion to
grant exemptions as you see fit without any transparency or
accountability for your decisions. For example, if EPA was
assessing the safety of a chemical, you alone would have the
power to selectively block public health studies that do not
support your political priorities and allow ones that favor
your friends in industry. Not only does this open the door to
special treatment for industry over the public health, but you
could also pick winners and losers amongst the industry types.
Do you think it would be hypocritical to exempt industry
data containing confidential business information from
disclosure but not personal health information from public
health researchers? Yes or no? Would it be hypocritical?
Mr. Pruitt. I think that is a misstatement. Congressman, I
believe that what needs to be clear is that what actions we
took this week were to ensure that data and methodology were
also available to those that are are concerned about our
rulemaking.
Mr. Tonko. You know, I believe it is hypocritical. So
moving on, given your track record how can the public trust
your discretion to make fair decisions when it comes to those
biases?
Mr. Pruitt. You know, Congressman, this was an effort to
ensure transparency. Because as we do rulemaking at the Agency
what is important----
Mr. Tonko. Based on your record should the public trust
your decision-making here with the hypocrisies that would exist
in the system you defined?
Mr. Pruitt. This is actually in support of transparency for
all rulemaking at the Agency. This is not an individual
decision that is made by the Administrator. This is
programmatic offices making decisions on rules----
Mr. Tonko. Sir.
Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. That are based upon transparent--
--
Mr. Tonko. Sir, I think this boils down to an issue of
trust, and you have developed a system where you are picking
winners and losers. We pit the public against the industry or
you are picking favorites within the industry and I think there
is a hypocritical outcome to it all.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague for staying within time.
And the Chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee,
Congressman Walden, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my
opening statement there are many reviews currently going on at
the EPA, in the Inspector General's Office, Government
Accountability Office, and other congressional committees,
about some of these concerns you are hearing about today, Mr.
Administrator, and that have been raised in the media. So my
question is pretty easy. Will you commit the EPA will provide
this committee with all the documents and information EPA
produces for those inquiries?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. As I told you the last time you were
here, this committee is charged by the House of Representatives
with legislative and oversight responsibility for the bulk of
the statutes that the EPA implements and we decide where the
Agency's money can best be spent. Can you help me understand
your guiding principles for determining legitimate uses of
Federal money by the EPA including whether you are using any
kind of previous spending guidance to make these decisions?
Mr. Pruitt. Congressman, I believe that as we are making
decisions we have policy and guidelines at the Agency that
drive those decisions. Some of them are attributable to
programmatic offices, some of them are attributable to, you
know, the science part of our office. But yes, those guidelines
govern our decisions each and every day.
Mr. Walden. And are they similar to the guidelines that
governed your predecessor's decisions?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Mr. Walden. In what ways?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, these are policies that predated our time
there at the Agency, and so they have governed our--you know,
from travel to internal decisionmaking on allocation of dollars
to serve programmatic offices. So these are predated policies
that govern our actions every single day.
Mr. Walden. Let me ask you about the issue of science and
transparency. I have had a lot of constituents over the years
who have been very concerned about decisions in various
agencies that get made by Administrators or the bureaucracy,
and in some cases they can't get access to the underlying data
that underpins the decisions. The proposal that you put forward
this last week or so, how does that address that issue? Are we
going to get science that everybody gets a chance to see that
can be replicated that maybe is peer-reviewed so we are all
working off facts?
Mr. Pruitt. And actually this has been an interest of
Congress. As you know, there has been proposed legislation to
address this very issue.
Mr. Walden. Yes, it has been.
Mr. Pruitt. And this was a regulatory action that was taken
this week, a proposed rule that actually goes to the heart of
transparency, as I was trying to share earlier. Because it
requires that--and when we do rulemaking at the Agency we can't
just simply publish the conclusions, the summaries of studies,
because what has happened historically is third parties have
provided studies or summaries, we have taken those conclusions,
used those as a basis of rulemaking but not published the data,
not published the methodology that actually supported the
conclusion. And so, those that are commenting on rules were
ill-equipped to be able to understand whether the conclusions
were rightly concluded or not.
So this is an effort on our part to ensure that, as we do
science at the Agency--whether it is internal at the EPA or
whether we use third parties, as far as their findings--data,
methodology, and conclusion should all be a part of the
package.
Mr. Walden. So is what you are trying to do is make more
information available or less information available?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, absolutely more information available.
Mr. Walden. To the public. So you are going to require that
every one of these decisions or whatever they are based on, the
data and the methodology as well as the conclusions are
transparent and available to the public. Is that going to be on
your website? How are we going to know this?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, it is actually a proposed rule,
Congressman. It is actually something that we are taking
comment on, and I am sure there will be a wide array of comment
on that very proposal. But the objective, once again, is to
ensure transparency, reproducibility, with respect to the
science that we rely upon in making our decisions in
rulemaking.
Mr. Walden. As you know, Mr. Administrator, last year, and
then I think we actually passed it into law this year, this
committee unanimously, I believe, here and in the House,
rewrote America's Brownfields Legislation and we are working
together to rewrite the Safe Drinking Water, clean Drinking
Water Act as well and make additional grants available. What
are you doing to help clean up these brownfields sites that
litter our neighborhoods and our country?
Mr. Pruitt. You know, we just issued a series of grants
across the country this week with respect to the Brownfields
Program, and you are right. It has been a tremendous success
reclaiming polluted areas across this country to allow
communities to once again enjoy those areas. And so with the
partnership of Congress, the increased omnibus, you know,
provided additional monies there for us to enhance that
program, we are administering those grants and seeking to
partner with communities all over the country to ensure that
these areas are cleaned up and re-purposed and able to be
enjoyed again by those communities.
Mr. Walden. And I just have a few seconds left. I want to
follow up on what the chairman of the subcommittee talked about
regarding the RFS and new fuel standards. I want you to know
that Mr. Flores and Mr. Shimkus and others on this committee
have put a lot of time in because it is a priority of mine and
theirs to figure out going forward how we have a standard that
works for those who grow corn, those who refine fuels, the auto
industry, and the environment.
And I would hope this administration would look to our
leadership in this effort as well as any independent actions or
the fact that we are actually a co-equal branch and the House
has some authority in this area as well as the Senate. Will you
commit to that?
Mr. Pruitt. I think it is essential, as I shared with the
chairman earlier, because at the end of the day certainty is
very important in this area. And I think you see tremendous
investment over the last----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired. We will make
sure--and I apologize. I just want to make sure that--we have a
lot of people lined up. We will have more time to talk about
that.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The Chair thanks the chairman, and the Chair
now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Pallone, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I listened, Mr. Administrator, to your reasons
why you haven't resigned and basically you said that you are
staying because only you can carry out the President's mission.
And I strongly disagree with that. I think your actions are an
embarrassment to President Trump and distract from the EPA's
ability to effectively carry out the President's mission and if
I were the President I wouldn't want your help, I would just
get rid of you. But I am not the President so let me move on.
It has been reported that you have even gone so far as to
retaliate against EPA's employees, punishing those who
questioned your spending and management, and sidelining those
who attempted to advance important public health protections.
So I wanted to ask again, yes or no, because we don't have a
lot of time, it has been reported that at least five EPA
employees were recently reassigned, demoted, or otherwise
retaliated against after they raised concerns about your
spending. Is that correct, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. I don't ever recall a conversation to that end.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I will take that as a yes. I was further
alarmed----
Mr. Pruitt. It shouldn't be taken as a yes.
Mr. Pallone [continuing]. That you removed the head of the
EPA office that found that you did not face direct death
threats. Has it always been your practice to fire people who
disagree with you?
Mr. Pruitt. I mean, Congressman, the Inspector General
himself has noted that the threats against me are
unprecedented----
Mr. Pallone. Well, you are not answering yes or no. So
again----
Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. With respect to the quantity and
the type of threats and is on the record saying so.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Look, six staffers is a pattern, I think
you need to start taking responsibility. But you say you are
going to take responsibility but you don't. I am very concerned
by this troubling pattern of retaliation which is not only
potentially illegal but is also creating a hostile environment
that is expediting the exodus of valuable expertise from the
EPA. In place of those dedicated public servants you are
installing industry lobbyists.
Let's look at the case of Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, an expert
who fought to finalize a ban on methylene chloride, a deadly
chemical used in paint strippers. The New York Times and other
media have reported that her efforts were opposed by Nancy
Beck, the chemical industry lobbyist you put in charge of
regulating chemicals. Just last year, Nancy Beck was being paid
by the chemical industry to lobby against chemical regulations.
Now that she is retired, Nancy Beck is running the chemical
program and the proposal to ban methylene chloride has been
abandoned.
Yes or no, were you involved in the decision to abandon
that rulemaking or was that decision made by Nancy Beck?
Mr. Pruitt. The rulemaking has not been abandoned. Actually
there is a proposed rule----
Mr. Pallone. Well, you say that but that is not accurate.
Do you know that manufacturers of methylene chloride paint
strippers have been aware of deaths linked to this use for more
than 28 years but continue to produce it? Yes or no.
Mr. Pruitt. That is actually a solvent that we are
considering under the----
Mr. Pallone. OK. Obviously you don't want to admit what it
does. Despite all your scandals, the White House says you have
the President's support because you are implementing his
deregulatory agenda, but I think that agenda has real costs. In
October 2017, right before EPA abandoned the rulemaking, Drew
Wynne, a 31-year-old small business owner in South Carolina,
died while using methylene chloride. Drew's brother is here
today, and I want to thank him for traveling here from South
Carolina and continuing to advocate for a ban of this deadly
chemical.
Were you or others at EPA aware of Drew Wynne's death when
the Agency abandoned the ban of this deadly chemical? Yes or
no, were you aware of his death?
Mr. Pruitt. I think it is important, Congressman, to know
that we have a proposed ban in place that is being considered
and we are taking comments on, and we haven't finished that
process.
Mr. Pallone. Well, obviously you are not going to admit
whether you know about Drew's death. Unfortunately, in February
another 31-year-old man, Joshua Atkins, died using a methylene
chloride paint stripper to refinish his bike. I learned about
Joshua from his mother, Lauren, who sent me a deeply touching
letter.
And I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to put
that letter into the record, in which she states her hope that
her son will be the last to die from this chemical.
Mr. Shimkus. Can we make sure we see the letter?
Mr. Pallone. Yes. I will give it to you right now, Mr.
Chairman.
Again, Mr. Pruitt, your deregulatory agenda costs lives,
real people with names, with brothers, with mothers. You have
the power to finalize the ban of methylene chloride now and
prevent more deaths, but you haven't done it. Do you have
anything to say to these families at this point?
Mr. Pruitt. Congressman, as I was trying to indicate
earlier, there is a proposed ban in place that we took comment
on that we are reviewing presently. There has been no decision
at this time to not----
Mr. Pallone. All right. Well, obviously you have nothing to
say to these families. Look, you say you are going to do
something, but these chemicals are still on the shelves and
they make a mockery of Lautenberg's TSCA reform legislation
that this committee worked so hard on, including our chairman,
Mr. Shimkus, and it makes a mockery of the EPA. You have the
power immediately to get this chemical off the shelves, and you
are not doing it and you should do it.
And again, Mr. Shimkus, I appreciate your help with TSCA,
but he is not implementing TSCA, so I am wondering if our
efforts were totally in vain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
thanks the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes Chairman
Emeritus Congressman Barton from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am honored to
have the EPA Administrator back before the committee.
Mr. Administrator, you are not the first person to be the
victim of, for lack of a better term, Washington politics. You
got picked to be the EPA Administrator because of the service
you provided for the great State of Oklahoma in fighting some
of the Obama administration radical clean air policies. You
recommended and I support the recommendation that you made to
the President that we withdraw from the Paris climate change
agreement. That is a decision that most of the stakeholders at
EPA violently oppose.
If you can't debate the policies in Washington, you attack
the personality and that is what is happening to you.
Republicans do it when it is a Democratic President. The
Democrats do it when it is a Republican President. And in my
opinion, and it is just my opinion, that is what is happening
to you.
On your housing costs, were those approved, the contract,
before it was signed? Didn't you get an ethics review and
didn't that individual say it was acceptable?
Mr. Pruitt. There have been two ethics reviews,
Congressman.
Mr. Barton. I need quick answers because I want to ask
you----
Mr. Pruitt. There have been two ethics reviews speaking to
the lease itself saying that it met market rates.
Mr. Barton. OK. You have been attacked for flying first
class. Is that illegal?
Mr. Pruitt. Congressman, that was approved by the travel
office and the security team at the EPA. I have since made
changes to that. But that was----
Mr. Barton. But it is not illegal.
Mr. Pruitt. It is not.
Mr. Barton. It may look bad but it is not illegal. There
was an Energy secretary named Hazel O'Leary under the Clinton
administration. She leased party jets that were used by rock
stars. Party jets, not one time but several times. Have you
ever rented a party jet?
Mr. Pruitt. No, Congressman.
Mr. Barton. You have not rented a party jet. OK, that is
good. Let's talk about this transparency issue. As I understand
it, your transparency proposal is that if they are going to use
the science to make a recommendation on an EPA regulation they
have to actually report what the science is. They have to
release the documents and the data sets and all of that. Is
that correct?
Mr. Pruitt. That is exactly right, Congressman.
Mr. Barton. Is there anything wrong with that?
Mr. Pruitt. I think it enhances transparency and the
confidence of the American people as we do rulemaking.
Mr. Barton. I think it is an excellent idea and it is long
overdue. In your budget----
Mr. Shimkus. Will the gentleman suspend for a minute?
We have guests in the gallery. You are our guests. I have
some magic words that will then cause you to have to leave. I
do not want to say that. So if you would respect--we were asked
for decorum. That is not being decorous, whatever the word is.
So let's just continue on with the testimony and we will move
forward.
The chair recognizes the chairman emeritus.
Mr. Barton. OK, thank you. On your transparency proposal,
if it is actually accepted, we will actually get to see what
the science is behind the support for the regulation. Is that
not correct?
Mr. Pruitt. It is. And I think what has been of note to me
as I have been serving at the Agency is that there is a
reliance at the Agency on many third-party studies. And, as
those studies are the support of our rulemaking, it is
important to make sure that the methodology and data accompany
those conclusions so that the American people can make informed
decision about the rules and whether they actually are based
upon sound science.
Mr. Barton. This is to get a little bit to the budget we
are actually here to discuss, there is a program in your Agency
called Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, short in acronym is
LUST. The money that goes into that fund is supposed to be used
to clean up or prevent leaks from underground storage tanks. To
your knowledge, is there anything under current law that
prevents a State from using it for other purposes? In other
words, the money is supposed to be used to clean up these
underground storage tanks, but my understanding is very few
States use it for that purpose.
Mr. Pruitt. You know, Congressman, I am not aware of that
happening but it is something that we would investigate and
look into if you have some information about that happening in
your State and elsewhere.
Mr. Barton. Would you do that and----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from California, Dr. Ruiz, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you for your service.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Pruitt's ethical violations as the head of an
Agency with a mission to protect the public's health
demonstrate a concerning lack of integrity and a pattern of the
rich and powerful putting their rich and powerful friends and
their own self-interest above the interest of the public's
health and at the expense of the common good. Clean air to
breathe and safe water to drink is not a privilege only for the
rich and powerful but a right for everyone, and the role of a
public servant is to serve and protect the public, in
particular the public's health.
However, the gross elimination of many public health
protections are kickbacks to the rich lobbyists and corporation
friends that have a real impact and I want to highlight one
example. This week the EPA announced that it intends to limit
the kind of scientific studies it will use in issuing new
protections to only studies that make public the private,
personal, confidential information of the people who
participate in those studies.
Revealing that info is a clear ethical violation of any
reputable research institutional review board in the United
States. The type of studies you want to exclude are the same
kind of scientific studies that were used to prove that lead in
pipes and paints harm children and that secondhand smoke is a
dangerous carcinogen. We are talking about landmark studies
such as the Harvard School of Public Health's six-city study
which proved a connection between air pollution and early death
back in 1993. That just by living in a city with poor air
quality your average life expectancy was lower than those who
didn't. This study later became the basis of fine particulate
matter regulations in the Clean Air Act.
When you were here in December, you and I spoke about fine
particle matter which, thanks to studies based on confidential
patient health information, we now know is associated with
premature death, asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, decreased
lung function, and respiratory diseases. You acknowledge these
risks and agree that there is no safe level of fine particle
pollution, but your new policy would block EPA from considering
the studies that have shown these dangerous health
implications.
So do you deny now that fine particle pollution has these
health impacts, and will these new regulations cause your
Agency to disregard these sentinel studies?
Mr. Pruitt. If they provide the data and methodology to the
Agency and the findings, it will be used.
Mr. Ruiz. Well, that is a clear violation of ethical rules
protecting patient confidentiality.
Mr. Pruitt. Those can be redacted, Congressman.
Mr. Ruiz. Who is protecting the subjects in those studies?
So you have promised us a replacement rule for the Clean Power
Plan. Will that replacement rule acknowledge the health impacts
of fine particle pollution?
Mr. Pruitt. We actually have, as you know, a proposed rule
in the marketplace on just that issue.
Mr. Ruiz. Well, you know, I mentioned the risks of lead in
drinking water. So with this new rule--those risks were shown
by epidemiological studies that protected the patient
confidentiality and all the other intricacies of confidential
information. Now your rule would lead to the idea that if it
doesn't suit the manufacturers' intent that now those studies
could be disregarded.
So do you believe that mesothelioma can, or that asbestos
causes mesothelioma?
Mr. Pruitt. I do. But the confidential business information
to which you refer along with personal information can be
redacted.
Mr. Ruiz. So that information--so you have been in office,
you know, you have dismantled protections for the public's
health, and there is--and protections for children who suffer
asthma, seniors with respiratory illnesses, and you
demonstrated a disregard for true scientific study, the
scientific process, and the confidentiality of people who want
to participate and help further our collective knowledge to
protect the public good.
You have done this to allow your rich and powerful
corporate friends to create more pollution in order to increase
profit at the expense of the common good. Again if children
with asthma and seniors with COPD--and I am an emergency
physician. I participated in IRB boards. I know the importance
of protecting the information in order to get more
participants, and I have also treated children with asthma
gasping for air or seniors at their last wits' end. When you
remove these protections under the guise of a false
transparency notion, then you are making life more difficult
for everyday American families, and this is disgraceful and the
American people deserve better.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Administrator, for coming before us. I think that was the first
policy question you got from the other side of the aisle.
Observation.
And to the public, I think this has been a lot of a classic
display of innuendo and McCarthyism that we are seeing too
often here in Washington that, unfortunately, I think works
against civility and respect for people in public office. I am
hoping we would be able to stay on policy today as much as we
could, but I can see some just can't resist the limelight, the
opportunity to grandstand.
So, having said all that, I thank you for what you have
done. You have been able to stay disciplined on these policies.
I know in West Virginia the impact that it has had on
Brownfields Legislation of what you are doing on that I see the
rollback of some of the regulatory reform that there is hope
now. A lot of the people in the fossil fuel industry that they
could see that deterioration in the past 8 years prior to that.
There is some hope. We are seeing the economy start to rebound
thanks to you and the administration of taking this fight on.
So I know that if I could, I know just as an example, here
was an example that despite what has been said to the
achievements that you have made that the EPA just awarded $1.9
million to research in drinking water having to do with Flint,
that research in Flint. People are ignoring the progress that
we are making and they are trying to make this another attack
on President Trump, and unfortunately there are a lot of people
that are going to go along with that.
So if we could, if I could get back to one of the things
that has disturbed me some with some of the events over the
last numbers of years was we had a good friend in Leslie
Lampton who passed away last week. Lampton has Ergon Refinery
located in Mississippi but they have the only refinery in West
Virginia. It is a small, kind of a boutique operation at 23,000
barrels. I know the definition of a small refinery is 75,000
barrels, so they are a third of the size. But yet, so they are
struggling meeting all of the qualifications, all the
requirements of a major refinery.
Is there something that we could work together or something
to help out these small refineries so that they can compete?
Because they can't handle the RINs, they don't have a market
for that with them. So is there something that we could be
doing to help out these boutique refineries?
Mr. Pruitt. Congress has been very helpful in providing a
small refinery exemption under the statute. It is objectively
determined. It is 75,000 barrels, as you indicated, production
and we have received I think 24 applications in 2017, a little
bit over 30 in 2018. And I would say to you that the volatility
of the RIN trading platform is creating instability across the
entire RFS discussion.
So it is really in everyone's best interest to get more
clarity and confidence in how this RIN trading platform and
relief needs to occur. It is going to benefit the ethanol
industry, benefit the ag sector, and I think benefit those that
are suffering with the RIN obligations. And so it is our hope
that we can chart a path forward with Congress to achieve those
kinds of outcomes.
Mr. McKinley. OK. Mr. Administrator, for numbers of years
we were working to try to get resolved something for it was
sitting out here for 30 to 40 years was the coal ash issue and
we got that taken care of 2 years ago. But my question then
back to you as the Administrator is are there States that have
opted not to put together their own program and turn it over to
the EPA, or can you help us, like give me an update on where we
are with some of the State implementation?
Mr. Pruitt. We have provided guidance to the States with
respect to developing their own programs, and very few States
have actually done that, to your question. And we are working
with those State partners to equip and educate them on the
option by providing the guidance. I think it is important that
they pursue it and I think it is important they pursue it in a
timely way, and it hasn't taken place yet.
Mr. McKinley. Have any States chosen not to put together
their own program?
Mr. Pruitt. I just think it is early. It is nascent in the
process and I think it is just very few early adopter States so
far, and that is the reason we are working hard to educate and
inform those States.
Mr. McKinley. Mr. Administrator, thank you for handling all
these issues and I hope that we can stay on policy and talk
about some of the progress that has been made because I think
it has been good for the environment. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to ask a
couple questions about the Superfund program, particularly
about your friend Mr. Albert Kelly, who you put in charge of
the program despite his past. He was scheduled to appear before
the committee in January, but he backed out at the last minute,
citing travel obligations. I know my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle were disappointed in that, but Mr. Kelly sent a
letter for the record that he would be willing to answer any
and all of our questions regarding his lifetime ban from the
banking industry and the illegal activities that led up to
that.
It is now more than 3 months later, we have gotten no
information from Mr. Kelly. We are told that political
leadership has been preventing him from speaking with us, and
if that is true, that is certainly disappointing. Two weeks
ago, you were interviewed on Fox News by Ed Henry, and he asked
you several questions about Mr. Kelly. In the interview, you
said that the details of the settlement with the FDIC were
private, and that none of us really know what happened.
So my question is, if Mr. Kelly is happy to share the
details of his lifetime banking ban as a matter of
transparency, is he not telling us the truth, or are you
stopping him from doing that?
Mr. Pruitt. I think Mr. Kelly, if he is willing to share
that with you, he should do that.
Mr. Peters. Terrific.
Mr. Pruitt. And I would encourage him to do so.
Mr. Peters. And because we do think that it is an important
issue of transparency, I am glad to hear that.
The FDIC ban is not the only concern about Mr. Kelly. It
has been widely reported that his family abuts a Superfund
National Priorities List site. He is the head of the Superfund
program, creating at least a perception of a conflict of
interest in that he might be favoring the site that is next to
his property. You have mentioned that one of your goals, one of
your values, is that you are committed to good stewardship of
taxpayer resources.
Has this financial conflict been reviewed by EPA ethics
officials, and if so, were they provided with all the necessary
information to conduct that review?
Mr. Pruitt. I don't have knowledge about that, Congressman,
if that has happened or not.
Mr. Peters. All right. I certainly would ask that that be
done. When you came to testify before this subcommittee in
December you claimed that you had to remove scientists from
EPA's Science Advisory Board because of, quote, the appearance
of a lack of independence. John Konkus, your Deputy Associate
Administrator for the Office of Public Affairs, who is tasked
with reviewing millions of dollars of grants for EPA, was
approved to provide media consulting advice to unnamed clients,
likely including his prior clients from his Republican-
affiliated consulting firm. Were you aware that Mr. Konkus was
continuing to work as a media consultant for outside clients?
Mr. Pruitt. I am aware that the ethics officials at the
Agency approved that. That is what I am aware of.
Mr. Peters. Don't you think this creates an appearance of a
lack of independence?
Mr. Pruitt. The ethics officials didn't believe that.
Mr. Peters. Do you have an opinion personally about that?
Mr. Pruitt. I don't know anything about the contract. I
just know that the ethics officials approved that transaction.
Mr. Peters. It just seems to me that, if he is working for
people outside the Agency with his fingers inside the Agency,
that that could be a lack of independence, and I will just
offer that as my own observation, then.
You brought in Jeff Sands directly from Syngenta, which was
facing a very large fine from EPA for failing to protect its
workers from a dangerous pesticide, chlorpyrifos. During his
brief tenure at EPA, this fine was reduced from $4.9 million to
$400,000. Were you personally involved in this decision to
reduce this fine?
Mr. Pruitt. It is my understanding that Mr. Sands'
involvement at the Agency occurred after the decision in March
of last year with respect to chlorpyrifos----
Mr. Peters. OK. Without respect to the timing, then, were
you personally involved then in the decision to reduce this
fine?
Mr. Pruitt. I was not.
Mr. Peters. And I guess, I think I would suggest it also
creates at least the appearance of and independence.
And now it has come out that your head of security, who was
promoted to that role after you fired his predecessor for
questioning your security spending, did outside investigative
work during the 2016 presidential election for America Media
Incorporated, the publisher of National Enquirer. That includes
the period when AMI purchased and killed a story about
President Trump having an affair with a Playboy Playmate. Do
you think that that outside work at least creates the
appearance of a lack of bias?
Mr. Pruitt. It is my understanding that is being reviewed.
And I was not aware of that outside contract, and it is being
reviewed.
Mr. Peters. OK. I guess again I would say you are not
answering the question, I think it creates at least the
appearance of bias, and we would like to see attention to that.
Finally, I guess, just to follow up on the first question,
are you willing to produce Mr. Kelly to answer the questions
before this committee?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not standing in the way of Mr. Kelly
providing information to this committee or any other committee
and that is a decision that he can make and provide that
information.
Mr. Peters. In the interest of transparency would you be
willing to direct him to come and answer those questions?
Mr. Pruitt. I don't think I have that authority. I would
encourage him to do so.
Mr. Peters. If you have that authority would you be willing
to exercise it?
Mr. Pruitt. I would encourage him to do so.
Mr. Peters. I will take that as a no.
I will yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee for 5 minutes,
Congresswoman Blackburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Administrator, thank you for being here. We do have
questions about the budget. And we are always interested in
ways that we can stop Federal overreach, and that is something
that is so important to my constituents in Tennessee and
something that we hear about a good bit and they want the EPA
to kind of get off their back many times when they are
manufacturers and when they are farmers.
And as a matter of fact, talking with some of my farmers at
Mule Day in Columbia, Tennessee, they were talking about the
WOTUS rule and I want to ask you about that because they say
that they have to move heaven before they can move earth and so
they want to get the EPA off their farms. And they are very
grateful that we have had the delay in the WOTUS rule and it is
important to them, it is important to manufacturers. They feel
like they can move forward and do something and they are not
fighting with this rule.
So I want you to talk a little bit quickly because I have
one other question for you about where we are with the repeal
and the rewrite on WOTUS and then the cost of implementing that
rule and what you all have ascertained through your cost-
benefit analysis of what the cost of compliance of that rule
would have been.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, I will address a couple things,
Congresswoman, in response to your question. First, the
decision on repeal as well as the replacement to the 2015 rule
will all occur in 2018. We will be done with that process this
year. As you know, and you made reference to that, the
compliance dates have been extended but we actually have two
other rules in the marketplace. One is to rescind the 2015 rule
and then a proposal will be coming out next month with respect
to the replacement that will be inspired by Justice Scalia and
I believe the intent of the Clean Water Act with respect to the
definition of the Water of the United States.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK, thank you. Let's talk about fuel
economy standards. We have auto manufacturers in Tennessee and
in Franklin and we have Nissan, the plants over in Smyrna. We
have GM, which is in my district down in Spring Hill, you have
Volkswagen over in Chattanooga. One of the things they talk a
lot about are the fuel economy standards and the cost per car
that trying to go to these new economy standards would do, and
you have talked about adjusting the standards.
So there again I want you to talk a little bit about where
we are when it comes to adjusting those standards and then what
you see as the cost of implementing and then the cost of
compliance.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Congresswoman, as you indicate we
recently issued a midterm evaluation that occurred in April of
this year and we determined that the standards that have been
set were too ambitious and didn't meet the facts and data that
we currently have at present. So we started or will be starting
very soon a rulemaking process along with DOT to reevaluate
those standards.
I think what is important about the CAFE standards is we
ought to endeavor as a country to set standards for lower
emissions on cars that people actually want to buy, you know,
and I think what has happened for a number of years is that we
have created these arbitrary levels that has put a certain
sector of the cars in the marketplace that no one is purchasing
which means they stay in older vehicles which actually defeats
the purpose of the very act.
So we are working with DOT in collaboration interagency to
address that and that proposed rule will be coming out very,
very soon with DOT.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. That sounds great. I think you are
exactly right on that. And we hear that not only from
manufacturers but from the dealers that the economy standards
have pushed forward vehicles that people don't want to purchase
many times and so they are staying in the car longer or they
buy a bigger car that is heavier that they feel like is going
to be a safer vehicle for them.
So I appreciate you being here today and I will yield back
my 30 seconds.
Mr. Shimkus. The chairman thanks the gentlelady. The Chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to, Mr. Administrator, I want to thank the EPA
for a recent announcement of an agreement was brokered between
International Paper and the McGinnis Industrial Maintenance
Corporation which are the responsible parties for the site
cleanup at San Jacinto docks and waste pits in East Harris
County in Texas. Over the past 10 years, Congressman Poe and I
have shared that area, although now it is in Congressman
Babin's district. Our district lines change pretty often in
Texas, anytime a Federal court decides it.
So we have been working on it for 10 years and I want to
thank you for that. The reporting on the agreement stated that
right now the remediation process is expected to take about 29
months. Do you know or can you say how certain is that
timeline? Because having watched other Superfund cleanup sites,
once you get into it you always find other problems. So.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, I feel very confident at the timing on
that, Congressman. Region 6 there in Texas and headquarters,
the partnership that existed there working with the local
community is exactly how this should work. There was a
temporary solution that had been put in place at San Jacinto
and it threatened the health of citizens in that area and this
is a permanent solution that will be provided within the time
period you described and at a cost of $115 million.
Mr. Green. Well, and I know that is expensive. But again
this area is developing and for years we have had signs up at
the San Jacinto River and the Upper Galveston Bay about
expectant mothers and children shouldn't eat the crabs or the
fish, but when I go out there, I don't see anybody that is not
crabbing or fishing. So it is really important to get it
completely cleaned up so it can be restored.
It is also an area where we park a lot of our barges in the
Houston Ship Channel and recently those barges break loose when
there is a storm or a flood and they will break that cap, that
temporary cap that they have. And EPA has been really good on
the job, the regional office in Dallas, to make sure they, you
know, they keep that pollution at the docks and from continuing
to come out.
Let me go to our----
Mr. Pruitt. If I may, Congressman, I think with the
hurricanes that came through last year there was significant
concern about those temporary measures being displaced which
was really what hastened a solution with respect to a permanent
solution.
Mr. Green. Yes. Hurricane Ike actually broke the temporary
dike but that was coming from the Gulf. Our problem last year
was the flooding coming downstream that hurt that and also,
like I said, barges came loose from their mooring and ran into
it.
Let me talk about the Renewable Fuel Standard, because if
you know the area that I represent at one time I had five
refineries, now I only have three of them. But the American
Petroleum Institute and ethanol industry agree on--there is not
much they agree on. A number of waivers the Agency has granted
under the small refinery exemption under your watch has managed
to get everyone's attention. API wrote you a letter in February
and stated their belief that EPA should not grant small
refineries exemptions.
The law provides flexibility when it comes to small
refineries, however, the press reports that EPA has been given
as many as 25 waivers including some that refineries are not
experiencing hardship and some may not be that small. The
smallest I have in my area is a hundred thousand barrels a day.
The other ones have two quarter of a million every day. There
is lack of transparency in the small refinery waiver process
and we understand and respect confidential business
information, but the EPA is a Federal Government Agency, and
secrecy is not something that I think the EPA ought to be
worried about, and it gives appearance of partiality and
unfairness.
Do you know how many applications for waivers did the
Agency receive in 2016 and '17 compliance years for these
waivers?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, it runs about a year behind, Congressman.
The applications we got in '17 relate to the 2016 obligations
and as I recall they were somewhere in the mid-20s that we
received. We received more than that this year for the 2017.
But what is really driving this in a lot of respects, I
mentioned this earlier, is just the RIN prices, you know,
dropping to 40 cents, up to 85 cents, and the rest. And so you
just see a lot of pressure on those small refineries
particularly because of these escalating RIN prices and the
instability of the market.
Mr. Green. Well, I have said it many times in this
committee over the last 10 years, the Chair and I have a
difference from southern Illinois to East Houston on the RIN
issue. Has the Agency granted any waivers to facilities that
output exceeds 75,000 barrels a day?
Mr. Pruitt. We look at it on a facility by facility basis
and the statute says that it is 75,000 barrels or less. So it
is objectively determined in that regard.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas again, another one, for 5
minutes, Mr. Olson.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chairman and Mr. Pruitt, welcome. I
wish your second appearance before this committee was under
much different circumstances. As you know there has been many
press reports about problems at the EPA under your watch. These
problems can't be solved by Congress and this committee. That
is not our role. The solution is between you and President
Donald Trump. You work at his pleasure and that is pure and
simple.
But today, right now, you are America's EPA Administrator
and my home district of Texas 22 needs you to work hard for our
district. We are still trying to recover from Hurricane Harvey.
We also have a Clean Air Act that actually works with local
officials, local governments, to make our air cleaner instead
of pursuing goals that can be never be achieved with technology
that doesn't exist.
On Harvey, I have to publicly thank you for two things.
First of all, your EPA helped my home county of Fort Bend break
through this whole log jam of regulations to allow us to start
dredging our flooded bayous, our flooded waterways, quickly,
and get that stuff taken care of. You did that sir. Thank you
so much for letting my home county get moving forward.
Also, I want to echo my comments from Senator Green, and by
the way this may be the only bipartisan thing you hear in this
committee today, but it is true. I want to thank you for all
the hard work you did to fast track efforts to use the
Superfund to clean up the San Jacinto Waste Pits. As you know,
Hurricane Harvey displaced the protective caps. We don't know
how much dioxin, cancer-causing dioxin exploded out of there.
You stepped up like that with a plan to fix that and that will
be fixed sometime as you mentioned within the next year or so
at the latest. So thank you, thank you, thank you for that.
My first question is about ozone and air quality. This
committee has heard over and over about how the impacts of
ozone and pollution some of this happens outside of our
control, yet for some reason we have to regulate that. This
ozone comes from as far away as China or maybe as close in
Texas as forest fires in Bastrop County a couple years ago.
These uncontrolled sources, which EPA calls them, can create
chaos for compliance with their rules by local governments.
They are just frustrated, frustrated, frustrated.
Our President recently asked you to respond faster to
States' petitions for relief under exceptional events and
international emissions provisions of the Clean Air Act. For 8
years those were never used before. Now you have a great weapon
to help us out. How do you comply with this new request from
the President? Can you give this committee progress through
efforts to make sure that actually exceptional events and
international emissions are complied with and taken into
account with the Clean Air Act issues?
Mr. Pruitt. Congressman, thanks for the question. It is a
very important question. And I think with exceptional events I
think there is probably more latitude we have, but you
mentioned something else that I think is extremely important
and that is the international transport, air transport of
pollution and ozone. We have nonattainment areas all over this
country that are being caused by what is occurring in Asia.
There has been much effort, much work done by industry and
States and citizens across the country to lower emissions with
ozone and we have made tremendous success.
But some of the problems we have are caused by others as
you have indicated, particularly in the international arena. So
we need to find answers there. It may be something we need to
come back to Congress and ask for your assistance to address on
that particular front. Exceptional events, I think, are a
little bit different. I think it is more factually driven than
the other issue, but nonetheless it is a very important issue
that we need to address.
Mr. Olson. One final question, very briefly. We have heard
over and over about burdens placed on States from regulation
after regulation after regulation. Last administration would
save the same life three times with three different laws,
different regulations. That puts a huge bite into some local
governments and local people trying to comply with the Federal
laws.
Do you have the resources you need in the Office of Air and
Radiation to issue guidance to make sure working with States
that we count one life and make these things actually viable?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, I mean, as I came in to this position, we
had 700 State Implementation Plans, SIPs, where States have
invested money and resources to actually provide a plan on how
to improve air quality, and they were sitting on a shelf. We
have moved on 350 of those. I mentioned that in my opening
statement. But we need to focus on those priorities partnering
with States, and the first place to start is to work with them
on those State Implementation Plans.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5
minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Pruitt, when you were in front of this
committee in December, we discussed the installation of a
soundproof privacy booth in the Administrator's office, or the
SCIF, at a cost of over $40,000. At that time you told me that
your view was that the expenditure was appropriate despite the
fact there were two other SCIFs at the EPA. Is that correct?
Mr. Pruitt. This is actually not a SCIF.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Well, whatever it is, the soundproof
booth, you expressed your view that it was appropriate,
correct? Yes or no.
Mr. Pruitt. I didn't express that $43,000 was appropriate.
Ms. DeGette. Yes or no. OK, you are not going to answer my
question. Did you know at that time that this expenditure
violated Section 710 of the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act and the Antideficiency Act? Yes
or no, sir.
Mr. Pruitt. It is actually the opinion of the Office of
General Counsel at the Agency that that is not the case.
Ms. DeGette. So you are not going to answer that question
either. Do you know whether any one of your staff knew that
that expenditure violated these two laws? Yes or no, sir.
Mr. Pruitt. The OGC again has indicated that their opinion
is it is not a violation.
Ms. DeGette. So you are not going to answer that question.
If we can, please give the witness a copy of the April
16th, 2018 letter. Are you familiar with that letter from the
GAO, Mr. Administrator? Yes or no.
Mr. Pruitt. I am familiar with the GAO's decision, yes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. And in that decision----
Mr. Shimkus. Will the gentlelady suspend for a minute? Can
we see a copy of that?
Ms. DeGette. Certainly. I would be happy to present what is
asked unanimous consent that it be placed in the record.
Mr. Shimkus. After we look at it, we probably will. And
while we are waiting, we are going to--I think we are ready to
accept that other letter that you asked to be submitted.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady may continue.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Now the conclusion of this was that these two laws were
violated. Is that correct?
Mr. Pruitt. Their conclusion is that those statutory
requirements were not followed by the Agency.
Ms. DeGette. Yes. Now, did you know about that at the time?
Mr. Pruitt. I did not.
Ms. DeGette. Did your staff know about that at the time?
Mr. Pruitt. About what, Congresswoman?
Ms. DeGette. About these two laws that were supposed to be
complied with before the expenditure happened, yes or no.
Mr. Pruitt. As I indicated, the Office of General Counsel,
career individuals at the Agency advised----
Ms. DeGette. No, I am sorry. You can't filibuster, sir. Did
you know or did your staff know?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not filibustering, Congresswoman. I am
trying to answer your question.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Well, let me ask you this. The EPA has the
ability to impose penalties for this illegal activity. Will you
or your staff be subject to these penalties, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. We are investigating this internally with
appropriate individuals both here as well as the Inspector
General.
Ms. DeGette. Well, you don't know. All right, my next
question, sir, is would you agree that public officials should
be held to the highest standards of ethical conduct?
Mr. Pruitt. I believe that, yes.
Ms. DeGette. Yes. Now, in that vein, I want to ask you
about two troubling financial housing transactions that you
have been involved with as a State then a Federal elected
official. In 2003, you were an Oklahoma State senator with a
State salary of $38,400, correct?
Mr. Pruitt. And also an attorney with a law practice.
Ms. DeGette. Yes, correct?
Mr. Pruitt. And also an attorney with a law practice.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now you lived in a second home near the
State capital purchased by a shell company, Capital House LLC,
from a lobbyist, Marsha Lindsey, correct?
Mr. Pruitt. It was not a shell company.
Ms. DeGette. OK. But it was an LLC, Capital House, correct?
Mr. Pruitt. Which is normally how you buy real estate in
Oklahoma.
Ms. DeGette. You know, yes or no would work.
Mr. Pruitt. I am seeking to answer your question,
Congresswoman.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, what was your financial investment in
Capital House, LLC?
Mr. Pruitt. It was one-sixth of the purchase price, as I
recall.
Ms. DeGette. And so, what, do you remember the amount?
Mr. Pruitt. I do not. I did not negotiate the purchase
price.
Ms. DeGette. So you actually put that amount into the LLC.
Is that right?
Mr. Pruitt. That was the portion that I was responsible
for, yes.
Ms. DeGette. And did you actually pay that amount into the
LLC?
Mr. Pruitt. I did. I did.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now, it has been reported that
another lawmaker rented a room in that home and paid rent to
you although you never listed your share in the shell company
or that rent on your financial disclosures. Is that correct?
Mr. Pruitt. I don't ever recall that. No.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Was that rental income distributed among
the owners of the shell company in the proportion that you
contributed to the company?
Mr. Pruitt. K1s were issued to each of the individual
members. Those were reported as income through our tax filings,
and so all income was reported.
Ms. DeGette. Did you pay taxes on that income?
Mr. Pruitt. We did.
Ms. DeGette. Can we get that information, sir?
Mr. Pruitt. I can provide you K1----
Ms. DeGette. Did you personally pay taxes on your income
from that rental?
Mr. Pruitt. I can provide you the K1.
Ms. DeGette. That would be great. Did you pay taxes on that
income?
Mr. Pruitt. As I indicated, I received a K1----
Ms. DeGette. I know you received a K1. Did you pay taxes on
that income?
Mr. Pruitt. That was provided to my accountant in our
filing.
Ms. DeGette. So you are not going to answer that question
either.
Mr. Pruitt. I am answering the question, Congresswoman.
Ms. DeGette. Yes, OK. Did you pay taxes on the income that
you got for your share?
Mr. Pruitt. Congresswoman, as you know, you provide
information to your accountant, they determine what you pay.
Ms. DeGette. So you are not going to answer that question.
Now I have some other questions about your DC condo, but I am
out of time. And I just want to say to my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle and also to you, I am not doing this to
hassle you. I am doing this because, as elected officials and
appointed officials, we have the public trust. Everything we do
has to be to the highest ethical standard, as you just agreed
with me. And when we have these transactions, it brings
disrespect on us as public officials----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time----
Ms. DeGette [continuing]. And as the job we do.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Has expired.
Ms. DeGette. So I am just going to continue this, and I
would hope you would be forthcoming with this committee. Thank
you.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time has expired. Your
unanimous consent request will be respected, and we will put
your letter, the GAO letter, into the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, you know, I served for 26\1/2\
years in the United States Air Force, and I do believe that
public officials have a standard of conduct that should be
beyond reproach, but so should Members of Congress. And, you
know, I think it is shameful today that this hearing has turned
into a personal attack hearing and a shameful attempt to
denigrate the work that is being done at the EPA and with this
administration and make this a personal attack rather than
focus on what we are here to talk about, which is the budget
and the functioning and the policy work being done at the EPA.
So I am going to redirect my questioning to you, Mr.
Pruitt. Under the provision, under the previous administration
the EPA put severe squeezes on job opportunities and businesses
in Eastern and Southeastern Ohio which, by the way, we didn't
make personal attacks when that happened, we talked about
policy at the time. And this has had, you know, our district
has an abundance of fossil energy resources and energy
opportunities.
Today we have an EPA that recognizes the importance of
those jobs and is willing to work with the States like Ohio to
provide a healthy balance between jobs and environmental
regulations. That approach has made a real difference in my
State and in my district, and I applaud those efforts at
restoring sensibility. Along those lines I would like to talk a
bit about New Source Review and the Agency's work to date on
some of the issues surrounding New Source Review.
In February, this committee held a hearing exploring the
challenges that New Source Review standards pose for our energy
and infrastructure investments and opportunities. We learned
that many companies avoid carrying out projects to improve
existing facilities because they are afraid of being targeted
by an EPA enforcement action for having incorrectly interpreted
New Source Review requirements. I have been encouraged to see
the EPA's recently released guidance memos clarifying certain
NSR program requirements and policy.
So, Mr. Pruitt, from your perspective what is the goal of
these NSR guidance memos and what impact are they having?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, it is one of the greatest issues that I
think we are dealing with at the Agency to address that which
companies want to do across the country which is invest, invest
in capital infrastructure to improve the reduction of
emissions. And so what we want to do is provide clarity. You
mentioned a couple of memo guidances we provided. One is a
once-in, always-in approach that we took to this issue along
with the project netting approach that was a second step.
So we are engaged in those kinds of initial steps, but
overall we are looking at a comprehensive rule that will
address New Source Review in order to provide certainty and
clarity to those across the country that as they make
investments to improve outcomes as far as emission reductions
that they are not going to face new permitting requirements
under the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. Do you think the NSR program can be
further reformed so that we continue to protect air quality
while removing unnecessary burdens placed on industry?
Mr. Pruitt. I mean I do. I think, you know, the Clean Air
Act was last amended in 1990, 28 years ago, and so I think
there are provisions of the Clean Air Act that should be looked
at and that is one.
Mr. Johnson. In regards to the Clean Air Act, how is the
EPA striving to provide more flexibility and deference to State
agencies?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, as mentioned earlier, we are providing
guidance in certain and many programs encouraging States to be
active partners there. But one of the things that I think is
most essential with respect to air quality is just the
utilization of State Implementation Plans and us being
responsive, responding to those Departments of Environmental
Quality, Departments of Natural Resources, whatever the Agency
may be, to really work with them in close partnership to adopt
those plans and approve those plans in a timely way. It really
sends a bad message when States take those steps, invest, and
then don't get a response from the Agency for years, and air
quality suffers as well.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I have some other questions, but I am
running out of time.
Lastly, I know that EPA has expressed interest in finding a
resolution to some of the concerns regarding EPA's current
brick MACT rule which was issued in 2015. Would you commit to
working with me and this committee in providing further
information on this work and any potential possibilities?
Compliance dates are right around the corner and it is
important to provide this industry with some common-sense
regulatory certainty.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Congressman, absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. OK, thank you.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5
minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman.
Administrator Pruitt, since becoming EPA Administrator your
public calendar is filled with meetings with oil and gas
companies, trade associations, and lobbyists, but not with
environmental groups or public health groups. It seems that
deep pockets are a prerequisite to getting a spot on your
calendar. Mr. Pruitt, isn't it true that you and your
affiliated political organizations received nearly $4 million
in campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests?
Mr. Pruitt. Congressman, I haven't looked at those numbers
in some time, so I am not sure.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I can assure you that it is. And as an
example of pay-to-play, on June 5th, 2017, you announced that
the EPA halted implementation of the methane rule. This was an
attempt to retroactively delay the rule's requirements on oil
and gas industry for 90 days. A few weeks prior to that on May
24th, 2017, you spoke to the American Exploration and
Production Council.
Mr. Pruitt, was your June 5th actions made in response to a
request by the American Exploration and Production Council or
any of its individual members?
Mr. Pruitt. Methane is something that we take very
seriously and will regulate. In fact, we have proposals that we
are considering now to regulate methane going forward as part
of the VOC approach. And so methane is----
Mr. McNerney. So you aren't answering my question. You had
a meeting----
Mr. Pruitt. The actions that were taken then were unrelated
to any meetings or events. It was actions to provide certainty
to those in the marketplace with respect to how we were going
to approach methane.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, I ask this because Concho
Resources, an oil and gas exploration and production company is
a member of the American Exploration and Production Council.
Concho Resources also happens to be represented by the
Washington, DC, lobbying firm Williams & Jensen. You made these
decisions on the methane rule that would directly benefit
Williams & Jensen's client while living in a Capitol Hill condo
owned by the wife of a then Williams & Jensen lobbyist with a
rent of $50 a night.
I wonder what the owners got or tried to get in return for
their generosity. This is another example of pay-to-play.
Arbitrarily delaying a rule is illegal and the DC Circuit Court
found your actions to be in excess of statutory authority.
Mr. Chairman, I have a statement from the American
Association for the Advancement of Science on the EPA
Administrator's plan to disallow the use of scientific evidence
in decisionmaking, and I would like to submit this for the
record.
Mr. Shimkus. If the gentleman would pass it over to the
Chair so I can look at it.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Administrator, do you have confidence in
the AAAS and the Union of Concerned Scientists in deciding what
would be best practices for transparency and good science?
Mr. Pruitt. I am sure their opinion is credible.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Then how can you justify the
proposed rule disallowing science that was supported by these
agencies?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, the actions that we take at the Agency
are different than their responsibilities. We actually issue
rules of general applicability that apply to people all over
the country and we need to ensure that the science that we use
that underpins those rules actually show methodology, data, and
conclusions.
Mr. McNerney. Science which disagrees with professional
scientists that are practicing professional scientists.
Mr. Pruitt, by reducing the CAFE standards you will both
allow more pollution on American streets and make U.S. cars
less competitive with overseas manufacturers. Yes or no, did
the $4 million that you received from the oil and gas industry
influence your decision?
Mr. Pruitt. The decision we made on midterm evaluation was
a decision based upon the record.
Mr. McNerney. Administrator Pruitt, I find it very
disturbing that you appear to personally benefit from many of
your decisions and actions that will ultimately harm the people
of this country, especially people who have little or no
ability to defend themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores--we got a lot
of Texans here--for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. That is right.
Administrator Pruitt, thank you for joining us today. Let
me start by echoing Chairman Shimkus' comments regarding the
Renewable Fuel Standard. While I am pleased that the Agency is
beginning to look at its authorities after 2022, I would like
to respectfully remind the EPA that administrative actions
prior to that time are limited by statute. Accordingly, I
request that the Agency work with Congress, particularly
Chairman Shimkus, Mr. Welch, and me as we try to develop
interim and long-term solutions, fuel solutions that are good
for the environment and good for auto mileage, good for the
American consumers, good for the agricultural and ethanol
interest, and really good for all impacted stakeholders.
A few minutes ago, Mr. Ruiz was trying to defend the EPA's
practice under the prior administration of using hidden science
to develop policy solutions, and you weren't given a chance in
regard to your efforts to open that process up and become more
transparent with scientific studies. Can you spend about 30
seconds describing what you are trying to do to make science
inside the EPA more transparent, especially because it is paid
for by the American taxpayer?
Mr. Pruitt. It seems to me that it is common sense that as
we do rulemaking at the Agency, when we base it upon a record,
scientific conclusions, that we should be able to see the data
and methodology that actually caused those conclusions. That
just makes common sense to me. That is the only change we are
making. So any third-party study, we are agnostic about who
actually adopts the study, we are just simply saying to all
third-party science, they need to have methodology, data, and
findings packaged together so that we can make an informed
decision about the efficacy of their scientific findings.
Mr. Flores. OK. So I think you and I both agree that the
American people deserve to see that science. It shouldn't be
hidden as it was hidden in the prior administration. So I thank
you for your efforts to make that science more transparent.
Now to my questions, as the American people are well aware
the EPA under the Obama administration abused environmental
regulatory process by ignoring congressional statutes and by
circumventing the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately, the Federal
court system stepped in to protect American families from this
abuse of the rule of law. In this regard I have the following
questions: one--I will go through the questions first, and you
all can respond supplementally if you would like to.
Can you provide this committee with a list of those
overreaching and overturned regulations that were overturned by
the court systems? Can you provide this committee with the
economic cost of those overturned regulations, and can you also
inform the committee about EPA's actions, if any, to modify
those regulations so those overreaching regulations to conform
with the rule of law?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, on all fronts.
Mr. Flores. OK. And I would ask you to do that
supplementally in the interest of time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Pruitt, yesterday I sent you a letter on
EPA's January 25th, 2018, guidance to reverse the longstanding
once-in, always-in policy for major sources of hazardous air
pollutants. This document rolls back one of the bedrock
safeguards to limit toxic air pollution from factories and
industrial operations. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to
control hazardous air pollutants to protect public health.
These pollutants are the worst of the worst and they include
many that cause cancer in children like mercury, arsenic, and
lead. The law focuses on limiting these pollutions from
industrial sources by requiring them to control their emissions
using the maximum achievable control technology, or MACT.
The once-in, always-in policy ensured that polluters
continued to clean up their act and didn't backslide on their
progress, but in the January 25th guidance you punched a huge,
giant loophole in these critical public health protections,
essentially allowing sources to increase their toxic air
emissions with no consequences. At a Senate hearing in January,
you were asked about the new once-in, always-in guidance and
indicated that, quote, ``It was a decision made outside of the
Air Program office. It was a policy office decision,'' unquote.
At the time, you didn't seem aware of the details, and that
happens when things are--you have a lot of stuff, but I am
hoping now that you have had more time to familiarize yourself,
and I would like to ask you some questions. It is not clear
whether EPA has any idea how many sources might increase their
emissions of hazardous air pollutants as a result of this
policy change, and I would like to ask you some yes-or-no
questions.
Yes or no, did EPA determine which sources and how many
would be covered by this policy change before releasing the
January 25th guidance?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. There was a review of those issues,
Congresswoman.
Mrs. Dingell. Yes or no, thank you.
Mr. Pruitt. And I would say to you that this was an
incentive to companies to actually invest in emissions.
Mrs. Dingell. OK, did you--yes or no--did EPA determine the
location of these sources?
Mr. Pruitt. That is something that I would have to--I don't
know about the locations.
Mrs. Dingell. Please, for the record--yes or no--did EPA
provide that? Yes or no, did EPA assess the magnitude of
hazardous air pollution that could increase as a result of the
January 25th guidance?
Mr. Pruitt. It is actually a benefit with respect to
providing incentive, as I indicated, to those major emitters to
get into another category.
Mrs. Dingell. Yes or no. So----
Mr. Pruitt. I understand that they looked at that, yes.
Mrs. Dingell. Has EPA initiated or completed any of the
previously mentioned analyses since the release of January 25th
guidance?
Mr. Pruitt. The work that was done was in support of the
guidance that was issued.
Mrs. Dingell. It is also not clear whether EPA has looked
at the potential health effects of this decision. Yes or no,
did EPA conduct an analysis of the health effects including the
potential increased risk of cancer of this decision before
releasing the January 25th guidance memo?
Mr. Pruitt. That is something we will have to provide and
verify.
Mrs. Dingell. Yes or no, did EPA conduct an analysis of the
potential health effects of this policy on children, babies, or
pregnant women before releasing the January 25th?
Mr. Pruitt. That is something we will have to assess and
provide.
Mrs. Dingell. Yes or no, did EPA conduct an analysis of the
potential health effects of this policy on older Americans or
those with chronic health problems before releasing the January
25th guidance?
Mr. Pruitt. I hate to be redundant, but that is something
we will have to assess and provide.
Mrs. Dingell. Yes or no, did EPA conduct an analysis of the
potential health effects of this policy on minority and low-
income communities before releasing the January 25th?
Mr. Pruitt. I would answer the same way.
Mrs. Dingell. In the absence of information from EPA, a
number of independent groups have taken it upon themselves to
analyze the potential toxic impacts this policy would have on
communities near and downwind from major sources. They found
that the chemical industry stands to benefit substantially from
this loophole. Have you met with any industry representatives
who requested the repeal of this once-in, always-in policy?
Mr. Pruitt. Again, this was a decision to provide incentive
to companies to invest to lower emissions.
Mrs. Dingell. There are no incentives for pollution. I am
going to conclude with one different subject, because this is
very important to me. You recently concluded the midterm
evaluation of fuel economy standards for model years 2022 to
'25. It is my deep belief that the auto companies, their
workers, and the consumer have benefited from having one
national program for fuel economy and that it is critical to
preserve that moving forward. The importance of these standards
besides saving energy, reducing emissions, is the certainty
that businesses need. I am deeply worried about reports that
California doesn't matter to you.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time is expiring.
Mrs. Dingell. All right. I just want to say it is my hope
that we can have one national program moving forward. If you
do, we work on it together, everybody wins.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time is expired.
We are going to accept for submission into the record the
statement from the American Association for Advancement of
Sciences.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. Just for our colleagues' note, the chief
executive officer is a guy named Rush Holt, who you will all
remember.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Hudson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Pruitt, for being here today. I have two areas of questions I
want to jump into with you. The first relates to the chemical
GenX and the Cape Fear River back home in North Carolina. In
your testimony, you highlighted the importance of safe drinking
water and the EPA's efforts to proactively protect source water
as well as address contamination concerns. As I am sure you are
aware, my State of North Carolina is facing growing concerns
over the emerging contaminant GenX. I have been engaged with
you on this issue several times in the past.
My concern is that we have a chemical that is spreading
that we simply do not know enough about. I am worried that on
the EPA's website you state that a management plan for PFOS,
the related family of chemicals, won't be developed until the
fall of 2018. 2 days ago I received a letter from the Office of
Water addressing some but not all of our questions that I have
asked about GenX. I understand the EPA has posted comprehensive
scientific literature related to GenX on its website, but EPA
is also developing human health toxicity information on GenX to
aid States and localities in setting or refining public health
goals.
I would just ask, sir, what information is EPA seeking that
the literature has, does not already provide, and when will the
results of the EPA's information development be available to
the public?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, a very important issue, and I have talked
to the Governor there in North Carolina, and it is something
that I am aware of the issues in North Carolina. We will have a
toxicity review by the summer.
Mr. Hudson. By the summer.
Mr. Pruitt. With respect to GenX. And as you know this is
an iteration beyond PFOA and PFOS. GenX was a successive, you
know, chemical. I am very concerned about its impact and we are
accelerating that tox review and then we will look at further
steps in the fall. But we have been in communications with
North Carolina and the Governor particularly about that.
Mr. Hudson. Great. Well, I appreciate the attention you put
on this. What were the updates to EPA's risk management of GenX
based upon independent laboratory analysis of compounds found
in the Cape Fear River water samples and what about those
findings can you discuss now?
Mr. Pruitt. With respect to the toxicity review or other
studies, Congressman?
Mr. Hudson. Well, there were independent laboratory
analyses of the compounds that was done.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. That is part of the work that is being
done to support the tox review that will occur this summer and
then there will be additional standards set in the future. But
what we are trying to do is work with those States like North
Carolina that have an imminent concern and trying to provide
them guidance as they adopt State responses as well.
Mr. Hudson. OK. Well, then I don't know if you are able to
make a conclusion yet, but was GenX used in a manner that was
incompatible with the consent agreement under the Toxic
Substances Control Act or are you in a position to determine
that?
Mr. Pruitt. That is something I am not able to speak to at
this point, but we can get you the information, Congressman.
Mr. Hudson. Great. Well, I appreciate the seriousness with
which you have taken this and the work you are doing with our
Governor and also on this. So thank you for that.
Mr. Pruitt. Governor Cooper has been very, very concerned
about it and very focused upon it, and it is important that we
address it with him and the State.
Mr. Hudson. Great, thank you. I would like to pivot now and
discuss another area that you have highlighted as a priority
for the Agency, which is clean air. In the 47 years since the
enactment of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has never taken an
enforcement action against amateur racers who make
modifications to vehicles used exclusively on tracks for
racing. Do you support this policy?
Mr. Pruitt. The policy of taking no enforcement?
Mr. Hudson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pruitt. I think it is wise, yes.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate that. In 2015, under the previous
administration, the EPA slipped a few sentences into a 600-page
unrelated rule that proposed to repeal this policy. And after a
public outcry and a number of us raised concerns, they backed
off, but they sort of left some ambiguity there about the
legality of this. Would you support legislation clarifying that
vehicles can be modified for racing and that doing so does not
violate the anti-tampering provisions in the Clean Air Act as
long as those vehicles are not used on public roads or used
exclusively for competition?
Mr. Pruitt. It is always helpful to us to get congressional
clarity on these issues, so absolutely.
Mr. Hudson. Great. Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate
the time you have given us here today and thank you for your
focus on clean air and clean water, goals we all share.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Pruitt, it is widely reported at this point
that most of your patrons and supporters are from the oil, gas,
and coal industries. The regulations you have withdrawn,
delayed, or weakened, rules on coal ash disposal, water
pollution from coal-fired utilities, methane gas emissions from
oil and gas operations, air pollution from glider trucks,
formaldehyde emission standards, all translate into additional
profits for those industries but negatively impact public
health.
So it doesn't come much as a surprise that you have
determined in the midterm evaluation that the stronger vehicle
fuel efficiency standards are too stringent. I strongly
disagree with this determination. There is a very robust record
to support the need for stronger standards and the availability
of technology to achieve them highlighted by the 1,200-page
Technical Assessment Report issued by the EPA.
Administrator Pruitt, you have stated many times that you
intended to operate at the EPA on the basis of cooperative
federalism and the rule of law. But when it comes to California
and vehicle emission standards all of a sudden neither of these
concepts seem to apply. You have made it clear that you do not
favor California's waiver under which the State sets greenhouse
gas emission standards for vehicles and you have stated that
California should not have, quote, an outsized influence on
vehicle standards. But this position is inconsistent with your
preference for States' rights, and more importantly it is
inconsistent with the law.
California's special status with respect to vehicle
emission regulation has been enshrined in Federal law for over
50 years. Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act states the
Administrator shall, not may, shall grant a waiver to any State
if the State, not the Agency, determines the State standards
will be at least as protective of public health and welfare as
the Federal standards.
The auto manufacturers have repeatedly said that they do
not want the protracted legal fight that would inevitably occur
if EPA moved to revoke California's waiver. But many of your
public statements allude to the Agency moving in that
direction. So I would ask you, does the Agency intend to
initiate proceedings to revoke California's waiver, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. Not at present. In fact, we work very closely
with California officials on that issue. I have sent EPA
representatives to California----
Ms. Matsui. So that is a no?
Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. To meet with CARB and Ms. Nichols.
It is important that we work together to achieve, as was
indicated earlier, a national standard.
Ms. Matsui. OK. So it is really not a yes or no. It is a--
--
Mr. Pruitt. Congresswoman, we are working very diligently
and diplomatically with California----
Ms. Matsui. All right, OK. OK.
Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. To find answers on this issue.
Ms. Matsui. OK. OK. Well, I believe the answer should be a
no because you said you have said you want a national program,
and you won't get this without California's agreement. The law
requires you to set standards that protect public health and
welfare. California standards' does just that. California
agreed to a national program to enter into an agreement to
accomplish that goal. If you challenge the waiver or
significantly weaken the standards you are not following the
rule of law.
If you are, in fact, doing what you were appointed to do,
what you said you were going to do, you must uphold the law and
set protective standards. So far you have demonstrated little
intention to do that. That is why the entire country needs
California's waiver to ensure that public health and the
environment are protected even in the face of an Administrator
who cares maybe more about repaying special interests than
about safeguarding the public's interests.
Now, Administrator Pruitt, I believe, to a question that
you answered from Mrs. Blackburn earlier, you said the EPA has
data supporting your decision to revise emission standards for
light-duty vehicles. Will you commit to providing that data to
both sides of the committee by the end of the day? And that is
a yes or no.
Mr. Pruitt. We actually have two responsibilities under
this process. One is a midterm evaluation and then proposed
rulemaking that will occur. And so we will provide the data to
you that gave rise to the midterm evaluation.
Ms. Matsui. Will you provide it at the end of the day, the
day that you have----
Mr. Pruitt. I will instruct our team to get that together
and get that to you as soon as possible.
Ms. Matsui. End of the day, yes.
Mr. Pruitt. I will instruct my team to get that and get
that to you as soon as possible.
Ms. Matsui. As soon as possible, hopefully within a week,
then?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, we will get it to you as soon as
possible, Congresswoman.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I will hold you to that, OK.
Mr. Pruitt. It is my intent to do so, yes.
Ms. Matsui. I will hold you to that. OK, thank you, and I
yield back.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back her time. The Chair
now recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Cramer, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Administrator, for lots of things, first of all, for being
here.
And once again I never cease to be impressed with the
incredible depth of knowledge you have on the details of so
many things. It seems to me, however, the more details you
know, the more some people demand and they expect you to know
everything. And I have to say, in my years both on this
committee and on previous committees, I have never had a
Cabinet official that knew as much about the policies that your
Agency is implementing as you have with yours. So thank you for
that.
I also want to thank you for your incredible not just an
understanding of, but commitment to, cooperative federalism. It
is something that has been lost in previous administrations,
including by some of your critics that were predecessors to
you, and the restoration of it is no small matter. And I want
you to know on behalf of the people of North Dakota how very
much we appreciate your approval of our State's application for
primacy over class VI wells, which is our CO2 wells,
so I think it was a clear demonstration of the policy.
I am also, I have to say I am somewhat struck by some of
the accusations that have come at you today. For example, you
were accused of picking winners and losers with your policies.
And I just have to ask, isn't the Clean Power Plan at its very
core the picking of winners and losers by trying to regulate
electric generation outside of the fence line? I mean isn't
that a picking of winners and losers?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, I mean the Agency, in response to that,
Congressman, actually defined a best system of emission
reduction under the statute as being able to coerce decisions
being made at the local level on how you generate electricity.
So I think, by definition, that was almost picking winners and
losers.
Mr. Cramer. You have also been accused of hypocrisy. You
have been accused of the lack of transparency by people who in
the same breath are defending secret science as a means of
carrying out their political philosophy, all the while accusing
you of being the ideologue in the room. The irony is rich
beyond rich with me.
Mr. Pruitt. And I think what--if I may, for a second.
Mr. Cramer. Please.
Mr. Pruitt. I think what is important with respect to the
scientific transparency, it doesn't apply to only certain
studies. It applies to all third-party studies of every type. I
mean, many Members on this committee, I am sure, would be very
concerned that, if API went out and did a study, didn't provide
the methodology, didn't provide the data, provided conclusions
to the EPA, and then the EPA acted on rulemaking with respect
to methane or other issues, there would be tremendous concerns
about that.
So it applies to all third-party science irrespective of
the source. It just simply says data, methodology, conclusions
matter, and the American people need to be able to consume
that.
Mr. Cramer. Well, it seems to me and I appreciated the
inquiry earlier and maybe you could elaborate a little bit on
how personal data can be protected and is protected. Nobody is
asking for the names of every victim of every, you know, of
every pollution source that has ever happened in the world or
that has been sourced in any study. They are not asking for
personal data, we are asking simply for the science to be
revealed. I mean you can protect the personal data, right?
Mr. Pruitt. Both the personal data, Congressman, as well as
confidential business information, both CBI and personal
information can be redacted and can be addressed and still
serve the purposes of the proposed rule.
Mr. Cramer. I have to say I think, though, of all of the
accusations today, it was interesting after about 4 minutes of
defending the swamp, one of their leaders said, ``So much for
draining the swamp.''
Mr. Administrator, I think the greatest sin that you have
committed, if any, is that you have actually done what
President Trump ran on, what he won on, and what he has
commissioned you to do in finding some balance in both carrying
out the mission of environmental protection while at the same
time looking out for the economy and jobs creation. And I just,
again, for the people in North Dakota, I appreciate that so
much.
In my remaining minute, if you would take some time to just
elaborate even a little bit more on the New Source Review
issue, because, you know, in North Dakota we have a number of
existing plants that are finding it very difficult to even meet
the spirit of the intent, if you will, of New Source Review,
and I think it just seems to be working against itself.
Mr. Pruitt. I mean, I think for the American people as we
talk about, I mean what New Source Review is, is when you have
a company that wants to invest sometimes hundreds and millions
of dollars in their facilities to reduce pollution they refuse
to do so because if they invest too much it is considered a
major modification to the facility which then requires what,
additional permitting responsibilities which they may not get.
So dealing with New Source Review is something that is very,
very important to actually incentivize companies and reward
companies who want to invest in better outcomes.
It was talked about earlier with respect to once-in,
always-in. That effectively is what that is, because under the
category of major emitters and minor emitters in what we said
is that, as you are a major emitter and you invest and you
actually reduce your pollution down to minor levels, you can
actually be rewarded for that and actually, I think,
incentivized to do that.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Cardenas, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
calling this hearing and also I marked your words that you said
that today hopefully we are going to be talking about policy
and stewardship. So I hope that we can get that on the record
as well on both of those fronts.
Mr. Pruitt, welcome to the people's House. The list of your
failures is long and your wasteful spending is an embarrassment
to Government and very offensive to the taxpayers who pay all
of our salaries. This administration is so packed with
unethical behavior, but yet at the same time you have to
understand that your power directly impacts health and well-
being of vulnerable populations in this country--seniors, our
children, our sick, and our disabled.
It is tempting to ask why you spent nearly $68,000 on
hotels and travel from August through February, just in 5
months, and 50,000 on modifications to your office including a
privacy booth that cost over $43,000, and an oversized desk
with ornate woodworking that cost over $2,000, but we already
know that some of these purchases were made in violation of
Federal laws.
When you appeared before the subcommittee in December, this
subcommittee, you said that your phone booth is used for
classified conversations and sensitive conversations with the
White House. Has this $43,000 phone booth, has it been
certified as a SCIF, and also so are you using it for
classified conversations, is that appropriate?
Mr. Pruitt. It has not been certified as a SCIF, and it
does provide protection on confidential communications. And I
think it is important, Congressman, to know where this
originated. I did have a phone call that came in of a sensitive
nature and I did not have access to secure communications. I
gave direction to my staff to address that, and out of that
came a $43,000 expenditure that I did not approve. That is
something that should not occur in the future.
Mr. Cardenas. OK, so you are not taking responsibility for
the $43,000 that was spent in your office, you are saying that
staff did it without your knowledge?
Mr. Pruitt. Career individuals at the Agency took that
process through and signed off on it all the way through.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. So you were not involved in that, is what
you are saying?
Mr. Pruitt. I was not in involved in the approval of the
$43,000, and if I had known about it, Congressman, I would have
refused it.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. That seems a bit odd. If something
happens in my office, especially to the degree of $43,000, I
know about it before, during, and after. But anyway, let me get
on to my next points. I am sure you can see the irony of this
$43,000 expenditure, even though you are saying before the
public that you are not taking responsibility for it.
EPA's budget is far from unlimited. When you commandeer
public resources for your personal use, other lifesaving Agency
activities do suffer. In another troubling example, Millan
Hupp, an EPA appointee who came with you from Oklahoma and was
recently awarded with a large raise over the White House's
objections, reportedly went out to open houses in search for a
condo for you. Mr. Pruitt, I hope you understand that using
public employees for your private business is illegal.
Turning now to your highly questionable condo lease from
Vicki Hart, I find it highly concerning that you apparently
never had an EPA ethics attorney review the lease before you
signed it. Did you have an EPA ethics attorney look at that
lease before you signed it?
Mr. Pruitt. On the other issue, Congressman, I want to
address that I am not aware of any Government time being used
by Millan Hupp. She is a friend of both my wife and myself and
has been for a number of years, and she is a friend. And the
activities----
Mr. Cardenas. OK. You stated for the record that you are
not aware that she used her official time. Thank you very much.
But did any of the attorneys at the EPA look at your lease
before you signed it?
Mr. Pruitt. The review that took place took place
afterwards.
Mr. Cardenas. Afterwards, OK. And what did they say about
that lease afterwards when they reviewed it?
Mr. Pruitt. They said that the rate paid was comparable to
other--what I leased actually was comparable to other
arrangements.
Mr. Cardenas. Did they state that in writing or verbally?
Mr. Pruitt. Actually in writing, in writing twice.
Mr. Cardenas. In writing, OK, can you get a copy of that to
the committee?
Mr. Pruitt. I can get the ethics opinions to you, yes.
Mr. Cardenas. OK, thank you. It was also recently reported
that as Attorney General of Oklahoma you reassigned an
investigative staff of the office to be your personal driver
and security team. Are those reports accurate?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not aware of what you are referring to,
Congressman.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. All right, to my next question. In an
apparent attempt to rebut reports, your Agency published data
in February claiming a large increase in penalties against
polluters, but that data included the penalties assessed by the
Obama administration. In fact, 90 percent of those numbers that
you reported were actually assessed by the previous
administration. Did you intentionally claim credit for the
enforcement actions taken by the Obama administration to
obscure your weak record on enforcement, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. In fact, the Obama administration cut into
agents at that office. We have increased the number of agents
in that office.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. On my time----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Cardenas. I just want to show you a picture of the----
Mr. Shimkus. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan. The gentleman----
Mr. Cardenas [continuing]. That I grew up in, and that is
the new picture here.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman will suspend. His time is
expired. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Michigan
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Cardenas. I yield.
Mr. Walberg. And I would thank the Administrator for being
here. I appreciate you taking the time to do this. It is
important for us as we work in our relationship, the
constitutional relationship that we have time with you. So
thank you for being here and thank you for your policy efforts
as you perform your functions.
Administrator Pruitt, the last time you were before this
committee you told me then, I quote, the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative is something that we should work
together to make sure is achieving good outcomes and I think it
has and we will continue that discussion as we head into 2018.
I appreciate those words, but we have seen a lack of support
for the GLRI.
Again in this fiscal year 2019 budget request, the GLRI was
funded at 30 million by this administration. Obviously I was
and am not OK with that level of funding and worked with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Great Lakes Caucus
in an effort to restore full funding, which we did, for that.
And I certainly would love to stand on the banks of one of the
Great Lakes in my district, Lake Erie, with you, and just have
an opportunity to discuss further what is so important about 20
percent of the world's fresh water resources being there in the
Great Lakes and what a job we have attempted to do as Great
Lakes States to make that work for us.
Do you believe that 30 million is adequate funding for such
a critical program?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, I commend what Congress has done to
address that. I think Congress restored that level to 300
million, I think, in the omnibus.
Mr. Walberg. 300 million.
Mr. Pruitt. And I remain personally and as Administrator of
the EPA committed to you to work----
Mr. Walberg. Will you make a request to the administration
to work with us on that?
Mr. Pruitt. I will continue to do that Congressman.
Mr. Walberg. I would appreciate that because it is
important and I think again it is something that we want to in
the Great Lakes Region take care of that resource as good
stewards and I believe you do as well.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, the challenges there, the invasive
species we know is an issue. We want to do all that we can. I
was actually in Region 5 earlier this week and obviously they
are very focused on those efforts as well. I am hopeful that we
can find better outcomes as we go forward on the funding
levels.
Mr. Walberg. Well, with that, with invasive species and
with algae bloom, which has been significant, touching my
district, across the line in Ohio as well, when we discussed
last time you mentioned that there would be an interest--and
let me find--you said it is something that we ought to do going
forward and ensure that there is a partnership like that and
specifically referring to Agriculture and Interior.
Have you had an opportunity to talk with Sonny Perdue or
Ryan Zinke about this issue of algae bloom and how to address
it in the Great Lakes?
Mr. Pruitt. Secretary Perdue and I have actually talked
about issues with respect to geographical focal areas, but Ryan
and I have not. And I think it is important, you know, as I
indicated, for States like the Great Lakes Initiative, you have
States that have joined together partnering and collaborating
with the Federal Government to achieve better outcomes, and I
think that is an example of true federalism.
Mr. Walberg. Is there anything I can do to assist in
bringing that coalition together? I would be delighted to stand
on the banks of Lake Erie with you and Secretary Zinke.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, yes. We ought to do that together with
the other two individuals as well.
Mr. Walberg. OK, next topic is the constant threat of
invasive species. I believe we have an administration right now
that isn't committed to some of the shipping interests in
Illinois and Indiana that there were before and I don't
discredit that. But we have a water resource that could be
impacted in many different ways recreationally, commercially as
well, if Asian carp, one of those species were to get into the
Great Lakes.
Can you please provide an update on what your efforts have
been with the Army Corps of Engineers that have been dragging
their oars in the water for too long on this issue? Have you
had any significant contact with them in moving this issue
forward?
Mr. Pruitt. I have had contact with Secretary Esper as well
as R.D. James there at the Corps on a multitude of issues. I
don't recall speaking about this particular issue, but I
appreciate you making me aware of it, and we will talk to them
about their involvement.
Mr. Walberg. Yes, if you could get on that. That is just so
significant. And it is amazing right now though we have seen
DNA that have come from carp in the Great Lakes, thus far we
are not seeing the impact of the fish themselves. We can't have
that happen. If it happens there is no turning back, and this
is an environmental protection issue. And so I hope that you
will check into that further, and I certainly would like to
check with your office.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Pruitt for being here. As you know, I have
the honor and privilege of representing the 1st congressional
district of Georgia which includes the entire coast of Georgia
and it also includes the Savannah Harbor. The Savannah Harbor
Expansion Project is a billion-dollar project, arguably the
most important economic development project in our State's
history next to the Interstate System. It supports the
infrastructure and economic principles that were laid out by
President Trump. It is exactly that.This is what he has been
talking about when he has been talking investing in the
infrastructure in our country. It is one of the most studied
projects in the history of mankind.
We started this project in the late 1990s. Since that time,
three ports in China have been started and completed, yet this
is not completed yet. Back when you were here in December, I
brought to your attention the Tier 4 emission standards that
are being required for the harbor pilots and for their boats
and the problem that it was causing us then. You understand
that unless we can get those ships in and out of port, it does
us no good to invest a billion dollars into this project. We
have to have those harbor pilots and their vessels in order to
get these ships in and out of port.
Now the Tier 4 emission standards, I spoke to you in
December about those. This was after months of my staff and
your staff going back and forth to discuss this. Since that
time almost 5 months ago, I have had the harbor pilots come up
to Washington at their own expense and their own time to meet
with your staff. Your staff was completely unprepared. It was
complete waste of time for the harbor pilots to be here. You
gave me a commitment back in December that you would look into
this. I need to know where we are at with this. This is
extremely important for us.
Can you give me an idea of where we are at with this?
Mr. Pruitt. First, Congressman, my apologies to you and
your constituents if we weren't responsive. And that is the
first I have heard of that and I will check on that very issue
and my apologies there.
Secondly, as I shared with you recently, we are actually
sending representatives, I think, to California to meet with
the architect on the construction of the vessels to determine
whether there is a way to modify----
Mr. Carter. When will they be going to California?
Mr. Pruitt. I think this month. I think it is actually this
month.
Mr. Carter. This month, April?
Mr. Pruitt. May, I am sorry. It is happening in May.
Mr. Carter. May, so next month.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Mr. Carter. Can I have the commitment that we are going to
get this fixed? Are you personally involved in this? Are you
personally looking into this?
Mr. Pruitt. I am now.
Mr. Carter. You are now as of today.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Mr. Carter. But you told me you were in December.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. My communication----
Mr. Carter. Now you are telling me today. I want to believe
you.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. So my communications to the team in
December were to take steps, and apparently that has not been
done.
Mr. Carter. That has not been done.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. So I will be personally engaged on this
going forward.
Mr. Carter. I certainly hope so, because look, I want to
help you, OK, because I want you to help me. This is extremely
important. This is, as I said before, the largest economic
development project in the State of Georgia since the
Interstate System. We have got to have this done. If we don't
have the bar policy, they don't have the vessels and the
manufacturer is telling us that they cannot meet the Tier 4
emission standards and build these vessels that they need.
Mr. Pruitt. I think it is also a competitive situation with
other regulations outside of our Agency that are causing a
certain type of vessel along with the engine. So there is work
to be done.
Mr. Carter. I just need a commitment. Can I have a
commitment from you that this will be resolved in 30 days?
Mr. Pruitt. You have the commitment from me to get engaged
on this issue with our Air Office to find answers. We will have
answers----
Mr. Carter. Can I have a commitment from you that you will
get this resolved as soon as you can?
Mr. Pruitt. I will find answers to this within 30 days.
Mr. Carter. OK. I can't stress to you how important this
is. Also, the Tier 4 emission standards are causing problems
with generators. They are not able to build the large one
megawatt generators. And keep in mind now I said I was
representing the entire coast of Georgia. We have hurricanes in
Georgia, therefore we need generators. In fact, in one 11-month
period we had two hurricanes. They cannot make these. Will you
commit to reviewing the Tier 4 standards to see if they are
practical and if they are rational?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. I will engage in conversations around this
issue with our Air Office to see what the options are.
Mr. Carter. The last thing I want to ask you about is
biobutanol. It is my understanding that you have----
Mr. Pruitt. About what, I am sorry?
Mr. Carter. I am sorry?
Mr. Pruitt. About what, I am sorry?
Mr. Carter. Biobutanol.
Mr. Pruitt. OK.
Mr. Carter. This is one of the biofuels that is an
alternative fuel, and it is my understanding that you have a
comment period that is about to end at the end of April. Is
that correct?
Mr. Pruitt. I can verify that.
Mr. Carter. OK. Well, please verify that because, as you
know, the ethanol additives cause a lot of deterioration to
marine engines. Biobutanol, as I understand it, is much better,
much more compatible for marine engines, and we need that to
come to market. When this comment period is up, I hope that you
will act on it.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is----
Mr. Pruitt. Pathway for advanced categories under the RFS,
is that what you are referring to?
Mr. Carter. Yes.
Mr. Pruitt. OK.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Shimkus. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Mississippi for 5 minutes, Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Pruitt, welcome. It appears that it has
become a political blood sport to try to destroy anybody
associated with the Trump administration, and I want to say
thank you for what your Agency has done and the attention that
they have given to the New Source Performance Standards for
residential wood heaters. That was very helpful to some, you
know, employers that were in real danger of not being able to
meet a particular deadline and I appreciate the work that your
Agency has done on that.
And I also want to ask you a few questions and I need to
ask you about a series of media reports that I found
particularly concerning. According to these reports at least
five EPA officials have been reassigned, demoted, or requested
to switch jobs because they raised concerns about your spending
and management of the Agency. You know, you have already
testified this morning that these actions were based on other
reasons, but even the implication of retaliation can have an
impact on the morale of EPA employees. Will you explain these
allegations and tell us what steps EPA takes to investigate
allegations brought forward by EPA employees?
Mr. Pruitt. First, there is no truth to the assertion that
decisions have been made about reassignment or otherwise as far
as employment status based upon the things that you reference.
I am not aware of that ever happening, and it is something I
want to make very, very clear. The individuals, I don't know to
whom you reference across the board, but the folks that I am
aware of, two of those individuals are SES individuals that are
serving in other capacities. They are actually still employees
of the Agency.
So I think that is important to note, but I just want to
emphasize very, very clearly to you that there is no actions
that we have taken that I am aware of related in any way to the
issues you raise as far as reassignment or employment action
based upon that.
Mr. Harper. Can you assure me and the employees of EPA that
all whistleblower complaints are taken seriously at EPA and
that you will make your best efforts to ensure that
whistleblowers are protected from any kind of retaliation?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely, and I think that is how we get
better. I think that is how we improve outcomes and processes.
And this is not one of those situations, Congressman, in this
situation, but absolutely, prospectively that is something that
I can commit to you and will commit to you.
Mr. Harper. You know, I have had some of my constituents
raise an issue regarding oil spill response training and I am
told that the funding for certain training courses for Federal
and local responders involved in inland oil spill prevention
and cleanup have been eliminated and that the EPA Environmental
Response Team is no longer able to consistently make these
courses available. With an increase in oil production across
the country there remains a need for oil spill response
training for local, State, and Federal responders.
Would you be willing to commit to looking into whether
funding can and will be made available for what we believe is a
very important training?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. Yes, Congressman, I agree with that.
Mr. Harper. Over the last 6 years, EPA has used its
discretion to reduce and perhaps eliminate the effectiveness of
the on-site technical assistance appropriated by Congress to
small and rural communities in my home State of Mississippi
including terminating funding for my State's two full-time EPA
funded circuit rider positions. My rural and small communities
have told me numerous times, however, that this is the best and
most helpful assistance with EPA water standards and unfunded
mandates.
So to address this problem in 2015, Congress passed and the
President signed a version of my bill, the Grassroots Rural and
Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act, solely to stop
this problem that was caused by EPA and still continues today.
So this bill requires EPA to give preference to the technical
assistance that small and rural communities find the most
beneficial and effective.
So on April 11th of 2018, EPA announced the award of
technical assistance grants. It was my hope that this
announcement would have returned the two full-time circuit
rider positions funded by EPA to Mississippi and the other
States, yet I am told that there is less help with EPA mandates
to small and rural communities. So did EPA conduct a review of
what small communities find is the most beneficial and will you
look into this for possible necessary correction?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. So those TAG grants are so important. And
when you reference small and rural communities, some of our
water infrastructure we think about the dense markets as far as
the age in infrastructure across the country but those rural
communities also need tremendous assistance. So those TAG
grants are something that should be a focus in that area that
you raised and I will look into the status of that for you.
Mr. Harper. Thank you very much for what you are doing for
the country.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Rush. Administrator Pruitt, I must say unlike my
colleagues, no, thank you, no, thank you, to the policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency under your tenure. But in
my home city of Chicago we are in the middle of a dire
situation as reported in a recent Tribune article entitled,
``Brain-damaging lead found in tap water in hundreds of homes
tested across Chicago, results show,`` and this article is
written on April the 12th, 2018. The article went on to state
that, in the nearly 2,800 homes tested between 2015 and to
2017, close to 70 percent were found to contain elevated levels
of lead. Additionally, three of every ten homes tested
contained lead concentration higher than 5 parts per million,
the maximum amount allowed in bottled water by the FDA.
I understand that EPA is currently considering revisions to
the lead and copper rule. This rule was supposed to have been
issued last year, but the Agency under your leadership has
repeatedly delayed any action on this. You have also delayed
action on the lead renovation, repair, and painting rule for
commercial buildings. And your recent proposal on scientific
data could block the EPA from considering landmark studies,
what you misleadingly have termed, quote, secret science, end
of quote. These important studies are critical in identifying
potential risks to public health including those related to
lead contamination, cancer as it related to smoking, as well as
the health impacts associated with other dangerous
contaminants.
And I would like to hear from you on how the Agency will
move to phase out lead in drinking water such as require
replacements of lead service lines as well as your
justification for your attacks on established scientific data.
I have also been concerned by some of your public statements
expressing a belief that there might be a safe level of lead
and suggesting that lead contamination of drinking water is
caused by Superfund sites as opposed to lead piping.
Mr. Administrator, as you well know, even your own Agency
has declared that there are no safe levels of lead for
consumption. According to the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, even consuming tiny amounts of lead can permanently
damage the developing brain of children and contribute to
kidney failure, heart disease, and other severe health
problems. I also understand that this issue of replacing lead
piping will require billions of dollars to remediate this
problem on a national level. So I am curious to hear from you
on ways that the EPA might provide financing and other
mechanisms to help address this issue.
As you know, the administration's fiscal year 2019 budget
proposed $863 million on Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
which is an $81.2 million decrease from the fiscal year 2017
enacted levels. However, the most recent EPA Needs Survey
estimates that it will cost over some $472 billion for capital
improvements between the years 2015 and 2034. I will be
meeting, Mr. Administrator, with senior State officials in the
near future to discuss these and other issues, but I would like
to hear from you on what steps the EPA will be intending to
address these critical issues which have of course----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Pruitt. If I may, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Shimkus. Just for a short minute.
Mr. Pruitt. There is no safe level of lead in our drinking
water. It is something we need to act aggressively upon as an
Agency and as a country. We have estimated it is about $45
billion to replace the lead service lines across the country,
and with WIFIA and the authority this Congress has given the
EPA, I really believe that we can prioritize funding in the
WIFIA program up to 4 billion a year in over a 10-year process,
or thereabouts, achieve tremendous results.
Mr. Shimkus. OK, the gentleman's time is expired. The Chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Continuing
along these lines, thank you, Administrator Pruitt. And, Mr.
Chairman, if we could submit for the record the article from
The Roanoke Times from today--the article came out yesterday,
but it is in today's electronic clips--``Virginia Tech team
gets EPA grant to engineer citizen-science water quality
project.''
As you will recall, in the previous administration there
was a regional EPA Administrator who looked the other way. The
Flint, Michigan, problem became a problem, but it was exposed
by Marc Edwards, a professor at Virginia Tech, because he went
out there on his own dime with his own monies and started doing
the studies that needed to be done. Now your EPA has granted
his group $1.9 million to have folks test their water and send
it in so we can find out exactly where the hot spots are,
whether they be in Mr. Rush's district of Chicago or elsewhere.
And Professor Edwards says he calls this the largest
engineering citizen-science project in American history. The 3-
year grant will support his team, and some other universities
are involved, and he said that, ``All the work we did with
consumers over the years and the students at Virginia Tech
created this bottom-up, organic science phenomena. It created a
tidal wave of understanding that couldn't be ignored. This is
how science is supposed to work, to me.'' Marc Edwards,
Virginia Tech. If we could have that article put in the record
by unanimous consent?
Mr. Shimkus. The Democrats have looked at it, and they have
approved. Without objection, it is submitted for the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. Now I am going to switch
gears, but I couldn't help think Mr. Rush's comments were so
timely for that.
All right, I am going to switch now to the final rule for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium and Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles: Phase 2 that was
approved in the prior administration. You all are taking some
action in regard to one part of that which I want to talk about
in a minute, but I first want to talk about trailers. And I
asked these questions of the prior folks at the EPA and I don't
know how they have authority to regulate trailers when the
Clean Air Act clearly says that the term ``motor vehicle''
means any self-propelled motor vehicle designed for
transporting persons or property on a street or a highway and a
trailer is not self-propelled, nor is it a motor vehicle, nor
does it have an engine. It might have a compressor if it is a
refrigerator truck.
You would agree with me that this needs attention and that
we need to make sure that trailers are not being declared by
the EPA to be self-propelled motor vehicles, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. We are in process----
Mr. Griffith. Thank you. I have got to move on to the next
one, because I have got a more complicated one. You are also in
the process of looking at the situation in that same regulation
related to gliders and to big trucks. And I have got a problem
because my district has the Volvo North America truck
manufacturing site, thousands of jobs, billions of dollars were
spent to meet the new requirements. Now I would agree with you
in that, that the law does not say the EPA can do what they did
because they went after gliders and they didn't, they went
after it and just said you basically can't do it, which they
don't have authority to do because it is not a new motor
vehicle engine, which is defined in the code in similar
sections to what I just read on the trailers, utility trailers,
in my district as well.
But what is interesting is, I do believe that there ought
to be something because, you know, Volvo and other truck
manufacturers spent billions upgrading. And what the code says
is, is that you really don't have any authority over used motor
vehicles during the useful life of that motor vehicle, but that
is 11 years and 120,000 miles. So what is happening is in some
cases the gliders are not being used just on wrecked trucks or
other trucks that might be, you know, within that time frame,
but they are being used on trucks outside of their useful life.
Don't you think that it would be appropriate to take a look
at--and all that is in the law, you have that authority. Take a
look at it and see what can be worked out so that we don't have
trucks that are just being overhauled by the glider companies
that are decades old and nowhere near meeting the emission
standards of the United States, but at the same time
recognizing they have a right to do that if the truck has not
used up its useful life as defined already as 11 years and
120,000 miles.
Mr. Pruitt. So that alternative is something that we
haven't reviewed yet, but I appreciate you bringing it to my
attention. We have been focused upon the statutory analysis
both for gliders and trailers, but this is something we need to
add to the evaluation.
Mr. Griffith. And I just have to say what is interesting
is, is I think about 80 to 85 percent of what the previous
administration wanted to accomplish could have been
accomplished if they hadn't done sloppy legal work. I yield
back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Pruitt, thank you for being here today and I
apologize for the abrasiveness of some of my colleagues who
would rather tarnish your character than really try to delve
into the issues facing this great Nation.
I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the Obama
administration's Waters of the U.S. rule, otherwise known as
WOTUS. And I know Congresswoman Blackburn brought it up
earlier, but I want to go into a little more detail. As you
know, this flawed regulation sought to expand Federal control
over 60 percent of our country's streams, millions of acres of
wetlands that were previously non-jurisdictional. It has
allowed the EPA and the Army Corps to regulate almost every
water from manmade conveyances to large rivers.
The rule has created an unnecessary confusion and suffering
for farmers, ranchers, job creators, and private property
owners, and in reality the regulations have done very little to
benefit environmental stewardship. WOTUS is by far the largest
issue for agriculture in South Carolina, and I know on your
multistate action tour this past summer hosted by, I think,
Super-Sod there in Anderson, you saw the real negative impact
that WOTUS regulations had on farmers and local businesses.
These regulations are emblematic of the aggressive and
unconstitutional overreach by the Federal Government under the
Obama administration and the habitual undermining of State and
local authority regarding environmental matters. It is our
responsibility in Congress to use our lawmaking power to enact
legislative and permanent fix.
Mr. Administrator, I appreciate your attention and efforts
to curtail the WOTUS rules. We talked about that the last time
you were in front of this committee about the President's
Executive order, and I just want to ask this question. I saw
earlier this month that you issued a memo taking control of
decisionmaking from the EPA's regional administrators on
important matters to streams and wetland jurisdictions. Can you
elaborate on the intentions of this document and why you issued
that memo?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. There have been many decisions made at the
regional level through delegation, as I was talking about
earlier, utilizing that definition historically, you know, that
2015 decision and then even prior to that in 1986 and the 2008
guidance. And so we had inconsistency across the country with
respect to what jurisdiction we had, and this was an effort to
draw that back to make sure we had uniformity and how we review
our responsibility on the Clean Water Act and make sure that
every region is implementing that the way that they should.
Mr. Duncan. So why is this important to Waters of the
U.S.?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, certainty is, certainty and clarity
around the Waters of the United States rule is terribly
important because, you know, if you have landowners across this
country guessing about whether the EPA or the Corps of
Engineers or any other Agency at the Federal Government has
jurisdiction over their decision, meaning that they have to
seek a permit, then they don't want to find out years later
that they should have got that permit and then face fines each
day for those number of years. So clarity and certainty around
where Federal jurisdiction begins and ends really is at the
heart of our efforts this year with respect to the Waters of
the United States rule.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Is there any effort by the Agency to
go back and look at these maps that were drawn? Because when I
look at the Waters of the U.S. ruling and I look at streams or
doggone ditches in my district that were falling under the
jurisdiction, these are ditches that only hold water in an
increment rain event, that aren't navigable waterways in
anybody's opinion. And if you came out there and looked at some
of these areas you would go, ``Why in the world is that
covered?'' Is there any attempt by the Agency to go back and
review these maps and really pull some of those designated
areas back in?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, that is part of our objective and effort
with the rewrite of the Waters of the United States rule. It is
not just that there was rescission, repeal in the marketplace.
It is also, what is coming next? Where is the clarity? Where
does jurisdiction begin and end? Because these jurisdictional
determinations you are referring to, you are right, they have
been so inconsistent, so different in certain parts of the
country that ephemeral drainage ditches, dry creek beds,
puddles, prairie potholes in North Dakota, you know, are
considered waters of the United States, which I believe,
looking at the text of the Clean Water Act, clearly was not
within the intent of Congress.
So that is something that we are going through that
process, providing that clarity, and then those jurisdictional
determinations will take effect or maybe change after that.
Mr. Duncan. Just the last question, during my time as a
State legislator we had instances where areas were considered
isolated wetlands and these were areas where logging loading
decks were loaded, were situated, and they sat there for a
while. Water settled, no wetland, no streams, but bulrushes
popped up because water settled in there from where the
equipment had set and all of a sudden this area was designated
an isolated wetland and wasn't able to be replanted, wasn't
able to be developed.
Is there anything the EPA is doing to look at those
isolated wetland issues like that?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, and also prior converted crop lands. I
mean there are similar issues around that issue, so absolutely
we are.
Mr. Duncan. OK, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. I thank the chairman for holding today's hearing
and for extending the legislative courtesy for me to
participate at your subcommittee which I am not a member of. I
am very glad to be here.
Administrator Pruitt, public officials and public office
have a public trust to live up to. We are called to hold
ourselves to the highest ethical standards so that the people
that we serve have the confidence that we work for them. Not
for ourselves, not for special interests, but for them. In
front of your title Administrator, is U.S. EPA, an Agency that
Richard Nixon founded. And I think if a public official loses
the trust of people, his or her ability then becomes crippled
because of the trust factor.
Now you have a solid record of breaking ethics rules from
the State level right up to the Federal Government. It is a
long list and it includes wasteful spending. I think it is an
embarrassment to our country, and I think it is offensive to
constituents. My constituents raise a lot of questions about
and say, ``How can he be doing this?'' So the question that I
want to ask you might be a little unusual one: Do you have any
remorse for the excessive spending on behalf of yourself, the
expensive air tickets, stopping in Paris, the amounts of
dollars that you have expended at the Agency for an expensive
telephone booth? I know you said it is for a SCIF, but there is
a SCIF at the EPA. Do you have any remorse about this? Do you--
--
Mr. Pruitt. Let me say to you, Congresswoman.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, you can answer it yes or no. Do you have
any remorse?
Mr. Pruitt. I echo your comments. I think that what you
said is absolutely true about the importance of public trust--
--
Ms. Eshoo. No, I want you to answer me. I have--sir, I have
2 minutes and 38 seconds.
Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. And I endeavor to achieve to live
in a way that respects that.
Ms. Eshoo. Do you have any remorse?
Mr. Pruitt. I think there are changes I have made already,
the change from first class to coach travel. That is a change I
have made. I learned about the pay raises.
Ms. Eshoo. All right. Well, sir, you are not going to
outtalk me. You are not going to outtalk me. You claim that
Steven Hart, the lobbyist who owned the condominium where you
paid below-market rent, never lobbied you. However, we now know
this isn't true. Mr. Hart's firm disclosed that he met with you
regarding cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. Did you have any other
official meetings with Mr. Hart, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. The meeting that you referred to was not a
meeting----
Ms. Eshoo. Did you have any other meetings with him?
Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. It was with respect to an
individual----
Ms. Eshoo. All right, I am moving on. Did you ever discuss
Mr. Hart's clients or EPA business with him outside of official
settings?
Mr. Pruitt. There was no other meeting with Mr. Hart except
for nonprofit.
Ms. Eshoo. Do you have any other lobbyists or
representatives of industries with business before the EPA
provide you with similar personal favors that you haven't
previously disclosed?
Mr. Pruitt. Congresswoman, as I have indicated with respect
to this situation with Mr. Hart and Mrs. Hart, the only event
that took place was a meeting with a nonprofit Chesapeake Bay--
--
Ms. Eshoo. Are there any other instances in which you
granted----
Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. And I am not aware of any other
instances.
Ms. Eshoo. Are there any other instances in which you
granted access to donors or lobbyists to whom you owed personal
favors?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not aware of any instances.
Ms. Eshoo. Your travel including regular upgrades to first
class at the taxpayers' expense has cost over $200,000 since
you became Administrator. Are you reimbursing the taxpayer for
any of that?
Mr. Pruitt. We can provide you the analysis that occurred
in June of last year with respect to what caused the change to
first class.
Ms. Eshoo. I don't need any analysis. I know what airline
tickets cost. I fly across the country every week.
Mr. Pruitt. And I have changed that recently.
Ms. Eshoo. No, so what are you going to--you didn't answer
my question. I asked you if you were going to reimburse the
taxpayers for the overage and this includes ten trips to
Oklahoma as well. So are you going to reimburse or what are you
going to do about it?
Mr. Pruitt. The travel office and the security team
determine where I sit on a plane and all trips that I have
taken with respect to EPA dollars have been for official trips.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, you know what. With all due respect, I may
be elected, but I am not a fool. That is really a lousy answer
from someone that has a high position in the Federal
Government. I mean, this is not a dodge-question day. We ask
these questions on behalf of our constituents, and I don't
really find you forthcoming.
So the last few questions that I would like to ask with 5
seconds left is, when you traveled to your home State----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Did you attend political
fundraisers during any of these visits?
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Ms. Eshoo. I would like an answer.
Mr. Shimkus. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Pennsylvania?
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Pruitt, I think the opprobrium that you generated on
some of these spending decisions is actually warranted, and I
have reviewed your answers and I find some of them lacking or
insufficient. And I believe you have demonstrated--or, you have
not demonstrated the requisite degree of good judgment required
of an appointed executive branch official on some of these
spending items, and I would like to follow up on a couple of
specific instances.
It has been reported that EPA officials who have challenged
your spending decisions and who have been reassigned or demoted
were not reassigned or demoted over the challenging of your
spending decisions but they all had performance issues. Have in
each of those instances, those performance issues, been
documented prior to them being reassigned or demoted?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not sure to what you are referring as far
as a conclusion that they had been performance related. I
talked about this earlier. I am aware of two individuals being
reassigned because they were in the SES category, and that
routinely happens in that category. I know of no instance where
there were decisions made at the Agency based upon counsel or
otherwise on spending with respect to employment-related
decisions. I said that earlier, and I say it again to you.
Mr. Costello. Are there instances where current EPA
officials have objected to spending decisions that you have
made who still remain in their present positions?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not aware of any employment action taken
with respect to anyone and spending-related counsel. These
individuals to whom you refer, I had limited interaction with
them. They did not spend meaningful time with me with respect
to spending and recommendations around spending. One of the
individuals was the head of Advance. Most of the time I spent
with him was in the field and not at headquarters. So there is
really no factual connection whatsoever in employment status
with those individuals and any counsel regarding spending.
Mr. Costello. Now the issues of the two close aides who
used to work for you in Oklahoma and their pay raises, are you
saying that you were not aware that those pay raises were
provided to them until after the fact?
Mr. Pruitt. I was not aware of one of those individuals
even seeking a pay raise. I was aware of another person going
through the process, but I was not aware of the amount that was
provided or the process that was utilized to evaluate that. And
that is what I have spoken to historically.
Mr. Costello. The other issue that has received a lot of
attention is the $43,000 phone booth. And you are saying that
at no time from the point between when you learned that it was
$13,000 to the time that it became $43,000, you were never
apprised of the additional cost related to that?
Mr. Pruitt. I was not aware of it--13,000, 8,000, or
43,000. I gave a simple instruction to my leadership team to
address secure communications in the office and then a process
began and we have documentation we can provide you on that,
Congressman. Career individuals were involved in that process
from beginning to end and made the decision that you see in
that, with the $43,000 allocation.
Mr. Costello. Now, I tend to be very conscientious of those
who have personal security-related concerns. And I don't know
who has said what to you or when, but I do think that there is
a lot more to that than some people may realize in the general
public.
Having said that, it has been reported that, I believe the
IG has indicated or at least someone in the IG's Office has not
found some of the personal security concerns that you have
proffered in relation to the enhanced security that you have
received to be either warranted or credible. Would you kindly
provide a little bit more detail on why you think you need--and
I am just going to be very honest with you. When folks read
about trips to Disneyland, professional basketball games, Rose
Bowl, and the additional security detail related to that, that
doesn't sit well with a lot of people.
Mr. Pruitt. So I can, Congressman, I can read directly from
an Inspector General threat investigation, and I can provide
this to you. There are several on here listed with respect to
threats, and I will just read you two. ``The threats were
directed toward her father. The threat stated, `I hope your
father dies soon, suffering as your mother watches in horror
for hours on end.'''
There is another entry, correspondence between the subject
and individuals. ``Pruitt, I am going to find you and put a
bullet between your eyes. Don't think I am joking. I am
planning this.''
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Pruitt. So these are threats that the IG has
documented. We can provide this to you. The IG has said that
the threats against me as Administrator----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman----
Mr. Pruitt. [continuing]. Are unprecedented----
Mr. Shimkus. If the Administrator, if you will suspend, I
think the point has been made. The gentleman's time has
expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member
Tonko.
Mr. Pruitt, the person appointed to run the EPA needs to be
someone who cares about protecting the health and safety of
people all across the country, and until now both sides, both
Presidents on both parties, we have had a pretty good track
record with our EPA Administrators. But your time in office
really has been different. Your tenure has been stained by
repeated abuses of public trust and violations of ethical
guidelines, guidelines that are designed to ensure that the
Government's business is conducted with impartiality and
integrity.
But what really bothers me perhaps even more, on top of
that your Agency is willfully ignoring sound science and
stripping the protections that keep millions of Americans safe.
You are making our water less safe to drink and our air less
safe to breathe. You are increasing our exposure to more
dangerous chemicals and you are making our planet less healthy
for our children and our grandchildren.
And that is not just hyperbole. Under your leadership, Mr.
Administrator, the EPA has weakened standards for ozone
pollution, proposed a repeal of the Clean Power Plan, announced
a repeal of the Waters of the United States rule, abandoned the
once-in, always-in policy that aimed to lock in reductions of
hazardous air pollution from industrial sources, withdrew the
mercury effluent rule, delayed the implementation of safety
procedures at chemical plants to prevent explosions and spills,
withdrew a proposal to track emissions of methane and volatile
organic compounds from oil and natural gas facilities, proposed
eliminating the Lead Risk Reduction Program, announced a
reconsideration of a rule regarding coal ash, announced a
reconsideration of vehicle emission standards for model years
2022 to 2025--and we did a lot of work in this committee on
these vehicle emission standards.
You proposed repeal of emission standards for heavy-duty
vehicles. You announced a plan to weaken emission standards for
brick and tile manufacturers. You proposed a rule reducing air
pollutants at sewage treatment plants. You have scrubbed the
content of your website, including the page devoted to
explaining climate change. You have removed the word
``science'' from the mission statement of your Office of
Science and Technology. You have dismissed 12 of the 18 members
of the Board of Scientific Counselors.
You stayed silent when counties failed to meet new ozone
standards by an October 2017 deadline. Your EPA has collected
far fewer fines from polluters than any of the last three
Administrators during the same time, and more staff and funding
cuts are looming which means even fewer toxic chemicals and
other environmental hazards will be measured and the statutes
that protect all Americans will not be enforced.
There is so much here, Mr. Administrator, that I wish I had
more time. But instead I will focus on an issue that is in the
headlines now and has profound implications for our future, the
Paris Agreement. By announcing that we will abandon our
commitment to the Paris Agreement, and we heard this from Mr.
Macron yesterday being critical of it, this administration is
setting the clock back on U.S. climate action and forfeiting
our Nation's position as the global leader in developing the
clean energy economy of the future. The move will only open the
door for others to take our place.
This decision is bad for the planet and bad for public
health. Scientists at the EPA and the U.S. Global Change
Research Program have found that climate change is a
significant threat to the health of the American people,
increasing exposure to disease, increasing the risk of illness
and death from extreme heat and poor air quality, and
increasing dangerous extreme weather events. The Paris
Agreement was and still is our best chance to address these
risks for all Americans but we can't do it alone. Mr. Pruitt,
you have supported the President's decision to announce a
withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
President Trump and you have said that the deal unfairly
puts constraints on the U.S. coal industry and that it somehow
is a threat to our sovereignty. It doesn't make any sense
because the Paris Agreement is voluntary. It imposes absolutely
no constraints on U.S. trade policy or U.S. domestic energy
policy, but there is an historic economic opportunity for
American companies and workers to lead the world in creating
and providing newer, cleaner forms of energy.
Again, yesterday French President Macron reminded us that
there is no planet B--that is a quote--but turn to our future.
And he said, quote, I am sure one day the United States will
come back and join the Paris Agreement and I am sure we can
work together to fulfill with you the ambitions of the global
compact on the environment. I certainly hope he is right for
the sake of our children and our grandchildren.
To me, an Administrator should be someone who cares about
these things, not someone who is going to ruin these things.
Not someone who is going to make our future more dangerous for
our families. And that is what bothers me, because you are not
doing----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Engel. You are instead--I am finishing, Mr. Chairman.
You are instead----
Mr. Shimkus. Finish quickly.
Mr. Engel [continuing]. You are going against the tenets of
what your job is supposed to do, and that makes me very, very
angry.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for 5 minutes, Mr.
Lance.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you and
the ranking member for allowing me to participate. I am a
member of the committee, but not of this subcommittee.
Administrator Pruitt, the EPA has a long and distinguished
history established by President Nixon as you know better than
anybody. I represent a district in northern New Jersey outside
New York and we are concerned about some of the allegations
regarding the overspending, and in particular the $43,000 for
the security of the phone booth. As you know, this has been
criticized by the Government Accountability Office. The general
counsel, Mr. Armstrong, said that you had a responsibility to
notify lawmakers. You have indicated that you believe this is
not part of renovations.
Having said that, isn't there other secure locations within
your Agency, and why did we need to spend taxpayer funds to
build a new secure place for making of telephone calls?
Mr. Pruitt. First, on the GAO matter, we have in fact
notified the GAO with respect to those issues and rightfully
so, based upon their determination. And I do want to say that
the Office of General Counsel at the Agency, career
individuals, interpreted the expenditure as not being within
the guidelines of the statute, and that is the reason the
Agency acted as they did. And those were all individuals,
career individuals, that were part of that process.
Mr. Lance. The GAO disagrees with you, the General Counsel
disagrees with you?
Mr. Pruitt. That is right. But steps were taken to notify
irrespective of that.
Mr. Lance. I tend to agree with the GAO General Counsel. I
want that on the record. Why did we need another SCIF or SCIF-
like facility when there was already one at your Agency?
Mr. Pruitt. So it is not a SCIF, and it was not intended to
be. As I shared earlier, Congressman, in an earlier question, I
simply requested for a secure communication, a secure line in
my office based upon phone calls that occur that are
confidential in nature. And so, based upon that instruction, a
process ensued where this investment took place. And that is--
--
Mr. Lance. Did any of your predecessors suggest that this
be needed, Republican or Democratic?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not sure, Congressman.
Mr. Lance. Well, I think the answer is no. It is either a
yes or a no. And I don't demand just a yes or no, you are
willing to elaborate. But did any of your predecessors suggest
this?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not sure.
Mr. Lance. And I am not a person here who requires a yes or
no. I would like you to answer in detail, did any of your
predecessors require that?
Mr. Pruitt. I am just not aware of any requests of
previous----
Mr. Lance. Well, I have the honor of representing a
predecessor of yours, Christine Todd Whitman. She is a
constituent of mine. She was the Administrator for the second
President Bush, and she has indicated that she saw no need for
such an enhanced telephone system when she was Administrator
and there was secure communications then, and she has indicated
that she did not think this was appropriate. And respectfully,
I do not think it is appropriate. And I think that there are
already secure locations, and I think it was a waste of funds.
Regarding a completely different issue: In a March 30th
memo, you stated you signed a directive to give more authority
to your office over environmental regulations for a project
near regional waterways. It is my view that taking this
authority may supplant the role of local representatives and
experts, water quality boards. You have relied heavily and when
you were Attorney General of Oklahoma on federalism and perhaps
appropriately so for local and State control over suits against
the EPA. Yet, it appears to me that your directive supplants
local control and that it would give you as Administrator final
decision-making authority over the protection of streams,
ponds, and wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
I would be interested in your views. It impresses me that
your views may have changed, Administrator, now that you are
the Administrator, from your position as Attorney General of
Oklahoma.
Mr. Pruitt. They haven't changed with respect to the
collaboration with the States in that regard. I think what you
are referring to is a decision to bring that delegation back
from the regions. And what we have seen, Congressman, is a
great variation, inconsistency from one region to another with
respect to the issues that you have described. And so this is
an effort at the Agency to get uniformity and to get
consistency across the regions. Collaboration, consultation
will continue both at the regions and with the States.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. I end my questioning by saying that I
am concerned about what I believe is overspending. I am
particularly concerned about the secure location. It is my
judgment that that was not needed and that is the judgment
certainly of at least one of your predecessors, a constituent
of mine, Christine Todd Whitman.
Mr. Pruitt. And, Congressman, I agree with your statement.
I believe that that was an amount of money that should not have
been spent and was never authorized by myself.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I would like to thank the Chair
and ranking member for allowing me, a member of the committee
but not this subcommittee, to be here today.
There is a lot of interest, Secretary Pruitt, in your
testimony. And I also have been troubled by certain behaviors.
And it has been reported that your decision to abandon the
planned fuel efficiency standards was heavily influenced by
Samantha--is it ``Dravis'' or ``Dray-vis''?--one of the
employees you brought with you from Oklahoma who is now under
investigation for receiving a salary from taxpayers despite not
coming to work for 3 months. You personally brought Ms. Dravis
on the job at EPA when you became Administrator. Is that
correct?
Mr. Pruitt. She is not from Oklahoma, and yes, she came in
upon the start of our administration. And are you referring to
the midterm evaluation, the decision reached on the midterm
evaluation?
Ms. Schakowsky. I am going to continue with my questions,
and maybe I will get to that. She was hired using the same Safe
Drinking Water Act authority that was used to give unapproved
raises to other staff that you did bring from Oklahoma. Is that
correct?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not aware if she was hired under that Safe
Drinking Water Act authority. There is authority on the Safe
Drinking Water Act to administratively determine certain
individuals. It is legal, authorized, it has been used by
previous Administrators, and it could have been used in that
instance. I am just not aware.
Ms. Schakowsky. How much was Samantha Dravis paid for the 3
months during which she did not report to work?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, I am not aware. There is a pending
investigation, as you have indicated, review of that and I am
not aware that she did or did not appear for work. So that is
something that is being reviewed at this point.
Ms. Schakowsky. Senator Carper has stated on the basis of
information, I believe, from a whistleblower, has stated that
he worked with you on a deal to preserve fuel efficiency
standards. He has said that you abandoned that deal at the
urging of Samantha Dravis. Did Samantha Dravis urge you to
abandon the potential deal with Senator Carper?
Mr. Pruitt. I am just not aware. I don't know if you are
speaking of the midterm evaluation or another issue. I just
don't, I am not sure what you are asking.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, regardless of what the source of
the--I mean these are pretty straightforward questions about
her and the 3 months that she--are you contesting that she did
not work for 3 months?
Mr. Pruitt. No, I am not speaking to that at all. I am
not----
Ms. Schakowsky. So I don't know what your point is about
asking where it came from. I am asking if she worked for 3
months without any--she did not work for 3 months, with pay.
Mr. Pruitt. But your question was about fuel efficiency and
I am not entirely sure what the question was with respect to
her influence in that regard. So that is what I was trying to
determine, what area you were talking about. I am not aware
of----
Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
Mr. Pruitt. I will just say it to you this way: I am not
aware of any decision around fuel efficiency, CAFE or
otherwise, was an influence in that way.
Ms. Schakowsky. Are you aware that she was paid and did not
work for 3 months?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not aware of any. I know it is under
review at this point, and those facts will bear out.
Ms. Schakowsky. I wanted to ask you also, I have a little
time left, about your vehicles. At the same time that the EPA
has moved to increase fuel costs for American households, you
have reportedly asked taxpayers to cover the cost of a luxury
SUV for your use. Is it true that as Administrator you upgraded
from a Chevy Tahoe, which I know your predecessor used, to a
Chevy Suburban with leather interior and other luxury features?
Mr. Pruitt. As I understand it, the decisions to add a
vehicle to the fleet was something that was in process prior,
and they asked for input about the vehicle, that I did not give
direction to start that process or end that process, they just
asked for consultation.
Ms. Schakowsky. It isn't the first time in public service
that you have upgraded your official vehicle. As Oklahoma
Attorney General you upgraded to a big, black SUV when your
predecessor used a sedan. Is that correct?
Mr. Pruitt. The sedan was something that went out of
service and we had to replace that with an SUV, yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. You had to replace it with an SUV?
Mr. Pruitt. There was a replacement that occurred because
of the other one coming out of service.
Ms. Schakowsky. So it is not just that it had to be
replaced. It had to be replaced with a bigger, less fuel-
efficient and larger, more expensive car. So it just seems to
me that this pattern that we have been hearing today of
behavior----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time----
Ms. Schakowsky [continuing]. Is very concerning. And I
thank you for your answers.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time is expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from southwest Missouri, Mr. Long, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator Pruitt, for being here today. And I think that it
has been well established today that you have the most famous
cone of silence since Agent 86.
But that is not where my questioning is going to go today.
I have a 30-year career--had a 30-year career--as a real estate
broker before I came here, and part of being a real estate
broker, it was very important to people the energy efficiency
of their homes. And when they were looking for a new home they
looked at that Energy Star certified program, things that
complied with that. In your testimony you talk about the Energy
Star program and how it helps businesses and consumers save
money by reducing their energy use. The Energy Star program
provides consumers with accurate information about what
products and systems deliver high quality energy savings, as
you know.
I am wondering if you can talk about the process involved
with updating the Energy Star standards to include the most
innovative and up-to-date technologies such as high performance
HVAC systems which can outperform current Energy Star-approved
equipment.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, the program to which you refer,
Congressman, has been extremely successful from the public-
private partnership and there is actually a rulemaking schedule
that will occur in January of next year, as I understand, to
establish fees that will, you know, support that program. I
think the concern has been just the long-term stability and
viability of the program. So we are in the process now of
preparing for that and it is something we are committed to and
I think it has been very successful.
Mr. Long. OK. I think that it is important to both the
regulating community and the public that the Government speak
with one consistent voice. I know from experience, you talk to
people--if they call an IRS office, they may call seven
different days and get eight different answers, depending on
which office they call. What are your plans for ensuring the
EPA's policy positions are implemented consistently across
Government, including the EPA headquarters and the EPA regional
offices in litigation and enforcement? And I was just using IRS
as an example, because that is somewhere a lot of people get a
lot of different answers, so for the EPA.
Mr. Pruitt. It is a very important question because we have
10 regions across the country, and what we have seen from a
compliance and assistance perspective--enforcement, permitting,
many, many issues--a great inconsistency. And so we are in the
process of going through a Lean program at the Agency
evaluating metrics.
Mr. Long. I am sorry, what program?
Mr. Pruitt. It is a management program to ensure that we
are committed to metrics.
Mr. Long. What did you call it? What was the----
Mr. Pruitt. It is Lean.
Mr. Long. Lean, OK.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. It is a private--but I have a person, a
COO, that is dedicated to ensuring that we are setting metrics
objectives at each of the regions and that there is
verticality, uniformity from headquarters to the regions and
across the country to ensure on compliance, assistance,
permitting, all these various issues that we don't see this
dispersion and great variety.
Mr. Long. On these EPA proposed rule revisions which
recognize the importance of the States overseeing the
implementation of the program regulating coal combustion
residuals, I believe that oversight is critical. Has your
Agency given more thought to adjusting deadlines imposed under
the existing Federal rules so the States have time to get their
programs developed and approved by the EPA?
Mr. Pruitt. There has been consideration of that, yes, and
I think you make a great point about the timeline, that States
need to develop their own programs. We provide a guidance in
that regard to the States, but they need time to adopt and
implement those programs. And so both are very important trying
to address the impending deadlines but also work with the
States to achieve the startup of their programs.
Mr. Long. With Oklahoma being a neighbor to Missouri, I am
sure that you know that electric power providers in Missouri
rely on a balanced portfolio of energy inputs including a large
amount of coal for our energy. Is it still your plan to
undertake a timely repeal of the carbon regulations for power
plants?
Mr. Pruitt. If you are referring to the Clean Power Plan of
the previous administration, you know, that is in the
marketplace today, yes.
Mr. Long. OK. And those regulations were dependent on the
last EPA's official finding that carbon endangers the
environment. Is EPA planning on revisiting that endangerment
finding also?
Mr. Pruitt. You know, our focus has been in the Clean Power
Plan and addressing that from a rulemaking perspective. So that
has been our focus today.
Mr. Long. OK. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, I have been listening to your testimony
here in the committee room, and back in my office I have been
watching it very constantly on television. And I must tell you
this is very disturbing, what I am hearing today. One of the
most alarming aspects that I have heard concerns your
expenditures. I am going to call them your outlandish
expenditures on security.
And what is even more alarming to me is the fact that there
has been an obvious practice of retaliation against EPA
employees who question your spending. And you are a lawyer, I
read your bio. You have been a civil servant for many years and
you have done a lot of great things. You must certainly know
that whistleblower protections are essential to ensuring
fairness and good government. But according to press accounts,
five EPA staff members were fired or reassigned after
questioning your spending or advising you that you need to
notify Congress of expenditures over $5,000.
Now, the nonpartisan GAO office has now validated those
employees finding that you broke the law. That is not the
Democrats or any other political group. That is the nonpartisan
Government Accountability Office has now validated those
employees, finding that you broke the law in failing to notify
the Congress. Now do you intend to hold yourself or your staff
accountable for this action?
Mr. Pruitt. First, I want to say I know of no instances,
Congressman, where a decision has been made on employment
status related to spending or any recommendations regarding
spending. I have said that earlier and I will say it again to
you now.
With respect to the accountability----
Mr. Butterfield. But my point is notifying Congress.
Mr. Pruitt. That is an issue that I have addressed already
a couple of times here. Office of General Counsel, career
individuals at the Agency advised those folks going through the
expenditure process that they did not need to notify Congress.
GAO came out recently and said otherwise. That notification has
taken place. Those individuals, those career individuals that
made the decision on that expenditure, were following the
advice of counsel and the direction of what they knew to be
right at the time.
Mr. Butterfield. So it is your position that you had no
responsibility to notify Congress of these expenditures?
Mr. Pruitt. No, I believe that the decision has been
remedied, and it should have been done at the beginning. But it
was not done, and the question is, as they made those
decisions, who guided that? And it was career individuals at
the Agency.
Mr. Butterfield. I was further alarmed that the pattern was
extended to the head of the Office of Homeland Security at EPA,
who signed off on a February memo finding that you did not face
direct death threats. That person was removed from his role, I
am told, the day that the Senate Democrats revealed the
existence of the memo. The timing of the move clearly suggests
an effort to intimidate, in my opinion, and to deter staff who
might share their concerns with Congress. Any truth to that?
Mr. Pruitt. And I think Donna Vizian at the office, who
heads our Human Resources area, would say the contrary to that.
The reference I made earlier to a previous question about the
Inspector General and their actual recitations of threats I can
provide to you, Congressman. The person to whom you refer does
not have all the information with respect to the collection of
threats.
Mr. Butterfield. Let me take you to question 2, I am
running out of time. Last month, you moved to weaken
protections from toxic coal ash, which poses serious risks to
human health and the environment. I had a coal ash spill in my
State of North Carolina and they are still mitigating that
damage. The spill that occurred in Kingston, Tennessee caused
30 premature deaths, 200 serious illnesses among workers who
cleaned up the spill.
Amazingly, you have proposed weakening the protections
despite the hard science proving the dangers caused by the
spills. This is unacceptable. Were you aware of these severe
worker impacts when you proposed weakening the coal ash rule?
Mr. Pruitt. The specific examples that you refer to, no, I
was not aware of those specific examples.
Mr. Butterfield. Last January, you delayed the essential
protections for farm workers from dangerous pesticides,
including delaying protections for minors. That delay has now
been thrown out. My staff says thrown out. You and I as
lawyers, I guess we would call it something different,
dismissed by the courts. Is that true or not true?
Mr. Pruitt. No, it is my understanding that there is a
proposal to deal with those age requirements that are being
considered but there has not been any final action on that.
States, as you know, have age requirements as well and we are
contemplating in that process whether those age requirements
should be deferred to in this process. But I am not aware of it
being final at this point, Congressman.
Mr. Butterfield. Well, let me thank you for your testimony.
I have listened to as much as I could today and, again, I say I
am very disappointed with your record at the Agency. It is not
commensurate with your record over many, many years in other
capacities, and your lack of concern for workers is what
concerns me most of all. You have wasted taxpayer money. You--
--
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
And thank you for allowing me to sit on this subcommittee. Of
course, as you know, I sit on the full committee.
Administrator Pruitt, I want to talk about the
environmental review and approval process for local projects.
With the significant portion of my constituents living on
Florida's west coast, I am always concerned about hurricanes as
you can understand as well as flooding. However, our area only
has two evacuation routes to move residents inland during an
emergency. To alleviate this problem, the Pasco County
government initiated the Ridge Road Extension Project to create
a third evacuation route, but you know they have been working
on this since 1997. Can you believe that? Since 1997, for over
20 years, the county has been treading through regulations,
filling out forms, and meeting with Federal officials to get
this public safety project up and running. OK, so we are
talking about again a public safety project we need to save
lives, God forbid we had a disaster.
So while they have met with some recent success, and I have
been working to help them out, the project still has not
received final approval. Administrator Pruitt, what has the
Agency done under your leadership to streamline the review of
projects particularly when they involve public safety where
lives could be on the line, in this case they definitely are on
the line, and is permitting improvements something that your
EPA workforce assessment, are they addressing these issues?
Mr. Pruitt. It is absolutely a priority. In fact, we began
an effort last year before we arrived at the Agency. They
didn't know how long it took to actually go through the
permitting process, in fact I asked that question upon arrival
to give me an idea about the length that it took for permitting
and they didn't know the answer. So we have evaluated that
data. And I know this won't surprise you but it takes a long
time. You have already cited your example.
And so by the end of 2018 we are making changes internal to
the Agency. The decision that we make on permits up or down
will occur within 6 months starting in January of '19. So that
is the effort that we are engaged in. But as you know this is
an interagency approach as well and we are collaborating with
the Corps of Engineers around some of these issues in making
sure that we have consistency in working with them.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK, so you say within 6 months beginning in
2019?
Mr. Pruitt. At the end of this year, we will have a plan in
place to execute upon as we begin January of '19.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. On the same point, the President
released an infrastructure plan, of course as you know, which
included sections on permitting improvement. One of the
proposals is that one Agency, one decision. Is that what you
are referring to, environmental review structure? Another is
allowing for localities to complete a single environmental
review document for a project. Are these things that you could
support?
Mr. Pruitt. I do support and I think these are great
recommendations that have been made as part of the
infrastructure package the President made and something I hope
Congress adopts. But whether it is adopted or not, we are
advancing this 6-month review process internal to the Agency.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. As far as, you know, there are a lot of
local governments that can't afford to hire high priced
consultants, as you know. So this is very, very important to
them and they shouldn't be penalized because they can't afford
to hire these high priced consultants. You know, in my area
over the years they have spent a lot of money on this project
and but I am sure that there are examples all over the country
where it has taken many, many years. So I appreciate you
working with me on this and hopefully we get approval soon.
Mr. Pruitt. Thanks, Congressman.
Mr. Bilirakis. I thank you very much and I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Representative Castor,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Shimkus, for allowing
me to participate in the hearing today.
Mr. Pruitt, your pattern of unethical conduct and conflicts
of interest are now very well known, but I am very troubled by
your failure to take personal responsibility for your actions.
You simply dismissed all of the ethical lapses at the beginning
of your testimony as troubling media reports so I think that is
a failure in leadership.
But the point I want to make today is that those costs,
your wasteful spending, those costs pale in comparison to the
damage you are doing to the health of American families and the
assault on our clean air and clean water protections, our
protections against dangerous chemicals and pesticides. Mr.
Pallone highlighted the issue of the dangerous paint stripper,
methylene chloride, at the beginning, that is known to have
caused over 50 deaths and yet the EPA under your administration
now has, you say we are stalled, we don't have a final
decision, but in essence you have turned a blind eye to those
families.
There is also the case of chlorpyrifos which is a dangerous
nerve agent. It is in the same chemical class as sarin. There
was a recommendation by EPA scientists when you came in, in
fact the last administration had said we are going to propose
very significant restrictions especially to protect babies,
children, young people under 18. You came in and turned that
around. You said, ``Oh, well, this, well, it is not final.''
But you have set a pattern here. America's pediatricians
are outraged. Public health advocates are outraged and so am I,
because we are talking about the development of brain in babies
and children. We are talking about not just children that might
be in farmlands, but they live and work or they live and play
in those areas. There were a lot of kids in the audience today
and parents who care about this a great deal. It is Take Your
Child to Work Day. That was good to have them in here.
So my first question is why are corporate polluter profits
more important to you than the health of families and children?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, on the issue that Ranking Member Pallone
brought up and this issue that you have raised, I would ask you
not to jump to conclusions, that there is a final process
there. As you know, the previous administration----
Ms. Castor. But there is a pattern. There is a pattern.
And----
Mr. Pruitt. I am trying to respond.
Ms. Castor. And, you know, your actions belie what you say
when your EPA scientists and public health advocates and
pediatricians all say here is the ban and you come into office
and time and time and time again you are siding with the
special interests and not with the public.
Mr. Pruitt. Yet that solvent that you are referring to is
actually one of the 10 priority chemicals that we are reviewing
under TSCA that you authorized. And so we are----
Ms. Castor. You are right. And that was a recommendation
that was the action of this committee and you have set the
pattern. And, really, whatever you could say today, I think
people need to look at your actions rather than your rhetoric.
But in addition to your failure to take any responsibility,
I have to say that I am disappointed in a lot of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle that have let the Administrator
off the hook today by barely asking any tough questions. There
were a few exceptions, and my hat is off to them. Maybe they
are trying to save his job because they are worried, if he
doesn't perform well today, he could be fired.
Several congressional Republicans have already publicly
called for your firing, but unfortunately not on this
committee. Either way it is embarrassing that most of the
Republicans refuse to take this committee's oversight
responsibility seriously and hold you accountable. They claim
to have requested documents from the administration regarding
Administrator Pruitt's misconduct and conflicts of interest,
but there is no evidence of any investigation.
Meanwhile, the Democrats on this committee, we have sent
numerous inquiries to EPA, the Office of Inspector General, the
GAO, the Office of Special Counsel, and some of those have
borne out and you have been found in violation of the law.
Unfortunately, we have yet to see any real effort from my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
So I have been keeping a list today as well, Mr.
Administrator, of the unanswered questions, because you often
say it is not final, we are looking at this, the jury is out.
But you failed to give direct responses on a number of
questions.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this list for the
record of the endless string of questions that Administrator
Pruitt has not answered today.
Mr. Shimkus. Let us look at that. Pass it over here,
please.
Ms. Castor. Will do.
And finally close out by saying----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Castor [continuing]. Mr. Pruitt, you violated----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Maryland for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Pruitt. I have been watching
you during the hearing and you certainly have the bearing of a
man who thinks he is untouchable. I don't know if that is true
or not, but I would be careful of that because I don't think
Americans go for that, and in your position they just want you
to protect their air, they want you to protect clean water, and
they want you to conserve the land.
As has been said by many of my colleagues, EPA under your
tenure has been cloaked in secrecy and swamped with ongoing
legal and ethical failures. You have refused to release
detailed information from your calendar, often provide no
advanced notice of where you are going to be, Agency career
staff, we are told, have been instructed not to take notes or
carry their cell phones, and this level of secrecy has forced a
lot of citizens to take the avenue of filing Freedom of
Information Act requests. I understand that EPA political
leadership has added a new layer of so-called awareness reviews
to those requests, which can delay the release of information
to the public and also limit the amount of information redacted
in the responses.
Are you aware that your political appointees are conducting
these reviews before information is released to the public, yes
or no?
Mr. Pruitt. First, let me say that there has been no
instruction not to take notes or to carry phones. That is
simply fabricated. With respect to the process you are
referring to, the FOIA process is governed by statute. And----
Mr. Sarbanes. But you have set up these political
appointees to do reviews, are you aware of that?
Mr. Pruitt. The Office of General Counsel is conducting
FOIA reviews.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK, all right. You are not aware of that. I
am going to move on because, as you know, we are limited here.
But if that was done, that is a pretty clever move. We wrote to
you last year with concerns about Carl Icahn's role as special
advisor on regulations, potential conflict of interest due to
his financial holdings and outspoken positions on the Renewable
Fuel Standards programs. So here we are a year later, the EPA's
implementation of the RFS programs, specifically the small
refinery waiver provision, is under fire from both farmers and
refiners.
My colleague Mr. Green raised the issue of secret waivers.
I want to build on that a little bit. I want to know about CVR
Energy in which Carl Icahn owns a majority stake. Administrator
Pruitt, you met with representatives from Carl Icahn's company,
CVR Energy, in June of 2017. Is that correct?
Mr. Pruitt. If that is what the calendar represents.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. Did Carl Icahn's company apply for a
waiver from ethanol blending requirements for any of its
refining facilities?
Mr. Pruitt. I am unsure.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. We will look at the record for that. And
did Carl Icahn's company receive a waiver for any of its
refining facilities?
Mr. Pruitt. These exemptions are governed by statute, as
you know.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. Well, you are going to find that out for
us and we appreciate your following up because that is
important to know because it raises serious questions about
conflicts of interest. I have had the privilege of chairing
here in the Congress the Democracy Reform Task Force. We have
been trying to keep up with the ethical lapses of the Trump
administration, which I will tell you is kind of a full-time
job, and you certainly have been at the center of some of that
focus. To date, five independent Federal investigations have
been initiated at this committee's request and more than eight
independent Federal reviews are currently underway with respect
to your office.
Yesterday, the Democracy Reform Task Force released another
report in a series that is looking at failures and ethical
lapses within the Trump administration. This one was detailing
your wasteful spending and favors for your friends. It put the
interests of dirty polluters ahead of the American people. So
this is now available for people to take a look at. It goes
through the litany of ethical violations that have come to
characterize and be the hallmark of your time in office.
You have really become--I mean, it is sad to say it--but
you have become in many respects, and you ought to take this to
heart as somebody who holds an office in the public trust, you
are wearing that mantle today, that office of public trust as
head of the EPA, something people care deeply about. If you are
going to wear that mantle, you have to exercise the office with
attention to the public interest and not to private interest.
But, unfortunately, you have become the poster child for
the abuse of public trust and this goes back a long way. You
brought your way of approaching these public offices to the EPA
and it has undermined the credibility of that organization. But
it is a hallmark of the Trump administration, and we are going
to continue to demand answers and we are going to continue to
hold you accountable in every hearing that you choose to be up
here.
I give you credit for coming today, but we are going to
continue to hold you accountable for the dereliction of duty
that we see. With that, I yield back my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Vermont for 5 minutes, Mr. Welch.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you, with
Mr. Flores, and I have been working on ethanol.
Mr. Pruitt, I have heard reports, read reports that, as a
result of the pressure on Midwest ag in response to the
retaliatory tariffs by China, that there is a move by some to
increase ethanol usage. Can you comment on that very briefly?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, are you referring to the RVP waiver?
Mr. Welch. That is correct.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. We have been actively evaluating the legal
authority under the statute to grant the RVP waiver for the
last several months. And the reason it is taking some time,
Congressman, is because----
Mr. Welch. I want to interrupt because actually what I am
talking about, I appreciate the work on ethanol that my
colleagues have done, but what is reported is that as a result
of the tariffs that China is imposing on soybeans and grain
that there is going to be a concession from the Trump
administration to go to E15, so I will just leave it there.
I do want to ask you some questions along the lines of how
you have been running your department. Is it the case that any
of your predecessors, Republican or Democrat, who have had the
high responsibility as Administrator of the EPA have had a 20-
person security detail?
Mr. Pruitt. I am unaware of previous considerations in that
regard.
Mr. Welch. Is it not at all relevant to you what the
precedents have been with Republican and Democratic
Administrators in the past?
Mr. Pruitt. I am just not aware, Congressman, of processes
prior to my time at the Agency on what was considered and what
wasn't considered.
Mr. Welch. All right. Did the taxpayers spend $30,000 for a
security detail to accompany you on the trip to Disneyland?
Mr. Pruitt. I am unsure about that. I mean, we took----
Mr. Welch. That is knowable.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. The records show that.
Mr. Welch. All right. So you can determine this. It is not
like secret stuff.
Mr. Pruitt. The detail, the law enforcement make those
determinations on what type of security should be provided,
whether----
Mr. Welch. You know, I have been listening to a lot of the
answers, and the answers are ``somebody else knows it,'' and it
really is starting to seem like there is something on your desk
with a motto that says ``The Buck Stops Nowhere,'' and you are
the guy who is in charge.
Mr. Pruitt. Yet, Congressman, I have made decisions to
switch and make sure to make changes from first class back to
coach, I rescinded the pay raises to those individuals.
Mr. Welch. No, I get it.
Mr. Pruitt. In fact, that has happened.
Mr. Welch. Let me ask you just about this phone booth,
because it is a metaphor. Are you aware that at the EPA
headquarters there are two secure facilities where private
phone calls could be secure?
Mr. Pruitt. And, again, I didn't request a SCIF. I
requested a secure communication that was not accessible to my
office and----
Mr. Welch. I understand that. But you are the boss. So you
tell your folks that you want a secure way of communicating,
reasonable request, they are going to accommodate it. The boss
is the one who has to make certain that it is a reasonable
imposition on taxpayers, or do you disagree with that?
Mr. Pruitt. And in this instance the process failed. As I
indicated in my opening statement, those processes will be
changed going forward.
Mr. Welch. Did you ask the question--here is the question
that I think a lot of people would ask, Republican or Democrat,
how can I make a secure phone call, and the answer would be
well, Mr. Pruitt, there happens to be two places in this
building right close to your office where you can do that. Had
you asked that----
Mr. Pruitt. They are not right close to my office.
Mr. Welch. Pardon me?
Mr. Pruitt. They are not right close to my office.
Mr. Welch. Well, how often do you have to use your secret
phone booth?
Mr. Pruitt. It is for confidential communications, and it
is rare.
Mr. Welch. OK. So on those rare occasions, is it too much
to ask you to walk whatever distance it takes for you to get to
that secure line?
Mr. Pruitt. I guess it depends on the nature of the call
and how urgent the call is.
Mr. Welch. The point is that you have two locations that
you can go to when you have to make those rare secure phone
calls. This is taxpayer money. It is taxpayer money. Let me ask
you this. Did you have installed or were there installed
biometric locks on your office?
Mr. Pruitt. There were problems with locks on two of the
three doors and changes were made to those locks. No
instruction was given for biometric locks, but that was a
decision made by those individuals.
Mr. Welch. So these things just happen.
Mr. Pruitt. There was a process at the Agency in that
regard, and there was an evaluation.
Mr. Welch. Well, what is a biometric lock?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not entirely sure.
Mr. Welch. So do you know, is it the case you don't know
how to open your door?
Mr. Pruitt. I just know how to put a code in. Excuse me?
Mr. Welch. No, seriously. What is a biometric lock?
Mr. Pruitt. I don't know. I just put a code in.
Mr. Welch. A biometric lock, it responds, as I understand
it, to like fingerprints or some other--your eyes, some
physical characteristic.
Mr. Pruitt. That is my understanding as well.
Mr. Welch. All right, so you have them, right?
Mr. Pruitt. Those are on, those have been added to the
office, yes.
Mr. Welch. Why?
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes, Mr. Loebsack.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
allowing me to waive on to this subcommittee. I do appreciate
that.
Mr. Pruitt, I share a lot of the concerns my colleagues
have voiced today on the ethics front, but I am actually here
to talk about an issue that, as you might imagine, I am from
Iowa, so of utmost importance to my State, to my district.
During your confirmation process you stated that you would work
to uphold the Renewable Fuel Standard and over the last 2 years
President Trump has pledged on numerous occasions to support
the RFS, in fact time and time again he has pledged to support
it. However, over the last several weeks, information has been
revealed that makes me question that commitment as you might
imagine.
Various reports have indicated that the EPA has granted so-
called economic hardship exemptions to numerous refiners who
appear to be neither small nor financially distressed. You know
what the law says, it has to be 75,000 gallons or less to be
granted that economic hardship waiver. I can tell you I have
heard directly from my constituents, farmers and many others,
and from farmers across the country who are extremely troubled
by this action. And this comes at a particularly difficult time
in farm country as you know when we have had low prices, we
have seen farm income trending downward, and industry profits
are soaring.
I am extremely disappointed in the action as you might
imagine and the lack of transparency and accountability in the
process is also unacceptable. Under section 211 of the Clean
Air Act, the EPA Administrator is required to reassign gallons
that are waived under the small refinery exemption to other
obligated parties. Because this entire waiver process has
happened, really, without any transparency whatsoever, I am
disappointed, my constituents are disappointed, and we really
have no idea whether those gallons have been reassigned as
required by law.
So my first question, Mr. Pruitt, yes or no, have you
reassigned these gallons as required by law?
Mr. Pruitt. It is my understanding that the process has
happened as it is supposed to under the statute.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, we are going to need that. And how do
you plan to reassign then the gallons you waive for going
forward for the 2019 RVO?
Mr. Pruitt. And I do think your question is very important
with respect to the volume obligation, Congressman. And when
you think about the commitment of this administration to the
RFS, the point of obligation was denied as you know. That was a
big issue.
Mr. Loebsack. But that is not my point. I am talking about
the waivers.
Mr. Pruitt. No, I know. I understand.
Mr. Loebsack. And I would like to move on to my next
question if I could. Yes or no, do you intend to inform this
committee and the public about the details behind these waivers
such as which refiners received a waiver?
Mr. Pruitt. Subject to the confidential business
information or other information that would be the only thing
that would not be available.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, Mr. Pruitt, we just want to know who
got these waivers, not why necessarily, and I can't understand
why that would be considered confidential business information.
Reports have indicated that 25 refiners received waivers from
their obligations. Is that number accurate?
Mr. Pruitt. That was actually in 2017, I think. The
applications are still pending in 2018.
Mr. Loebsack. What is the number at the moment?
Mr. Pruitt. It is over that number for 2018, as I
understand it.
Mr. Loebsack. Did you discuss these exemptions with the
White House?
Mr. Pruitt. There is ongoing discussions with the White
House on various issues around the RFS program.
Mr. Loebsack. Who at the White House specifically was
involved?
Mr. Pruitt. I think the NEC in consultation with the Air
Office.
Mr. Loebsack. Did you brief the President on these waivers?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, as I indicated this was a dialogue
amongst staff members, NEC and Air Office, at our shop. So.
Mr. Loebsack. Has anybody explained to the President the
substantial impact that these waivers have on the ethanol
industry? Some have estimated a billion gallons.
Mr. Pruitt. I am sure it has come up in many discussions.
Mr. Loebsack. And moving on, you told me and many others
that EPA is studying whether it has the legal authority to
grant the RVP waiver. That was the last time that I waived on
to this committee and we talked about that issue. And that
seems like it is taking quite a while as you might imagine for
many of us in corn country, and with the President's recent
remarks which were referenced here about his interest in year-
around E15, I am wondering what the holdup is on this at this
point.
Mr. Pruitt. It is just trying to ensure that the legal
basis is solid because there will be litigation that will
ensue.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, do you plan to move forward and grant
the RVP waiver and allow year-round sales of E15?
Mr. Pruitt. I intend to finish that process very soon to
make----
Mr. Loebsack. Yes. Hopefully, the sooner the better because
this is something that obviously is very important not only to
my State and my district, many folks around the country. So we
are looking forward to that. And of course refinery executives
have called your action on the hardship waivers, to go back to
that, quote, ``giving out trick-or-treat candy,'' unquote, to
their industry. And I am here to tell you that farmers are very
disappointed by this. They have been waiting for years for the
E15 waiver year-round.
And, Mr. Chairman, I think this program is in need of
substantial oversight, the waiver program and certainly the E15
as well. And these actions I don't think can happen in secret.
I know that was addressed earlier in this hearing. We need to
make sure that these waivers are not abused as a financial
windfall for special interests and I look forward to working
with you, Mr. Chairman, on this further. And I yield back.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Pruitt, you seem to view the EPA budget as a
personal slush fund, redirecting resources to your personal
travel that should go to environmental protection. During your
tenure you have spent more than $160,000 on travel in first
class, on private jets, and on military craft. Public office is
a public trust and I think flying coach is the least we can do
to deserve that trust.
My question for you is this. When you are paying for your
own airfare with personal funds do you fly coach?
Mr. Pruitt. I follow the security recommendations of my
team when I pay for it personally as well.
Mr. Lujan. Will you commit to reimbursing taxpayers for
your luxury travel?
Mr. Pruitt. You refer to it as luxury travel, and the
$160,000 that you refer to pales in comparison to the previous
administrations. I think you are referring to international
travel. I took two international trips. Previous
administrations took multiple trips and spent far more than
that. These decisions about security detail, who attends and
what they do to provide protection, happened according to law
enforcement recommendations and that is what I followed.
Mr. Lujan. It has been recently reported by EPA ethics
officials that on at least two personal trips you flew in coach
on Southwest Airlines using a companion pass from Ken Wagner,
your subordinate at the EPA. Clearly a plane ticket has more
than nominal value. Are you aware that Federal ethics rules
prohibit you from accepting gifts from subordinates?
Mr. Pruitt. And that is not represented accurately, what
you said. We actually flew like carpooling. We shared costs
from Oklahoma----
Mr. Lujan. Did Ken Wagner give you the boarding pass?
Mr. Pruitt. There was no gift whatsoever.
Mr. Lujan. All right, well, I think that those ethics
officials will continue to look into that.
Mr. Pruitt, your travel since becoming Administrator has
taken you to Morocco, Italy, and to luxury resorts around the
United States. We have even heard from Kevin, a political
appointee who worked in your office, that you told staffers to,
quote, ``find me something to do,'' close quote, in order to
schedule travel to your desired destinations. Unfortunately, it
seems your desired destinations have rarely included low-income
communities and communities of color facing serious
environmental risks.
The biggest problem with the pay-to-play system is that
those most at risk are also the most unable to pay for your
attention and concern. Of your extensive travel spending, how
much would you say you spend visiting low-income communities
and communities of color?
Mr. Pruitt. I would consider East Chicago--which I have
made trips there, I was in Region 5 recently this week, and San
Jacinto in Houston, as indicated earlier. The trip to Italy was
a G7 trip occurring a week after the Paris decision. I was
there for 4 days around the G7. There is a free trade agreement
that is in existence in Morocco, and the ambassador of Morocco
invited me to Morocco to negotiate the environmental chapter on
that free trade agreement. Both of those things are very
important to the scope of our duties at the EPA.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Administrator, you have gone to great
lengths to keep your calendar secret, but what has come out is
it is clear that most of your meetings and stakeholders have
been with industry and not impacted communities. I think we can
agree with that. Do you see the problem with granting greater
access to polluting industries than impacted communities?
Mr. Pruitt. I have met with stakeholders across the country
on these issues, people that we regulate that their voices have
not been heard for many years. Those farmers and ranchers that
I have met with, they are our first environmentalists and first
conservationists.
Mr. Lujan. Do you understand that you have a responsibility
to protect the health and environment of low-income, minority,
tribal, and indigenous communities?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely.
Mr. Lujan. Throughout your brief tenure as EPA
Administrator you have directed significant policy changes made
with disproportionate harm to low-income, minority, Tribal, and
indigenous communities. The repeal of the once-in, always-in
policy mentioned by my colleague, Ms. Dingell, for example, the
weakening of coal ash regulations is another. But Mr. Pruitt,
today you repeatedly blamed your chief of staff, your chief
counsel, career officials, and others. Yes or no, are you the
EPA Administrator?
Mr. Pruitt. I said that in my opening statement,
Congressman. And I didn't blame anyone. I just simply shared
facts with you as----
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Administrator, it is just a simple yes-or-no
question, sir. Are you the EPA Administrator?
Mr. Pruitt. I said in my opening statement that I take
responsibility. I have made changes historically and making
changes going forward, and I simply have not failed to take
responsibility. I have simply recited the facts of what has
occurred.
Mr. Lujan. It is a simple question, Mr. Pruitt. Are you the
EPA Administrator?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Mr. Lujan. Just to be clear, do you run the EPA?
Mr. Pruitt. I do.
Mr. Lujan. Yes or no, are you responsible for the many,
many scandals plaguing the EPA?
Mr. Pruitt. I have responded to many of those questions
here today with facts and information.
Mr. Lujan. Are you able to answer that in yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. That is not a yes-or-no answer, Congressman.
Mr. Lujan. It is pretty simple that it is a yes-or-no
answer here. There is clear concern with what has been
happening not just by the entire Congress. And I appreciate you
being here today, but these questions need to be asked and
answered.
Mr. Pruitt. And we have answered them today.
Mr. Lujan. And you are not the only one that has been doing
these ugly things, these horrific things, these scandal-plagued
things in this administration, and I hope this is one of many
hearings that this committee will have so we can get to the
bottom of this and make sure taxpayers are made whole.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's has expired.
Seeing there are no further Members wishing to ask
questions, I would like to thank our witness for being here
today. Before we conclude, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to submit the following documents for the record. I
just want to make sure I get them all in: letter to the
chairman and ranking member from Lauren Atkins; report from GAO
on EPA's use of fiscal year 2017 appropriations; letter from
the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Mr.
Rush Holt; article from the Roanoke Times; questions from Ms.
Castor; letter from the American Geophysical Union; letter from
985 scientists.
In pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that they
have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the
record, and I ask that witnesses submit their questions within
10 business days upon receipt of the questions.
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Mr. Pruitt's response to submitted questions has been
retained in committee files and also is available at https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108218.]
[all]