    [Senate Hearing 115-471]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-471

        EXAMINING EPA'S AGENDA: PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND ALLOWING
                           AMERICA'S ECONOMY TO GROW

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 AUGUST 1, 2018

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                              _________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    34-874 PDF            WASHINGTON : 2019

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      Ranking Member
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                  Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 AUGUST 1, 2018
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     3

                                    WITNESS

    Wheeler, Hon. Andrew, Acting Administrator, U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency..............................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Barrasso.........................................    13
            Senator Carper...........................................    17
            Senator Duckworth........................................    37
        Response to an additional question from Senator Fischer......    38
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Gillibrand.......................................    38
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    41
            Senator Markey...........................................    45
            Senator Sanders..........................................    77
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    82
        Response to an additional question from Senator Wicker.......    89

        EXAMINING EPA'S AGENDA: PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND ALLOWING
                           AMERICA'S ECONOMY TO GROW

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:24 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito,
    Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan,
    Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey,
    Duckworth, and Van Hollen.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Before we begin today's hearing, I want
    to thank Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler for making it
    a priority to come to testify before the Committee today. I
    have been very impressed with how he has started his tenure as
    head of the Agency.
        As Acting Administrator, Mr. Wheeler has emphasized
    transparency, while implementing policies that protect the
    environment and allow America's economy to grow.
        I would encourage President Trump to nominate Andrew
    Wheeler to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection
    Agency. Mr. Wheeler is very qualified for that position. He
    spent over 25 years working in environmental policy, and in
    that time he has served as a career employee at the Agency, as
    a staffer here on Capitol Hill, as a consultant in the private
    sector, and now in a leadership role of the EPA.
        I believe Andrew Wheeler would make an excellent
    administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
        With that, I call this hearing to order.
        Today, the Committee will hear testimony on the
    Environmental Protection Agency's work to protect the water we
    drink, the air we breathe, and the communities we call home. It
    is my pleasure to welcome back to the Committee Andrew Wheeler
    in his new role as Acting Administrator of the EPA.
        First, Mr. Wheeler, as you know, the way that this
    Committee works, sometimes there are roll call votes. I
    understand there are five roll call votes starting at 11 this
    morning, so there will be members coming and going during the
    hearing process, so I appreciate your indulgence as we come in
    and out.
        Mr. Wheeler has served on this Committee in a number of
    capacities, most recently as Staff Director. It is only fitting
    that our Committee be the first that you testify before in your
    new role.
        Since President Trump has come to office, his
    Administration has made it a priority to pursue policies that
    both protect the Nation's environment and allow the economy to
    grow. Just last week, we saw how the Administration's pro-
    growth and pro-jobs policies are leading to incredible economic
    growth. America's economy grew at an impressive 4.1 percent.
        Over the past year and a half, the Environmental Protection
    Agency has been busy rolling back punishing regulations that
    hurt the economy in my home State of Wyoming and communities
    across the country.
        Under the previous Administration, the Agency created broad
    and legally questionable regulation that punished the very
    communities EPA claimed to be protecting. The so-called Clean
    Power Plan would have cost Wyoming energy workers their jobs
    and closed power plants across the country. The Obama
    administration openly declared war on American coal and the
    workers who produce this critically important resource.
        The so-called Clean Power Plan wasn't just bad policy; it
    was illegal. Twenty-four States--including Wyoming--filed suit
    to block this regulation. The Supreme Court has put the rule on
    hold because of the challenges.
        Under the leadership of President Trump, the EPA is now
    taking steps to undo this damaging rule. The Agency held
    listening sessions in several different communities to hear
    feedback on how the regulation should be changed or withdrawn.
        One of those listening sessions took place in Campbell
    County, Wyoming, in the city of Gillette. Wyoming is the
    leading coal producing State in the Nation. The vast majority
    of the coal from the Nation comes from Campbell County. America
    can't afford to leave its energy resources stranded in the
    ground.
        I am thankful the EPA took the time to listen to all
    stakeholders and reexamined the Agency's deeply flawed rule. It
    was an important example of Washington listening to the people
    of Wyoming.
        The Administration has also taken major steps to revise the
    Waters of the United States, or the WOTUS, rule. This
    outrageous Obama era rule would have put backyard ponds,
    puddles, and farm fields under Washington's control. Under that
    rule, the EPA told farmers and ranchers their irrigation
    ditches were considered navigable waters and would be regulated
    by the Federal Government.
        The consequences were staggering. The EPA threatened to
    fine one private landowner in Wyoming $75,000 a day. The crime
    he committed was digging a stock pond in his backyard.
        This past January, the EPA delayed the implementation date
    of this devastating rule. This delay gives the Agency time to
    revise it.
        EPA should not punish our ranchers or farmers for managing
    their land. It must replace the WOTUS rule with common sense
    policy that protects America's waters and respects States and
    local authorities.
        The Agency has also taken important steps to protect small
    refineries in Wyoming and across the country. I applaud the
    Trump administration for rejecting efforts to undermine the
    ability of small refineries to obtain hardship relief under the
    Renewable Fuel Standards, or the RFS.
        During the Obama administration, EPA frequently ignored the
    law, which requires EPA to grant relief to small refineries
    suffering economic hardship under RFS. Since then, two Federal
    appeals courts have rebuked the Agency for decisions denying
    hardship relief to small refineries.
        EPA must not take any action that would limit the ability
    of small refineries to obtain hardship relief, restrict when
    small refineries can apply for hardship relief, disclose the
    confidential business information of small refineries, or
    increase the burdens on other refineries. Taking any of these
    steps would only compound the problems that this broken program
    has created for American refineries and their workers.
        I look forward to hearing more about what the Agency is
    doing to protect the people of Wyoming and America, to keep our
    environment clean, and to support the Nation's growing economy.
        Acting Administrator Wheeler, thank you for taking the time
    to come testify today. Thank you for making the Senate
    Environment and Public Works Committee your first stop on
    Capitol Hill.
        I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his
    remarks.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        As my colleagues know on this Committee and outside of the
    Committee, I have been asking for an oversight hearing with the
    EPA Administrator for many months, and I am pleased that our
    Committee is holding that hearing today. I have to be honest
    with you, I am even more pleased that the person sitting at the
    witness table is our Acting Administrator and not his
    predecessor.
        When Mr. Wheeler took the helm of this Agency, all 25 days
    ago--it probably seems like 25 months ago--the Washington Post
    noted that we were trading an Administrator who is known for
    ``sipping organic juice infused with kale'' for an Acting
    Administrator who collects Coca-Cola memorabilia.
        With that said, Mr. Wheeler, I have something to present to
    you today, as we begin this hearing, to add to your collection,
    something that my staff found for sale in, of all places, the
    Senate cafeteria. I thought you might like to have it. It is a
    bottle of Coca-Cola that actually has the word ``Wheeler'' on
    it.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I don't know if you have some special deal,
    something in your life we don't know about, Andrew. This is
    very interesting, but this is your bottle. You will probably
    need something stronger before you are finished.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. But I am encouraged that there will be a
    number of differences between Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Pruitt in the
    way that they approach this important leadership role. For
    example, I don't expect to hear as much as a peep from Mr.
    Wheeler today about used mattress shopping or Chick-fil-A or
    fancy moisturizers.
        What we do need to hear from Mr. Wheeler today is how he
    plans to differentiate himself from Mr. Pruitt across a range
    of environmental policies that are far more consequential; how
    we repair the significant damage that Mr. Pruitt has done to
    the EPA. Will the American public once again be able to trust
    the EPA to carry out its mission of protecting public health
    and our environment?
        Now, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. In the
    few weeks that Mr. Wheeler has been the Acting Administrator,
    he has published his calendars on a daily basis. He has opened
    up EPA events to the media, as well as began to work to ensure
    that EPA's beleaguered career staff once again feel valued,
    respected, and included. He withdrew Mr. Pruitt's parting act
    to stop enforcing air emission standards for some of the
    dirtiest heavy duty trucks on the road under the Clean Air Act,
    granting one company permission to continue building high
    polluting glider trucks for 2 years. Thank you for that.
        There is a whole lot to be done. Mr. Wheeler has told me
    repeatedly that he shares my goal of striking a deal between
    automakers and the State of California and other States on fuel
    economy and greenhouse gas tailpipe standards. Unfortunately,
    the Administration's proposal could not be further from the
    win-win outcome that many of us on this Committee and outside
    this Committee believe is within reach.
        Instead of providing near term flexibility and
    predictability for the auto industry in exchange for more
    rigorous standards and clean vehicle incentives going forward,
    the Trump administration is proposing to free standards for 7
    straight model years. We can do better than that, and we need
    to.
        The Administration would remove all credits for air
    conditioning and other improvements and argue that California
    should be preempted. Such a proposal is not the win-win outcome
    that stakeholders are asking for, one that keeps the American
    auto industry competitive, creates more good paying jobs right
    here at home, and protects our environment well into the
    future.
        Instead, this Administration has, once again, ignored
    common sense, turned its back on a solution that would allow
    for States like California to enforce its own clean standards,
    and decided to listen to the most extreme voices as it pushes
    through a plan no one is interested in.
        Mr. Pruitt's EPA also had a warped sense of cooperative
    federalism, especially when it came to protecting downwind
    States from harmful air pollution. Under Mr. Pruitt, EPA failed
    to meet the deadlines to designate who was living in unhealthy
    ozone areas and delayed emission reductions critical to
    downwind States.
        At the same time, Mr. Pruitt's EPA rejected requests from
    downwind States to require upwind polluters to install or
    operate existing pollution controls, tried to cut State air
    program funding, and weakened enforcement efforts. All of these
    actions were a disaster for the people, like those in my own
    home State of Delaware, and States like Maryland, New Jersey,
    New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and others on the East
    Coast who live at the end of what we call America's tailpipe.
        Instead of prioritizing and protecting the polluters, I
    hope Mr. Wheeler will prioritize and protect the people who are
    being harmed from those emissions. Under Mr. Pruitt, EPA has
    also acted to roll back clean water protections by, I think,
    dishonestly inflating the costs of those rules to industry,
    while minimizing the health and environmental benefits to the
    public.
        Mr. Wheeler needs to describe how he plans to ensure that
    clean water and other rules are based on credible data, how
    they comply with the law.
        Mr. Pruitt misguidedly banned any scientist who had
    received EPA grant funding from serving on EPA's scientific
    advisory committees. He proposed to have EPA ignore and not
    consider some of the best scientific studies in the world. It
    is my sincere hope that Mr. Wheeler will share with us his
    plans for ending EPA's war on science.
        Disappointedly, too, there is probably no aspect of EPA's
    implementation of the new Toxic Substances Control Act that
    will not be litigated. Mr. Pruitt's EPA chose to blatantly
    disregard the clear and unambiguous law that we largely wrote
    right here in this Committee and Congress passed with near
    unanimous support. This kind of blatant disregard for the rule
    of law needs to end, and it needs to end here.
        Mr. Wheeler needs to describe how he plans to stop wasting
    taxpayer funds and EPA's lawyers' time defending proposals that
    are clearly illegal, and restore the Agency to one that
    respects the rule of law and is guided by science.
        The day after Mr. Pruitt resigned, I sent Mr. Wheeler a
    letter. I told him, ``You have been granted an enormous
    challenge and responsibility, but an even greater opportunity.
    The damage that Scott Pruitt has done to this Agency will not
    be easily undone. While you and I have not always agreed--and
    will not always agree--on every environmental policy matter, it
    is my hope and expectation that you will carefully consider the
    lessons of the past as you prepare to chart the Agency's
    future.'' We look forward to a continued dialog and to today's
    hearing.
        Welcome.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much, Senator Carper.
        We will now hear from our witness in a few seconds, and
    that is Hon. Andrew Wheeler, the Acting Administrator of the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
        I want to remind Mr. Wheeler that your full written
    testimony will be made part of the official hearing record, so
    please keep your comments and your statement to about 5 minutes
    so we will have time for questions from the members of the
    Committee.
        I look forward to hearing your testimony.
        Mr. Wheeler.

     STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW WHEELER, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Mr. Wheeler. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Carper, and members of the Committee.
        When Chairman Barrasso called me to ask me if this would be
    my first hearing, I jumped at the opportunity because I
    couldn't think of another Committee that I would want to
    testify in front of first.
        When President Trump appointed me Acting Administrator, he
    asked me to focus on three things: clean up the air, clean up
    the water, and provide regulatory relief to help the economy
    thrive and create more jobs for American workers. I believe we
    can accomplish all three at the same time. In fact, we have
    already made progress on all three fronts in just the past few
    weeks. We haven't slowed down, and we haven't missed a step.
        Yesterday, we released EPA's annual report on air quality,
    and we have great news to share. From 1970 to 2017 the combined
    emissions of the six key pollutants regulated under the NAAQS
    dropped by 73 percent, while the U.S. economy grew more than
    260 percent. This is a remarkable achievement that should be
    recognized and celebrated. The U.S. leads the world in terms of
    clean air and air quality progress.
        On my first day as Acting Administrator we sent to OMB for
    interagency review a proposed rule to set State guidelines for
    greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
        We recently finalized the first set of revisions to the
    2015 regulations for the disposal of coal ash. These actions
    will provide States and utilities much needed flexibility in
    the management of their waste.
        Last week, we issued a final rule that codifies the animal
    waste reporting exemptions which were signed into law in the
    Fair Agricultural Reporting Method, the FARM Act, Senator
    Fischer's legislation. We also approved pathways for biodiesel
    derived from sorghum. This action lays the groundwork for more
    homegrown fuels under the Renewable Fuels Standard and adds
    diversity to the Nation's biofuels mix.
        Finally, we recently commemorated the 1-year anniversary of
    the Superfund Task Force Report and highlighted the
    extraordinary progress we have made cleaning up sites and
    returning them for productive use.
        Just this week, we reached a framework to address the
    outstanding issues of the Anaconda Smelter site in Montana.
    This framework will allow us to meet our goal of delisting the
    site by 2025, and this site has been on the list for decades.
        As you can see, we are continuing the President's agenda
    posthaste. The combination of regulatory relief and the
    President's historic tax cuts continues to spur economic growth
    across the country, particularly in communities that were
    previously--and wrongly--ignored or forgotten.
        One way we can fulfill the President's agenda is providing
    more certainty to the American people. A lack of certainty from
    EPA hinders the environmental protections and creates paralysis
    in the marketplace. We will prioritize certainty in three
    areas: certainty to the States and local governments, including
    Tribes; certainty within EPA programs, such as permitting and
    enforcement actions; and certainty in risk communication.
        First, we need to provide more certainty to the States, who
    are the primary implementers and enforcers of many of our
    environmental laws and programs. We will work closely with the
    States to ensure our mutual responsibilities under the law are
    fulfilled.
        Second, we need to provide more certainty within EPA
    programs. For example, we need to improve our permitting
    processes. Our goal is to make all permit decisions, up or
    down, in 6 months. I am not suggesting that we approve all
    permits within a set amount of time.
        On a similar front, we must provide more certainty in our
    enforcement actions. When EPA's enforcement actions linger for
    years, it hurts the competitiveness of American businesses.
        Let me be clear, I am not advocating for letting people off
    the hook or reducing fines. Rather, I am advocating for making
    enforcement decisions in a timely and consistent manner.
        Third, and finally, we need to provide more certainty in
    risk communication. As an Agency, we must be able to speak with
    one voice and clearly explain to the American people the
    environmental and health risks that they face in their daily
    lives. We have fallen short in this area from our response to
    9/11 to recent events surrounding the Gold King Mine in
    Colorado, and most recently in Flint, Michigan. We owe it to
    the American public to ensure that this does not happen again.
        We are also prioritizing our efforts to assist State and
    local governments in preparing for and responding to natural
    disasters and extreme weather events. Readiness is all, to
    quote my favorite author, Shakespeare.
        There is no doubt in my mind that we will make improvements
    in all of these areas. I believe in this Agency; I believe in
    its mission, and I believe in its personnel.
        I would like to take a minute to talk about my fellow EPA
    employees. I know how dedicated and passionate they are, and it
    is a privilege to work alongside them.
        Senator Barrasso. If I could have the witness suspend,
    please, and ask the officers to remove the disturbance.
        [Pause.]
        Senator Barrasso. Apologize for the delay. Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler. Quite all right.
        I would like to take a minute to talk about my fellow EPA
    employees. I know how dedicated and passionate they are, and it
    is a privilege to work alongside them. I have told them that my
    instinct will be to defend their work, and I will seek the
    facts from them before drawing conclusions.
        We exist to serve the public. As such, we should conduct
    our business in a manner fully deserving of the public's trust
    and confidence. Earlier this week, I issued my own fishbowl
    memo which lays out the principles and protocols that will
    guide our efforts to be transparent, open, and accountable to
    the American public. Our success as an Agency depends on it.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much for your
    testimony.
        We will start with some questioning, if I may, and I wanted
    to start by mentioning what I see happening right now in the
    State of Washington.
        The State of Washington is abusing Section 401 of the Clean
    Water Act in order to block the development of the coal export
    terminal in that State. The terminal would ship coal from
    Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Colorado to markets in Asia. The
    State of Washington has cited reasons for objecting to the
    terminal that had nothing to do with water quality, yet they
    are using Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
        I introduced a bill this week to address this problem. We
    can't allow States to block the export of American energy.
        Will you commit to working with me to identify both
    legislative and regulatory solutions to stop these abuses?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator, I will.
        Senator Barrasso. Recently, there have been some stories in
    the press discussing some of your recusals from former clients
    that you took in terms of meetings you have taken as Deputy
    Administrator, so I would like to give you the opportunity to
    address the stories, and if necessary, clarify the record.
    Visit with us about that, and maybe tell the Committee how you
    are going to honor your recusals from former clients.
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. I have committed, under both the
    Trump ethics pledge and the ethics regulations, to follow all
    the guidelines. I have worked with our career ethics official
    at the EPA. I met with her for the first time before I was
    actually nominated to go over what the requirements would be,
    and I have not met with any of my clients that I represented
    for the 2 years prior to joining the Agency.
        There is one article that mentioned that there was a former
    client that was in a couple of meetings that I attended. I want
    to clarify that those weren't meetings; they were actually
    speeches. I gave speeches at two trade associations, and the
    client was in the audience in those speeches. And according to
    ethics, as long as there are more than five people, and there
    were five times as many people as that in the audience, and I
    can't control the people that attend a public speech.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        The Clean Air Act requires that EPA grant relief to small
    refineries which suffer disproportionate economic hardship
    under the Renewable Fuel Standards, the RFS. The law explicitly
    states that a small refinery may petition the EPA for hardship
    relief ``at any time.''
        Do you agree that EPA doesn't have the authority to limit
    when small refineries can apply for hardship relief?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. We cannot limit when they apply
    for the relief, no.
        Senator Barrasso. The law further states the EPA must act
    within 90 days upon receiving a petition from a small refinery.
        Do you agree the EPA doesn't have the authority to delay
    decisions on a small refinery's petition beyond 90 days?
        Mr. Wheeler. I am not sure, to the extent that we have met
    the 90-day requirements, but we certainly try to meet all the
    requirements under all of our statutes.
        Senator Barrasso. In December 2017 I sent Administrator
    Pruitt a letter encouraging the EPA to withdraw its proposed
    rule on in situ uranium recovery, ISR. The Obama administration
    proposed the rule on January 19th, 2017, the final day before
    President Obama left office. Since then, the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission, our Nation's principal nuclear regulator, has
    stated that there is ``no health or safety jurisdiction for
    EPA's rulemaking.''
        Uranium production is vital to our country's national
    security, our energy security. Wyoming produces more uranium
    than any other State. When can we expect the EPA to scrap this
    unnecessary regulation that came out kind of a midnight
    regulation, came out by the Obama administration on the final
    day of that 8-year administration?
        Mr. Wheeler. Senator, I have not had the opportunity to be
    briefed on that in the last 4 weeks, but I know that the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission also has concerns about that, and
    we will try to work forward on that expeditiously.
        Senator Barrasso. During the first year of the Trump
    administration, it is my understanding that EPA finalized 22
    deregulatory actions. According to your Agency, these actions
    could save over $1 billion in regulatory costs to Americans.
    Just last July it was announced that the American economy grew
    4.1 percent. This continues the trend of strong economic growth
    under the Trump administration.
        In your opinion, is the Administration's approach to
    environmental deregulation at the EPA protecting the
    environment, while also helping our economy? Essentially can we
    have both a strong economy and a healthy environment at the
    same time?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, we can, and I think the data shows that.
    Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Again, welcome today, and thank you for----
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, and thank you for the Coke. I need
    to clear that through our ethics in-house, but I do appreciate
    that. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. If it doesn't clear, I am sure you will
    have some takers here. I would be happy to bring out the ice.
        Mr. Wheeler. I would be happy to buy it from you.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Wheeler, you have told me more than
    once that you share my goal, I think our goal, of striking a
    deal between automakers in the State of California and other
    States on fuel economy and greenhouse gas tailpipe standards. A
    win-win is what we are looking for.
        The auto industry and the State of California also
    repeatedly told me that they want a deal. Unfortunately, the
    Administration's proposal that is being released this week is
    reported to freeze standards at model year 2020 levels,
    eliminate technology incentives, and preempt California and the
    12 States that have followed California's lead, which I believe
    would be a lose-lose-lose situation; a loss for an industry
    that needs certainty and predictability, a loss for consumers,
    and a loss for our environment.
        The largest source of air pollution in our country today is
    not coal fired utilities, it is not manufacturing, it is not
    cement plants; it is mobile sources. That is No. 1. So, I have
    a couple of questions to pursue in this regard.
        First, if you were presented with a proposal that both the
    auto industry and the State of California, and 12 States
    aligned with them, could support, would you welcome such a
    compromise?
        Mr. Wheeler. I would certainly welcome such a compromise.
    The proposal that is coming out this week, first, it is a
    proposal, and we are taking a range of comments from a flatline
    approach all the way to the numbers that President Obama's
    proposal had, and a number of steps in between. So, we are
    taking comments on all of those levels, and we would welcome
    any comments or proposals from any of the impacted groups,
    absolutely.
        Senator Carper. To follow up on that, could we assume on
    this Committee that if there was such a deal, essentially a 50-
    State deal, there would be no effort to preempt California?
        Mr. Wheeler. I mean, it is my goal, it is the
    Administration's goal to come up with a 50-State solution, and
    we want to have a 50-State solution that does not necessitate
    preempting California. However, there are a number of goals in
    the proposal, and there are important goals on highway safety,
    so we would have to make sure that those are met. The proposal
    will save 1,000 lives per year, which I think is very
    important, and make sure that we maintain that in any final
    regulation that goes forward.
        Senator Carper. I do a lot of customer calls, and I know my
    colleagues do as well, businesses large and small. Delaware
    used to build more cars, trucks, and vans per capita than any
    State in America. We had a GM plant, Chrysler plant that
    employed 8,000 people, and those two plants, lost them both at
    the bottom of the great recession.
        I still do customer calls with the auto industry, and I ask
    them three questions: How are you doing? How are we doing? And
    what can we do to help? Unanimously, they say, with respect to
    this, what you can do is give us predictability and certainty.
    They say we don't want to have to build one Chevrolet Malibu
    for California and 12 other States, and then a different model
    for the other 37 States.
        They say we want to have more near term flexibility on
    these standards, but we are happy to have more rigorous
    standard going forward. We don't want to be in court for the
    next 5 or 6 or 7 years with California and other States. Give
    us the certainty and predictability, and enable us to really
    compete with the rest of the world when we get to 2025 and
    2030.
        I just ask that we keep that in mind.
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Carper. Second, cross-State pollution. Delaware and
    other States have made great strides in cleaning up our State's
    ozone pollution, yet northern Delaware--where my family and I
    live, where two-thirds of our citizens live--still does not
    meet ozone health standards due to emissions not from within
    our State, but from other States' dirty cars and power plants
    drifting into our State.
        Ninety-four percent of our air pollution in Delaware comes
    from sources outside of us, largely from the west and the
    north. In 2016 Delaware filed four clean air petitions with
    EPA--four--showing that four fossil fuel plants, three in
    Pennsylvania and one in West Virginia, are contributing to our
    unhealthy ozone days.
        The cleanup solutions are easy. The three facilities in
    Pennsylvania have clean air pollution technology installed.
    They don't use it. They don't use it. The coal facility over in
    West Virginia, my native West Virginia, they could go to
    natural gas and help not only their air quality, but ours as
    well. We thought Delaware's case was a slam dunk, and I was
    shocked when EPA proposed to reject these petitions.
        Just a couple yes or no questions, if I could.
        Before making a final decision, would you commit to
    reviewing Delaware's rebuttal to EPA's proposed rejections,
    which were sent to you July 23rd, 2018? I am asking for you
    just to commit to review our rebuttal.
        Mr. Wheeler. I would be happy to review that, Senator, yes.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Since EPA has refused to have a hearing on this issue in
    Delaware, would you commit to meet personally with State of
    Delaware officials before making a final decision on this
    matter at the place and time of your convenience?
        Mr. Wheeler. I would be happy to talk to the officials in
    Delaware, yes.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        I don't usually ask yes or no questions, so bear with me,
    please.
        When making final decisions on any Section 126 petition
    from some of the other States on the end of America's tailpipe,
    our neighboring States, will you follow the spirit and letter
    of the law, which requires EPA to prioritize the residents of
    the State which receive the pollution?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator, we will follow the letter and
    spirit of the law. I would add, also, that on the cross-border
    side, we are working with States to develop new technical tools
    to help them facilitate the Good Neighbor State plans. On the
    ozone, at this point, we are showing that all the areas, except
    for a few areas that have been longstanding in non-attainment,
    should be in attainment by the early 2020s.
        Senator Carper. All right.
        Mr. Wheeler. We are very positive about the data that is
    coming in on that.
        Senator Carper. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, if I could,
    in closing, I think everybody on this Committee--I know the
    folks here pretty well, and we are Golden Rule people; we treat
    other people the way we want to be treated, and the idea that
    folks in States to our west put up pollution, keep their air
    clean, their health care costs low, and we end up with dirty
    air and higher healthcare costs, it is just not fair. It is not
    the way to treat our neighbors.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Before turning to Senator Inhofe, Andrew, I would say that
    we are going to start voting shortly, and I will go vote and
    turn the chair over to Senator Inhofe at the time, who will be
    chairing the Committee until I return.
        Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, I liked your opening statement. It is
    certainty that we want and that we deserve, which we have not
    been historically given.
        I want to elaborate a little bit with a question asked a
    little bit differently than the comment by the Ranking Member.
        Last year, the EPA, along with the Department of Energy,
    granted 33 of 34 hardship exemptions to refineries due to high
    RIN costs. The EPA was sued on one petition it denied and ended
    up losing in court. Opponents of these exemptions say that the
    refineries are not under a hardship, even though they are
    actually paying more than their payroll to comply with these
    mandates that are out there.
        If you look at the fact that the EPA has now lost twice in
    court for not approving exemptions, the EPA is simply applying
    the law when it does grant them and they should be approving
    more of them.
        How does the EPA thread this needle?
        Mr. Wheeler. It is a very difficult needle to thread. We
    are following the statute, and we now have had two court cases
    that have ruled against the Agency on the granting of the
    exemptions. We also have appropriations language to remind us
    to grant the small refinery exemptions.
        One area we are trying to do is to provide more
    transparency around the decisions that we are making on the
    small refinery exemptions, and I think that will help clear up
    a lot of the concerns around the issue.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes, I think it will.
        Now, President Trump and you have committed to returning
    EPA to cooperative federalism, which I applaud. Unfortunately,
    some have confused that principle with coercive federalism,
    where one State dictates their standard to all others. When it
    comes to the auto industry--and we talked about this a minute
    ago--the last Administration handed over car emission standards
    to California, but other States didn't get to weigh in. Because
    of this, Oklahomans, my State of Oklahoma, are paying more for
    their SUVs and trucks to subsidize electric cars so California
    drivers can afford them, which I find personally a little
    offensive.
        I applaud the EPA and NHTSA for revisiting the mid-term
    review done at the last minute by the Obama administration.
        Now, EPA doesn't have any statutory direction for its auto
    regulations, but NHTSA does. Do you think EPA and NHTSA should
    harmonize their regulations so technological feasibility and
    consumer costs are considered?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator, I do, and that is what we have
    done.
        Senator Inhofe. All right.
        Last, I had the honor of attending your opening statement.
    It was a very good statement. You had all the employees, I
    don't know how many hundred were there, but you got a very fine
    response from them. In your opening remarks to the EPA
    employees, you mentioned the fact that the United States is the
    gold standard worldwide for the environmental protection and
    that pollution regulated under NAAQS has dropped 73 percent.
    You mentioned this again in your opening statement. Nobody ever
    talks about the success that we have, that we are riding on.
        Meanwhile, our economy has expanded three times over, and
    yet the pollutions regulated dropped some 73 percent.
        The problem that we had in the 8 years of the Obama
    administration was the use of regulations to punish industries
    and States to reshape our economy with little to no benefit for
    the environment.
        Can you elaborate on how you have both a clean environment
    without handcuffing our economy? How do you plan to do that?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. I think that goes to my comments
    on certainty. I think if we provide more certainty not just to
    the regulated community, but to the American people, so that
    everyone understands the decisions that we are making and why
    we are making them, we will continue to improve the environment
    and provide that certainty that businesses are looking for.
        Senator Inhofe. That is good.
        Aren't there instances where regulations such as the New
    Source Review can actually get in the way of reducing
    pollution?
        Mr. Wheeler. It can. It can be a disincentive for
    installing cleaner technologies. And we are trying to stop
    that.
        Senator Inhofe. Good. Good. Thank you very much. You did a
    great job.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Mr. Wheeler, welcome. It is a pleasure to
    have you here.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cardin. I noticed your comments about the
    improvements in air over the last 40, 50 years. I might tell
    you we have seen remarkable improvement in the Chesapeake Bay
    during that period of time, and I say that because the
    Chesapeake Bay also has been a program that was developed with
    State flexibility. It is State blueprints that are agreed to by
    the six surrounding States of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, as
    well as the District of Columbia, and it has had the strong
    support from Congress, including this Committee recently, as
    well as from the Environmental Protection Agency.
        My first question, recognizing the importance of the
    Chesapeake Bay not just to the surrounding States, but to our
    region, it is the largest estuary in our hemisphere, will you
    continue the traditional Environmental Protection Agency
    support for a strong Federal role in coordinating the work that
    is done on the Chesapeake Bay?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. In my first week as the Deputy
    Administrator, I attended the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and
    next week I will be attending the Chesapeake Bay Leadership
    Council in Baltimore. It is a high priority for us. I actually
    live in the Chesapeake Resource Protection Area, and it is a
    high priority for the Agency.
        Senator Cardin. I don't consider that to be a conflict, so
    you can do whatever you want to to protect our Bay. I would
    just ask you also to work closely with the members of this
    Committee and Congress that have a deep interest in the
    Chesapeake Bay.
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I will.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        The EPA Inspector General recently released a report
    analyzing the Federal Government's role in the lead
    contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan, with the hopes of
    avoiding another crisis in another city.
        Will you accept and implement the recommendations of the
    Inspector General?
        Mr. Wheeler. I know that our staff has reviewed the
    recommendations and we are in the process of planning an
    implementation program to make sure that we implement them. I
    haven't been fully briefed on how we are going to implement
    them yet, but it is a high priority for the Agency, and we are
    moving forward to make sure that something like Flint,
    Michigan, does not happen again.
        Senator Cardin. I guess that is the strongest commitment I
    am going to get here today, but I would just urge you, the
    Inspector General gives an independent view.
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Senator Cardin. It is important that their report receives
    the respect from the Agency.
        Mr. Wheeler. It is.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        I also appreciate what you said about the work force, the
    people that work at the EPA. The first question I have, I
    recognize the struggle that every cabinet person has with OMB,
    but are you going to be an advocate for the funds necessary for
    the EPA in order to be able to carry out its work and be there
    fighting for the resources you need to carry out your mission?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I am an advocate for the resources that
    we need, and we will fully implement the appropriations that
    Congress gives us.
        Senator Cardin. That was the second question I was going to
    ask; you already anticipated it. The former staffer here
    understands the questions that are coming; that is good.
        Let me just follow up on that. You said that you wanted to
    respect the recommendations given to you by your scientists and
    your professional staff. I assume that also means the Science
    Advisory Board. That is a resource that you have, and it has
    been called into challenge in the last 2 years.
        Are you committed to allowing the experts to give you
    unfettered information for you to make decisions that need to
    be made? Will you also commit to allow them to participate in
    policy conferences so that you can have the interaction which
    we have seen over the long period of time with EPA?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator, I would commit to both of those.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Last, let me just ask you about your vision as to what you
    need in support in order to carry out your mission. The EPA is
    responsible for clean air, clean water, and for our clean
    environment. You have a new toxic chemical law that has been
    working on. There is concern that chemicals are not being
    treated as intended by Congress.
        Do you pledge to work with us and outside interest groups
    to make sure that we do get an independent evaluation of issues
    such as toxic chemicals to make sure that they are given the
    independent evaluation as to whether they need to be regulated?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator, I do. I started my career in the
    toxics chemical program at EPA in 1991. I worked there for 4
    years, and I am excited to be part of the implementation of the
    new Lautenberg Chemical law, and we want to make sure that we
    are implementing it in the same manner in which Congress
    intended it when they passed it.
        Senator Cardin. And if we have information, you will
    consider the information we send to you?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator, I will.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here today to testify.
        Senator Inhofe mentioned earlier the importance of
    certainty, and one of the things I would like to ask you about
    is the fact that on June 27th, then EPA Administrator Pruitt
    issued a memo reorienting the Agency's approach to when and how
    it would veto Clean Water Act Section 404 permits issued by the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
        Recognizing the Agency has not acted on the authority
    often--only 13 times since 1980--the threat remains that the
    EPA could stop an infrastructure project that has already gone
    through a lengthy and expensive permitting process and already
    received approval to proceed. Threat adds uncertainty to
    permitting and jeopardizes support for infrastructure projects.
        Will EPA, under your direction, proceed with the rulemaking
    to align the 404(c) process with the June 27th memo?
        Mr. Wheeler. We are looking into that, and as we move
    forward, I think it is very important to provide that
    certainty, and I agree that, even though it has been rarely
    used by the Agency, it has created a lot of uncertainty even
    when it wasn't used.
        Senator Boozman. Good. We would appreciate your looking at
    that.
        As Acting Administrator, you will have a highly influential
    role in advising the President on how to implement or modify
    the regulatory footprint of environmental policy in our Nation.
    How do you anticipate your past experiences will help in
    improving the way the EPA engages with all stakeholders?
        Mr. Wheeler. First of all, having started my career at the
    Agency as a career employee, I think that has helped me a lot
    in understanding the processes and the people of the Agency.
    But I think my 14 years working here at this Committee and
    meeting with a wide variety of stakeholders from a number of
    States all across the country, international as well, has given
    me appreciation for the different conflicting policy areas that
    we have at the Agency and that we need to make sure that we are
    talking to all interested groups as we move forward with any
    regulation.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        A criticism of EPA during the previous Administration was
    the Agency's disconnect with rural America. Rural America is
    having a difficult time right now. Many hardworking Americans
    in rural States felt they did not have a voice, and their
    opinions did not matter.
        What have you done, what do you feel, in other words, what
    is your planning in the future to facilitate a stronger level
    of trust between EPA and rural America?
        Mr. Wheeler. I think it is very important to make sure that
    all of our regulatory actions, our guidance documents,
    everything takes into account the impact on rural America. The
    announcement that we made last week on the sorghum pathway for
    the renewable fuels, that is going to help a lot of rural
    communities across the upper Midwest. I think making sure that
    we take actions like that to help grow the economy in rural
    areas is very important.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        EPA, during the Obama administration, encroached into other
    agencies' jurisdictions, resulting in EPA making decisions on
    issues where they lack the expertise.
        Can we count on you to work with other agencies and take
    their expertise into careful consideration when developing and
    implementing rules and regulations?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, we will. We are taking those into
    consideration, Senator.
        Senator Boozman. It seems to me that our air permitting
    system is in desperate need of updating. The current system we
    have in place sometimes overstates the air quality impacts of
    new projects, which can lead to delays or canceled investments
    and lost opportunities.
        What does the Agency plan to do to fix the broken
    permitting and New Source Review programs?
        Mr. Wheeler. We have implemented several guidance
    documents, new guidance to the States and to the community on
    New Source Review, and we are looking at those now to see which
    ones of those we need to move forward on regulatory actions to
    make sure that we provide that certainty.
        As Senator Inhofe said on New Source Review, oftentimes it
    can be counterproductive on cleaning up the environment when it
    is a disincentive for installing cleaner, more efficient
    technologies.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        Companies have made billions of dollars in investments
    complying with the 2013 Boiler Maximum Achievable Control
    Technology rule. While the rule was expensive, it was generally
    achievable. Unfortunately, regulatory uncertainty remains,
    given recent court decisions sending a couple of issues back to
    EPA to address.
        When will EPA complete this rulemaking so facilities can
    know they have met all of their boiler obligations?
        Mr. Wheeler. Senator, I am not positive on the timeline for
    that, but I would be happy to look into that and get back to
    your office.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Inhofe [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
        Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you very much, sir. It is good to see you here.
        Mr. Wheeler, I want to focus on EPA's TSCA implementation,
    if I can, and I would like to start by saying that I am pleased
    with the strategic plan that the EPA released to reduce animal
    testing. I was really grateful for that, and I hope that this
    is an issue that we can work together on moving forward.
        But overall, I am concerned about how the EPA is choosing
    to implement the changes to TSCA that my colleagues and I on
    this Committee--in a bipartisan way--worked so hard on last
    Congress. I know you are probably aware of that.
        One area I am concerned about is EPA's failure to consider
    all the sources of exposure that people have to the toxic
    chemicals that EPA has started to review. In our amended TSCA
    law, EPA was told by Congress to examine the safety of all
    known, intended, and reasonably foreseeable uses of a chemical,
    and the combined impacts of all exposures to a particular
    chemical, when making their determination about whether a
    chemical presents an unreasonable risk of harm.
        But EPA's problem formulations have dramatically narrowed
    the conditions that the Agency will use to evaluate the safety
    of the first 10 chemicals under TSCA. EPA is now indicating
    that it will ignore known exposures to those first 10 toxic
    chemicals, including for the known carcinogen TCE. EPA has
    warned since 2011 that TCE causes cancer, and in 2017 proposed
    to ban specific uses of TCE. But under Scott Pruitt's
    leadership, EPA proposed to indefinitely postpone the ban on
    this deadly chemical.
        In New Jersey, we have many communities that have been
    harmed by TCE, but there is one community outside of New
    Jersey, in Franklin, Indiana, that I want to focus on. In
    Franklin, they discovered that the community has high levels of
    TCE in their groundwater and in the air outside many homes, and
    the children in Franklin are getting cancer at inordinately
    high rates.
        Carrie and Matt Rhinehart, who are in the audience right
    now, their daughter Emma Grace died 4 years ago from brain
    cancer when she was 13 years old. Stacy and Matt Davidson, who
    are also here, their son Zane has leukemia, but thank God, it
    is currently in recession.
        High level exposure of TCE makes these families partly
    vulnerably subpopulation under the TSCA law, but EPA is now
    saying that it will ignore exposures that come from land, air,
    and water, meaning it will ignore the types of TCE exposures
    that these and other families have so painfully endured in
    deciding whether or not TCE is safe.
        The scaling back of our bipartisan chemical safety law, one
    of the prouder moments I have had as a Senator, was set in
    motion by Scott Pruitt, and I am really hopeful that you are
    going to reverse course on what I think is a bad decision, and
    the families here agree with me.
        So, Mr. Wheeler, as part of the evaluation process, would
    you commit to comprehensively reviewing the risks of chemicals
    like TCE by including known releases of chemicals into our air,
    water, and land, releases that threaten communities across the
    country?
        Mr. Wheeler. Senator, I am trying to keep track of all the
    parts of your question. On the last, let me start with that. It
    is tragic for any chemical to cause the death of a child, and
    my heart goes out to those families impacted by that.
    Absolutely, we need to be moving forward to do something on TCE
    and the other chemicals, which is why we included TCE on the
    list of the first 10 chemicals for review.
        Senator Booker. Well, I guess a yes or no is what I was
    asking. Would you commit to comprehensively reviewing the risks
    of chemicals by including known releases into our air, land,
    and water, released like TCE?
        Mr. Wheeler. It is my understanding that we are looking at
    those pathways as we look at the chemicals on the list. I will
    need to double-check with our chemical office on that, but it
    is my understanding it is part of the 10 chemicals, as TCE
    being one of the first 10 chemicals that we are examining, that
    we are examining the different pathways.
        Senator Booker. What I worry about, it was Scott Pruitt's
    decision to move forward within 30 days to finalize the ban on
    specific uses of TCE. I am worried that that is something that
    is moving forward. We need to reverse that decision. Do you
    understand?
        Mr. Wheeler. I think I understand what you are saying, but
    let me check on the status of that.
        Senator Booker. And then let me very quickly, methylene
    chloride. In January 2017 EPA proposed banning all consumer and
    commercial uses of methylene chloride in paint strippers. The
    ban, though, was never finalized.
        In May your predecessor agreed to meet with mothers whose
    sons died suddenly from using paint strippers containing this
    toxic chemical, and a few days later, Scott Pruitt, today, we
    are going to finalize the proposed rule and send it out
    shortly, but since then we have seen nothing. It has been
    several months, and the mothers who were hoping to prevent
    other families from experiencing the loss of loved ones, people
    are really disheartened.
        So, my simple question, and I conclude with it, is will you
    commit to sending the proposed ban of consumer chemicals uses
    to OMB for the final review in the next 2 weeks?
        Mr. Wheeler. Well, we are continuing to work with OMB and
    the other agencies and departments that have equity on that
    chemical issue, and we are trying to move that forward as
    quickly as we can. I can't commit to a specific timeframe, but
    we are trying to move that forward.
        Senator Booker. All right. There are a lot of families from
    the paint stripping chemicals sitting behind you right now that
    are really relying on you to save lives. There are
    extraordinary injustices going on with this kind of inaction by
    your Agency, and I hope that you will move with all deliberate
    speed to address these concerns.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Booker. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Booker.
        Senator Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And thank you, Mr. Wheeler, for being here today. I
    appreciate it. I know there has been a lot of talk about the
    small refinery exemptions, so I am going to dive in right with
    you.
        Over the past year and a half, EPA has taken actions that
    benefit refiners at the expense of farmers, and by
    retroactively granting an unprecedented number of small
    refinery exemptions, EPA effectively waived 2.25 billion
    gallons from refiners' 2016 and 2017 RFS obligations.
        Not only do these actions contradict President Trump's
    pledge to uphold congressionally mandated volumes, but they
    have also destroyed corn and ethanol demand, leading to lost
    income for Iowa's farmers, at a time when farm income is
    already at its lowest level since 2006.
        Yes or no, Mr. Wheeler, do you believe the RFS should be
    implemented in a manner consistent with the original intent of
    Congress?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I do.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you. So, let's distill this even
    further, then. For compliance year 2017 the EPA granted 29
    small refinery exemptions, totaling 1.45 billion gallons, which
    removes that many gallons from obligated parties' compliance
    requirement, which is the 15 billion gallons, that is the
    implied corn ethanol requirement, minus the 1.45 billion
    gallons is 13.55 billion gallons.
        So, you just take the 15 that is implied, that is the
    requirement, minus the 1.45, and it gives you 13.55 billion
    gallons. So, that is about 10 percent below the statutory
    requirement, is that correct? It would be about 10 percent.
        Mr. Wheeler. I will trust your math, Senator, yes.
        Senator Ernst. OK. So, yes, it is about 10 percent below
    the statutory requirement. So, if these gallons aren't
    reallocated somewhere, then you are not implementing the RFS in
    a manner that is consistent with the original intent of
    Congress, correct?
        Mr. Wheeler. Well, part of the original intent of Congress
    was also to grant the waivers, and there is not a provision for
    reallocating that. We are taking a look at that issue, but we
    are trying to be much more clear and transparent as we grant
    any small refinery waivers. As you are aware, we have been sued
    twice on this for not granting enough, and we have lost both
    times.
        Senator Ernst. I understand that. There is also an
    obligation, though, of 15 billion gallons, so those gallons
    that have been granted waivers for, we have to figure out a
    real allocation strategy.
        Mr. Wheeler. I agree we have to figure out a real
    allocation strategy, but we are confined by the law.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you. The law does require 15 billion
    gallons.
        So, last November, before this Committee, you were
    committed to issuing a determination on whether or not the EPA
    can grant the Reid Vapor Pressure waiver, and just last week,
    in Iowa, President Trump again expressed support for removing
    the outdated regulatory barrier preventing the sale of E15
    year-round and indicated his Administration is ``very close to
    implementing the RVP waiver.''
        Can you state for the record that EPA has the authority to
    begin a rulemaking process to provide RVP relief for ethanol
    blends of E15 and higher?
        Mr. Wheeler. We can certainly start that process. As you
    know, Senator, there are certainly people that don't believe we
    have that authority. The legislation that this Committee
    considered last year would have been very clear in giving EPA
    that authority, but we are looking at that issue, as you and I
    have discussed a few times and am happy to discuss with you
    further, on moving forward on an RVP issue.
        Senator Ernst. And we find that that is very important and
    something that the President has committed to.
        I will say, in closing, that RVP parity and the sale of E15
    year-round is a no cost solution that will expand a domestic
    market for farmers who have been adversely impacted by
    retaliatory tariffs. RVP parity would not only boost commodity
    prices, but also be viewed across rural America as the Trump
    administration taking concrete action to help during a time of
    economic hardship.
        Acting Administration Wheeler, I do encourage you to follow
    through on the President's directive and remove this
    unnecessary and ridiculous restriction. I look forward to
    working with you on these issues. I know we will have many,
    many discussions to follow. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator. I look forward to those.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
        Taking the prerogative of the Chairman, I want to recognize
    myself for a unanimous consent request.
        Last week, Platts ran a story entitled ``U.S. Small
    Refinery Waivers Not Likely Lowering Biofuel Blending.'' The
    article cites Sandra Dunphy, an independent analyst who
    testified last week before the House Energy and Commerce
    Committee, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this article
    into the record at this point.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
        Welcome, Administrator Wheeler.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. As you know, I viewed your
    predecessor's tenure as one characterized by tawdry personal
    behavior in office, a desire to do damage to the Agency that he
    led, a flagrant absence of transactional integrity and horrible
    environmental policies, and I see you as a remedy to three of
    those four, so in that sense I welcome you.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator, three out of four.
        Senator Whitehouse. My visit to you, I appreciated very
    much your courtesy in having me in, and I very much hope that
    you follow through on putting Teddy Roosevelt's picture up on
    your wall. I think that would be a good reminder and a good
    signal.
        A lot of what needed to be repaired at EPA had to do with
    process stuff, rather than the substantive disagreement you and
    I may have on environmental issues, and some of the process
    stuff had to do with enforcement. In the first 9 months of the
    Trump administration which we have data for, enforcement
    actions declined by 30 percent compared to the first 9 months
    of the Bush administration, and more than 35 percent compared
    to the first 9 months of the Obama administration.
        In that same period, EPA sought 50 percent less in fines
    and money for environmental cleanup than in the Bush
    administration and almost 90 percent less than under the Obama
    administration. Some of that appears to have been a decision
    made by the EPA Office of Compliance and Enforcement to seek
    headquarters' approval before beginning certain investigatory
    actions, and I have the memo here: ``Effective immediately OECA
    Headquarters review is required prior to issuance of
    information requests under the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and the
    Clean Water Act.''
        I would ask that memo be made an exhibit.
        Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. What is your intention regarding that
    headquarters review stymying of what had always been the
    prerogative of the different regional agencies in getting
    information about potential environmental violations?
        Mr. Wheeler. Senator, I haven't seen that memo. Is there a
    date?
        Senator Whitehouse. This memo was dated May 31.
        Mr. Wheeler. Of this year or last year?
        Senator Whitehouse. Of 2017. So it has been in place for a
    while. Obviously, if you have to run the ability to even ask
    information requests through headquarters, that gives
    headquarters the chance to either just create massive
    institutional delay or even put the kibosh on an investigation
    from its very beginning, and that doesn't seem like the right
    role for headquarters.
        Mr. Wheeler. I was not aware of that memo. I would point
    out, though, that we did not have a Senate confirmed person and
    head of OECA until December of last year. I believe that is the
    longest time that the Agency had ever gone without a Senate
    confirmed enforcement person. I think the numbers have gone up
    significantly since Susan Bodine took over the office, and I
    think the program itself has improved quite a bit.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, I would like to ask you to get
    back to me on whether this memo is still in place.
        Additionally, one of the problems that bedeviled people
    trying to get information out of EPA was that FOIA requests
    were customarily provided extremely slowly, and often only
    after litigation to force the issue; and Members of Congress,
    myself included, were told we will get you the information you
    ask for when we get around to it through the FOIA process.
        I don't think either of those is good practice for a public
    agency. Could you let me know what you are doing with respect
    to FOIA compliance and with respect to Committee requests for
    information?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. First of all, on FOIA, I know at
    the beginning of this Administration we had a 700 FOIA case
    backlog, some cases going back to 2008. We have cleared up the
    entire backlog.
        I would also just point out, for the Administrator's Office
    at EPA, we saw a 415 percent increase in the number of FOIA
    requests. What we are doing is we consolidated the FOIA program
    into one office under our General Counsel's Office, and we are
    in the process of hiring additional FOIA people.
        On the requests to the Committee, as Senator Carper could
    tell you, when I worked here on staff, I worked very hard to
    make sure that the minority received information from the
    Agency, and I will continue to do that as the Acting
    Administrator at EPA. I know that we have responded to 54 of 67
    requests from the minority members of this Committee over the
    last year and a half.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. I will send you a list of
    the ones that remain outstanding, and you can plow through
    those as well.
        Let me just close by saying that I know you have worked
    very closely with industry for a long time, and I hope that you
    will give your very serious and earnest consideration to the
    concerns of people like me from coastal States. We are seeing
    climate change driven sea level rise that is going to require
    us to redraw the map of my damn State. If that is not something
    to make a Senator serious about protecting it, I don't know
    what is.
        So, I hope that in this position you will take into account
    not only the concerns of industry and the concerns of the
    square States in the middle of the country that don't have
    coasts, but those of us who are looking at actually having to
    redraw the maps because of what is happening.
        Thanks very much.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thank you, Senator
    Whitehouse.
        Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wheeler, first of all, welcome to the Committee; it is
    good to see you once again, sir.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Senator Rounds. I appreciate your interest in your opening
    statement regarding certainty and the desire to move forward
    with certainty and transparency. I do think what Senator Ernst
    was trying to get at with regard to the Renewable Fuel Standard
    and the small refinery limitation, or at least an exemption for
    them, and how those two fit together, I would like to explore
    that with you a little bit. Because it is critical that the
    Renewable Fuel Standard remain in effect and that it be honored
    and that it be something that producers in the central part of
    the country can count on. They have invested billions of
    dollars in creating an ethanol industry, and one that they had
    expected to be in until at least the year 2022.
        Now, if we read this correctly, there clearly was the
    intent of Congress that there be, for traditional ethanol
    production, a 15 billion gallon per year allowance. We also
    understand that within that same legislation that there was an
    allowance that you could make exceptions for hardship for small
    refineries. There was nothing that we can find that indicates
    that that would limit or reduce the 15 billion gallon minimum
    for traditional ethanol production.
        Can you share with me where you would come up with or where
    there would be logic in taking or in reducing the Renewable
    Fuel Standard from the 15 billion to follow what was already
    included in the original law? In other words, when we wrote the
    law, when Congress wrote the law, they clearly understood that
    15 billion was there and made clear. They also understood that
    we would take into account that small refineries may have a
    hardship. There was nothing that indicated that that 15 billion
    would be reduced.
        Can you share with me a little bit your thought process on
    why you would not continue to push and to reallocate for the 15
    billion gallons?
        Mr. Wheeler. Well, as one of the former congressional
    staffers who helped write that section of the law, I wish we
    had spent a little bit more time on some of the details of it
    now that I am helping to implement it. I could start by saying
    that we are working to provide more transparency around the
    small refinery program, the exemption program.
        We are creating a dashboard where we will publicize all the
    information about when we grant a waiver and the circumstances
    around the waiver. We have to balance that with the
    confidential business information of the impacted companies,
    but we are working to try to be more transparent on that side
    of the program, and we are looking to see what we can do as far
    as making up the difference when we have to grant a waiver from
    the 15 billion gallons.
        But it is not a clear cut----
        Senator Rounds. If I could, I don't think, and I don't find
    any place where it says it is a waiver from the 15 billion. I
    think it says an individual refinery may get from their
    responsibility, but that doesn't absolve us from meeting the 15
    billion gallon limit.
        Mr. Wheeler. I agree. But then you have the problem,
    though, that the waivers are being requested and granted after
    the numbers have already been set, and we are talking about
    whether we can go back retroactively to change the numbers and
    change the compliance numbers for the other people in the
    industry.
        Senator Rounds. Well, I like the fact that you are looking
    at transparency within this process, and in fact, I think you
    are moving in the right direction. I actually sent a letter to
    your predecessor, dated April 13th of this year, requesting
    that the EPA provide more information on the factors that go
    into the granting of small refinery exemptions.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the copy
    of the letter be entered into the record.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Rounds. I have yet to receive a substantive
    response to the letter, as requested, and this is an issue
    which is of serious consequence to my constituents in South
    Dakota and throughout the upper Midwest.
        Would you commit to reviewing this request and responding
    to it in a substantive manner?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator, I will do that.
        Senator Rounds. I understand that information that is
    designated as confidential business information has reportedly
    been a factor in granting small refinery exemptions, but there
    must be aspects of the EPA's decisionmaking process that do not
    strictly fall under this definition, and I just hope that you
    would continue--in an open and transparent process--to share
    with us the process that you are using in granting these.
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Senator Rounds. The other piece of this, sir, the RVP
    across the United States, as the President has indicated his
    interest in doing it, I would hope that we would expedite that
    process so that we can actually start marketing this product
    across the United States year round. And if that happens, I
    think a lot of the issues surrounding meeting that RFP would be
    handled, because with those markets available year round, it
    means people would actually buy the equipment, have the
    equipment available if they could use it throughout the year.
    Those pumps are expensive, and they don't want to use it if the
    EPA is going to come in and say you can use it 6 months out of
    the year, but not year round.
        Would you commit to trying to expedite that part of this
    process to see if we can't get this behind us and help this
    industry to succeed?
        Mr. Wheeler. Senator, as I am sure you know, that was part
    of a broader package of a deal trying to address concerns of
    the oil refining industry, along with the concerns of the
    ethanol producers, and I am looking actively to try to figure
    out how we go forward----
        Senator Rounds. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, I know my time has passed, but you have taken
    care of the small refineries. What about the small farmers?
    What about the folks that are producing on a year to year basis
    enough to get buy in a time in which we have trade issues in
    front of us, at a time in which they expected that an RFP would
    be honored by the Federal Government that we made several years
    ago?
        You have taken care of the small refineries, but you
    haven't taken care of the small farmers. I think we should look
    at that.
        Mr. Wheeler. The RVO number for 2019 is, I believe, 500
    million gallons more than what it was the previous year. We
    also added the sorghum pathway to help farmers in finding
    another biofuel feedstock for the RFS program.
        We are looking very actively to see what we can do to
    provide more not just flexibility in the program, but more
    assistance to the agricultural community.
        Senator Rounds. Look forward to working with you, sir.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wheeler, welcome.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Van Hollen. I had a question along the lines that
    Senator Carper asked you. He asked you about the Delaware
    filing under the Good Neighbor Petition provisions of the Clean
    Air Act. Maryland also filed a petition back in November 2016.
    EPA did not respond to it until just a few months ago, at which
    time they said they proposed to deny the petition.
        This is an issue that has united all Marylanders,
    Republicans and Democrats alike. All of our members of the
    congressional delegation sent a letter to EPA asking EPA to
    take another look at this. Governor Hogan, a Republican
    Governor, has asked the same thing.
        So, the first ask I would have is the same that Senator
    Carper made of you. Would you commit to meet with our Maryland
    Department of Environment Secretary, Ben Grumbles, to go over
    Maryland's position on the Good Neighbor Petition?
        Mr. Wheeler. I would be happy to meet with Mr. Grumbles. I
    have known him for years and worked with him briefly.
        Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate it.
        The letter we got back from EPA said that there was not
    enough information. I think Ben Grumbles, if you know him, is
    very diligent. I looked at it; he provided a lot of
    information. And that it was too costly, even though what we
    are asking for is plants in these other States to just apply
    already existing technology.
        Do you have any details on why EPA proposed to deny the
    Maryland petition?
        Mr. Wheeler. I don't, and I have not looked at the Maryland
    petition in the 4 weeks that I have been Acting Administrator.
        Senator Van Hollen. I understand. I appreciate your
    willingness to do that and meet with Secretary Grumbles. I
    think it is important because it is simply unfair, and the
    Clean Air Act envisioned this, its amendments envisioned this,
    that some States are doing their job to clean up their air, but
    their air gets polluted by States that are not doing their job.
    So, I hope we can resolve this issue.
        I think you live in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in
    Virginia, is that right?
        Mr. Wheeler. I do, Senator, yes.
        Senator Van Hollen. The Bay agreements over a long period
    of time have been one of the great environmental success
    stories. You always feel like you are running in place with the
    Bay because there is such a drainage basin from so many States
    and so much development. But the good news is, as a result of
    these agreements, and most recently the 2014 agreement, we
    appear to be making progress. Long way to go, but progress.
        The most recent agreement included a provision with respect
    to the TMDL, total maximum daily load. Can you commit that you,
    as the Acting Head of the EPA, will continue to enforce EPA's
    role within that agreement?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. I also want to point out it is
    good news on the Bay. We have a lot of work to do, but just
    over the last 10 years the seagrass in the Bay have gone from
    34,000 acres up to 100,000 acres, and that is one of the first
    indicators of a healthy bay. So, I think we have made a lot of
    progress, and we continue to make progress.
        Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that.
        In the House, our House colleagues attached a provision to
    the environmental appropriations bill, a rider to eliminate
    EPA's enforcement authority under that agreement. I am assuming
    that you would oppose that limitation on your enforcement
    authority, is that right?
        Mr. Wheeler. We would certainly like to keep all the
    enforcement authorities that we can, yes.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
        Now, just last week EPA released a 2016-2017 milestone at
    mid-point progress report on the Bay, and again, as you
    indicated, I indicated, there has been some progress. It did
    note that the State of Pennsylvania is not meeting its targets
    for agriculture and urban-suburban runoff. Actually, as part of
    the Farm Bill I have worked on a bipartisan basis to increase
    the funds available under the Regional Conservation Partnership
    Program, so hoping that will go forward as part of the ag bill.
        But what actions can EPA take? As you know, a lot of the
    pollution in the Bay does come down the Susquehanna River,
    major tributary to the Bay. This has been an ongoing challenge.
    What can EPA do to help all of us improve Pennsylvania's
    performance?
        Mr. Wheeler. We are trying to work more cooperatively with
    all the States in the Chesapeake Bay region. I mentioned to
    Senator Cardin that in my first week as a Deputy Administrator
    I attended the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and next week I will
    be attending the Chesapeake Bay Leadership Council meeting in
    Baltimore, and that will be my first meeting on the Chesapeake
    Bay since I have assumed the duties of Acting Administrator.
        I need to look a little bit more into what we can do to
    work with Pennsylvania, but we are trying to work cooperatively
    with all the States in the Chesapeake Bay.
        Senator Van Hollen. No, I appreciate that, and EPA has
    played a vital role, so I appreciate your commitment there.
        I will say, as your own EPA report indicated, the pollution
    coming down the Susquehanna River from Pennsylvania remains a
    major challenge, so we want to work cooperatively with
    Pennsylvania as well, but we really do need your help. So,
    thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Wheeler, for being here with us today. I
    would first like to take a moment to express my appreciation
    for your emphasis on improving transparency and increasing good
    governance practices at the EPA. From what I have heard in the
    testimony thus far, very cooperative spirit on both sides of
    the aisle to help not just with our national issues, but with
    our State issues as well, and certainly appreciate that.
        As you well know, West Virginia bore the brunt of the last
    8 years of bureaucratic red tape coming out of Washington, a
    lot of it from the EPA. We are climbing out of that. Our
    unemployment rate is near its lowest since 2008; our growth
    rate is tracking the national average, and maybe in some has
    even exceeded the national rate, which is great. And this is in
    anticipation of things that are going on now, the regulatory
    relief that you have been a part of at the EPA, the tax reform
    and infrastructure investments.
        So, we are encouraged by what we see, but we still have a
    labor participation rate that is lower, and we need to use our
    skilled work force deployed in responsible and innovative
    utilization of our natural resources, which we have in
    abundance in my State.
        My first question is on the Clean Power Plan. As you know,
    I think you know, I am sure you know, that Appalachia was
    essentially ignored when the Clean Power Plan first rule was
    proposed. We couldn't get the EPA to come. Subsequently, this
    EPA held its first hearing in West Virginia and heard opinions
    from all sides about the Clean Power Plan.
        I have talked about our growing economy in West Virginia
    and being led by our energy sector. I would like to know from
    you how do you plan to address the failings that were in the
    previous Clean Power Plan? Where are you on this, and do you
    expect your rule will return to an inside the fence approach
    and use technologies that are actually commercially available?
    That was another sticking point, requiring technologies that
    were never commercially viable and touting them as being a
    panacea, I think, which we knew did not really exist.
        Your comments on the Clean Power Plan.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. On my first day as Acting
    Administrator, we sent a new proposal to OMB for interagency
    review for replacement for the Clean Power Plan. The
    difference, I would say, between this approach and the approach
    of the Obama administration is that we are following the four
    corners of the Clean Air Act in what we are proposing.
        The 2015 proposal had the dubious distinction of being the
    first environmental regulation to have a stay issue by the
    Supreme Court, and I believe that was done because it was
    outside of what the law directed us to do. So, we are going to
    follow the law, and hopefully the proposal will be coming out
    for public comment sometime in the next 30 to 60 days.
        Senator Capito. OK. Thank you.
        I want to talk about chemical safety thresholds. I would
    encourage a particular emphasis on the PFOS. This is a chemical
    that has been found in waters particularly in the Parkersburg
    and Martinsburg area of our State. I had previously urged
    transparency with the former Administrator when it came to
    release of the toxicological report that came out that was very
    long and very complicated, so I can't really interpret that for
    you. I am hoping that you will do that as well.
        So, would you agree that the PFOS issue is a serious
    concern and is a high priority within the EPA?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely, it is a serious concern, and it is
    a high priority. It was actually one of the first briefings
    that I requested from the career staff at the Agency when I
    first started as the Deputy Administrator, and it remains a
    priority for me and for the Agency as we move forward.
        Senator Capito. Well, thank you for that. I think that was
    obviously the intent of the law that we all worked on,
    bipartisan, but I am concerned that we still don't have a
    leveling of the appropriate levels both in safety levels either
    in the soil or in the water, and it is causing a lot of concern
    for me as a representative of our State.
        Let me just talk a little bit about coal, because we know
    coal has come back. It has come back to a reasonable level.
    Could you, just in the brief time we have left, say from your
    perspective--I know you have a lot of experience with coal--how
    do you see this in terms of a more robust coal industry and the
    environment, and where you are planning to move with that?
        That is a big question.
        Mr. Wheeler. It is. Let me address it this way. I have
    always believed in an all of the above on energy sources, and I
    don't believe that it is the EPA's job to pick winners or
    losers. It is our responsibility to enact the laws that
    Congress passes. Under my leadership, we will not pick winners
    and losers between the different fuel sources. That is
    something that the market will have to decide. But I think it
    is very important that we don't enact regulations that penalize
    one energy source over another or emphasize one energy source
    over another.
        Last week, I visited a solar panel facility in
    Massachusetts. For the first time, 2 weeks ago; I had never
    been to the Marcellus Shale to see the drilling that is going
    on there.
        We are trying very hard to be straight down the road and
    not pick winners or losers on energy sources. I don't believe
    that is the EPA's responsibility.
        Senator Capito. Thank you very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Markey.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wheeler, since 2010 the new fuel economy emission
    standards have saved consumers more than $63 billion at the
    pump, kept 540 million barrels of oil in the ground, reduced
    carbon pollution by 250 metric tons. Over the lifetime of the
    current fuel economy standards, consumers will save $1 trillion
    on gasoline and will keep 12 billion barrels of oil in the
    ground.
        That is the simple formula for fuel economy, you save
    consumers money, and you save the planet at the same time, and
    that is why big oil is attacking these standards. The oil
    industry is scared to death that the billions of barrels of
    reserves they are currently claiming on their balance sheets to
    the Securities and Exchange Commission will end up as so called
    stranded assets. They are scared to death that $1 trillion will
    stay stranded in the pockets of consumers, and that is why the
    Trump administration is moving to roll back these standards.
        There has been a lot of news recently about a rift between
    President Trump and the Koch brothers. President Trump and the
    Koch brothers might disagree these days on politics, but they
    are always in agreement on petroleum, and that is why this
    rollback of fuel economy standards is really all about
    petroleum. It is oil above all.
        According to a leaked draft of the proposed rule, the Trump
    rollback of fuel economy standards, the No. 1 option that the
    Trump administration is considering is freezing the standards
    at 2020 level, that we don't increase the fuel economy
    standards after 2020.
        Mr. Wheeler, yes or no, do you agree that freezing the fuel
    economy emissions standards at 2020 levels would lead to more
    oil being consumed than if we kept the standards at their
    current trajectory?
        Mr. Wheeler. Senator, I am not sure on that, and I want to
    be on the record as saying that I have not talked to anybody in
    the oil industry or received any information from them.
        Senator Markey. I didn't ask you that question. I asked you
    would more oil be consumed if we froze the standards at 2020.
    That is my question, yes or no.
        Mr. Wheeler. I believe the analysis shows that more oil
    would be consumed.
        Senator Markey. That is correct. Even the Trump
    administration----
        Mr. Wheeler. But it also would save 12,000 lives at $500
    billion.
        Senator Markey. Even the Trump administration's draft
    report acknowledges we will consume 500,000 more barrels of oil
    per day if we freeze these standards.
        And by the way, by 2030 we back out under existing
    standards, if they continued, 2.5 million barrels of oil per
    day being imported into the United States from Saudi Arabia,
    from other OPEC countries. That is the number, 2.5 million
    barrels of oil a day.
        Yes or no, Mr. Wheeler, do you agree that freezing the
    standards at 2020 levels would mean consumers would pay more to
    fill up their gas tanks than under the current standards?
        Mr. Wheeler. That, I do not know. I know that we have $500
    billion in savings to the American consumers under the
    proposal.
        Senator Markey. Well, according to the Union of Concerned
    Scientists, freezing the standards would cost American drivers
    an additional $20 billion alone in 2025 due to higher spending
    on gasoline. That is money that is transferred right out of the
    pockets of consumers into the big oil coffers.
        Yes or no, do you agree that a freeze on increasing the
    fuel economy standards would lead to more climate pollution
    than if we maintained the current standards?
        Mr. Wheeler. I believe our data shows it would be
    negligible between the Obama proposal and our proposal.
        Senator Markey. Well, you are wrong. Freezing the standards
    would mean an additional 2.2 billion metric tons of global
    warming pollution by 2040, equal to 43 coal fired power plants.
        There is a famous line, Mr. Wheeler, in the movie ``All the
    President's Men'': follow the money. When you look at the $1
    trillion that big oil will never receive from American
    consumers and the 12 billion barrels of oil that they will
    never produce under the current standards, it becomes pretty
    clear why big oil would want to attack these standards, and all
    the auto industry has to do is sit back and drive the getaway
    car.
        So, let me just ask you one final question, Mr. Wheeler.
    Administrator Pruitt committed to release the EPA scientific
    report on the carcinogen formaldehyde, but never did so. Will
    you commit to releasing this report?
        Mr. Wheeler. Are you referring to the IRIS report on
    formaldehyde?
        Senator Markey. Yes.
        Mr. Wheeler. I have not been briefed specifically on the
    IRIS formaldehyde report, but I have sat down with our IRIS
    staff, and what I am trying to do is to provide more certainty
    to that process to make sure we know how the different
    assessments will be used in the regulatory programs. It is my
    understanding that we still have a number of steps to complete
    on the formaldehyde assessment.
        Senator Markey. When will you release it?
        Mr. Wheeler. The question that I have to our IRIS staff is
    what is the purpose of the assessment at this point and whether
    or not the data that they have used in the assessment is still
    current, because I know they started that before 2010.
        Senator Markey. Will you commit to releasing that report?
        Mr. Wheeler. I am sure we will release it, but I need to
    make sure that the science in the report is still accurate.
    What I have asked not just for that report, but for everything
    that we are doing on the IRIS program, to make sure that we
    know the purpose of the assessment, because we have a lot of
    chemicals that we should and could be assessing under the IRIS
    program, and I want to make sure that they are being used in a
    regulatory process, because we have other chemicals that need
    to be assessed as well. So that is one of the questions that I
    have asked our program staff.
        Senator Markey. Well, Pruitt committed to releasing it, and
    I hope that you put it at the top of your list. I expect you to
    and get it released so that the public can understand what
    those dangers are. Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler. And Senator, on the different reports that you
    mentioned under the CAFE, we should be going out in the Federal
    Register in the next day or two with the CAFE proposal, and I
    would hope that all those organizations will submit those
    reports for the record.
        Senator Barrasso. We are now into the second vote and about
    halfway through. I wanted to get to the additional.
        Thank you so much for your comments.
        Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Administrator Wheeler, for being here today.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Senator Fischer. Many of my colleagues have already
    discussed this issue, but I would also like to visit with you
    about small refinery exemptions to the RFS.
        As you know, the law allows refineries that produce 75,000
    barrels or less per day to seek an exemption from the RFS for
    the reason of disproportionate economic hardship. The EPA, in
    consultation with Department of Energy, must consider the
    findings from a 2011 DOE study and ``other economic factors''
    when analyzing these requests.
        So, this disproportionate economic hardship is the critical
    factor in determining whether a small refinery is awarded an
    exemption. How is that calculated? That is what is of great
    interest to small refineries, because it could decide whether
    they have to comply with the RFS or whether they get a free
    pass.
        My constituents in Nebraska, and others for whom the RFS is
    a very important item, would be interested in how you interpret
    that process for purposes of making sure that the law is being
    upheld; and for Congress, who wrote the law, understanding how
    you calculate disproportionate economic hardship is vital for
    purposes of making sure that you are carrying out that law as
    we intended. So, for these reasons, I would like to discuss how
    you are doing that analysis.
        It is my understanding that the law does not define
    disproportionate economic hardship. It is also my understanding
    that EPA regulations do not define disproportionate economic
    hardship. By its definition, disproportionate means you are
    comparing the impact on the petitioner to the impact on one or
    more others. Is that correct?
        Mr. Wheeler. I believe that is correct, Senator.
        If I could say, on the small refinery process, we work
    closely with Department of Energy. They do the initial
    analysis, and then we work with them on providing additional
    analysis as well.
        What I have committed to do, and what we are going to do is
    provide more transparency on how we make these decisions. We
    are in the process of developing a dashboard so we can put all
    the information out publicly so people know when we are issuing
    a small refinery waiver and the circumstances around that. We
    have to make sure that we take into account any confidential
    business information of the company applying for the small
    business refinery exemption, but we want to try to be as
    transparent as we can and put all that information, including
    our process, out for the public to see.
        Senator Fischer. Just to confirm, are you saying that the
    EPA compares the high cost of compliance relative to the entire
    refinery industry? So, all you basically have to prove, Mr.
    Administrator, is that you are a small refinery and produce
    less than 75,000 barrels a day, and that is your ticket in the
    door?
        Mr. Wheeler. Senator, if I could respond back to you in
    writing on that, because I want to be very careful because this
    issue is being looked at very carefully----
        Senator Fischer. It is.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Not only by us, by everybody
    else, and I want to make sure that I am giving you the correct
    information. If I could respond back to you in writing, I would
    appreciate that.
        Senator Fischer. I would appreciate it. Thank you, sir.
        What about the disproportionate economic hardship? The
    court, in 2017, said the EPA can't go so far as to require that
    a refinery be at risk of going out of business to exempt them
    from the RFS. But I believe it is equally unacceptable for the
    EPA to merely exempt a refinery because they fit the definition
    of a small refinery. And I would think you would agree that
    there is space between those two options. Would you?
        Mr. Wheeler. I would agree there is space between those two
    options. I think just because a company is a small refinery
    does not mean it should be entitled to a small refinery
    exemption; there are other market and business concerns to go
    into that analysis.
        Senator Fischer. When the Agency awarded those 48 small
    refinery waivers retroactively for 2016 and 2017, I think that
    it effectively established a de facto RIN cap. Do you agree
    with that?
        Mr. Wheeler. A de facto RIN cap? We take that into account,
    we take into account the available RINs as we move forward in
    setting the RVO numbers for the next year, so I am not sure
    that I would say it was a de facto RIN cap, because we do look
    at the RIN numbers available before we set the next RVO, and
    try to factor that into our analysis.
        Senator Fischer. OK. If I could get you questions on this
    pretty complex issue, I would appreciate answers in a timely
    manner.
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Administrator.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Inhofe [presiding]. Having just voted, I assume
    that we have gone all the way through and that you have a
    request, Senator Carper, for one last question.
        Senator Carper. Yes, I do, please.
        Senator Duckworth has not asked her first round. She was
    here, but other people came in ahead of her, so she is going to
    try to get back. Hopefully she does, and if she does, I will
    yield to her. But thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to follow up, if I could, Mr. Wheeler, on your
    previous answer on cross-State pollution. In your answer, you
    may recall you stated that most areas will be in attainment for
    ozone in the early 2020s. So, with that having been said, here
    is my question. EPA has not modeled the effects of all of its
    planned clean air rollbacks on cross-State ozone pollution.
    Given that, can EPA be certain that Delaware, Maryland, New
    Jersey, and all these other States on the East Coast will be in
    attainment? How can EPA be certain that all of us are going to
    be in attainment in 2023, as EPA has claimed it would be,
    because you have not modeled the effects of all its planned
    Clean Air Act rollbacks on cross-State ozone pollution? It
    seems like we are getting ahead of the horse.
        Mr. Wheeler. I can't predict with certainty on that, but
    what I am told by the career staff at the Agency in the Air
    Office is that our analysis shows that most areas of the
    country will be able to reach attainment in the early 2020s.
    There are, of course, factors that could change between now and
    then, but on the current pathway that we are with the emissions
    that we forecast in the different States in the areas of the
    country, we anticipate that most areas of the country will be
    in attainment in the early 2020s.
        Senator Carper. Maybe most areas, but a bunch of the areas
    that are not in attainment now, again, it just seems
    counterintuitive that EPA has not modeled the effects of all of
    its planned clean air rollbacks on cross-State pollution; yet
    EPA feels like Delaware and other States are going to be in
    attainment in 2023. It just doesn't add up. We will be
    following up with questions for the record, and maybe we can
    get some clarification on this. Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Whitehouse, did you want to?
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, I would like to, Mr.
    Chairman.
        I wanted to follow up with Administrator Wheeler on
    something that he said in response to a question to another
    Senator, and it had to do, Mr. Wheeler, with not picking
    winners and losers in the energy industry, and that you would
    treat all energy sources equally.
        If you are presented with a polluting energy source on the
    one hand and a non-polluting energy source on the other, how do
    you treat them equally, when it is EPA's duty to protect
    against pollution?
        Mr. Wheeler. Senator, if one energy source has emissions of
    a criteria pollutant or any of the other pollutants that we
    regulate, we would, of course, regulate the pollutants for that
    industry. I am not suggesting that every single environmental
    law would apply to every single industry, and we would treat it
    across the board. The coal combustion residual would only apply
    to coal fired power plants; we wouldn't apply something like
    that, of course, to solar or wind. My point is that we
    shouldn't be enacting regulations that favor one energy source
    over the other. We will implement all of the laws passed by
    Congress.
        Senator Whitehouse. How would a regulation that protected
    against pollution not advantage a non-polluting energy source
    over a polluting energy source?
        Mr. Wheeler. I believe some of the criticisms of the Obama
    Clean Power Plan, for example, is that it gave preferential
    treatment to some energy sources on the way that they
    calculated emissions. My point in saying that is that it is not
    the EPA's role. We are trying to be very even handed and not
    pick winners and losers between the different energy sources
    and equally promote all of them at the same time.
        Senator Whitehouse. I get that, but I just want to make
    sure that your view of what is preferential among energy
    sources isn't driven by whether or not they are polluters.
    Because if you are not going to prefer, in the sense of putting
    regulatory protections up against polluting versus non-
    polluting sources, we have a problem on our hands.
        Mr. Wheeler. Senator, we are regulating sources that
    pollute, that release, that have emissions.
        Senator Whitehouse. Great. So, if a polluting source has to
    bear a regulatory burden to protect against its pollution, that
    is not what you mean by picking winners and losers.
        Mr. Wheeler. That is not what I mean, no.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
        We were going to come to an abrupt stop after this vote,
    but we are going to make an exception because Senator Duckworth
    wants to be heard, but she will be the last one to ask
    questions, and then we will close the meeting.
        Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very
    generous and quite a gentleman.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you. That is because you
    cosponsored my aviation bill.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Duckworth. Exactly. Exactly. And I just talked to
    the airline pilots this morning, and they are big fans of
    yours.
        Mr. Wheeler, although we don't see eye to eye on most
    environmental issues, I believe that you are making a good
    faith effort to reverse the course at EPA and operate in a
    transparent manner. For example, I support your recent memo
    calling on your colleagues to be open and accessible, and
    committing to leading by example on open Government efforts, so
    I thank you for that. I think this is a critical first step
    toward restoring the public's trust in the EPA.
        Acting Administrator Wheeler, as you know, Congress
    provided you with an incredibly broad authority under the Safe
    Drinking Water Act to hire up to 30 individuals without regard
    to civil service laws. For years, under Republican and
    Democratic administrations, Congress has trusted EPA
    Administrators to responsibly exercise this special hiring
    authority; however, your predecessor violated this trust in
    using the authority to give personal aides lavish pay raises
    after the White House denied such requests.
        To make sure you and future Administrators use this special
    hiring authority in an ethical and transparent manner, Ranking
    Member Carper and I introduced the EPA Special Hiring Authority
    Transparency Act. Our bill simply requires that EPA report to
    Congress whenever it makes an appointment.
        To restore confidence in the use of this authority, will
    you commit to supporting our legislation that will improve
    transparency and make sure this Committee is notified in regard
    to who is being appointed under the special hiring authority
    and why?
        Mr. Wheeler. Senator, I would be happy to work with you on
    your legislation, and I would be happy to provide a list of the
    people that we have hired under that authority as well.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        One area I believe we can work together on, in addition, is
    reducing lead exposure. Lead is a dangerous neurotoxin for
    vulnerable populations like young children, pregnant mothers,
    and the elderly. Exposure to lead can be life threatening.
        Under your predecessor, an interagency task force on lead
    was convened; however, Congress has not been briefed on the
    work of this agency. It is unclear whether the Administration
    fully understands the urgency of this problem and whether they
    are genuinely compelled to address this issue.
        Will you support reporting to Congress on the finding of
    this task force?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator, I will.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        On a similar note, will you commit to releasing all the
    records on the Superfund Task Force?
        Mr. Wheeler. I thought we had already done that, but I will
    certainly look into that and have to get back to you on that.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Wheeler. That predated my time at the Agency.
        Senator Duckworth. OK, thank you.
        And finally, before I close, I want to address a critical
    program, the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standards program, the
    RFS, that has already been discussed at length in this hearing.
        Mr. Wheeler. A few times.
        Senator Duckworth. A few times, yes. Well, we are all out
    there to support our farmers. I am alarmed by this
    Administration's efforts to undermine this program. Even Brett
    Kavanaugh, the nominee to serve on the Supreme Court, has sided
    with the oil industry in several RFS related cases. Mr.
    Kavanaugh went as far as to argue that the oil and food
    industries were palpably and negatively affected by EPA's
    allegedly illegal E15 waiver and had standing to directly
    challenge the E15 waiver in court.
        As you discussed with my colleagues, Senator Ernst and
    Senator Rounds and Senator Fischer, EPA has been undermining
    the RFS on abusing the small refinery exemptions. We need to
    understand how EPA is making decisions on granting these
    exemptions. Will you promise to report to Congress on how these
    decisions are being made, provide public notice on these
    decisions, and bring greater transparency to this work?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. In fact, we are developing a
    dashboard so that the whole public can see what we are doing on
    the issue and when and how we are granting the waivers. We have
    to be careful that there are confidential business information
    claims by some of the refiners when they apply for it, so we
    have to guard that, but we want to make sure that we release as
    much information as we can to be very transparent and let
    everybody know what we are doing and why we are doing it.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I need to stress again that
    ethanol is an American grown, American produced product, as
    opposed to foreign oil that we have sent troops for a decade to
    fight over. I would rather be supporting American farmers
    growing American produce to put in American gas tanks.
        I understand that the EPA may be constrained by law, as you
    have testified, and I look forward to working with my
    colleagues, Senators Rounds and Ernst, on a legislative fix,
    and I very much thank you for being here, and I certainly
    enjoyed our discussion, and I very much appreciate the return
    to transparency that you are pledging to bring to the EPA.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. I appreciate
    you being here very much.
        I have two unanimous consent requests to get into the
    record. There will be no other questioners.
        First of all, I would note that, last week, 21 Senators
    sent a letter to EPA opposing the reallocation of small
    refinery obligations to other refineries under the RFS, and I
    ask unanimous consent that this letter be made a part of the
    record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Second, I have a chart I think is
    important. I understand while I was down voting that something
    came up, some complaints were there in terms of responses, and
    I want to just compliment you and the EPA for the way you have
    done that.
        The chart is just one example of the huge increase in
    correspondence EPA has seen over the last Administration. For
    the Administrator's office, it is over 400 percent increase in
    fiscal year 2017 over the previous two fiscal years. Again, it
    is just for the Administrator's office; it does not include
    other programs like air, water, land, general counsel, research
    and development, chemicals, and all that.
        In total, the EPA has so far responded to 84 percent of the
    inquiries elected offices have sent in. That is Federal, State,
    and local. EPA has responded to 81 percent of the minority
    members' oversight letters, 65.5 percent of all their
    inquiries, and it is not done doing so. 23,430 pages of
    documents have been delivered to the minority members. I don't
    know whether minority has had time to read all of these; I
    suggest probably they haven't.
        It doesn't sound like an agency that is ignoring anyone.
        I want to commend you and get this on the record so that
    people are aware of the great job that we are doing with the
    EPA. All right?
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Inhofe. You are very welcome.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. If there are no more questions for today,
    members may also submit follow up questions for the record. The
    hearing record will be open for 2 weeks.
        I want to thank the witnesses for their time and testimony
    today, and we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]