    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AT THE
                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 19, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-46

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    37-664 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois                Ranking Member
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             MO BROOKS, Alabama
    AMI BERA, California,                BILL POSEY, Florida
        Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan              ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
    KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma                RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               PETE OLSON, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 JIM BAIRD, Indiana
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                   Rico
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                VACANCY
    KATIE HILL, California
    BEN McADAMS, Utah
    JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                               September 19, 2019

                                                                       Page
    Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    14
        Written statement............................................    15

    Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    16
        Written statement............................................    18

                                    Witness:

    The Honorable Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental
      Protection Agency
        Oral Statement...............................................    19
        Written Statement............................................    22

    Discussion.......................................................    26

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    The Honorable Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental
      Protection Agency..............................................    68

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Article submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   116

    Article submitted by Representative Brian Babin, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   119

    Letter submitted by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   122

    Documents submitted by Representative Sean Casten, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   124

    Study submitted by Representative Sean Casten, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   126

    Additional material submitted by The Honorable Andrew Wheeler,
      Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.................   137

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AT THE
                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
    room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie
    Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. This hearing will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
    at any time.
        Good morning. The Administrator's staff has informed us
    that he must leave this hearing at noon, leaving less than 2
    hours for Member questions. So in order to afford more Members
    the opportunity to engage with the Administrator, I've asked
    that each Member be limited to a total of 4 minutes to ask
    questions. Without objection, so ordered.
        I want to note for the record that we received
    Administrator Wheeler's testimony less than 24 hours before the
    start of the hearing. We did give sufficient notice for this
    hearing, and it is important for Members and staff to be able
    to review testimony prior to the hearing to properly prepare.
    We expect that in the future hearings we'll receive the EPA's
    testimony at least 48 hours in advance.
        I'd like to welcome our Administrator--good morning, Mr.
    Wheeler--to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for
    the first time. The Members of this Committee look forward to
    your testimony today and as we all understand and value the
    important role the EPA plays in the health, safety, and
    prosperity in our communities.
        I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that
    our constituents also understand the importance of a strong
    EPA, and they are paying attention to the decisions being made
    here in Washington. They reach out to us when they hear about
    the dismantling of clean air standards because they are
    concerned that it could exacerbate their children's asthma.
    They reach out to us when EPA's own IRIS (Integrated Risk
    Information System) assessments show that chemicals being
    released from nearby facilities could pose serious health risks
    to their families. They reach out to us because Congress has a
    responsibility to the American public to protect their best
    interests through dedicated oversight of the Federal agencies
    that are supposed to be protecting our health and safety.
        This Administration has shown that its priorities do not
    lie with the average American. Draconian cuts in the
    President's budget requests have sought to cut funding for
    EPA's research and development (R&D) nearly in half. The
    research that EPA funds has been vital to the development of
    its landmark public health protections.
        The research conducted and supported by EPA is not
    replicated by any other local, State, or Federal agency.
    Cutting this critical research to the levels proposed by this
    Administration would be an insurmountable loss to environmental
    science and public health. It is profoundly disturbing to see
    the actions this EPA has taken to dismantle many of its own
    standards and regulations that were established primarily to
    protect public health.
        This Administration's push to deregulate seems to be led by
    political ideologies, with limited input from scientific
    experts. Remarkably, sometimes this Administration's zeal to
    roll back public health protection even exceeds the desires of
    industry.
        Many Members of the regulated community have come out in
    opposition to EPA's recent actions to roll back regulations on
    glider trucks, methane emissions from the oil and gas industry,
    and EPA's unprecedented and ill-advised revocation of
    California's authority to set its own clean car standards.
        Since the establishment of the EPA nearly 50 years ago,
    this country has shown that we can protect everyone, from our
    most vulnerable populations to our most healthy, without
    sacrificing economic growth. But it is naive to think that
    because the EPA has been so successful in accomplishing its
    mission over the past decades that we can now roll back
    regulations in order to benefit industry and expect no negative
    impacts on public health.
        Environmental protection is an ongoing process. It requires
    the persistence that is exemplified by the dedicated scientists
    and engineers who work at EPA. These committed public servants
    have the full support of the American people. But they need
    your full support, Mr. Administrator, as well as full support
    of Congress, to help them continue to carry out the Agency's
    mission. Let me be clear, gutting the roles of science in EPA's
    regulatory and decisionmaking processes will not make our air
    safer to breath or our water safer to drink.
        As the congressional Committee with jurisdiction over
    research and development activities at EPA, my colleagues and I
    take our oversight role very seriously. We have attempted to
    engage with you and your staff on a number of occasions and
    issues that directly impact public health. We are still waiting
    for adequate responses from the Agency on many of these
    inquiries. Simply stating the total number of pages of
    documents provided to the Committee does not address whether
    they are responsive to the requests.
        I hope this will not be the only time that we can see you
    before the Committee, and today marks the start of an open
    dialog between our Members and yourself. We look forward to
    working together with you to ensure that the best interests of
    the American public are at the heart of EPA's actions and that
    those actions are informed by the high-caliber science that
    distinguishes EPA on the world stage.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

        Good morning. I would like to welcome Administrator Wheeler
    to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for the
    first time. The Members of this Committee look forward to your
    testimony today as we all understand and value the important
    role the EPA plays in the health, safety, and prosperity of our
    communities.
        I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that
    our constituents also understand the importance of a strong
    EPA, and they are paying attention to the decisions being made
    here in Washington. They reach out to us when they hear about
    the dismantling of clean air standards, because they are
    concerned it could exacerbate their children's asthma. They
    reach out to us when EPA's own IRIS assessments show that
    chemicals being released from nearby facilities could pose
    serious health risks to their families.
        They reach out to us because Congress has a responsibility
    to the American public to protect their best interests through
    dedicated oversight of the Federal agencies that are supposed
    to be protecting their health and safety.
        This Administration has shown that its priorities do not
    lie with the average American. Draconian cuts in the
    President's budget requests have sought to cut funding for
    EPA's research and development nearly in half. The research
    that EPA funds has been vital to the development of its
    landmark public health protections. The research conducted and
    supported by the EPA is not replicated by any other local,
    state, or federal agency. Cutting this critical research to the
    levels proposed by this Administration would be an
    insurmountable loss to environmental science and public health.
        It is profoundly disturbing to see the actions this EPA has
    taken to dismantle many of its own standards and regulations
    that were established primarily to protect public health. This
    Administration's push to deregulate seems to be led by
    political ideologues, with limited input from scientific
    experts. Remarkably, sometimes this Administration's zeal to
    roll back public health protections even exceeds the desires of
    industry. Many members of the regulated community have come out
    in opposition to EPA's recent actions to roll back regulations
    on glider trucks, methane emissions from the oil and gas
    industry, and EPA's unprecedented and ill advised revocation of
    California's authority to set its own clean car standards.
        Since the establishment of the EPA nearly 50 years ago,
    this country has shown that we can protect everyone, from our
    most vulnerable populations to our most healthy, without
    sacrificing economic growth. But it is naive to think that
    because the EPA has been so successful in accomplishing its
    mission over the past decades that we can now roll back
    regulations in order to benefit industry and expect no negative
    impacts to public health.
        Environmental protection is an ongoing process. It requires
    the persistence that is exemplified by the dedicated scientists
    and engineers who work at the EPA. These committed public
    servants have the full support of the American people. But they
    need your full support, Mr. Administrator, as well as the full
    support of Congress, to help them continue to carry out the
    Agency's mission.
        Let me be clear, gutting the role of science in EPA's
    regulatory and decision-making processes will not make our air
    safer to breath, or our water safer to drink.
        As the Congressional Committee with jurisdiction over
    research and development activities at EPA, my colleagues and I
    take our oversight role very seriously. We have attempted to
    engage with you and your staff, Mr. Administrator, on a number
    of issues that directly impact public health. We are still
    waiting for adequate responses from the Agency on many of these
    inquiries. Simply stating the total number of pages of
    documents provided to the Committee does not address whether
    they are responsive to our requests.
        I hope this will not be the only time we see you before
    this Committee, and that today marks the start of an open
    dialogue between our Members and yourself. We look forward to
    working together with you to ensure that the best interests of
    the American public are at the heart of the EPA's actions, and
    that those actions are informed by the high-caliber science
    that distinguishes EPA on the world stage.

        Chairwoman Johnson. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking
    Member, Mr. Lucas, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. And thank you,
    Administrator Wheeler, for being here today to discuss the
    EPA's Fiscal Year 2020 budget request.
        The EPA is charged with the broad and vital mission of
    protecting our Nation's air, land, and water. From hazardous
    waste clean-up to protecting human health to setting clean air
    and water standards, the EPA's work affects every American.
        While much of the EPA's regulatory mission falls under the
    jurisdiction of other congressional Committees, the Committee
    on Science, Space, and Technology oversees the EPA's work on
    environmental research and development. This R&D is critical to
    providing sound science needed for the EPA to effectively carry
    out their mission to protect our environment. I'm looking
    forward to a discussion about the role science and technology
    play in the Agency's mission, and I'd like to encourage my
    colleagues to focus on the important jurisdiction when
    questioning the Administrator.
        In my many years on both the Ag and Science Committees,
    every discussion of the EPA included talk of overregulation. In
    the past, it seemed like instead of protecting the environment,
    the EPA was more focused on pursuing a political agenda that
    led to an expansive, and, I might add, expensive regulatory
    burdens.
        Fortunately, this is no longer the case. Under the
    leadership of Administrator Wheeler, the EPA has shifted from
    top-down, one-size-fits-all regulations to a flexible,
    technology-driven approach that works with local communities to
    protect our environment and maintain economic growth. I'm
    confident that under the leadership of Administrator Wheeler,
    America will remain the gold standard of environmental
    protection around the world. And by leveraging new
    technologies, we can protect our environment without imposing
    sweeping government mandates.
        As the Ranking Member of the Science Committee, I may be
    biased, but I believe that technology should be the cornerstone
    of our efforts to reduce global emissions and address our
    environmental challenges. American industry is already making
    great strides by investing in technologies like carbon capture,
    advanced nuclear, and energy storage. EPA should encourage the
    adoption of innovative ways to monitor and reduce emissions,
    while allowing us to use all of our natural resources safely
    and effectively.
        This is the kind of approach that has helped significantly
    improve air quality in the United States. According to the
    EPA's most recent air trends report, the number of unhealthy
    air days, along with the emissions of key air pollutants, have
    declined since 2000. Our fine particulate matter levels are 5-
    times lower than the global average. And we've made progress
    while growing our economy.
        Under the Trump Administration, I've been pleased to see
    the EPA focus on using sound, transparent science to develop
    environmental solutions that will bring all the stakeholders to
    the table. If we want our policies to be successful, they need
    to be based on the best available science and also be
    achievable without damaging our economy. I believe the
    Administration is working hard on both.
        I also want to take a moment and applaud Administrator
    Wheeler for finalizing the first step to repeal the Obama
    Administration's WOTUS (Waters of the United States) rule this
    week. This rule is exactly the wrong way to protect the
    environment, a Federal Government power grab that made it
    harder for farmers, ranchers, and landowners to do business. By
    returning to limited regulatory authority established under the
    Clean Water Act, the EPA has taken a balanced approach that
    both supports our environment and our economy.
        But don't let anyone fool you. Rolling back this regulation
    had nothing to do with ignoring the science, and it won't lead
    to more pollution in our waterways. In fact, the Trump
    Administration has prioritized efforts to improve water quality
    by investing in water infrastructure.
        Although the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
    Act loan program and the State Revolving Funds program, the EPA
    has helped local communities modernize outdated infrastructure
    and improve water quality. This investment will improve the
    health and safety of our Nations' waterways and create jobs.
        I'm sure that we'll hear criticisms of the EPA today. I
    hope that instead of falsely attacking the Agency as anti-
    science, or focusing on Administrator Wheeler's predecessor, we
    can make this a productive hearing where we honestly assess the
    work being done to protect the environment. I believe the EPA
    is on the right track and is working to find a science-based,
    collaborative approach to ensure all Americans and future
    generations can enjoy a cleaner, safer, healthier environment.
        I want to thank Administrator Wheeler again for his hard
    work, along with all of the staff at the EPA, and I look
    forward to hearing his testimony this morning.
        And I yield back, Madam Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

        Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and thank you Administrator
    Wheeler for being here today to discuss the EPA's fiscal year
    2020 budget request.
        The EPA is charged with the broad and vital mission of
    protecting our nation's air, land, and water. From hazardous
    waste clean-up to protecting human health to setting clean air
    and water standards, the EPA's work affects every American.
        While much of the EPA's regulatory mission falls under the
    jurisdiction of other Congressional Committees, the Committee
    on Science, Space, and Technology oversees the EPA's work on
    environmental research and development. This R&D is critical to
    providing the sound science needed for the EPA to effectively
    carry out their mission to protect our environment.
        I'm looking forward to a discussion about the role science
    and technology play in the agency's mission, and I'd like to
    encourage my colleagues to focus on this important jurisdiction
    when questioning the Administrator.
        In my years on both the Agriculture and Science Committees,
    every discussion of the EPA included talk of overregulation. In
    the past, it seemed like instead of protecting the environment,
    the EPA was more focused on pursuing a political agenda that
    led to expansive, and might I add expensive, regulatory
    burdens.
        Fortunately, that is no longer the case. Under the
    leadership of Administrator Wheeler, the EPA has shifted from
    top-down, one-size-fits-all regulations, to a flexible,
    technology-driven approach that works with local communities to
    protect our environment and maintain economic growth.
        I'm confident that under the leadership of Administrator
    Wheeler, America will remain the gold standard of environmental
    protection around the world. And by leveraging new
    technologies, we can protect our environment without imposing
    sweeping government mandates.
        As the Ranking Member of the Science Committee, I may be
    biased - but I believe that technology should be the
    cornerstone of our efforts to reduce global emissions and
    address our environmental challenges. American industry is
    already making great strides by investing in technologies like
    carbon capture, advanced nuclear, and energy storage.
        EPA should encourage the adoption of innovative ways to
    monitor and reduce emissions, while allowing us to use all of
    our natural resources safely and effectively.
        That is the kind of approach that has helped significantly
    improve air quality in the United States. According to the
    EPA's most recent air trends report, the number of unhealthy
    air days, along with the emissions of key air pollutants, have
    declined since 2000. Our fine particulate matter levels are
    five times lower than the global average. And we've made that
    progress while growing our economy.
        Under the Trump Administration, I've been pleased to see
    the EPA focus on using sound, transparent science to develop
    environmental solutions that bring all the stakeholders to the
    table. If we want our policies to be successful, they need to
    be based on the best available science - and also be achievable
    without damaging our economy. I believe this Administration is
    working hard to do both.
        I also want to take a moment and applaud Administrator
    Wheeler for finalizing the first step to repeal the Obama
    Administration's WOTUS rule this week. This rule was exactly
    the wrong way to protect the environment - a federal government
    power grab that made it harder for farmers, ranchers, and
    landowners to do business.
        By returning to limited regulatory authority established
    under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has taken a balanced
    approach that supports both our environment and the economy.
        But don't let anyone fool you. Rolling back this regulation
    had nothing to do with ignoring the science, and it won't lead
    to more pollution in our waterways. In fact, the Trump
    Administration has prioritized efforts to improve water quality
    by investing in water infrastructure.
        Through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
    loan program and State Revolving Funds program, the EPA has
    helped local communities modernize outdated infrastructure and
    improve water quality. This investment will improve the health
    and safety of our nations' waterways and create jobs.
        I'm sure that we will hear criticisms of the EPA today. I
    hope that instead of falsely attacking the Agency as anti-
    science, or focusing on Administrator Wheeler's predecessor, we
    can make this a productive hearing where we honestly assess the
    work being done to protect our environment. I believe the EPA
    is on the right track, and is working to find a science-based,
    collaborative approach to ensure all Americans and future
    generations can enjoy a cleaner, safer, and healthier
    environment.
        I want to thank Administrator Wheeler again for his hard
    work, along with all the staff at the EPA, and look forward to
    hearing his testimony this morning.

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
        If there are other Members who wish to submit additional
    opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
    at this point.
        Before we open, I want to welcome the Moms Clean Air Force
    in the audience in red T-shirts--parents united against air
    pollution. Thank you for coming.
        At this time I'd like to introduce our witness. The
    Honorable Andrew Wheeler currently serves as the 15th
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr.
    Wheeler has spent his career working on environmental topics,
    started his career as a Special Assistant to the EPA's
    Pollution Prevention and Toxics Office under the H.W. Bush
    Administration. He spent 12 years on the Senate Committee of
    Environmental Public Works serving 6 of those years as Chief
    Counsel and Minority and Majority Staff Director.
        In 2009, Mr. Wheeler shifted to private-sector work and was
    a principal and team leader of the Energy and Environment
    Practice Group, as well as co-chair of the Energy and Natural
    Resources Group at Faegre Baker Daniels consulting. He was
    nominated to serve as the Deputy Administrator of the EPA in
    October 2017 and was confirmed as Administrator in February
    2019.
        He earned his law degree at Washington University in St.
    Louis and his MBA at George Mason University. He is also an
    Eagle Scout.
        Administrator Wheeler, you will have 5 minutes for your
    spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included in
    the record for the hearing. When you have completed your spoken
    testimony, we will begin a round of questions. Each Member will
    have 4 minutes to question the panel. Welcome, and you may
    begin your testimony.

               TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ANDREW WHEELER,

             ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Mr. Wheeler. Good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman
    Johnson, for the introduction. And I do agree. I hope today's
    hearing is the start of a good, open dialog with the Committee
    between myself and the Committee and my staff. Thank you very
    much. Good morning, Ranking Member Lucas and Members of the
    Committee.
        The Environmental Protection Agency is one of the world's
    leading research organizations. Every day, our scientists and
    researchers develop information and technology that are
    critical to protecting human health and the environment. Since
    I've taken the lead at EPA, I visited five of our research
    facilities and the Lake Guardian, our largest research vessel
    located on the Great Lakes.
        I am regularly briefed by agency scientists, and I rely on
    their work and expertise. I'm always impressed with the rigor,
    integrity, and dedication of our career scientists and staff.
    I'm here today to discuss the ways that we are supporting and
    advancing their efforts.
        We are promoting science at the Agency more than it has
    been in years. And these efforts are leading to groundbreaking
    advancements in environmental science. Earlier this week, for
    example, we announced approximately $6 million in new funding
    to eight leading research organizations to advance our
    understanding of PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).
    This is just one of the many ways that we are delivering on our
    PFAS action plan, the most comprehensive, multimedia research
    and risk communication plan to address a chemical of concern
    ever issued by the EPA.
        Our scientists, working in concert with the Department of
    Defense, are providing the research and technology to support
    the action plan. They're developing methods to detect and
    quantify PFAS in the air, water, and soil. They are evaluating
    methods to treat or remove PFAS from drinking water. They
    developed a draft toxicity assessment for GenX and PFBS, and
    they are working to understand the potential toxicity for the
    many other PFAS and their potential degradation products. EPA
    is one of the few places in the world where this type of
    cutting-edge science is being conducted day in and day out.
        We're also leading the way on research for reducing
    childhood lead exposure. Our scientists are identifying high-
    risk areas and providing technical assistance for reducing lead
    in drinking water and at contaminated sites. Their modeling
    efforts and research activities are directly impacting major
    regulatory decisions such as our forthcoming proposal to update
    the lead and copper rule, the first major update in over 2
    decades. And the same outstanding researchers who provided
    vital information to help Flint, Michigan, are now working with
    State and local officials in Newark, New Jersey, on their
    efforts to ensure safe drinking water for the city's residents.
        To support our scientists and researchers, we are
    continuing looking for ways to make the Agency more effective
    and more responsive. That is why we are restructuring the
    Office of Research and Development (ORD). We've briefed many of
    you and your staff on this reorganization, but I'd like to
    reiterate that it will help ORD better address the increasingly
    complex environmental challenges of the 21st century. It will
    not result in the loss of jobs. It does not change any of the
    important work ORD is tasked with, only how we manage those
    functions. And I'd like to remind you that this effort was led
    by EPA career staff. We plan to have the reorganization in
    place by October 1.
        Earlier this month, we took another step in modernizing the
    Agency by committing to aggressively reduce animal testing.
    This issue is very important to me personally. Advances in
    computer modeling and in-vitro testing are surpassing animal
    testing, and we need to keep pace. I issued a memo that commits
    the Agency to important goals such as reducing mammal study
    requests and funding by 30 percent by 2025 and then eliminating
    all requests and funding by 2035. Any request for funding after
    2035 will require the Administrator's approval on a case-by-
    case basis.
        We also announced $4.25 million in funding to five research
    universities to advance the development of alternative test
    methods for evaluating the safety of chemicals that will
    minimize and hopefully eliminate the need for animal testing.
        Finally, we are committed to the highest-quality science.
    Good science is science that can be replicated and
    independently validated, science that holds up to scrutiny.
    That is why we're moving forward to ensure that the science
    supporting Agency decisions is transparent and available for
    evaluation by the public and stakeholders. I cut my teeth as a
    career employee at the Agency working on the Community Right-
    to-Know Act. I fundamentally believe the more information we
    provide to the public the better our regulations will be and
    the more they will trust our decisions. At the same time, we
    will ensure that we're not disclosing confidential or personal
    information. Other agencies already do that, and we can do the
    same. Our proposed rule will apply prospectively to final
    significant regulatory actions, and we intend to issue a
    supplemental proposed rule to our science transparency
    regulation early next year.
        I'm very proud of the science we do at the Agency. As you
    all heard at a recent hearing, EPA has one of the strongest
    scientific integrity policies in the Federal Government. The
    GAO (Government Accountability Office) report recently examined
    our policies and those of nine other agencies, and we are the
    only agency that received no recommendations to correct
    deficiencies. That is a testament to the tremendous work of the
    EPA career staff. I will continue to support them in their
    work, and we will ensure that the EPA of the 21st century
    remains a global leader in science and research. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler.
        I'd like to ask now unanimous consent that Representative
    Axne be allowed to join us on the dais. And then further, I'd
    like to acknowledge and recognize Mr. Tonko for the first round
    of questions since he has to leave. Mr. Tonko.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
    your flexibility. And welcome, Mr. Administrator.
        EPA established its Scientific Integrity Policy in 2012 in
    order to formalize the Agency's approach to honesty,
    communication, professional development, and expert engagement
    on scientific issues. As you likely know, the Government
    Accountability Office's review of scientific integrity policies
    at several Federal agencies highlighted the EPA's robust
    scientific integrity policies. I would like to congratulate the
    EPA for its impressive Scientific Integrity Policy,
    particularly as I worked to pass the Scientific Integrity Act,
    which would codify, standardize, and strengthen scientific
    integrity policies across our Federal agencies.
        I just heard your closing statement, but I want to ask
    again. Until we can codify this requirement, can I expect your
    continued support for your Agency's robust scientific integrity
    policies?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, absolutely.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir. And chlorpyrifos is a pesticide
    that causes severe short- and long-term health impacts.
    Agricultural workers have collapsed from exposure, nauseated
    and convulsing. Particularly horrifying are the impacts of
    chlorpyrifos on developing fetuses and young children. When EPA
    proposed in 2015 to ban the chemical, it cited studies showing
    that at 3 years old the likelihood of highly exposed children
    developing mental delays were significantly greater than those
    with lower prenatal exposure. But just this past July, EPA
    announced it would allow chlorpyrifos back on the market.
        I have a series of questions that I would ask you respond
    to in yes or no fashion. In rolling back EPA's recommended ban
    on chlorpyrifos, did the Agency consider its own findings about
    the severe health and developmental consequences for children
    and workers exposed to this pesticide, sir? Yes or no?
        Mr. Wheeler. Our career staff looked aggressively at the
    science that we had in making the decision----
        Mr. Tonko. That's yes. EPA previously stated that the
    Agency's assessment contained sufficient evidence to conclude
    that negative neurodevelopmental effects from chlorpyrifos
    occur at exposure levels below the currently permitted level.
    Are you aware of the--yes or no--of the findings in this report
    the EPA's revised human health risk assessment?
        Mr. Wheeler. I'm aware of those, but we are currently
    reviewing----
        Mr. Tonko. So----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. The pesticide----
        Mr. Tonko. OK.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. And we're----
        Mr. Tonko. That's a yes.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. On track to review it by 2022.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Did EPA base its decision to allow
    industrial use of chlorpyrifos on new, unrevealed scientific
    evidence that contradicted or discredited the Agency's 2015
    analysis? Yes or no?
        Mr. Wheeler. I would have to get back to you on that
    because I want to make sure I don't misstate on the science
    that the career scientists used for that decision.
        Mr. Tonko. Please do so in rapid fashion. Did this
    specifically include the evidence of chlorpyrifos impairing the
    brain development of children and fetuses? Yes or no?
        Mr. Wheeler. I can't comment on the specific studies of--
    the career scientists used for their determination. I wouldn't
    want to--I don't want to misspeak----
        Mr. Tonko. Well, these are important----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. On behalf of the scientists.
        Mr. Tonko. They're important----
        Mr. Wheeler. I understand that.
        Mr. Tonko [continuing]. Questions, so----
        Mr. Wheeler. I take the recommendations from my career
    scientists on chlorpyrifos. They recommended that we continue
    with it----
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. While they undergo the longer
    review----
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir. I just want to use my time here.
    In 2017, your predecessor Scott Pruitt announced that EPA would
    delay the 2015 proposed ban on chlorpyrifos citing regulatory
    certainty for industry as his reason. Mr. Wheeler, can you
    remind me the stated mission of EPA?
        Mr. Wheeler. Our mission is to protect public health and
    the environment.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir. Is there anywhere the Federal
    Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, where
    regulatory certainty for industry is named as an evaluation
    criteria for EPA's decisionmaking?
        Mr. Wheeler. We try to provide regulatory certainty for
    everything that we do, certainty for the American public,
    certainty for the community----
        Mr. Tonko. So is that a yes or no?
        Mr. Wheeler. Nothing specifically in that statue, but we
    try to provide regulatory certainty for all of our decisions,
    and we try to make all of our decisions open and transparent
    for everybody to see what scientists----
        Mr. Tonko. So I'm assuming----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Are basing their decisions on.
        Mr. Tonko [continuing]. That's a no?
        Mr. Wheeler. I'd have to go back to remember what the--
    your--the wording of your exact question.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, is there anything within FIFRA where
    regulatory certainty for industry is named as an evaluation
    criteria?
        Mr. Wheeler. Not that I'm aware of, no.
        Mr. Tonko. So it's a no.
        With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Lucas.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. I expect the theme of
    this hearing to be climate change with particular criticism
    aimed at the President's decision to withdraw from the Paris
    climate accord. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    seem to believe that without international agreements,
    burdensome regulations, or trillions of dollars spent on the
    Green New Deal it's impossible to protect the environment. But
    as I said in my opening statement, data tells us another story.
    The United States is a leader in reducing emissions, yet we
    remain one of the largest economies in the world.
        Administrator Wheeler, can you provide the Committee with
    the progress the EPA has made to date in cleaning up air,
    water, and land and what steps you plan to take to keep America
    as the gold standard of environmental protection around the
    world?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. We are the gold standard.
    Everybody else in the world looks to us. We--the EPA measures
    six criteria air pollutants. We've done that since 1970. Those
    six criteria air pollutants have been reduced 74 percent since
    1970. Our air is 74 percent cleaner. All six of the criteria
    air pollutants have been reduced during the Trump
    Administration. In 1970 again at that time on the water side,
    40 percent of our water sources did not meet EPA's standards on
    a day-to-day basis. Today, over 90 percent of our water supply
    meets the EPA's standards every single day. That doesn't mean
    to say that the remaining don't meet the standards, but they
    occasionally may have a blip because of a contaminant. But we
    work with the States and local governments to make sure that
    those are very small, short-lasting, and that we get back to
    having clean, safe drinking water for everyone across the
    country.
        Mr. Lucas. Administrator, do believe that we need a heavy-
    handed, top-down approach to environmental regulation, or,
    based on the EPA's analysis, can a more flexible State-led
    program be just as effective in the long run?
        Mr. Wheeler. It can be. And we are working more
    cooperatively with the States than the previous Administration.
    At the--the Obama Administration on the air side issued 10
    times as many Federal implementation plans instead of State
    implementation plans as the three Administrations previous
    combined. We have been turning those FIPs (Federal
    Implementation Plans) into SIPs (State Implementation Plans) on
    the average of one per month. We also inherited 700 SIP
    backlog. We've already reduced that backlog by 400. So we are
    working cooperatively with the States to make sure that they
    are protecting the environment of their residents.
        Mr. Lucas. Administrator, what about incorporating new
    technology? I've heard from my constituents that it can be
    difficult to demonstrate new technologies for emissions control
    or monitoring to meet regulatory standards. Have you considered
    new ways to encourage the adoption of innovative technology
    solutions in your regulatory approach?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, and that's part of what we base for our
    decision on methane. We want to make sure that we're not
    stifling technological developments in that industry. Our--on
    natural gas--methane is natural gas. Natural gas has doubled in
    production since 1990. At the same time, the industry has
    reduced their methane emissions 15 percent. We want to make
    sure that we don't go forward with a regulation that is going
    to stifle innovative technologies that are capturing the
    methane emissions and making sure that we don't have those
    emissions.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Administrator. I yield back the
    balance of my time, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. Mr. Wheeler, in June you wrote to
    Congress that Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources
    Board (CARB) was not negotiating in good faith with the EPA to
    reach a compromise on vehicle fuel emission and tailpipe
    standards and that she was lying when she told Members of
    Congress in the Energy and Commerce Committee that she had made
    a sincere counterproposal. But it's my understanding that the
    counteroffer that the CARB made is essentially the voluntary
    agreement that was reached with the automakers earlier this
    year announced on July 25. So it sounds to me like Ms. Nichols
    was telling the truth to the Energy and Commerce Committee.
        And I would like to ask unanimous consent, Madam
    Chairperson, to put into the record an article from the L.A.
    Times about this issue.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Without objection.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Wheeler, would you be willing to share the
    briefing materials prepared by EPA staff that analyzed
    California's offer to EPA? Would you be willing to share that
    with this Committee?
        Mr. Wheeler. I'd have to--I'll certainly share what we can
    with the Committee. There may be deliberative documents
    involved in that. But I want to just make sure you understand
    that the offer that Mary Nichols gave us last fall, she said at
    the time that--although she was put it on the table, she said
    that the outgoing Governor did not sign off on it, the incoming
    Governor didn't sign off on it, the Attorney General who
    already threatened to sue us didn't sign off on it----
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, we are going to sue you.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Members of her board did not--
    members of her board hadn't signed off on it. And she also said
    that----
        Ms. Lofgren. If I may, my time is limited because----
        Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
        Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. What she offered is the deal they
    basically made with the auto. And the same day that they did
    that, the Department of Transportation indicated that the
    Administration did not prevent manufacturers from building more
    efficient vehicles on a voluntary basis if they wanted to. So I
    think the threats that are being made by the Administration are
    really contradicted by the Department of Transportation's
    comment at that time.
        I'd like to also note that Senator Feinstein has sent a
    letter to the Attorney General pointing out that the--I really
    think it's an abuse of power on the part of the Department of
    Justice to try and threaten automakers who are reaching an
    agreement with the State I represent to deter other automakers
    from entering the same deal, but they're not disagreeing that--
    with the other deals that are being made, for example, rear
    seat reminder systems that are being made. And that's not being
    challenged as an antitrust violation.
        So I just wanted to express my concern not only about the
    decision being--that was made here. I mean, California had more
    than 100 waivers in the last 50 years by both Democratic and
    Republican Presidents and--to achieve a standard that has made
    automobiles 99 percent cleaner than they would have been
    otherwise.
        The lawsuit that is going to be engaged in is going to--
    you've created chaos here because the automakers are not going
    to know what to do. This is going to be tied up in court for
    the foreseeable future. And I would hope that you would take a
    look at the chaos that has been created for clean air but also
    in the auto industry by the actions that have been taken that
    are really unprecedented in the history of the Clean Air Act.
        And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Wheeler. It's important to remember that we're doing
    nothing to take away California's ability to set health-based
    standards for automobiles, only energy efficiency.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Weber.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Administrator Wheeler, I'm extremely interested in that
    last exchange regarding Mary Nichols. You were enumerating
    everybody that basically hadn't signed off. Would you go back
    through that list again and explain why that was?
        Mr. Wheeler. Certainly. What she put on the table was
    basically the Obama plan spaced out over one additional year.
    And she said that--although she's put it on the table for us,
    that the outgoing Governor--and this is right around the
    election last year in California. The outgoing Governor had not
    signed off on it, the incoming Governor hadn't signed off on
    it, the Attorney General, who already said he was suing us, had
    not signed off on the deal. And she is the Executive Director
    of CARB. She said that the board members of CARB had not signed
    off on it. So, you know, it really wasn't a deal. It really
    wasn't an offer that she could stand behind or that she had any
    authority apparently to make to us.
        I'd also point out that the deal that the Congresswoman
    mentioned with the four automakers, we haven't seen the
    specifics of that deal. Nothing has been released to the
    public, so I don't know if it's the same as what the CARB
    executive director put on the table last fall. I don't know if
    it's the same deal or not.
        Mr. Weber. So you would say that's a pretty good example of
    not negotiating in good faith?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I would.
        Mr. Weber. I would agree with that.
        I want to segue and ask Administrator Wheeler, are the
    comprehensive regulatory reforms that you personally are
    undertaking at the EPA, which we appreciate, including policies
    such as the Affordable Clean Energy rule, Safer Affordable
    Vehicles rule, and Waters of the United States, WOTUS rule, are
    they driven by any change of any views on air and water
    science? Or are they instead driven by an effort to restore the
    statutory authority provided to the EPA via the Clean Air Act,
    the Clean Water Act, as well as other statutes?
        Mr. Wheeler. Both. We certainly use science in all of our
    regulatory decisions, but you're right. On the ACE (Affordable
    Clan Energy) rule, it replaced the Clean Power Plan, but the
    Clean Power Plan never took effect because the Supreme Court
    issued a historic stay, which showed that it was outside of the
    bounds of the Clean Air Act.
        On WOTUS, as soon as the Obama Administration moved forward
    with their WOTUS proposal, it was stayed by courts around the
    country. It was only in effect in 22 States. Twenty-eight other
    States were not following the Obama WOTUS proposal, which is
    why we had to withdraw it so that we could have one regulation
    for the entire country. We didn't think a patchwork approach
    would be useful for WOTUS.
        Mr. Weber. Well, we in Texas, particularly in my district,
    appreciate that. We really do.
        Despite the overall decline in the number of unhealthy air
    days since 2000, there was an uptick in the number of bad air
    days in some parts of the country last year. Is this because
    the EPA is rolling back environmental protections? Or how do
    natural events, dust storms, wildfires, variations in weather
    affect air-quality concentrations from year to year? How does
    that happen?
        Mr. Wheeler. It's both. First of all, you know, since 2000,
    we have strengthened the regulations so, you know, the
    regulatory determinations are tighter than they were. Plus
    there are a lot of naturally occurring events around the
    country that contribute to bad air quality. I was in Alaska
    last month and was--saw the smoke from the fires firsthand
    outside of Anchorage. There--the--with the wildfires in
    California, that contributes significantly to the poor air
    quality days across the West. Other fires do the same thing.
    This is why I really hope that the Forest Service, working with
    the States, can get a handle on these out-of-control wildfires,
    have more prescribed burns, try to clear out the underbrush so
    that we don't have these long-lasting fires that really are
    detrimental to public health.
        Mr. Weber. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Administrator. And,
    Madam Chair, I thank you, and I'm going to yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Let me welcome an
    additional attendance of members of the Clean Air Force.
    Welcome.
        Mr. Lipinski.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Administrator Wheeler, in 2016, researchers in EPA's Office
    of Research and Development updated the Integrated Risk
    Information System, or IRIS, value for ethylene oxide, which is
    known as EtO. In doing so, they determined the cancer risk for
    inhalation of EtO was 30 times higher than previously thought.
        In August 2018, EPA's scientists released the latest
    version of the National Air Toxics Assessment based on the new
    IRIS value. This revealed an elevated cancer risk in the
    communities around a commercial sterilization facility in
    Willowbrook just outside my district, a facility owned by
    Sterigenics. I not only represent families in the impacted
    communities; I also live there.
        Thanks to the State of Illinois, this plant is now closed,
    perhaps only temporarily. I've been calling on EPA to act
    quickly to protect not only the families in these communities
    around Sterigenics but those around facilities that use EtO for
    sterilization all around the country. We need the EPA to use
    the updated IRIS value for EtO to set a strong new Federal
    emissions standard that protects Americans all across our
    country from this dangerous carcinogen.
        I first wrote to you, then-Acting Administrator, on
    September 21, 2018, almost exactly 1 year ago. When will the
    EPA set a new standard for EtO to protect Americans all across
    our country?
        Mr. Wheeler. We are working on two different rulemakings to
    address EtO, and both of those are in the works. But we have
    been working hand-in-hand with both the local government, as
    well as the State. It was EPA that provided the monitors, the
    ambient air monitors, the modeling to determine what the impact
    was from Willowbrook. We worked with the State. They used our
    data to make the determinations that they did on that facility.
    And we are--we worked with the facility to make sure that they
    were installing better technologies to capture the emissions so
    that it does not get into the neighborhood. There are a lot of
    issues around EtO.
        Mr. Lipinski. Well, I want to make sure that--are you going
    to use the updated IRIS values? IRIS, according to the EPA's
    website, it says IRIS assessments are the preferred source of
    toxicity information used by the EPA. And I wanted to make sure
    that you're committed to using this updated IRIS value for the
    cancer risks for EtO when developing this new standard. Are you
    committed to that?
        Mr. Wheeler. We are using the IRIS assessment for our
    regulatory decisions. It's important to remember that the IRIS
    program is not a regulatory program, so we also have to make
    sure that we are following the regulatory requirements of the
    statute such as the Clean Air Act that we are using to set the
    standards for that facility for EtO.
        Mr. Lipinski. I just want to make sure that you're going to
    use that because there have been some arguments against it, and
    it's critical that that science is not ignored.
        Mr. Wheeler. We use all of our available science in making
    regulatory decisions, but again, the IRIS program is not a
    regulatory program.
        Mr. Lipinski. I want to close by reiterating a request from
    my neighbors in Illinois who would appreciate your
    participation in an October 2 townhall on ethylene oxide in
    Lake County. I firmly expect the EPA to do its job engaging
    with the public at this event. I appreciate the air monitoring
    around the facility in Willowbrook, but it is important that
    EPA set a standard to protect Americans from this dangerous
    cancer-causing chemical. EPA needs to--U.S. EPA needs to act
    quickly and decisively on this issue. Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Congressman, and I know you're
    also concerned about the Great Lakes. Last month, we announced
    first-ever Trash-Free Great Lakes Grant Program to help get the
    Great Lakes cleaned up.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Mr. Babin.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Administrative Wheeler, thank you for being here. A few
    weeks ago you commented on an often-overlooked provision of the
    Clean Air Act, section 115, an integral part of President
    Trump's decision to pull the United States out of the Paris
    Climate Agreement. You said, ``Another aspect that a lot of
    people gloss over is that under the Clean Air Act if we enter
    into an international treaty such as the Paris climate accord,
    if we fail to meet our targets, those are enforceable under our
    domestic laws.'' While this issue gets very little attention,
    this seems like a very big deal to me.
        For example, we know that advisors to Hillary Clinton's
    Presidential campaign supported invoking section 115 but
    recommended against mentioning it during the campaign because,
    I imagine, they thought that using an obscure provision to
    regulate the entire U.S. economy would not poll very well.
        I would like to enter into the record an article written by
    the Center for American Progress titled, ``How the Paris
    Agreement Supercharges the Clean Air Act,'' Madam Chair----
        Chairwoman Johnson. Without objection.
        Mr. Babin [continuing]. Which details exactly how far those
    on the far left would use Paris to impose overreaching climate
    regulations across the U.S. economy. Can you please elaborate
    on this threat from section 115 and how it might be used to
    circumvent the U.S. Congress?
        Mr. Wheeler. Certainly. First, I do want to just clarify my
    remarks from a few weeks ago. I didn't mean to suggest that
    that was one of the primary reasons President Trump used for
    withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. I actually wasn't
    with the Administration at the time, so I did not brief the
    President on the Paris climate accord. I know he cited trade
    issues----
        Mr. Babin. Right.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. As well as the fact that we were
    treated differently from China and India and other countries.
    But I completely agree with you that section 115 could give--
    and I think that the Center for American Progress paper on this
    is evidence of that, that there are certainly people that want
    to use that section of the Clean Air Act to allow third parties
    to sue the United States Government if they fail to meet treaty
    obligations and force them to then meet the treaty obligations.
    And the Paris climate accord is a treaty. It wasn't submitted
    to the Senate for ratification, but it still has the same
    ramifications of a treaty.
        Mr. Babin. Yes. Thank you very much. Also, has the EPA
    witnessed lower demand for ethanol following the granting of
    small refinery waivers over the last 2 years? And do other
    agencies besides EPA conclude that ethanol demand has not been
    impacted as a result of these exemptions?
        Mr. Wheeler. You're correct. Ethanol demand has not been
    impacted by the small refinery program. In fact, we've seen an
    uptick in ethanol over the last 2 years. We--so far this year
    the industry has produced more ethanol than they did at this
    point last year, and we do not see any demand destruction from
    the small refinery program on ethanol production.
        Mr. Babin. And other agencies you feel that have the same
    opinion?
        Mr. Wheeler. It's my understanding the Department of Energy
    has that same opinion.
        Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much, Administrator. And I'll
    yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Bonamici.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Administrator Wheeler, I join many
    in the science community who are deeply concerned about the
    EPA's proposed rule titled, ``Strengthening Transparency in
    Regulatory Science.'' The proposed rule would impede if not
    eradicate the EPA's ability to fulfill its mission of
    protecting public health and the environment by limiting the
    scope of research that the EPA can consider in making
    decisions. As a cornerstone of its regulatory process, the EPA
    relies on peer-reviewed science, and the proposed rule
    perpetuates the incorrect notion that the science the EPA
    relies on is somehow hidden, and it's not. The information used
    by the EPA is not secret.
        I appreciate that your testimony acknowledged the need to
    issue a supplemental rule, but the proposed rule is an attack
    on the role of science itself at the EPA. So, if finalized, it
    would have chilling consequences for the EPA and for people who
    benefit from clean air and clean water.
        So, Administrator Wheeler, is the EPA's existing policy to
    consider scientific studies in the regulatory process even if
    the underlying data is not publicly available in a manner
    sufficient for independent validation? That's just--please yes
    or no, the existing policy.
        Mr. Wheeler. That data is not available to the public. We--
    I believe that the regulated public communities need to know
    what the science is based behind our decisions.
        Ms. Bonamici. But is the existing policy to consider
    studies even if the data is not publicly available? Is that the
    existing policy?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, that is the existing----
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Policy.
        Ms. Bonamici. And have the Federal courts upheld the EPA's
    longtime policy regarding consideration of scientific data?
        Mr. Wheeler. I don't believe that the courts have
    specifically addressed that specific issue.
        Ms. Bonamici. Well----
        Mr. Wheeler. We've received over 600,000 comments on our
    proposal. We've reviewed those comments over the last year, and
    that's why I believe we need to go forward with a supplemental
    proposal before we finalize----
        Ms. Bonamici. Well, in footnote 3 of the proposed rule it
    says that the courts have at times upheld EPA's use of
    nonpublic data in support of its regulatory actions. So
    footnote 3 also says that the proposed rule acknowledges that
    the EPA has not consistently observed the policies underlying
    the proposal. Isn't that correct? The EPA is not----
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. In the past?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. So the proposed rule represents a
    reversal of the EPA's position for decades regarding the
    consideration of scientific data. If the proposed rule is
    asserting that the Agency's previous position was incorrect,
    what evidence do you have to justify it?
        Mr. Wheeler. Well, again, I cut my teeth on the Right-to-
    Know Act, and I believe that the American public has a right to
    know the science behind our regulatory decisions. And I think
    if we put that science out for everybody to see and understand,
    then there will be more acceptance of our regulatory decisions.
        Ms. Bonamici. And----
        Mr. Wheeler. And that is what is driving me on this
    question----
        Ms. Bonamici. And----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Because I believe that we should
    be transparent in everything that we do.
        Ms. Bonamici. And, Mr. Administrator, the basis of the
    proposed rule, I agree with the scientific community, is
    flawed. So before finalizing the rule of such significance, I
    urge the EPA to listen to scientific experts. So, yes or no,
    will the supplemental rule mentioned in your testimony be
    published prior to 2020?
        Mr. Wheeler. I was hoping it would be published prior to
    2020, but in my staff notes I'm told early next year. Things
    seem to take----
        Ms. Bonamici. And----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. A little bit longer than I like,
    but we'll----
        Ms. Bonamici. And will----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Certainly publish the
    supplemental----
        Ms. Bonamici. I want to get a couple more questions in----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. For public comment before we
    finalize it.
        Ms. Bonamici. Yes or no, will you commit to waiting for the
    conclusion of the Science Advisory Board's comprehensive review
    before you finalize the final rule?
        Mr. Wheeler. We certainly hope to have that. I specifically
    asked the----
        Ms. Bonamici. Yes or no?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I----
        Ms. Bonamici. OK.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Specifically asked the Science--
    --
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Advisory Board to look at----
        Ms. Bonamici. And----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. The proposal.
        Ms. Bonamici. And will you commit to working with the
    National Academy of Sciences on the development of the proposed
    rule?
        Mr. Wheeler. I don't believe we've reached out to the
    National Academy of Sciences at this point.
        Ms. Bonamici. I hope that you will. And the----
        Mr. Wheeler. But, again, the science community is not
    unanimous on this. You said the science community is opposed to
    this. We had over 600,000 comments----
        Ms. Bonamici. I----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. A lot of scientists----
        Ms. Bonamici. I understand, and I want to get----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Support for what we're doing.
        Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. Just another quick question. The
    proposed rule is inconsistent with the Agency's statutory
    obligation to use the best available science, as required in
    many statutes under your jurisdiction. Will the proposed rule
    retroactively apply to the EPA's existing standards and
    regulations?
        Mr. Wheeler. Our proposal did not retroactively apply, and
    there was still an exemption so that the Administrator could
    allow a study that was important to move forward even if that
    science wasn't available to the public if we needed to use that
    study for regulatory purposes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. My time is----
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you----
        Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. Expired. I will be submitting
    more questions for the record.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, Administrator Wheeler, for being here. As you
    know, the Great Lakes are critically important for my home
    district in northeast Ohio, providing fresh water, recreation,
    and certainly economic growth to our region. It's hard to
    overstate the importance of this critical resource to northeast
    Ohio.
        I've co-sponsored legislation to fund R&D to assess the
    health of the Great Lakes fisheries, but I'm interested in the
    work the EPA is doing to protect the environmental health of
    the region. Can you provide an update on the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative, particularly recent efforts to reduce
    pollution from stormwater and excess nutrient runoff?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. And first, thank you, Congressman,
    for asking about the Great Lakes. As you know, I'm also from
    Ohio.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
        Mr. Wheeler. I keep saying this and nobody's corrected me
    so I'll keep saying it until I'm corrected. I believe I'm the
    only EPA Administrator to ever go swimming in the Great Lakes.
    I have an absolute love of the Great Lakes region and the Great
    Lakes themselves, and this summer, I visited our Lake Guardian
    research ship, which travels all five of the Great Lakes, has
    been doing it for about 30 years now, taking water samples,
    comparing them year over year to see the changes in the lake.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Fantastic.
        Mr. Wheeler. We are moving forward on nutrient reduction
    work. We put forward a proposal this past--not a proposal, a
    new policy this past spring to work on trading mechanisms with
    farmers to reduce the nutrient loading into the rivers and
    streams that flow into the lakes. We announced our Trash-Free
    Great Lakes Grant Program where we're trying to get the litter
    cleaned up out of the lakes, and we're moving forward on a
    number of fronts to get the lakes cleaned up.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Fantastic. And I certainly appreciate that
    work. Are there any emerging technologies that could be applied
    to reduce the type of pollution, and how can we support that in
    this Committee? Can you talk a bit about the technology side?
        Mr. Wheeler. Well, there is a lot of scientific research
    going on here. We do a lot of scientific research on the HABs,
    the harmful algal blooms. We have a number of different EPA
    labs around the country that are looking at specific issues and
    problems, including our Region 5 lab in Chicago for the Great
    Lakes. So there's a lot of scientific research going on, and
    our EPA researchers are at the forefront of that research
    worldwide.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Fantastic. And then shifting a bit, so the
    U.S. generates the largest amount of municipal solid waste per
    person on a daily basis. Now more than ever it's important that
    we rethink how we recover and repurpose the valuable materials
    that used to be considered waste. EPA has an important role to
    play by encouraging recycling and recovery. Can you describe
    how EPA is engaged to do this, and then how does this tie into
    the EPA's role in the Environmental Cooperation Agreement in
    parallel with the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada
    Agreement)?
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you. Last fall, we held the first-ever
    Recycling Summit at EPA to take a look at the recycling crisis,
    which we actually have a recycling crisis----
        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. In our country today. We are also
    working aggressively on food waste. Food makes up the largest
    single contributor to municipal solid waste in this country,
    and we have to do something to reduce the amount of food going
    to our--to the waste sites.
        But the USMCA--this--the USMCA is the first-ever trade
    agreement from the U.S. that incorporates environmental
    provisions into the trade agreement itself. In NAFTA (North
    American Free Trade Agreement), the environmental provisions
    were in a side agreement. There were not part of the actual
    trade agreement. We also have the first-ever language in a
    trade agreement dealing with ocean plastic debris, which also
    helps us in the Great Lakes. So this is the first time that the
    strongest environmental protections ever included in a trade
    agreement are in the USMCA.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Fantastic. And with that, I will yield the
    balance of my time.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Lamb.
        Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and welcome,
    Administrator Wheeler. Over here.
        Mr. Wheeler. Sorry.
        Mr. Lamb. You'll understand where I'm coming from here
    being from Ohio. I am from western Pennsylvania. I represent
    areas right along the West Virginia and Ohio border. And our
    part of the country has made incredible contributions over the
    years to the Nation's economy and I think national security
    from steel production to coal production, glass, all the things
    that Ohio and Pennsylvania and West Virginia have done.
        And I think the production of natural gas is the most
    recent example of that. And where I live it's everyone from the
    scientists who figured out this miraculous technology of going
    more than a mile underground and 2 miles sideways, much of
    which was developed in our national lab system, by the way. It
    was a public investment because of how good it is for us, to
    the pipefitters who build the pipelines, the heavy equipment
    operators, the truck drivers, even the--you know, you'd be
    amazed the businesses people made out of just making sandwiches
    for all these people in the last 15 years. It's been incredible
    for our area.
        But the thing is that people in western Pennsylvania know
    that all of that economic growth rests on one important
    contribution, which is that we have helped the United States
    emit less carbon in the last 15 years than it ever did before
    because of the switch from coal to natural gas. And that's a
    big part of why the economy will continue demanding this fuel
    going forward. And that if we do not stop leaking methane and
    we lose that climate benefit, this entire industry is
    threatened. It's about the environment, but it's about these
    people's jobs, all of these people that I just mentioned.
        People know that where I'm from, and that's why many of us
    were so surprised to see your comments about the reduction and
    elimination of the methane standards where you said just last
    month that you believe they were unnecessary and duplicative.
        So my first question for you is just a simple yes or no. Do
    you still believe that the methane standards are unnecessary
    and duplicative?
        Mr. Wheeler. The Obama methane standards. We put forward
    our own proposal last month and we're taking comment on it.
        Mr. Lamb. So you believe that the Obama methane standards
    were unnecessary and duplicative, is that correct?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Mr. Lamb. You're--I'm quoting you, yes.
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Mr. Lamb. So, when you said that, I looked around to see
    what other people said, and I just wanted to share a couple of
    those things with you because the sources are kind of
    surprising. So one, for example, ``To maximize the climate
    benefits of gas, we need to address the Achilles' heel and
    eliminate, eliminate methane emissions.'' Did you read that in
    the press when it was out? Does that quote sound familiar to
    you? That was Susan Dio, the President of BP. It was no
    environmental activist.
        Similarly, ``We will continue to urge the EPA to retain--
    retain--the main features of the existing methane rule.'' That
    came from a spokesman from Exxon.
        Gretchen Watkins, who runs USA operations for Shell, which
    is building a huge methane cracker plant in the middle of my
    district, said that ``Methane is a big part of the climate
    problem and frankly we can do more than we're already doing.''
    She said, ``We don't usually tell governments how to do their
    job, but we're ready to break with that and say actually, we
    want to tell you how to do your job.''
        So BP, Exxon, and Shell all believe that the EPA's action
    to reduce and get rid of the existing methane rule is a bad
    idea. And it sounds like someone else when they testified in
    front of the U.S. Senate and said, ``Climate change is real,
    I'm concerned about it on a level of 8 or 9 out of 10'' and
    that ``part of the way the EPA was addressing climate change
    was through their methane program.'' Do you recognize who said
    that?
        Mr. Wheeler. It sounds familiar.
        Mr. Lamb. That was you.
        Mr. Wheeler. I thought so.
        Mr. Lamb. When you testified to the U.S. Senate to get this
    job you said that the methane program was a crucial part of
    eliminating greenhouse gases. You have changed, and it
    threatens the livelihood of people in this industry that I
    represent.
        Mr. Wheeler. I----
        Mr. Lamb. And so I will ask you--I will simply ask you--my
    time is up--reconsider. These families are depending on this
    industry and depending on the climate benefits that have come
    from it. We have to do it the right way. You are on the wrong
    side of both business and public opinion.
        Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Mr. Wheeler. Sir, we don't do our regulations for big
    business. We take a look at the--all business including small
    and medium-size companies that are in this area. So we don't
    write our regulations to appease the large companies.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Waltz.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Administrator Wheeler, thank you for coming.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Mr. Waltz. I want to talk to you today and discuss the
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Clean Water Fund provides
    communities, as you know, with low-cost financing, and I think
    that's an important aspect of it. It's financing for water
    quality infrastructure projects. And it's a critical tool for
    Florida in addressing a number of our water challenges. There's
    a massive disconnect in this fund, Mr. Administrator. On the
    one hand, Florida has the third most significant infrastructure
    needs in the Nation according to the EPA's Clean Watershed
    Needs Survey, so third-highest needs, yet Florida is receiving
    the third-lowest in the country allotment, again, according to
    the EPA.
        It's a result of an antiquated formula, not the Agency's
    fault. It's from a 1987 law that Florida receives the third-
    lowest allotment. EPA has acknowledged in a 2016 report to
    Congress that the Clean Water State Revolving Fund allotment
    that, quote, in the EPA's report ``Most States do not currently
    receive appropriated funds in proportion to their reported
    needs or their population, which has demonstrated the
    inadequacy of the current allotment.'' The report also states,
    quote, ``that weighting and factors that were used to establish
    the formula for the original allotment are not known.'' And the
    Congressional Research Service says the same thing. In fact,
    they said it's even difficult to guess how this formula came
    about in the 1980s. That's probably not a surprise to some
    people.
        Obviously, Florida's population has exploded. We're gaining
    1,000 people per day. This disconnect is unacceptable, given
    our need. So bottom line, Mr. Administrator, and I recognize
    this is a statutory issue. Do you agree that it's reasonable
    for Congress to relook at this 30-year-old formula, given this
    disconnect?
        Mr. Wheeler. I have to be careful. I need permission from
    OMB (Office of Management and Budget) before I, you know,
    endorse legislation. I will say when I worked in the Senate
    Environment and Public Works Committee we tried to change the
    formula three or four Congresses in a row, and my staff and I
    worked at trying to update it. We spent a lot of time, and we
    ran into a lot of roadblocks from States who would have done
    worse----
        Mr. Waltz. Yes.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Under the changes to the program.
    Will you----
        Mr. Wheeler. But----
        Mr. Waltz. Will you commit to working with me on this
    issue----
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I'd be happy to----
        Mr. Waltz [continuing]. As we look to reauthorize the
    program in next year's WRDA (Water Resources Development Act)?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, be happy to work with you on that.
        Mr. Waltz. All right. Great. And separately, this is
    National Estuaries Week. I want to thank you for the good work
    that the EPA is doing in administering the National Estuary
    Program. I have the Indian River Lagoon in my district. In July
    this Committee passed H.R. 335, the South Florida Clean Coastal
    Waters Act of 2019. The legislation established an interagency
    task force on HABs to really get some empirical data behind
    that issue. Will you submit for the record what the Agency is
    doing in reducing algal blooms and how you think your Agency
    can contribute to this task force?
        And in the interest of time, could you also submit for the
    record what the Agency is doing on coastal resiliency in
    helping States that have coastal resiliency problems with
    rising seas?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Administrator.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Mr. Waltz. And, Madam Chair, I yield my time.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mrs. Fletcher.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson.
        Good morning, Administrator Wheeler. Thank you for being
    here this morning. I have quite a few topics to cover, so I
    hope we can move through this fairly quickly with our limited
    time.
        In June of this year the staff of the EPA Region 6 lab in
    Houston were informed that the lab would be shut down and the
    scientists and engineers would be relocated to the ORD lab in
    Ada, Oklahoma, to consolidate space. You touched on this issue
    a little bit in your remarks, but I remain concerned and, more
    important, my constituents are very concerned that this lab
    consolidation will lead to significant brain drain as many of
    the EPA employees may not be able to relocate, resulting in a
    loss of key technical expertise. This is an issue that has come
    up at my townhalls in Houston, so I think it's really
    important.
        I sent a letter to you with some of my colleagues in the
    Houston delegation on July 12 asking you to reconsider this
    closure, and I would like to know when we can expect a response
    to our July 12 letter.
        Mr. Wheeler. We'll try to get a response you as quickly as
    possible.
        Mrs. Fletcher. And, as I'm sure you know, Houston has
    experienced increasingly frequent and intense storms like
    Imelda that's happening right now, and all in the same space is
    arguably the world's largest petrochemical complex. And so
    there's a lot of risk in our region that we remain concerned
    about and want EPA, the scientists, on the ground there. And in
    fact, in some of these disasters the EPA scientists have really
    been another kind of first responder if you will that are there
    to protect the water and air quality and to inform the public.
        I assume you would agree with me that the public has a
    right to be informed about the dangers in the water and the
    air?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely, but the scientists we would be
    moving to Ada, Oklahoma, are not our first responders. Our
    first responders will remain in Texas. Plus, we will have a
    small lab facility left in Texas behind. But we were directed
    by Congress to consolidate our space, reduce the size of our
    footprint. It was a 2016 legislation I believe, told us to get
    out of leased spaces and try to consolidate to GSA- (General
    Services Administration) or EPA-owned space. And the lab in
    Houston is--it's my understanding it is in very poor shape and
    would require a lot of government investment to bring that lab
    up to the quality of lab that the people----
        Mrs. Fletcher. Well----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. In Region 6 deserve.
        Mrs. Fletcher. And I appreciate that, Administrator
    Wheeler, but it is my understanding that those employees who
    are staying will be relocated to another lab, so it seems that
    because there will be new space that is obtained that our
    request that the scientists remain in Houston on the ground to
    be able to perform testing and do things immediately is
    important.
        And, again, there's a larger concern that this speaks to
    about the overall concerns for brain drain across the country
    as folks are relocated. And it's no disrespect to my colleagues
    from Oklahoma. I'm just south of Oklahoma. But certainly in the
    world that we live in some of these scientists may have
    families who are unable to relocate either because of spouse's
    professions, because of children's commitments, because of
    medical commitments, whatever it is. So it is hard to relocate
    so many people. And what we have seen is that there has been a
    significant departure from the EPA over the last few years.
        And so do you agree--I assume you agree that it's essential
    that the EPA fulfill its mission to protect the environment and
    public health.
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Yes. And do you agree with me that the loss
    of scientists to levels that we haven't seen since the 1980s is
    a concern?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. Forty percent of our workforce is
    eligible to retire over the next 5 years. I hired a new human
    resource manager the start of the spring and recruiting new
    scientists is a huge concern of ours.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Great.
        Mr. Wheeler. I actually interviewed the human resource
    manager. I'm told that EPA administrators don't typically do
    that. That's three or four levels below, but I wanted to make
    sure that we got the right person----
        Mrs. Fletcher. Good.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. To help us guide the Agency.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Administrator Wheeler, I have limited time,
    so I wanted to get to one other question and then I will have
    some additional questions to submit for the record. But in our
    Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water
    Resources and Environment hearing yesterday I asked your
    Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water David Ross for
    clarification on the EPA's justification to reverse the 2016
    decision to issue new rules to safeguard against the release of
    hazardous substances into local water bodies and drinking
    sources. He said it was rulemaking out of the Office of Land
    and Emergency Management that was not his program. Is it true
    that the Water Office is not involved in decisions regarding
    the release of hazardous substances into water bodies?
        Mr. Wheeler. They are involved, but it--in fact that
    particular regulation that you were referring to that we
    decided no additional regulations were needed, we have other
    regulatory programs that protect that, including under the
    water program under EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community
    Right-to-Know Act) and under CERCLA (Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
    1980). And if you don't mind, I'd like to submit--I don't know
    for the record or to you--a paper outlining what we're doing
    under America's Water Infrastructure Act that was signed by
    Congress last year that addresses this problem.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I'll submit my additional
    questions for the record.
        And, Chairwoman Johnson, may I also submit the letter that
    we sent on July 12 for the record as well?
        Chairwoman Johnson. No objection.
        Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Thank you. I have exceeded my time, so I
    yield back. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. We'll receive yours for the
    record as well. Thank you.
        Mr. Olson.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and welcome, Administrator
    Wheeler. This hearing is called, ``Science and Technology at
    EPA.'' Every Member of this Committee, Democrat and Republican,
    demands the EPA's actions are driven by science and technology
    only. No politics should ever enter into your decisions. They
    should be subordinate to science and technology.
        I was here for all 8 years of President Obama's
    Administration. Over and over and over, the Administration let
    politics overtake science and technology. The best example hit
    my home region of Houston, Texas hard, ozone. As you know,
    Administrator, that's one of the six criteria pollutants under
    NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards).
        The last year of George W. Bush's Administration, science
    and technology said we can go down to requirement of .75 parts
    per billion for ozone. It took President Obama 8 years to put
    out the rules to comply with President Bush's science-based
    proposal.
        And then 1 year later in 2015 President Obama lowered those
    standards to .70. There was no science, no technology that
    justified that no, as you said, right to know for the public
    how they achieve that standard. And there's no way they can
    know because we hadn't gotten down to .75 yet.
        And so to your great credit the Trump Administration has
    addressed the backlog of SIPs, as you mentioned, gone down from
    700 to 400. Now you have looming a new ozone standard put out
    by 2020. My question is are you on track to put those standards
    out, and, most importantly, using science and technology? When
    you look at ozone we can't control because you know and I know,
    the whole world knows, over half the ozone that comes from
    America comes from uncontrolled sources, sources like China,
    like our neighbors south, Mexico. So how do you take those into
    account with these new ozone standards?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Congressman. I
    appreciate the question. Yes, we are on track. We are reviewing
    both the ozone and PM (particulate matter) NAAQS at this point.
    We plan to go final with both of those by the end of next year.
    For ozone it will be the first time that we have completed that
    within the statutory 5-year requirement. The EPA has always
    taken longer to review these NAAQS, and we are committed to
    getting them done in the statutory timeframe of 5 years, which
    is required under the Clean Air Act.
        It's important to remember, though--and we--I'm taking a
    lot of criticism in the press from a lot of different people
    saying that we're going too fast. Congress required us to
    update it every 5 years. That's what we intend to do. When we
    finish the 5-year review, the next 5-year review starts the
    very next day. So this is a never-ending review of the NAAQS
    standard from both ozone and PM, all six of the criteria
    pollutants. So it is our intention to get it done on time and
    then to start the next 5-year review the very next day.
        Mr. Olson. I had a bill that gave you authority to go for
    10 years if you not demanded but if you needed that time
    because of all the hassles. Would that be a good bill to have?
    It got through the House twice, dropped the ball in the Senate,
    but how about give you the flexibility. Is that something you'd
    like? I'm sure you would.
        Mr. Wheeler. Well, again, I can't endorse specific
    legislation. I think having more flexibility is always a good
    thing in general. And again pointing out that the Agency has
    never completed it in 5 years before, which is one of the
    reasons why we had to disband the subcommittees and I'm taken
    as--I know I've received questions from this Committee about
    the subcommittees and reinstituting them. We can't reinstitute
    the subcommittees and meet the 5-year requirement under the
    statute.
        Mr. Olson. One final accolade----
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Olson [continuing]. From back home. Hurricane Harvey
    hit what's called the San Jacinto Waste Pits very hard. These
    are waste pits that cover very hazardous material dioxin from
    paper manufacturing right there in the area. They came loose
    during Hurricane Harvey. That is the chemical that got the
    superfund started, Love Canal. You guys stepped up to the plate
    quickly and said we will get all that chemical, all of that
    dioxin out of the water, so thank you, thank you, thank you.
    You saved lives by acting so quickly. I yield back.
        Mr. Wheeler. While I appreciate the thanks----
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. I do have to say that I'm recused
    from that particular----
        Chairwoman Johnson. Ms. Stevens.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Superfund site, so I was not
    involved in any of the decisions. I don't want to leave the
    impression that I was involved in something that I was recused
    from.
        Ms. Stevens. Mr. Administrator, the purpose of this hearing
    is indeed to review the science and technology activities at
    the Environmental Protection Agency. And as the Subcommittee
    Chair for this Committee on Research and Technology, I take
    great interest with this topic. And you might be aware that we
    are facing a conundrum with our Nation's recycling. The U.S.
    still only recycles 9 percent of its plastic. In 2018 China
    banned the import of most U.S. plastics collected for recycling
    because many were mixed with nonrecyclable waste and
    contaminated. And we have heard from municipal leaders across
    this country and I've heard from many in my home district in
    southeastern Michigan.
        The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 named
    the EPA as the lead Agency on a national effort to recover
    valuable petroleum-based resources that were filling our
    landfills. So the question I have for you is, why is the EPA
    not fulfilling its statutory responsibility to lead Federal
    efforts on crosscutting research and development and innovation
    needed to address the Nation's plastic recycling challenges and
    create jobs?
        Mr. Wheeler. We are. We held the first-ever Recycling
    Summit last year at EPA headquarters. We brought in people
    involved in the entire recycling chain from the people who
    produce the raw materials to the packagers of products to the
    manufacturers of the products that they package to the waste
    collectors, recycling collectors, all the way to the end of
    this chain, value chain of people who take those products and
    turn them into useful products.
        We have a recycling crisis right now, and we charged them
    last year with four items to go off and work on. We've been
    working with them throughout the year. We're going to have the
    second Recycling Summit this fall on National Recycling Day. In
    the past, EPA only put out a press release announcing Recycling
    Day. We're actually bringing people in and trying to solve the
    recycling crisis that we currently face.
        Ms. Stevens. And so how do you see the EPA helping States
    and municipalities improve recyclable materials and manage
    their recyclable goods? Are they involved in these
    conversations? Were they at your summit? Are you working with--
    --
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, we had industry, we had local
    governments, we had the waste collectors, and in fact it would
    be held on National Recycling Day, which I believe is right
    around November 15. If you would like to come to our summit and
    address them, we'd be happy to extend an invitation to you. But
    this is, I think, a very important issue.
        I don't normally compliment the Atlantic Monthly, but they
    did a pretty good piece back in February on the recycling
    crisis that this country faces in large part because China quit
    accepting recycled material. And we don't have enough products
    for material to go into.
        My fear is that people--average citizens think that if they
    separate their recycled material from their trash in the bins
    at the end of their driveway that the problem is solved, and
    that is not solving the problem.
        Ms. Stevens. Well, we're hoping that my appropriation to
    fund a national recycling strategy through the EPA will get
    passed into law and give you additional dollars and, you know,
    appreciate your recognition of this challenge and certainly
    what it means.
        I'd also like to encourage you to look at some of the
    economic data that can be collected for the recycling industry
    given that that hasn't been done in 12 years.
        And I will also give you credit for immediately responding
    to the letter that I sent your agency about recycling and look
    forward to additional dialog and potentially a summary of the
    conference that you had last year. Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Ms. Stevens. Madam Chair, I yield back the remainder of my
    time.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Rooney.
        Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Chairwoman. Administrator Wheeler,
    I'd like to also urge you to review your rescission of the
    Obama methane and VOC (volatile organic compound) regulations.
    And in light of that little colloquy there with Congressman
    Lamb would suggest that you might leverage the leadership of
    Exxon, BP, and Shell to establish a level playing field and
    bring up the smaller competitors like companies that I'm
    involved with that should comply with that stuff and can do it
    if you help level the playing field.
        The other thing is you were good enough to send down Mary
    Walker from EPA Region 4 to participate in our Crisis of
    Harmful Algal Bloom conference, and she was super helpful and
    offered a lot of insight about the voluntary reporting system
    and some of the septic and water nitrogen problems that we're
    seeing. So I'd like to see if you have any further comment.
    This is a critical issue for Ohio and Michigan, but it's also a
    really critical issue for southwest Florida. Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler. It is, and we are working on both those areas
    on the methane. It's important to remember that methane is
    actually the product that they're--that the natural gas
    companies are selling. They already have an incentive to not
    leak it. We want to make sure that our regulatory approach does
    not stifle innovation and stop companies, small, medium, and
    large, from creating innovative new ways to approach the issue
    to capture the methane and make sure that they're not leaking
    the methane, which is why we're tying the new proposal to the
    VOC emissions, so VOC emissions will go down and, as a side
    benefit, methane emissions will also go down.
        But the natural gas industry has doubled since 1990, and
    they've reduced their methane emissions 15 percent, and we want
    to make sure that our regulatory program does not get in the
    way of innovation----
        Mr. Rooney. I understand that. I'm involved with----
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Mr. Rooney [continuing]. $2-$3 billion gas producers in the
    Permian----
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Mr. Rooney [continuing]. And I'm just saying they could use
    your steady hand to raise the bar and create a better platform
    for medium and small companies who care about this and will pay
    the money to capture the methane versus the unscrupulous
    companies that won't.
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes. And we will. Thank you.
        Mr. Rooney. Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler. And on the HABs, we're definitely--and I'm
    glad Mary was able to go to the--to your conference in Florida
    on this. It is certainly an issue that we're looking at across
    the board on several of our research labs, including our main
    research lab in Research Triangle Park is intimately involved
    with this issue. We're doing groundbreaking research trying to
    identify where the problems are before they occur. We're trying
    to identify what are the symptoms for lack of a better word of
    what will cause an outbreak in a water source and to try to
    make sure that we're safeguarding not just drinking water,
    which is the most vital--of vital importance here but also
    recreational waters.
        Mr. Rooney. Yes, our HABs are so bad----
        Mr. Wheeler. It's hurt a lot of areas.
        Mr. Rooney [continuing]. Down there----
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Mr. Rooney [continuing]. We're well beyond preserving
    drinking water.
        Mr. Wheeler. Right.
        Mr. Rooney. You can even get near that stuff without sinus
    problems. And we really appreciate the research and the early
    warning system that Mary talked about.
        Mr. Wheeler. And our career scientists at the Agency and a
    number of our labs are doing groundbreaking research in this
    area that is second to none worldwide.
        Mr. Rooney. Thank you, sir. I yield my time.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I know you've been quizzed about
    the website, but let me just ask you a personal question. Do
    you believe that climate change is occurring and is
    substantially human-caused?
        Mr. Wheeler. I certainly believe it's occurring, and I
    believe that man is certainly contributing to it, which is why
    we are aggressively addressing it, why we moved forward with
    our ACE regulation this summer, why we went forward with our
    methane, and why we are finalizing our CAFE (Corporate Average
    Fuel Economy) proposal. We want to make sure that we are
    addressing climate change, and we are addressing it.
        Mr. Sherman. OK. I want to focus on methane. I personally
    live just about as close as anyone to S-25, the well that
    spewed forth the largest methane leak in the history of
    America, I believe in the history of the world in Porter Ranch,
    California.
        Now, methane has an effect on global warming, roughly 87
    times as potent as carbon dioxide in warming the planet. But
    that's the harm if it's pure methane. But what's being stored
    in Porter Ranch and what is being piped around the country is
    not always pure methane. It's methane mixed with volatile
    organic compounds and the mercaptan that gives it its smell. So
    8,000 families were evacuated in my area for months. The health
    effects still continue.
        So I was a bit concerned when your Agency proposed a rule
    to eliminate Federal requirements that oil and gas companies
    install technology to detect and fix methane leaks from wells,
    pipelines, and storage facilities. Millions of tons of methane
    and inevitably with those volatile organic compounds and with
    the mercaptan are leaked, vented, and otherwise released into
    the atmosphere.
        I believe in your rollback your Agency acknowledged that
    the rollback will degrade air quality and are likely to
    adversely affect the health and welfare. Why shouldn't oil and
    gas companies be required to detect and monitor natural gas
    leaks?
        Mr. Wheeler. They are detecting and monitoring natural gas
    leaks, and we are targeting VOCs. And when you target VOCs, you
    also have the side benefit that is also a target of the methane
    reductions as well. The Obama Administration in their methane
    proposal expanded the source category without proper Clean Air
    Act procedures, so we----
        Mr. Sherman. Well, I'm----
        Mr. Wheeler. That was what we rolled back was the expanding
    of the industry.
        Mr. Sherman. Well, now, this Congress, in light of the
    Porter Ranch blowout disaster, passed a law requiring that we
    have national natural gas storage safety regulations by--I
    believe the date was the middle of last year. PHMSA (Pipeline
    and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration)--and I realize
    this isn't under your direct Agency, but you can publish
    regulations on your own in addition to what we require of
    PHMSA--said that they're in compliance because they published
    regulations by the deadline under the Obama Administration and
    then withdrew them. So Congress wrote a law saying you've got
    to have regulations, as of the middle of last year, and we have
    no regulations. Do you think it's appropriate for the Executive
    Branch to take a law that says you must regulate something and
    say, well, we regulated it for a day and then we withdrew the
    regulation so we're in compliance?
        Mr. Wheeler. I do not know the history or background on
    that. I don't really want to comment on another agency's
    regulations. Our proposal----
        Mr. Sherman. Can we count on--given the effect this has had
    on children, on people, on cancer, can I count on you to use
    your power to regulate natural gas storage safety?
        Mr. Wheeler. And that is what I believe we are doing with
    our new methane regulation that we just put out for public
    comment. We're taking comments on it right now. We're targeting
    VOCs, which also address methane. And I welcome comments from
    the public before we go final with it--with a regulatory
    decision.
        Mr. Sherman. I would hope that you would at least go as far
    as the American Petroleum Institute's recommended best
    practices. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Cloud.
        Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thanks for being here
    today. I'd like to first start off by saying I've talked to
    number of people in my district--we have industry, we have
    agriculture--who appreciate the EPA's new tone if I can say
    that, in the sense of understanding that the people working in
    these industries and districts are also living in them and care
    very much about our environment and then having an EPA that
    works with them as a way to try to find a way to yes as opposed
    to looking for a reason to say no, keeping in mind all the
    necessary causes to ensure our environment is protected.
        In light of that, I am encouraged by the fact that the
    proposed budget was actually less than what we've spent in the
    past. There's a tendency up here to define success by how much
    money we're spending on something as opposed to the actual
    outcomes of proposals or projects or legislation. Could you
    speak to some of the decisionmaking process that went into
    proposing a budget that came under cost of last year and how
    you balance those priorities of making sure that the EPA is
    doing its job and that we're spending our money wisely in light
    of a $22 trillion debt?
        Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. For the most part, the programs
    that we recommended be reduced or eliminated were voluntary
    programs of the Agency and not critical to the statutory
    authorities that we have. In other words, programs that had
    grown over time at the Agency but were not authorized by
    Congress. We still put forward some new proposals for new
    funding. The new AWIA Act (America's Water Infrastructure Act
    of 2018) that passed Congress last year but Congress did not
    fund for 2019, we did request funding for that. We believe it's
    a very important program to address some of the water quality
    issues in particular for small and rural water systems and
    medium-sized systems around the country. So we did ask for
    additional funding for that.
        We also asked for $50 million for a children's health
    program for safe schools. We have a lot of different programs
    at the Agency that address different aspects of environmental
    issues at schools, but they're kind of disjointed. And what we
    want to do is bring those all into one program. And we asked
    for $50 million so that we can go out and work with the States
    and local governments to do site-specific recommendations on
    how schools can become healthier for the children who go to
    school in those buildings. There are different issues with a
    number of schools around the country, and we want to make sure
    that the children have a healthy education.
        Mr. Cloud. Following up on that a bit, earlier this year,
    you proposed the EPA developing rules that require a cost-
    benefit analysis of the new regulations again with the
    understanding that we have a responsibility to manage the
    resources both of creation and of the taxpayer dollar. Could
    you speak to any progress being made on that rule?
        Mr. Wheeler. Certainly. We put that out, I believe it was
    last year, for notice and comment. We received over 3,000
    comments. I was actually surprised. I thought we would get as
    many for the science transparency rule, but for the science
    transparency we received over 600,000 comments, for the cost-
    benefit only 3,000. What we proposed, though, was one
    regulation to apply to all of EPA's regulations for cost-
    benefit.
        What we have decided to do in reviewing the comments--and
    again, both for science transparency and this--we took a hard
    look at the comments that we received from the different people
    commenting, and we decided instead of one regulation to try to
    mandate cost-benefit analysis across all of our statutory
    programs, we're going to go statute by statute instead and
    issue a regulation under each of our statutes. So the first one
    will be under the Clean Air Act.
        We hope to have that proposal out by the end of this year,
    but it will require a cost-benefit analysis for all Clean Air
    Act regulations going forward. And then we will systematically
    go through each of our statutes and do an individual cost-
    benefit requirement for each statute tailor-made for the
    statutory authorities under each of the statutes.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Mr. Cohen.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And, Mr. Wheeler, I appreciate your being here. I've been
    disturbed, alarmed at several actions or inactions that have
    been taken at the EPA under your leadership. I'm sorry to say
    that, but it's true. I'm very concerned about how often you
    have ignored apparently your own professional scientists
    seemingly at the expense of people's lives in favor of profit
    companies and private profits. You've sidelined your
    scientists, gutted the 2015 coal ash rule, rolled back Clean
    Water Act  protections, weakened the mercury emissions rule,
    and rescinded the Clean Power Plan. These are all disturbing.
        And in my city of Memphis we have had coal ash collected at
    our steam plant, and it's--possibly could end up in the waters
    of our wonderful artesian water wells and threaten our drinking
    water. The mission at EPA is to protect human health and the
    environment, but it doesn't seem that that's been the
    direction.
        On asbestos, we also have a problem. And in May I sent you
    a letter with 34 of my colleagues after learning that the EPA
    disregarded the advice of its own scientists and lawyers by
    issuing a rule that restricted but did not ban asbestos. In a
    memo written by your own staff on August 2018 they stated
    rather than allow for any new use of asbestos, the EPA should
    seek to ban all new use of asbestos because of the extreme harm
    from this chemical substantially outweighs any benefit and
    because there are adequate alternatives to asbestos.
        Yet on April 17, 2019, the EPA issued a new rule that did
    not ban asbestos outright, as your own scientists recommended.
    I find this incredibly concerning and extremely peculiar that
    the EPA would cede its own experts' advice on banning asbestos,
    a known human carcinogen that has killed millions of people
    over the last several decades. A recent study of research has
    shown that asbestos-related disease caused 39,275 deaths in the
    United States annually. That's more than double the previous
    estimate of 15,000 deaths per year. Additionally, at least 55
    countries have banned asbestos completely.
        Yet in response I received from your office, I was informed
    that the EPA cannot ban asbestos until a risk evaluation is
    completed and an unreasonable risk is determined. When, sir,
    will this risk evaluation be undertaken and completed? And is
    the death of over 39,000 people a year not considered an
    unreasonable risk?
        Mr. Wheeler. First of all, we have done more on asbestos
    than any Administration since the George H.W. Bush
    Administration. We are moving forward on asbestos under the new
    TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) regulation, which is the
    law that Congress gave us to ban chemicals. That is a 2- to 3-
    year process that Congress set up for us.
        In order to fill in the gap in the meantime, while we're
    working through the asbestos under the TSCA regulation, we put
    out a significant new use rule, which puts forward--which does
    not allow any new uses of asbestos to go forward without having
    first come to EPA. So we plugged a loophole that would have
    allowed people to import asbestos products from other countries
    such as Russia. So we have done more to stop asbestos and to
    ban asbestos than any Administration has done since the George
    H.W. Bush Administration----
        Mr. Cohen. Let me interrupt you for just a second because
    time is precious.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. In the late 1980s.
        Mr. Cohen. That just means you did more than President
    Obama. And while President Obama----
        Mr. Wheeler. Again----
        Mr. Cohen [continuing]. Is a great guy, that's not--you
    know, be stronger than one person is not a great deal.
        But let me ask you the same question.
        Mr. Wheeler. No, no----
        Mr. Cohen. When will the risk evaluation be completed?
        Mr. Wheeler. It--under the process set up by Congress under
    TSCA, it's a 2- to 3-year process. We included asbestos as one
    of the first 10 chemicals that we are addressing. We did more
    than the George W. Bush Administration, than the Clinton
    Administration, than the Obama Administration. We've done more
    on asbestos than anybody else.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir, I appreciate that. I have been
    affected closely by this. Warren Zevon was my best personal
    friend, and he found out he had mesothelioma. He died within
    about a year of finding it out. That caused his death. There
    was nothing you can do with mesothelioma. You're dead. And it
    was caused from probably something he experienced as a child in
    an attic breathing in some air.
        So I'm concerned about it. I hope you will get your study
    done in the soonest time possible. Too many lives have been
    taken by this harmful carcinogen, and your Agency can do
    something about it. Thank you, sir----
        Mr. Wheeler. And we are.
        Mr. Cohen [continuing]. And I appreciate your work.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Herrera Beutler.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
    for being here.
        I wanted to applaud your Administration and your efforts
    with regard to repealing the WOTUS rule, the erroneous,
    burdensome WOTUS rule, and your efforts to clearly define
    navigable waters in a commonsense form. I'm concerned that the
    regulatory process alone may not be enough to prevent future
    Administrations from attempting the same overreach as the Obama
    Administration did with their rule. I've introduced legislation
    that clarifies the definition of navigable waters.
        But I wanted to ask you, it would be nice if it didn't take
    an act of Congress, but do you think that even with the rule
    that you've put in place, Congress, congressional action to
    refine the definition is necessary with regard to what's
    coming?
        Mr. Wheeler. Again, I can't endorse specific legislation. I
    will say, again, when I worked in the Senate as a staffer we
    worked on trying to define Waters of the U.S. through multiple
    Congresses.
        You know, the original Clean Water Act definition in the
    1970s said navigable waters, and it has been expanded a lot
    over the years by Supreme Court decisions. So what our
    regulation--our proposal does--we've not finalized our new
    definition. We hope to finalize it this winter. But what our
    proposal does is follow the Clean Water Act, as well as the
    Supreme Court cases to provide what I hope will be a working
    definition so that anybody--any property owner can stand on his
    or her property and be able to tell for themselves whether or
    not they need a Federal permit without having to hire an
    outside lawyer or consultant to tell them whether or not they
    have a Waters of the U.S. on their property.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Absolutely.
        Mr. Wheeler. That's my overarching goal for the new
    definition.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. And we support you in that.
        Mr. Wheeler. Everybody should understand what the
    definition is.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. In addition, they shouldn't have to
    spend upwards of $275,000 per permit and wait up to 800 days to
    get that permit per body of water.
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. In addition, Washington shellfish
    growers on the Pacific Coast are struggling to find a solution
    for ghost shrimp. This industry produces more than a quarter of
    our Nation's oysters and provides thousands of jobs in rural
    areas like my district.
        Now, the Washington State Department of Ecology, it's not
    you all, but they do administer under the EPA. They're also the
    State Administrator for the Feds. They've been very unhelpful.
    They've reversed their original approval denying a permit to
    spray a widely used pesticide that would've helped the growers
    manage this problem.
        And my question is this. Basically, I'd like to understand
    what your role is with regard to the State agencies? And would
    you be willing to meet with me or my office to help us find a
    solution to preserve this vital industry?
        Mr. Wheeler. I'd be more than happy to meet with you and
    your office to try to help you with this issue, absolutely.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. OK. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. McNerney.
        Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair, and I thank the
    Administrator for appearing this morning.
        The EPA's Science Advisory Board met earlier this year to
    discuss which of the Agency's actions would benefit from their
    science review. Specifically, they mentioned the rulemaking to
    establish light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards
    and the corporate average fuel economy would, quote, ``not
    warrant further review provided the EPA and the California Air
    Resources Board agree on a rule harmonized across the United
    States. If, however, the EPA and CARB cannot agree on a
    harmonized rule, then the board is ready to review pertinent
    scientific data in the different rules.'' That's a quote.
        At the time, the EPA would not confirm to the SAB, the
    Science Advisory Board, that talks with CARB broke down. Those
    were not acknowledged. However, your Agency will be revoking
    California's vehicle emissions standards waiver, a move without
    precedent that prioritizes polluters over public health and the
    wishes of the auto industry itself. It appears that this action
    is a malicious attempt to undo a popular commonsense Obama-era
    rule.
        Given the nonresponse from the EPA and concerns about the
    underlying science used to back deregulation of the SAB did
    decide to review the rule. Please answer with a yes or no. Do
    you support the role and expertise of the SAB can provide to
    assess underlying science backing regulatory actions?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I do.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Yes or no, will you commit to
    cooperating with the SAB's review of the proposed rule to
    revoke the California's vehicle emissions standards?
        Mr. Wheeler. We want to make sure that the Science Advisory
    Board is reviewing scientific issues and scientific questions.
    I believe they are reviewing the rule, and we certainly welcome
    anyone's input, but we are in the final stages of--we just
    released step 1 this morning of SAFE, and we will be releasing
    step 2 in the coming weeks.
        Mr. McNerney. So, in other words, you're not going to be
    cooperating with the SAB's review of the proposed rule?
        Mr. Wheeler. We cooperated with the----
        Mr. McNerney. And I asked you again. This was asked to you
    earlier. Will you commit to not finalizing the proposed rule
    until the SAB has had time to complete its review?
        Mr. Wheeler. No, we will----
        Mr. McNerney. Will you make that commitment?
        Mr. Wheeler. No, we will not wait for that. I don't believe
    at this point they're looking at specific science questions
    within the regulation. You know, it's interesting----
        Mr. McNerney. That's an opinion that's not shared across
    the board, Mr. Wheeler.
        Mr. Wheeler. I understand that. It's interesting during the
    Obama Administration the Science Advisory Board wanted to
    review the Clean Power Plan, and Gina McCarthy told them no,
    that there were no scientific issues in the Clean Power Plan.
        Mr. McNerney. So you're saying two wrongs make a right?
        Mr. Wheeler. No, I'm just saying that sometimes the Science
    Advisory Board wants to get outside of scientific issues. We've
    asked them and we have also committed across the board----
        Mr. McNerney. So why is it called a Science Advisory
    Board----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. That we will be briefing them----
        Mr. McNerney [continuing]. If they're getting outside of
    science opinion?
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. On all of our major regulations
    on a going-forward basis. The CAFE standard was proposed last
    December. So as, for example, the methane, we will be briefing
    the Science Advisory Board on our methane proposal and seeking
    their input for it. But on a going-forward basis, we are asking
    the Science Advisory Board to review our regulations as they
    come out for public comment.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, thanks for your opinion, Administrator.
    It appears that your Agency has been dismissive of the Science
    Advisory Board and timed to avoid input from the board on this
    action. And nothing you've said today changes that conclusion.
    I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Marshall.
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Chairwoman, and good morning, Mr.
    Administrator Wheeler. Thanks for coming today.
        First of all, on behalf of my farmers and ranchers, thanks
    for all the great work you have done and your office has done
    for those farmers and ranchers. I want to applaud you for
    giving us a sorghum oil pathway to diesel, for getting my
    farmers and ranchers some relief on the Waters of the U.S. And
    thank you on behalf of all the corn farmers in America. Thank
    you for giving us E15 year-round.
        I want to kind of continue down this biofuels pathway and
    just get a quick thought from you on E30. From what I
    understand, E30 has about 60 percent less emissions through a
    tailpipe. It's usually about 20 cents less per gallon at the
    pump and maybe has a little bit better gas mileage. Are you all
    looking into E30 and any thoughts on the future of E30?
        Mr. Wheeler. Well, we just completed E15, and right now,
    we're looking at the overall RFS (Renewable Fuel Standard)
    program. We look at all blends of ethanol, so we're looking
    also at E85. I don't know that we're specifically looking at
    E30 or not, but I can certainly get back with you to let you
    know if any--if our scientists are in fact reviewing E30.
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you. And thank you for looking at the
    E85. I'm hearing lots of good words out there on the streets
    from the people who are using it as well.
        I guess one of our biggest concerns back home is the small
    refinery exemptions. And the question I get from farmers is,
    how do you define what a small refinery is? And I understand
    Frontier Refinery and where I grew up in El Dorado, that's a
    small refinery. Coffeyville, Kansas, has a small refinery. How
    do you determine what's a small refinery, who really needed the
    exemptions versus some of the others?
        Mr. Wheeler. Well, the definition of small refinery is in
    the statute itself, and it's based on barrels of oil produced
    at the refinery. But it's--I do want to just--there is a
    misperception in a lot of areas. It's not the size of the
    corporate parent. It's the refinery itself. It's not the
    refiner. So, for example, a very large company can own a small
    refinery. The Department of Energy is the one that takes a look
    at the small refineries. When the small refineries apply for
    the small refinery exemption, they apply to EPA. We send a
    request to the Department of Energy. They review the economic
    data to determine whether or not there is a hardship----
        Mr. Marshall. OK.
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Based under the statute for each
    refinery, not the parent company but the refinery itself.
        Mr. Marshall. So the parent company owns five oil
    refineries, do they lump together for the number or do you take
    each one at each location?
        Mr. Wheeler. Each one, each location. The statute defines
    it as a refinery. So, for example, a large company may own a
    small refinery in the middle of the Rocky Mountains. If that
    refinery----
        Mr. Marshall. Do you feel the number that we're using is a
    good reflection, is a good number, or is that in statute?
        Mr. Wheeler. It's in statute.
        Mr. Marshall. OK. Let's talk about glyphosate for just a
    second, OK? So biochemistry major, medical physician, certainly
    I'm concerned about people's health. I'm confused myself. Which
    Federal agency, is it the EPA or the ATSDR is tasked with
    regulating and vetting the safety of glyphosate?
        Mr. Wheeler. That would be EPA under our pesticides
    program.
        Mr. Marshall. Do you feel there's any infringement going on
    by other folks like the ATSDR?
        Mr. Wheeler. We always welcome science reviews by other
    agencies and departments. We often look at the work that they
    do not just within our country but also other countries. We
    look at different international bodies. For glyphosate, we took
    one of the most comprehensive looks at that chemical, that
    pesticide ever by any regulatory body anywhere in the world.
    Our conclusions are that it is not a carcinogen, and those
    conclusions match regulatory bodies around the world.
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Beyer.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Wheeler, during your confirmation hearing, Senator
    Whitehouse asked you about the action plan developed by your
    former lobbying client, the coal baron Robert Murray. That
    plan, which is commonly known as the Murray memo, presented a
    series of asks from Murray's fossil fuel company, one of Donald
    Trump's largest donors, asks to the Trump Administration, asked
    essentially a series of actions to gut the environmental
    protections and climate action in this country.
        So I offer with great dismay what we might call the Trump
    Administration's report card for delivering on what your former
    client Mr. Murray asked you and the EPA to do. Murray asked you
    to cut the EPA workforce in half, but you only supported the
    Trump budget, which only cut it by one-third, so let's call
    that an incomplete. He asked you to withdraw from the Paris
    climate accords. You did it right away, A-plus. He asked you to
    eliminate the Clean Power Plan. You've almost finished that, so
    we'll call that a B-plus. He asked you to eliminate the maximum
    achievable control technology standards, which regulate toxic
    pollution. He has proposed a big loophole to allow increases in
    that pollution, so that's a B. He wanted you to end cross-State
    air pollution rule. You didn't do that yet, but you've weakened
    enforcement, so maybe just a C. And we're still unclear on his
    request that you withdraw the endangerment finding for
    greenhouse gases, which is a legal basis for all of our
    regulations to fight climate change. You haven't done this yet,
    but your former boss Senator Inhofe says he thinks you'll do
    this, quote, ``eventually.''
        So did you take these directives right from Mr. Murray, and
    do you plan to complete the rest of Mr. Murray's tasks?
        Mr. Wheeler. Well, I appreciate you keeping score. As I've
    said many times, I've never read the Murray action plan. I
    didn't have it, I didn't write it, and I didn't read it, so
    this recitation of the items in there is the first I've heard
    of many of those that were included, so no, I am not following
    that plan. I don't have a copy, I never read it, I don't have
    it, I didn't write it. I've said that throughout over the last
    2-1/2 years since the beginning of my confirmation process for
    Deputy Administrator.
        Mr. Beyer. Well, I appreciate your clear statement on that,
    and I am dismayed that there is such an overlap between the
    leadership that you have offered and what the Murray memo says.
        One of the vast numbers of ethical complaints raised
    against your predecessor Scott Pruitt was that he politicized
    the EPA's response to freedom of information requests in order
    to hide his own wrongdoing. I raised issues about this last
    year, possible violations to your ethics pledge, and I confess
    you've been a significant improvement on Scott Pruitt where
    ethics are concerned.
        I'm baffled, though, that you have overseen changes to the
    FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) process, which would
    essentially codify Scott Pruitt's politicization of the FOIA
    process. Members of Congress don't like it, environmentalists
    don't like it, journalists don't like it. Why are you making it
    harder for the American people to find out how the EPA is
    making decisions?
        Mr. Wheeler. We did not do that; we're not doing that.
    Congress--EPA last changed their FOIA regulations around 2000.
    Congress amended the FOIA statute 3 times since then. In 2016,
    the last time Congress amended FOIA, they required all agencies
    and departments to update their FOIA regulations. EPA did not
    do that under the Obama Administration. We were behind. Most
    other agencies already accomplished that in 2016 or 2017. The
    changes to our FOIA regulations follow the directions that
    Congress gave us in the 2016 FOIA amendments. That was all that
    was done. It did not change our process in fact. It was mostly
    housekeeping items.
        The only change we made was to centralize where the FOIA
    requests come in to at the Agency, and that was a
    recommendation from GAO where they took a look at our FOIA
    process at EPA and said you should have a one-stop place for
    all FOIA requests, so that was the only substantive change we
    made to our FOIA regulations. The rest of it has been----
        Mr. Beyer. Why do you think there's been so much----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Blown out of proportion----
        Mr. Beyer [continuing]. Pushback from the various
    communities of concern?
        Mr. Wheeler. I don't know. I am at a loss. I guess there's
    a lot of people, particularly journalists, that believe that
    whatever we do, there must be a nefarious purpose to it. The
    FOIA regulations were actually drafted by our career attorneys
    in our General Counsel's office, had very little to no input
    from any political people on my team. And again, it was just
    following the direction that Congress gave us in the FOIA
    amendments of 2016.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Norman.
        Mr. Norman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Wheeler, thank you for your service. Let me focus on--
    --
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Mr. Norman [continuing]. On obsolete committees. You're
    aware in July of this year hearings were held on the Federal
    Advisory Committees at the EPA, and it focused on the potential
    impact of President Trump's executive order on advisory
    committees. Based on the characterization made by many of my
    colleagues and their friends in the media, you would think this
    order was the deathblow to science at all the agencies. In
    reality, this just seems like a commonsense, nonpartisan way to
    eliminate wasteful committees.
        When this order was executed at your Agency, do you believe
    it will have any consequences, negative I guess, for the
    ability of the EPA to protect the human health and environment?
        Mr. Wheeler. No, I don't believe it would have any negative
    impact at all.
        Mr. Norman. So that was a good move?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes. You know, to quote President--to
    paraphrase President Reagan--I screw up the quote a lot--the
    closest thing to immortality is a government program once
    created. And I think taking a look at our advisory committees,
    the ones that we're not required under statute to determine
    whether or not they still have a useful purpose for the Agency,
    was a very important step for us to take, and I'm very pleased
    that President Trump asked all Federal departments and agencies
    to undertake that.
        Mr. Norman. So what he did is similar to what every
    business goes through, every family budget. You evaluate the
    things you're doing. If it doesn't make sense, you eliminate it
    or pare it down. If it does make sense, you go forward with it.
    So this has no negative impact in your opinion?
        Mr. Wheeler. No. And while I can't comment on what we've
    recommended to the White House as far as disbanding FACA
    (Federal Advisory Committee Act) committees, I do want to
    clarify because there has been misreporting in the press that
    we're going to do away with our children's health FACA. We just
    published in the Federal Register I believe this week
    reconstituting that FACA, so we are not doing away with the
    children's health FACA. I can say that. I cannot say which ones
    we've recommended to the White House, however.
        Mr. Norman. And how any committees were affected by this?
        Mr. Wheeler. I believe we had approximately 12 committees
    that were created not by statute but just by administrative
    creation, and we examined all 12 of those--approximately 12,
    and we examined those to see whether or not they should be
    eliminated, and then we made our recommendations to the White
    House. And the White House has asked all agencies and
    departments not to discuss our recommendations until they've
    had a chance to review all of the departments' and agencies'
    recommendations.
        Mr. Norman. So none of the agencies that were eliminated
    were statutory? It was all administratively administered----
        Mr. Wheeler. That's right.
        Mr. Norman [continuing]. Or started out? And what he did
    was actually--I would make the argument it would be helping the
    Agency, wouldn't it?
        Mr. Wheeler. I--yes, just to--I think every agency should
    periodically take a look at organizations like that that they
    have to see whether or not they still make sense to continue. I
    think it was a very useful exercise. There were a couple of
    committees to be honest that we looked at that hadn't met in
    several years, so you have to wonder whether or not it's a
    useful purpose if they aren't even meeting.
        Mr. Norman. Which everyday Americans do.
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Mr. Norman. Thank you. Madam Chair, I'm going to yield the
    balance of my time to Chairman Lucas.
        Mr. Lucas. I thank my colleague.
        Director, let's discuss for just a moment, there's been
    some topics and discussions here. Is there anywhere in Federal
    law, is there anywhere in custom, is there anywhere in
    administrative policy down through the years where EPA is
    charged with tailoring its decisions to match the needs of the
    biggest corporations or the needs of a few particular States?
    Don't you have a broader jurisdiction than that----
        Mr. Wheeler. We do----
        Mr. Lucas [continuing]. A responsibility?
        Mr. Wheeler. We try to look holistically at the impact of
    all of our regulations across everyone. The EtO, the ethylene
    oxide that I was asked about earlier, one of the reasons why
    we're going a little slower on that is we've been asked to do a
    small business SBREFA (Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
    Fairness Act) panel to take a look to see what the impacts
    might be for small businesses. We have to take those into
    account before we go forward with a regulation.
        Mr. Lucas. So the whole country, the impact on the entire
    Nation, every citizen, not just particular places or particular
    entities?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. Fair statement? Thank you, Director. Yield back,
    Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Crist.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And, Administrator, thank you for being with us today.
        This past June the EPA finalized its Affordable Clean
    Energy rule known as the ACE rule as a replacement for the
    Obama-era Clean Power Plan. In past hearings you've insisted
    that the ACE rule will reduce emissions by 34 percent from 2005
    levels by 2030. However, EPA's own analysis of ACE notes that
    the rule will only decrease emissions between .7 and 1.5
    percent below baseline.
        Even more alarming, the analysis also notes that repealing
    the Clean Power Plan and replacing it with ACE will lead to
    1,400 premature deaths, 15,000 more cases of upper respiratory
    problems, and 48,000 more cases of asthma. How can I go back to
    my constituents in Florida and tell them that this rule is
    supposed to protect their health and the environment when the
    EPA itself admits that the rule will cause over 1,000 deaths
    and at best marginally reduce emissions?
        Mr. Wheeler. Well, first of all, Congressman, I don't
    believe that's true. First of all, the Clean Power Plan never
    took effect, so you can't compare a regulation that is on the
    books to something that was a pie-in-the-sky dream by the Obama
    Administration that was outside of the Clean Air Act. The Clean
    Power Plan, it was subject to the historic stay by the Supreme
    Court, and we--I--we believe--I believe that that happened
    because the Clean Power Plan was outside of the Clean Air Act.
    It did not have the statutory authorization that was necessary
    for a regulation. So the Obama Administration put forward the
    Clean Power Plan, never took effect, so you can't compare what
    might have happened for a regulation that did not--that was not
    grounded in the statute--in the statute itself.
        I--I'm--have to admit the number you quoted for our ACE
    rule, I'm not familiar with that. I'd like to get back to you
    on that specifically. I don't think I've said by 2030. I think
    what I say is 34 percent reduction below 2005 levels over the
    course of the regulation. Now, that course may be 2030. I don't
    remember the year off the top of my head. But I will get back
    to you to answer this specific question that you had on the
    other reduction level.
        Mr. Crist. Well, thank you. I'd appreciate that,
    Administrator.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Mr. Crist. Of course. Your Agency's website clearly states
    that EPA's mission is to protect human health and the
    environment. Given the findings and the impact analysis that
    your Agency produced, it's clear that the ACE rule doesn't come
    close to meeting what anybody would look at that mission to be.
    I appreciate that you're going to check, but I'm not comparing
    two things. I'm only citing what your own Agency has said the
    effect of the ACE rule would be.
        Mr. Wheeler. That was in our proposal, not in the final
    regulation of that comparison. And again, the Clean Power Plan
    never took effect, so you can't really say that the Clean Power
    Plan would have saved any lives since it--no--it was never
    effective. Nobody was complying with the Clean Power Plan.
        And, again, you know, the--when we stepped in and we saw
    that the Clean Power Plan had been stayed by the Supreme Court,
    you know, people turned to us. I had people from the right that
    said you shouldn't do anything, you should overturn the
    endangerment finding. I had people on the left that said you
    need to defend the Clean Power Plan even though the stay from
    the Supreme Court. But what we did is we took a look at the
    Clean Air Act, we determined what the statute required us to
    do, what it called for us to do. We wanted to make sure that we
    were reducing CO2 emissions to the electric power
    sector because we were required to do that under the
    Massachusetts v. EPA decision, and we went forward with a
    regulation, the ACE rule that we believe follows the Clean Air
    Act and will reduce CO2 emissions from industry.
        Again, you know, people didn't want us to do anything. They
    thought we should overturn the endangerment finding. Other
    people, of course, liked the Clean Power Plan even though it
    was not--it never took effect. Well, what we did was go back to
    the Clean Air Act itself, take a look at the requirements were,
    the Supreme Court decision, and we put forward a regulation
    that we believe will reduce CO2 emissions from the
    electric power sector.
        Mr. Crist. I certainly hope so.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Ms. Wexton.
        Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
    Administrator Wheeler, for joining us here today.
        We've all seen the recent headlines about office
    relocations being carried out by other departments within the
    Federal Government. Right now, the USDA (U.S. Department of
    Agriculture) is in the process of rushing through the
    relocation of two agencies from Washington, D.C. to Kansas
    City, despite being unjustified and in violation of the law.
    And the Interior Department has proposed to move most of the
    Bureau of Land Management's D.C. staff to Colorado and has
    started notifying employees this week of where their jobs will
    be moved to.
        It's apparent that these moves are not to save the
    taxpayers money or provide better services to constituents but
    instead to sideline the scientific work that's being done by
    these agencies and further the agenda of this Administration to
    dismantle crucial parts of the Federal Government. These
    radical decisions have already created a devastating
    consequence for the offices and the affected employees. Many of
    these Federal employees are my constituents. They are
    dedicated, hardworking people who want only to serve our
    country. They don't deserve to be pawns in a political game.
        So I want to give you the opportunity right now to reassure
    EPA employees in the greater Washington, D.C. area and in other
    hubs around the country like the North Carolina Research
    Triangle and Cincinnati, Ohio, that there are no plans to
    disrupt their lives as part of a political agenda against the
    Federal Government and scientific evidence. So I ask you
    directly, yes or no, does EPA have any plans currently under
    consideration to relocate substantial numbers of EPA employees
    or functions out of the D.C. area or from one region of the
    country to another?
        Mr. Wheeler. First part of the question is easy, no, we
    don't have plans to relocate substantial numbers of people out
    of the D.C. area at all. On the regional side, I--we are trying
    to move some of our labs--as--I don't know if you were here
    earlier when I had a question about the Region 6 lab in Texas.
    We're moving that from a leased space in Houston to an EPA-
    owned facility in Ada, Oklahoma, but it's still within the
    region.
        Ms. Wexton. In addition to----
        Mr. Wheeler. We want to make sure that we have a regional
    lab in all 10 of our regions, but we are moving some of our
    labs to EPA- or GSA-owned space, which is what Congress
    required us to do in 2016----
        Ms. Wexton. And are you moving it----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. In the FASTA Act.
        Ms. Wexton. And are you moving it to space within the same
    general geographic region?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Ms. Wexton. OK.
        Mr. Wheeler. With one exception which predates me, and that
    decision, I believe, was made by the Obama Administration. We
    moved a large part of the Region 9 lab in California to Oregon,
    I believe.
        Ms. Wexton. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Wheeler. But that was a decision from several years
    ago.
        Ms. Wexton. I'm going to reclaim my time. I'd like to speak
    for a moment about David Dunlap's role in the IRIS formaldehyde
    review. The senior-most political official that oversees IRIS,
    David Dunlap, recently left a long career with Koch Industries,
    which owns one of the largest formaldehyde producers in the
    country, you may be aware. In February 2018 Dr. Dunlap emailed
    your Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson from his Koch email address.
    In that message Mr. Dunlap urged Mr. Jackson to review some of
    the studies and said he would, quote, ``provide inhaled
    formaldehyde does not cause leukemia in humans.'' Six months
    after that, Mr. Dunlap came to work for the EPA. Three months
    after that, the IRIS review of formaldehyde had been
    eliminated. This timeline speaks for itself.
        Questions for the record were issued to the Agency
    regarding Mr. Dunlap's participation in decisionmaking around
    formaldehyde. The EPA finally sent responses on Friday, 5
    months later, but ignored those questions.
        So I'll ask you again here. Was David Dunlap involved in
    decisionmaking related to formaldehyde prior to his December
    2018 recusal?
        Mr. Wheeler. Not to my knowledge. He hasn't briefed me on
    formaldehyde, and to my knowledge he hasn't been involved in
    any of the formaldehyde decisions. He recused himself from
    that. The process that we used on the IRIS process actually
    started before he joined the Agency, and that was--the IRIS
    program itself has had problems dating back to the early 1990s
    when I first started working at EPA. I wanted to make sure that
    our regulatory programs are--can utilize the IRIS assessments
    when they come out, so we started a new process last summer
    where there had to be an agreement between the IRIS program and
    the regulatory offices within EPA as to what their assessments
    going forward would be and what the regulatory purpose was.
        Ms. Wexton. And I apologize, but I'm out of time. And I
    know that you said not to your knowledge, but would you be
    willing to get confirmation of that, that he did not have any
    involvement with that decisionmaking process throughout your
    entire Agency and provide that confirmation to this Committee?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I'll be happy to look into that.
        Ms. Wexton. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Foster.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you,
    Administrator Wheeler.
        Yesterday, the President announced that this week the EPA
    would be issuing a notice of violation for environmental
    pollution to the city of San Francisco. Could you walk us
    through the timeline for the scientific studies, legal
    determinations, and technical measurements that led to that
    announcement?
        Mr. Wheeler. At this point we--I can't comment on a
    potential EPA enforcement action. We've not taken any official
    steps yet. We're still looking into the issues, and it's not
    a--I can't comment on a pending or potential enforcement
    action.
        Mr. Foster. But when the President said it was coming this
    week, is it routine for you to issue notices of violation,
    whatever that means, with less than 1 week of preparatory work?
        Mr. Wheeler. Again, I don't--I didn't see where he said it
    was happening this week, but----
        Mr. Foster. It was carried in multiple news reports from
    the reporters that listen to his comment.
        Mr. Wheeler. I'll----
        Mr. Foster. I certainly take those at face value as well.
    But, yes, so you're telling us there was no preliminary action,
    there had been no finding that San Francisco--for example, how
    was San Francisco chosen as opposed to Miami or Bedminster, New
    Jersey, or wherever else you might think of finding
    environmental violations?
        Mr. Wheeler. Again, I can't comment specifically on a
    pending--a potential pending enforcement action. As the Agency
    head, before we take an enforcement action, it's inappropriate
    for me to comment publicly on anything that we may be doing on
    the enforcement side.
        Mr. Foster. But you routinely, apparently without--if the
    President decides something and a week later he expects the EPA
    to issue a notice of violation, take some official action, is
    that the way you do business, or was the President saying
    something that was not true there?
        Mr. Wheeler. I don't want to comment on my conversations
    with the President, but again, on enforcement actions, I cannot
    comment on a pending--potential pending enforcement action.
        Mr. Foster. No, this is a matter of how you do business.
    Can the President show up one week and say I think we should
    issue a violation, that EPA will do it, and then you fast-track
    all of the scientific legal findings, everything----
        Mr. Wheeler. No, that is not how we do business, and that--
    --
        Mr. Foster. So how can it logically be true that when the
    President announces that within a week we're going to have a
    notice of violation if that is not the way you do business? I'm
    just trying to understand the logical----
        Mr. Wheeler. I will be----
        Mr. Foster [continuing]. Gap.
        Mr. Wheeler. If we do take an enforcement action and once a
    decision is made whether or not we are going to take an
    enforcement action, I would be more than happy to brief you and
    your staff on the decision process that we took.
        Mr. Foster. OK. Will you be able to get----
        Mr. Wheeler. But I cannot at this point in time----
        Mr. Foster. For the record, will you be able to get back to
    us----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Comment publicly----
        Mr. Foster. OK. But will you be able to get--within a week
    when the President announced you would be doing it, can you get
    back either with the notice of violation or an explanation for
    what the President said was not correct, one or the other?
        Mr. Wheeler. I'm not sure within a week, but we certainly--
    before we make a--after we make a decision----
        Mr. Foster. But if you never make a decision----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. For a potential enforcement----
        Mr. Foster [continuing]. Because it turns out that the
    statement that he was making was not supported by facts, then
    we will--making no promise----
        Mr. Wheeler. I will get back to you----
        Mr. Foster [continuing]. Within a week you figure out
    what's----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. As soon as we can.
        Mr. Foster [continuing]. Figure out what's going on----
        Mr. Wheeler. I will get back to as soon as we can with
    statements explaining our actions----
        Mr. Foster. All right. Let's----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Or why we're not acting.
        Mr. Foster. A quick question. You know, often when you
    decide to alter or abolish a regulation, you know, it's a cost-
    benefit analysis. The costs are measured in dollars, and the
    benefits are measured in saved human lives. To do that balance
    you need to know what's the value of a human life in dollars.
    How do you think about that problem, and what is your best
    number and the one you try to operate in making that balance?
        Mr. Wheeler. Well, we always want to show that the benefits
    of a regulatory action outweigh the costs----
        Mr. Foster. But--all right. In----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. And that is why we're moving
    forward----
        Mr. Foster [continuing]. Dollars versus human life----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. With a statute-by-statute
    approach on cost-benefit analysis.
        Mr. Foster. Right. But you need to convert the benefits of
    human lives and compare them with a cost in dollars. That----
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Mr. Foster [continuing]. So you need a calibration.
        Mr. Wheeler. We do that----
        Mr. Foster. What is your calibration?
        Mr. Wheeler. We do that on a regular basis. Some of our
    statutes require different balances. Some require no
    consideration of cost. You know, I'm thinking of the NAAQS in
    particular when you set that science-based standard for the
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards. We're not supposed to
    take costs into account, so we take a look at the science, we
    take a look at the impacts on human life. So it differs from
    statute by statute. But we do take that into account. And in
    our regulatory analysis for all of our regulations, we explain
    the balance and the cost factors and the benefit factors that
    we use for each individual regulatory decision.
        There's one reason why instead of having a cost-benefit
    regulation that apply to all of our regulations, which is what
    we proposed last year. We decided instead to do it on a
    statute-by-statute basis because of the differences between the
    statutes. We can't just come up with a simple formula for cost-
    benefit analysis for all of our regulations. We have to look on
    a statute-by-statute basis.
        Mr. Foster. I guess my time is up.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Casten.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler.
        First off, do you confirm that the EPA has found that
    current and projected levels of greenhouse gas emissions
    threaten public health and the welfare of current and future
    generations, yes or no?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I believe that was the endangerment
    finding----
        Mr. Casten. OK. That's----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. By the Obama Administration.
        Mr. Casten. That is--the organizations we work for are
    bigger than us. I'm just focusing at your organization.
        Second, I want to clarify, you had said to Mr. Crist a
    moment ago that essentially intimated that the estimates of ACE
    versus the Clean Power Plan are an apples-to-oranges. I'm
    holding in my hand the report that the EPA issued. I flipped it
    random to page 325, and it says the base case is the Clean
    Power Plan and then goes through and does comparisons. This
    entire justification for the ACE is compared to the Clean Power
    Plan. All the numbers Mr. Crist--do you confirm that this
    report throughout all of these pages compares ACE to the Clean
    Power Plan?
        Mr. Wheeler. That was in our proposal. Our final action did
    not----
        Mr. Casten. The numbers that----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Compare because we decided that
    the Clean Power Plan was not the rule----
        Mr. Casten. The numbers that Mr. Crist cited were
    consistent with that, so do you confirm then----
        Mr. Wheeler. From our proposal----
        Mr. Casten [continuing]. That while the----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Not from our final regulation,
    sir.
        Mr. Casten. Do you confirm that while the Clean Power Plan
    was designed to reduce emissions, designed to reduce emissions
    by 32 percent, your proposal was designed to reduce emissions
    by a .7 to 1.5 percent? Again, I am quoting your own report.
        Mr. Wheeler. Again, that was the proposal, not the final
    action. We took comment on that, and our final numbers are in
    our final regulation that we finalized in July. So you're
    taking the----
        Mr. Casten. The----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Numbers from our proposal, and
    they changed----
        Mr. Casten. So you confirm that this report is an accurate
    statement from the EPA. Do you also confirm that this report
    says that the ACE proposal would result in as many as 1,400
    additional deaths by 2030?
        Mr. Wheeler. No, that was looking at the Clean Power Plan
    if the Clean Power Plan had been enacted. And again, the Clean
    Power Plan was stayed by the Supreme Court, so it was never----
        Mr. Casten. OK. Sir, I will submit this to the record.
        Mr. Wheeler. All right.
        Mr. Casten. These numbers are in here. Now, I am
    concerned----
        Mr. Wheeler. From the proposal, not from the final
    regulation, though.
        Mr. Casten. Sir, I have spent the first 7 years of my
    career in the sciences, the next 16 years running a business.
    You've had a distinguished career in lobbying. I do not have
    the luxury in my career of selectively interpreting facts. I
    want to stay on facts because I'm really concerned with the way
    that you have analyzed facts.
        When you considered the impacts of the ACE proposal, do you
    confirm that you reduced the discount rate for future analyses
    from 3 percent to 7 percent?
        Mr. Wheeler. I believe so, but I'd have to get back to you
    on that.
        Mr. Casten. OK. I will so stipulate that that is in the
    report. That has the practical effect of essentially lowering
    by about a factor of 4 over a 30-year plan--for those of you
    who are not fluent in compound math--to the cost of the
    proposal.
        That is not the only place that the ACE changed. On page
    164 of the proposed rule for ACE, table 17 shows that there is
    a net benefit of going from the Clean Power Plan to ACE. On the
    very next page, page 165, it says that if you include the
    health impacts, which I think is in your mandate, that there is
    actually a net cost. Do you confirm that the justification for
    ACE omitted the health impacts----
        Mr. Wheeler. No, again----
        Mr. Casten [continuing]. Of reducing----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. That is from our proposal, and
    you're citing something that we took comment on. The final
    Agency record on this regulation was our final regulation
    issued in July. It was not from a----
        Mr. Casten. OK. Now----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Proposal that we received
    comments on and modified and changed----
        Mr. Casten. With----
        Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Before we went final.
        Mr. Casten. Madam Chair, I'd like unanimous consent to
    enter these documents into the record. I want to move on with
    the moments I have left here. Will you----
        Chairwoman Johnson. Without objection.
        Mr. Casten. When you appeared before the Senate for your
    confirmation hearing, Senator Merkley asked you about a study
    from Boston University, Harvard, and Syracuse that had recently
    been published. The study found that the ACE proposal would
    provide no, zero meaningful reductions because it effectively
    allows plans to bypass pollution controls. At the time you said
    you had not had time to review the study.
        Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter this study
    into the record.
        Mr. Casten. Have you had a chance to review that peer-
    reviewed paper since?
        Mr. Wheeler. I looked at it at the time, but again, that
    was based on our proposal, not on our final regulation, which
    we--and the justifications. We don't believe that that study
    was accurate.
        Mr. Casten. Can you explain the discrepancy between the 34
    percent reduction cited in the regulatory impact analysis and
    what the authors of the study found?
        Mr. Wheeler. No, I cannot explain what the authors of the
    study found.
        Mr. Casten. Will you commit to providing your analysis of
    why you think this is justified after this hearing is over?
        Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Wheeler, I skipped my questions so we would get more
    Members. I'm going to submit them to you, which really has to
    do with procedure and decisionmaking. I wonder if you would
    maybe be able to respond in a 2-week period.
        Mr. Wheeler. I will certainly strive to.
        Chairwoman Johnson. OK. Thank you so very much for
    testifying before the Committee.
        The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
    statements from the Members and for any additional questions
    the Committee might want to ask the witness.
        The witness is now excused, and we thank you for coming.
    The Committee is adjourned.
        Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]