[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PATH FORWARD: RESTORING THE VITAL
MISSION OF EPA
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 10, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-10
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-037 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Chair
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York Ranking Member
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
RAUL RUIZ, California BILLY LONG, Missouri
SCOTT H. PETERS, California, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
KIM SCHRIER, Washington GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona (ex officio)
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement.................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator (2001-2003), Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Carol Browner, Administrator (1993-2001), Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Former Chief of Staff and Former
Regional Administrator, Region 4, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Former Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency.................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
John Deskins, Ph.D., Director, Bureau of Business and Economic
Research, West Virginia University............................. 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Submitted Material
Statement of the Environmental Protection Network by Lee Thomas,
et al. August 12, 2020, submitted by Ms. DeGette............... 83
Letter of December 19, 2019, from Hon. Lizzie Fletcher, Chair,
Subcommittee on Environment, House Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, to Charles J. Sheehan, Acting Inspector
General, Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Ms.
Fletcher....................................................... 86
Letter of July 12, 2019, from Hon. Al Green, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas, et al., to Andrew Wheeler,
Acting Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
submitted by Ms. Fletcher...................................... 88
Commentary of January 3, 2021, ``One Trump-Era Notion Biden May
Want to Embrace; Independent regulators should analyze the
costs and benefits of new rules, like executive agencies do,''
by Susan Dudley and Sally Katzen, Wall Street Journal,
submitted by Mr. Joyce......................................... 90
Fact sheet, ``Key Accomplishments Under Administrator Andrew
Wheeler,'' Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr.
McKinley....................................................... 93
Report, ``EPA Year in Review 2020,'' Environmental Protection
Agency, submitted by Mr. McKinley\1\
Article of March 13, 2019, ``The Fentanyl Failure,'' by Scott
Higham, et al., the Washington Post, submitted by Mr. Burgess.. 95
----------
\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20210310/111279/HHRG-117-IF02-
20210310-SD015-U2.pdf.
THE PATH FORWARD: RESTORING THE VITAL MISSION OF EPA
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m., via
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Diana DeGette
(chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives DeGette, Kuster, Rice,
Schakowsky, Tonko, Ruiz, Peters, Schrier, Trahan, O'Halleran,
Pallone (ex officio); Griffith (subcommittee ranking member),
Burgess, McKinley, Long, Dunn, Joyce, Palmer, and Rodgers (ex
officio).
Also present: Representatives Castor and Fletcher.
Staff present: Kevin Barstow, Chief Oversight Counsel;
Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Austin Flack, Policy
Analyst; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio,
Deputy Staff Director; Judy Harvey, Counsel; Rebekah Jones,
Counsel; Chris Knauer, Oversight Staff Director; Mackenzie
Kuhl, Digital Assistant; Jon Monger, Counsel; Elysa Montfort,
Press Secretary; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson,
Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Nikki Roy, Policy
Coordinator; Benjamin Tabor, Junior Professional Staff Member;
Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Jerry Couri,
Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Environment; Diane Cutler,
Minority Detailee, Oversight and Investigations; Theresa Gambo,
Minority Financial and Office Administrator; Marissa Gervasi,
Minority Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Brittany
Havens, Minority Professional Staff Member, Oversight and
Investigations; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Peter
Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member
Services Director; Bijan Boohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel;
Tim Kurth, Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection and
Commerce; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and
Environment; Clare Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst, Health;
Olivia Shields, Minority Communications Director; Alan
Slobodin, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel, Oversight and
Investigations; Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional
Staff Member, Energy; Michael Taggart, Minority Policy
Director; and Everett Winnick, Minority Director of Information
Technology.
Ms. DeGette. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing will now come to order.
Today the subcommittee will hold a hearing entitled ``The
Path Forward: Restoring the Vital Mission of EPA.'' Today's
hearing will address actions needed to restore EPA so that it
can fulfill its vital mission of protecting public health and
the environment.
Due to the COVID-19 health emergency, of course, today's
hearing is being held remotely. All Members, witnesses, and
staff will be participating in video conferencing, and as part
of our proceeding, microphones will be set on mute for the
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members
and witnesses, you know this already, but please unmute your
microphone each time you wish to speak.
And I do want to announce a wonderful new announcement for
this subcommittee. Scott Peters from California will be the
vice chair of this committee for this Congress. And so, if at
any time during the hearing I am unable to chair it, the vice
chair, Mr. Peters, will serve as chair till I am able to
return.
And we may have some votes during the hearing. But
Mr.Peters and I have talked, and we will try to stagger our
time so that we will continue throughout the votes. Each vote
is 45 minutes long, so I do not think that should be any
problem. And we--out of courtesy to our witnesses, we want to
make sure that we do not have long breaks in the hearing.
Documents for the record can be sent to Austin Flack at the
email address we provided to staff. All documents will be
entered into the record at the conclusion of the hearing. And
the Chair now recognizes herself for the purposes of an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Today, we continue this subcommittee's long record of
oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Our
panel today is very, very distinguished. They have all
dedicated their careers to improving our Nation's air, water,
land, and economy, and can provide critical insight on how to
restore the vital mission of the EPA. We thank them and for the
views that they will share today on how to strengthen this very
important agency.
For 50 years now, we have relied on EPA to take on and
mitigate our Nation's most complex environmental threats, and
its work is crucial to help protect public health and the
environment. For example, EPA develops standards to reduce air
pollutants that cause early death and worsen lung and heart
disease.
Every day, the Agency helps ensure the safety of drinking
water for millions of Americans. And it oversees the cleanup of
hundreds of contaminated Superfund sites across the country,
many of which pose enormous environmental risks. So, given the
importance and scope of EPA's mission, this is an Agency that
we simply cannot afford to neglect, and today that is even more
true today than ever.
For example, every year climate change is contributing to
an extended hurricane and wildfire season, threatening billions
of dollars in catastrophic losses to homes and businesses. And
every year, we seem to break new climate and weather records
throughout the U.S. In my own home State of Colorado, for
example, just last year we witnessed the three largest fires
ever recorded in the State's history, and all at the same time.
And when extreme weather and environmental catastrophes
hit, frankly it is often the most vulnerable populations that
bear the brunt. We see this in floods and hurricanes. We even
saw this last month in Texas, where many people faced crushing
power bills and they had to wait in long lines to access food
and to access water.
With the environmental pressures facing this country
increasing, certain policies have failed to keep up with the
threats. To make matters worse, we recently saw a reversal of
key environmental efforts designed to make the country cleaner
and healthier.
For example, over the last few years, the Trump
administration compromised or entirely eliminated dozens of
important protections. Examples include the repeal of the Clean
Power Plan, the weakening of the mercury and air toxics rule,
and the rollback of fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.
Also during those years, key EPA functions were put at
risk. For instance, pollution inspections fell considerably at
times, threatening the Agency's ability to hold polluters
accountable and to set a level playing field. The application
of science, which is traditionally the backbone of EPA's
decisionmaking, was not only sidelined but sometimes denied.
For example, the term ``climate change'' disappeared from
thousands of Federal websites and official communications.
Panels of independent experts who provided crucial input on
air pollution science were suddenly dismissed. Staff departed
the Agency at alarming rates, sometimes choosing to leave after
concerns of political influence on the scientific process.
So, as we look again to empower EPA, we cannot just focus
on regulations and policies. We also have to rebuild the
institutional capacity, scientific integrity, and in fact the
credibility of the Agency itself. And we must fully support
EPA's career workforce so that it can address the environmental
problems of today and in the future.
Well, while the Agency faces significant challenges, of
course we also have opportunities. History has shown that
environmental and economic progress are not mutually exclusive,
but if done right, they reinforce each other.
For example, the benefits of air regulations implemented by
EPA over the last 30 years are estimated to be more than 30
times more the costs. Likewise, efforts to remove lead from
gasoline have saved trillions of dollars by substantially
curbing childhood lead poisoning. In other words, a strong EPA
can go and has gone hand in hand with a strong economy.
Because of the past successes and committed new leadership,
I am hopeful for the future. Starting on day one, the Biden
administration has shown a desire to get EPA's mission back on
track. The President has ordered an immediate review of dozens
of rollbacks issued in the last administration and has stressed
the importance of a governmentwide approach to addressing
climate change.
Moreover, the President also stated that EPA will
prioritize environmental enforcement in low-income and minority
communities. But it is going to take a sustained effort by EPA,
stakeholders, and Congress if the Agency is to succeed in its
mission of protecting public health and the environment. I hope
that we can all play our part and today's hearing will
contribute to that effort.
And so I'm really looking forward to hearing from the
former EPA officials and experts about what they see as the
most serious challenges facing us and how we can address them,
because at this critical moment, we just simply have no time to
lose.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Diana DeGette
Today, we continue the subcommittee's long record of
oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
We welcome a very distinguished panel of witnesses. They
have dedicated their careers to improving our Nation's air,
water, land, and economy, and can provide critical insight on
how to restore the vital mission of EPA. We thank them for that
and the views they will share today on how to strengthen this
important Agency.
For 50 years, we have relied on EPA to take on and mitigate
our Nation's most complex environmental threats--and its work
is crucial in helping to protect public health and the
environment. For example, EPA develops standards to reduce air
pollutants that cause early death and worsen lung and heart
disease. Every day, EPA helps ensure the safety of drinking
water for millions of Americans. And EPA oversees the cleanup
of hundreds of contaminated Superfund sites across the country,
many of which pose enormous environmental risk.
Given the importance and scope of EPA's mission, this is an
Agency that we cannot afford to neglect, and that is truer
today than ever.
For example, each year climate change is contributing to
extended hurricane and wildfire seasons, threatening billions
of dollars in catastrophic losses to homes and businesses. And
each year, we seem to break new climate and weather records
throughout the U.S. In my State of Colorado, for example, we
experienced the three largest fires ever recorded in the
State's history just in the last year.
And when extreme weather and environmental catastrophes
hit, it is often our most vulnerable populations that bear the
burden.
We see this in floods and hurricanes. We even saw this last
month in Texas, where many faced crushing power bills and had
to wait in long lines to access food and clean water.
While the environmental pressures facing this country have
intensified in recent years, certain policies have failed to
keep up with the threats. To make matters worse, we have
recently seen a reversal of key environmental efforts designed
to make the country cleaner and healthier.
For example, over the past several years, the Trump
administration compromised or entirely eliminated dozens of
important protections. Examples include the repeal of the Clean
Power Plan, the weakening of the mercury and air toxics rule,
and the rollback of fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.
Also during those years, important EPA functions were put
at risk. For instance, pollution inspections fell considerably
at times, threatening the Agency's ability to hold polluters
accountable and set a level playing field.
The application of science--traditionally the backbone of
EPA's decisionmaking--was not only sidelined but in certain
places denied. For example, the term ``climate change''
disappeared from thousands of Federal websites and official
communications.
Panels of independent experts who provided crucial input on
air pollution science were suddenly dismissed. Staff departed
EPA at alarming rates, sometimes choosing to leave the Agency
after raising concerns about political interference in the
scientific process.
So, as we look to again empower EPA, we cannot focus on
regulations and policies in isolation. We must also build the
institutional capacity, scientific integrity, and credibility
of EPA itself. And we must fully support EPA's career workforce
so that it can address the environmental problems of today and
the future.
While EPA faces significant challenges today, there are
also opportunities. History has shown that environmental and
economic progress are not mutually exclusive, but, if done
right, reinforcing.
For example, the benefits of air regulations implemented by
EPA over the past 30 years are estimated to be 30 times greater
than their costs. Likewise, efforts to remove lead from
gasoline have saved trillions of dollars by substantially
curbing childhood lead poisoning. In other words, a strong EPA
can go hand in hand with a strong economy.
Because of EPA's past successes and committed new
leadership, I am hopeful for the future.
Starting on day one, the Biden administration has shown a
desire to get EPA's mission back on track. President Biden has
ordered an immediate review of dozens of rollbacks issued in
the last administration and has stressed the importance of a
governmentwide approach to addressing climate change. Moreover,
the President has also stated that EPA will prioritize
environmental enforcement in low-income and minority
communities. But it will take a sustained effort by EPA,
stakeholders, and Congress if EPA is to succeed in its mission
of protecting public health and the environment. I hope we can
all play our part, and that today's hearing will contribute
towards that effort.
So this morning I am looking forward to former EPA
officials and experts describing what they see as the most
serious and urgent challenges facing EPA, and how the Agency
and Congress can best address those challenges, now and going
forward.
At this critical moment, we have no time to lose.
Ms. DeGette. And with that, I am delighted to recognize the
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes
for purposes of an opening statement. Mr. Griffith?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you
holding this hearing on the path forward for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. I want to thank all the
witnesses for joining us today, particularly Dr. Deskins, who
is originally from Honaker in Russell County, which is part of
Virginia's 9th Congressional District, and I understand--I just
learned this morning--also a graduate of Emory & Henry College,
which also is where I graduated from.
However, I am disappointed that the majority rejected our
request for two witnesses and limited our side to just one
witness on a panel of five witnesses. Last Congress we had
three hearings with a six-witness panel, and we had a January
2020 e-cigarette hearing with two witnesses representing
Republican Governors on a panel of five State government
witnesses. So it seems the majority could have allowed our
requested witness. I hope we can work in a more congenial way
on witness panels going forward.
Today's hearing can help us build on the important work
that the Energy and Commerce Committee and the EPA have
accomplished to date. Between 2015 and 2018, when Republicans
were in the majority, we pushed bipartisan hearings and
bipartisan legislative efforts on issues such as reducing
carbon emissions, boosting renewable energy options, driving
modernization and innovation within industry, pushing
Brownfields cleanup and redevelopment, increasing compliance
for drinking water infrastructure, and improving compliance
with ozone standards, just to name a few.
I also want to highlight several of the EPA's key
accomplishments over the past 4 years. For example, the Agency
focused on Brownfields and Superfund contaminated sites, and in
so doing delisted 82 sites from the national priority list. In
fiscal year 2020 alone, the EPA was able to delete 27 sites
from the list, the most in nearly 20 years. And since 2017,
emissions of the six criteria air pollutants dropped 7 percent
overall by the end of 2019, and unhealthy days for sensitive
groups dropped by 34 percent.
The EPA took steps to champion recycling and combat marine
debris. The EPA invested in America's clean water and drinking
water infrastructure, updating the Lead and Copper rule,
provided a comprehensive approach for reducing lead in drinking
water, and implemented the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which
will reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. These are
just a few examples of the accomplishments achieved by the
Federal Government over the past 4 years to help further the
mission of the Agency.
With this foundation, we should examine broad questions on
the EPA's future. What should be the mission of the EPA? If the
EPA mission is to be changed, that discussion begins in this
committee, and Congress determines that change. Is the EPA
effectively carrying out its mission? The committee should make
that determination.
What are the EPA's most serious and complex challenges? Can
the Agency's current structure, operations, and culture meet
these challenges? When making such determinations and
inquiries, we would of course want to hear from former EPA
Administrators and former senior EPA officials. But the success
of EPA's actions do not depend just on Agency employees, but on
compliance by the regulated sector and the confidence of the
public.
EPA regulators should treat most regulated parties as
partners in improving the environment. As a former EPA
Administrator, William Riley, stated, ``Respect for those most
affected and inconvenienced by EPA rules and regulations is
critical to winning the country's trust in the EPA.''
However, in winning public confidence, it is essential that
EPA regulators have a realistic and fact-based understanding of
the extent that our Nation's power base load is still reliant
on fossil fuels. The real world impact of EPA's regulatory
decisions should be understood.
Section 321 of the Clean Air Act calls for the EPA to
evaluate the cumulative employment impacts of Clean Air Act
regulations. It is critical that fossil fuel workers and their
communities are included in these evaluations.
The EPA, while striving to fulfill its mission, should pay
close attention to all aspects of public health, including
mental health, because stripping away the generational
livelihood from thousands of Americans kills people, it kills
families, and it kills communities.
Protecting the environment and promoting an innovative
economy are not mutually exclusive ideals. It does not have to
be a clean environment or jobs. It can be both.
I hope today's discussion is a step for us to find common
ground and ways to ensure that the EPA does not ignore impacts
on working men and women. I look forward to our discussion
today and to learn more about how the EPA can perform more
efficiently, effectively, and meet the challenges ahead.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. H. Morgan Griffith
Thank you, Chair DeGette, for holding this hearing on the
path forward for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). I also want to thank the witnesses for taking the time
to join us today.
Today's hearing will help us build on the important work
that the Energy and Commerce Committee and the EPA have
accomplished to date. When Republicans were in the majority
between 2015 and 2018, we pushed bipartisan hearings and
bipartisan legislative efforts on issues such as reducing
carbon emissions, boosting renewable energy options, driving
modernization and innovation within industry, pushing
Brownfields cleanup and redevelopment, increasing compliance
for drinking water infrastructure, and improving compliance
with ozone standards, to name a few.
In addition to the work of this committee, the EPA has had
a number of key accomplishments over the past 4 years. For
example, the Agency focused on Brownfields and Superfund sites,
and in doing so, delisted 82 sites from the National Priorities
List, with 27 deletions in fiscal year 2020--the most in nearly
20 years. In addition, since 2017, emissions of the six
criteria air pollutants dropped 7 percent overall by the end of
2019, and unhealthy days for sensitive groups dropped by 34
percent. The EPA also took steps to champion recycling and
combat marine debris. Further, the EPA invested in America's
clean water infrastructure; updated the Lead and Copper Rule,
providing a comprehensive approach for reducing lead in the
drinking water; finalized four regulations that will reduce
greenhouse gases; implemented the Affordable Clean Energy Rule,
which will reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants;
finalized greenhouse gas emissions standards for commercial
aircraft; set corporate average fuel economy and carbon dioxide
emissions standards for MY 2021-26 cars and trucks; and
finalized updates to national standards for the oil and gas
industry. These are just a few examples of the accomplishments
achieved by the Federal Government over the past 4 years to
help further the mission of the Agency.
However, there is always room for improvement. We should
not be complacent when it comes to the vital mission of the
EPA. It is our job to oversee that the Agency is following all
environmental laws. It is well-known that public confidence in
the EPA has been lacking. It is important that we find ways to
rebuild trust and ensure that the EPA is considered a partner,
rather than an adversary in the fight to have cleaner water,
air, and soil. In addition, no single State or region is the
same, science continues to evolve, and we must balance the
goals and the mission of the Agency with the cost of
implementation, including protecting American jobs. Further,
America can and should be a leader in developing innovative
technologies to produce energy with little to no emissions.
Congress may disagree on how to approach some of the issues
that are facing the Agency and our country today, but at the
end of the day, we all agree on the desire to have clean air,
clean water, and environmental protection. I hope today's
discussion is a step for us to find ways to do that.
That said, I would be remiss if I didn't comment on how we
had a very similar hearing in June 2019 to the one we are
having today. Gaining perspective from former EPA
Administrators about what the future of the Agency looks like
has value, but, at a certain point, we need to engage the
current officials who are at the Agency, roll up our sleeves,
and get to work to conduct oversight of the Agency itself and
implement any changes that we deem necessary. An essential step
to talking to current officials at the Agency would be for the
Democratic leadership in the Senate to confirm the
Administrator as soon as possible so we can begin these
discussions.
I look forward to our discussion today to learn more about
each of your experiences with the EPA, what the Agency should
look like moving forward, and how we in Congress can help the
Agency achieve its mission. I also look forward to hearing
about not only the challenges at the Agency, but also the
challenges of those regulated by the Agency, so we can try to
mitigate and address those challenges. We must ensure the
Agency is best positioned to be partners in our Nation's
efforts to carry out the core mission that Congress tasked the
Agency with in statute: clean air for Americans to breathe,
safe water for our citizens to drink, and soils free from
pollution. I hope that we can have a constructive, bipartisan
conversation about how best to do that.
Thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now will recognize the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for purposes of an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very
important hearing. Thank you for holding this. Obviously, we
are very concerned about not only the EPA but many other
agencies that fall under our jurisdiction that had some major
cutbacks and, in my opinion, were not able to function
effectively in the last 4 years. But the EPA is probably the
worst in that respect because, after 4 years of attacks, you
know, it is essential that we have a robust and effective and
fully resourced EPA.
It is not going to be easy. In the last 4 years, the
President, President Trump's EPA, undermined key public health
protections, including commonsense limits on pollution from
power plants, successful automobile efficiency standards and
protections that keep American families safe from mercury and
other toxic hazards. They let polluters off the hook by
weakening the enforcement program. They eroded the essential
scientific infrastructure. And they sidelined and silenced the
Agency's career staff as scandals and investigations captured
headlines on an almost daily basis.
So thankfully, it is a new day at the EPA. The Biden
administration has hit the ground running and taken decisive
action to get EPA and its mission back on track. On day one,
President Biden reasserted our international climate leadership
by rejoining the Paris Climate Accord. Shortly thereafter, he
signed a broad range of additional executive actions to reverse
the Trump administration's dangerous rollbacks and address the
climate crisis, while also pursuing economic justice and
economic revitalization.
And, as our witnesses today can attest, EPA's record of
accomplishments over the years has shown that protecting the
environment and public health is not only good policy but also
good for the economy and jobs. And I want to stress that, and
that will be my questions today as well, that it makes sense
that the President's early actions on the environment are also
an important part of his jobs agenda.
So, recognizing that environmental injustices have
historically been concentrated in poorer communities, President
Biden assigned new duties to EPA to strengthen enforcement of
protections in environmental justice communities. He also
required the Agency to improve monitoring and provide real-time
pollution data to the public. And he established the Justice40
Initiative, with the goal of delivering 40 percent of overall
benefits of Federal investments to environmental justice
communities.
And these are key steps, but they are not enough on their
own. Congress has to act to ensure EPA has the right resources
and tools in place to succeed and that science is always at the
heart of public policy. So, just last week, the committee
introduced the CLEAN Future Act, ambitious legislation to
combat the climate crisis this decade and achieve net-zero
greenhouse gas pollution.
It is critical that we act as more and more Americans have
been forced to confront the harsh realities of climate change.
And I wanted to mention that our former Governor from New
Jersey, Christie Whitman, is here with us. Thank you for being
here, Governor. I always say she is my favorite Republican
Governor. As you know, she was the EPA Administrator.
And she worked with me to establish with this committee--a
long time ago, I should not say--the Brownfields initiative.
Some of you were already talking about that. It was when she
was the EPA Administrator, and she took the idea from what she
did as Governor in New Jersey because we had more Brownfields
sites than any other State in the country. And this was done
with President Bush. It was bipartisan. We had the signing
ceremony together. So, you know, it is just another example of
how we can work on a bipartisan basis, which is what Governor
Whitman was always about and still is about.
But she also knows the devastating impact of these extreme
weather events. You remember, Governor, after Superstorm Sandy
in 2012, it took years for the economy, families, and
communities to recover from that event, or from any extreme
weather event. I am at the shore with a lot of my district, and
we see the consequences of these extreme weather events.
So our witnesses this morning truly know what is at stake.
They have served under Democratic and Republican Presidents,
both at headquarters and in regional offices. They are uniquely
qualified to share their opinions on how to get back on track
with the EPA and how Congress can help the EPA tackle the
enormous environmental challenges that confront us.
So, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. But I cannot
stress how important this hearing is, and obviously, that we
follow up with whatever we can to recreate a robust
Environmental Protection Agency.
Thank you, Chairwoman DeGette.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
After 4 years of attacks on the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), I am pleased we are holding this important
hearing today on how to restore EPA so it can once again
fulfill its mission of protecting human health and the
environment.
To combat today's many environmental threats, it is
essential that we have a robust, effective, and fully resourced
EPA.
We know that rebuilding EPA will not be an easy task after
4 years of the Trump administration. In recent years, Trump's
EPA undermined key public health protections, including
commonsense limits on pollution from power plants, successful
automobile efficiency standards, and protections that keep
American families safe from mercury and other toxic hazards.
They let polluters off the hook by weakening EPA's enforcement
program. They eroded the EPA's essential scientific
infrastructure. And they sidelined and silenced the Agency's
talented and dedicated career staff, as scandals and
investigations captured headlines on an almost daily basis.
Thankfully, it is a new day at EPA.
The Biden administration has hit the ground running and
taken decisive action to get EPA and its mission back on track.
On day one, President Biden reasserted our international
climate leadership by rejoining the Paris Climate Accord.
Shortly thereafter, the President signed a broad range of
additional executive actions to reverse the Trump
administration's dangerous rollbacks and address the climate
crisis, while also aggressively pursuing economic justice and
economic revitalization.
As our witnesses today can attest, EPA's record of
accomplishments over the years has shown that protecting the
environment and public health is not only good policy, but also
good for the economy and jobs. So, it makes sense that the
President's early actions on the environment are an important
part of his jobs agenda.
Recognizing that environmental injustices have historically
been concentrated in poorer communities, President Biden
assigned new duties to EPA to strengthen enforcement of
protections in environmental justice communities. He also
required the Agency to improve monitoring and provide real-time
pollution data to the public. And he established the Justice40
Initiative, with the goal of delivering 40 percent of overall
benefits of Federal investments to environmental justice
communities.
These are key and welcome steps, but they are not enough on
their own. Congress must act to ensure EPA has the right
resources and tools in place to succeed, and that science is
always at the heart of public policy.
Just last week, the committee introduced the CLEAN Future
Act, ambitious legislation to combat the climate crisis this
decade and achieve net-zero greenhouse gas pollution.
It's critical that we act as more and more Americans have
been forced to confront the harsh realities of climate change.
In California, wildfires have destroyed everything in their
path. In Texas, millions of people are still being impacted by
the extreme weather last month that led to deadly power outages
and unsafe drinking water.
As Governor Whitman and I saw firsthand after Superstorm
Sandy in 2012, it can take years for the economy, families, and
communities to recover from extreme weather events.
If we fail to address climate change, we could also see
millions of people displaced from their homes by rising seas
and more American farms destroyed by drought and other
disruptive weather patterns.
Our witnesses with us this morning truly know what is at
stake and what must be done. They have served under Democratic
and Republican Presidents, both at headquarters and in regional
offices. They are uniquely qualified to share their opinions on
how to get EPA back on track and how Congress can help EPA
tackle the enormous environmental challenges that confront us.
Simply put, we have no time to waste.
If we all work together, I am confident that we can restore
EPA and address environmental challenges with the urgency and
scale necessary.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And the Chair will now recognize the ranking member of the
full committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes for the
purpose of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you, Chair DeGette. Thank
you, all our panelists, for being here this morning. This is an
important hearing. I appreciate you bringing us together.
EPA's core mission is to protect human health and the
environment. This mission is bipartisan. We all want clean air,
soil, and water. Our oversight of the EPA should be central to
ensuring the Agency strives to improve people's lives.
Unfortunately, today is not about oversight. It is about
politics. If we want real oversight of the EPA, we need to hear
from those who can testify about the direct effects of heavy-
handed regulation, especially for the American worker.
Our hearing should not be so tilted towards the opinion of
political appointees and alumni. We need to hear about what is
actually happening today, what the facts are, what the science
is. President Biden promised trust and transparency when he
took office, yet his EPA priorities remain a secret. The
American people deserve answers. Rather than hold a hearing to
score political points, we should be hearing from current
officials so that we can get those answers.
Mr. Deskins, I am thankful that you are here to lend your
expertise on how the left's rush to green will hurt America's
energy reliability, affordability, and national and economic
security. I am disappointed that the majority prevented us from
a more balanced panel.
Congressman Kelly Armstrong's constituent, Mr. Carroll
Dewing of North American Coal, was willing to offer a unique,
on-the-ground perspective, but he was not allowed to testify.
If he were allowed to do so, we would have heard about the real
lost jobs and lost wages caused by President Biden's Executive
orders. I am disappointed that the majority decided to silence
such an important voice.
For too long, the left has pursued unworkable climate
policies that destroy jobs, put our economic growth at risk,
and cede our global power to China. In contrast, President
Trump demonstrated that you can pursue environmental protection
while having economic growth.
Under President Trump, we experienced the cleanest air in
recorded history. In 2019, the U.S. had the largest absolute
decline of energy-related carbon emissions of any country in
the world, and it was driven by American innovation, not Green
New Deal-style mandates or economy-altering solutions offered
by our Democratic friends.
The Trump administration made great strides in addressing
legacy pollution too. In fact, in the 4 years, the Trump EPA
delisted and removed the same number of sites from the National
Priorities List as the Obama-Biden administration did in 8. The
Trump EPA also assisted vulnerable communities with hundreds of
millions of dollars for cleanup, job creation, and economic
development through Brownfields grants.
Because of Republican leadership, we saw over the last 4
years significant efforts to provide Americans with clean air,
soil, and water. My sincere hope was that President Biden would
not return to the standard top-down, heavy-handed playbook and
ignore the science and results that show a clean environment
can be compatible with economic growth and job creation.
On his first day in office, President Biden canceled the
Keystone XL pipeline. He put thousands of workers out on the
street without a job in the middle of a pandemic. As the head
of the AFL-CIO put it, ``I wish he hadn't done that on the
first day because it did and will cost us jobs.''
Building on that disastrous decision, President Biden
paused oil and gas drilling on public lands. With just a few
strokes of the pen, President Biden's actions weakened our
Nation's energy security while doing little to actually reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. It is a climate plan that makes
America energy-dependent on others and benefits the Chinese
Communist Party.
This is not how America leads to win the future. Rather
than focus on punitive regulatory actions, we should
incentivize American ingenuity and leadership to solve our
environmental and energy issues. We can address climate change
risk through innovation, conservation, adaptation, and
preparation so families have reliable and affordable energy
too.
Let's work together to reduce barriers, to unleash American
innovation for new technologies and capabilities to solve not
only our environmental challenges of today but of the future.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
INTRO
Thank you, Chair DeGette and Republican Leader Griffith for
today's hearing.
EPA's core mission is to protect human health and the
environment. This mission is bipartisan. we ALL want clean air,
soil, and water.
Our oversight of the EPA should be central to ensuring the
Agency strives to improve people's lives--especially for the
American worker.
Unfortunately, today is not about oversight. It's about
politics.
If we want real oversight of the EPA.we need to hear from
those who can testify about the direct effects of heavy-handed
regulation.
Our hearing should not be so tilted toward the opinions of
EPA alumni.
We need to hear about what is actually happening now.
President Biden promised ``trust and transparency'' when he
took office ... yet his EPA priorities remain a secret.
The American people deserve answers.
Rather than hold a hearing to score political points, we
should be hearing from current officials so we can get those
answers.
WITNESS ISSUE
Dr. Deskins, I am thankful you are here to lend your
expertise on how the Left's rush to green will hurt America's
energy reliability, affordability, and national and economic
security.
I am disappointed the Majority prevented us from a more
balanced panel.
Congressman Kelly Armstrong's constituent, Mr. Carroll
Dewing of North American Coal, was willing to offer a unique
on-the-ground perspective, but he was not allowed to testify.
If he were allowed to do so, we would have heard about the
real lost jobs and lost wages caused by President Biden's
Executive orders.
I am disappointed the Majority decided to silence such an
important voice.
TRUMP EPA SUCCESSES
For too long, the Left has pursued unworkable climate
policies that destroy jobs, put our economic growth at risk,
and cede our global power to China.
In contrast, President Trump demonstrated that you can
pursue environmental protection while having economic growth.
Under President Trump, we experienced the cleanest air in
recorded history.
In 2019, the U.S. had the largest absolute decline of
energy-related carbon emissions of ANY country in the world--
and it was driven by American innovation, not Green New Deal
style mandates or other economy altering solutions offered by
our Democrat friends.
The Trump administration made great strides in addressing
legacy pollution too.
In fact, in four years the Trump EPA delisted and removed
the same number of sites from the National Priorities list as
the Obama-Biden administration did in eight.
The Trump EPA also assisted vulnerable communities with
hundreds of millions of dollars for cleanup, job creation, and
economic development through Brownfields grants.
Because of Republican leadership, we saw over the last four
years significant efforts to provide Americans with clean air,
soil, and water.
BIDEN POLICIES
My sincere hope was that President Biden would not return
to the standard top down, heavy handed playbook ... and ignore
the science and results that show a clean environment can be
compatible with economic growth and job creation.
On his first day in office President Biden canceled the
Keystone XL pipeline. He put thousands of workers out on the
street without a job in the middle of a pandemic.
As the head of the AFL-CIO put it. quote ``I wish he hadn't
done that on the first day.because it did and will cost us
jobs.''
Building on that disastrous decision, President Biden
paused oil and gas drilling on public lands.
With just a few strokes of the pen, President Biden's
actions weakened our Nation's energy security while doing
little to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It's a climate plan that makes America energy-dependent on
others again and benefits the Chinese Communist Party.
This is not how America leads to win the future.
MOVING FORWARD
Rather than focus on punitive regulatory actions, we should
incentivize American ingenuity and leadership to solve our
environmental and energy issues.
We can address climate change risks through innovation,
conservation, adaptation, and preparation ... so families have
reliable and affordable energy too.
Let's work together to reduce barriers to unleash American
innovation for new technologies and capabilities to solve not
only our environmental challenges of today, but of the future.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now asks unanimous consent that the Members'
written opening statements be made a part of the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing. First we have the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from
2001 to 2003; the Honorable Carol Browner, Administrator of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1993 to 2001;
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, former Chief of Staff and Region 4
Regional Administrator of the U.S Environmental Protection
Agency; Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, former Principal Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and now
I would like to introduce Mr. McKinley to introduce the
Republican witness, Dr. Deskins.
Mr. McKinley, you need to unmute. You are on mute.
You are still on mute.
Mr. McKinley. There. I am technologically challenged, so I
am sorry, Madam Chairman. Let me introduce Dr. Deskins.
Dr. Deskins is the assistant dean with the university's
business school, and is also the director of West Virginia
University Bureau of Economics and Economic Research, and the
associate professor of economics. Last year--or, actually, each
year, Dr. Deskins publishes a West Virginia Economic Outlook
Report. It is widely distributed. His work has been utilized by
business leaders and policymakers all across America.
Dr. Deskins has previously testified before Congress on the
importance of innovative energy-related opportunities to
achieve economic growth. And I welcome you back for today's
discussion.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
Now, I am sure everybody is aware the committee is holding
an investigative hearing. And when we do so, we have the
practice of taking testimony under oath. Does anyone have an
objection to testifying under oath today?
Let the record reflect the witnesses responded no.
The Chair then advises you that, under the rules of the
House and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be
accompanied by counsel. Does any witness request to be
accompanied by counsel today?
Let the record reflect the witnesses responded no.
So, if you will, please, raise your right hand so I can
swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Ms. DeGette. Let the record reflect the witnesses have
responded affirmatively, and you are now under oath and subject
to the penalties set forth in Title 18, Section 1001, of the
United States Code.
The Chair will now recognize our witnesses for 5-minute
summaries of their written statements. There is a timer on the
screen that you can see that will count down your time, and it
will turn red when your 5 minutes has come to an end.
I am now very pleased to recognize Governor Whitman for 5
minutes. Governor?
STATEMENTS OF CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, ADMINISTRATOR (2001-
2003), ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; CAROL BROWNER,
ADMINISTRATOR (1993-2001), ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;
GWENDOLYN KEYES FLEMING, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AND FORMER
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 4, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY; WENDY CLELAND-HAMNETT, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF CHANNEL SAFETY AND POLLUTION
PREVENTION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND JOHN DESKINS,
Ph.D., DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH, WEST
VIRGINIA UNIVERSIT
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Ms. Whitman. Thank you. I want to thank the chair and the
ranking member for giving me this opportunity to speak today
about some of the challenges facing the Environmental
Protection Agency in the early years of the Biden
administration.
Since its founding in 1970, EPA has made an enormous
difference in America's quality of life. Our air is cleaner.
Our water is purer. Our land is better protected. And our
citizens are leading better lives, healthier lives, because of
the work of the EPA.
In addition, EPA has shown, as many of the spokespersons
have already acknowledged, that environmental protection and
economic prosperity go hand in hand, and that safeguarding our
environment also pays economic dividends through the
advancement of technology and the creation of jobs.
In recent years, EPA has suffered under the leadership of
people who seemed neither to understand nor appreciate the
vital role that the EPA plays in American life. It's an issue
that has become a major challenge for all of us. The basic
recognition that good science is the foundation of good policy
has been eroded. The morale of the EPA's dedicated career
service has plummeted.
Important policies have been rolled back or gutted, not
because of new scientific findings but, rather, to appease
powerful interests. All this has both undermined the work of
the EPA and has contributed to the loss of confidence by the
American people in government in general.
I am encouraged, however, that President Biden's nominee
for EPA Administrator, Michael Regan, has the experience and
the expertise and credibility to restore people's faith in the
EPA. Mr. Regan and I discussed at some length the challenges
and the opportunities he will face should he be confirmed, and
I certainly hope that he will be.
The first order of business for the new leadership at the
EPA is to reestablish a commitment to sound science as an
integral and indispensable part of policymaking. Fortunately, I
expect that, under the new administration, science will again
occupy its proper place.
Coupled with the return to science as a basis for the
policy decisions is the restoration of the morale of the people
at EPA. Over the years, the Agency has been fortunate to be
able to attract some of the finest scientific and policy talent
available. Yet recent studies show that, between 2016 and 2020,
EPA lost 672 scientific experts. That is enormously troubling.
EPA must be able to retain the expertise it has while also
attracting the best of the rising generation, those who will
commit their careers to the Agency and its mission. That's the
only way that the Agency can meet the many environmental
challenges that it faces.
The most pressing of these, of course, is climate change.
Climate change has become a political football, and that's
wrong. After all, the measures we need to address climate
change make sense both for the environment and for public
health, no matter what one thinks about climate change.
Reducing carbon emissions, moving away from fossil fuels,
expanding renewable energy, reducing the emissions of methane
and volatile organic compounds, and reviewing and revisiting
many of the air rules put in place during previous
administrations all make sense, whatever one's position on the
threat of climate change.
They also make sense not only because they will help reduce
the threat of climate change but also because they will help
improve the quality of the air we breathe and will improve
human health. That is a worthy and urgent pursuit in and of
itself.
The next thing that we have to address is environmental
justice. I was pleased that President Biden is bringing into
the White House an effort to advance environmental justice
priorities. Leadership from the White House will make a huge
difference. The health and safety of people who live near
pollution-generating facilities must be better protected. And
working with State and local governments, EPA must do a better
job in preventing the location of such new facilities in places
that lack the potential, the political or economic clout, to
protect their communities and its residents.
EPA must also continue its efforts to identify emerging
chemicals of concern and put in place regulations that
safeguard the environment and human health. EPA must also
tackle the enormous deficiencies in our water infrastructure.
America's aging water infrastructure wastes nearly 6 billion
gallons of treated drinking water every day through leakage.
Another 2 trillion gallons of drinking water are lost due to
water main breaks.
In addition, as many as 6.1 million homes in the United
States are connected by lead service lines to the drinking
mains that serve their neighborhoods. Ingesting lead at any
level is unsafe, especially for children. This must be
eliminated.
Members of the subcommittee, over the past 4 years EPA and
its mission have suffered. But EPA is resilient because its
people are dedicated and determined to carry out its mission of
scientific integrity and unwavering commitment. I'm optimistic
that, with the help of this committee, EPA will be able to
continue its critical role for the future of the health of the
United States. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Whitman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Governor.
I am now pleased to introduce Administrator Browner for 5
minutes. Administrator? You need to unmute.
STATEMENT OF CAROL BROWNER
Ms. Browner. Sorry about that. Thank you, Madam Chair and
Ranking Member, for the invitation to be here. And Mr.
Chairman, it is wonderful to see you. And I think we also
have--I know Kathy Castor was here, a fellow Floridian joining
the hearing today. And to all of you who have been longtime
supporters of EPA, it is a pleasure to be with you.
And I join Governor Whitman in encouraging the Senate to
move rapidly to confirm Michael Regan. I think he will be a
wonderful leader of the Agency.
I also want to just thank all of the career staff, the
professional staff, at EPA. These are people who have worked
year in and year out, sometimes under very difficult
circumstances, to do their part to protect the air we breathe
and the water we drink, and I thank them for their commitment.
In December, EPA celebrated its 50th anniversary. This is
an Agency created by a Republican President, Richard Nixon. The
first head of EPA, William Ruckleshaus, is a widely recognized
environmental leader, a business leader, ethical, moral, a
really wonderful man. Unfortunately, we lost him not too
recently. But he really charted a course for the Agency, an
important course. And I think that continues to be the course
we should follow. And essentially, there are sort of four
parameters I would suggest that a modern EPA should operate
under.
One, follow the science. Two, the law. Three, enforcement.
Four, environmental justice. If those are the cornerstones of
how EPA thinks about its work on a day-to-day basis, then it
will be able to serve all Americans. And by all Americans, I
mean not just people and communities. I mean the business
community, who is essential to doing the work to reduce our
pollution. So it means bringing everyone together.
As you heard, I spent 8 years running the Environmental
Protection Agency. It makes me the longest-serving
Administrator. I started the afternoon the President was sworn
in, and I left the night before the next President was sworn
in. I think it will be a hard record to break, but I am very
proud of our record.
And Mr. Chairman Pallone and Governor Whitman,
congratulations to you all on Brownfields. We took a nascent
idea from a State. We spent a little bit of money while I was
at EPA. But you guys made it real. And it proves that States
are a good place to find ideas, and I encourage the current EPA
to look at States.
We created the drinking water SRF fund. So today, States
receive money every year to enhance the drinking water
protections. We cleaned up more than 600 Superfund sites, and
we set the first-ever fine particle standard, upheld by the
Supreme Court 9-0 with Justice Scalia writing the majority
opinion.
And finally, we embraced the issue of climate change. The
legal memorandum we wrote became the basis for the
Massachusetts v. EPA decision, which is what is relied on today
by the Agency to regulate greenhouse gases. So there is a lot
of authority that is sitting there that can be used by the
Agency to meet the challenges of today.
When EPA started its work, we had rivers on fire. We had
cities so polluted you couldn't see from one building to
another. Today, as everyone has noted, we have made real
progress. Yes, the air is cleaner, the water is safer. The job
is not done. But we also face a new challenge and a very severe
challenge, and that is the challenge of climate change. And so,
as this committee and the rest of the Congress thinks about the
role of EPA, I hope you will think about it in terms of its
history but also in terms of the challenges in front of us.
In terms of enforcement, which one of you mentioned, I
think--I apologize, a Member mentioned--I agree. Enforcement is
about compliance. It is about getting companies to do the right
thing. It is also a fairness. If I comply with an environmental
regulation and my competitor doesn't, that's a basic
unfairness. I'm spending money to achieve an environmental
endpoint that they're not spending about. So we need to think
about enforcement in conjunction with compliance. I agree with
what was said.
Finally, I want to talk a moment about environmental
justice. Communities of color, poor communities, suffer
disproportionately the burdens of our modern industrial
society. They will suffer disproportionately the impacts of
climate change. And I am very, very heartened by all of the
work that is being done or has been launched in the Biden
administration to address the realities. As we transition our
economy to meet the challenge of climate change, we must do so
in an environmentally just manner.
The final thing I will say: In my 8 years, we were roundly
recognized as being very aggressive in terms of setting public
health standards, in terms of enforcing those standards and, I
will note, the economy grew. We do not have to choose between a
healthy environment and a healthy economy.
Thank you all so much for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Browner follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Administrator Browner.
I am now pleased to recognize Ms. Keyes Fleming for 5
minutes. You'll need to unmute.
Ms. Keyes Fleming. Here we go.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GWENDOLYN KEYES FLEMING
Ms. Keyes Fleming. Good morning. Chairwoman DeGette,
Ranking Member Griffith, Chairman Pallone, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. My name is Gwendolyn Keyes
Fleming, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
EPA is an Agency that I know well, having spent 5 years
there, first as the Regional Administrator in Region 4, the
Southeastern Region, and then as Chief of Staff. The views that
I express here today are my own and are based on those
experiences.
During my tenure with the Agency, I had the great honor and
privilege to work alongside thousands of dedicated public
servants, both career and political, who worked tirelessly to
advance the Agency's mission to protect public health and the
environment.
Today, EPA faces a long list of complex, urgent, and
necessary actions, including addressing climate change and
environmental justice. Alarmingly, EPA has to meet these
threats with fewer real resources than the Agency had in the
1980s. The decline happened despite our population increasing
44 percent, and total government discretionary spending
decreased by 48 percent over that same time. EPA spending, in
terms of real dollars, is less than half of what the Agency
spent nearly 30 years ago.
This steady funding decline has adversely affected EPA's
ability to meet its mission and the growing demand for
protections in communities around the country. In addition, it
is also adversely affecting the Agency's State and Tribal
partners, who rely on EPA for grants and technical funds to
support their operations.
Programs and funding, however, cannot be effectively
utilized without the Agency's greatest asset: the people, its
employees. Unfortunately, staffing declines have made the
tightened budget situation even worse. Today's staffing levels
are at a 30-year low. Not only does EPA need to recruit and
hire the next generation of environmental professionals, but
the Agency needs to do so with an eye towards diversifying its
ranks and its leadership.
In addition to having sufficient resources to do the job,
the Agency will be most successful when it remains true to the
following five guideposts, some of which my co-panelists have
mentioned before:
First, follow the science. Science has been and needs to
continue to be the foundation of EPA's decisionmaking and
actions going forward. To be well positioned to address
emerging areas of science, EPA needs additional financial
resources, staffing, and scientific equipment to ensure that
its scientists can connect to the newest and best research, as
well as up-to-date information technology, to access some vast
data sets relevant to the various complex issues the Agency
will face.
Second, follow the law. In addition to following and
enforcing the requirements of the over 20 major environmental
laws, EPA must also identify more ways to utilize Title 6 of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act as part of its suite of legal pools
to provide for redress for discriminatory actions and disparate
impacts in the environmental space.
Third, provide transparency in its decisionmaking. To
further build and maintain EPA's trust--or build trust in EPA's
actions--the Agency needs to be transparent in its
decisionmaking process. This means making its data sets
available in ways that can be easily understood by the public.
Fourth, engaging all stakeholders. Successful large-scale
environmental protection requires engaging EPA's partners and
stakeholders. This means having conversations with States,
Tribes, local governments, and the regulated community
throughout the process and early in the process. Stakeholder
engagement is especially critical in meeting the urgent needs
of environmental justice communities overburdened by pollution
and suffering under the vestiges of environmental racism.
Lastly, synergize resources to maximize impact. To augment
protection and services to communities, EPA needs funding to
institutionalize integrated strategies and remove the silos
across the program offices. There are several successful
projects, including the ReGenesis Project and CUP, that the
Agency can use as models in this regard.
I want to finish by expressing my deep appreciation to the
dedicated public servants at EPA and the work that they're
doing to keep our air and water safe and clean. I also want to
thank Congress for its attention to these issues, and I look
forward to the discussion today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Keyes Fleming follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Ms. Fleming.
I am now pleased to recognize Ms. Cleland-Hamnett for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF WENDY CLELAND-HAMNETT
Ms. Cleland-Hamnett. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to
the ranking member and the distinguished members of the
subcommittee, for providing me with the opportunity to
participate in today's hearing on restoring the vital mission
of the Environmental Protection Agency. I'm honored to appear
with the other very distinguished members of this panel.
I completed a 38-year civil service career at the EPA when
I retired in 2017. And I had the privilege of serving in seven
different administrations, or under seven different
administrations, under both parties.
As the Chair mentioned, I became the Principal Deputy
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention in 2016, and I was the Acting Assistant
Administrator beginning in January 2017 until I retired
September 2nd of that year.
I'm here today to provide the perspective of a career
employee and senior program manager at the EPA. As all of the
former witnesses and the opening remarks have noted, the EPA
has an incredibly important mission, to protect public health
and the environment, and accomplishing that mission is
difficult and complex.
Essential to human health and environmental protection is
the need for the EPA's work to be moved forward apace. While
risks are being analyzed and actions developed, potential
threats remain unaddressed. There is a challenging balance to
be maintained between the desire for thoroughness and the need
to provide public protection. Important actions which have been
stopped or delayed in recent years will need to be restarted or
accelerated.
I also agree with many others who have spoken this morning
that the EPA's greatest strength is its career staff. It's my
belief that the Agency staff have unparalleled expertise in the
science, legal, and regulatory frameworks necessary to
achieving continued progress in protecting human health and the
environment.
That said, I am very concerned that this key strength of
the EPA, its career workforce, has been eroded. When the legal
and scientific views of career staff are dismissed, or if
career staff are cut out of policy and technical discussions at
the political level, a great resource is lost and the Agency's
credibility suffers as a result. Their lack of participation
also raises concerns about political interference and the undue
influence of special interests.
And although there remain very many very dedicated and
qualified staff at the EPA, a concerted effort at hiring is
needed to replace staff members who have been lost in recent
years to retirement and other departures and to ensure adequate
staffing in priority areas and new and emerging areas that the
Agency will need to address.
And to do their jobs as they should, staff must have the
appropriate resources, data, and infrastructure to support
them. Sound, credible, and transparent science is vital to the
Agency's credibility and effectiveness. Scientific peer review
is a cornerstone of credibility for EPA science, and for that
matter, scientific work in general.
Those most qualified and knowledgeable in the scientific
issues of interest should be recruited to participate in
transparent and balanced peer review panels. Political
interference to omit or include certain peer review
participants erodes the credibility of the process.
Likewise, the dismissal of pertinent and vetted scientific
information in decisionmaking in order to support a particular
policy outcome is inappropriate and shreds the credibility of
those policy decisions. When policies for the use of data are
developed with the participation of scientists and the public
and are applied transparently by decisionmakers, credibility is
greatly enhanced.
My last job at the EPA was to help steer my program and the
Agency through another change of administration. I quickly
learned, however, that my advice was not wanted and that the
process for making policy decisions was not open to career
staff, and an effort began to stop programs and drastically
reduce resources.
I was angry and saddened by this and felt that I could not
continue to be a part of what was going on, and I retired.
Although I am no longer at the Agency, I have to believe that
the atmosphere over the last several years has been corrosive.
It is my sincere hope that the Agency and its mission can be
rebuilt and revived.
I commend the subcommittee for its interest in rebuilding
the mission of the EPA, and I thank you again for the
opportunity to participate in this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cleland-Hamnett follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much. We appreciate your
perspective.
Dr. Deskins, I am now very pleased to recognize you for 5
minutes for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JOHN DESKINS, Ph.D.
Dr. Deskins. Chairwoman DeGette, Chairman Pallone, Ranking
Members Griffith and Rodgers, and members of the committee,
thank you so much for inviting me to appear before you today to
discuss the future and mission of the EPA.
I begin by acknowledging that I have never worked for the
EPA and I have no insight into the Agency's inner workings.
Rather, I am here to speak to the importance of ensuring that
the future EPA fully studies any potential economic impact
associated with policies under consideration.
It's imperative to fully weigh the cost of any policies
that might affect fossil fuel usage against the policy's
benefits. And for policies that are ultimately deemed to move
forward despite generating an adverse impact on communities
reliant on coal and gas, those costs should be fully
highlighted. This acknowledgment will help promote investments
in those areas to help the affected people and communities
survive an economic shock and ultimately thrive.
The point that I stress isn't new by any means. For
instance, Section 321 of the Clean Air Act requires that the
EPA conduct employment impact analyses as part of its policy
analysis program.
I want to illustrate the economic hardship that many coal-
producing communities have endured over the past decade or so.
I come here from West Virginia, a State which by any obvious
measure is an energy State. For example, energy accounts for 14
percent of economic output in the State, making it the State's
largest industrial supersector.
Energy jobs are among the highest-paying jobs in the State,
often by far. Coal and natural gas are two of our key export
commodities. And severance tax revenue from coal and gas is
important to our State to fund local governments--State and
local governments and public schools and many other public
services.
Indeed, declining coal production in recent years, combined
with a lack of industrial diversification, has had an
devastating effect on our State's economy. Coal production has
fallen by about one-half from its 2008 high. This has led to a
loss of about 15,000 coal jobs, and a direct loss of $3.5
billion in economic output in our State.
These losses ignite a vicious cycle where we see
outmigration of primarily our younger men and women. Then we
see an aging population. Then we see drug abuse pop up, and so
on. This makes it even more challenging to attract new business
to our affected areas, thus perpetuating this vicious cycle.
Some may read the numbers associated with the declining
coal output and imagine that the losses are spread across the
entire coal-product region of our Nation. We have seen a
national drop in the demand for coal, but the effect of those--
the effect of that drop in demand has been felt most strongly
in central Appalachia, including southern West Virginia and
southwestern Virginia.
The concentration of these job losses created a great
depression in six southern West Virginia counties. At one point
over the past decade, payrolls contracted at rates between 25
and 33 percent in each of these six counties. In addition,
despite the observed bounce back in coal between 2017 and 2019,
employment levels have increased only slightly for many of
these struggling areas.
Consider Boone County, for example, which had been the
State's largest coal-producing county for many years. Their
coal production and employment stand at around 20 percent of
its level a decade ago. Statistics show as well that oUr job
losses in the county are occurring as less money is flowing to
local businesses like restaurants, entertainment venues, et
cetera. Losses in coal severance tax revenue in these counties
have led to severe public school layoffs.
The industrial mix in these counties also lends to the
crisis. In Boone County, for example, in 2010, coal accounted
for 55 percent of all the jobs in the county, making it
difficult if not impossible for many laid-off coal miners to
just go out and find other jobs locally. My point is the heavy
concentration of losses in coal output and employment make it
far worse than would have been the case if the loses were
widely dispersed.
The current situation, honestly, gives rise to the question
of whether many of these affected communities are even
sustainable in the long run. Are these communities altogether
sustainable, given the suffering that we've seen?
Many call for industrial diversification as the solution to
West Virginia's economic crisis. I myself make this call
routinely in speeches across the State, weekly, practically.
It's crucial for West Virginia to cultivate strength in other
industries like manufacturing and tourism. But industrial
diversification is a long-term and multifaceted proposition.
A more viable path for West Virginia in the short term is
through maintaining our State's energy sector. While many
factors affecting energy in West Virginia and similar areas are
outside of the reach of policymakers, I hope that the
information provided today can help make for a policy to move
West Virginia ands similar communities forward.
Again, I urge you, finally, to ensure that a future EPA
fully considers statistics like these that describe how coal
communities in West Virginia and other parts of rural America
are affected when fossil fuel jobs disappear.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Deskins follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Dr. Deskins.
It is now time for the Members to ask questions, and the
Chair will recognize herself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Cleland-Hamnett, you said you worked at the EPA over
seven administrations. Is that right?
Ms. Cleland-Hamnett. Yes. That's correct.
Ms. DeGette. And so you worked under both of the former
Administrators who are sitting here today. Is that right?
Ms. Cleland-Hamnett. Yes. That's right.
Ms. DeGette. And I have got to say, I worked with both of
those administrators too, in my many years in Congress, and
always with the goal of protecting Americans' health and
protecting our environment.
I'm really struck by what someone like you says because you
were there so long under Democratic and Republican
administrations, really doing the work of the Agency. And
several times you said that you--that one of the things you
think needs to happen is that political influence needs to be
taken out of the Agency.
Is political influence a problem that you have seen
throughout your tenure, your long tenure at the EPA, or just in
the last years of your time there?
Ms. Cleland-Hamnett. Well, first, if I could, let me just
clarify that I think it's inappropriate political interference
to which I was referring. I think it's totally appropriate that
there's political influence. That's why we have political
appointees, Presidential appointees, and others that help carry
out the President's mission.
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Ms. Cleland-Hamnett. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. What is inappropriate? What would you say is
inappropriate political influence?
Ms. Cleland-Hamnett. Well, I think it is when processes for
producing sound science, credible science, transparent science,
are either ignored altogether or changed in a way that lessens
their credibility or their effectiveness. I think it's when
legal arguments about how best to interpret statutes and
responsibilities of the Agency are essentially ignored, or
career staff just aren't given the chance to present that kind
of information and it's not given due consideration.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now, Governor Whitman, one of the
things that really struck me both in your written testimony and
what you said today is the importance of relying on science. Do
you think if we get back to a reliance on science, that can
help us with the morale at the Agency and help us recruit some
new, fresh faces there?
Ms. Whitman. I think without question, the fact that so
many times the science was stifled, not for policy reasons so
much as political, has been--really eroded the confidence. And
there's a lot that Congress can do, actually, to help with
ensuring the transparency, ensure that there's some guidelines
that are laid down--in all the agencies that have to do with
science--as to what is appropriate political interaction,
keeping track of that, and letting people know what's going on
because there's always policy, and politics is part of policy.
But science should be the underpinning for any of the policy
decisions. They shouldn't at the end of the day be purely
political decisions.
Ms. DeGette. Now, Administrator Browner, you were at the
Agency longer than anybody else. Would you agree with that
assessment?
Ms. Browner. Science is at the base of everything that EPA
does. I mean, it really--I used to say the science made me do
it. The Agency, whether the career staff or the political
appointees, is not free to do whatever.
But having said that, it's important to remember that
science is a process. And science keeps asking questions. And
so the policies--the Clean Air Act directs EPA to make
decisions on the best available science every 5 years, right?
Because Congress rightfully recognized that science will keep
going.
If we hadn't made the decision--if our predecessors at EPA
hadn't made the decision to ban lead in gasoline, which
protected children, it wouldn't be banned today because guess
what? Science is still studying that, but what the Agency was
able to do was say there was adequate evidence, there was the
weight of the evidence, and make a scientific determination.
So----
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much. Thank you. So it seems to
me--I was sitting here--obviously, if you had good science, you
could take away inadequate political influence. Also, you need
an adequate budget. I was looking at the statistic that half
of--that EPA has less in real dollars than it did in 1980. So
that also seems to be a place where Congress could really step
in, help recruit more science-based individuals, but also
increase the budget appropriately.
Would you agree with that, Administrator Browner?
Ms. Browner. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Thank you very much. My time is expired. I
am now delighted to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Griffith,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you so much, and I appreciate the time.
Ms. Cleland-Hamnett, I understand you are a lawyer, and I
appreciate your comments about following the law. I think that
is very important. Chairwoman DeGette and I talk about that on
a fairly regular basis, coming from a legal background.
But I have to say under the Obama administration, I believe
the EPA exceeded its statutory authority to justify several
regulations, such as regulating emissions from truck trailers
that don't have engines, claiming authority under the section
of the Clean Air Act that deals with self-propelled motor
vehicles.
All the while they are going so far down that way to try to
accomplish what they wanted, that some--and I note some--in the
EPA, or some in the administration, ignored warnings of high
lead levels in drinking water from an EPA water scientist out
in the field in Flint, Michigan.
So I think we need to make sure that we are following the
law and not following our wishes, whether it be a Republican
administration or a Democrat administration. And I know that
you would agree with me. And I would give you a chance to
answer, but I am running out of time and I have got to get to
Dr. Deskins.
Dr. Deskins, it is so good to have you with us today.
Obviously, we share a lot in the region that I come from and
the region you come from, originally having grown up in
Honaker. And if you were here, we would have talked ahead of
time. I have got a great Honaker story. Call me some time and I
will tell you about it.
But in your experience with the coal industry and in coal
communities, are communities opposed to working out creative
solutions to improve the environment that also allow for robust
economic activity and affordable energy?
Dr. Deskins. First and foremost, I'm always happy to get a
question from a fellow Emory & Henry alumnus.
Mr. Griffith. There you go.
Dr. Deskins. But no. I don't think coal communities are
opposed to this. But, I mean, people just have to understand,
these coal communities are faced with many challenges. Many of
these areas are very remote, very rural. The terrain's very
rugged. They face tremendous challenges around human capital,
around education, training, health, drug abuse.
And they're not opposed to working out alternative
solutions, but in many cases they need help from places like
the Federal Government to help enable these changes to happen.
And they don't need just cursory help, they need real,
significant help because their challenges are significant.
Mr. Griffith. Things like the Coalfields Expressway, which
would open up parts of West Virginia and Southern West Virginia
and Southwest Virginia, and connect a bunch of our interstates
together. That would be very helpful. Wouldn't you agree?
Dr. Deskins. Yes. No, infrastructure is one of the key
areas in which help is needed. Absolutely.
Mr. Griffith. Because everybody says we have got to
reinvent the economy. But when you have mountains and you don't
have a lot of flat land and you don't have good roads, it's
very difficult to do. I know you would agree with that.
I want you to explain the coal severance or the coal and
natural gas severance tax because that provides millions of
dollars for things like education. And I'm not sure everybody
on the committee understands that. And you mentioned it in your
testimony. Could you elaborate a little bit and explain how
that works?
Dr. Deskins. Well, I mean, West Virginia and I'm sure
similar States across the country that rely on energy have been
levying a severance tax on coal and natural gas and other items
that are extracted from the ground for decades. I mean, in West
Virginia, we have been heavily reliant on severance tax
revenues for a long, long time.
This funds State Government in part, and it does fund a lot
of local government activity in our State. And when severance
tax revenue falls, it has a real impact on local communities.
As I mentioned, when severance tax revenue falls, it presents a
challenge for our public schools, for example, because they
have less revenue to fund the services that we need.
Mr. Griffith. And that's a real problem in southwestern
Virginia as well as West Virginia. And in fact, many people are
surprised as we talk about social justice and economic justice
that the district I represent, while not heavy in minorities,
is 422nd in household income based on the latest data that we
have available out of 435 congressional districts.
That doesn't surprise you a bit, does it?
Dr. Deskins. Oh, no, no, no, no. Of course not. I mean, I
can go on all day about the poverty that exists in central
Appalachia even today. It's not as bad as it was in the 1960s
when the Johnson administration was working. But there's still
tremendous poverty in West Virginia.
As I said, we had some counties in southern West Virginia
that have been in a great depression because of just economic
devastation. And there's a lot of poverty there, and I'm not
going to--my mission is to plead to try to find ways to get it
addressed.
Mr. Griffith. And so, if we're talking about economic,
environmental, and social justice, we need to make sure we
don't leave out the communities of central Appalachia as we go
forward. You would not disagree with that, either, would you?
Dr. Deskins. There's nothing in the world that I could
agree with more. I mean, I completely agree with that.
Mr. Griffith. Well, last but not least, I think we've
touched on a lot of it, and you and I could go on forever. But
I will mention what a great opportunity I had to go to Emory &
Henry. You obviously feel the same way. And it's a great little
school that makes a difference in a lot of lives and ends up
with professors talking to Congressmen in the halls of
Congress. And it's a great thing from southwestern Virginia.
Thank you much, and I yield back.
Dr. Deskins. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairwoman DeGette.
I wanted to start with Governor Whitman, if I could. In
your testimony, you state that environmental protection and
economic prosperity go hand in hand, and you further stated,
and I quote, that ``safeguarding our environment also pays
economic dividends through the advancement of technology and
the creation of jobs.''
I know that you also talked about the return to science and
retaining the scientists at the EPA. But then you also said
that you were concerned that climate change can become a
political football, but you suggest it does not have to be.
So I just wanted to, if you could, tell us how developing
solutions to address the climate crisis can also help support
the economy creates jobs, because, you know, we often hear from
those who do not want to address climate change that somehow
this is going to be a net job loser, which I do not agree.
So if you would comment on that, Governor, I would
appreciate it.
Ms. Whitman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly
do agree with you that it is not going to be a net loser. There
are new technologies that will be developed. There are new
energy sources that will be developed. But just let's think of
the history for a second.
Between--in 40 years, almost 40 years, between 1980 and
2017, we saw our population grow by 4 percent. Our energy
consumption grew by 25 percent. We drove 110 percent more
miles, which emitted more pollutants. And yet we--and our GDP
grew 167 percent. And yet we reduced our overall six criteria
of pollutions by 65 percent. I mean, that's more people
creating more pollution, but reduced it, and they were growing
the economy at an extraordinary rate.
That's what can happen when we talk about addressing things
like climate change, because you're talking about some of the
very basic elements that are negative as far as their impact on
human health. When you talk about the emissions that drive
climate change, when you're talking about carbon, you're
talking about mercury, these things are having a real impact.
And if you look also at the other side of it, which is the
cost of climate change, as you well know, from your shore
communities, how devastated they become when we have these
major storms that are now occurring--you always used to talk
about the 100-year flood. It now occurs every 5 years, or 4
years. And every time you have that intrusion of saltwater, you
change the ecosystem, so the next time the storm comes in even
further.
And we have paid a huge price, not to mention the storms in
California that we had last year, the fires, the devastation of
the fires because of droughts. So we pay a huge price by
ignoring this issue of climate change.
There are things we can do to harden ourselves against it.
It means stopping growth. It does not mean stopping the
economy. It's finding better ways to grow and to address this
issue.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. And Administrator Browner,
basically the question is along the same lines. If you would
explain how a healthy economy and a healthy environment go hand
in hand. I'm optimistic about all of this, and I know you are
as well.
I think you have to unmute.
Ms. Browner. Mr. Chairman, I join you in being optimistic.
I don't believe we will be the first generation to pass on to
another a problem they can't solve. It's not without its
challenges.
But I'd like to call attention to the private sector and
how they're stepping up with new solutions and making large-
scale investments, and how they can partner with the government
to sort of drive the technology. What we see out--I mean, every
day, and I'm sure this is true for other people, I get calls
from people who invented something, and it's been proven. It's
a proven technology. They need to commercialize it.
And so what we need is the private sector to start buying
these new technologies, whether it's cement-eating carbon,
better lighting systems, better batteries for the grid, et
cetera, et cetera. There's just so many opportunities out
there. And I think, if we all continue to put our mind
together, we can both, as President Biden has called for,
create a whole new generation of clean energy jobs.
And I want to say to the professor who joins us here today,
I take very seriously the realities for people in West Virginia
and Kentucky and in Appalachia. But let's create a new
generation of clean energy jobs and with that a new generation
of solutions that will allow us to drive down the impacts of
climate change while we grow the economy.
Mr. Pallone. And I agree with you. And let me say too, I
know that our ranking member, Mrs. Rodgers, constantly talks
about China. And I appreciate that because I do think that
China's a threat and I do appreciate her constantly mentioning
China.
But I also think this is a global competition, and China is
investing in the new technology and making a lot of money with
solar panels and others. So that's why we can't be left behind.
We've got to meet that challenge as well from China, and this
is the way to do it, by moving on climate action.
Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
And speaking of the ranking member, I'm now pleased to
recognize Mrs. Rodgers for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate those comments. I think my concern is that the
approach that's being promoted right now by the majority and
many Democrats is going to make us dangerously dependent upon
China, when you consider that 90 percent of the solar panels,
80 percent of the windmills, they control 90 percent of the
rare earth minerals.
So that's where we need to make sure that we're not moving
forward on policy that's only going to make us more dependent
upon China. We need to celebrate that America's leading right
now in bringing down carbon emissions, and we've done more than
the next 12 countries combined. We need to be promoting new
innovation. And we also need to make sure that, as we are
looking at all of these issues, that we are considering the job
loss. And that's part of why I am really pleased that Dr.
Deskins is with us today, can really talk about the real world
impact of some of these policies.
Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Deskins. You've spoken
about the economic damage in Boone County due to aggressive
environmental DC dictates. And Boone County used to be West
Virginia's largest coal-producing county, and now coal
production and employment stands at less than one-fourth, a
quarter, of 2010 levels.
As places such as Boone County lose jobs, we're told that
there are ways for these unemployed workers to transition
without being left behind. So I'd like to ask you, where have
the unemployed coal miners gone, and what are the new jobs that
they are getting?
Dr. Deskins. Thank you for that question. I really
appreciate that question because it's so easy to say, ``Oh,
let's transition the laid-off coal miners to new jobs.'' It's a
lot easier said than done.
That does happen to some extent. But to a large extent,
it's very, very difficult for these people to make a
transition. Imagine a laid-off coal miner who's 50 years old
who's worked in the coal mines for 25 or 30 years, who only has
a high school diploma or maybe even less. It's very--it's not
easy to transition this person into a new position.
Some people say something trivial like, ``Oh, let's have
the person start coding software.'' Things like that are not
realistic. I mean, to make real opportunities to transition
these people into new work requires real investment, like we
said before, with infrastructure, with human capital, with
fighting the vicious cycle that we have in place.
Honestly, a lot of the people who are laid-off coal miners
haven't transitioned anywhere. They're just, to use--I don't
know if I should use this word or not, but they're just
floundering, and the area is seeing a lot of economic hardship
because that transition is so hard and so difficult, much
easier said than done.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. As a followup, through the years I
have heard from many people in eastern Washington and across
our State, actually, about the concerns over a lack of clarity
of EPA regulations. One example is the Washington Farm Bureau
has stated that the clarity is critical in the Waters of the
USA Rules. Right? And when that rule was in front of us, the
Waters of the USA, it was difficult to understand what was
covered, what is not.
I wanted to ask if you would speak to the concerns and what
you have seen around regulatory uncertainty, especially when it
comes to conducting an adequate full job impact analysis.
Dr. Deskins. I'm afraid my answer is going to be pretty
short. I mean, unless you have clarity and fully understand the
implications of a given policy, it's impossible to estimate the
economic impact associated with that policy. And that's all I
have to say on that.
I mean, I do economic impact analyses literally all the
time. My office produces them constantly. And clarity in terms
of fully understanding the policy in question is a step-one
necessity.
Mrs. Rodgers. Yes. So would you speak to what you believe
the EPA should be doing, then, to conduct that adequate
economic impact analysis under Section 3212 of the Clean Air
Act to examine the effects of Clean Air Act regulations on
jobs?
Dr. Deskins. Well, I mean, cost-benefit analysis and
economic impact analysis are well-established methodological
approaches in economics. I don't have any new techniques or any
approaches. I mean, I would just urge for a full, holistic
consideration of the potential economic impacts and then
transparency on what those impacts are after the fact.
I know some of the earlier speakers spoke to the issue of
transparency, and I would completely agree. Even when we move
forward with a policy where the benefits exceed the costs, we
still should be as transparent as possible about those costs
that will, if nothing else, help foster investment to promote
transition over the long run.
But holistic analysis and transparency, that's all I can
ask for.
Mrs. Rodgers. Yes. Certainly that is very important.
I appreciate you being with us. I will yield back my time.
Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. Dr. Deskins, you would be surprised at how
much agreement you would get on that on both sides of the aisle
here in this hearing.
The Chair now is really pleased to recognize Ms. Kuster for
5 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And
thank you again to our panel and their insights.
I should note that I started my Washington, DC, career as
an intern at the EPA back in 1976. So I am dating myself. The
EPA was new, and I was new to all of it.
One area where we know the EPA must take quick action is
addressing PFAS and other forever chemicals. And in my State of
New Hampshire, nearly half the population gets their well water
from private wells. And if PFAS chemical emissions seep into
the ground and penetrate your well, families are at serious
risk for exposure of this toxic chemical. We have increased
levels of child cancer and other health impacts.
In the southern part of New Hampshire's Merrimack Valley,
several communities have had to deal with the aftermath of PFAS
exposure. And some residents have had to rely on bottled water
for drinking and cooking for years, and must shower and bathe
in water that they know contains PFAS.
And on top of all this, the value of their homes declines
dramatically until they are ultimately connected to utility
water systems. This is no way for Americans to be living in the
21st century. And we need bold leadership at the EPA to clean
up these contaminated sites and safeguard the American people.
So last year the House passed the PFAS Action Act,
including my bill to turn off the tap on PFAS chemicals. For
years, I have pushed the EPA to use its authority to protect
families and hold contaminators accountable. And that is why I
was so pleased to see the EPA issue two rules last month to put
us on track to have PFAS drinking water regulations nationwide.
This is so important. With more than 4,700 PFAS chemicals in
commerce, it's abundantly clear we need to address this
important issue.
So Administrator Browner, let me start with you. In your
testimony you said, ``Strong public health protections are even
more essential than ever.'' Can you elaborate on the need for
public health protections and how PFAS fits into that goal?
Ms. Browner. Thank you, and I appreciate the question.
The role of EPA is to protect all Americans. And what that
frequently means is to protect the most vulnerable. And
frequently that is children, that may be pregnant women, that
may be indigenous people, but that we need to really ensure
that everyone is protected, not just some of the population.
And so, when I talk about strong public health protections,
what I'm talking about is just that, that we set our standards
based on the most at-risk because we know if we protect the
most at-risk, we're protecting everybody.
Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you.
And Ms. Cleland-Hamnett, I know you were deeply involved in
efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. Does the
EPA have the right authorities under this act or any other
tools to effectively protect the public from PFAS
contamination?
Ms. Cleland-Hamnett. Yes. I think that the amendments to
the Toxic Substances Control Act that were signed into law in
2016, if properly implemented and resourced and moved along at
the right pace, could very much contribute to the Agency's
efforts to address PFAS chemicals.
I think there's some very important authorities there to
require further testing and monitoring of chemicals, to look at
whether certain uses of chemicals and releases of chemicals
from those uses and manufacturing are presenting significant
risks, and for my former part of the Agency that implements
TSCA to also work with the drinking water program and other
programs and with the regional offices and the States to help
provide the science and the information to make it possible to
get these nationwide standards in place and, where it's
appropriate, to turn off the tap for some of these chemicals
that are already in commerce but that could be replaced by
something less problematic, and to keep some of the newer ones,
even--we've known about the problems of PFAS chemicals for a
long time, but new ones have continued to come onto the market.
So I think we need to look at that preventive aspect of it as
well.
Ms. Kuster. Well, I will certainly be bringing the bill
back on turning off the tap.
Just wondering--actually, my time is up. So I will yield
back. So thank you again for all your good work. Look forward
to working with the EPA again.
Thanks. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Cleland-Hamnett. Thanks very much.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burgess for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. I thank the chair.
Dr. Deskins, I noted in both your oral and your written
testimony where you referenced problems that can occur in
communities where the source of income is rapidly reduced, and
you in fact mentioned drug abuse as one of the problems. As you
know, this committee focused a great deal of attention on that
a couple of years ago. Now, unfortunately, with the pandemic
we've kind of taken our collective eye off that ball.
But you bringing it back to us reminds me of just how
important that is and how important the work that this
subcommittee and the full committee did on the Support Act back
in 2017 and 2018. In fact, Madam Chair, I'd like to ask
unanimous consent to place into the record a Washington Post
article from May of 2016 called ``The Fentanyl Failure,'' where
lack of attention to the growing fentanyl challenge resulted,
obviously, in many, many deaths. And again, this committee did
a great deal of work on that.
And Dr. Deskins, I just--I thank you for bringing it back
to our attention. That is a very real social cost in the
communities that are affected by the economic devastation of
losing their primary source of income. Have you studied that to
any great extent?
Dr. Deskins. I've studied it to some extent, not to a great
extent. But I can just say that West Virginia has been hard hit
by the opioid crisis and by other problems associated with drug
abuse. And it is a real, real tragedy that has affected our
State and so many parts of the country.
But one thing that's clear is that the drug abuse problem
is very multifaceted. There's not just one issue. But lack of
economic opportunity is highly correlated with drug abuse. And
we see in our counties where the economic opportunity is just
diminishing and fading away, that's where the drug abuse crisis
is the most severe.
Mr. Burgess. So let me ask you your opinion, and I
recognize I am asking for an opinion. But is it possible to
achieve economic security and environmental progress without
resorting to burdensome regulations?
Dr. Deskins. Well, I mean, it's possible. I mean, it's hard
to say in the generic sense. I mean, regulations just have to
be--they have to be promoted with the best possible
information, the richest possible information, to form, to
underpin, the decisionmaking. And they just have to be designed
in an appropriate way.
I mean, I think it is possible to achieve good
environmental outcomes and good economic outcomes at the same
time. It just depends on the nature of the regulations. They
have to consider all the issues, and they certainly have to
consider the economic suffering that I'm here to speak to. It
just depends on the nature of the regulations.
Mr. Burgess. So I really don't think there's any argument
that bad actors should be held to account. But is it important
to have anything other than just punitive measures in the
toolbox? Are there educational measures and educational
responsibilities that the EPA should undertake?
Dr. Deskins. Well, I think so. And I think it's a question.
I mean, there's ways to include measures to help transition
affected communities and help affected communities move away
from--maybe in some cases from fossil fuels to alternative
energy sources. Cooperative action is very important and vital,
and it needs to be--it needs to be undertaken.
But, I mean, we're not going to undertake cooperative
action unless we really, fully understand what's happened to
the affected communities, which is one reason why I'm kind of
preaching about the suffering that has plagued some places like
in West Virginia.
Mr. Burgess. And you are right. And of course, then, the
public's reaction in those areas affected, when they see wholly
punitive measures, which have extracted a significant social
toll on those communities, understandably they are reticent to
embrace other activities of the Agency, because they see
firsthand how their communities have been hurt.
Dr. Deskins. I agree.
Mr. Burgess. All right. Well, let me ask you this----
Dr. Deskins. I apologize if there was--if I missed a
question, I apologize. But I agree with your sentiment there.
Absolutely.
Mr. Burgess. Well, if--recognizing environmental health is
a priority, so if it is, given that, does it really matter how
compliance standards are met? Is it OK for the Agency to be as
punitive as possible because it is just of such a burning
importance that these environmental controls and environmental
health be placed at such a priority?
Dr. Deskins. Honestly, I don't know a whole lot about how
the EPA has acted in the past in terms of taking cooperative
measures or punitive measures. I would just kind of prefer for
cooperative measures as a first option, as a first approach.
But I can't really speak to the past, where the policies have
taken one approach or the other. But I certainly prefer
cooperation.
Mr. Burgess. So, as someone who has spent a lot of years
doing things as service, I will just tell you, it is the
punitive ones that get the public's attention.
I thank the chair, and I will yield back.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Miss Rice for 5 minutes for
questions.
Miss Rice. Thank you so much, Chairwoman DeGette.
Before I came to Congress, I spent my life as a prosecutor.
So, in addition to having an enormous respect for the law, I
have an even greater regard for those--how important it is to
enforce the law, how incredibly important that is. I think it
is especially true at the EPA in order for the EPA to fully
realize its mission.
The protections cannot just be on the books. They have to
be enforced. And that enforcement is not just about ensuring
compliance and holding polluters accountable. It is also going
to have the impact of protecting the health of our communities,
families, and the environment.
Governor Whitman, I would just like to ask you about the
task force that you recently co-led on the rule of law, which
documented the importance of having an unbiased and fair
administration of the law. The task force specifically observed
that, ``The awesome power of prosecution must be wielded
without consideration of individuals' political or financial
status or their personal relationships.''
Can you just elaborate on why it's so important for the EPA
to fairly and equitably apply the law, what obstacles there are
for them doing that, and especially, ignoring the status of any
alleged violator and the potential impact that that may have
on----
Ms. Whitman. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. That's a
critical area. Obviously, if you don't have enforcement behind
the regulations, they become meaningless. And so the Agency has
got to be able to do that. A lot of the discussion up to now
has been around positive versus negative and carrot versus
stick and how punitive they should be.
The Agency has to have the ability to enforce. Enforcement
is critical to its mission. And as we said in the report, there
are a number of steps that Congress can take to help ensure a
transparency of when there is an effort to try to stifle the
enforcement.
But the other side of it is when we were there, when I was
there, we put in place a green and gold track. And for those
companies that were doing better than environmental regulation
or laws required, we helped them. We made things easier for
them. We might not have investigated them every year and done
it every other year because every time you go in for
inspections, that costs them money and time. And you recognize
that.
So there is this ability to strike a balance, and that's
what the Agency can do and has been good at doing, until you
get sometimes political interference that says you either have
to--can't do any enforcement, or that's all you have to do.
Miss Rice. Well, we would be well served to take your
recommendations, as a legislative body, that you make.
So Administrator Browner, your testimony, you quoted
``engaged, efficacious, and timely enforcement of EPA's
regulations is essential to public health, environmental
justice, and environmental and public health protection.''
Focusing on environmental justice, can you just expound
more on that and why it's so important, and the role that the
EPA can play in that, essentially if they have a robust and
consistent enforcement program?
You need to unmute.
Ms. Browner. Every American deserves equal protection under
the environmental laws. Unfortunately, not every community and
not every American is getting equal protection under the
environmental laws. And one of the witnesses already spoke
about using the Civil Rights Act, other tools that may be
available to guarantee this.
But enforcement is a piece of it. And it's not--enforcement
is not about a ``got you.'' It is about working with the
company to bring them into compliance. And just like Governor
Whitman mentioned, we had programs to do just that. We said,
``If you think you're in violation, please come into the
Agency. We will work in partnership with you to solve your
problem.''
You get better compliance when you do that. When you're out
there having to figure out if someone's out of compliance
sticking a probe in a smokestack, it's just a lengthy process,
and it's complicated for everybody. I believe that the vast
majority of companies want to comply, just like all of us stop
at stop signs.
But inevitably, there are those who don't stop at stop
signs, and there are those who don't comply. And the
enforcement there is important to ensure a level playing field
and to ensure equal protection for communities.
Miss Rice. Very quickly, Ms. Keyes Fleming, based on your
experience, what resources and actions are necessary to ensure
a strong and effective EPA enforcement program?
You need to unmute.
Ms. Keyes Fleming. First and foremost, making sure you have
sufficient staff around the country and in the region to be
able to do the inspections to identify where the challenges
are. Those inspectors and staff need the type of mobile
equipment that has the latest innovations so they can have
good, credible data upon which to make some of their decisions.
And then, obviously, being able to post that information so
it's transparently available to communities so they then can be
informed and know how to advocate on their behalf.
Miss Rice. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McKinley for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I appreciate
the fact and am encouraged that this--the committee today is
going to be addressing the EPA's mission because, over the
years, I think we have experienced mission creep that became a
consuming force within the EPA.
Quite frankly, the Trump administration--in fact, it was
demonstrated during the Obama administration that it was all
stick and no carrot. The Trump administration was--concurs with
your statement and trying to get it back to the basic mission.
They spent the last 4 years trying to get back to the basics:
What was the law?
I had conversations with Scott Pruitt. Same thing with
Andrew Wheeler: Get back to the basics. What do we have to do?
And they were successful with that. We have already heard over
the litany of successes, whether the Superfund site, updated
the Lead and Copper Rule, finalized air quality standards,
created a funding mechanism so that we provided $100 million in
grants.
So, without objection, Madam Chair, I would like to enter
into the record the EPA's 2020 Year In Review, and a document
from Administrator Wheeler highlighting their net
accomplishments.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. McKinley, as stated, we will enter all of
the exhibits at the end of the hearing.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. Have your staff provide it to committee staff.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. So the question to Governor
Whitman: The Trump administration finalized a new Lead and
Copper Rule for the first time in over 30 years. When you were
at the EPA, did you try to update that regulation? Ms. Whitman?
My time is running. Apparently----
Ms. Whitman. Is the question addressed to me? It was
cutting out badly. I couldn't hear. I apologize. I couldn't
hear the question.
Mr. McKinley. I'm sorry. I lost time on that. What we were
saying was they were the new Lead and Copper Rule was put in
place for the first time in over 30 years. So my question: When
you were at the EPA, did you try to update that regulation?
Ms. Whitman. Congressman, I don't even actually remember
that. But yes, I--but I don't know. I honestly can't say
whether we did or not.
Mr. McKinley. OK. Thank you. Do you know that your--in the
Obama administration, worked on a lead rule for 8 years, but
never proposed one? Under Trump, they did. They took care of
that. So----
Ms. Whitman. Well, that's good. We've been needing that.
Mr. McKinley. And then continuing this, in the Flint,
Michigan water crisis that happened under the Trump
administration--did it happen under the Trump administration or
was it Gina McCarthy and the Obama-Biden administration that it
took place, that the water was so contaminated there? Do you
know?
Ms. Whitman. That was going on for a long time. I think
there were several administrations that missed that one.
Mr. McKinley. Well, it happened under a lot of EPAs that
ignored it. But it finally came to pass, and it was corrected
with it.
Do you know, back in 2015, the Gold King Mine outburst in
Colorado, did that occur under the Trump administration to fix
it, or was it the Obama administration?
Ms. Whitman. I presume, by the way you're asking the
questions, it was under the Trump administration that that was
addressed. I mean----
Mr. McKinley. OK. So----
Ms. Whitman [continuing]. Every administration has had
their crises and addressed them.
Mr. McKinley. Oh, yes, they have. I have----
Ms. Whitman. So it's good. I mean, we need that. Nobody is
all bad, and that's the good thing.
Mr. McKinley. Governor--now let me turn to Carol Browner.
On page 2 of your testimony, you discuss the need to
strengthen the environmental enforcement. But starting in 2011,
there was a downward trend in all criminal enforcement
statistics. It wasn't reversed until under the Trump
administration. So were you aware of that, that it was
declining, not increasing or not flat?
Ms. Browner. With all due respect, it is important to
distinguish between civil enforcement and criminal enforcement.
Mr. McKinley. OK. You're not----
Ms. Browner. And I think that you need both of the numbers.
Mr. McKinley. I reclaim my time. Do you realize that the
administration of the Trump administration actually collected
twice as much in civil and criminal penalties than the Obama-
Biden administration did? Were you aware of that?
Ms. Browner. I think the question is: What were the levels
of compliance? What we all care about is the clean air and
clean water, not the penalties.
Mr. McKinley. It was a yes or no on that. So if I----
Ms. Browner. Sir, not the penalties----
Mr. McKinley. I'm going to reclaim my time to go to John
Deskins because time is running out.
John, Professor, the Democrats seem to be returning to the
Obama mission again, overwhelmingly focused on this war on coal
as it relates to--and they want to decarbonize this power
sector by 2035. And without carbon capture, this would
ultimately eliminate coal and natural gas for domestic energy
production. And some--you have already talked about what is
going to happen with it.
Can you discuss the potential impacts that eliminating
that, the fossil fuel production, would have on budgets like in
West Virginia or in Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, or Alabama,
all the States that are involved with fossil fuels?
Dr. Deskins. Do you mean if we just completely eliminated
fossil fuels? Completely?
Mr. McKinley. That is what they are doing. That is the
plan, to do away with it, because they are not--they are not
funding carbon capture. So there's no way for us to get to net
zero by 2035 unless we eliminate it.
Dr. Deskins. Well, I certainly haven't analyzed the
complete elimination. But that would be devastating for much of
West Virginia. I mean, that would devastate our employment
base. It would devastate our tax revenue base. If that
happened, just hypothetically if we had to complete the
elimination over the next year, West Virginia would be
devastated.
Mr. McKinley. Just in closing--and I know I am running--but
by 2030, they want to have zero--or 80 percent emission
reduction of carbon recovery. Are we going to be able to
achieve that in West Virginia, 80 percent in the next--by 2030?
Dr. Deskins. No. I don't think we can achieve it in that
short----
Mr. McKinley. I hope the rest of the panel heard that, and
we can go from that. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Schakowsky for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the Chair. Can you hear me?
I just want to thank both of our former EPA Administrators.
I think it is really great that you're here, and I think that
we can learn and have been learning a lot from you.
I have been very close to the workers and the union that
works for the EPA in Chicago, and I want to tell you, these are
people who love their jobs but have been really demoralized in
the last--under the last administration by the loss of so many
people and also the ability to conduct some very vital public
health initiatives that they needed to do, including
enforcement.
Of course, the COVID virus has interfered enormously. But I
think that the greatest asset that we have, actually, and the
greatest strength of the EPA is the talent and dedication of
these career staff. So I wanted to ask: Governor Whitman, in
your testimony, you stated that, ``In recent years the EPA has
suffered under the leadership of people who seem neither to
understand nor appreciate the vital role that the EPA plays in
Americans' lives.'' And you went further to say, ``The morale
at the EPA among the career civil servants has plummeted.''
And so I wondered if you could answer: Why do you think
that the morale has dropped so low?
Ms. Whitman. Well, I think a lot of it has been due to the
attitude of the previous administration toward the environment
in general and to science specifically because EPA is a
regulatory agency, and those regulations are based on science.
And when they are told and restricted in what science they can
look at and what they can discuss where they think, for
instance, as has been mentioned in previous testimony, climate
change is an enormous issue, but under the previous
administration they were not allowed to discuss it, not allowed
to go to conferences where it might have been discussed. In
fact, the words were taken down off the websites. And that made
scientists feel as if they were being totally ignored and
restricted to a point where they were getting the message that
science really wasn't important.
And there was also--there were no clear parameters. It's a
place where Congress can be enormously helpful to the Agency in
ensuring that it develops rules, and this is true throughout
government, where you have a clear transparency on where
political interference is acceptable or not. And when you
protect scientists who might come to conclusions that are not
what the administration wants to hear necessarily, and then
they get moved to someplace else.
That's not what should happen. I mean, obviously the
administration takes that knowledge and does what it feels is
appropriate for policy reasons. But----
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me--let me--right.
Ms. Whitman [continuing]. They shouldn't punish the
scientists.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me move on an old friend, Carol
Browner. And it is great to see her.
I wanted to ask you: What are the elements that make morale
so important to the EPA? I am thinking about things like
recruitment and retention. And I wonder if you could speak to
that.
Ms. Browner. Both recruitment and retention are hugely
important. And part of how you achieve that is by making sure
the Agency is allowed to do its job, that it has a reputation
for recognizing the professional experiences that people bring
to the work.
I think if there's--and the Governor just mentioned it, but
in terms of the past administration, the disregard for people's
professional skills was, I think, significant. And that needs
to be reinforced, and I know it will be under the next--under
the new administration.
But I think people come to EPA because they want to do a
particular type of work. They want to do a particular type of
science. The politicals ultimately make a decision with that
science. But allow the career professional staff to do their
job, and it will be a great place for people to work, as it has
been historically.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. My time has quickly expired, and
I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you all
for being here today.
I would like to join my colleagues in acknowledging the
tremendous work accomplished under the Trump administration's
EPA. In particular, I want to highlight the progress made in
reinvigorating the Superfund program, which handles cleanup of
America's most contaminated sites.
During the Obama administration, the EPA's neglect of this
program resulted in 80 sites being added to the National
Priorities List. By comparison, the Trump administration's EPA,
which had half the amount of time in office, removed 82 sites
from the National Priorities List, a historic achievement for
this program.
For the Americans who live and work near these sites, they
were left unattended for the last 20 to 30 years. The Trump
administration sent a clear message with their health and--that
their health and environment matter, and that somehow, power
wanted to lift the economic stigma surrounding Superfund sites.
This is not a knock on the EPA's career officials in the
Superfund office, but it is a clear example of how the Obama
administration was too preoccupied with pursuing their big-
government/climate-change agenda while forgetting about the
individuals protected by environmental policy.
Dr. Deskins, your testimony mentions how West Virginia has
particularly been impacted by the environmental policy aimed at
transitioning away from coal. Can you expand on what you see
when these workers lose their jobs without receiving retraining
for a new career?
Dr. Deskins. Well, thank you for that question. The fact of
the matter is it's very hard for many of these men and women to
transition. Some people have to just move because, as I said
before, these communities are often very rural, very small
communities that are spread out here and there in a rugged,
mountainous landscape.
It's not easy just to attract new businesses, especially
not in the short term, to these areas. So many men and women
have to move away. And for the ones who are there, honestly,
many of them struggle over the long term to find a transition.
I think ultimately to make that transition happen, we need to
have much more robust investment from the Federal Government to
help support things like we've mentioned before, like human
capital investment and infrastructure investment.
Mr. Long. OK. And I'm going to stick with you, Dr. Deskins.
Much has been said about the need to replace higher-paying
fossil fuel jobs with clean and green jobs. Do solar and wind
jobs provide the same level of income and benefits as the
fossil fuel jobs that they are meant to replace?
Dr. Deskins. Honestly, I don't have all the information
about solar and wind jobs. But I can say that coal jobs and
natural gas jobs are very unusually high paying based on the
fact that they only require, generally, a high school diploma.
You can have a high school diploma and go into coal or gas and
make $80,000. It's almost impossible to find that kind of
income, at least in West Virginia, with that level of education
and training.
So I'm not for sure about the solar and wind side. But coal
and gas jobs are unusually high paying.
Mr. Long. What are the long-term economic impacts on
communities, including the societal cost, in communities where
high-wage jobs are replaced with lower-wage jobs?
Dr. Deskins. Like I said in my opening remarks, briefly,
there's a very severe negative economic impact for many West
Virginia communities. And what we have is a vicious cycle that
has been ignited in many of our communities, where jobs leave.
And so people have to outmigrate. The people who outmigrate
are younger, healthier, better job-prepared. When outmigration
occurs, it makes the community less attractive to potential
businesses. You throw drug abuse into the mix, which is very
real, and we have this vicious cycle that is created.
Tax revenues fall. That makes it harder for the communities
to invest in infrastructure and public education and other
public services. Honestly, we have some communities in West
Virginia where it's not clear those communities will survive
because of this vicious cycle and the devastating effect that
it has.
Mr. Long. I just returned a week or 10 days ago from Salt
Lake City, a climate conference that several of us attended out
there. And at the last day, we went up to Park City, Utah, and
visited with the mayor there, where they're doing all they can.
And they have converted all their city buses over to 100
percent electric.
And the mayor said that they're going to be carbon-neutral
by 2030, 9 years from now. And I posed the question to him, I
said, ``Well, where do you get your power now? What's it look
like now? What was it 5 years ago? Ten?'' Because that's an
admirable goal, let's admit it--I mean, if you can be carbon
neutral in 9 years--and he kind of looked down at the floor and
looked back up and he said, ``Well,'' he said, ``right now our
power company's 85 to 90 percent fossil fuel.''
So everyone wants clean air, clean water, clean soil. But
we have to be realistic, I think, in our approach, and thinking
that you could be carbon-neutral when you're 85, 90 percent
fossil fuel right now in 9 years may be a little bit out of the
realm of possibility.
But again, thank you all for your time today. Thank you for
being on the panel. And Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
organizing this important hearing. Thank you to the witnesses
for their crucial testimony. Your experiences at EPA are
critical to understanding how we can bring the Agency back on
track to address the immense environmental and public health
challenges facing our Nation.
As we have heard today, science is vital to EPA's mission.
In order for EPA to exercise strong environmental leadership,
EPA must act with unquestionable scientific integrity. Sadly,
over the past 4 years, there were unprecedented attacks on
EPA's scientific infrastructure, and we saw ideology drive
environmental policy.
I am indeed pleased that President Biden has hit the ground
running with several actions to restore scientific integrity
across the Federal Government, including at EPA. I would like
to hear recommendations from our witnesses today on how the new
leadership at EPA can restore science at the Agency.
Ms. Fleming, what steps could EPA and its partners take to
strengthen science in decisionmaking and recommit to scientific
integrity?
Ms. Keyes Fleming. Thank you for the question. I think
there are a lot of things that can be done, particularly
ensuring that the scientists have access to the newest and
latest data sets and information as they are making the
important decisions that will undergird the Agency's actions
going forward.
This also means being able to have the facts in-house to be
able to analyze that new science, and the technology to be able
to make it transparent and available. But one of the tools that
EPA could use is its Title 42 authority to hire some of the
best and brightest minds from academia, from industry, from
other parts of the government, and bring them into the EPA's
fold.
This will not only expand EPA's capabilities but also build
the synergies and relationships that'll have that whole
government cross-cutting approach that this administration has
focused on.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much.
And Administrator Browner, it's good to see you again. And
you state in your testimony that, I quote, ``well-conducted
science'' is the foundation for EPA and its partners. Again,
what can--what steps can EPA take to advance scientific
integrity? Because it seems to be the foundation of the work
that needs to be done.
Ms. Browner. So what EPA has to do, I believe, is respect
the scientific process. Science asks the questions, it
undertakes research, and then it makes a conclusion. And that
conclusion is then subjected to peer review. Peer review is a
very important part of the scientific process, and it's
something that EPA has engaged in and should continue to engage
in.
But I'll go to the prior witness's answer. You have to make
the investment in the scientist. You have to bring into the
Agency the best people. And I'll just say when you guys look at
the budget of EPA, it looks like it may be a big number to you,
but the actual amount of money inside of that budget--a lot of
the money goes out to States, it goes to other things--the
actual amount of money to hire the quality people is not that
high.
And so investing in the people, making sure the best
scientists want to come to EPA--historically, they did. If you
were an environmental scientist, EPA was the place to be. And
we need to rebuild that again.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much.
Governor Whitman, welcome. In your testimony, you state
that, and I quote, ``Good science is the foundation of good
policy.'' So, based on where EPA is today, Governor, what can
Agency leaders do to safeguard scientific integrity and ensure
EPA actions are guided by good science?
Ms. Whitman. Well, I think one of the most important things
they can do, besides everything that's been mentioned in the
previous two responses to your questions, is to protect the
scientist, to ensure that the science is allowed to--the
scientists are allowed to go where the science takes them, not
where a political desire forces them to go.
It is where the science takes them, and they should be
allowed to express that and to report that and not fear that
they are going to be stifled or moved somewhere because it's
not the outcome that the administration wanted politically. And
that's a very important part, and added to what you've heard
before from the other responders.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And Ms. Cleland-Hamnett, you were at
EPA for nearly 4 decades as a career civil servant, working
under seven different administrations of both parties. Based on
your time at EPA, why is it important that EPA policies be
based on credible and transparent science, not ideology or a
particular policy outcome?
Ms. DeGette. Please unmute.
Ms. Cleland-Hamnett. Sorry. Very good question. Several
reasons come to my mind. One is that, in order to best protect
the American public, public health, and the environment, you
need to have the best science to understand what the problems
are, to figure out how to reduce [audio malfunction] to public
health and the environment, and to carry those things out.
It also needs to be good science and credible science for
the American public to believe that they are being protected,
for the industry to feel that they are being fairly treated,
for communities to feel that they can understand what's going
on, and that they're being represented in decisions.
So I think it has to do with both the effectiveness and the
credibility of the work that the Agency does.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Dunn, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Chairwoman DeGette. We all value the
mission of the Environmental Protection Agency in ensuring we
have clean air and water for our generation and future
generations. However, burdensome overregulation often does more
harm than good in this effort. This is particularly true for
the rural communities with large agricultural commodities, like
the one I represent in Florida's 2nd Congressional District.
I am grateful for some of the work done during the Trump
administration on development and implementation of the
Navigable Waters Protection Rule, as well as revival of the
farm, ranch, and rural communities Agency. The Navigable Waters
Protection Rule is clear, transparent, and informs and guides
farmers, ranchers, and foresters without fear of burdensome or
oppressive regulation, all while ensuring the preservation of
clean water. The rule significantly improves upon previous
attempts by clarifying what types of wetlands are
jurisdictional and explicitly those which are not, thereby
preventing confusion and overreach by the Federal Government. I
believe this policy is a good model for what future
administrative action from the EPA should look like.
So with that, let me turn to Governor Whitman. It's
abundantly clear that the EPA makes decisions that impacts
farmers, ranchers, and timber producers. Considering your
professional background with the EPA, how can the Agency
continue to prioritize the valuable insights and input of our
agricultural producers in the policymaking process as well as
partner with them to make sensible solutions?
Ms. Whitman. Well, I do not think it is hard to do at all,
frankly. I worked very closely with the Secretary of
Agriculture while I was there. In fact, we used to meet, the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, as
well as Labor. We met on a regular basis to talk about areas
and issues that overlapped and where we could work together to
try to clarify things work better for everyone.
And that included protecting the public and protecting
those who made their living on the land.
Mr. Dunn. So I actually noticed that, while you were the
EPA administrator, you did collaborate with USDA on controlling
waste runoff in agricultural feeding operations. And the USDA
actually held your effort as unprecedented in that it would
result in stopping billions, billions of pounds of pollutants
from entering America's water.
And I would say that that kind of collaboration can lead to
creative ways to solve environmental problems. Are there
hurdles to the EPA working with other agencies now, something
that they can recreate your effects?
Ms. Whitman. There shouldn't be any hurdles. I mean, it's a
question of the desire to do it and the willingness to listen
to one another and talk to one another on a regular basis. I
mean, what you're talking about is the Nutrient Trading
Program, I believe, that we instituted, and that worked well.
It protected the public and it made it easier on the
farmers and the ranchers to meet the criteria. It saved them
money, and it saved the water purveyors money. So it was one of
those things that worked for everyone, and that has happened
under previous administrations. It will happen--it will happen
in the future. There is no reason not to be able to do that
again.
Mr. Dunn. And do you see it happening now?
Ms. Whitman. I see the potential for it happening now. I
think it's----
Mr. Dunn. Yes. Potential. I agree. I'm not sure it happens
as much as it did when you were the administrator.
Ms. Whitman. Well, I can't speak to that. I mean, the
administration's pretty new, so I don't know what their track
record is yet on that.
Mr. Dunn. OK. Fair enough. I also noticed that your Whitman
Strategy Group offers regulatory and permitting services to
help your clients, and this is a quote from your website:
``understand the ever-changing regulatory and permitting
landscape.'' Well, I know it is ever-changing. I have tried to
build things on occasion. And I am concerned about the
processes that are so cumbersome that they become deterrent to
new projects.
Can you speak to the concerns that businesses have with the
permitting processes, the red tape, if you will, and how
those----
Ms. Whitman. Well, I mean, that's----
Mr. Dunn [continuing]. Threaten new development?
Ms. Whitman. Well, I mean, there certainly is a burden when
you have--the regulatory process requires you to do certain
things that cost time and money. There's no question about it.
And I am a firm believer that we should be reviewing, on a
regular basis, our regulations and the various new ones that
are put in place to see whether--have we found better
technologies or better ways to do it? Do we still need to
regulate something? Have we solved that problem or not? And be
willing to address those.
For instance, we did the Hudson River cleanup. We found
that what worked in the lab and looked good, I said after 6
months I wanted to review what the actual impact was on the
rivers. We found that in fact we were releasing more pollutants
than we were taking out during the dredging process and the way
it was being handled. And so we changed it. And now both sides
are working well together. Environmental and the business
community that was required to clean up the river are working
well together That's something, I think, that's--there's no
problem----
Mr. Dunn. That's a great example of what I was talking
about. I thank you, Governor Whitman. We are over time.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ruiz for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Chair DeGette, for having this very
important hearing.
Communities of color and fenceline communities have borne a
disproportionate burden from polluters for far too long. The
COVID-19 pandemic has only further illuminated these
injustices. While data is still emerging, a September 2020
study published in the Journal of Environmental Letters found
that someone living in a county with high levels of hazardous
air pollution was 9 percent more likely to die from COVID-19
than those who live with less pollution.
In my district, air pollution and particulate matter put
many of my constituents at high risk for underlying conditions
like asthma and COPD. To make matters worse, many of these
communities are also medically underserved. This combination of
poor air quality and lack of access to healthcare puts
communities like those in the Coachella Valley at a higher risk
of severe COVID-19 disease and death should they become
infected. This is why I have dedicated my time to working with
farmworkers in other fenceline communities to promote COVID-19
vaccination and other preventive measures.
Even outside of COVID-19, the EPA has an essential mission
to reduce pollution and ensure that every community has access
to clear air and clean water. Ms. Keyes Fleming, in your
testimony, you gave several interesting examples of how EPA can
``catalyze the revitalization of communities burdened by
pollution.''
So, based on your experience as an EPA Regional
Administrator, what can EPA do going forward to improve both
environmental and economic conditions in disadvantaged
communities?
Ms. Keyes Fleming. Thank you for the question. I think
there are a lot of opportunities. And the example with the
ReGenesis Project in Spartanburg, South Carolina, speaks to the
issues. They had similar concerns, and they were able to
capitalize a $20,000 EJ Small Grant into $270 million of
Federal investments, including building out a very robust
healthcare center to make sure--series of healthcare centers--
to make sure that their constituents' health concerns were
taken care of.
So that's an example of where EPA, one, can not only
provide the seed money, but also work collaboratively within
its ranks, whether it's air, water, soil remediation, but then
also with the larger Federal family. And in Region 4, we
started a regional IWG that mirrored the Environmental Justice
IWG at the Federal level. And that's something I'd offer.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you very much. Administrator Browner, you
have been a strong advocate for environmental justice
throughout your career. You led the EPA in 1994, when the
Agency helped develop and implement the first-ever Executive
order addressing environmental justice. In fact, my
legislation, the Environmental Justice Act, builds on your work
by codifying and expanding the 1994 Executive order on
environmental justice.
In your testimony today, you state, ``EPA should take bold
actions that protect the health and safety of environmental
justice communities that bear the burden of our Nation's
historical and current reliance on dirty fuels and toxic
substances.''
Administrator Browner, in your opinion, how should today's
EPA renew its commitment to environmental justice and take
action to achieve meaningful results for vulnerable
communities?
Ms. Browner. Well, first let me thank you for your
leadership on this issue. And let me thank you for introducing
legislation to codify. I also think the White House has
announced that it will be revisiting that Executive order and
determining whether or not it can be updated, which I think
would be hugely important. I also want to applaud the President
for appointing Cecelia Martinez, a known EJ leader, to a role
in the White House to coordinate the EJ efforts.
But, at the end of the day, EPA has regulatory authority.
And by setting public health standards that promote the most
at-risk, we can see real benefits. You talked about the
relationship with COVID. So, for example, strengthening the
fuel efficiency in cars, something that Mr. Trump undid, making
sure that the greenhouse gas standards that cars and trucks and
buses have to meet based again on the science--all of those can
bring very real relief.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. I only have 30 seconds left, so I want
to ask Governor Whitman: In your testimony, you state, ``The
health and safety of people who live near pollution-generating
facilities must be better protected, and working with State and
local governments, EPA must do a better job in preventing the
location of such new facilities in places that lack the
political or economic clout to protect their communities and
their residents.''
So how can EPA better work with State and local governments
to ensure protections for communities that lack political or
economic influence?
Ms. Whitman. Well, I have to be proactive. When there is a
need to work to ensure that when there is a potential for the
location of a facility that is going to produce pollutants,
that they ensure that it is not located in a community of color
simply because there isn't the political clout there to keep it
out. And I have to look at the overall impact of what's
happening in that area and the air quality in that area and
ensure that, when you put a site, it has the best available
technologies as well as where its actual location is.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. I think we ran out of time, and the
key is the communal impact measurement, which is also in my
environmental justice bill, is very important.
And with that, I yield back to the chair.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Joyce for 5
minutes.
Mr. Joyce. Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairwoman
DeGette, Ranking Member Griffith, Chairman Pallone, Ranking
Member Mrs. Rodgers, for this hearing, as well as for the
witnesses appearing with us today.
In 2019 I started hearing concerns about a recent change to
stormwater management regulations, which in my district treated
smaller municipalities in the same fashion that larger
municipalities were treated. This ultimately meant that,
although many areas of my district lack the tax base or the
revenue streams to update their systems and infrastructure,
they would be out of compliance with the new standards.
The program in question was implemented by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection on behalf of the EPA. So
I immediately reached out to Regional Administrator Cosmo
Servidio and requested a call. Not only was the Regional
Administrator responsive to our concerns, but offered to join
me for a roundtable discussion with all principals in my
district. We had an extremely productive conversation, which
included EPA and DEP representatives and local leaders. And we
ultimately left with, so importantly, a plan of action that
everyone was comfortable with.
Today we've heard a wide range of views on the Trump EPA
policies. But when it really mattered to my constituents, they
showed up. The Regional Administrator himself came to my
district. He listened, and he offered reasonable solutions.
That is what leadership at the EPA actually looks like.
Chairwoman DeGette, before I ask my questions, I would like
to offer an article for the record titled, ``One Trump Era
Notion Biden May Want to Embrace: Independent Regulators Should
Analyze the Cost and Benefits of New Rules like Executive
Agencies Do,'' for the record.
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman shall submit his article to
staff, and then we will admit them all at the end of the
hearing.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chair DeGette.
During the Trump administration, the Justice Department
released a memorandum to the White House that clears a path for
improved decisionmaking by independent regulatory commissions.
The opinion concludes that Presidents may direct independent
agencies to comply with Executive Order 12866, an Executive
order issued by President Clinton in 1993 and reaffirmed
subsequently by both Republican and Democrat Presidents since.
It requires agencies to perform cost-benefit analysis on
all economically significant regulations, and to submit them
for review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
in the Office of Management and Budget before their
publication. According to President Obama, and I quote, ``The
purposes of such review have been to ensure consistency with
Presidential priorities, to coordinate regulatory policy, and
to offer a dispassionate and analytic second opinion on Agency
actions.''
My questions, then, are first to Dr. Deskins. Do you agree
that, prior to economically significant regulation becoming
final, a cost-benefit analysis is necessarily a step to be
achieved?
Dr. Deskins. Absolutely. I could not agree more. I mean,
cost-benefit analysis is a foundational cornerstone of
economics and public policy analysis. It's imperative that we
fully understand all the benefits and all the costs of the
policy before we move forward, not to--well, it's hard for me
to even speak to that because it's so fundamental. I mean, I've
literally taught even undergraduate-level public policy
analysis, and we devote an entire section off the course to
cost-benefit analysis to ensure that we have fully informed
decisionmaking. Absolutely.
Mr. Joyce. Dr. Deskins, is regulatory transparency
important for all interested policies and markets to be
informed whether the most efficient ways to achieve the
objective are being pursued?
Dr. Deskins. Absolutely. I think transparency is of vital
importance in government, in policy analysis, all across the
specimen.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I see my time is closing out, and I
yield the balance.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair is now pleased to recognize the vice chair of the
subcommittee, Mr. Peters, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our
witnesses and you for having the hearing. I just want to note
that I believe I am the only former employee of the EPA
headquarters who serves in Congress. My first job out of
college was in the Office of Toxic Substances, where I worked
on cost-benefit analysis.
I agree with the testimony we just heard. You just have to
acknowledge that there's a social cost of carbon that you need
to factor in when you do cost-benefit analysis, which was an
issue we had with the previous administration. I am personally
interested in helping EPA become effective, responsive, and
science-driven, and I think that will certainly help morale,
which in turn will help performance.
The world is at a critical juncture in our fight against
climate change. The devastating effects of global warming are
being seen not just in deadly California wildfires and Texas
ice storms, but in countless instances of flood, famine, and
extreme weather across the globe. And United States leadership
internationally on climate has never been more important.
Yet last year, despite opposition from industry in general,
we saw the Trump administration roll back the first-ever rule
on methane emissions for the oil and gas industry. Methane is
80 times more potent than other greenhouse gases, and manmade
methane accounts for at least 25 percent of today's global
warming.
I would like to ask Administrator Browner: Your testimony
states that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
2018 report and the climate fuel disasters piling on year after
year make it clear we have to act now to reduce greenhouse
gases or carbon pollution that are causing devastating heat,
drought, wildfires, storms, et cetera.
Can you speak to the importance, Administrator, of the
United States' leadership internationally on climate change and
what actions like the methane rollback signal to other
countries about whether we're even serious about this issue?
Ms. Browner. Thank you. And thank you for mentioning the
social cost of carbon, which I believe, I think as you do, is
essential to any effective cost-benefit analysis or any
meaningful cost-benefit.
The way the global effort works on climate change is each
country is to develop their sort of action plan. And under
President Obama, we took our action plan to Paris. It was well
received. Rolling back those efforts simply takes the United
States out of the important global conversations that are going
on.
This is a tricky situation, right, because pollution
anywhere can affect us all. And so we do have to work with the
rest of the world. And I will say I am very, very heartened by
the appointment of former Secretary John Kerry, former Senator
John Kerry, to lead the U.S. global efforts on climate change.
But he will need a strong domestic agenda when he starts to
meet with his counterparts so that he can then encourage them
to take stronger steps.
Mr. Peters. Right. I agree with that.
And Governor Whitman, I think you have mentioned that
reducing carbon emissions, expanding renewable energy, all of
these things make sense, whatever your position is on climate
change. Fortunately, the Biden administration has instructed
EPA to immediately review the methane rollbacks as well as many
other climate-related rollbacks undertaken by the prior
administration.
In addition to these steps, Governor Whitman, and the
reentry into the climate accord in Paris, from Paris, what
actions can EPA take to reestablish itself as an international
leader on climate change? You have to unmute, I think.
Ms. Whitman. Sorry. I'm trying to unmute. I know. It's not
unmuting.
Mr. Peters. No. I can hear you.
Ms. DeGette. OK. You're good.
Ms. Whitman. OK. Now I'm unmuted. Sorry, it wasn't unmuting
right away. I agree with what Administrator Browner said. What
we need to do is we have to show action here in the United
States in order to be taken seriously internationally. And
methane is a bad pollutant. We recognize that. We know it's
something that we can improve human health if we start to take
action on it.
And this is in a very--a critical area for the Agency and
for the United States, for people in general. It's not just for
the Agency. It's for the health of us, of all of us, of each
one of us, and particularly our children. And we need to engage
with the international community on an equal basis.
But they're not going to take us seriously if they don't
see us taking some actions domestically. We just don't have the
credibility if we don't show that we're willing to take some
steps ourselves.
Mr. Peters. Yes. I don't think there's any credible
international leadership that can be ``Do as I say, not do as I
do.'' And I think we have to start here. Even as we talk, I
think, as our colleagues often talk about India and China,
entirely appropriately, they are part of the climate solution.
We have to set our own example, and we have to be leaders in
showing other countries what a developed country can do.
So I appreciate your testimony. Completely agree. And Madam
Chair, I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Palmer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I do want to
acknowledge the good work that the EPA has done over the years.
As I can't remember if it was former Administrator Browner or
Whitman that cited the improvements in air quality and the
reductions in the pollutants that the EPA tracks. It sounded
like they were reading from one of my texts.
I would point out too, though--and this is particularly
important in the context of discussions about how we address
climate change--the role that China plays. And it felt as that
we are to have, addressing this--the EPA estimates that on
certain days, nearly 25 percent of the particulate matter in
the skies above Los Angeles can be traced to China. And there
are some experts that think that at some point China could
account for a third of all of California's air pollution. So I
think we have got to take that into account.
I also want to comment on the discussion about reliable
science and transparency. I served on the Science, Space
Committee, and there was an issue raised during the Obama
administration about the transparency of EPA science and making
that science available for peer review. And the EPA has a long
practice of not allowing that science to be reviewed.
I just wonder what, Administrator Browner or Whitman, what
your position is on that, given that apparently you both
support transparency in the sci.
Ms. Browner. My understanding, sir, of the issue that
you're referencing has to do with databases that are held at
private institutions that scientists in industry, scientists at
universities, scientists at EPA, rely on in their work. And
there was a proposal to make those databases--not the science
but the databases--public.
And the concern that was raised is those are human health
studies, and individuals participate in them for 20, 30, 40
years. And if their personal health information is made
available, you will have a very difficult time getting subjects
to participate going forward. So yes, any of the science----
Mr. Palmer. That is not entirely accurate, though.
Ms. Browner. Well, that's understanding----
Mr. Palmer. And that science is paid for by taxpayer
dollars, Administrator Browner.
Ms. Browner. In some instances it is, and not all instances
is it paid for by taxpayers' dollars. Different institutions--
--
Mr. Palmer. Do you agree that the publicly funded----
Ms. Browner. I do not believe that personal healthcare
information should be made available. I believe that when EPA
does science, it should absolutely be public and be subject to
peer review. I am not saying anything different than I think
anybody else has been saying.
Mr. Palmer. That would violate HIPAA laws. I agree with
that.
Ms. Browner. The individuals agree to participate in a
scientific study.
Mr. Palmer. If I may continue--if I may continue with my
points. This is publicly funded science. We can do--we can take
appropriate measures to protect individuals' health data,
particularly, I think, it is supposed to be protected anyway
under the HIPAA laws.
But I think that is a real problem with some of the
decisions the EPA makes, is that there are questions about the
reliability of the science, whether it is real science or more
politics. And I think that we need to do a much better job in
terms of transparency.
You also mentioned an increase in the budget. And one of
the things--I introduced legislation several years in a row
that would reduce the amount of the EPA budget that is spent on
its armed agents. There was a report that came out that talked
about resources the EPA used to buy ammunition, though, 75mm to
125mm ammunition. Those are tank rounds, anti-tank rounds,
which makes no sense.
I asked what was the purpose of that, and I was told it was
to protect the environment. And my immediate thought was, to
protect it from who? I mean, are you expecting to be invaded by
China so that they can come over and pollute? I mean, that
makes no sense. And we've had multiple examples over the years
of EPA agents showing up in full body armor with automatic
weapons at private businesses, even, or a municipal water
works.
That makes no sense. So my contention is that the EPA wants
to have the public trust. When you'd have transparency in
science normally, to focus a little more on continuing to
improve the quality of our air and water and the toxic releases
and those type things, and not become a threat that people
fear.
And Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Schrier for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to our
excellent witnesses today. I am really enjoying this
discussion.
As mentioned, public health, including children's health
and environmental protection, are at the core of EPA's mission.
Now, I have been a vocal supporter and advocate for the Mercury
and Air Toxic Standards. Finalized in 2012, EPA recognized the
significant public health benefits of MATS, Mercury and Air
Toxic Standards.
And then the EPA estimated that MATS would yield up to $90
billion in public health benefits each year. In fact, it has
been shown to be lifesaving, preventing more than 11,000
premature deaths every year and preventing 130,000 asthma
attacks each year.
Now, pregnant women and children are especially vulnerable
to heavy metal exposure because of their profound impacts on
central nervous system development. But during the last
administration, we saw numerous attempts to attack and
undermine MATS, this despite the power industry already having
spent billions of dollars to comply and major power sector and
labor groups requesting that the standard should be left in
place.
So I am grateful that President Biden recognizes the
importance of MATS, and his Executive order from earlier this
year will lead to an immediate review of the prior
administration's actions regarding MATS, because protecting
developing brains should not be a partisan issue.
Now, Administrator Browner, as you note in your testimony
that the Trump administration did take a number of actions that
weakened public health protections, including MATS, could you
just briefly describe what happened to the Mercury and Air
Toxic Standards during the last administration?
Ms. Browner. Well, I think you said it. They were weakened,
and unnecessarily so, one, because they were based on good
science, they were based on the law, they had been subject to
public review, and industry had embraced them in many
instances.
So it sort of--there were several of these rollbacks by the
Trump administration that were just befuddling because you had
industry support for them. You had industry saying, ``Look,
these regulations are giving us certainty and predictability,
and we're making the investments to meet the standards. Why are
you changing them on us? And we do need certainty and
predictability in our regulatory'' [audio malfunction].
Ms. Schrier. Similar to what we saw in the automobile
industry. Just really quickly, before I get into my next
question, given where we are today, what steps can the EPA take
to protect the vulnerable populations, including children?
Ms. Browner. From mercury?
Ms. Schrier. From mercury, lead, other pollution?
Ms. Browner. So they have the authority. They'll need to go
through the notice and comment rulemaking, which is a
transparent process. They'll have to dot all their I's and
cross all their T's. It will take time, and that is
unfortunate, that we have lost time. And mercury is a
neurotoxin. I mean, this is simple. This is about our
children's brains.
Ms. Schrier. That's right. And you are talking to a
pediatrician. OK. I have another question for you. I'm keeping
you on the spot today, Administrator Browner. This is a
question about a new issue that is really important in
Washington State.
Last year, scientists finally determined that the chemical
6PPD, which is added nearly universally to tires as a
preservative, was the cause of these mass die-offs of salmon.
What we found was that during big storms, runoff in urban areas
would just decimate an entire coho population migrating through
urban areas.
And so my question is: What role do you see the EPA playing
in addressing this issue? How would you work with public
industry? What could we do, maybe, to develop safe
alternatives? And how could we help?
Ms. Browner. So, obviously, EPA may have some authority on
safe alternatives. But more importantly, perhaps, in the near
term is EPA, under the Clean Water Act, gives States money for
stormwater, and so designing stormwater systems that can
actually suck that pollutant out before that stormwater enters
our rivers, lakes, or streams. There are many, many systems
now, using natural vegetation, for example.
And so I think I would want to look at both paths forward,
which is: How do I clean up the stormwater so it doesn't affect
my salmon? And then how do I look at the materials being used
and work in cooperation with the industry to see if you can't
find a solution?
Ms. Schrier. I love your thinking. It is really, really
hard because these could be teeny streams that just are--they
are everywhere. We have water everywhere in Washington State.
So thank you for your attention to that.
Last quick question: Could you just comment about the rise
of pseudoscience? Because I have had conversations with some of
my colleagues, and they say that they are founding their
conversations in science. And I'm looking at EPA science. And
then EPA was undermined by the last administration.
So it's really hard to have a conversation based on facts
when there seem to be two sets of facts. Could you just
comment?
Ms. Browner. Well, science is a process. It's a really
important process. It asks a question. It undertakes an
investigation. It brings forward an answer. It peer reviews
that answer. And so when we talk about good science, we should
be mindful of a process that we are talking about. And what
emerges from it, then, are facts, are scientific findings. What
we do with those is a policy discussion.
And we can have a debate about what you want to do about
climate change. But the science is very, very clear, right? And
so, rather than acting like kind of that the science isn't
clear, when you have 2,500 of the world's leading climate
scientists all agreeing and you have 20 years of evidence,
let's talk about what we're going to do. And I for one think we
should do a lot. Others may think less. But let's talk about
how we do it in a fair and just manner. Science is a process,
and that's what you want to protect, is the process.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Congresswoman Trahan, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Before I get
into some of the issues that are confronting my district in
Massachusetts, I wanted to give Ms. Browner specifically just
the time and the space to clarify.
In his testimony and in responding to questions today, Dr.
Deskins has discussed the importance of studying the economic
impacts of proposed environmental regulations. Ms. Browner, as
someone closely involved in developing environmental
regulations at the EPA as Administrator, can you please
elaborate on how the EPA takes into account both the costs and
the benefits of its actions?
And I know this is a complicated topic that does not lend
itself to being cut off. So please take your time so that we
can----
Ms. Browner. Well, thank you. And EPA does a lot of cost-
benefit analysis. They have done that under Democrats. They
have done that under Republican leadership. They look at what
will it cost industry to reduce its pollution, what are the
benefits to society.
When Congress passes a law and tells EPA to go protect the
air that we breathe, sometimes it says, decide what standard to
set based on a cost-benefit analysis. Sometimes it says, decide
what standard to set based on public health protections. So
Congress makes a decision and it directs EPA how to do its
work.
When I set the first-ever fine particle standard, we were
using a provision in the law that says, protect the public's
health. We did a cost-benefit analysis. We made that publicly
available. We litigated that all the way to the Supreme Court,
where they said, ``You're right, Administrator Browner. It's a
public health decision. You did this, but it's a public health
decision.'' So I think it's always important to go back to the
science and the law.
The second thing I just want to say about cost-benefit, we
did a 20-year review when I was at EPA, looking at what were
the actual costs--what we projected to be the costs, what we
projected to be the benefits when the regulation was proposed,
and then what actually happened once the regulation was on the
books and companies started to meet it. What did we find out?
American innovation and ingenuity drove down the costs of
compliance. There was a competitive market. There was a market
opportunity. We created a better widget, a better scrubber. And
the benefits went up. So the history is very, very compelling
that the regulatory schemes--yes, look at the costs and the
benefits. But those are not going to be absolutely perfect.
You have to go back and look at them a second time to
really understand. And what we found under the Clean Air Act is
that costs were less than originally anticipated and the
benefits greater.
Mrs. Trahan. Terrific. Thank you so much. I know we all
benefit from that knowledge.
So one other thing that I--your testimony speaks not only
to the financial assistance that the EPA provides to State,
local, and Tribal communities, but also the foundational
technical support. In Massachusetts, our Department of
Environmental Protection has begun regulating PFAS.
The Commonwealth had to take this step to protect public
health because, frankly, the EPA has not really been as
aggressive as it needed to be despite the fact that more and
more of our communities, quite a few in my district, are
discovering these chemicals in their water.
Our towns are not equipped to handle all of these cleanups
on their own, and our States should not be put in a position of
doing the EPA's job. The EPA has the resources and the
technical expertise and should take a greater leadership role.
Administrator Browner, other than financial assistance,
what are the ways that EPA supports State and local
governments? And what does the EPA need to continue those vital
efforts so that our decisionmaking is not being delayed?
Ms. Browner. So two things, I think, are important here. I
come out of State government. I ran a large State agency before
I got to EPA, so I understand sort of who can do what. EPA has
the scientists, it has the capabilities, to sort of do the
large-scale studies that then can tell you what are the actions
that need to be taken. And so that's hugely important, and the
States need to look to EPA for that.
Having said that, however, if a State feels like it should
set a tougher standard when it comes to their water bodies, the
case you give, they should be allowed to do that. I do not
believe that EPA standards should preempt individual States.
So, for example, in Florida, where I come from, the Florida
Everglades is a very different ecosystem than the Chesapeake
Bay, than perhaps the bays in Massachusetts.
And so we want to preserve the ability for States to build
on what EPA is doing, particularly when it comes to protecting
our watersheds.
Mrs. Trahan. Sure. I think the issue that we have is that
there's varying levels of what constitutes contamination. And
so that just breeds a lack of confidence when you're going from
State to State. So I appreciate all of that.
Thank you so much. I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady.
All of the members of the subcommittee have now questioned,
and it is the practice of the committee to allow Members who
are not on the subcommittee but the full committee of Energy
and Commerce to question. And we are delighted to have several
of our members joining us.
First of all, Congresswoman Castor. And so I would like to
recognize you and welcome you for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I really
appreciate you letting me waive on today because I really care
about the EPA, and the witnesses have just been terrific. Thank
you, each one of you, for underscoring how a strong and
effective EPA is critical to avoiding the growing costs and
impacts of the climate crisis and to meeting our moral
obligation that we have to our kids and future generations.
Administrator Browner, it is great to see you. Thank you
for your longtime service, and to the State of Florida. You
highlight an urgent priority for the Biden-Harris
administration in tackling climate. Its escalating cost is
something we don't talk about often enough, the growing impacts
on the air that we breathe, and doing it with an eye towards
environmental justice, those communities that often bear the
burdens associated with exposure to multiple cumulative sources
of pollution, as Dr. Ruiz brought up before.
In our Climate Crisis Action Plan that House Democrats
developed last year, we had a number of recommendations when it
comes to EPA and environmental justice to consider cumulative
impacts; to enforce--to use the enforcement power and double
the budget there, identify 100 communities of the most
overburdened by industrial pollution, target for an enforcement
surge, and prioritize environmental justice communities for new
Federal investments, and then build the capacity of those
groups across the country so they truly can weigh in when it
comes to those investments and the cumulative impact.
What do you--what would you highlight to us on these kind
of science-based strategies? Where should the EPA pick up on
our recommendations, and where should Congress be placing its
emphasis going forward?
Ms. Browner. Thank you, and thank you for your leadership
on climate change. It has been wonderful to watch.
Two things. You mentioned cumulative impact. This is very,
very important, and it is tricky under the current law. And we
heard from one of the other witnesses discussions about perhaps
civil rights laws. But you have--every facility in in an area
might be meeting its permit conditions. But the people who live
there are being exposed to six facilities, so that cumulative
impact--and so I think we need to look at what are the tools
EPA will need to address cumulative impact. Are there tools on
the books? But I think cumulative impact for these fenceline
communities, for these environmental justice communities, I
think are hugely important.
The second thing I would say is they need a seat at the
table. And this is really important. They need to be at the
table. Look, I work in the environmental community. I chair an
environmental board. We've got lots of national groups out
there who are doing really important work. But we also need to
hear from the people in Tampa, from the people in Saint Pete,
from the people who are on those frontline communities.
I did a deal when I was at EPA with Entel, and we brought
in the fenceline community. And that deal radically changed
once we listened to the community. And it turned out to be good
for the community and good for Entel. So there is a way to do
this, but we need to give them a seat at the table.
Ms. Castor. And Ms. Keyes Fleming, you also have a great
deal of experience. And thank you for your service, especially
in the Southeast Region. What do you recommend here? You gave
Dr. Ruiz a good example before. But how do we ensure that folks
do truly have a seat at the table? And what do you think about
the idea of really reaching out to the overburdened communities
and starting there?
Ms. Keyes Fleming. I think that's our number one priority.
And again, I'd recommend that we listen first. Obviously, EPA
has a tremendous amount of science and technology it can rely
upon. The temptation is to come up with ideas and suggestions.
But that may be premature until you actually hear from the
community and understand what their real concerns are, what
they're looking for, and then with that knowledge use the
technology to help identify solutions that will meet their
needs.
Ms. Castor. And Governor Whitman, what can you point to? We
think about how we empower these communities and ramp up EPA
enforcement at the same time to make sure that we're truly
getting at the impact, these multiplier impacts, of climate
change.
Ms. Whitman. I'm sorry. Was that directed at me? I'm having
a terrible time with transmission.
Ms. Castor. That's the next hearing we are going to have,
is on--we are going to----
Ms. Whitman. Yes. The transmission----
Ms. Castor. Part of the Select Committee's recommendations
is better broadband across the country, too, so we can empower
communities and farmers to do these kinds of things.
So thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. No, go ahead, Administrator Whitman. You can
answer.
Do you want to reask your question, Ms. Castor?
Ms. Castor. Yes. Again, it was your perspective on reaching
out to environmental justice communities, helping to ramp up
EPA enforcement but making sure we are making the investments
in communities that are on the front lines. What would you have
the Congress prioritize?
Ms. Whitman. I think it's absolutely essential to work in
as close conjunction with the affected communities as you
possibly can, and particularly with the environmental justice
communities because they have been, unfortunately, the subject
of too much pollution. Ignorance, really. People have ignored
them, ignored their place at the table.
And so EPA really has a responsibility to take that upon
themselves, to reach out and to ensure--to work with the
communities and see what it is they want, what they say their
biggest issues are. It may be different than what EPA thinks it
is. We had a facility down in Camden where you could not walk
down the streets of that community without smelling the stink
from the sewage plant. I mean, that was what their reality was,
and that is what needed to be dealt with.
It might have been different--others may have said, well,
really, it's overall air pollution. It was the smell. You'd
start there and make their quality of life better. But you have
to be talking to the people involved to do that, at all levels.
It's not just with those communities. It's with all of them.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. And waiting patiently has been one of the
newest members of our full committee, and we are delighted to
have her joining us today. Ms. Fletcher, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairwoman DeGette, for
holding this important hearing and for allowing me to waive on
and participate today.
In my hometown of Houston and in the State of Texas, we are
all too familiar with the challenges of extreme weather events
brought on by climate change. And at this very moment, Texans
are recovering from yet another extreme weather event, this
time a winter storm brought by disruptions to the polar vortex
that resulted in some of the coldest temperatures on record.
That storm and the resulting loss of power and water devastated
our State. Texans froze to death in their own beds just a few
weeks ago.
The scientists tell us that these extreme weather events
will increase, and we must do everything possible to
understand, prepare for, and respond to these extreme weather
events. And it is with that in mind that I want to follow up on
something that you said earlier, Ms. Keyes Fleming, in response
to a request from Miss Rice, that we need to have sufficient
staff around the country for enforcement in that context,
presumably for other purposes.
And as of now, EPA's Region 6 Houston Laboratory, which is
an important and full-service analytical lab that serves
Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, is slated
to be relocated to Ada, Oklahoma. We have heard from employees
that this lab--at the lab that they are extremely concerned
about the relocation. Many of them simply cannot uproot their
families and make them move.
I am concerned, and I think this touches on Ms.
Schakowsky's question that this could further shrink the size
of the EPA's workforce, undermine recruitment efforts, and
undermine its mission. I am also concerned that we need a
robust EPA lab presence that can address the most urgent
environmental concerns, especially during these extreme weather
events in places like Houston, which has a high concentration
of chemical plants and refineries.
Madam Chair, I would like to ask that two letters I sent
during the last Congress questioning the relocation of this
facility be entered into the record. One is dated July 12, 2019
to former Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, and one is dated
December 19, 2019 to Acting Inspector General Charles Sheehan.
Ms. DeGette. And all of the documents will be submitted at
the end of the hearing.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Madam Chair.
So Ms. Keyes Fleming, based on your experience leading EPA
Region 4 and as EPA's Chief of Staff, can you explain how the
Agency's lab network and its dedicated public servants are
central to the mission of EPA and how the relocation of labs
can lead to a shrinking of this dedicated workforce, and any
other issues you see here?
Ms. Keyes Fleming. Sure. Certainly. Thank you for the
question. And I think it raised something that we haven't yet
discussed today, and that is EPA's ability to respond to
disasters, whether it is the hurricanes, whether it is the
wildfires. And I have it on good authority that, with the
situation in Texas, there were three mobile labs that deployed
to Texas, two from Atlanta and one from Kentucky. So that gives
you the sense of the regional footprint and how it's an all-
hands-on-deck response.
But in order to respond, you need those hands. And so EPA's
lab system is headed, obviously, by the Office of Research and
Development in headquarters. But there are 10 different labs
around the country. Each region has a science advisor or
science liaison. The Administrator has a science liaison.
But the key, to your point, Congresswoman, is to make sure
that all of that science, all of that technology, those
analysts, are available in the communities that need them,
whether it is disaster response, whether it is air pollution,
whether it is environmental justice concerns. The network needs
to be bolstered so that the people who need the help most have
the fastest access to it.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much. So I take it you would
agree with me that it is important to support and retain EPA's
staff and build its scientific capacity rather than dismantle
it with these kinds of actions.
Ms. Keyes Fleming. Absolutely. I was a public servant for
24 years before going into the private sector. It is an
honorable profession, and I think we need to encourage more
people to join it.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you so much for that. And thanks
to all of you for your insights today. I have another question,
but with limited time I will just submit for the record. If
anyone else wants to weigh in on this question of why it is so
essential that we have a strong, effective, well-resourced, and
well-located EPA to mitigate and adapt from these impacts of
climate change, these extreme weather events and other things
that we are seeing across the country.
So thank you so much for your time today, and thank you,
Madam Chair, for including me in this important hearing.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Congresswoman. And I want
to add my thanks to every single one of our witnesses for their
participation in today's hearing. We dodged the bullet. They
did not call votes on the floor. So I thought it was a very
robust and excellent conversation.
I would like to remind Members that, pursuant to the
committee rules, they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record to be answered by the
witnesses. And I would ask the witnesses to agree to respond
promptly to such questions, if you receive any.
We have had some documents that have been requested by
unanimous consent, and they will be inserted. Let me list them:
A letter from six former EPA Administrators dated August
12, 2020, from me.
A letter from Representative Fletcher to EPA's Acting
Inspector General dated December 19, 2019.
A letter from Representative Green and others to EPA's
Acting Administrator dated July 12, 2019, submitted by--both of
those submitted by Ms. Fletcher.
An op-ed from the Wall Street Journal dated January 3,
2021, by Mr. Joyce.
A fact sheet from the EPA on ``Key Accomplishments Under
Administrator Wheeler,'' from Mr. McKinley.
A report from the EPA reviewing the Agency's decisions or
actions in 2020, from Mr. McKinley.
And an article from the Washington Post on fentanyl dated
March 13, 2019, by Mr. Burgess.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2020 EPA year-in-review report has been retained in
committee files and is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
IF02/20210310/111279/HHRG-117-IF02-20210310-SD015-U2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. DeGette. With that, thanks again to everybody, and the
subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]