[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]