[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      FISCAL YEAR 2022 EPA BUDGET

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

                            VIRTUAL HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 29, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-26
                           
[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
                        
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    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 Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois               Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 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. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of West Virginia, opening statement......................     4
    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.....................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                                Witness

Michael S. Regan, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Answers to submitted questions \1\

                           Submitted Material

Letter of December 5, 2020, from Hon. John Shimkus, et al., to 
  Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................    59
Letter of December 11, 2020, from Hon. John Shimkus, et al., to 
  Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................    63
Article of April 28, 2021, ``Biden's climate target math still a 
  mystery,'' by Zack Colman, Politico, submitted by Mr. Tonko....    67
Article of March 17, 2021, ``Whiff of the unthinkable at EPA: CO2 
  standards for states,'' by Jean Chemnick, E&E News, submitted 
  by Mr. Tonko...................................................    71
Article of April 14, 2021, ``Environmentalists Bolster Years-Old 
  Petition for EPA to Set CO2 NAAQS,'' Inside EPA, submitted by 
  Mr. Tonko......................................................    74
Update of April 28, 2021, ``EPA's PFAS Policy Change May Delay 
  Market Entry for Innovative Chemicals,'' Baker Botts, LLP, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................    77
Letter of October 23, 2018, from Ken Paxton, Attorney General of 
  Texas, et al., to Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, Department of 
  Transportation, and Andrew Wheeler, Acting Administrator, 
  Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. Tonko........    80
Nationally Determined Contribution, ``Reducing Greenhouse Gases 
  in the United States: A 2030 Emissions Target,'' submitted by 
  Mr. Tonko......................................................    82
Letter of April 14, 2021, from Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General 
  of West Virginia, to Michael S. Regan, Administrator, 
  Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. Tonko........   106

----------

\1\ Mr. Regan's responses have been retained in committee files and are 
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20210429/112502/
HHRG-117-IF18-Wstate-ReganM-20210429-SD001.pdf.

 
                      FISCAL YEAR 2022 EPA BUDGET

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m., via 
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Paul Tonko 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, DeGette, 
Schakowsky, Sarbanes, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Barragan, 
McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, O'Halleran, Pallone (ex 
officio), McKinley (subcommittee ranking member), Johnson, 
Mullin, Hudson, Carter, Duncan, Curtis, Crenshaw, and Rodgers 
(ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Castor and Burgess.
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; 
Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Adam Fischer, 
Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel; 
Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Anthony Gutierrez, 
Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff 
Member; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director, 
Outreach and Member Service; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and 
Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital 
Assistant; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Dustin J. 
Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel; Elysa Montfort, Press 
Secretary; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief 
Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; 
Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications, Outreach, and 
Member Services; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; Caroline 
Wood, Staff Assistant; Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff 
Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer 
Protection and Commerce, Energy, Environment; Jerry Couri, 
Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment; Nate Hodson, 
Minority Staff Director; Peter Kielty, Minority General 
Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel; Mary Martin, 
Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, 
Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Peter Spencer, Minority 
Senior Professional Staff Member; and Michael Taggart, Minority 
Policy Director.
    Mr. Tonko. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Environment 
and Climate Change will now come to order.
    Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled ``The 
Fiscal Year 2022 EPA Budget.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's 
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will 
be participating via video conferencing.
    As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for 
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members 
and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone each 
time you wish to speak.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca Tomilchik 
at the email address we have provided to staff. All documents 
will be entered into the record at the conclusion of the 
hearing.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Today we have the pleasure of welcoming the recently 
confirmed sixteenth Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Michael S. Regan. And we welcome him to the 
Energy and Commerce Committee's hearing here, and the 
subcommittee hearing.
    And, Mr. Administrator, congratulations on your 
confirmation, and welcome to the Subcommittee on Environment 
and Climate Change. We look forward to your testimony and 
discussion of our President's Fiscal Year 2022 budget request 
and other EPA priorities.
    While you have only recently joined the Agency, I know you 
are fully aware of the critical role that EPA must play in 
leading our Nation's response to some of the biggest public 
health, environmental, and economic challenges we now face. 
None of these challenges will be easy, but I am hopeful that we 
are entering a new era at EPA, and this reset could not come at 
a more urgent moment for America or the world.
    The President's Fiscal Year 2022 Discretionary Funding 
Request requests $11.2 billion for the Agency, a $2 billion 
increase from last year's enacted levels. The President's 
requests highlights several priorities, including $1.8 billion 
for programs to tackle the climate crisis in ways that also 
promote and restore environmental justice; $3.6 billion for our 
Nation's long-neglected water systems, many of which are 
contaminated with PFAS, lead, and other dangerous substances; 
robust funding for Superfund and brownfield remediation 
projects; and increased air quality monitoring and enforcement 
in overburdened communities.
    As we work to recover from the COVID public health crisis, 
we must not take our eye off the many environmental threats 
facing countless American communities. EPA must act boldly to 
advance robust policies on climate change, on clean water, 
chemical safety, and on land remediation. This agenda will 
certainly require increased staffing to meet the Nation's 
needs, a challenge compounded by the loss of nearly 1,000 EPA 
employees over the past 4 years.
    Today the Agency's workforce is at its lowest level since 
1988, even as we are expecting EPA to play such a critical role 
in addressing numerous complicated public health and 
environmental challenges. There is a clear need to rebuild the 
Agency's staff capacity and to attract new, talented people to 
public service, both to get the job done today, and to allow 
for an effective transfer of institutional knowledge to a new 
generation of public servants from the current long-term EPA 
workers who are nearing retirement.
    I was happy to see funding in the budget for this purpose. 
A fully staffed EPA workforce is essential to protecting human 
health and the environment, enforcing our environmental laws, 
and, indeed, tackling climate change.
    I have also been impressed to see the Biden 
administration's recommitment to strong scientific integrity 
principles. Our public health and environmental protections 
must be grounded in robust science. Ensuring that EPA career 
staffers can conduct their work and develop roles based on 
sound science, free from interference from political and 
special interests, is a cornerstone for good, trustworthy 
governance at the Agency.
    This should be the case regardless of which party sits in 
the White House, and I look forward to working with the 
administration to strengthen and codify all agencies' 
scientific integrity policies.
    Finally, in addition to this EPA budget request, President 
Biden has proposed the American Jobs Plan. This subcommittee 
has the opportunity and the responsibility to take and make 
tremendous contributions to the American Jobs Plan or any other 
infrastructure package being considered in Congress. The AJP 
includes funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, 
full lead service line replacements, remediation of brownfields 
and Superfund sites, and reduction of diesel emissions from the 
DERA, and deployment of zero-emission schoolbuses. These 
programs have enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the past, 
and significant investments in these areas will, indeed, 
benefit people and communities in every district across our 
country.
    I am looking forward to pursuing this agenda to protect 
public health and the environment while modernizing our 
Nation's infrastructure and jump-starting our post-COVID 
economic recovery.
    Again, Mr. Regan, I thank you again for joining us. 
Congratulations, again, on the appointment. And I look forward 
to today's discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    Today we have the pleasure of welcoming the recently 
confirmed 16th Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Michael S. Regan, to the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
    Mr. Administrator, congratulations on your confirmation and 
welcome to the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change. 
We look forward to your testimony and discussion of the 
President's Fiscal Year 2022 budget request and other EPA 
priorities.
    While you have only recently joined the Agency, I know you 
are fully aware of the critical role EPA must play in leading 
our Nation's response to some of the biggest public health, 
environmental, and economic challenges we now face.
    None of these challenges will be easy, but I am hopeful 
that we are entering a new era at EPA.
    And this reset could not come at a more urgent moment for 
America or the world.
    The President's Fiscal Year 2022 Discretionary Funding 
Request requests $11.2 billion for the Agency, a $2 billion 
increase from last year's enacted levels.
    The President's request highlights several priorities, 
including $1.8 billion for programs to tackle the climate 
crisis in ways that also promote and restore environmental 
justice; $3.6 billion for our Nation's long-neglected water 
systems--many of which are contaminated with PFAS, lead, and 
other dangerous substances; robust funding for Superfund and 
brownfield remediation projects; and increased air quality 
monitoring and enforcement in overburdened communities.
    As we work to recover from the COVID public health crisis, 
we must not take our eye off the many environmental threats 
facing countless American communities. EPA must act boldly to 
advance robust policies on climate change, clean water, 
chemical safety, and land remediation.
    This agenda will certainly require increased staffing to 
meet the Nation's needs, a challenge compounded by the loss of 
nearly 1,000 EPA employees over the past 4 years.
    Today, the Agency's workforce is at its lowest level since 
1988, even as we are expecting EPA to play such a critical role 
in addressing numerous, complicated public health and 
environmental challenges.
    There is a clear need to rebuild the Agency's staff 
capacity and attract new, talented people to public service, 
both to get the job done today and to allow for an effective 
transfer of institutional knowledge to a new generation of 
public servants from the current long-term EPA workers who are 
nearing retirement.
    I was happy to see funding in the budget for this purpose. 
A fully staffed EPA workforce is essential to protecting human 
health and the environment, enforcing our environmental laws, 
and tackling climate change.
    I have also been impressed to see the Biden 
administration's recommitment to strong scientific integrity 
principles.
    Our public health and environmental protections must be 
grounded in robust science.
    Ensuring that EPA career staffers can conduct their work 
and develop rules based on sound science, free from 
interference from political and special interests, is a 
cornerstone for good, trustworthy governance at the Agency.
    This should be the case regardless of which party sits in 
the White House, and I look forward to working with the 
administration to strengthen and codify all agencies' 
scientific integrity policies.
    Finally, in addition to this EPA budget request, President 
Biden has proposed the American Jobs Plan.
    This subcommittee has the opportunity and responsibility to 
make tremendous contributions to the American Jobs Plan, or any 
other infrastructure package being considered in Congress.
    The AJP includes funding for the Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund, full lead service line replacements, 
remediation of brownfields and Superfund sites, and reduction 
of diesel emissions through DERA and deployment of zero-
emission school buses.
    These programs have enjoyed strong bipartisan support in 
the past, and significant investments in these areas will 
benefit people and communities in every district across the 
country.
    I am looking forward to pursuing this agenda to protect 
public health and the environment while modernizing our 
Nation's infrastructure and jumpstarting our post-COVID 
economic recovery.
    Mr. Regan, I thank you again for joining us. I look forward 
to today's discussion.

    Mr. Tonko. I will now recognize Mr. McKinley, 
Representative McKinley, serving as the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change.
    And Representative McKinley, you are recognized for 5 
minutes, please, for an opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 
          IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, and welcome, 
Administrator Regan, I particularly appreciated our 
conversation yesterday.
    But I think one thing we can all agree to is that the world 
needs to reduce its carbon emissions. And I think we are on the 
same page here.
    And what--the President has repeatedly pledged publicly to 
decarbonize the power sector by 2035. And some in Congress are 
trying to upgrade--move that up to 2030. But I want, in this 
hearing today, with--over this budget, is to look at what we 
will need and what will have to happen for a power plant to 
meet that goal.
    First, we have to have--carbon capture technology must 
become commercially viable.
    Secondly, we have to have a New Source Review program that 
must be reviewed.
    And thirdly, the United States needs to develop a pipeline 
system to dispose of this captured carbon.
    Utility companies have found that it takes 7 to 8 years to 
get a New Source Review permit and do all the engineering and 
designing permitting to install carbon capture to achieve net 
zero. So if utilities must comply with the Democrats' goal of 
2030, they are going to have to start immediately, using 
today's technology. But it is widely recognized that today's 
carbon-capture technology is not ready for prime time. It is 
incapable of capturing 80 percent of our fossil fuel, or our 
carbon emissions.
    So--but let's just assume that the technology works in the 
next 12 months, and we can, indeed, capture 80 percent of the 
carbon emitted. Utilities will next need to have a New Source 
Review permit approved to upgrade their facilities. Yet the New 
Source Review program lacks certainty and predictability.
    When--just think about it. When was the last time any of us 
in Congress heard of a utility getting a New Source Review 
permit to make a major modification? They are not. It is not a 
reliable process.
    According to the GAO, all--recent--the EPA recently 
reviewed 831 NSR units that have been approved by the NSR; 467 
of them were found to be in violation. And they had--the 
utility had to go back and redo everything that they had just 
gotten permission to accomplish. That is not certainty, that is 
insanity. And it can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to 
utilities and the consumers, as a result of the EPA not 
following its regulations.
    So what our utilities need is certainty. That is why the 
New Source Review needs to be reformed. But there is nothing in 
the President's agenda or in this budget that I can see 
discussing reforms to this program. Rather, it seems the 
administration is following the same philosophical agenda as 
President Biden's, which is focusing on regulations.
    What a novel thing, Chairman, if we focused instead on 
innovating first, letting our laboratories, our scientists, and 
our researchers come up with a way of carbon capture rather 
than punishing them. We could be showing American leadership.
    Now, let's assume that they can get the carbon technology, 
and there is--and they actually get a permit for it. So now you 
need--the power plant needs to develop a pipeline system to 
transport the captured carbon. The Democrats don't have--they 
have, unfortunately, an adverse position towards pipelines. So 
just look at what has happened over the Keystone Pipeline, the 
Dakota Access Pipeline, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, and the 
Mountain Valley Pipeline, the Line 5 in Michigan. All of these 
are showing a problem.
    So why do we think, as we develop this, that the 
environmentalists are going to let us--let States and the 
administration approve more pipelines? I don't think they are 
going to be built. And those pipelines, if they get held up in 
court, won't be built by 2030. We will have accomplished 
nothing.
    So all these things need to come together. We have to 
develop carbon capture. We have to have reforms of New Source 
Review, and we have to build out a system of carbon--pipelines 
to get the project going. But in the quiet of the night, the 
EPA and the administration know this can't be achieved. You 
know that, and the rest of the people on this panel. So why 
isn't the administration just simply being honest with the 
American public?
    There is--this is nothing but a politically driven agenda 
aimed at ending jobs and the use of coal and natural gas in 
this country. Coal miners and gas workers all across America 
will suffer, losing their homes, jobs, and livelihoods, and 
they will fall into poverty.
    I say again: Where is the justice in that process?
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McKinley follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. McKinley

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome Administrator Regan. We 
agree the world needs to reduce its carbon emissions but 
according to experts, reaching net-zero emissions will be 
impossible without carbon capture.
    Now, the President has repeatedly pledged to decarbonize 
the power sector by 2035 and Democrats in congress have taken a 
more aggressive approach. They want to reduce power sector 
emissions by 80% by 2030.
    So let's look at what will need to happen for a power plant 
to meet that goal: carbon capture technology must become 
commercially viable; the New Source Review program must be 
reformed; and the U.S. will need to develop a pipeline system 
to dispose of the captured carbon.
    Utility companies have found that it takes 7 to 8 years to 
get a New Source Review permit, and then perform the 
engineering, design, permitting, and installation of carbon 
capture on a unit. So, if utilities must comply with the 
Democrats' 2030 goal, they will have to start this process 
immediately but it's widely recognized that today's carbon 
capture technology is not commercially viable. It's incapable 
of capturing 80% of our carbon emissions, but let's assume that 
the technology works in the next 12 months. And can capture 80% 
of the carbon emitted.
    Utilities will still need a New Source Review permit to 
upgrade their units, yet the New Source Review program lacks 
certainty and predictability. When was the last time a utility 
got a New Source Review permit to make a major modification to? 
They're not, its an unreliable process.
    According to GAO, the EPA reviewed 831 units, and 467 were 
found to have violated the New Source Review program after the 
upgrades had been made. That's not certainty--that's insanity. 
This can cause hundreds of millions of dollars in additional 
costs.
    So what our utilities need is certainty. That is why New 
Source Review needs to be reformed. Yet there is nothing in the 
President's agenda discussing reforms to this program. Rather, 
it seems that this administration will have the same agenda as 
President Obama's but on steroids
    Now, let's assume carbon capture becomes commercially 
viable and a power plant can get final approval for a New 
Source Review permit, without any violations. The U.S. will 
need to develop a pipeline system to transport the captured 
carbon. But Democrats have taken an adverse position to 
pipelines. Just look at: The Keystone XL Pipeline, The Atlantic 
Coast Pipeline; The Dakota Access Pipeline; Mountain Valley 
Pipeline; and Line 5 in Michigan.
    So why should we think environmentalists are going to let 
States and the administration approve more pipelines? If they 
tie these pipelines up in the courts like they have others our 
pipeline system won't be built by 2030. We will have 
accomplished nothing. All of these things must come together by 
2030: Developing and commercializing carbon capture 
technologies to reduce our emissions by 80%; Changes to the New 
Source Review program that allow utilities to install carbon 
capture; and Building out a system of carbon dioxide pipelines. 
But in the quiet of the night EPA and this administration know 
this can't be done.
    So why isn't this administration just honest with the 
American public? This is nothing but a politically driven 
agenda aimed at ending the use of coal and natural gas in this 
country. And coal miners and gas workers around the country 
will suffer by losing their homes, jobs and livelihoods. This 
is simply a death knell to the hardworking coal miners and gas 
workers of America.

    Mr. McKinley. So I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair now 
recognizes the chair of the full committee, Representative 
Chairman Pallone.
    You are recognized, Chairman, for 5 minutes for your 
opening statement, and thank you for joining us.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. And it really is a 
pleasure to welcome the EPA Administrator, Michael Regan, to 
this committee for his first appearance, and I hope there will 
be many more. I want to thank the Administrator and the 
leadership of President Biden, that now we can actually look at 
this year's EPA budget with optimism about what can be 
achieved.
    The EPA is back to work protecting the planet and public 
health, and, in my opinion, not a moment too soon. The country 
is facing multiple overlapping crises, and the EPA will play a 
critical role in solving them. We must collectively address the 
climate crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, racial inequality, and 
the severe economic damage resulting from the pandemic. And 
these challenges are substantial.
    But fortunately, the Biden administration has hit the 
ground running, really, on day one. President Biden's American 
Rescue Plan is already making a difference by crushing the 
virus and providing critical relief to struggling Americans. 
His American Jobs Plan, which he aligns with this committee's 
Lift America Act, will help us build back better so we can 
create millions of new jobs, combat the climate crisis by 
setting the course for a clean future, and ensure no community 
is left behind. And that was certainly an important part of his 
speech last night. I thought it was a great speech.
    And then, last week, the President submitted, in this 
Global Earth Day--two days--a strong, national commitment for 
the Paris Agreement that aligns with the national goal, 
including--and that is included in our Clean Future Act. You 
know, as you know, the Clean Future Act, Administrator, was 
introduced by myself, Chairs Tonko and Rush, and many of the--
of my colleagues on the committee. And, like the President, we 
believe the goal of reducing emissions by at least 50 percent 
by 2030 is necessary and achievable. This year's EPA budget and 
the American Jobs Plan will help us get there.
    And I also saw, I think--I thought I saw Kathy Castor, as 
well, who has been working with us on the Clean Future Act.
    The budget includes 1.8 billion for EPA programs to fight 
climate change, to funding for research, grants to State 
programs, and support of Agency activities. The investments in 
the American Jobs Plan go even further, with 100 billion for 
power infrastructure and significant investments in reducing 
emissions from schools, vehicles, and Federal buildings.
    The budget also increases funding for Superfund and 
brownfield cleanups. And again, the American Jobs Plan goes 
even further, calling for reinstatement of the Superfund tax 
and investing $5 billion in cleanups. And, you know, I really 
want to stress, Administrator, the importance of bringing back 
the Superfund. We know that investing in Superfund cleanups 
creates jobs, mitigates threats to human health, and directly 
benefits the communities around contaminated sites, which are 
often low-income communities and communities of color.
    And both the budget and the American Jobs Plan call for big 
investments in drinking water infrastructure, including the 
replacement of lead pipes, which is critical to addressing 
public health threats. Again, the President stressed the lead 
pipes initiative last night. This funding will be critical to 
drinking water infrastructure systems serving disadvantaged 
communities, in particular.
    I think we are at a crucial time for environmental 
protection. The impacts of climate change are already here, 
affecting communities across the Nation and the world. PFAS and 
other emerging contaminants are showing up in our drinking 
water, air, and soil. I saw Congresswoman Dingell. She has been 
a leader on PFAS. And our water infrastructure is crumbling, 
and too many communities are struggling with lead 
contamination.
    Unfortunately, over the course of the last administration, 
we saw decades of work by EPA's dedicated career staff 
disregarded or overturned in critical areas of environmental 
and public health protection. We saw science marginalized under 
the Trump administration. We saw special interests favored over 
the public interest, and we saw secrecy at the highest level.
    Administrator Regan, it falls to you to right this ship and 
restore the EPA to the highest standards of scientific 
integrity. We often say that a budget demonstrates the values 
and the priorities of the administration, and it is a really 
[audio malfunction] equity and environmental stewardship. And 
the American Jobs Plan and our new national commitment under 
the Paris Agreement make these priorities even clearer.
    So I just wanted to say, at last year's budget hearing 
during the last year of the Trump administration, I said there 
was a better path forward to combating climate change and 
protecting public health. And I am happy to say that we are now 
on that path. We in Congress and on this committee are ready to 
work with you to restore EPA, protect the public health, and 
fight climate change.
    And let me also say a word about our chairman as I yield 
back. I know, Paul, you have been out front on all these 
things, and I thank you so much. This would be a--this is a 
very important hearing. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    It is a pleasure to welcome EPA Administrator Michael Regan 
to this committee for his first appearance--which I hope will 
be the first of many. Thanks to Administrator Regan and the 
leadership of President Biden, we can look at this year's EPA 
budget with optimism about what we can achieve.
    The Environmental Protection Agency is back to work 
protecting the planet and public health, and not a moment too 
soon. This country is facing multiple, overlapping crises and 
the EPA will play a critical role in solving them. We must 
collectively address the climate crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, 
racial inequality, and the severe economic damage resulting 
from the pandemic.
    These challenges are substantial, but fortunately the Biden 
administration hit the ground running on day one. President 
Biden's American Rescue Plan is already making a difference by 
crushing the virus and providing critical relief to struggling 
Americans. His American Jobs Plan, which aligns with this 
committee's LIFT America Act, will help us build back better so 
we can create millions of new jobs, combat the climate crisis 
by setting the course for a clean future, and ensure no 
community is left behind.
    And then last week, the President went even further, 
submitting a strong national commitment for the Paris Agreement 
that aligns with the national goal included in the CLEAN Future 
Act introduced by myself, Chairs Tonko and Rush, and many of my 
colleagues. Like the President, I believe the goal of reducing 
emissions by at least 50 percent by 2030 is necessary and 
achievable. This year's EPA budget and the American Jobs Plan 
will help us get there.
    The budget includes $1.8 billion for EPA programs to fight 
climate change through funding for research, grants to State 
programs, and support of Agency activities. The investments in 
the American Jobs Plan go even further, with $100 billion for 
power infrastructure and significant investments in reducing 
emissions from schools, vehicles, and Federal buildings.
    The budget also increases funding for Superfund and 
brownfields cleanups, and, again, the American Jobs Plan goes 
even further, calling for reinstatement of the Superfund tax 
and investing $5 billion in cleanups. We know that investing in 
Superfund cleanups creates jobs, mitigates threats to human 
health, and directly benefits the communities around 
contaminated sites, which are often low-income communities and 
communities of color.
    And both the budget and the American Jobs Plan call for big 
investments in drinking water infrastructure, including the 
replacement of lead pipes, which is critical to addressing 
public health threats. This funding will be critical to 
drinking water infrastructure systems serving disadvantaged 
communities.
    We are at a critical time for environmental protection. The 
impacts of climate change are already here, affecting 
communities across the Nation and the world. PFAS and other 
emerging contaminants are showing up in our drinking water, 
air, and soil. Our water infrastructure is crumbling, and too 
many communities are struggling with lead contamination.
    Unfortunately, over the course of the last administration 
we saw decades of work by EPA's dedicated career staff 
disregarded or overturned in critical areas of environmental 
and public health protection. We saw science marginalized. We 
saw special interests favored over the public interest. We saw 
secrecy at the highest levels of the Agency.
    Administrator Regan, it falls to you to right this ship and 
restore the EPA to the highest standards of scientific 
integrity and pursuit of the public good.
    We often say that a budget demonstrates the values and the 
priorities of the administration proposing it. It is a relief 
to see a budget that so clearly demonstrates a commitment to 
public health, equity, and environmental stewardship. The 
American Jobs Plan and our new national commitment under the 
Paris Agreement make these priorities even clearer.
    At last year's EPA budget hearing, during the last year of 
the Trump administration, I said that there was a better path 
forward to combating climate change and protecting public 
health and the environment. I am happy to say that we are now 
on that path. We in Congress and on this committee are ready to 
work with you to restore EPA, protect public health, and fight 
climate change.
    Thank you, I yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairman. The gentleman yields back, 
and the Chair now recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, the ranking member 
of the full committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
    Representative Rodgers, please?

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, good morning. Good morning, 
everyone. Good morning, Administrator Regan. Just let me first 
congratulate and personally welcome you to the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
    Our committee has legislative responsibilities for and 
regulatory oversight over the vast majority of your statutory 
authority, and we look forward to working with you. We take our 
responsibilities very seriously. You know, I think we can be 
proud that America has led the world in innovation and 
technology, lifting people out of poverty, raising the standard 
of living more than any other country in the world, while also 
leading the world in reducing global carbon emissions--more 
than the next 12 countries combined. We hope that you are 
committed to implementing the law, as written by the elected 
representatives of the people, and not creating your own rule 
book.
    And based upon the kind words that I have heard from your 
home State colleagues, as well as your reputation, I do expect 
that today will be a thoughtful, ongoing dialogue that we begin 
with you.
    We are eager to learn more about the Biden-Harris 
administration's proposed EPA budget. It does represent a 21.4 
percent increase over EPA's current funding levels. And if 
Congress gives EPA all of the proposed budget, it will be the 
most money ever appropriated to EPA, by over a billion dollars. 
And there is really not a lot of details yet, less than two 
pages, with very limited information. Money is one view of an 
administration's vision for EPA, but I also think it is 
important, as those of us who exercise the power of the purse 
under article 1, that we know what we are buying and that we 
don't just base success upon how big that check is.
    I want to reflect, just for a moment, on the time before 
the pandemic, just over a year ago, when our economy was 
booming, we had the hottest job market in half a century, 
over--after a decade of people asking, ``Where are the jobs?'' 
Wages were rising, more jobs were available than people looking 
for work. And it was because we had lifted the regulatory 
burden, reversing the top-down decisions that often comes 
through Federal agencies, and decisions that had been made at 
EPA that was hurting our economy, hurting our farmers, hurting 
our ranchers.
    So when it comes to EPA's budget and the Agency's 
reflection of priorities, we want to understand if innovation--
the private-sector foundation of jobs, and the engine of so 
much success in our country--is being sidelined. Regulations 
and political forces should not be molding the economy and 
making EPA the arbiter of all acceptable economic growth.
    We want to work with you to grow the American economy and 
clean up the environment where it is unsafe. But we also want 
to understand if this budget will hold back the potential for 
our economy to boom again in the long term, especially for our 
fossil fuel communities.
    We want to know that science--reliable, high-quality, 
objective science--is being used to inform decision making, 
that EPA won't hide from public scrutiny of this science, and 
that EPA will not intentionally mischaracterize science to 
politicize actual policy judgments.
    We want to know if this budget will encourage cooperative 
federalism as a viable partnership between the Federal 
Government and your former colleagues in the States, or if the 
States are merely seen as underfunded servants of Federal 
centralized planning.
    We want to know whether this budget envisions EPA following 
the law or infusing its own intent into it, whether EPA is 
focusing its resources on improving environmental and public 
health outcomes through compliance or if the agency will use 
its enforcement policy to punish violators and harass 
politically disfavored entities.
    We want to know if this budget will build on the undisputed 
environmental successes of the last administration, the most 
Superfund cleanups in two decades, reduced air pollution with 
economic growth, and increased inspection and permitting 
efficiencies. Or does this budget end these results for 
partisan reasons, dropping agency accountability and 
responsibility to Americans and the law?
    We want to know if grave lessons have been learned from 
past EPA politicians who focused their attention on a few major 
priorities, allowing the mundane areas to explode and the 
horrors in Flint and East Chicago.
    Finally--care about the practicalities, including 
affordability of its actions on futures of people in rural 
areas and struggling businesses.
    Mr. Administrator, these are serious questions. We want to 
work with you for positive gains for our communities we 
represent and allow the private-sector expansion in 
environmental protection. We may not always agree, but we 
certainly want to focus on these shared goals, and I welcome 
you being with us. I look forward to your testimony. Thank you 
very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    Good morning, Administrator Regan. This is the first time 
many of our Members and I have had the chance to meet you since 
you were sworn in as Administrator. Let me congratulate and 
personally welcome you to the Energy and Commerce Committee.
    Our committee has legislative responsibilities for and 
regulatory oversight of the vast majority of your statutory 
authority. We take our responsibilities seriously. I hope you 
are committed to implementing the law, and not creating your 
own rule book.
    Based upon the kind words of your home State colleagues and 
reputation, we expect today to start a thoughtful, ongoing, and 
open dialogue between us. We are eager to learn more about the 
Biden-Harris administration's proposed EPA budget. It 
represents a 21.4 percent increase over EPA's current funding 
levels. And if Congress gives EPA all of the proposed budget, 
it would be the most money ever appropriated to EPA at one time 
by $1 billion.
    The only thing ``lean'' about this budget is its details. 
It's less than two pages with very limited information. But 
money is only one view into this administration's vision for 
EPA. We want to know what we are buying, not just how big the 
check is. I'll remind everyone that before the pandemic--our 
economy was booming. It was the hottest job market in half a 
century.
    After a decade of people asking, ``where are the jobs?'' 
wages were rising, more jobs were available than people looking 
for work. This was because we lifted the regulatory burden--
including reversing top-down decisions from the EPA that hurt 
our farmers and ranchers.
    So when it comes to this EPA budget and the agencies' 
reflection of priorities, we want to understand if innovation--
the private-sector foundation of so much success in this 
country--is being sidelined. Regulations and political forces 
should not be molding the economy and making EPA into the 
arbiter of ALL acceptable economic growth.
    We want to work with you to grow the American economy and 
clean up the environment where it is unsafe. But, we also want 
to understand if this budget will hold back the potential for 
our economy to boom again in the long term--especially for our 
fossil fuel communities.
    We want to know that reliable, high-quality, and objective 
science is being used to inform decision making, that EPA won't 
hide from public scrutiny of this science and that EPA will not 
intentionally mischaracterize ``science'' to politicize actual 
policy judgments.
    We want to know if this budget will still encourage 
cooperative federalism as a viable partnership between the 
Federal Government and your former colleagues in the States, or 
if the States are merely seen as underfunded servants of 
Federal centralized planning.
    We want to know whether this budget envisions EPA following 
the law or infusing its own intent into it, whether EPA is 
focusing its resources on improving environmental and public 
health outcomes through compliance or if the Agency will use 
its enforcement policy to punish violators and harass 
politically disfavored entities.
    We want to know if this budget will build on the undisputed 
environmental successes of the last administration: the most 
Superfund cleanups in 2 decades, reduced air pollution with 
economic growth, and increased inspection and permitting 
efficiencies. Or, does this budget end these results for 
partisan reasons, dropping Agency accountability and 
responsibility to Americans and the law.
    We want to know if grave lessons have been learned from 
past EPA politicians who focused their attention on a few major 
priorities, allowing ``mundane'' areas to explode into the 
horrors in Flint and East Chicago.
    Finally, will the EPA listen to and care about the 
practicalities, including affordability, of its actions on the 
futures of people in rural areas and struggling small 
businesses.
    Mr. Administrator, these are serious questions. We want to 
work with you to make positive gains for the communities we 
represent--that allow private sector expansion and 
environmental protection. The EPA must not be an obstacle to 
development and prosperity for American families.
    We don't expect to always agree with you but surely we can 
agree on that. Again, welcome. I look forward to your 
testimony.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman--the Chair would like to remind 
Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all Members' written 
opening statements shall be made part of the record.
    I now will introduce the witness for today's hearing. 
Again, we welcome the Honorable Michael S. Regan, Administrator 
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. He, 
before this, served as secretary of North Carolina's Department 
of Environmental Quality.
    The distinction here for Administrator Regan is that he 
becomes the first African-American male to lead the great 
Agency and is the first to graduate from a Historic Black 
College. He has his bachelor's degree from North Carolina A&T 
and a master's degree in public policy from George Washington 
University. He has also worked at the Environmental Defense 
Fund and at EPA.
    And with that, we welcome him and wish him well in his new 
role.
    And it is very kind of you, sir, to share your thoughts and 
your time with us today. And so we will recognize you for 5 
minutes, please, for an opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL 
                       PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
McKinley, chair and ranking member of the full committee, and 
members of the subcommittee. I am grateful for the opportunity 
to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. EPA's 
discretionary funding request for fiscal year 2022.
    For half a century, EPA has helped provide the American 
people with clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and 
safe and healthy land.
    Earlier this month, as it has been mentioned, President 
Biden sent a discretionary--President Biden sent Congress a 
Discretionary Funding Request for EPA at $11.2 billion. We 
believe this request will help ensure EPA can continue to meet 
its essential mandate, set the stage for our Nation's economic 
recovery, and provide the resources necessary to confront our 
environmental challenges, especially in our most overburdened 
communities.
    The President has seized this moment to reimagine a new 
American economy that leads the world in advancing clean 
energy, modernizes our infrastructure, while enabling it to 
withstand impacts from climate change, and right the historic 
wrongs of past environmental injustice that have held back 
generations of Black, Latinx, indigenous, and low-income 
communities.
    This funding request reflects the understanding that a 
healthy environment and a healthy economy are not mutually 
exclusive. They actually go hand in hand. These investments 
will provide tremendous opportunity to leverage American 
innovation, put people back to work, protect our communities, 
families, and children from environmental hazard and harm. In 
short, the request recognizes the profound urgency and 
existential threat of climate--of the climate crisis, and 
provides EPA with the resources essential to fulfill our 
mission to protect human health, the environment, and the 
economy.
    Ensuring access to clean and safe water for all Americans 
impacts our Nation's climate resilience and is integral to 
advancing environmental justice. At EPA we have seen that 
investing in water infrastructure is a win-win for public 
health and economic development. EPA's Water Infrastructure, 
Finance, and Innovation Act loan has helped finance $19.4 
billion in water infrastructure and helped to create 47,000 
jobs nationwide.
    The Fiscal Year 2022 funding request of $3.6 billion for 
EPA rebuilds our water infrastructure. It is an increase of 
more than 600 million over Fiscal Year 2021 because the 
resources are needed. This includes targeted increases to the 
State Revolving Loan funds to assist States, Tribes, and 
territories with infrastructure projects that help provide safe 
drinking water and clean water in communities all across the 
country.
    Water infrastructure investments, however, only represent 
one side of ensuring safe and clean water. The Agency will 
invest resources and expand efforts to address the pervasive 
and persistent chemicals known as PFAS in our drinking water. 
As part of the President's commitment to tackle PFAS, the 
funding request provides approximately $75 million to 
accelerate toxicity studies and fund research to inform the 
regulatory developments of designing PFAS--designating PFAS as 
a hazardous substance, while setting enforceable limits for 
PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    Under the President's leadership, we are heeding the call 
of the youth, as well, who are courageously urging world 
leaders to fight the climate crisis with innovation, fortitude, 
and resolve. The budget invests in programs that will help 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including $100 million for air 
quality grants to States and Tribes to tackle emissions on the 
State and local level.
    Much like climate change, environmental justice underpins 
all of our work, as well. The pandemic ignited a perfect storm 
for communities of color and low-income communities who already 
bear the burden, the highest burdens of pollution, suffer 
higher rates of mortality from heart and lung disease, and now 
COVID-19 too. The budget invests $936 million towards new 
accelerating economic justice initiatives that will help create 
jobs, clean up pollution, and implement the Justice 40 
initiative to advance racial equality.
    America's most contaminated land reduce emissions of toxic 
substances and greenhouse gas--greenhouse gases from existing 
and abandoned infrastructure also relies on improvements to 
CERCLA.
    So, Chairman, what I would like to say--and members of the 
subcommittee--the Fiscal Year 2022 budget will help ensure EPA 
can meet the interconnected health and environmental crisis we 
face, lift up communities who have long been left behind, and 
put the Nation on a prosperous economic path of recovery. This 
funding request lays down a marker that EPA is ready to meet 
these challenges.
    So thank you for the opportunity to testify today in a 
transparent and honest manner. And I look forward to continuing 
our partnership, as well as welcome any questions that you 
might have. Thank you so much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Regan follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7402.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7402.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7402.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7402.004
    
    Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome, and thank you for your 
appearance before the subcommittee today.
    We will now move to Member questions, and I will start by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    So, Administrator Regan, we thank you for your testimony 
and for your desire to serve. Are you familiar with the 
Agency's Scientific Integrity Policy?
    Mr. Regan. I am.
    Mr. Tonko. And will you ensure that the office responsible 
for administering this policy has the resources necessary to 
effectively address scientific integrity complaints when they 
arise?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I look forward to working with you to 
ensure EPA's technical career staff are able to conduct their 
work free from the interference of political and special 
interests. I think it is key to the functioning of the Agency.
    Last week President Biden announced our next Nationally 
Determined Contribution, or the NDC, under the Paris Agreement. 
The United States is setting an economywide target of reducing 
its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 52 percent below 2005 
levels in 2030. President Biden has been clear that this target 
will necessitate a whole-of-government approach on climate 
action at the Federal level. However, we know that EPA, as our 
Nation's expert agency for air pollution, will be critical.
    So, Administrator, what do you see as the EPA's role in 
ensuring our country achieves that NDC that has been set out by 
President Biden?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question. And there is 
no doubt that the President has an aggressive posture to 
mitigate climate, the climate crisis, and EPA plays a central 
role. We are not the only actor. Wisely so, the President has 
designated this a governmentwide activity. But we do play an 
important role, and Congress has delegated certain statutory 
authorities to the Agency to focus on air quality and water 
quality issues that are relevant to climate change.
    So we will be focusing on transportation sources, 
stationary sources, methane, and other categories that fall 
within our purview that are important to meet our climate 
goals.
    Mr. Tonko. And what could achieving this greenhouse gas 
emissions goal mean for reducing traditional air and water 
pollution?
    Mr. Regan. There are significant benefits to both air 
quality, natural resources, and the health of our citizens, so 
we will see lots of improvement in traditional pollutants, as 
well, that really do hamper our ability to lead--to live the 
healthiest of lives.
    There are cobenefits, for sure, not only on the health 
side, but there are lots of economic development and economic 
opportunities and job creation opportunities, as well. So we 
see this as a significant opportunity.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, to meet this goal, obviously, it is going 
to take a lot of focus. So what existing programs, authorities, 
and tools might EPA be looking to utilize, especially 
considering that we will need reductions from the power sector, 
transportation, and every other sector of the economy?
    Mr. Regan. We are going to do this using the traditional 
statutory authority that we have, and we are going to go 
through very transparent rulemaking processes that will engage 
all of our stakeholders: the regulated community, environmental 
interests, you know, our Chambers of Commerce, our private 
sector.
    And we will focus on looking at tailpipe emissions and the 
goals that we have set out there. The President has indicated 
or requested that the Agency have a proposal due in July for 
vehicles that run up to the years 2026. We will do that in a 
very transparent manner.
    We will also look at methane reductions. We will be looking 
at a proposal for that this upcoming September.
    And we will be looking at replacing the Clean Power Plan.
    All of these will be done in a very transparent and open 
way, and I pledge that we will convene all of the stakeholders 
involved and take input and have robust discussions on these 
topics.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, I appreciate that. And given the 
urgency of the issue, it is critical we use those existing 
authorities to the fullest to complement the investments in the 
American Jobs Plan and the fiscal year 2022 budget.
    Many Members of Congress are interested in supporting the 
Agency's efforts. How can Congress help?
    And what new resources or authorities are necessary to 
ensure this target is achieved?
    Mr. Regan. Well, we are very well aware that, number one, 
we cannot regulate our way out of the situation we find 
ourselves in.
    And number two, we view Congress, we view the States, we 
view all of our stakeholders as significant partners as we 
navigate these waters. We are going to take a look at what we 
need. But we also want to provide technical expertise to 
Congress as you all contemplate new pieces of legislation that 
might provide complements to the regulatory or statutory 
authority that has been delegated to our Agency.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you, Mr. Administrator. I look 
forward to working with you on this year's budget and enactment 
of the American Jobs Plan so that we can improve public health 
and protect our environment while modernizing a great agenda, 
modernizing the infrastructure desperately needed across our 
country.
    Again, I thank you, and I will now recognize Representative 
McKinley, who is our subcommittee ranking member, as you know. 
He will be recognized now for 5 minutes for questioning.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you again, Administrator Regan, not only for 
appearing before us, but also our conversation yesterday to get 
to know each other, because we are going to be working well, 
hopefully, together over the years.
    But I want to go back to one issue here, and that is the 
three-legged stool. We talked about that, the carbon capture, 
New Source Review, and having a piping system to be able to do 
this. Then we can achieve this net zero by some time, not 
politically driven by 2035, but we are moving in that 
direction. I think the chairman--Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 
mentioned that, too.
    So let's just focus on this for a minute. If by 2035, do 
you think--DoE is already--I have meetings with them--DoE says 
they don't think we are going to have carbon capture technology 
developed to be zero by 2035. Do you think we will have carbon 
capture technology by 2035?
    Mr. Regan. Well, based on the conversations that I have had 
with the electric industry, power plant owners, and the like, 
carbon capture isn't the only tool in the toolbox that they 
plan to look at and deploy.
    And so, number one, I think we want to continue to invest 
heavily in all of the efficiencies and technologies available 
to meet these goals. And I look forward to having a robust 
conversation with you, with the power plant sector, and others 
to achieve these goals.
    Mr. McKinley. If I could reclaim my time, I want to--so I 
hear--but what about 2030? Because I know Chairman Pallone is 
earnestly moving in that direction to go to 2030. Is that 
possible, that we could get it to 80 percent reduction by 2030?
    Mr. Regan. You know, based on the conversations that we are 
having with DoE, with the private sector, with the industries, 
we believe we can make a strong run at and be successful at in 
2030.
    Mr. McKinley. A strong run isn't the answer. Is 80 
percent--that is what this legislation that we are going to 
deal with--I want to see in your budget, do you have enough 
money in there for research to be able to get us down to 80 
percent by 2030?
    Mr. Regan. I think, when you look at our budget, the 2022 
budget, and what we need to do to fulfill our obligations, yes, 
I believe that in concert with DoE, I believe in concert with 
EEI and the power sector, I believe in concert with the rural 
electric cooperatives, all of which we are having conversations 
with, that looking at combinations of technologies----
    Mr. McKinley. Do you also----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. We can reach the 80 percent goal.
    Mr. McKinley. Taking my time back, you understand that has 
to happen in the next year, not 5, 6, 7 years from now. We have 
to start now, because it takes 7 to 8 years to do this. That is 
why I laid the plan out.
    So I don't want to know where we are--can we do it now?
    But my question, what about the New Source Review program 
that--we know it needs reform. Because otherwise utilities 
right now could be reducing their emissions. But it is such a 
complicated process that requires--are you willing to work with 
us, or--to make these reforms?
    Are you willing to reform New Source Review?
    Mr. Regan. I am willing to take a look at any efficiencies 
that we can put in any of our regulations to achieve these 
goals.
    And I do want to comment that, in order to reach the 80 
percent goal, I don't want to speak for the utilities in terms 
of market decisions they are making, but all of the decisions 
made to meet 80 percent won't rely solely on technology. They 
have plans in place to retire some of these assets.
    And so this is why we have to----
    Mr. McKinley. They are retiring them because of the 
regulatory uncertainty, and the threats that are being posed to 
them. I understand that. We could have that--more conversation.
    But what about the pipelines? Are you going to be able to 
work with us to assure that, when our power plants put in the 
carbon capture and they want to build the pipelines, will you 
help us in streamlining in getting those permits?
    Can you guarantee that, if a coal--if a utility or fossil 
fuel plant builds carbon capture, that you will work with us to 
see that those pipelines are constructed?
    Mr. Regan. That is exactly what this process is designed to 
do, to engage you----
    Mr. McKinley. It really is a yes or no, Administrator, if 
you could. Is it yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, we will work with you, with the utilities, 
and others who want to----
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I only have 30 seconds left, 
Administrator, so my question, I want to know what role will 
the EPA undertake to keep fossil fuels--coal and natural gas 
and oil--to remain in the energy mix after 2030, 2035?
    Can you explain that role, how you are going to keep these 
jobs that are being threatened right now?
    Mr. Regan. You know, what I will say is our role is to work 
with the industry, and take a look at where the market--where 
their investments are taking them and look at how our 
technology standards complement the desire to reduce emissions 
while complementing the investments that many of them are 
making, and leveraging technologies to do so.
    So I really do look forward to a robust conversation on how 
we have the science, the markets, the economics, and the 
technology marry in a way that gives America a competitive 
edge.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Chairman Pallone for 5 minutes for questioning, 
please.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Administrator Regan, I wanted to talk about Superfund and 
brownfields. The EPA budget request calls for increases in 
funding for both programs, which I support, especially given 
the Superfund backlog. And, you know, this is something that 
has been involved with New Jersey Members and this committee 
for so long.
    I am always giving out history lessons, but Jim Florio, who 
is my predecessor on the committee, sponsored the Superfund. 
Senator Lautenberg was the Senate sponsor, and the Brownfields 
Program was the idea of Administrator Whitman, who was the 
Governor of New Jersey, Republican, before she became 
Administrator of the EPA. And Paul Gillmor, a Republican 
Member, and myself were the ones that sponsored the original 
brownfields Federal program.
    So how will the requested increase for Superfund impact the 
backlog that exists, and would you commit to working with 
Congress to get these backlog cleanups started? That is my 
first question.
    Mr. Regan. The answer is yes, absolutely. There is an $882 
million request in there to really begin to chip away at that 
backlog of 45 projects. And so we will earnestly work to chip 
away at that backlog.
    But we also have to be reminded that, in addition to the 
fiscal year 2022 ask, in the Americans Jobs Plan there is 
another $5 billion request for Superfund and brownfield sites 
as well. So our budget request is the beginning of what we need 
to do to earnestly begin to look at cleaning up Superfund 
sites.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you so much. And it is also 
important to me that polluters pay the costs of these cleanups. 
And that is why I reintroduced the Superfund Polluter Pays Act 
to reinstate the Superfund tax. And you could--you know, 
obviously, that was included in the President's American Jobs 
Plan, as well, to bring back the tax.
    So can you talk very briefly about why reinstating the 
tax--well, what reinstating the tax would mean for the 
Superfund program, and how would the program be improved by 
reestablishing a dedicated, significant funding stream?
    Mr. Regan. You know, when we look at the number of 
Superfund sites all across this country, they are in all of our 
backyards. And so the projects right now exceed the revenue. 
And the President has supported, in the American Jobs Plan, the 
tax.
    Listen, we believe that this requires an all-hands-on-deck, 
and in our 2022 budget request there are resources. There is 
the tax implication here that could provide a revenue stream. 
And then there is the American Jobs Plan.
    We know that, if we clean up these Superfund sites, that we 
will be putting people back to work. But more importantly, we 
will be restoring these lands so that they can be competitive 
once again for economic development and community vitality. And 
so this is extremely important, that we have all of these legs 
of the stool.
    Mr. Pallone. And let me ask you this. Like so many of these 
environmental challenges, climate change threatens to make the 
risk from Superfund sites even worse. And many of the 
communities around the Superfund sites now live in fear of the 
toxic releases, you know, from another hurricane or extreme 
weather event. I know a lot of environmental justice 
communities are near these Superfund and brownfield sites, and 
this is something that you have championed, addressing the 
concerns of environmental justice communities.
    So do you agree that climate change makes it even more 
imperative that we get these sites cleaned up? That is my 
question.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely, and you will see a reflection in the 
budget. Climate change permeates through Superfund, 
brownfields, water infrastructure. We have to make sure that we 
are rebuilding a resilient community in all of these areas to 
reduce the threats that we are facing.
    Mr. Pallone. And I know that--you know, look, obviously, 
you want to work with us to clean up these sites. But I just 
want a--sort of a pledge from you, if you will, that you and 
other agencies, you know, would really prioritize these sites 
that are vulnerable to climate change, if you will.
    Mr. Regan. We--I can commit that to you, Chairman.
    Mr. Pallone. And, you know, again, I really appreciate your 
being here and your support of so many of these things, 
particularly Superfund and brownfields.
    You know, the problem, as you know, is that, if we don't 
have a Superfund tax and the costs continue to be borne, in 
many cases, by the taxpayer, through their income tax, I mean, 
that is--you would agree with that, certainly, correct?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, I would.
    Mr. Pallone. And I just don't want that to be the case. I 
think that the cost should be borne by the polluters and by the 
chemical and petroleum industry and not by taxpayers with their 
income tax.
    So thanks again for all your support. And I know you are 
doing a great job. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome, and the gentleman yields back. 
The Chair now recognizes the--Representative Rodgers, the 
ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes of 
questioning, please.
    Representative Rodgers?
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, hello, 
Administrator Regan. We really appreciate you spending this 
time with us.
    And just kind of following up on Chairman Pallone's line of 
questioning, there is--I wanted to highlight some of the 
successes of the previous administration, when you consider 
that the EPA deleted all or parts of 27 sites from the 
Superfund National Priorities List, and it was the largest 
number of deletions in two decades. Yes, there is still more 
work to be done, but this is--this was a priority, and we are--
and we must stay focused on getting results.
    The EPA delivered approximately 295 million in brownfield 
grants directly to communities and nonprofits in need. I know 
in Spokane we have had a brownfield cleaned up, and it is now 
just a--it is a great contributor to our community.
    The EPA closed on 41 WIFIA loans, which led to financing of 
16.8 billion for water infrastructure, creating more than 
38,800 jobs, and saving ratepayers nearly $4 billion.
    There were management reforms, such as 33 percent 
improvement in on-time completion of inspections and a 
reduction in backlogged permits by 150.
    You know, the combined air pollution emissions fell more 
than 7 percent, even as the economy grew.
    And I just highlight this because there--we continue to 
build on this record of success and accomplishments. I believe 
that we need to stay focused on results. We need to stay 
focused on making sure that we are spending money in a way that 
is actually going to get results. And it is very important that 
we keep the processes and programs that produced these results 
in place.
    The EPA received 9.34 billion in roughly the last year for 
its standard fiscal year appropriations as well as the 
supplemental funding. Included in the supplemental funding is 
$100 million appropriated to the EPA under the recent budget 
reconciliation bill.
    This week Senator Capito and I sent you a letter requesting 
an accounting of that $100 million appropriated to EPA through 
reconciliation. Are you able to tell us today if that $100 
million has been spent? And if so, what have the funds been 
spent on?
    Mr. Regan. I will circle with my staff. I know that that 
request came in, and I have not been briefed on that yet, but 
we can get you those details.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. OK, thank you.
    I also--I wanted to switch gears a little bit on a matter 
that is important in my home State of Washington, and that is 
cleaning up Puget Sound. And I wanted to raise this issue with 
you this morning, Administrator Regan.
    You know, I think we all agree that, generally speaking, it 
is better to limit pollution at the source rather than 
continuing to try to clean up efforts post-pollution. And I 
think that we agree that the deployment--I hope we would 
agree--that carbon-free, renewable, reliable electric 
generation like hydropower is very important.
    In Puget Sound we continue to have a lot of work that needs 
to be done, and a clean sound will benefit our economy. It will 
also help the critical salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest.
    You know, and one of the main reasons that the Puget Sound 
is dirty is because King County and the State of Washington is 
turning a blind eye to the pollution, to the sewer--the sewage 
discharge that continues to happen in Puget Sound. You know, 
there's over 70 sewage treatment plants dumping millions of 
gallons of raw sewage into Puget Sound every year, and it is 
threatening the salmon species in Puget Sound, the salmon 
species that are critical to the orcas, for example.
    But it is really concerning that, once again, these permits 
are going to be issued instead of actually stopping the dumping 
of the raw sewage. You look at the Washington State salmon 
report, the Puget Sound salmon are in crisis. Having EPA remind 
the State and the city of its legal obligations will save 
future cleanup dollars.
    And so I wanted to ask you if I can get your commitment to 
look into making these large cities like Seattle stay within 
their limits of sewage discharge, just like the small towns in 
eastern Washington are forced to do.
    Mr. Regan. Yes, you have my commitment there, and I have 
already committed to the Governor of Washington and other 
representatives that we want to work with the State to make 
sure that their delegated authority is being done correctly.
    And I agree with you, that the Puget Sound is not only 
great ecologically but provides economic opportunities as well. 
So we want to partner with you on that.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, what is happening right now is 
unacceptable, in my opinion, for the salmon, for the orcas, and 
for our water quality. So I look forward to working with you, 
and with that I yield back.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentlelady yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes of questioning the 
gentlelady from Colorado, who also serves as subcommittee chair 
on oversight.
    Representative DeGette?
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, 
Administrator Regan. We are very happy to have you in your 
maiden appearance in front of this committee. And we all 
welcome your new role. We know you have got a really big job to 
do over there, reconstituting this agency, but we have the 
faith that you can do it.
    As Chairman Tonko just said, I am the chair of the 
oversight subcommittee, and the last--as Mrs. McMorris Rodgers 
was talking about, what the last administration did, but one 
thing I will say is the oversight subcommittee made numerous 
requests for information to the EPA that were never, ever 
responded to.
    And so I know that you, in your new job, and your staff 
will want to work with our full committee and our subcommittee 
to make sure that, when we ask for information in our 
investigations, we get it in a timely fashion. So can I get 
that commitment from you?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you. I was--when I looked at the EPA 
budget, I was absolutely thrilled to see your request for $936 
million towards a new accelerating environmental and economic 
justice initiative, because this is an issue that I have worked 
on with my urban district for many, many years. And I have a 
bill. I would like to ask you to take a look at this bill, and 
see what--the EPA's position on it.
    What it does is it requires the EPA to identify 100 
environmental justice communities which have seen the worst 
underenforcement and to work with the State and local 
coregulators to address its root causes. I don't know if you 
are familiar with this legislation yet or not.
    Mr. Regan. I am not quite familiar with that legislation, 
but I will be sure that staff connects with you to provide the 
technical assistance needed.
    Ms. DeGette. It seems like this is something that we could 
really work together on.
    I have got an area in the northern part of my district that 
has been an environmental justice area for decades, Swansea-
Elyria-Globeville. I think the members of this committee are 
getting sick of me, hearing--to talk about it. But it has 
everything. It has got a highway going through, it has lead, it 
has factories on the other side of the boundary, and so we have 
been doing everything for many years to get that cleaned up.
    Do you think that the EPA--that it will be a focus of the 
EPA, to actually work with State and local coregulators to 
clean up these sites all around the country? Because that seems 
to be a key issue for me.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. The resources that we get through 
the budget, through the American Jobs Plan and the resources 
that we were appropriated through the American Rescue Plan are 
all designed to partner with State and local--locally elected 
officials as well as community members. You all know your 
communities better than the Federal Government ever could, so 
we need that level of partnership to be successful.
    Ms. DeGette. OK, thanks. Another topic I want to talk to 
you about, that is the issue of methane. As you know, yesterday 
the Senate passed a resolution of disapproval for the Trump 
administration's rollback of the EPA's methane regulations. And 
I am the lead sponsor, along with several of our colleagues, 
Mr. Peters and others, in the House.
    And I wonder--I am assuming the EPA supports that 
resolution of disapproval.
    Mr. Regan. We look forward to working with the decision 
that Congress has made, and we are poised to look forward to a 
methane regulation that should be coming forth in September. As 
you know----
    Ms. DeGette. Great.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. This is something that API and the 
Chamber has asked for, as well. So we look forward to working 
on that.
    Ms. DeGette. Wonderful. Now, here is an issue. I don't know 
if you know the answer or if someone at your agency knows the 
answer, but one of the issues we have had with methane 
regulation is, because of the way they do the detection and 
testing, you can often have methane emissions happening for 
months without detection.
    We are now developing technology to do continuous emissions 
monitoring on methane waste. Do you know if they are able to do 
that technologically yet?
    And is the EPA working with industry to make that happen?
    Mr. Regan. You know, that will be part of the discussion 
that we have through our regulatory process.
    And, you know, the good news is many technologies and 
opportunities have evolved since the previous rule. So we will 
be taking advantage of all of the gains that have been made 
over the past few years.
    Ms. DeGette. Great, thank you very much, and I am really 
looking forward to working with you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes for 5 minutes Representative Johnson, the gentleman 
from the State of Ohio.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Administrator Regan, for joining us today.
    You know, last week, while speaking at the White House 
Climate Summit, President Biden announced a new Nationally 
Determined Contribution, a document submitted to the United 
Nations which outlines how his administration intends to 
dramatically cut greenhouse emissions in the United States by 
2030.
    The sectors impacted include power generation, 
transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture. No part of 
American life goes untouched. According to this document, 
National Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy and the White House 
staff conducted a detailed analysis on how to achieve these 
drastic emissions--the emissions cuts, in consultation with 
Cabinet agencies, including yours, Mr. Regan, the EPA.
    After completing its so-called analysis, the document says 
that the Biden administration then turned to activists and--
``advocates and activists''--for advice, and also other 
entities such as universities, businesses, and local 
governments.
    So, Mr. Regan, would you briefly describe EPA's role in 
this process and the related interagency process? How did it 
work?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, the administration's climate NDC 
process was a whole-of-government process, so----
    Mr. Johnson. Well, did you participate directly?
    Mr. Regan. So our Agency provided qualitative information 
around what our regulations could do, and the role that they 
play in sort of the emissions profile.
    You know, we house the greenhouse gas inventory. So, number 
one----
    Mr. Johnson. So you----
    Mr. Regan. So----
    Mr. Johnson. But you did not participate directly, it was 
members of your staff?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, our staffs coordinated with the White House 
staff, shared the qualitative analysis of our statutory 
regulatory authority as well as the contents that we contain in 
the greenhouse gas inventory.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, I find it interesting that this in-depth 
analysis didn't include direct participation by you, 
Administrator Regan.
    Let me go on. For the----
    Mr. Regan. Well, I would--what I would say is my staff 
received direction from me to provide----
    Mr. Johnson. OK.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. The relevant information for EPA's 
participation in the development of that number.
    Mr. Johnson. OK, but you didn't directly provide any 
feedback, is what I am hearing.
    For the stakeholders that were consulted, were they 
representative of all economic sectors of the United States?
    Mr. Regan. You know, I can't speak to the stakeholders that 
the White House engaged. I can speak to EPA's participation in 
that process.
    Now, what I can say is----
    Mr. Johnson. Well, what was--Administrator Regan, what was 
EPA's role, then, in developing or analyzing sector-specific 
pathways for emissions reductions?
    And will you provide the analyses that you relied upon, or 
that your Agency relied upon, will you provide that analysis 
for the record?
    Mr. Regan. So EPA provides the greenhouse gas analysis that 
characterizes the emissions profile for all of these sectors. 
And then----
    Mr. Johnson. OK, so can you provide what you guys used, for 
the record?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, we can provide the contents of the 
greenhouse gas inventory that characterizes the emissions 
profiles of the individual sectors, and----
    Mr. Johnson. What I am looking for is what EPA's role was 
in developing or analyzing the sector-specific pathways for 
those emission reductions. And that is what I would like you to 
provide to this subcommittee, for the record. Can you do that?
    Mr. Regan. What I can provide to the subcommittee, just to 
be sure we are communicating consistently, is the contents of 
the greenhouse gas inventory and the qualitative analysis that 
describes the statutory authority and the regulative 
participation that we would have----
    Mr. Johnson. OK, I am running out of time, Mr. Regan.
    The Nationally Determined Contributions submitted to the UN 
identified pathways to meet the specific economic sector of 
targets. Were cost estimates developed for these targets?
    Mr. Regan. You know, that analysis was done by the White 
House, and that is why I wanted to----
    Mr. Johnson. You don't have any insights into that.
    Has the EPA started its action development process for 
developing regulations to meet these Nationally Determined 
Contribution goals?
    Mr. Regan. Our process is we develop rules specifically, 
and we do that through the regulatory process, which is 
completely transparent----
    Mr. Johnson. I know what the regulatory process is. But for 
this specific Nationally Determined Contribution document, have 
you started developing the regulations to meet those goals?
    Mr. Regan. Some we are in the process of, and some we are 
not. The contribution from, let's say, cars, we will be 
proposing a tailpipe emissions standard in mid-July for the 
role of methane. We will be proposing a rule in September. And 
as you all know, I have committed to engaging on the 
replacement of the Clean Power Plan.
    All of these are contributors to how we get to the 
emissions targets, but it is very--I need to be very specific. 
Those are not predetermined numbers or outcomes; that is a 
process that we go through in a transparent manner with all of 
our stakeholders.
    Mr. Johnson. All right, Mr. Chairman, I apologize, we ran 
over. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, the gentleman yields back. Now the Chair 
will recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Representative 
Schakowsky, who also serves as chair of the subcommittee on 
consumer protection.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I 
want to give a special welcome to our Administrator Regan for 
being here, and to--for--and to congratulate you for this 
really wonderful position that you have right now. I am so glad 
you are there.
    And I am very glad to see that the fiscal year 2022 budget 
includes $3.6 billion invested in critical drinking water 
infrastructure and creating jobs. But, really, this is just a 
small part of the water infrastructure request that goes along 
with the American Jobs Act: $111 billion over 8 years.
    And I want to tell you, the issue of lead and water is a 
huge one in Chicago. Actually, I didn't know how big it was 
until the Vice President came here a few--to Chicago a few 
weeks ago and informed me that Illinois has about 25 percent of 
all lead service pipelines in the country, and that includes 
the City of Chicago and--a part of which is part of my 
district. And I was so pleased to see last night the President 
saying that 100 percent of the lead pipes are going to be 
replaced.
    And we all know the problem with lead, especially with 
children--lifelong effects, irreversible effects having to do 
with cognition and focus and ability to achieve--so we have to 
deal with this. What I want to ask you is how much would these 
proposed investments in drinking water infrastructure 
contribute to lead service line removal in places like the City 
of Chicago?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. And, you 
know, in the American Jobs Plan, the President has carved out 
$45 billion to replace 100 percent of the lead pipes. And we 
could be executing this program through an existing program at 
EPA. It wouldn't be recreating the wheel, it would be done 
through EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and our Water 
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation's grants. So those 
two programs have a track record of pushing resources around 
water infrastructure to not only deal with infrastructure and 
water quality, but to help create jobs, as well.
    So we have a process and criteria set up to be sure that 
those resources are distributed equitably, and they also will 
focus on--in the broader context of the $111 billion--water 
affordability, as well.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Now, you were mentioning grants. Are these 
competitive grants that States and localities are going to have 
to apply for?
    Mr. Regan. You know, I think what I would like to do is 
provide that for--grant process information for you. I think we 
have a couple of grant programs. Obviously, the needs are great 
here. But we do know that most of our cities and municipalities 
cannot afford to take out loans, so we do emphasize that grants 
are important, and we want to be sure that everyone is 
competitive for those resources.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Great. So, you know, Chicago residents 
are--that are most impacted by lead service lines are often in 
communities of color and more low-income communities. So, Mr. 
Regan, how does investing in drinking water infrastructure 
contribute to your environmental justice agenda?
    Mr. Regan. It contributes significantly. We know that we 
need to implement programs that provide for--monitoring, but we 
also know that water quality is a critical component. Good, 
clean drinking water is a must in this country. And too many of 
our disproportionately impacted communities, both communities 
of color and low-income, do not have enough access to clean, 
quality drinking water. So that is a priority for us, and it is 
a priority as part of our environmental justice and equity 
programs.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I know--we know that there are, literally, 
millions of homes and daycare centers that are affected. And we 
have to just make sure that we can do that.
    I am almost out of time, and I can submit the rest of my 
questions in writing. But I certainly will be watching for the 
focus on lead, which can be so devastating when it is in the 
pipes and the service lines. And I thank you for your focus on 
that.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. We now recognize the 
gentleman from Oklahoma.
    Representative Mullin for 5 minutes, sir, please.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Chairman, and I appreciate you all's 
patience with me. I have been traveling. I got bad, bad 
reception throughout Oklahoma--or my district is pretty bad.
    I don't know if you guys already tried to address it, but 
Director, have you--they already tried to address your mike 
yet? Because your mike is really bad on our end. It sounds--it 
is very--I mean, I--it is very hard to hear you.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Mullin. I can't even hear you now.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Nobody is saying anything.
    Mr. Regan. My microphone?
    Mr. Mullin. Yes, it is real hard to hear.
    And I don't know, Chairman, if you can--and we can get that 
fixed, because this is--that is--it is hard for us to hear him, 
and it is pretty distracting.
    Mr. Tonko. Is there----
    Mr. Regan. What about now? Can you guys hear me now?
    Mr. Tonko. It is still kind of scratching. Is there any way 
we can take, like, a minute or two to see if we can address it, 
the technology?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, we will take a minute on our end here, and 
see if we can resolve it.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you.
    Representative Mullin, hold on. We will be with you in a 
second--in a minute or two.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Chairman, you ought to keep talking to 
see if it is getting any better, maybe.
    Mr. Tonko. They have got the EPA team and our team working 
on this sound, so hopefully----
    Ms. Schakowsky. It sounds good to me.
    Mr. Tonko. Administrator, you can hear me, right?
    Why don't--is it any better if you say--if you say 
something, we will see how the quality is working here.
    Mr. Regan. I don't know if it is improved yet or not. I see 
them still working on it. OK.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, let's give it a minute or two, and we will 
be in a slight recess here.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Tonko. Administrator, how is--I think we have a new 
device now.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. Is this better?
    Mr. Tonko. That is much better. Thank you.
    Why don't--Representative Mullin, are you still with us?
    Mr. Mullin. Yes, sir. Did we get it fixed?
    Mr. Tonko. Let's--I believe we have, so thank you. So your 
5 minutes will start now, please.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, sir. Chairman, thank you for working 
with me on that.
    And Director, we really appreciate you working with it, 
too, and your time being with us.
    Look, we understand this--that EPA is sometimes viewed 
different, obviously, between Republicans and Democrats. But I 
think we all agree we feel like the EPA does play a role in our 
government, but it is how we approach that.
    And so a couple of questions I have is, one, do you feel 
like it is the role at EPA to create and enforce their own 
policies, or do you think it is the role to look at the 
legislation, and the meaningful legislation that Congress has 
passed, to create their policies to follow?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. I can answer 
it very clearly. EPA's role is to follow the law, and the laws 
that Congress has designed and given us to follow.
    And so we want to be transparent. We want to follow the law 
and follow science.
    Mr. Mullin. So when you are talking about being 
transparent, underneath the Obama administration we didn't 
really feel like they were as transparent. In fact, when they 
were working with Congress, they never worked with Congress. It 
was very difficult. They would go at it alone, they would 
sometimes make their own policies before even trying to figure 
out what Congress's intent was. And it seems like the EPA was 
more used as a political arm and a policy-driven place than it 
was actually working with Congress.
    So are you saying, underneath your direction, you feel 
like--that the EPA is going to work with Congress, regardless 
of who is in charge?
    Because, you know, there is a good chance--I am not trying 
to be political here, but there is a good chance that there 
could be a different party in charge of the House of 
Representatives in 2 years.
    Mr. Regan. You know, our job is to work with every single 
Member. And that is what I did in North Carolina. We had a 
Republican-led General Assembly, although I worked for a 
Democratic Governor, and we got a lot of work done.
    So at EPA--and I have already told all of my senior 
leadership and my staff--we are going to be transparent. We are 
going to respond to the IG, we are going to respond to GAO. We 
are going to respond to congressional Members. That is the 
mandate here.
    Mr. Mullin. Good. You know, and the--I don't--and I--
listen, I am not--I am comparing you to the last administration 
underneath Obama, because there is a lot of lookalike, there is 
a lot of people that was with that administration that is back 
with the Biden administration. And underneath the Obama 
administration, the EPA, it didn't really seem like it wanted 
to work with industry on best business practices.
    And in fact, it seemed like to me--because I am a product 
of that, the reason why I am in Congress today is because of 
the run-in I had with the EPA back in 2011. Otherwise, I 
wouldn't even be here. And--but it seemed like, to me, back 
then, that they were more interested in giving fines than they 
were actually working with us, working with the business 
community, working with our economy. And sometimes, you know, 
the regulations can be detrimental to the industry.
    Are you--would you commit to working with industry, getting 
best business practices, before you guys roll out something 
that could actually destroy an entire industry?
    Mr. Regan. We are committed to engaging our regulated 
community. I have a track record for doing that. We have 
already been doing that.
    And on that enforcement piece, one of the things that we 
have been discussing is having enforcement involved in 
regulation on the front end helps for the ease of 
implementation on that back end. We are not into the gotcha 
games. We want to put out regulations that are easily 
understood and can be complied with. And so we will be working 
with our stakeholders to do that.
    Mr. Mullin. Do you plan on being heavyhanded with the 
fines, or do you plan on giving industry an opportunity to fix 
whatever issue may be--because I will tell you, a lot of times 
on the State side of it there is a conflict between State 
regulations, say, in the Oklahoma Department of Environmental 
Quality versus what EPA is requiring. And, as a business owner 
that has an environmental company, there can be a conflict 
between those two, and you have got to choose which one you are 
going to follow. You are licensed in your State, but then the 
EPA can come back on top of it.
    And we saw with the Obama administration that fines would 
be levied when you are doing your best as a business owner to 
try to comply with, actually, the requirements. But there was 
no working with the industry. That is why I said working best 
business practices. And it is a huge concern a lot of business 
owners like myself have with this new administration, hoping 
that we don't have a rollback to the way it was handled with 
the Obama administration.
    Mr. Regan. You know, what I can do is I can pledge that we 
are going to have strong relationships with our State 
regulators and with the industry. I personally happen to know 
and have a relationship with your DEQ secretary there in 
Oklahoma, and I plan to, as a former State regulator, you know, 
look at cooperative federalism for what it is and have very 
strong relationships with our State regulators and with our 
business community because, at the end of the day, we want the 
best environmental outcomes while we are spurring economic 
opportunities, as well.
    Mr. Mullin. Director, I really appreciate that. I really do 
honestly look forward to working with you. Thank you so much. I 
appreciate you.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
    Representative Sarbanes, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Chairman, thank you for the 
hearing.
    Administrator Regan, welcome to the committee. I have, as I 
know my colleagues do, great expectations for the EPA under 
your leadership.
    Unfortunately, under the last administration, there were a 
lot of--at the EPA, where industries that should be regulated 
were much too cozy with the Agency. And I think it harmed, 
impacted negatively, our approach to protecting the 
environment. So I am looking forward to your work at the 
Agency.
    I am going to be parochial, the way some others have been. 
That is the way this game is played, of course. And so I want 
to focus--it won't surprise you--on the Chesapeake Bay.
    First, let me say that I am gratified that, as part of the 
American Jobs Plan, the administration has focused on 
environmental restoration and protection. Chesapeake Bay is an 
economic engine for my home State of Maryland and, frankly, for 
the whole region, which is one reason protecting it is so 
vitally important. So I am very pleased to see the Biden 
administration's emphasis on restoration and protection.
    In the last administration there were a lot of proposals--
continuously, unfortunately--to cut funding to critical Bay 
programs. And in addition, there was not the commitment to the 
kind of cooperative and collaborative leadership across the 
States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that we need to ensure 
the restoration of the Bay. An example of that in the last 
administration was a failure to really have robust enforcement 
when it comes to that kind of collaborative approach.
    So I am hoping that the State and local partners, as well 
as Bay colleagues in Congress, can count on you to change that, 
help provide that cooperative framework that we need to meet 
goals that are coming at us fast. Those are 2025 goals that we 
are trying to get in place.
    I know there is an effort underway to reconstitute the 
position of senior advisor for the Chesapeake Bay and the 
Anacostia River at the EPA, and that will certainly be helpful. 
Can you provide some perspective on other plans to work with 
State, local, and Federal partners to meet the goals of the 
Chesapeake Bay agreement?
    Specifically, can we count on you and your staff to use all 
the tools available to you through the Bay program, through 
grants, and certainly enforcement authority to ensure that the 
region is on track to meet those 2025 goals?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and yes, we 
are actively focusing on the Chesapeake Bay. We see it as a 
national treasure and understand the ecological and economic 
benefits to all of us. We look forward to playing an active 
role in ensuring that all of the States that have agreed to 
preserving the Bay do their part and can claim their role.
    And, you know, the details are to follow in the budget, but 
what I can say to you is that there is resource support 
included in this budget focused on the Chesapeake Bay. So we 
are excited to partner with you and understand, you know, how 
special it is, not only to the State of Maryland but to all of 
us as a country.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much. Let me raise another 
dimension of it, which also calls for collaboration. As you 
probably know, 80 percent of the remaining pollutant load 
reductions that we need to achieve in order to meet these goals 
come from agriculture. And that means it is imperative that the 
EPA be working with USDA to ensure that there is sufficient 
financial and technical assistance in place to provide the Bay 
Region farmers with those tools, so that we can get the job 
done.
    This is going to take a lot of cooperation, bringing people 
together. I think the EPA can play a critical role in 
facilitating that. Can you commit to that?
    And what steps do you see there that perhaps might be new 
and different from what has already been done to address these 
needs?
    I have some other questions. I will make sure I get those 
submitted in writing to you and your staff, but I appreciate 
your testimony here today. Could you just----EPA connection?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. You know, during the nomination 
process for being in this position and throughout, I have been 
in close contact with and developing a relationship with 
Secretary Vilsack. We are committed to partnering.
    I also, you know, have enjoyed experience with the 
agricultural community and received a lot of support from the 
agriculture community because of the work that I have done in 
the past.
    So this is not foreign territory for me, and we will bring 
all of those relationships to bear.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Great, thanks very much. I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
    Representative Curtis, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you very much to our witness today.
    I--we hear a lot of clamor about the science involved with 
climate change, and I can speak personally, for me--I don't 
know of anybody else on this committee that would differ with 
me--I don't question that science. But there is another aspect 
of science that we don't talk about a lot, and that is that 
currently 90 percent of all carbon emissions come from outside 
the United States. The U.S. is on track to emit just about 10 
percent of worldwide carbon emissions. And at the same time, 
China is on a path to greatly increase their emissions for 
years to come.
    In other words, the atmosphere doesn't care what country 
emits the carbon, just how much is in the atmosphere.
    So, Mr. Director, do you agree with the science that 
cutting the U.S. carbon emissions in half by 2030 will not have 
a profound impact on the climate change problem?
    Mr. Regan. I believe that the NDC that the President has 
set and our approach will have a significant influence on how 
the world behaves. And collectively, I believe that the world 
will rally to meet the necessary reductions required.
    Mr. Curtis. So if I might just have a fun moment with you. 
You sound a little bit like some of my colleagues when they are 
asked about the science of climate change, which is to really 
deflect the question and to not answer the question.
    And really, I think, why this is of concern is because we 
are embarked on a path that will dramatically alter the U.S. 
economy. And if that really reduces worldwide carbon, then that 
is something significant and something that we should pay 
attention to.
    And I think more of a concern to me is will you work on 
policies that only advance policies that actually impact this 
worldwide carbon rather than just carbon here in the United 
States?
    And coming back to the science, carbon doesn't care which 
country it comes from.
    Mr. Regan. I agree, and I think that when we take a look at 
what we are doing as a country, it is to mitigate carbon but it 
is also to take advantage of technological advancements and to 
create jobs. So I view the steps that we are taking as hugely 
impactful on reducing carbon, because we are setting the stage, 
we are leading. But also, during that process, we are taking 
advantage of where the markets are driving us, we are taking 
advantage of technologies that I believe we can deploy 
internationally, as well.
    So in total, I fully believe that the actions that this 
administration are taking will impact climate change and will 
create jobs.
    Mr. Curtis. Well, do you agree with the fact that 
approximately, over the last decade, the United States has 
reduced more carbon than all the carbon-producing countries, 
combined?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, I agree that carbon has been on the 
decline.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, and my point with that is that we have 
been setting an example, and other countries have not been 
following.
    Let me switch gears quickly before I run out of time. 
National ambient air quality standards were designed to help 
reduce the amount of pollutants that we know cause human health 
issues. This is a big deal in my State. Utah has really 
struggled with this. As a mayor, we dealt with PM2.5 and 
understand these standards.
    And I agree we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
However, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards were 
clearly never intended to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, 
nor would it be an effective way to combat global climate 
change, as we just talked about, when nearly 9 percent of 
emissions come from outside the United States.
    Are you ready to assure this committee that you have no 
plans to pursue a greenhouse gas National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard?
    Mr. Regan. I haven't discussed that with anyone. I think 
that the Supreme Court has given us the authority to regulate 
greenhouse gases, and we will use the statutory authority we 
have to do so.
    Mr. Curtis. So it sounds like you are planning to do that. 
I just want to be clear. I am not pushing you to a yes or no, 
but rather just to know exactly what your intentions are.
    Mr. Regan. You know, I will be honest with you. The 
statutory authorities that are provided to the Agency to 
regulate greenhouse gases is what we will take a look at.
    So I have not had any discussions with my staff about 
solely using the NAAQS or using the NAAQS as a complement. We 
will be looking at all of the tools we have to regulate 
greenhouse gases.
    Mr. Curtis. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am out of 
time, and I yield my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlewoman [audio malfunction] vice chair of 
the full committee.
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Ms. Clarke. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Tonko. For 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 
our--I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, did you say Congresswoman Yvette 
Clarke?
    Mr. Tonko. Yes, I did. I guess there was some trouble with 
the sound. But yes, Representative Clarke, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Clarke. OK, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 
thank our Ranking Member McKinley for convening today's hearing 
on EPA's Fiscal Year 2022 budget proposal.
    Let me also thank Administrator Regan for joining us today 
to offer your testimony, and to say that I am excited about 
your leadership at EPA. So let's go.
    After 4 years of systemic witnessing--of witnessing a 
systemic attempt to dismantle our Nation's environmental 
infrastructure and protections, it is nice to finally see a 
budget proposal that prioritizes our environment and the well-
being of our communities.
    The transportation sector has recently become the largest 
source of greenhouse gases in the United States, and vehicle 
emissions, such as particulate matter, are a major contributor 
in cities like mine, Brooklyn, New York, to medical conditions 
including asthma, heart disease, and premature death. You add 
to it COVID-19, and it has been a perfect storm.
    Cleaning up emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, 
in particular, is long overdue for the communities living 
adjacent to highways, ports, freight hubs, with a predominantly 
low-income--with predominantly low-income communities and 
communities of color. The Biden administration has committed to 
centering equity in its work, and we need to build on that 
commitment by taking ambitious action to reduce emissions of 
both air pollutants and greenhouse gases from heavy-duty 
vehicles.
    Do you agree that EPA needs to tackle emissions of nitrogen 
oxides and greenhouse gases from heavy-duty vehicles as soon as 
possible in model year 2027?
    And what is your Agency doing right now to start an 
ambitious rulemaking on this critically important issue?
    Mr. Regan. I do agree that we need to reduce those 
emissions, and we are taking a very close look at that. You 
know, we are on target for a light-duty emissions vehicle 
standard in July, and we are looking at the followup to that 
and heavy-duty vehicles.
    We are engaging with the industries, and I am engaging with 
my staff to take a look at, number one, what does the science 
call for, not solely from a greenhouse gas standpoint but, as 
we model out and look at these disproportionate impacts that 
these emissions are having on moderate to low-income 
communities of color, urban areas, how we take that into 
consideration as we develop these proposals for rulemakings.
    Ms. Clarke. One major tool already at the EPA's disposal is 
the DERA program, which has been used very effectively for 
vehicles like schoolbuses to lower harmful emissions and 
improve air quality at the heavily impacted communities. At a 
time when we need to be focused on tackling the climate crisis 
and creating good-paying jobs, DERA stands out as a prime 
example of what works.
    What resources or support does EPA need to ensure that the 
DERA program is able to benefit the greatest number of people?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that. I think the DERA 
program has been extremely successful in terms of Congress's 
intent and our ability to execute. You know, the DERA program 
is like a lot of programs: There is more demand than there are 
resources.
    What I would say is we have a good track record of getting 
those resources to those who need them the most to get the 
biggest bang for the buck. But, you know, that program, like 
many programs, could use financial bolstering. And it would be 
good for the economy, in terms of looking at advanced diesel 
technology as we segue to electric vehicles. But it is also 
good for the planet and good for people.
    So I believe it is an excellent program, and I would say 
that the demand outpaces the resources.
    Ms. Clarke. We also need to be thinking about how we can 
reduce emissions from refrigerated trucks that transport our 
food and medications, including our vaccines, from freight 
depots to restaurants, grocery stores, and pharmacies. Right 
now, almost all of the trucks are secondary diesel engines that 
run nearly 24/7 in order to keep contents cold.
    My legislation, the Freezer Trucks Act of 2021, is modeled 
after the DERA program and would address this issue by helping 
to fund electric refrigeration units as well as the charging 
infrastructure to support them. Is this something that your 
Agency has been looking into, and do you agree that it is an 
important piece to addressing the impacts of diesel pollution 
from the transportation sector on the hardest-hit communities?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that, and thank you for your 
leadership on that. I am not as familiar with that piece of 
legislation as maybe some of my staff.
    It is an important piece of the pie, and I can commit that 
this Agency will look into and support you all in your efforts, 
from a technical assistance standpoint, any way we can.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
    Representative Crenshaw, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to be back with 
you all. I still can't see you all, so it will be a few more 
weeks until that, hopefully, happens. I am doing well, and you 
don't need to feel bad for me. We raised our right hand, and 
then we asked to go to war, and sometimes this is what happens. 
But I hope to be back to normal within a couple of months. But 
for now, even a blind knuckle dragger can do a hearing, so here 
I am, and let's get to work.
    Administrator Regan, thank you so much for being with us, 
and congratulations on your new position. So I do have some 
questions.
    You have said that, in your budget proposal, about 8 
percent of EPA's budget will be used for environmental justice 
and, as you put it, rewriting the DNA of the EPA. I am hoping 
you can tell us what you mean by that. How do you attach 
dollars to the notion of implementing environmental justice?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, Congressman, 
and thank you for your service to this country.
    You know, environmental justice and equity will be part of 
EPA's DNA. And what I mean by that is there are areas that we 
can bolster our efforts to be sure that communities that have 
had the disproportionate impact from pollution no longer suffer 
disproportionately. So there are opportunities for us to take a 
look at overburdened communities to ensure that we have the 
appropriate air quality monitoring in place, that when we look 
at water quality needs from an infrastructure standpoint, that 
those communities have good-quality drinking water. Lead 
service lines and pipes that are disproportionately impacting 
communities----
    Mr. Crenshaw. Administration, since I have limited time, I 
think your answer so far is fairly reasonable, to be honest 
with you. But that is my--thank you for defining that.
    The concern I have is certain legislation that may come, 
that may be written into law, that you would have to then 
regulate. The CLEAN Future Act, for instance, in section 601, 
defines environmental justice rather differently than you just 
did. It defines it based on 17 principles from the 1991 People 
of Color Environmental Leadership Summit.
    Among some of these principles it states that it must 
affirm the sacredness of Mother Earth. This is--I am not sure 
what that means--but paganistic. Another principle would say 
that we must oppose the destructive operations of all 
multinational corporations. So my question would be, does that 
make sense to write something like that into law?
    It is one thing for activists to be saying that kind of 
rhetoric. It is quite another for that to be written into law, 
which your Agency would have to then regulate. How on Earth 
would you do that?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I thank you for the question. I am not 
familiar with that piece of legislation, so I am not quite sure 
I can fully answer your question. I think any piece of 
legislation, we would like to be sure that, number one, it 
follows the law, and it gives--and we have the authority to 
actually execute on what is being asked of us.
    Mr. Crenshaw. OK.
    Mr. Regan. So I will take a look at that, but I am not 
familiar with it.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Well, thank you, Administrator. I mean, I do 
find it a little hard to believe that you haven't seen that 
piece of legislation. It is a flagship bill for your party, and 
it would directly influence everything you do at the EPA.
    Along the same lines, in title 9 of the CLEAN Future Act, 
it effectively bans plastic for the next [inaudible] years--at 
least puts a pause on it--with the promise of burdensome 
regulations right after that, effectively curtailing any kind 
of investment in new plastic production in the United States. 
We have some of the best natural gas resin-based plastic 
production.
    So the problem is this. There's opposing forces here. On 
the one hand, the Biden administration wants to implement an 
enormous infrastructure plan that requires massive new plastic 
production, whether it is building EV batteries, lightweight 
materials for EV cars, new syringes and biomedical devices, and 
syringes which we use to vaccinate people, thousands of miles 
of fiber optic cable wrapped in plastic. But this would be 
banned, on the other hand, and your Agency would be tasked to 
effectively ban that, according to the law. So what would we 
do?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I want to be clear, honest, and 
transparent with you.
    Number one, I am unfamiliar with the piece of legislation, 
have not been briefed by my team, which sends a signal to me 
that it may not be high on our priority. So I am not in a 
position to address many of those questions.
    Mr. Crenshaw. So, Administrator----
    Mr. Regan. This is the first time I am hearing that----
    Mr. Crenshaw. OK, Administrator Regan, you are saying that 
no one has consulted with--you are the expert, you are the head 
of the EPA, but no one has consulted with you about the CLEAN 
Future Act?
    Mr. Regan. That is exactly what I am telling you.
    Mr. Crenshaw. OK. Well, thank you.
    No further questions, Mr.--I can't see my time, so maybe I 
am over time. And if I am, thank you for allowing me. If not, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, the gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California.
    Representative Peters, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Administrator Regan, for being here. We are eager for your 
leadership.
    The Journal of Environmental Research Letters recently 
published a study showing that steeply limiting or eliminating 
methane emissions can slow the rate of the Earth's warming by 
as much as 30 percent. There is a lot to do on climate, but 
getting methane out of the atmosphere is critical to keeping 
warming below the 2 degrees targeted by the Paris Climate 
Accord. I am happy to cosponsor with Ms. DeGette the CRA that 
will restore the Obama new source rules.
    But on methane regulation I want to point out that we can 
build back better. Instead of prescribing technology which is a 
proxy for lower emissions, we now have the monitoring ability, 
which we did not have in 2016, to impose direct emission 
standards. And last week I introduced the METHANE Act that 
would do just that: Direct the EPA to set methane emission 
limits for oil and gas facilities, reduced over time, 
encouraging investment in technologies that provide the 
greatest emission reductions at the lowest cost.
    So, Mr. Administrator, I ask you to consider this new 
approach and whether there is a benefit to passing it--
legislation that would provide reliability to the environment 
and to industry. I ask that your budget dedicate the resources 
under any circumstances to monitor emissions and enforce 
compliance.
    I am going to ask you to respond to that in writing, so I 
can bring another urgent matter to your attention today.
    On behalf of the people I represent in San Diego and 
Coronado, I have to tell you about what has to be one of the 
most dire environmental catastrophes on the continent. Tens of 
millions of gallons of raw sewage, human and chemical waste 
from commercial and industrial facilities, are flowing down 
through the Tijuana River across the U.S./Mexico border into 
San Diego communities.
    This is toxic stuff. When it dries, the dust blows into 
nearby neighborhoods. The smell and noxious fumes make people 
sick. Border Patrol agents and Navy SEALs who are trained to 
protect our country have to wade and swim through it and are 
stricken with skin rashes, nausea, and even their boots 
disintegrating on their feet because of the chemicals in this 
sludge.
    Sewage from Baja, California, and northern Mexico is being 
pumped untreated into the ocean. It makes its way to the San 
Diego County beaches in a matter of hours. Over the past few 
weeks, more than 550 million gallons of wastewater was pumped 
into the ocean, just a few short miles south of the border. And 
within hours, it is on San Diego beaches. People are getting 
sick. Beaches are getting closed. The Tijuana estuary is 
completely fouled. And this has been going on for far too long.
    We worked hard, as a congressional delegation, to fix the 
problem and secured more than $300 million as part of the 
USMCA. We are supporting your agency and IBWC as they plan, 
design, and permit the big projects we need to address it, but 
we need action now.
    This is an international catastrophe. It is happening in a 
working-class, minority--majority minority community in a far 
corner of our country. So I have to tell you today that these 
Americans are counting on you and me to fix it.
    The best way to describe how much worse the problem has 
become is by the number of beach closure days at these 
locations. In 2018 south San Diego County beaches were closed 
101 days. In 2019 that increased to 243 days. In 2020, 295 
days. And in 2021, the beaches have been closed for the entire 
year. The nearby canyons have experienced toxic, dangerous 
spills every single day.
    In August 2020, the Governor of Baja, California, declared 
the sewer system fixed in Tijuana after they replaced a pump 
station with the new diversion pumps. Around the same time, the 
EPA, as part of the USMCA process under President Trump, stated 
it was not necessary to implement short-term emergency measures 
to control transboundary flows because Mexico had fixed the 
pumps. But as I explained, it is now 9 months later. We are 
still getting daily transboundary flows, and our beaches are 
still polluted.
    We can't wait for more public scoping meetings and studies. 
I am going to ask you four things today.
    First, we need urgent, immediate fixes, anything to slow 
the flows.
    Second, we need a diversion structure built immediately, 
either through Executive order or, otherwise, fast track.
    Third, we ask your help in proclaiming the urgency to the 
administration about the need for the State Department to 
engage with Mexico and insist that they do their part and build 
the infrastructure needed to keep up with their population 
growth.
    And fourth, and finally--and this is the only question I 
would ask you to answer today--will you please join 
Representative Juan Vargas, who represents the border area with 
me, and me in San Diego soon to see this tragedy for yourself? 
We desperately need your help, and we would love to show you 
the problem that we are facing.
    Your comments on clean water in your written testimony 
couldn't have made me feel better about this. We would love to 
have you out in San Diego so we can work on this together. And 
I would ask you to come visit us. And with that, I will take 
your answer, but I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you. I absolutely would love to 
visit with you. It is a priority for EPA. I have already spoken 
with my Mexican counterpart about how urgent this problem is, 
and appreciate the resources that Congress allocated a couple 
of months ago. And we are working hard on a solution.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and we now recognize 
the gentleman from Georgia.
    Representative Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Administrator, for being here. I appreciate you being here.
    I wanted to ask you, it is my understanding that the Paris 
pledge commits the United States to a 50 percent reduction of 
economywide greenhouse gases below the 2005 levels, and we are 
supposed to reach this by 2030. You know, this is ambitious, to 
say the least.
    Last week, the Biden administration filed its Nationally 
Determined Contribution, or NDC, if you will, with the United 
Nations under the Paris Agreement. We know that includes plans 
to pursue aggressive new regulations of the electricity and 
transportation sectors. But we know that these plans will still 
leave the administration short of the 50 percent NDC Paris 
pledge.
    After transportation and electricity, the economic sectors 
with the highest emissions are industry and agriculture. Can 
you please tell us if the new regulations on these sectors are 
part of the President's plan to achieve the NDC?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you. I think that our participation 
in the development of the NDC was to characterize the emissions 
and then do a qualitative analysis of the regulatory authority 
we have to pursue it.
    And so, you know, this is a governmentwide approach. This 
isn't a ''EPA regulate solely your way out of this'' situation. 
And so, you know, what I can say is, between regulatory and 
nonregulatory opportunities, I think that the 
administrationwide is all in for looking at this 50 percent 
reduction goal. It is not squarely on the shoulders of EPA and 
EPA's regulatory authority.
    Mr. Carter. But tell me what nonregulatory procedures are. 
I am not sure I am understanding. I want to make sure I 
understand that.
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think that there are a lot of activities 
that are occurring in the private sector that we don't 
regulate. I know for sure, in talking with Secretary Vilsack, 
that there are a lot of activities that agriculture is pursuing 
voluntarily that we don't quantify and don't regulate.
    And so, again, these--and then there are lots of other 
things that happen outside of EPA's scope. I can't speak to the 
totality of all of the activities, but I can speak to EPA's 
activities and can assure you that, as we develop these 
regulations that contribute to the NDC, it will be done in a 
fully transparent manner that will engage all of our 
stakeholders.
    Mr. Carter. It is important to understand that these 
sectors, they are not monolithic, of course, and that true 
transparency requires more information. Can you tell the 
committee or provide for the record whether or not EPA plans 
regulations on, let's just say, livestock operations, soil 
management, iron and steel, municipal landfills, pulp and 
paper, refineries and petrochemical facilities, aluminum 
manufacturing, glass manufacturing, soda ash production, all of 
these things? Are you intending to pass regulations on these?
    Mr. Regan. You know, you gave a really long list, of which 
many are already following regulations or have regulations that 
they are working with the Agency on.
    And so, again, I think that we provided a qualitative 
assessment of what regulations or what statutory authority 
Congress has given us that will help contribute to the emission 
reductions that the NDC speaks to.
    So, you know, I don't know if the question is asking are 
there new regulations, or how existing regulations complement, 
but what I will tell you is, as we traditionally do when we 
develop regulations, we engage our stakeholders, those who are 
in the regulated community, and we plan to do that this time, 
no differently than we always have.
    Mr. Carter. I am sorry, Mr. Regan, and with all due 
respect, I am just having trouble understanding exactly what 
your plans are. And I think it is very important. You just said 
that you wanted to be transparent, but I think it is very 
important we understand.
    Look, I represent a lot of agriculture. I represent a lot 
of forestry. And they are not the problem. They are part of the 
solution. And I want to make sure EPA understands that they are 
part of the solution.
    Mr. Regan. I think if you were to speak with the ag CEOs 
across this country and the elected ag officials who supported 
my nomination, I have a track record of working with 
agriculture. And I have been working with Secretary Vilsack on 
how we can ensure that agriculture is at the table. So you and 
I are in agreement there.
    Mr. Carter. I certainly hope so, Mr. Regan. I appreciate 
you being here, and I appreciate you responding.
    And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman,
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman [audio malfunction].
    Mr. Tonko. You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
    Administrator Regan, welcome, and thank you for being here. 
We speak the same language in environmental justice concerns.
    I want to start by addressing the EPA's ongoing oversight 
of the Oasis Mobile Home Park in my district. It is very 
specific, but it really highlights some of the challenges in 
environmental justice that your agency is facing.
    This park is located on Tribal private land in a rural 
farm-worker community and has been under an EPA emergency order 
due to high levels of arsenic in the park's drinking water 
since August 2019. I am very happy with the administration's 
efforts on lead in pipe water throughout America. Arsenic is 
dangerous and causes harmful health effects, and we find 
arsenic in some of our low-income communities, as well. This 
effort to deal with the emergency order since August 2019, that 
is more than 20 months ago.
    I understand EPA's mission is to help water system owners 
get back into compliance when there is no contamination. 
However, this assumes that the system owners act in good faith. 
All public accounts indicate that the owner of Oasis Mobile 
Home Park has not acted in good faith. Over the past 20 months, 
park ownership has repeatedly missed EPA deadlines, failed to 
adequately provide replacement water for residents, threatened 
evictions, raised rent by more than 30 percent, and the list 
goes on, including informing their residents that the water was 
safe to drink when the EPA had not allowed that or cleared the 
water to drink. And therefore, residents were drinking with 
this water.
    As the EPA continues to work with the park, I am concerned 
that the focus on compliance is failing to address 
accountability. Administrator Regan, how will you work to 
ensure that Oasis residents are protected and that bad actors 
are held accountable for repeatedly violating EPA orders to 
provide clean, safe drinking water?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Ruiz. You are on mute, sir.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you for that. You know, I fully believe 
every community deserves clean drinking water. We will continue 
to partner with your office, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
California's EPA, and ensure that the technical assistance 
required from our Agency is given to the State, so that we can 
ensure that these----
    Mr. Ruiz. Well, I understand the technical----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Infractions are limited.
    Mr. Ruiz. I understand the technical assistance. My 
question is accountability. How far is far enough? How long is 
long enough?
    You know, we talk about the BIA. The BIA has been negligent 
and never permitted them to begin with to operate this 
business. And now they are coming around. So when is enough 
enough, and hold individuals accountable?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I will tell you what, I will look into the 
particulars of this and speak with my enforcement folks, and we 
will get an answer to you on that.
    Mr. Ruiz. I appreciate working with you, because I know in 
your heart you are about helping the environmental justice 
community. And at the core, this is an environmental justice 
issue. This is about the decisions and actions of the powerful 
affecting the health and well-being of the powerless.
    In my remaining time I would like to ask you about another 
element of the EPA's EJ mission. The American Rescue Plan 
included my bill, the Environmental Justice for Coronavirus-
Affected Communities, which provided EPA with $100 million for 
both environmental justice grants and air monitoring grants 
under the Clean Air Act. Community groups in my district, such 
as Alianza and Leadership Council, have long been advocating 
for better air monitoring in the Coachella Valley. My district 
faces a range of respiratory threats, from the particulate 
matter from the Salton Sea to agricultural burns and smog 
pollution.
    Yesterday the Washington Post reported that ``nearly every 
source of the Nation's most deadly air pollutants 
disproportionately affects Americans of color.'' This makes it 
that much more important that the affected communities have 
access to the funding meant to protect them.
    Administrator Regan, what is the status of this funding, 
and how is your office making sure that communities like mine 
are notified of these resources and that they are able to 
access these critical funds?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that. Thank you for your 
leadership on this. And we are in the process right now of 
developing the criteria to administer these funds.
    And what I can tell you is what we did immediately was we 
engaged the communities, to be sure that they were a part of 
our criteria and decision making for those who actually receive 
these funds. So it is a priority for us. We thank you for the 
resources that we received recently. And we have--we are on the 
ball.
    Mr. Ruiz. Doctor--Administrator Regan, I am a doctor in 
public health, emergency medicine. You cannot disassociate our 
environmental health with our public health and individuals' 
health. Part of our chronic health disparities is due to the 
chronic exposure to toxins in our water and air. And if we are 
going to address the pandemic appropriately and the chronic 
health disparities and the health of the American people, we 
need to address environmental justice.
    You are the guy that is going to help us get it done, and 
let's work together to ensure that every child can drink clean 
water and every family can bring clean--can breathe clean air 
in America.
    I yield back my time.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from the State of Michigan.
    Representative Dingell, you are represented for--or you are 
recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for today's 
important--and thank you, Administrator Regan, for being here, 
and congratulations on your historic appointment.
    Under the last administration, EPA ignored pressing 
environmental risks and moved the United States in the wrong 
direction on so many essential environmental protections. With 
your historic appointment, EPA is back in action. Sound science 
is the guide to policy. You have taken over this agency at a 
critical time, and your to-do list is long, and I care about 
most of your to-do list. So there is a lot of ground to cover, 
so I am going to move fast.
    Fuel economy. I am a car girl. I applaud the Environmental 
Protection Agency's proposal to restore California's authority 
to set its own emission standards. Yes, I support California. 
After the previous administration stripped this authority from 
the State of California, it caused serious uncertainty to the 
auto industry. Thank you for clarifying earlier EPA's timeline 
for reviewing the GHG and the fuel economy stance, but I need 
to dig deeper.
    As I understand it, due to lead time requirements, EPA will 
not be able to set a new rate until 2023, and NHTSA won't be 
able to set it until 2024. So just the delay in all of this is 
moving it down the line. It, obviously, worries many of us 
because we want to see the industry moving forward.
    Can you walk me through how compliance will work for model 
years 2021 and 2022?
    Are Trump standards enforced for companies that didn't sign 
on to the California framework, or at least for the nonsection 
177 States?
    And will the section 177 States enforce [audio malfunction] 
for those years?
    What role does California play?
    And I am concerned that the Trump standards might persist, 
and I think we all need to have a better understanding of what 
you are thinking about this. And I want to make sure the 
companies that did sign on to the--California aren't 
disadvantaged. So I think the industry is looking for some 
clarification.
    Mr. Regan. Well, we are engaging directly with the industry 
and with States like California.
    Number one, I believe in the statutory authority that 
California has. Each State should be able to lead. So we want 
to be sure that we follow the law, and we have filed the first 
step of a two-step process to do that.
    Listen, I think that we all have to live with the fact that 
we lost a few steps during the past administration. And so we 
have to go through a regulatory process, which--the President 
has indicated he wants to see a new proposed rule by July, all 
hands on deck. We are working extremely hard to do that. And 
while this first step does focus on model years through 2026, 
we are going to be very aggressive there.
    We also know that we have a second bite at the apple beyond 
model years 2026, and we have a rulemaking process there as 
well.
    And so, you know, regrettably, we lost a step, in terms of 
emission reductions. But we are coming back, and focused on how 
we make up for that lost time.
    And I can assure you, we are having conversations not only 
with the automobile industry but the unions as well. I believe 
that what the science requires for us to do, where the industry 
is moving, and a manner by which we can do it to keep these 
jobs domestically is within our reach.
    Mrs. Dingell. I want to work with you on that, and I hope 
that we get to know each other, and helping that.
    But I want to hit another subject before I am out of time. 
If you come from Michigan, you know about--you worry about 
clean water, and you worry about what my other colleagues have 
raised, about the pandemic has really made us focus on water as 
a human right. We tell people to wash their hands, and many 
people have had their water turned off and they haven't--they 
don't have access to clean water for public health, sanitary 
conditions. Water is life.
    I have been encouraging this administration to do an 
Executive order preventing water shutoffs nationally, and 
especially while HHS has yet to fully implement and deploy 
money from the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program, a 
new assistance program that Congress authorized in December 
through this committee, with my colleague, Rashida Tlaib, and I 
leading on.
    Can you tell me what efforts are underway at EPA to ensure 
every American has access to clean water during this ongoing 
global health panic--pandemic?
    And how do you plan to tackle the water debt crisis across 
so many communities?
    Mr. Regan. That is an important piece of the fiscal year 
2022 budget, but it is really prominently featured in the 
American Jobs Plan.
    What we need to do while we are assessing and looking at 
water infrastructure is ensuring that we pay attention to water 
affordability as well. I believe that we can focus on quality 
and affordability at the same time. And EPA has a track record 
in our loan and grant programs where we do just that, we focus 
on fixing the problem, providing quality water, and there is a 
significant focus on water affordability as well. And that is 
where grants primarily become the option, versus loans.
    It is a very serious issue, and we are grateful, in the 
American Jobs Plan, that the President is focused on it.
    Mrs. Dingell. Let's just try to not turn off anybody's 
water during this pandemic, and this administration needs to 
make sure that happens, I beg you.
    Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California.
    Representative Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chair Tonko. The proposed $2 
billion increase for the EPA budget is very promising, 
especially the focus on investing in programs that address 
clean air and clean water and environmental justice 
communities.
    In my district, the Port of Los Angeles is both a major 
economic engine that provides jobs, but it is also a source of 
pollution. This is a public health burden for communities of 
color in south Los Angeles, and it is an environmental justice 
issue felt by communities near ports around the country.
    Administrator Regan, can you please describe how EPA's 
proposed budget will help improve air quality at ports?
    And would you agree that this type of work is central to 
realizing the administration's climate and justice--
environmental justice goals?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and it is 
central.
    And when we look at our budget request of 2022, but also 
when we look at the American Jobs Plan, the American Jobs Plan 
really features resources that we can deploy to take a look at 
the impacts that ports are having on our communities. There are 
resources in there that really focus on how we get more air 
quality monitoring in these communities that are 
disproportionately impacted.
    But there are also grant dollars that would flow through 
the Agency to these communities to do a lot of work, in terms 
of how we develop partnerships with the communities and the 
ports to ensure that we have the best management practices in 
place, that we understand from an air-quality-monitoring 
standpoint what is happening on the ground, such that our 
regulations are accommodating to reducing the threat that 
emissions from ports have not only on the climate but also on 
our vulnerable communities.
    Ms. Barragan. And would you agree that the EPA has the 
experience and the expertise needed to establish and implement 
a program specifically focused on decarbonizing ports?
    Mr. Regan. We have the experience. We just need the 
resources.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, it is definitely worth noting that the 
American Jobs Plan seeks to invest heavily in efforts to reduce 
emissions from ports, in turn creating good-paying, high-
quality jobs.
    Mr. Administrator, I want to shift a little to a bill that 
I have. It is called the Climate Smart Ports Act. It 
established an--it establishes an EPA grant program to help 
ports purchase and install zero-emissions equipment and 
technology. These investments will address major sources of 
emissions from port infrastructure and the ships and trucks and 
trains that serve ports while also cleaning up the air that 
nearby communities breathe.
    House Democrats have introduced legislation called the 
CLEAN Future Act, and we believe that this bill can help 
implement parts of the American Jobs Plan. Do you believe that 
legislation should include a port electrification and 
decarbonizing program so that we can help meet these goals of 
the American Jobs Plan?
    Mr. Regan. You know, I would love to take a look at that 
legislation. You know, I have been on the job for about a good 
6 weeks now, I haven't had a chance to look at all of the 
legislation that has been raised today.
    But I do believe that, if we can advance electrification in 
our ports and in our transportation, it will only help, from an 
air quality standpoint as well as a climate standpoint.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. And the EPA--just--now I want to turn 
to something more local.
    The EPA is investigating a former industrial site in my 
district called Central Metal for eligibility on the Superfund 
National Priorities List. It was used for recycling scrap metal 
up until 2016. The EPA is supposed to test the soils in nearby 
neighborhoods this year for contamination.
    This facility was allowed to operate, for 15 years, so 
close to a district that is majority Latino and African-
American. It is an example of the kind of environmental 
injustice we need to prevent. Residents complained for years 
about bad odors, metallic taste in their mouths, loud noises, 
and bad truck traffic. I will invite you and the EPA and hope 
that we can work together closely with our office to move as 
quickly as possible to evaluate and, if necessary, remediate 
the Central Metal site.
    Thank you again, Administrator Regan, for your leadership, 
and I look forward to working with you.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The--recognized from Virginia.
    Representative McEachin, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, as 
always, for convening today's hearing and for--on this 
important subject of the fiscal year 2022 EPA budget.
    Mr. Regan--it is good to see you again, Director Regan.
    As a founding member of the United for Climate and 
Environmental Justice Task Force, along with my colleagues 
Congresswoman Nanette Barragan and Congresswoman Jayapal, and 
as a proud lead sponsor alongside Chairman Grijalva of the 
Environmental Justice For All Act, I was heartened to see the 
justice-supporting initiative included in the President's 
Executive order 14008 on tackling climate change. This 
initiative is critical. I am excited to partner with you on 
this work.
    Administrator Regan, how will your office work with 
communities that are most impacted to communicate the new 
funding opportunities under your EPA leadership?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. And, you 
know, I have directed every office within the Agency to look at 
how environmental justice and equity is integrated into our 
policies, our regulations, our contracting, and our 
procurement. So we do have a formal education outreach arm that 
will do a lot of the outreach.
    But I have the expectation that every single office has the 
accountability to engage with the communities that they do 
business with regularly, whether that be regulations, policy, 
and/or grant or loan programs.
    Mr. McEachin. Administrator, I need you to educate me a 
little bit on how your agency is working with CEQ on 
establishing what programs and investments will count towards 
the 40 percent.
    Mr. Regan. There is a very strong partnership there. The 
CEQ just confirmed the nominee, and so we have had an 
introductory meeting and we are mapping out how we best partner 
together.
    We know that there is an automatic chemistry between the 
White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council and EPA's 
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Those are two 
arms that--both entities will enjoy direct access to the 
community. So we plan to leverage that, in addition to some 
other plans that we are working on.
    Mr. McEachin. Let me just say, Mr. Administrator, that, as 
we build back better, communities that have been historically 
left behind must be prioritized. Forty percent should be the 
floor, quite frankly, not the ceiling, and I look forward to 
seeing how the Americans Jobs Plan can help meet that goal.
    Moving on to EJ screening, I believe the EPA's EJ screening 
tool has the potential to be incredibly helpful, not only for 
communities but for policymakers. Being able to better identify 
impacted communities will allow for more thoughtful 
considerations when it comes to permitting, enforcement, and 
overall prioritization of revitalization and mitigation 
efforts.
    Mr. Administrator, can you tell us how the EPA is working 
in tandem with OMB and CEQ to create a tool that accurately 
identifies environmental hazards and impacted communities?
    Mr. Regan. Well, this is very important, and this is 
something that I have experience in doing in North Carolina. 
You are exactly right. If we have the right tools, the right 
screening tools, local economic developers, chambers of 
commerce, lots of individuals are interested in that 
information so that they can do the appropriate planning. No 
one wants to run afoul of the law or be accused of 
disproportionately impacting anyone.
    And so I plan to bring that recipe to EPA as we work with 
CEQ and OMB, to ensure that our screening tools don't only 
empower us as the regulator but empower the very people who 
have to make decisions on the ground--many times are making 
decisions because they lack the information that we can 
provide.
    Mr. McEachin. You know, Mr. Administrator, the notion of 
cumulative impact, to my mind, is awfully important. Do you 
envision this tool helping to identify cumulative impacts that 
a community may be subject to?
    Mr. Regan. We believe that it can inform us on cumulative 
impacts, and we are in conversations--or I am in conversations 
right now with my general counsel and the experts here in the 
Agency to determine if we have all the tools we need to 
adequately address cumulative impact, or do we need more 
assistance from Congress. And we look forward to partnering 
with you on answering that question.
    Mr. McEachin. And to the extent that you feel like you need 
more assistance, please holler. You know, we want to make sure 
that we have cumulative impacts appropriately identified, and 
make sure that we are protecting these communities from any 
further damage.
    Mr. Chairman, EJ screening is a critical piece of the 
puzzle in terms of prioritizing and identifying communities 
most at risk. I look forward to working with EPA to address 
cumulative impacts, enforcement, and investment as we continue 
our work with the Agency.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time and your attention, 
and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. We thank you. And the 
Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from the State of 
Delaware.
    Representative Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for 5 
minutes, please.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and 
especially for calling this important hearing.
    And Administrator Regan, congratulations. It is good to see 
you in your new role. And thank you for your testimony here 
today.
    Like my colleagues Representatives Barragan and Dingell, I 
am working on and have introduced legislation such as my 
Climate Action Planning for Ports bill, or working on 
affordable, accessible, and clean water issues. But today I 
would like to focus on clean air.
    Last week, the American Lung Association released their 
annual State of the Air Report, showing that 40 percent of 
Americans live in areas where the air is unsafe to breathe. 
Forty percent. Clearly, we still have a lot of work to do to 
clean up our air.
    The report also reminded us that we need to improve our air 
monitoring system. Fewer than one-third of U.S. counties have 
monitors, meaning that families don't have access to real-time 
information about the air they are breathing. Frontline 
communities have been subjected to unsafe air for decades and 
have suffered the long-term health consequences and 
complications because of it.
    COVID-19 has only exacerbated this and shown us just how 
dangerous air pollution is to human health, particularly in our 
frontline communities. One step in empowering and protecting 
these communities is figuring out what pollutants they are 
currently exposed to. That is why I introduced the Public 
Health Air Quality Act, and I am proud it is included in the 
CLEAN Future Act. This bill will significantly improve and 
expand our air quality monitoring network and make sure EPA has 
the resources it needs.
    Administrator Regan, I would ask that my staff continue to 
work with your office, and I would love to have a commitment 
that you will work with us on some of those important issues.
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you. You do have my commitment, and 
I will say that, in our 2022 budget and in the ARP, this is 
exactly why we requested resources for air quality monitoring. 
It is a very important piece of the puzzle.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much. As a matter of 
fact, you preempted me. In the American Rescue Plan, we 
appropriated $50 million to EPA for air quality monitoring 
programs under the Clean Air Act. What progress has EPA made in 
getting the $50 million out the door, and what will that money 
accomplish?
    Mr. Regan. You know, it will accomplish a lot. And what we 
have done is we have started the process of engaging directly 
with our communities that have been overburdened, to determine 
and ascertain where these monitors should be placed and the 
types of information that we should be collecting.
    We didn't want to rush and be paternalistic. We wanted to 
engage the communities, get their buy-in. The $50 million is 
going to be a good shot in the arm. The $100 million, as we 
have asked for in the 2022 budget, would be another shot in the 
arm. But we need to keep right on pressing on this air quality 
issue.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Could you talk a little bit deeper--I 
was pleased to see that your discretionary budget request asked 
for 100 million for a new air quality monitoring and 
notification program. Can you talk a little bit more about it?
    What goals do you have for the funding and the new program?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, it is really designed to better 
inform our air quality monitoring system. This isn't a 
situation where government wants to grow and build, this is an 
opportunity for us to give grants directly to the States, to 
the Tribes, and to the communities, arm them with the 
information on how to use these resources so that they can 
begin to monitor their air quality themselves and then 
communicate with us, as the Federal Government, so that we can 
partner with these local communities and these States.
    This is extremely important, and a really good step 
forward, in terms of building the confidence that we need our 
communities to have in their Federal Government.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And my last question is, do you need 
more to repair and expand on the air quality monitoring system?
    In particular, do you have sufficient staff to address 
these challenges?
    Mr. Regan. You know, we have taken a serious hit in staff 
over the past 4 years. Over close to 1,000 people have walked 
out of the door. We are hoping to recoup some of that lost 
expertise.
    I want to say we are making progress. With this 2020 ask, 
the resources that the President is calling for in the American 
Jobs Plan, you know, we really want to fight for those precious 
resources, and they will get us on our way.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. And 
also, I want to say, on behalf of my sister, she too has Aggie 
Pride. So welcome, and we are glad to have you on this mission. 
Thank you, sir.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
    Representative Soto, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please, and thank you for joining.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, and welcome, 
Administrator Regan. I appreciate your leadership on EPA.
    In Florida we face intensifying hurricanes, rising sea 
levels, and if we do nothing to bend the curve on emissions we 
will see over 100 extremely hot days a year by 2050. We know we 
have to do something about it, which is why I am so excited 
about President Biden's goal of cutting U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions in half by 2030, which reflects this urgency.
    According to a recent New York Times report, new data shows 
methane levels in the atmosphere reaching record-high levels 
last year. If the 2020 rescission rule remains in effect, would 
the U.S. still be on track to make the methane reductions 
necessary to limit warming by 1.5 degrees and avoid the worst 
climate harms and meet the President's climate targets?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, based on the activities that are 
occurring with the CRA, what I would say is we are on target to 
propose a new regulation in September that would be on track 
with helping to get the deep cuts in methane emissions to help 
in part meet the President's goal. We are excited to say that 
we are engaging with the industry, because the technology 
exists and we are going to keep forging ahead.
    Mr. Soto. So with these new protections to protect our air 
and atmosphere from methane at high levels, it looks like we 
will stay on track. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
    In addition, we are really appreciative of the 21 percent 
increase in drinking water infrastructure. We have seen some 
issues with some of the cleaning resin affecting water 
infrastructure in central Florida and the city of St. Cloud in 
my district.
    We are also really excited about the increase from 682 to 
$882 million for the Superfund sites, because we have an issue 
still with phosphogypsum stacks, both in Polk County as well as 
in Piney Point, which you may have seen just recently.
    Can we count on you to commit, if we get this increased 
funding, to help clean up these sites and hold polluters 
accountable for these phosphogypsum stacks in central Florida 
and Tampa Bay?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, we have been in close communication with 
the State of Florida on these issues. We see an effective 
partnership occurring with the State, and we will continue to 
be present and provide resources and technical assistance as 
needed.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Mr. Administrator.
    And finally, I am very excited to see strong climate 
leadership from the Biden administration to boldly act on the 
climate crisis, rebuild our economy, and create millions of 
good, family-supporting jobs in the process.
    Turning to President Biden's American Jobs Plan, which 
boldly outlines an economic recovery centered around tackling 
the climate crisis, how would the investments in the American 
Jobs Plan address the climate crisis, and what is EPA's role 
overall?
    Mr. Regan. You know, EPA plays a significant role. And, you 
know, the climate crisis, this is an opportunity for us to look 
at ways to leverage technology to reduce the harmful 
pollutants, like you mentioned with methane.
    But the reality is that we are going to be living with many 
of the impacts that we are seeing. And so resiliency is 
incredibly important. And this is where the $111 billion in 
water infrastructure is so important. We need a more resilient 
water infrastructure to withstand not only climate change 
impacts but the attacks we are seeing from cyber issues as 
well.
    But the good news is that not only are we hardening that 
structure, we are creating millions of jobs and creating 
opportunities to provide good-quality drinking water.
    And by the way, in States like North Carolina and Florida 
we need to repair our storm water so that we can decrease the 
flooding that we are seeing because of inadequate 
infrastructure, as well as our wastewater treatment facilities 
overflowing as well.
    So pollution reduction, resiliency, jobs, good-quality 
drinking water, there are huge opportunities for EPA in the 
Jobs Plan.
    Mr. Soto. Mr. Administrator, I am glad you mentioned the 
storm water issues. We just saw a grant being awarded to our 
district just yesterday from the HUD resiliency grants that 
came about through reaction and response to Hurricane Irma in 
Buenaventura Lakes in my district. So we strongly encourage you 
to continue working with your partners in HUD on those storm 
water resiliency methods as well as with utilities.
    We are only going to get stronger hurricanes, both in the 
Outer Banks of North Carolina and South Carolina as well as in 
Florida. So we look forward to continuing to work with you. And 
thank you so much for your leadership.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and we now will move 
to a few of our colleagues who have waived on to the 
subcommittee. We will begin with Dr. Burgess, the gentleman 
from the State of Texas.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes, please, sir.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Tonko. Representative Burgess, Dr. Burgess from the 
State of Texas, if you are with us, I know you wanted to waive 
on to subcommittee----
    Mr. Burgess. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tonko. You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Burgess. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, for the 
recognition.
    Administrator Regan, welcome to our subcommittee. Thank you 
for testifying today. You spoke just a moment ago to 
Representative Blunt Rochester from Delaware about having to 
restore some staffing capacity to the Agency. Did I hear you 
correctly?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Burgess. So at the present time can you kind of give us 
a round-number figure as to the number of staff that you intend 
to hire?
    Mr. Regan. Well, over the past 4 years we lost close to 
1,000 employees. And as we look at what is required of the 
Agency to be sure that we are protecting our drinking water and 
looking at air quality issues as to climate, what this budget 
does for us, it spells out needed resources to get back to 
where we were prior to 4 years ago, and then assess the 
additional staff we need to carry out our duties to protect 
clean air and clean water.
    Mr. Burgess. Well, and that is very admirable. We want you 
to have the staff that you require. We would also like some 
transparency in the hiring process, and how people are--
throughout the Agency.
    As you know, our committee is tasked with the oversight of 
your budget. Do you know what title 42 hiring authority is?
    Mr. Regan. I am sorry?
    Mr. Burgess. Do you know what title 42 hiring authority is?
    Mr. Regan. I don't believe I am familiar with that specific 
authority.
    Mr. Burgess. So years ago, the Environmental Protection 
Agency was actually part of the Department of Health and Human 
Services, or perhaps even the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare. But there was a title 42 exception that allowed 
personnel to be hired at a higher pay rate than they--to which 
they would otherwise have been--had available to them. And this 
was the subject of an IG report, and this is back in March of 
2015. And, Mr. Administrator, I will be happy to make sure my 
staff gets a copy of this to you, if you don't have it already. 
The title of the IG--the report of the inspector general was 
``EPA Needs to Justify How it is Using Title 42 Hiring 
Authority.''
    And here is the concern, that a--and in some of our 
previous investigative work that we did in previous Congresses, 
we found, for example, that a starting chemist might be hired 
at a much higher rate than they otherwise would have been at 
one of the other agencies.
    So here is one of the things that has bothered me, 
historically, as a member of this committee. It appears that 
the EPA is using title 42 hiring authority despite lacking the 
authorization to do so from this committee. It was an assumed 
authorization when the EPA was previously within Department of 
Health and Human Services and has endured without the proper 
authorization from the authorizing committee, which would be 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    So, I guess from your original answer, you are not aware 
that the EPA was using title 42 hiring authority despite not 
having the authorization.
    Mr. Regan. I was just informed by my CFO that we do have 
the hiring authority--the authorization, excuse me. We do have 
the authorization.
    Mr. Burgess. Well, that has actually been the subject of 
some debate, and your inspector general perhaps felt otherwise. 
In that 2015 report your own Office of Inspector General called 
for the Environmental Protection Agency to justify how it is 
using that authority. My feeling on this committee, as the 
authorizing committee, that is a legitimate question, and I 
would just ask you if we can expect to get that question 
answered.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. I have had a couple of meetings with my IG, 
just as late as this week, and that hasn't come up. But I will 
circle back with our IG and get that answer--that question 
answered for you.
    Mr. Burgess. But--and the only other request is, if you do 
use the title 42 hiring authority, can you--moving forward, 
will you help us and commit to us that each hire is properly 
justified and regularly reported to this committee?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, we want to be transparent and follow the 
rules and follow the law. So, yes.
    Mr. Burgess. I appreciate your candor.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the recognition. I will yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, the gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from the State of Florida, who is 
also waiving on to the subcommittee. She serves as chair of the 
Select Committee on Climate.
    Representative Castor?
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chair Tonko, for allowing me 
to waive on, and thank you for your leadership.
    Administrator Regan, it is very good to see you again. The 
Environmental Protection Agency is central to the ability of 
our neighbors to lead healthy lives, so I am grateful to 
everyone who serves there every day. And it occurred to me, 
just over the past couple of weeks being home here in Tampa, 
how EPA improves the health and the lives of my neighbors day 
in and day out.
    One, I was out at a--with the university-area CDC. They are 
focused on an at-risk community, and they have used a 
brownfields assessment grant. And the leaders there said that 
it has been instrumental in their ability to go into some drug-
infested neighborhoods, purchase property, turn that into a 
park, single-family homes, and they want to do more. So it is 
good to see brownfields included in the budget.
    Then I was out with the county commissioner earlier this 
week. We were looking at a part of town where they are still on 
a septic system, but they are very close to Tampa Bay. And they 
have a plan to connect a lot of those homes to water and 
wastewater over time, but they can only take a little chunk at 
a time. So it is great to see you putting more--proposing more 
resources for a clean water revolving loan.
    And then, as my colleague Congressman Soto mentioned, we 
just had a devastating toxic stew from an abandoned 
phosphogypsum stack pour millions of gallons of--it was a very 
acidic water into Tampa Bay. It is pretty gross, by the way. It 
is impacting shellfish areas, fishermen. It is probably going 
to lead to harmful algal bloom, where--you know, we are 
suffering through red tide that comes and goes over time. But 
this--it also impacts the health of folks. And EPA was here, in 
partnership with folks at the local level in the State. And I 
want to thank you for that.
    And then it is the Tampa Bay estuary program that has been 
able to follow up and keep track of the water quality in the 
Bay and make sure that the public understands what is 
happening. And I know that the estuary program is another EPA 
initiative as well.
    So all of these, I understand, will receive additional 
support in the proposed budget, is that right?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, that is right.
    Ms. Castor. That is fantastic, and that is just in my 
community. This is--you just replicate that all across America, 
and it is so very important.
    Now that the--with President Biden's election, there is a 
new emphasis, thankfully, as many of my colleagues have 
mentioned, on environmental justice. Congressman McEachin and 
others have asked some questions on that, and we do understand 
that there are many working-class communities and communities 
of color all across America that have been disproportionately 
burdened by pollution.
    In the Select Committee on Climate Crisis, in our action 
plan that we published last year, we had some recommendations 
there for stepping up the monitoring of the air and water 
quality, increased enforcement, increased capacity of our 
environmental justice groups. How will EPA prioritize 
environmental justice communities for more monitoring and 
enforcement?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you. It is a critical component of 
how we plan to do business. moving forward.
    Again, I have directed all of my senior leadership to 
incorporate environmental justice and equity into the DNA of 
the work that they do in all of the offices at EPA.
    But as you note, in the 2022 budget and in the American 
Jobs Plan there are specific resources called out to focus 
specifically on environmental justice communities that have 
been disproportionately impacted, especially through that air 
quality lens, but also, as we look to address water quality 
issues, as well, like, you know, lead in pipes and the like.
    So there is a combination of looking at how we integrate it 
through policy and regulation, through our existing work, and 
then those additional resources we need for air quality, water 
affordability, as we move forward.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you, and I know we need to also build the 
capacity of those groups, so that they have a meaningful seat 
at the table when it comes to clean water, clean air, and 
action on climate. So is that included as well?
    Mr. Regan. There are. There are opportunities for grants, 
in partnership with communities directly, as well as with the 
States. We know that communities and States know themselves 
much better than the Federal Government ever could. And so we 
are relying heavily on that to get it right.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentlelady yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
    Representative O'Halleran, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Well, thank you, Chairman Tonko, for 
holding this important meeting today. I would like to thank 
Administrator Regan for testifying today. I am encouraged by 
what I have seen from the EPA for the first 100 days of this 
administration.
    I represent an area in Arizona that is large and rural, 
spanning more than half the State of Arizona. I guess you can 
say the easy part is it is larger by 2,000 square miles than 
the State of Illinois. Rural areas need infrastructure 
investments. I appreciate your mentioning the need for water 
infrastructure projects, which is a big concern in Arizona.
    In your testimony you also said that under your leadership 
the EPA will do everything in its power to clean up and restore 
land for our communities. I hope you don't mind that I am going 
to hold you to that promise.
    There are over 250 abandoned uranium mines on Navajo Nation 
land in Arizona. They are there because the Government asked 
them to allow that mining to go on in the 1940s. For decades, 
millions of tons of uranium were mined on Navajo lands. These 
mines have had health impact to local families, including 
children, including death also. None of the sites could be 
considered safe, but families live there, children play there, 
and livestock grazes there. In fact, there's 1,000 homes with--
partially made out of land, adobe, from those mines.
    Last year your predecessor in the EPA added the Navajo 
abandoned uranium mines to the Administrator's Superfund 
emphasis list. This is a welcome step in the right direction. 
It is only about 6 decades too late, or 5 decades too late.
    Two months ago, the EPA announced 220 million in cleanup 
funds, contracts coming out of a $1.77 billion settlement in 
2015. I want to see this cooperation continue at a higher 
level. Those funds will only address 200-some mines, maybe, at 
the continuing cost figures. Those funds have been there for a 
long time and not been used, for whatever reason. There needs 
to be more personnel placed on this project. They need to work 
closer to the project, instead of San Francisco or--now Denver 
is going to open up as an area. I want to see this cooperation 
continue at a much higher rate.
    Now, what approach are you going to take when working with 
communities such as the Navajo Nation, which are hardest hit by 
environmental hazards?
    And it has been mentioned environmental justice is 
important.
    Would you please answer that?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. Well, thank you for raising that, and I 
know we will continue to work very closely with the Navajo 
Nation on expediting the cleanup of those, as you mentioned, 
230 sites. But we recognize that there's about 270 more. And we 
are going to put a special emphasis on 46 sites, which we have 
ranked really high. The reality is that, with the resources 
that we are asking for in the 2022 budget and with the American 
Jobs Plan, there is a focus on how we engage more closely and 
more strongly with these disadvantaged communities.
    It only empowers and bolsters EPA's ability to do so if we 
get those results, and so my staff is keenly focused on 
continuing to do the work that we are doing, but also ways that 
we can strengthen our partnerships with these local communities 
to be sure that we are putting the resources in the right 
place.
    Mr. O'Halleran. How is the EPA under your leadership going 
to make these cleanup efforts a priority?
    We have heard this from past administrations, from past EPA 
directors, we have heard it time and time and time again, and 
yet decades go by and nothing gets done.
    And you don't have to ask for money. It is there in the 
trust fund right now. So I am still wondering where we are at, 
and how can your leadership make a change?
    Mr. Regan. I think what we have done is we have prioritized 
these types of issues. And this is where, through the 
environmental justice lens, this Agency is taking very 
seriously how we prioritize our response to communities that 
have been disproportionately impacted for far too long.
    And so it does require a new emphasis on these communities, 
which we are engaging on, but it also requires additional 
resources. This Agency has been hit severely over the past 4 
years and prior. And so the combination of additional resources 
and this new focus on environmental justice and equity should 
yield a stronger result in this area.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Mr. Regan, I appreciate your time here 
today. I look forward to extended discussions on this issue and 
other issues of cleanup.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and that, I believe, 
concludes the list of colleagues who have chosen to question 
our witness today. I will take care of some additional business 
before we move to adjourn.
    I request unanimous consent to enter the following 
documents into the record: a 2020 letter from 27 Members of 
Congress to former EPA Administrator Wheeler on the proposed PM 
2.5 rule; a 2020 letter from 28 Members of Congress to former 
EPA Administrator Wheeler on the proposed Ozone Air Quality 
Standards Rule; an article from Politico entitled ``Biden's 
climate target math still a mystery;'' an article from E&E News 
entitled ``Whiff of the unthinkable at EPA: CO2 standards for 
states;'' an article from Inside EPA entitled 
``Environmentalists Bolster Years-Old Petition for EPA to Set 
CO2 NAAQS;'' and a client update from Baker Botts entitled 
``EPA's PFAS Policy Change May Delay Market Entry for 
Innovative Chemicals;'' a 2018 letter from 6 State attorneys 
general to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton; a submission of 
the United States' Nationally Determined Contribution, in line 
with article 4 of the Paris Agreement; a 2021 letter from 
Patrick Morrissey, attorney general of West Virginia, to EPA 
Administrator Regan.
    So any objection?
    Hearing none, without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Tonko. Again, Administrator Regan, we thank you for 
participating with us today. You have endured for several hours 
here, and we thank you for responding to the questions posed 
your way.
    I speak for myself, for certain, and I believe Members 
across the board on this subcommittee and with the standing 
Committee of Energy and Commerce that we look forward to 
working with you.
    I wish you success. Your success translates into success 
for the stewardship of our planet Earth. So we thank you for 
your leadership.
    I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have 10 business days by which to submit additional questions 
for the record to be answered by our witness.
    I ask that you, Administrator Regan, respond promptly, 
please, to any such questions that you may receive.
    And at this time the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
                                 [all]