[Senate Hearing 117-334]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-334

                    HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JOSEPH 
                     GOFFMAN TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 
                     FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 
                     AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN-
                     CY

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

                                HEARING

                              BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 25, 2022

                               __________

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

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-287 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------         
       
               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia 
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                     DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                     JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

             Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                              MAY 25, 2022
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
Casey, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania.....     2
Capito, Hon. Shelly More, U.S. Senator from the State of West 
  Virginia.......................................................     6

                               WITNESSES

Goffman, Joseph, For Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 
  Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency.....................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Responses to Additional Questions from Senators:
    Kelly........................................................    14
    Capito.......................................................    21
    Inhofe.......................................................    39
    Cramer.......................................................    44
    Lummis.......................................................    47
    Sullivan.....................................................    50
    Ernst........................................................    52

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter of support from the American Public Health Association for 
  the Nomination of Joseph Goodman...............................     4
Letter of response to Senator Capito from Joseph Goodman.........    59
Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court relating to Federal Laws and 
  Greenhouse Gases...............................................    65
Letter from the Avgas Coalition expressing serious concerns on 
  the unilateraldecision of one airport to prohibit the sale of 
  leaded avgas...................................................    97
Document that shows that the United States per capita emissions 
  are double that of China.......................................   116
Letter of support for Mr. Goffman's nomination from the Renewable 
  Fuels Associationand the U.S. Ethanol Industries Trade 
  Association....................................................   124
Senator Carpers' statement on the recent updates to the Cross-
  State Air Pollution Rule.......................................   133
Letter to Administrator Regan form Senator Capito and Member of 
  Congress David McKinley........................................   138
Letter of support from:..........................................
    United Steelworkers Unity and Strength for Workers...........   140
    American Forest & Paper Association..........................   142
    AFL-CIO Legislative Alert....................................   144
    The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy..............   145
    Calstart Clean Transportation Technologies and Solutions.....   146
    Earth Justice, Environmental Defense Fund, Climate Action 
      Campaign...................................................   147
Report by Congressional Research Service; How Climate Change may 
  Affect the U.S. Economy........................................   149
Letters of support from:.........................................
    EEI Edison Electric Institute................................   170
    Austin Energy, Calpine Corporation, Calpine Corporation......   171
    Evergreen Action.............................................   172
    Exelon.......................................................   173
    Constellation................................................   174
    National Parks Conservation Association 100 Years............   176
    National Tribal Air Association NTAA.........................   178
    Advanced Biofuels Association, Renewable Natural Gas, Low 
      Carbon Fuels Coalition, NATA The Voice of Aviation 
      Business, Alder Fuels, Ecoengineers, GEVE, Oberon Fuels, 
      World Energy...............................................   179
    International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
      Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW..............   180
    United Mine Workers of America...............................   181
    WEACT for Environmental Justice..............................   182
Letter of undersigned Senators to Administrator Reagan concerning 
  the waiver authority under the Clean Air Act to waive or 
  significantly reduce the renewable volume obligations..........   184
Letter of undersigned Senators to Administrator Reagan concerning 
  taking steps to alleviate the harm imposed by the Renewable 
  Fuel Standard..................................................   186

 
      HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JOSEPH GOFFMAN TO BE ASSISTANT 
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
                           PROTECTION AGENCY

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse, 
Markey, Kelly, Padilla, Inhofe, Cramer, Lummis, Boozman, 
Sullivan, Ernst.

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

    Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome 
our nominee, and I want to welcome our colleague, Senator 
Casey. I want to welcome especially the wife of Joe Goffman. 
Thank you for sharing your husband with all of us in this 
Country. I told her, I am going to be watching to see if your 
lips move while he speaks, so we will know who is calling the 
shots.
    I was communicating into the night last night with John 
Cornyn. John and I were supposed to be chairing another hearing 
this afternoon on our Trade Committee dealing with supply chain 
resilience. He texted me last night and said he was on his way 
back to Texas. I think I would like to start with a moment of 
silence.
    [Pause.]
    Senator Carper. Amen, thanks.
    Today, we are here to consider the nomination of one Joe 
Goffman to serve as Assistant Administrator for the Office of 
Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Joseph, welcome back to the EPW Committee, a place you know 
well. While I know this hearing room brings back memories, both 
probably good and bad, from your time working with us on this 
committee, today you join us as a nominee. I want to thank you 
for being here and for your willingness to serve our Nation at 
this critical point in our history.
    Before I talk a little bit about Mr. Goffman's experience 
and qualifications, I want to call on Senator Casey. Bobby, 
they didn't write you in my script. I want to call on you just 
to make some comments, and then once you have done that, we 
want you to sit with us for the next 3 hours.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. No, I am kidding. We are delighted that you 
are here and welcome your comments on Joe. Thank you.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CASEY, JR., 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

    Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to 
thank you and the Ranking Member for the privilege of appearing 
before the committee. Today, I come here proud, as a 
Pennsylvanian, to introduce Joe Goffman, who is, as the 
Chairman mentioned, the nominee to serve as Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation at the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    Joe grew up in Philadelphia in the Olney section of 
Philadelphia, a community that I know, having worked as I did 
as a young man in North Philadelphia as a volunteer. Olney is 
just kind of at the other end, the higher end, of North Philly. 
I know of his personal experience when he was working as a 
young man and also his academic background.
    I think, if I had to encapsulate, or if he were to 
encapsulate his 40-year career, it is a career that is centered 
on public service and his dedication to protecting the health 
and the environment of the American people. He has worked in 
the Senate, of course, as well as the executive branch. He 
knows that the best results for our Nation's health, 
environment, and economy happen through public engagement and a 
collaborative, open-minded problem-solving approach. We can be 
sure that he will listen to all sides of the issues before him 
while faithfully adhering to the law, the science, and expert 
technical advice.
    Joe Goffman's nomination has broad and diverse support. He 
has secured this support from labor organizations, from the 
Mine Workers to the Steel Workers to the United Auto Workers 
and to the AFL--CIO overall. Many of America's farmer and 
biofuels organizations have supported his nomination, including 
the National Corn Growers Association, the National Farmers 
Union, the American Soybean Association, just to name a few.
    As well, leading voices in the environmental community, 
whether it is environmental NGO's, the environmental justice 
community, including the Evangelical Environmental Network, 
Earthjustice, the National Resource Defense Council, Moms Clean 
Air Force, as well as the American Public Health Association 
all support the swift confirmation of Joe as Assistant 
Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation.
    His decades of legal, legislative policy, and practical 
experience has helped craft and shape the clean air programs 
that American enjoys. The first was the landmark Acid Rain 
Program, which is widely recognized for its innovation, 
effectiveness, and durability. In 1989 and 1990, when Joe 
served as Associate Counsel for this committee, he worked on 
the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments that 
established the first-of-its-kind cap-and-trade program to cut 
pollution that was harming our lakes and streams, clouding the 
Appalachians with haze, and threatening millions of Americans.
    After President George H.W. Bush signed the amendments in 
to law, Joe took the experience he has gained and put it to 
work with the talented and dedicated career staff at the EPA to 
implement the legislation. Fast forward 30 years, and that 
program has reduced acid rain pollution to a fraction of 1990 
levels, affordably better protecting our treasured mountains, 
lakes, and streams while helping millions of Americans live 
longer, healthier lives breathing cleaner air.
    That type of experience, helping to write the law, putting 
it into practice, and then ensuring that it is working as 
intended was reflected in the major air pollution programs Joe 
helped to develop when he held senior positions during the 
Obama administration with programs that have improved both air 
quality and protected people's health. That is why he is 
uniquely qualified to serve as Assistant Administrator.
    Joe Goffman has an abiding commitment to public service. He 
has dedicated his career to environmental laws and policy aimed 
at safeguarding and improving Americans' health and their 
prosperity.
    I respectfully ask the members of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee to support his nomination. Chairman 
Carper and Ranking Member Capito, I ask unanimous consent to 
add letters of support from the aforementioned stakeholders 
into the record.
    Senator Carper. Without objection.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you very much. Joe, you could not 
have a better advocate sitting at this table. We are grateful 
that he would come and spend this time and share these thoughts 
with us. Thank you. Thank you, Bob.
    Before I talk a bit about Mr. Goffman's experience and 
qualifications, let me begin by setting the table for what is 
at stake with his nomination. Senator Casey, we understand you 
have a million other responsibilities. You are more than 
welcome to stay to the bitter end. It won't be bitter, but you 
are more than welcome to stay, but if you have to go do your 
day job, feel free to slip out.
    Make no mistake, we have come a long way in terms of 
reducing air pollution and doing so without harming our 
Nation's economy. Since Congress passed the historic Clean Air 
Act of 1970, we have reduced our Nation's soot and smog 
pollution by nearly 80 percent. Let me say that again. Since 
the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970, we have reduced our 
Nation's soot and smog pollution by nearly 80 percent, while 
our gross domestic product grew by more than 250 percent, more 
than 250 percent, adjusted for inflation.
    Along the way, we found that cleaner air is an enormous 
benefit to all Americans, with the benefits outweighing the 
costs by nearly 30 to one. Yet, despite all of our successes, 
many of the most vulnerable Americans still breathe air that is 
unhealthy, especially those living in disadvantaged and low-
income communities in all of our States, all of our States. 
According to EPA's research, non-white children today are much 
more likely to die from air pollution than white children in 
our Country.
    We have a moral imperative to do more to help all Americans 
breathe healthy air, and we can no longer turn a blind eye to 
downwind and frontline communities.
    At the same time, we have a moral imperative to do all we 
can to save this planet that we call home from the perils of 
climate change. We are running out of time to change course 
before it is too late.
    Last month, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change warned us that it is ``now or never'' if we are 
going to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid 
a future with disastrous, irreversible climate impacts. 
Communities across our Country and the planet are already 
feeling the impacts of climate change in the form of rising sea 
levels, historic droughts, and other extreme weather.
    Just last week, the National Weather Service released its 
seasonal outlook. It predicted that the drought gripping the 
American West and fueling record-breaking wildfires would 
persist throughout the summer. As we gather here today, the 
State of New Mexico continues to battle the worst forest fire 
in its history.
    To put it simply, the climate crisis is here. We are at a 
critical point when it comes to addressing this crisis and 
mobilizing our Nation toward a better future by transitioning 
away from fossil fuels and deploying, over time, cleaner 
technologies.
    Fortunately, we have an EPA under the Biden Administration, 
in particular, the Office of Air and Radiation, that is willing 
to follow the law and tackle these great clean air and climate 
challenges that lay in front of us. With all of this said, it 
is clear that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air 
and Radiation has an outsized impact on our lives, from 
protecting Americans from planet-warming pollution to cleaning 
up air toxics to improving vehicle emissions standards.
    President Biden selected Joe Goffman to lead this office 
because he knows that Mr. Goffman is up to the task. Throughout 
his time at EPA, Joe Goffman has demonstrated his commitment to 
following the law in a way that provides cleaner air and a 
safer climate for all of us, while also providing 
predictability and certainty for industry. Predictability and 
certainty are always top priorities for businesses.
    A great example of this is Mr. Goffman's integral role in 
the crafting of the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule while he was at 
EPA under the Obama administration. This rule helped reduce 
mercury and other air toxic emissions from our Nation's power 
plants by 90 percent, protecting the health of pregnant women 
and children across our Nation.
    Despite early industry concerns the rule would cause 
blackouts, there were not any. In fact, the rule was achieved 
by every utility in the Country on time and under budget. 
Today, every major utility organization supports the rule. It 
has enabled us to achieve major health benefits across this 
Country, which is fundamental to job creation and job 
preservation. This is just one example of why Joe Goffman is so 
deeply respected and highly qualified for the job at hand.
    Joe has garnered broad support from the environmental 
community and industry. That probably comes as no surprise. I 
would add to that, this support includes utility organizations 
like the Edison Electric Institute, biofuel groups such as 
Renewable Fuels Association, tribal organizations like the 
National Tribal Air Association, as well as some of our largest 
unions, including the AFL-CIO.
    To my amazement, even the United Mine Workers, our Nation's 
largest union of coal miners, have voiced their support for Mr. 
Goffman's nomination to lead the Office of Air and Radiation. 
The list goes on.
    Having worked a bit with Mr. Goffman, I know he is well 
prepared for this role. He is a lifelong public servant with 
nearly a decade of experience at the Office of Air and 
Radiation as well as several stints serving on this committee, 
the EPW Committee, that we are privileged to serve on today. He 
also spent time as a staffer for former Senator Joe Lieberman. 
We look forward to hearing from Joe today.
    Before we hear from you, though, we are going to hear from 
this good lady to my right, who brought today a young 7-year-
old with her. Maybe she would like to mention who that is, but 
we are happy to welcome her, and delighted to be with you. 
Senator Capito?

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
for the very meaningful moment of silence. I know that many of 
us are just deeply heartbroken by the news that we hear in 
Texas today.
    I guess, more poignantly, I was lucky enough to have my 7-
year-old granddaughter, Eliza Capito, with me today. She is on 
break right now. She is here seeing government in the making. 
Like any proud grandmother, thank both of you for taking time 
to meet with her, and thank you for holding today's 
confirmation hearing.
    We appreciate having the hearing on our nominee to serve as 
the Assistant Administrator of the EPA's Office of Air and 
Radiation. Mr. Joe Goffman, thank you for the visit to my 
office last week.
    President Biden, apparently, has chosen to wait longer than 
any other incoming President to nominate an Assistant 
Administrator for this very important office, a full 412 days, 
which bests the record set by President Clinton, who nominated 
Mary Nichols by a full 5 months.
    That delay sort of puzzled me at first. After all, the 
President has made climate change such a pillar of his campaign 
and his first few days in office, when he took unilateral 
executive actions to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline to transport 
Canadian oil into the United States. He announced plans for new 
greenhouse regulations on sectors across the economy, including 
the power, oil, and gas sectors, imposed freezes and 
uncertainty on Federal oil and gas leasing and promised a 
whole-of-government approach to address a ``climate crisis.''
    I note that, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and pandemic 
supply chain issues, the American consumer is now burdened by 
the fruits of those early policy choices in the form of higher 
prices for goods, energy, food, and especially gasoline.
    The President has also made big promises about being 
transparent with the American people. Logically, if climate 
change and transparency were such high priorities, one of the 
first positions I think he would have announced would be the 
lead official for the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, the 
lead Federal agency in regulation air emissions in this 
Country. But it turns out, I think, in some cases, transparency 
and accountability are not the first priorities.
    By holding this nomination for over a year, he has shielded 
the Office of Air and Radiation and, by extension, all of the 
Administration's current and forthcoming climate regulations 
from any real scrutiny. Because of this delay, until today, the 
American people's elected officials in Congress, and that is 
us, have had no opportunity to provide counsel on a nominee or 
conduct direct oversight over the office that Mr. Goffman has 
led, essentially, in his acting capacity.
    It is a bit dismissive, I think, of our constitutional 
advise and consent role here in the Senate that President Biden 
chose to fill the role with somebody who has actually been in 
the role and is now being nominated to run since day one. This 
all comes across clearly as a tactic, I think, designed to 
shield that office and Mr. Goffman from being answerable to 
Congress and the American people, but we are glad he is here 
today to start fulfilling that obligation.
    Unfortunately, hiding policies from congressional oversight 
is a pattern when it comes to President Biden and his White 
House and the climate czars. He has tasked the czars in the 
White House with developing climate plans and executing them, 
hidden from the accountability to the public. I talked about 
this, interestingly enough, I must have been clairvoyant, 
because I have been talking about it at every hearing, but I 
talked about it at our very first hearing.
    Even as a sitting Senator and Ranking Member of the 
committee, when I have written to White House officials to ask 
for more information on climate policies or social costs of 
greenhouse gas, I get nothing, nothing in response. I don't 
even get an acknowledgement of a receipt of my inquiry.
    So, as I said, Mr. Goffman, thank you for being here today. 
You are finally before the committee, and I look forward to 
hearing some answers, because I know that you have been and 
would continue to be in regular communication with the White 
House. Apparently, you have been meeting with Gina McCarthy, 
discussing plans to regulate power plants since the early days 
of the Administration, even before the EPA Administrator Regan 
was in place.
    I would like to hear whether you, or if so, how your 2035 
climate targets are achievable without crushing the energy 
sector and the whole U.S. economy in jobs. This is especially 
important now that we need more energy domestically, even as 
President Biden has promised more American energy exports to 
our allies confronting Russia, all while his Administration is 
undercutting actual production here at home.
    In addition to hearing what you have been doing for the 
last 15 months, I would also like to talk a bit about the 8 
years you served in the Obama administration and how that might 
signal what could come.
    In our meeting earlier this month, we spoke about the Clean 
Power Plan, an unrealistic and, I believe, illegal regulation, 
stopped from going into effect by the Supreme Court. That 
regulation was designed to override elected State governments 
and decimate livelihoods and entire communities. Its mere 
proposal sent a shock through the energy sector and combined 
with other regulations, it contributed, in my State, to 
hopelessness, poverty, drug overdoses, and despair. I discussed 
that with you.
    Dr. John Deskins, who is the Director of West Virginia 
University's Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 
testified before a House Committee last year and put in 
explicit terms the devastation communities in my State have 
experienced. He explained: ``Coal production has fallen by 
approximately one-half from its 2008 high. This has led to a 
loss of around 15,000 coal jobs and a direct loss of $3.5 
billion in economic output. These losses ignite a vicious cycle 
where we see out-migration of our younger men and women, an 
aging population, drug abuse, and so on, making it even more 
challenging to attract new business, thus continuing the 
cycle.''
    The regulations that you authored during the Obama 
administration, even as they may have provided negligible 
climate benefits, really ended up hurting, in my State, people 
and our communities. So, when you say using the Clean Air Act 
to shift generation from some types of electricity to other 
types of generation is just ``common sense,'' we need to talk 
to the American people and West Virginians about that.
    Your job at EPA is not to rewrite the law, it is to 
implement it. At a time when this Administration has shown a 
willingness to flout congressional intent and stretch executive 
power beyond any reasonable interpretation of Congress's words 
and Federal statutes, this is especially concerning to many of 
us.
    President Biden has already shown through your delayed 
nomination that he doesn't take advise and consent seriously. 
So now we are going to see if you will take Congress's words 
seriously when confirmed to give us that transparency and 
accountability that we are due and desire.
    I look forward to hearing from you. It is long overdue.
    Chairman Carper, I yield back.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito, for your 
statement.
    We are now ready to welcome Mr. Goffman to the witness 
table. Again, we thank you for joining us today. We thank you 
for your previous service to our Country, and you are 
recognized for your opening statement, please. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GOFFMAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 
   AIR AND RADIATION, OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. Goffman. Thank you, Chairman Carper. Thank you, Ranking 
Member Capito, Senator Inhofe, Senator Boozman. It is a 
privilege to appear before you this morning.
    I know I am here to talk about my nomination and the 
important work of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I 
will do that. But I also know that everyone here and in our 
Country is completely devastated today and heartbroken for the 
lost lives and broken families in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, 
Texas. None of us have the words to soothe the pain that these 
communities and our Country are feeling right now. I appreciate 
that while it is difficult to go about the business of the day, 
we are here trying to do just that, even in the face of our 
Country's grief.
    I am humbled to be nominated by President Biden and 
considered by the committee for the position of Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the USEPA. 
I am also grateful for the honor of returning to public 
service, having previously worked for members of this committee 
four different times between 1989 and 2017.
    Joining me here today is my amazing wife, Antonia, and 
watching from their homes in San Francisco, New York, and Los 
Angeles are my three children, Gabriel, Genevieve, and Olivia. 
I want them to know how very much I love them, and I admire 
them for leading lives that reflect values that their 
grandparents gave to me, values that I have carried with me and 
relied upon all my life.
    Like too many Americans, I grew up in a household that 
struggled financially. There were times when my father was 
unemployed and my family could barely afford even the basics. 
As a child, I felt the pressures of my parents' money worries 
acutely. For me, protecting jobs and keeping money in the 
pockets of hardworking Americans is still very personal.
    College was out of the question unless I worked hard enough 
in school to gain scholarships and financial aid, and hard 
enough after school and over summers to earn the rest. That 
meant working as a stock boy and janitor's assistant in a 
department store during high school and in a union job as a 
line worker in a corrugated box factory during college.
    Besides giving me a strong work ethic, my parents insisted 
that my values center around doing good. With the civil rights 
movement of the 1960's gripping their and my own young but 
admiring attention, the lesson I took away was that every 
person, including me, was responsible for making our society 
more just.
    Working for the committee in 1989 and 1990 gave me the 
change to do that. I was the lead staffer on the acid rain 
provisions of the bipartisan Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, 
which succeeded in achieving substantial power plant pollution 
cuts at the lowest possible cost to businesses and consumers 
while ensuring clear, healthier air for our children to 
breathe.
    The legislation worked because it was grounded in science 
and crafted with the input of utilities themselves. Since then, 
I made it my business as a Senate staffer and as an EPA 
appointee to prioritize engagement with all stakeholders, from 
frontline communities to workers to businesses, and to listen 
proactively, learn from others' experiences, and reflect their 
concerns in my work. My goal continues to be policy that 
protects people's lives while enabling our economy to thrive.
    I believe that commitment paid off in a range of committee 
and EPA actions that I have been fortunate to have contributed 
to. The bipartisan McCain-Lieberman and Lieberman-Warner bills, 
which the committee reported out and then brought to the floor 
in 2008, EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rules, and the automobile tailpipe 
standards EPA issued last December, all achieved or will 
achieve ambitious pollution reductions while keeping costs down 
and protecting public health and also winning support from the 
power sector and the automobile industry.
    The committee's leadership on the bipartisan American 
Innovation and Manufacturing Act and the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law is the model for an approach that unites the 
environment, the economy, and environmental justice. Inspired 
by your work, my EPA colleagues and I met the deadlines you set 
in the AIM Act to start the phasedown of HFCs this year. With 
the application window opening just last week for the Clean 
School Bus Program, we are moving quickly to get the funding 
into the hands of communities for clean and electric school 
buses.
    Members of the committee, like you, I believe that all 
Americans, no matter where they live or what they do for a 
living, deserve clean air to breathe, a secure job, and 
healthy, safe communities in which to raise a family. They all 
need to be seen and heard by those of us who serve them. It 
would be a distinct privilege to work alongside and support 
EPA's brilliant and selfless civil servants in this shared 
mission.
    If confirmed, I will approach all our decisionmaking by 
bringing all stakeholders to the table, and will do so with the 
integrity, transparency, and accountability that Administrator 
Regan demands.
    Thank you for the privilege to speak before you today, to 
hear your concerns, and to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Goffman follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Mr. Goffman, thank you for your testimony. 
Antonia, thank you for being here. I could barely see your lips 
move as he spoke. In the military, I spent a lot of years of my 
life in the Navy, we always used to say that the spouse of the 
member in uniform, the spouse of that person served our Country 
as well. So we thank you for your service and for sharing with 
us your husband. If your children, Gabriel, Genevieve, and 
Olivia, if they are watching, thanks for sharing your dad.
    Now, we are ready to start asking questions of our witness. 
Senator Capito and I have agreed to two 5-minute rounds of 
questions with additional rounds at the discretion of the 
Chair. To begin, as Mr. Goffman will recall, this committee has 
three standing yes or no questions that we ask of all nominees 
who appear before us, so I would like to ask you these 
questions.
    Question: do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before--
before you leave, let me just ask a question of Senator 
Boozman. Senator Boozman, before you leave, a question of you. 
Was there recently a primary was held in your State, in 
Alabama? I understand, as of about 10:05 last night, there was 
some good news. What was reported?
    Senator Boozman. It was reported that I won my primary.
    Senator Carper. You won your primary. Congratulations. We 
are happy for you, and for your State.
    Senator Inhofe.
    [Remarks off microphone.]
    Senator Carper. Senator Inhofe said one of Senator 
Boozman's strongest supporters was Senator Inhofe's daughter. 
The apple didn't fall far from the tree, Jim.
    Here is the first question: do you agree, if confirmed, to 
appear before this committee or designated members of this 
committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress and 
provide information subject to appropriate and necessary 
security protections with respect to your responsibilities? Do 
you?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, I do.
    Senator Carper. Second question, do you agree to ensure 
that testimony, briefings, documents, and electronic and other 
forms of communication and information are provided to this 
committee and its staff and other appropriate committees in a 
timely manner? Do you?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, I do.
    Senator Carper. My third and last question, do you know of 
any matter which you may or may not have disclosed that might 
place you in a conflict of interest if you are confirmed?
    Mr. Goffman. No.
    Senator Carper. Good. My first question deals with the 
impact, you have mentioned the AIM Act, and hydrofluorocarbons 
in your statement. The President, and that is something that we 
have worked on a lot in this committee, as you know, care a lot 
about. It is still playing out, I think, in the Foreign 
Relations Committee in the form of the Kigali Amendment. In 
President Biden Fiscal Year 2023 budget, I was especially 
pleased to see that $35 million for the implementation of the 
bipartisan American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, also 
known as the AIM Act, which is led through Congress by Senator 
Kennedy and myself, that is Senator John Neely Kennedy of 
Louisiana and myself.
    As you know, the AIM Act phases down hydrofluorocarbons, or 
HFCs, which are super climate pollutants currently found in 
refrigerators, in air conditioning, and other household items. 
Moving toward climate-safe, American-made alternatives will 
create billions in economic growth and real American jobs. The 
AIM Act is great for our climate and our economy. I applaud the 
work of you and your EPA team in implementing the AIM Act in a 
timely manner.
    Here is my question. If confirmed, under your leadership, 
how will EPA use the budgeted AIM Act investments in 
implementation and enforcement, and why are these investments 
important for American businesses, as well as for our 
environment?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question, Senator. It gives 
me an opportunity to repeat what I said in my testimony. The 
bipartisan leadership that this committee and Congress showed 
in enacting the AIM Act really was inspirational. That is in 
part because the AIM Act was a classic win-win.
    As you already pointed out, Senator Carper, reducing HFCs 
addresses a very potent climate change pollutant. At the same 
time, it is a policy that promotes innovation in our industry 
of the kind that is instrumental to economic growth. We at EPA 
take very seriously, completely seriously, our duty to carry 
out and reach both of those objectives.
    What we think our resources would be most useful doing is 
threefold. First, continuing to implement the program as 
required, on time and on schedule to achieve the phasedowns 
mandated by the act. Second, to use a powerful tool that you 
all gave us to help promote beyond the phasedown that 
accelerated transfer from current technologies to new 
technologies. We have already started to do that by granting 
nearly a dozen petitions to make just those changes.
    Finally, it is critical that we have the resources to 
enforce compliance with the Act. As it turns out, looking at 
the experience that other countries who have put similar 
programs in place have already had, we are in the process of 
making HFCs scarce; therefore, we are making them valuable. 
Therefore, we are creating an incentive for people to import 
them, or companies to import them illegally. We have to put in 
a lot of sweat equity in order to deal with, deter, and prevent 
those illegal imports.
    I have the privilege of cochairing the HFC task force with 
DHS and Customs and Border Patrol. We have set up a program at 
all of our ports to stop the illegal importation of HFCs. That 
is, again, critical to both objectives of the legislation: the 
environmental objective and the technology innovation 
objective. That is why having resources for this program is so 
important to fulfill the objectives that Congress created in 
this legislation.
    Senator Carper. Good. Keep that up.
    The second question is, the U.S. transportation sector is 
responsible for about a third of our Country's climate change 
emissions, as you know. The good news is that we have U.S. 
technology that can dramatically reduce these emissions in a 
way that also slashes consumer costs at the pump.
    In December of last year, in part under your leadership, 
EPA finalized its new Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for 
passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2023 through 
2026. These standards will help set the stage for future 
emissions standards under the Clean Air Act for model years 
2027 and beyond and help transition us to a zero emissions 
future.
    Would you please take a moment to describe how the vehicle 
emissions standards your team finalized last year will reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions while also providing adequate lead 
time for manufacturers to comply, saving consumers money at the 
pump and reducing overall demand for gasoline? When you put all 
those together, it is like a win-win-win situation. Please 
proceed.
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question, Senator Carper. I 
can maybe add another win to the list, because what that rule 
does is, as you say, sets ambitious emissions standards for 
tailpipes of automobiles. In fact, the last year of the 
standards that is model year 2026, we have put on the books the 
most ambitious greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions standards 
ever.
    What that does is provide not only significant climate 
benefits and air quality benefits, but it also means that to 
operate a motor vehicle that meets these requirements or these 
standards, drivers will be able to pay less at the pump because 
the vehicles will use gasoline more efficiently. And some of 
those vehicles, if consumers opt to buy them, will be electric 
vehicles, liberating them, if you will, from the turmoil that 
we are seeing in global oil markets and the horrendous prices 
people are paying just to fill up their cars now.
    At the same time, Senator, this standard is lined with the 
investment strategies that many of our auto manufacturers are 
already pursuing, which is to build out new car fleets that not 
only include or offer internal combustion engines that are 
highway efficient, but also electric vehicles. What I think we 
have done with this set of standards is provide our auto 
manufacturers with a kind of certainty and clarity to support 
investment strategies that they are already undertaking.
    Senator Carper. Thanks very much. Senator Capito?
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start 
just with a couple quick yes-no answers, and you can tell from 
my opening statement where I am going with this.
    Do you commit to providing responses to the EPW Committee 
in a timely manner?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Capito. Thank you very much. Do you agree with the 
following statement made by Administrator Regan: ``It is an 
obligation of all of us as public servants to be as transparent 
as possible to this body and to the public''?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    I am going to go back to a couple letters that I wrote you 
recently in 2021. I was asking about the oversight on the 
renewable fuel standards. I wrote in March, in August, and 
again in October. I sent three separate letters.
    I did not get any response until December 14th, 2021, which 
was 9 months after the first letter, when you sent me three 
letter responses with virtually identical responses in each 
letter. In other words, they all had the same text. I ask 
unanimous consent to put the correspondence into the record.
    Senator Carper. Without objection.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Capito. Do you believe the form letter responses 
that you provided to these three letters was timely and 
transparent?
    Mr. Goffman. I would have to go back, Senator. To answer 
your question in a meaningful way, I would like to go back to 
the letters you sent and refresh my recollection on the letters 
that we sent back to you. I can assure you that I completely 
agree with you that transparency and clarity is essential to 
the role of the Office of Air and Radiation. I would be happy 
to respond further after I get a look at the letters.
    Senator Capito. OK. I would like that. I would offer my 
opinion that 9 months to answer a letter is not timely, and 
since all three of them said exactly the same thing, I question 
how much time it took to really put those together, and what 
kind of depth of looking at our congressional oversight. But we 
will talk about that once you look at it in greater depth.
    I want to talk to you about the Clean Power Plan. During 
your time in the Obama administration, you helped to write the 
Clean Power Plan, correct?
    Mr. Goffman. Correct.
    Senator Capito. In a 2019 op-ed you wrote with Gina 
McCarthy and Janet McCabe, that you called the Clean Power Plan 
a success, you advocated for using the Clean Air Act to shift 
electricity generation between different types of energy. You 
also stated in 2020 that the answer to the question, what is 
the best system of emission reduction, was ``the commonsense 
answer is just move generation.''
    I would ask you, what is the legal authority that gives EPA 
the ability to require generation shifting that you are calling 
for?
    Mr. Goffman. Our belief at the time was that Section 111 
provided us the legal authority to do that.
    Senator Capito. To call for generation shifting, or to call 
for lower emissions?
    Mr. Goffman. To call for lower emissions.
    Senator Capito. But not generation shifting?
    Mr. Goffman. I have to be careful in answering the question 
right now, Senator Capito, because as you know, that question 
is before the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Mr. Goffman. I think we are going to get the answer soon as 
to what the legal authority is. I don't want to say something 
that would complicate the government's position before the 
Supreme Court.
    Senator Capito. OK. Isn't it clear that the best system of 
emission reduction applies at an individual stationary source, 
in other words, it is constrained by what an individual power 
plant can do within its fence line?
    Mr. Goffman. That is exactly the question before the 
Supreme Court. I would be doing a disservice to the government 
if I tried to answer your question while this issue is pending.
    Senator Capito. OK, let me ask you a further question on 
that. I think we talked about this in my office. Do you have a 
plan B already created in your office to react to what the 
potential of a Supreme Court decision might be?
    Mr. Goffman. We have identified different options for 
responding depending on what the Supreme Court tells us the 
nature and contours of what our authorities are. We do two 
really important things, I think, that you would recognize as I 
describe them. We analyze options, trying to apply up-to-date 
data, and we engage in extensive outreach, not just with the 
utility sector, but with States, with our co-regulators, with 
utility regulators, with the system operators, and with 
frontline communities. That represents an enormous ingredient 
whenever we do a major rulemaking, particularly in the power 
sector. That is what we have been doing.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. I am at my time, so I will wait 
for the second round. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator.
    Next, I think by WebEx, would be Senator Padilla. Senator 
Padilla, are you joining us by WebEx?
    Senator Padilla. I am here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Once you have completed your questions, 
Senator Inhofe, and then Senator Cramer.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
accommodation since I am preparing to be in HSGAC as well. I am 
going to get right into it.
    Mr. Goffman, thank you for your commitment to public 
service and to protecting public health and safeguarding clean 
air for the American people through your work at EPA and your 
prior work for the U.S. Senate, including this very committee.
    As you know well, and as we had a chance to discuss prior 
to today, California is a national leader in the fight against 
the climate crisis and eliminating toxic pollution, 
particularly from the transportation sector, because we have 
seen how these pollutants can impact communities throughout our 
State and throughout the Country.
    So I am proud that under your leadership, EPA reissued 
California's waiver to set our own clean vehicle standards 
under the Clean Air Act. California clearly has the authority 
to do so, and now California is free to aim even higher and 
accelerate the deployment of zero emission vehicles. Thanks to 
California's leadership and the partnership with the Federal 
Government, California can continue to make progress and lead 
the way on clean air while providing the model for other States 
to consider and to follow.
    My first question, Mr. Goffman, is this. Can you share your 
thoughts on EPA's clean air and climate partnership with the 
State of California and how through a partnership we can 
accelerate the deployment of zero emission vehicles?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question, Senator Padilla.
    One of the things that EPA is doing, both out of my office 
and out of Region 9 of the EPA, is engaging in a workgroup with 
the California Air Resources Board and the Air Quality 
Management districts in Southern and Central California. We are 
focused on a number of issues that are critical to ensuring 
progress in improving air quality in California, and we are 
certainly in regular touch with the California Air Resources 
Board examining different options for setting meaningful but 
workable emissions limitations.
    One of the things that we are planning to do, as directed 
by President Biden, is to examine whether or not we can 
establish longer-term clean vehicle standards past model year 
2026. We are certainly taking into consideration the technology 
options that California itself has identified as being 
potentially available to achieve very, very low-emitting or 
even zero-emitting vehicles and promoting zero-emitting 
technologies.
    Senator Padilla. All right. As we have discussed, 
California is not just an ambitious leader when it comes to 
emissions of passenger vehicles, but frankly, in all sources of 
pollution under State and local jurisdiction. We continue to 
press the EPA to do more to adjust the emissions from mobile 
sources of pollution under Federal jurisdiction.
    Notably, the proposed Heavy Duty Truck Rule is an important 
initial step. As you know, I have encouraged EPA to ensure that 
the final rule is aligned with California's advanced Clean 
Truck Rule and strengthens EPA's proposed option one. But EPA 
can do more than just cut emissions from these trucks. EPA is 
preparing a regulatory agenda to reduce emissions and 
decarbonize the entire transportation sector, I hope, and I am 
certainly advocating for the inclusion of locomotives, off-road 
equipment, shipping and aviation.
    Can you share with us what plans the EPA has to cut 
pollution from these sources, and how the EPA can encourage 
private sector to spearhead technological innovations necessary 
to achieve these decarbonization goals?
    Mr. Goffman. Again, thank you for the question, Senator.
    I want to point out that you just identified the several 
work groups that EPA Region 9, EPA Headquarters, the Air 
Quality Management Districts, and CARB have formed, because we 
are looking at how to answer exactly those questions, whether 
it is on the regulatory side, whether it is on the side of 
leveraging Federal funding to go into transportation 
infrastructure, or into the acceleration of the turnover of 
current high-emitting vehicles to lower-emitting vehicles, and 
that includes both trucks on the road, trucks and ports, and 
off-road vehicles as well.
    Of course, we are working with the technical staff in those 
California entities, CARB, Air Quality Management Districts, 
who themselves have a lot of know-how in terms of what kind of 
technology options are available for setting standards or using 
other government resources to promote the acceleration of clean 
vehicles, both, again, on the road and off the road.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you for your responsiveness today. 
We look forward to continuing to advance these conversations. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
    Before I turn to Senator Inhofe for his questions, I am 
going to ask unanimous consent with respect to courts and 
greenhouse gases. I want to put into the record an amicus brief 
to the Supreme Court that I filed with, I think, 190 other 
Members of Congress that explains the legal history relating to 
Federal law and greenhouse gases. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. With that, Senator Inhofe, please.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very 
comfortable, and we have known each other for a long period of 
time, dating back almost 30 or 40 years. People wonder, in the 
outside world, how you can be opposed to a person and still 
maintain a friendship. We have successfully done that, and I 
have always appreciated that.
    Mr. Goffman, we all agree on the need for a safe and smart 
transition away from leaded avgas, but we also must ensure that 
there is no disruption in general aviation in process. 
Unfortunately, without a clean and clear transition, airports 
may be unilaterally prohibiting the availability of leaded 
avgas.
    I have quite an extensive background in aviation, so maybe 
I am more sensitive to this than most people, but I would like 
to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the attached 
letter from the Avgas Coalition expressing serious concerns on 
the unilateral decision of one airport to prohibit the sale of 
leaded avgas.
    Senator Carper. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Inhofe. Mr. Goffman, I want to read the question I 
will ask you. There is a reason for that. Mr. Goffman, will you 
commit to fostering a safe and smart transition away from 
leaded avgas in working with the FAA and industry to ensure 
that fuels available today remain available until a solution is 
fully approved and widely available?
    Mr. Goffman. Senator, thank you very much for that 
question. I think, to the extent that EPA plays a role in all 
this, we are wanting to avoid exactly what you are wanting to 
avoid, which is disruption in the availability of airports and 
of flying options, including to individual pilots.
    What we are trying to do is twofold. One is to make a 
determination, first and foremost, of whether or not lead from 
certain aircraft is presenting a threat to public health and 
the environment. At the same time, once we get through that 
process, which still has a way to go and is essentially a 
scientific process, then if we determine that it is presenting 
a threat, say, to children living around airports, then we will 
take the next step of addressing different options we might 
have for dealing with that problem. As part of that process, we 
would certainly be committed to finding a solution that works 
for everybody, including not disrupting any transition from the 
current leaded fuel used to the next fuel.
    Senator Inhofe. Mr. Goffman, that is the very reason that I 
worded it the way I did, because this disruption could be a 
problem for a lot of people. I want to make sure that is fully 
considered. I think your statement is a good response.
    As you know, the Small Refinery Exemption provision that is 
found in the Clean Air Act was written to ensure small refiners 
experiencing disproportionate economic hardship could obtain 
relief. Oklahoma ranks among the top States that would be 
interested in a question like this.
    In December 2021, your office proposed blanket denials of 
65 pending small refinery petitions, and in April, your office 
denied 37 small refinery petitions dating back to 2018. Mr. 
Goffman, considering that inflation is at 8.3 percent, is 
disproportionate economic hardship no longer considered when 
reviewing these petitions? Is that no longer used as a 
consideration, that type of hardship?
    Mr. Goffman. Senator, I am glad you asked that question, 
because it gives me a chance to give you an update on where we 
are on what is a complicated issue, and one that the Federal 
courts across the Country have weighed in on. I think I 
understand why, given what people are facing at the pump right 
now, everybody would be wondering whether the actions we are 
proposing to take, and in some cases, took with respect to 
small refineries is going to have an impact in making matters 
worse for drivers. I believe the answer is no.
    But what is really important is that in the last two or 3 
years, a number of Federal courts handed down opinions about 
how we have implemented the Small Refinery Exemptions. 
Basically, the message that they sent us is, EPA, you have to 
pay attention to precisely what your authority to address 
hardship is and isn't. You have to pay attention to your own 
analysis of the impact of the RFS Program on fuel markets.
    Basically, Senator, the courts have been telling us to get 
our story straight. What we were trying to do in December was 
to respond to those remands, lay out our thinking, lay out our 
analysis, and then ask the Small Refinery Exemption applicants 
to respond to what we had proposed and provide additional 
information in support of their applications.
    We still, as you pointed out, have about 30 applications 
pending that we have not made a decision on, although we hope 
to and plan to issue decisions on those applications shortly, 
and in doing so, really be clear once and for all as to what 
the law is, what our analysis shows, and then provide certainty 
for all stakeholders in the RFS program as to what the road 
going forward looks like.
    Senator Inhofe. As you know, the Small Refinery Exemption 
provisions were written to ensure small refineries experiencing 
disproportionate economic hardship could obtain relief. Has 
anything been released so far that would directly address this?
    Senator Carper. Mr. Goffman, I am going to ask you to 
answer this question briefly, because we have others who are 
waiting to ask questions.
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, I think our proposal tried to provide, 
our December proposal, which you referred to, tried to provide 
a comprehensive explanation of how we now understand that 
authority, what it obligates us to do, and particularly what 
the Federal courts have told us the limits of our authority 
are.
    Senator Carper. Senator Inhofe, I am going to ask you to 
wrap up.
    Senator Inhofe. In December, you referred to, your office 
issued denials, blanket denials of 65 pending small refinery 
petitions. Do you consider that a determination that was made 
in a very thoughtful way, and is this any finality to that 
action?
    Senator Carper. Again, please respond briefly.
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, to the first question. Was it thoughtful? 
Yes. Was it the final word, so to speak, on this program? No, 
because we are going to continue to weigh each application on 
its own merits.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. You are quite welcome.
    We have been joined by Senator Lummis. We have been joined 
by Senators Cardin and Whitehouse.
    I would just say to Mr. Goffman, to you and your wife, who 
is observing this closely, we are about to do an air show in 
Delaware this weekend. We call it Thunder Over Dover. We had 
the Blue Angels, we had the Thunderbirds, and they do one of 
those things that they do, as Jim knows, the planes, they go in 
all different directions. We are about to do that.
    Senator Capito has run off to one engagement, and I have to 
go join the Homeland Security Committee. Ben Cardin is good 
enough to hold the gavel, and if he has to leave, I think he is 
going to hand it over to Sheldon. For now, I am going to keep 
the train on the track. I am sure it is in a good place. I will 
be back as quickly as I can be.
    Senator Cardin.
    [Presiding.] The gavel feels good. I may not want to give 
it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. First, thank you for your service. We 
appreciate it very much, Mr. Goffman.
    I want to follow-up on Senator Padilla's point, but from a 
little bit different perspective, dealing with the updating of 
the rules for heavy trucks. I certainly want us to use 
innovation and everything we can to reduce pollutants in our 
air for many reasons. If I have time, I will talk about the 
Chesapeake Bay during this exchange.
    But I am concerned that in doing that update we have an 
open process where the stakeholders have an opportunity to make 
sure that we are not putting American manufacturers and union 
workers at a disadvantage.
    Can I have your assurance that in developing this updated 
rule the stakeholders will have an open process for their 
concerns to be listened to, and that you are sensitive to U.S. 
manufacturing and our labor policies here in the United States?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question, Senator. You have 
articulated one of President's preoccupations and one of EPA's 
preoccupations. As it happens, my nomination was endorsed by 
the United Auto Workers and other labor unions. Of course, that 
is very gratifying on a personal level.
    But what makes that important is that it is a reminder of 
the agency's obligation to take into consideration as part of 
our priorities the concerns of manufacturers and workers. What 
you have asked me to affirm is actually an excellent 
description of what we undertook when we proposed the 
standards.
    Our proposal actually laid out options. The express purpose 
of doing that was to foster a very robust ongoing and sustained 
process of engaging with the full range of stakeholders from 
the communities whose air quality is affected by emissions from 
these vehicles to the manufacturers to the States who are 
responsible for ensuring air quality and therefore have a stake 
in our standards.
    We are working closely with, among others, the United Auto 
Workers in carrying forward the kind of outreach and engagement 
processes that we have in mind and that I think you very aptly 
described as our objective.
    Senator Cardin. And I visited one of such facilities, the 
Mack Volvo facility in Hagerstown, which has seen a significant 
decline in employment because of the realities of where we are 
today in auto manufacturing. I have seen firsthand the 
innovation that they are doing, which is very gratifying and 
very helpful in regard to our overall strategy to deal with 
pollutants and climate change.
    So I appreciate that. I am glad to see you as part of the 
planning process. We just now need to carry that out/
    Which brings me to the Chesapeake Bay. I think most people 
might be surprised to learn that one of the major sources for 
pollution in the Chesapeake Bay are airborne. We could talk 
about the mercury levels in the Bay itself.
    Can you share with me how you are going about your work 
sensitive to the efforts that we have in regard to water 
quality of the Chesapeake Bay and our environment as it relates 
to airborne pollutants?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, Senator, thank you for that question. The 
issue of the effect of air pollution on our aquatic systems, 
our waterways, including the Chesapeake Bay, has been one of 
the, if you will, preoccupations of the Clean Air Act itself. 
Earlier this year, we issued a proposal addressing the question 
of whether or not it is appropriate and necessary to set and 
maintain mercury standards for emissions from power plants.
    In the course of answering that question, or proposing an 
answer to that question we looked specifically at the question 
you raised, which is what is the effect of emissions from 
smokestacks of power plants on places like the Chesapeake Bay 
and similar aquatic and water systems across the Country. We 
proposed to determine that those effects were serious enough to 
justify maintaining and further setting, if appropriate, 
mercury emissions standards.
    Senator Cardin. I thank you for that. I look forward to 
working with you on that issue. We have been able to make 
significant advancements in the Bay. I think sometimes we 
overlook the need to prioritize airborne pollutants. Thank you.
    Senator Lummis?
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Senator Carper, for letting me jump over you here with these 
questions.
    Mr. Goffman, regarding the proposed Good Neighbor rule, did 
you reach out to the States before deciding to move forward on 
that rule?
    Mr. Goffman. Senator Lummis, that is an excellent question. 
Because it is a topic that is really important to the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and in particular to 
Administrator Regan.
    My understanding is that our regional offices worked with 
the States.
    Senator Lummis. Well, they didn't reach out to my State of 
Wyoming. And we have heard from numerous States and 
stakeholders that the comment period for this hugely impactful 
rule is too short, even with this little 2-week extension that 
you have added.
    Sao are you willing to extend the comment period for the 
proposed rule, given its massive impacts?
    Mr. Goffman. Senator Lummis, I think that is a very 
important issue. If you don't mind, can I make a request, then 
I will answer the question? I would really like to get your 
guidance and advice on anyone in Wyoming you think we need to 
be talking to before we finalize the rule.
    Senator Lummis. I would be happy to get you that 
information. Awesome. One of the big concerns is, air quality 
models that are developed for eastern States need to be 
recalibrated for the western States. There is a difference. I 
am curious, why isn't there a model for the Good Neighbor rule 
that is specific to western States?
    Mr. Goffman. My understanding is that in fact, we did apply 
our model specifically to the distinctive topography and 
atmospheric dynamics in western States. I think, like you, we 
fully recognized that what we can see with our models, looking 
at eastern air issues, is not identical to what we have to look 
at when we look at western air issues. We did take account of 
the distinctive features, as I said, of western air movement 
and topography.
    Senator Lummis. OK. I will get you some names. Because we 
have concerns about not having been contacted.
    So switching to Regional Haze rules, should States have the 
flexibility in the development of States implementation plans 
that meet the objectives of the Regional Haze rules?
    Mr. Goffman. Generally, yes, Senator. Regional Haze rules, 
as you know, as the Senator from the State that includes the 
Grand Tetons and Yellowstone, where many Americans have had 
wonderful experiences in part because the air is so clear 
there, that is why it is so important.
    Generally, the strategy of the Clean Air Act and of the EPA 
is to rely on States to determine the emissions reductions that 
are needed to fulfill their obligations.
    Senator Lummis. So this is a head scratcher for me, because 
EPA has substituted their preferences for the State's plan. The 
State implementation plan meets the objectives of the Clean Air 
Act, Regional Haze, its programs. Why is the EPA substituting 
its judgment for States, given your statement?
    Mr. Goffman. Senator Lummis, I want to give you and 
Governor Gordon credit for the leadership you have shown on 
this issue. For the last year, give or take, the State and the 
utility, Pacificorp, that operates some of the critical plants 
in Wyoming, have been in extensive discussions. Some of them 
are confidential because they are being conducted under the 
auspices of the circuit court's medication practice.
    But I believe we are very, very close to a resolution that 
the State and the utility have reached that will allow critical 
facilities in Wyoming to continue to operate while making the 
emissions reductions that have been identified as required 
under the Regional Haze rule.
    Senator Lummis. How close are we?
    Mr. Goffman. I think we are waiting for one more step, 
which would the State submitting a revised implementation plan.
    Senator Lummis. My time is up, but I will follow-up with 
you on some of the things we have discussed today. Thank you 
very much, Mr. Goffman.
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you, Senator. I am looking forward to 
it.
    Senator Cardin. Senator Whitehouse.
    Senator Whitehouse. Hello, Mr. Goffman, good to see you.
    I would like to walk you through a chart regarding EPA 
activity on sources of greenhouse gas emissions. These are 
essentially all the major emissions. If you can't read it from 
there, don't worry. The top one is cars and light trucks. Am I 
correct that EPA issued a final rule through model year 2026?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Whitehouse. And that the greenhouse gas standards 
under that rule are similar to the prior rule promulgated by 
the Obama administration, at least through model year 2025 when 
the Obama administration rule ended?
    Mr. Goffman. That is right, they are similar.
    Senator Whitehouse. Did the auto industry support the Obama 
rule? Does it broadly support your rule?
    Mr. Goffman. I can answer more accurately or with more 
confidence the second question. The auto industry moved to 
intervene on the EPA's behalf to defend the current rule from 
challenges.
    Senator Whitehouse. So that would be an indication of 
support, correct?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, it would be.
    Senator Whitehouse. Does the auto industry, in that 
statement, generally support increasingly strict greenhouse gas 
emission standards in the car and light truck area?
    Mr. Goffman. Generally, Senator, that is my understanding.
    Senator Whitehouse. So let's go on to the next category, 
which is coal-fired power plants. Does EPA currently have a 
proposal or a final rule to regulate carbon pollution from 
coal-fired power plants?
    Mr. Goffman. We do not currently have a proposal to do 
that. As you know, Senator Whitehouse, the Supreme Court is 
about to have a lot to say about our authority.
    Senator Whitehouse. I don't subscribe to the formulation 
that you should not do anything because of that. So let me just 
put an asterisk there, because I don't think that is the right 
way to proceed.
    Let me go further to say that in that case, did the 
electric utility industry's leading trade association file an 
amicus brief supporting EPA's ability to regulate carbon 
pollution from power plants under the Clean Air Act?
    Mr. Goffman. I believe they did, yes, sir.
    Senator Whitehouse. So let's go on to gas-fired power 
plants, right here. Does EPA currently have any proposal or 
final rule to regulate carbon pollution from gas-fired power 
plants?
    Mr. Goffman. At the moment, we do not.
    Senator Whitehouse. As I discussed just recently about the 
others, does the industry support your authority to regulate 
those emissions?
    Mr. Goffman. I believe they do.
    Senator Whitehouse. On to heavy duty vehicles. Now, on this 
one you have a proposal, and it is in my estimation primarily 
focused on reducing nitrogen oxide emissions. Is that a fair 
characterization?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Whitehouse. Compared to the California rule, it is 
less strong in terms of driving adoption of zero emission 
vehicles. Is that also correct?
    Mr. Goffman. It is different from the California rule, yes.
    Senator Whitehouse. And less strong? Less likely to drive 
the adoption of zero emission vehicles?
    Mr. Goffman. The NOX rule that we have proposed--Senator, 
may I offer a little context?
    Senator Whitehouse. My time is pretty limited. So I don't 
want to be filibustered.
    Mr. Goffman. No, no. I will try not to. Senator, as you 
know, President Biden has given us the agreement not only to 
set the NOX standards this year but then to do a comprehensive 
heavy duty vehicle rule that does address it.
    Senator Whitehouse. Further on down the road. But the one 
we are talking about right now, your proposal, I have described 
accurately, correct?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Whitehouse. Just to put into the record, the CEO of 
Cummins, which is a huge manufacturer of engines for heavy duty 
vehicles, has said, ``There is no question that Cummins has 
benefited because of environmental regulations. Regulations 
should be tough, because climate change is a tough problem to 
solve and requires us to find new technologies and new ways of 
operating.''
    Do you think that reflects general industry support for 
heavy duty vehicle regulations as well?
    Mr. Goffman. My experience, Senator, is that industry, 
company by company, has at least somewhat different positions 
on regulation.
    Senator Whitehouse. Let's go on to oil and gas facilities, 
where you also have a proposal, is that correct?
    Mr. Goffman. Correct.
    Senator Whitehouse. The proposal does not cover low-
producing wells?
    Mr. Goffman. The proposal that is out now does not, but we 
are planning to issue a supplemental proposal later this 
summer.
    Senator Whitehouse. It doesn't seem to do much to address 
venting and flaring of methane in the oil and gas facilities 
proposal, correct?
    Mr. Goffman. The current proposal does. But as we previewed 
in the current proposal, we would be doing a sort of second 
layer of proposal, doing it shortly.
    Senator Whitehouse. That would look more closely at 
methane?
    Mr. Goffman. Correct.
    Senator Whitehouse. The American Petroleum Institute has 
said it supports regulation of methane emissions, correct?
    Mr. Goffman. Correct.
    Senator Whitehouse. My time has expired. We will pick it up 
in the second round. Thank you.
    Senator Cardin. Senator Cramer.
    Senator Cramer. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. 
Goffman, for being here.
    I am going to try to avoid asking you a question that would 
require you to abstain based on the Supreme Court situation, 
which I think is prudent. I am going to avoid that.
    But I do want to still explore a little bit that 
experience, because I think the biggest concern most North 
Dakotans have is that the same group that promoted the Clean 
Power Plan are back. In the middle of that, there is a stay of 
that Clean Power Plan and of course, the case that you 
discussed earlier with Senator Capito.
    Would you say that the utilities and the public utility 
commissioners supported the Clean Power Plan because it 
provided some certainty? We hear a lot about certainty. Was 
that an argument at the time, do you recall?
    Mr. Goffman. I remember discussions at the time about the 
Clean Power Plan. Senator, we went far out of our way to really 
engage with a lot of key players, including utility regulators.
    Senator Cramer. I was one at the time. I was a State 
utility regulator at the time. There was some engagement.
    One of the concerns, at least in North Dakota, and one of 
the concerns we have, frankly, going forward, is that you might 
recall that the proposed rule said that North Dakota could 
reduce emissions by 11 percent. Because of that proposed rule 
and that low number, the principal of not having authority 
under 111(d) and the inside the fence line and all the things 
that Senator Capito talked about, they were willing to sort of 
waive that principle, accept it, even though they didn't 
believe it was legal. Because 11 percent was doable, and I will 
work with you to get that done. And of course, as you know, the 
final rule was 45 percent, which resulted in an arbitrary and 
capricious argument, successful argument.
    How is it that you went from this bait and switch, this 11 
percent to 45 percent? Do you recall how that happened?
    Mr. Goffman. Senator, we certainly weren't intending to do 
a bait and switch. I think I would argue we had three key ideas 
in mind. One, we thought that we were operating entirely within 
our legal authority. Two, we thought that we were setting 
standards that were entirely achievable.
    But we were also, this third part was equally important, we 
thought we had offered the utility sector, the electricity 
sector, broad flexibility in achieving say, on a multi-State or 
regional basis, the overall standards.
    Senator Cramer. The 45 percent reduction you maybe thought 
was believable, it would have been very painful, probably not 
possible, actually. And even now, when we talk about load 
shedding as a means of reducing CO2 emissions, and by the way, 
I am working with several Democratic members of this committee 
and other committees on trying to find ways to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, realistic ways that don't destroy the 
economy.
    But we see this load shedding coming up again. And of 
course, we have the North American Reliability Corporation 
sounding the alarm. North Dakota has two system operators, MISO 
and SPP, depending on which utility you have.
    But I want to get back to something you said to Senator 
Capito. You said we, in terms of options, so in talking about 
the Supreme Court case, the West Virginia v. EPA case, and I 
think it is prudent that you are talking about potential 
options depending on the outcome. There is no point in waiting 
forever.
    But you said you are engaged in, to use your term, 
extensive outreach to stakeholders. You listed utilities, 
system operators, public utility commissions, I think you 
called the co-regulators.
    If I was to call, say, the three public service 
commissioners in North Dakota, Commissioners Christmann, 
Fedorchak and Haugen-Hoffard or Dave Glatt at DEQ, would they 
confirm that you have engaged in extensive outreach in drafting 
these options?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for giving me those names, because I 
was going to ask you who I should be talking to, or who we 
should be talking to. Now I have the answer.
    I believe at least in terms of my discussions, they have 
not. But we have met with members of the National Association 
of Regulated Utility Commissions, NARUC. We are planning, after 
the Supreme Court's case comes down, to do another round of 
outreach and engagement.
    Senator Cramer. I appreciate that. NARUC is great. I was a 
member of NARUC, and there is a lot we have in common. But 
there is a lot we don't. Frankly, even Senator Lummis's point 
that the west is not the same as the east, North Dakota is one 
of four States who has never violated their ambient air quality 
standards. Four States in the lower 48, never. We think we do 
it pretty well, and we like our primacy. We don't want Federal 
mediocrity imposed upon us. So we take great exception when the 
Federal Government overreaches its boundaries with us.
    Those are the names. I can get you more. But I would 
encourage you to do that. Because at the end of the day, to me, 
as a former State regulator and just as a pretty commonsense 
American, the thing that is missing, frankly, in our Federal 
Government these days is federalism. It is foundational to the 
success of our Country. And we have empowered administrative 
State to the point where now we are in court all the time. 
Let's just trust the good States of our Country.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper.
    [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Cramer.
    I think Senator Kelly is next, followed by Senator 
Sullivan. Thank you both for joining us.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Goffman, thank you for being here today. As you know, 
the Clean Air Act requires counties with unsafe levels of 
pollution to take steps to come into attainment. In Arizona, 
there are some significant air quality challenges that are 
unique to Arizona. For example, since 2017, Maricopa County has 
seen the number of days where air quality has been affected by 
wildfire smoke go up about 75 percent.
    In Yuma County, I was just in Yuma County last week, high 
winds often create these dust storms. But the interesting thing 
here is frequently these dust storms start in Mexico or in 
California. So the EPA needs to work for Arizona.
    Mr. Goffman, do you believe that the Clean Air Act intends 
to hold local governments accountable for air pollution created 
by exceptional events like wildfires or dust storms, which by 
the way, in the case of Yuma, often occur in another States or 
even another country?
    Mr. Goffman. I believe two things. One is, it is not the 
intention of the Clean Air Act to hold air districts 
accountable for events like that.
    But it is incumbent upon the EPA to work with air districts 
and States to do what we can to really improve air quality, 
even in or especially in the face of that particular set of 
problems. I know that my colleagues in Region 9 are working 
closely with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
and with local air quality managers to tackle actually a host 
of problems that are facing Yuma and Maricopa Counties. I think 
we are going to get there.
    Senator Kelly. I agree. I think we can get there as well. I 
believe that if we want to make progress toward improving air 
quality, we have to have some achievable benchmarks for these 
communities based on factors that are within their control. 
These dust storms and wildfires are clearly outside of their 
control. And I often hear from communities about this and the 
enormous difficulties that they face when they have to 
demonstrate to EPA that an exceptional event has occurred.
    You mentioned EPA Region 9, which is the region that has 
Yuma County. Their office, the EPA Region 9 office has not yet 
concurred with demonstrations conducted to show that 
exceptional events are responsible for the county exceeding the 
PM10 standard. So why do you think that is, Mr. Goffman?
    Mr. Goffman. I am not exactly sure. My understanding is 
that is still sort of a work in progress. But I will absolutely 
look into and get back to you.
    Senator Kelly. Do you think that communities could be 
expected to develop a compliance plan before EPA provides 
feedback to help the community understand what sources of 
emissions they are not responsible for controlling?
    Mr. Goffman. I think historically we have been open to both 
ways. Some State air, environmental quality regulators do 
informally engage with us at the regional level, seeking 
guidance early on, some do throughout the process. What our 
commitment is to essentially, obviously we have obligations to 
hold States accountable for their obligations to the Clean Air 
Act.
    But the definition of success is getting the air quality 
results that communities need. It is often in partnership that 
States and we are most effective.
    Senator Kelly. So if confirmed, will you commit to ensuring 
that your team at EPA, at the headquarters and at Region 9 are 
available to work with Yuma County to review exceptional event 
data and develop a compliance plan based on the factors that 
the community can control?
    Mr. Goffman. Absolutely, Senator.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, if I could go over by 1 minute. I want to 
talk about Maricopa County for a second.
    Senator Carper. Well, let me think about it. OK.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Kelly. Thank you. I understand that there were 38 
days in 2021 where the county experienced unhealthy ozone 
levels due to smoke from wildfires. We have had some really bad 
wildfire seasons over the last couple of years.
    Under the Exceptional Event rule, the county believes they 
will need to conduct 38 exceptional event demonstrations for 
those 38 days. As wildfire seasons in the west get worse, what 
steps will you take as Assistant Administrator to expedite the 
consideration of exceptional event demonstrations?
    Mr. Goffman. I will commit to you now, Senator Kelly, and 
to Arizona, that as we enter what seems to be a new era in 
terms of the intensity and frequency of wildfires, we will 
reflect in the way we process these demonstrations that new 
reality.
    Senator Kelly. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Carper. You are welcome. Thank you.
    Senator Sullivan.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Goffman, 
congratulations on your nomination.
    I just came from a Commerce Committee meeting where I was 
fairly riled up because I was highlighting the Biden 
Administration's, now it is 25 Executive Orders and Executive 
Actions singularly focused on Alaska, 25. These hurt jobs, 
resource development, access to land, particularly they target 
the Native community. Your former and current boss, Gina 
McCarthy, is someone who has enormous disdain for my State. I 
have seen it in action.
    Senator Murkowski, the late great Congressman Don Young and 
I had a senior meeting at the White House saying, can you 
please just let up, guys? You are killing us, targeting my 
State, our State. How about at least a heads up when you are 
going to try to crush us the next time?
    They haven't kept those commitments. These are very senior 
White House officials. We asked for a meeting with the 
President to see if he knows that his Administration is 
singularly targeting one State more than any other State in the 
Country.
    Can I get your commitment if you are confirmed that before 
you issue any kind of reg or rule or executive action from your 
position that singularly targets Alaska that you will reach out 
to me and Senator Murkowski and maybe get our views? Maybe get 
our opinions? I was just home last week, and my constituents 
are just, and this is Democrats, Republicans, Native, non-
Native, we are just, daily assaults on the good people. We are 
Americans too, right? But nobody in the Biden Administration 
seems to care.
    Can I get your commitment to give me and Senator Murkowski 
a heads up if you are planning to do something like this?
    Mr. Goffman. Senator, I think I can say that the 
Environmental Protection Agency has experience looking at 
Alaska issues specifically, and if you will, tailoring the 
requirements of our actions that work for Alaska.
    Senator Sullivan. So that is a yes?
    Mr. Goffman. It is a yes, not just informing, but 
consulting.
    Senator Sullivan. Good. Thank you.
    I want to show you this real quick. I use this chart a lot. 
That is emissions, global emissions from each major country in 
the world since 2005. The U.S. has actually been the global 
leader on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Look at China, you 
look at India, they are through the roof.
    Do you have an explanation for that? Do you think it is EPA 
regulations that did that? It wasn't, was it? What is the 
reason for that? Why are we the best in the world right now on 
global emissions almost for the last over 15 years?
    Mr. Goffman. I think because of the sort of fruitful 
interaction of EPA standards setting and----
    Senator Sullivan. No, it had very little to do with EPA. It 
was a revolution in the production of natural gas, right? You 
might want to read up on that, since you are going to be in 
charge of air. That is why, right there.
    So when you hear about, hey, let's attack natural gas, you 
might want to think twice. If every country in the world had 
that global emissions profile, we wouldn't be having major 
greenhouse gas emissions problems globally. So I just wanted 
you to be aware of that. But it wasn't the EPA, right? It was 
the revolution of natural gas by the private sector and 
ingenuity of the American entrepreneur.
    Let me go onto the next very important issue. You believe 
in the rule of law, I assume?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. You were at the Harvard Environmental 
Energy and Law Program, so I am assuming you really believe in 
the rule of law.
    Mr. Goffman. I am trying to overcome it, but yes.
    Senator Sullivan. I am sure you are. It is tough. I don't 
blame you, though.
    How about this issue? EPA gets all of its authority from 
what body, to act?
    Mr. Goffman. Right here.
    Senator Sullivan. Exactly. You used to work here, right, 
EPW committee? So you understand, EPA cannot act without 
congressional authority, isn't that correct?
    Mr. Goffman. That is my understanding.
    Senator Sullivan. So that is something you will commit to, 
correct? That goes back to the rule of law.
    Mr. Goffman. And it goes back to the Clean Air Act.
    Senator Sullivan. Correct. But you won't act without 
congressional, clear congressional authority, correct?
    Mr. Goffman. We act according to what our best----
    Senator Sullivan. These are really easy questions. You need 
to just say yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. Let me raise one issue. It wasn't you, 
but you worked for at the time, this was the Michigan v. EPA 
case where the Supreme Court, six to three, by the way, said 
EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpreting 
and concluding that the cost, that cost is not a factor 
relevant to the appropriateness of the regulation of power 
plants. You are familiar with that case, right?
    Mr. Goffman. I am familiar with that case.
    Senator Sullivan. OK, because weren't you part of the 
individuals who put together that rule?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, I was.
    Senator Sullivan. And are you familiar with the famous, 
again unbelievable statement by current climate czar Gina 
McCarthy on the Bill Maher Show, right before the Supreme Court 
decision came down, she said ``But even if we don't win, it has 
been on the books for 3 years, so most power plants are already 
in compliance, investments have been made.''
    To me that was one of the most lawless things I have ever 
seen a senior Administration official say. That is when she was 
the EPA Administrator. To me that is regulatory extortion. Hey, 
we will put out rules, and heck, even if they are not legal, it 
doesn't matter, because these poor suckers have to comply with 
it anyway.
    Can you explain, do you agree with that statement by Gina 
McCarthy, and can you commit to me to not be so flippant with 
the whole issue of the rule of law and the statutory mandates 
from Congress? That statement to me still to this day stands 
out as one of the most, just blatant, arrogant, lawless 
statements I have ever seen from a senior official. You are 
supposed to serve the people and abide by the rule of law.
    Mr. Goffman. Senator, I am not familiar with that 
statement.
    Senator Sullivan. What I just quoted is true. Do you agree 
with her statement?
    Mr. Goffman. I don't know. I am still processing it; it is 
the first time I have heard it. But I do agree, and I am 
committed to ensuring that any action the Office of Air and 
Radiation takes is entirely authorized by the law, not only by 
what Congress wrote in the Clean Air Act, but what the courts 
tell us, what the exact contours and limits and scope of our 
authority is.
    Senator Sullivan. Great, thank you. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Carper. You are welcome. Thanks for joining us.
    I have a couple of questions. I think Senator Capito does 
as well. Senator Markey is trying to join us. Senator Ernst is 
here.
    Senator, why don't I yield to you if you are ready? Would 
you like to be recognized now? All right. Welcome. I am glad 
you could join us.
    Senator Ernst. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really 
appreciate the opportunity today. And thank you, Mr. Goffman.
    Mr. Goffman, in some parts of the Country Americans are 
paying up to $6.50 a gallon to fill up their cars. At this 
particular moment, we are seeing geopolitical crisis. I know it 
is exacerbated. It is vital for us to be honest about our 
energy policy. If we take advantage of biofuel, we have the 
ability to pursue an energy strategy that creates jobs and 
provides reliable and affordable energy to American families, 
energy that is grown right here in the United States.
    Ethanol is already blended into almost every gallon of 
gasoline sold in the U.S. We have abundant supplies. 
Coincidentally, at a lower price. So not only is it good for 
the environment, but it is also cheaper.
    Mr. Goffman, what concerns me about your nomination is some 
of your past statements in regard to the RFS, and specifically, 
you have said the RFS is ``not successful'' or a ``bit of a 
blunderbuss,'' another quote from you. And another quote, 
``uncertainty plagued mechanism for providing subsidies to the 
ag sector.''
    However, President Biden has thus far been a fan of 
biofuels. I would like you to set the record straight for us in 
this committee, and just in a yes or no response, whether you 
agree with the President's position on the important role 
biofuels serve. So either yes or no.
    President Biden had stated biofuels reduce our reliance on 
foreign oil. Yes or no?
    Mr. Goffman. Emphatically yes.
    Senator Ernst. OK, thank you. And President Biden also 
said, you get less harm to the environment and lower greenhouse 
gas emissions?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Ernst. Homegrown biofuels have a role to play right 
now as we work to get prices under control to reduce the cost 
for families?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Ernst. And he also said, you simply can't get to 
net zero by 2050 without biofuels.
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Ernst. And if confirmed, Mr. Goffman, I do look 
forward to working with you to help advance the 
Administration's plan to address our energy prices. It is a 
concern to my families at home. I think it is impacting 
everyone across the United States. And supporting a robust 
domestic biofuels sector. And as President Biden has said, 
biofuels ``is an industry with a tremendous future.'' I hope 
that you will continue to support the sentiments shared by 
President Joe Biden on this industry, and that is all I have 
for today.
    So thank you, Mr. Goffman. I really appreciate it. Thank 
you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Carper. Senator Ernst, you made the most of your 
time. Thanks for joining us.
    I am going to make a couple of UC requests, and then we 
will go back to regular order. I will ask some questions, and 
Senator Capito has some more questions, and she will be joined 
by Senator Whitehouse. Thank you for coming back.
    Before I start the second round, I would like to ask 
unanimous consent to place into the record a document that 
shows that the United States per capita emissions are double 
that of China. Without objection.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. And a second unanimous consent request into 
the record, it is a letter of support for Mr. Goffman's 
nomination. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a 
letter of support for Mr. Goffman's nomination from the 
Renewable Fuels Association and the U.S. Ethanol Industries 
Trade Association. I don't know if Senator Ernst's staff is 
still here, but they might share that with her, if they are.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Another question I would have is, while EPA 
was working on the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, what we call 
the MATS rule, I seem to remember some of my colleagues holding 
up a poster talking about a train wreck. It was a train wreck 
that would happen if EPA were ever to finalize that rule.
    The train wreck alluded to concern that if the Mercury and 
Air Toxics Rule were made final, we would end up having rolling 
brownouts and blackouts, and the electricity prices would be 
astronomical. You may remember that, too.
    Blackouts and brownouts didn't happen due to the Mercury 
and Air Toxics Rule, is that correct? Didn't happen.
    Mr. Goffman. Didn't happen.
    Senator Carper. Didn't every utility in the Country meet 
the standards on time and under budget, and energy prices went 
down, not up?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Carper. I thought so.
    And aren't the same utility groups that fought you then 
endorsing you today?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Carper. How did that happen?
    Mr. Goffman. One of eh things that we did when we were 
putting the Mercury and Air Toxics standards together was 
consult extensively with the utilities, with the States, with 
the utility regulators and with the independent system 
operators. We took special care to make sure that the utilities 
could comply on time with the standards while ensuring 
reliability.
    Senator Carper. All right. How did the United Mine Workers 
ending up supporting your nomination?
    Mr. Goffman. I cannot speak for them. I believe that what 
they said in support of my nomination is that they found that I 
was willing to engage with them and take their views seriously, 
and be candid and straightforward. Indeed, Senator Carper, as 
we discussed, for me the essence of public service is 
identifying with the priorities, concerns, and needs of 
everybody that the U.S. Government serves. That means 
everybody.
    I don't know if that is what was reflected in the United 
Mine Workers' support. But certainly from my side, that is what 
it looks like.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you. One more question for 
me. This deals with ambient air quality monitoring and 
environmental justice. Ambient air quality monitoring is one of 
the best tools we have to identify high air pollution rates and 
protect public health. Monitoring is especially important in 
communities of color, which experience, as you know, air 
pollution in disproportionate rates.
    As you know, our air quality monitoring system is aging, 
and is lacking in many communities. It is often unable to 
collect data on air toxics. That is why we addressed it in the 
American Rescue Plan. A number of us, including me, worked hard 
to ensure that there is funding available for EPA to conduct 
community air monitoring.
    As the Administrator of the Office of Air, how could you 
utilize monitoring funds provided to the EPA both through 
annual appropriations and the American Rescue Plan, to address 
environmental justice and achieve equity and pollution 
monitoring across populations?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question, Senator. There 
are a great many communities that are really struggling with 
almost an undue burden of poor air quality. They themselves 
have come to recognize that having reliable air quality 
monitoring is critical to their understanding of what they are 
experiencing and ultimately representing their own interests.
    The American Rescue Plan funding for air monitoring was not 
just a great benefit to EPA, but it was a great benefit to 
those communities. Administrator Regan had the vision to make 
sure that the way we distributed that funding included a 
competitive grant program that was open directly to 
communities, so that they could get the resources they need to 
do the kind of air quality that understand to be important to 
advance their own interests in reducing their struggle with bad 
air quality.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for that.
    We have been joined Senator Markey. Senator Markey, 
welcome. I will stop my questions there and turn to you, then 
Senator Capito, and Senator Whitehouse.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Goffman. Thank you for your service to this committee, and to 
the Country.
    Fuel economy standards, we have a big chance here to take 
over world leadership in terms of the manufacture of vehicles 
here that are of the highest possible standard, which we know 
ultimately the rest of the world is going to try to compete 
with us. In Europe, especially, after Putin's invasion, and now 
the association of Europe from Russian oil. So they really have 
to raise their fuel economy standards.
    Could you give me an idea as to what your plans are in 
order to have the highest possible fuel economy standards for 
the vehicles which Americans drive?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question, and thank you for 
naming a few of the many benefits of increasing fuel economy 
standards and setting greenhouse gas emissions standards for 
automobiles.
    As you know, Administrator Regan signed a set of final 
standards at the end of last year going through model year 
2026. Those standards are the most ambitious that we have ever 
put on the books. At the same time, those standards are being 
supported by the automotive industry itself, because the 
industry is making significant investments in low-emitting and 
zero-emitting vehicle technologies.
    In fact, the industry was there last August when President 
Biden signed an Executive Order directing EPA to establish 
longer-term standards for greenhouse gas emissions and criteria 
pollutants from tailpipes. As part of that Executive Order, he 
set as a goal a new car fleet by model year 2030 that achieved 
or included 40 percent to 50 percent zero-emitting vehicles. 
Standing by his side were leaders of the automotive industry, 
because they are already planning and making investments in 
innovative technology.
    Of course, the beneficiaries of that are not only 
communities that are dealing with the effects of climate change 
and the effects of air quality, but every driver who is now 
paying a fortune at the pump for gasoline. As we increase the 
fuel efficiency of cars and even move them off of oil to 
electrification, those costs will go down to zero.
    Senator Markey. Thank you. I appreciate all the work of 
this Administration. We just have to really lift our gaze to 
the constellation of possibilities technologically for us to 
move, to act, and to capture this incredible economic 
opportunity. With the first 16 million all-electric vehicles 
deployed in the United States we back out the equivalent of all 
the Russian oil. With the next 16 million all-electric 
vehicles, we back out all the Saudi oil.
    Again, I worked hard against it in 2015, when unfortunately 
we lifted the ban on the export of American oil. We are now 
exporting, we are exporting 7 million barrels of oil a day. We 
export it out of our Country. Well, we now pay a price for 
that. But we have to now deal with the ability for us to be 
able to use technology to reduce and ultimately eliminate our 
need to put oil into gasoline tanks. Right now, we put 70 
percent of all the oil we consume into gasoline tanks. So we 
lost so much time under Donald Trump, we made ourselves so much 
more vulnerable to the Russians and the Saudi Arabians. But 
thank you for your leadership and helping us to catch up.
    Finally, is the EPA committed to deploying local air 
quality monitors and ensuring that data is regularly updated so 
that community leaders and local businesses can all work 
together to protect public health?
    Mr. Goffman. Thanks to the funds provided by the American 
Rescue Plan, I am able to answer that question yes. Because now 
we have the resources not only to upgrade the current system of 
air quality monitoring, which badly needs it, but also to 
provide resources to communities themselves who are struggling 
with undue burdens of air quality and have identified air 
quality monitoring as a key priority.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Thanks so much for joining us, Senator. I am going to turn 
now to Senator Capito, then Sheldon Whitehouse, and then me.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Mr. Goffman, based on your calendars, you were meeting with 
climate czar Gina McCarthy and Deputy Administrator McCabe 
without Administrator Regan present before he was confirmed. In 
one of those meetings early in the Administration on February 
the 4th, 2021, you met with Ms. McCarthy about the power plant 
or EGU strategy. And you had a PowerPoint document that was 
attached to your calendar.
    Would you be able to commit that we could see that 
document?
    Mr. Goffman. I would like to check with General Counsel to 
see if it is appropriate for me to share that.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. I think that would help us with 
the transparency of something I have been trying to get at in 
some of my questioning.
    Earlier this year, the EPA announced the proposed Good 
Neighbor plan that would affect 26 States. This action would 
apply to power plants and certain types of industrial sources 
to reduce nitrogen oxides that purportedly contribute to ozone 
in other States.
    So industries targeted include iron, steel, cement and 
concrete, and are vitally important to the implementation, 
something important to both of us, and to this Congress and 
this President, which is the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act. The law includes Buy American provisions that require the 
use of U.S. manufactured products in certain categories. We 
already have severe supply chain bottlenecks.
    Your proposal could make those matters worse by increasing 
costs on domestic production, stymying the availability of 
products to meet the legislative requirements of IIJA, support 
our domestic workers, and potentially even shutter some 
facilities.
    Did you evaluate this policy and how that impact on the 
domestic production of these materials might be, such as for 
steel and concrete and cement, prior to proposing this?
    Mr. Goffman. Thanks for asking that question. I think the 
Administration and the Administrator and I agree with you that 
this is an important cluster of issues. In fact, as you just 
stated, maintaining American manufacturing is a priority for 
the President.
    The way we approached this rule was first by recognizing 
that air pollution that travels across State lines can have a 
significant bad impact on downwind communities. The courts have 
been clear repeatedly that we have an obligation to prevent 
that from happening.
    What we proposed to require in that rule, Senator Capito, 
is technologies and measures that are already in widespread use 
in a variety of industrial sources and in the power sector. In 
many ways, what we are asking some of the covered sources to do 
is simply operate on a level playing field with what already 
operating sources across the Country have installed by way of 
pollution control technology and are continuing to operate.
    Senator Capito. So I guess the question was, have you 
considered what impacts it would have on the creation of a lot 
of the infrastructure packages with the Buy America provisions? 
Did you look at that aspect of that in terms of whether they 
could continue production in the magnitude at which this bill 
gives us a once in a lifetime chance to do?
    Mr. Goffman. I would prefer to get back to you on that 
specific question. I just don't know off the top of my head the 
extent to which we looked at that specific question and how we 
framed it to ourselves.
    As you know, we do extensive regulatory impact analysis and 
it is our legal and policy obligation to focus on the 
feasibility of any requirements that we propose.
    Senator Capito. Well, I think there has been some question 
as to whether some of the technologies are actually workable. 
But we can get into the details of that at another time.
    I want to ask about the National Determined Contribution, 
the NDC, the targets that are put out there. Repeatedly, I have 
asked in every single one of these meetings, how we reach these 
goals and what it does to the American economy. And I would 
like to know if that is an area that EPA looks at when they are 
looking at this, did EPA have a role in giving this National 
Determined Contribution, where is it going to come from. How do 
we get there?
    Mr. Goffman. The Environmental Protection Agency was asked 
to provide data to the White House Climate Policy Office, which 
as you know was the lead office responsible for developing the 
Nationally Determined Commitment and the analysis supporting 
it. EPA's contribution to the achievement really inheres in our 
Clean Air Act authority. As you know, we apply that authority 
action by action, standard setting by standard setting, for air 
pollution and greenhouse gases, going sector by sector.
    Senator Capito. Well, one of the frustrations, and then I 
will wrap up here, and I appreciate your testimony today, is we 
have asked for that data from the EPA as to what part they 
played in taking this to the White House. We are not satisfied 
we have gotten all the data. We are still asking for a deeper 
explanation of that data so that we have an apples to apples 
comparison. Any help that you could give us on that as we move 
forward would be much appreciated. Thank you.
    Mr. Goffman. Senator Capito, my understanding is that we 
have produced everything that you have requested.
    Senator Capito. I requested an additional meeting of 
explanation from EPA. We haven't had that yet. The 
Administrator said it would come forward. So if you would help 
us with that, we would appreciate it, where we could get your 
staff and our staff together so we understand what this data 
is. Thank you.
    Mr. Goffman. Will do.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito. We are rejoined 
by Senator Whitehouse.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. I am going to go back to my 
chart here in 1 second. But let me just make very clear that 
Rhode Island is a downwind State. I really, really want EPA to 
enforce pollution standards in upwind States, because they have 
a demonstrated record of not caring. They build big smokestacks 
so it doesn't hit their State and it comes and lands in ours. 
We are sick of that.
    From time to time, because of upwind States' pollution, 
Rhode Island has had to do days where people are advised to 
stay in their homes. So let's not forget the upwind pollution 
that is coming into our downwind States. By the way, when we 
are talking about the cost of meeting our NDC goals, please 
make absolutely sure you are also factoring in the cost of 
failing to meet the NDC goals.
    Chairman Carper and I have coastal States that are looking 
at having to completely redraw our maps. Freddie Mac is talking 
about a property values crash because of sea level rise. It 
will be worse than the 2008 mortgage meltdown and pretty much 
everybody in the financial sector is talking about what happens 
when the carbon bubble bursts, and is that an international 
economic collapse.
    So thank you for looking at both sides, and not just the 
side that the fossil fuel industry wants us to look at.
    Airlines, you have no proposal or rule regarding aircraft 
emissions, correct?
    Mr. Goffman. I believe we have on the books greenhouse gas 
emissions standards for aircraft to carry out the international 
agreement of the Obama administration.
    Senator Whitehouse. But there is no EPA rule specific to 
aircraft emissions?
    Mr. Goffman. There is a rule implementing our obligations 
under the agreement that was reached in 2016.
    Senator Whitehouse. OK. I will put a check by that. That is 
not my view.
    As to industrial sources, chemical plants, no rule specific 
to chemical plants for carbon emissions?
    Mr. Goffman. Not at this time, no.
    Senator Whitehouse. Refineries? No specific rule for 
refineries for carbon emission?
    Mr. Goffman. Not at this time, no.
    Senator Whitehouse. Minerals, including cement?
    Mr. Goffman. Not at this time.
    Senator Whitehouse. Metals manufacturing? Steel, aluminum?
    Mr. Goffman. We are, Senator, proceeding sector by sector 
with those sectors which----
    Senator Whitehouse. So no proposed or final rule at this 
time with respect to metals manufacturing?
    Mr. Goffman. Not at this time.
    Senator Whitehouse. And with respect to pulp and paper, the 
same?
    Mr. Goffman. Not at this time.
    Senator Whitehouse. Which adds up to almost 600 million 
metric tons of carbon pollution. Do you believe that there is 
industry support for reducing carbon pollution in all of these 
areas, aircraft and big industrial sources?
    Mr. Goffman. I don't know the answer to that question.
    Senator Whitehouse. OK. We will send you some stuff.
    Do the reasons that industry might support regulation of 
carbon emissions include that it creates a level playing field, 
so that those who want to do the right thing don't have to fear 
improper competition from bottom dwellers and free riders? Is 
that a customary reason why industry supports regulation of 
these types of things?
    Mr. Goffman. In many cases they are looking for certainty 
and they are looking for precisely what you said, the good 
actors would like a level playing field to make sure that all 
actors----
    Senator Whitehouse. So the bottom dwellers don't cheat, 
would be the rather coarse way I would say it.
    Mr. Goffman. That is my understanding.
    Senator Whitehouse. So at the moment we have, just to kind 
of review the bidding, we have cars and light trucks with a 
final rule that for the overlapping years is less strong than 
the Obama-era standard, we have coal-fired power plants with no 
rule or proposed rule, gas-fired power plants with no rule or 
no proposed rule, heavy duty vehicles with a proposed rule 
focused on NOX, oil and gas facilities with a proposed rule, 
aircraft, we will put an asterisk by it, because you say you 
have something and I don't see it.
    And as to chemical plants, refineries, cement and other 
minerals, metals manufacturing and pulp and paper, no rule 
proposed or final. And we are 16 months into this 
Administration and what is widely believed to be a world 
climate crisis caused by carbon emissions. Have I stated that 
all correctly?
    Mr. Goffman. I am glad you gave us that 16-month frame.
    Senator Whitehouse. Start with if I stated that correctly. 
Then you can expand.
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Whitehouse. OK, go ahead.
    Mr. Goffman. Thanks, Senator. I am wanting to leave you 
with a sense of encouragement and hope. Just looking back not 
16 months, but just in the 11 and a half months that this 
Administration was in office in 2021, we established a rather 
robust cadence in terms of putting out greenhouse gas policies. 
In about 9 months, we stood up an entire HFC phased-down 
program. We finalized the rules in the fall and stood the 
program up and began to harvest HFC reductions in January.
    We put out a comprehensive oil and gas methane proposal 
that for the first time covered existing sources in that 
sector. And we went, again, in 11 and half months, soup to nuts 
in establishing greenhouse gas emission standards for mobile 
sources through model year 2026. In that year, those standards 
are the most ambitious that have ever been put on the books.
    I bring that up, Senator, because I think we have set a 
pace for addressing greenhouse gas emissions using our 
authorities that at least to the extent that I have anything to 
do with it, we will be able to maintain and even exceed in the 
coming 12 months.
    Senator Whitehouse. Well, I beg to differ. But for that 
reason, I very much hope you will exceed. When your 
Administrator Regan was sitting in that chair last, he said one 
of the reasons they haven't been able to get this done is they 
don't have the personnel, which is interesting, coming from an 
organization that has 14,000 employees, more than the entire 
U.S. Congress, House and Senate alike.
    I will just note for you that when there was a crush of 
work at the United States Attorneys Office in the District of 
Columbia after the Trump raiders attacked the Capitol and broke 
in and did all the damage and harm and injury, and they 
suddenly had hundreds of additional cases, what they did was 
hey reached out throughout the entire department and they 
brought people in on detail and they stood up an operation that 
met the moment.
    When I look at the regulatory output that you guys have to 
date, I think what is called for is a regulatory surge of 
similar or greater focus than what the Department of Justice 
did when it was faced with the prosecution surge in the wake of 
January 6th. So I commend that to your consideration and to the 
Administrator's consideration. I apologize to the Chairman for 
going over my time.
    Senator Carper. No apology necessary.
    We are coming to the end of this hearing. Before we finish, 
I will give you one last chance to maybe add a closing comment 
that you might have. I do have one last question. First of all, 
I want to make a unanimous consent request, then I want to ask 
you a question about methane.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record my 
statement on the recent updates to the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule. Coming from a downwind State where over 90 
percent of our air pollution comes from upwind States, not from 
our State, but from upwind States, we greatly appreciate the 
new Good Neighbor Rule to hold upwind States responsible for 
their pollution.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. With that, before we adjourn, let me just 
mention briefly methane, and Senator Sullivan has joined us 
again. I am going to take just a few minutes, Senator Sullivan 
and then yield to you for just a few minutes. I need to run and 
vote.
    Methane is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, than 
you know, and trapped in heat and the atmosphere is also a 
component of natural gas. The oil and gas sector is the largest 
emitter of methane in this Country, wasting methane throughout 
the supply chain into the air that could be used for energy.
    A recent analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund found 
that methane leakage on Navajo Nation land alone is worth $48 
million per year, an equivalent climate impact of 400,000 
automobiles' worth of greenhouse gas emissions.
    Last November, EPA announced a proposed rulemaking intended 
to reduce methane emission from both new and existing oil and 
gas sources, and set emission reduction targets to help us meet 
our climate goals. Please describe briefly your work with the 
oil and gas sector on the methane rule. Do you agree that 
capturing methane helps save and better use our domestic energy 
resources?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question. I think 
Administrator Regan and everybody in the Office of Air and 
Radiation really sees a very important confluence of 
considerations and priorities that are represented in the 
proposal we put out last November to set standards for methane. 
As you know, methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. When it 
is reduced, other pollutants are reduced as well, which 
improves air quality in front-line communities.
    At the same time, it is exactly as you said, methane is 
valuable as a product. Our standards will certainly support the 
efforts of industry to increase the efficiency of their 
operations, capture and use or sell more product. It will also 
help promote a wave of technological innovation that a number 
of the leading companies are undertaking.
    In fact, even before, during the Trump Administration, 
major oil and gas producing companies advocated with EPA to 
establish exactly the kind of regulatory program that we have 
proposed. At least one company, ExxonMobil, put its own 
proposal out, reflecting not only the company's understanding 
of the importance of having the rules of the road, but also the 
understanding that you articulated, that preventing leaks and 
emissions of methane is intrinsically economically valuable to 
the companies and the economy.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you for that.
    Senator Sullivan, I will ask you to be brief in this 
question and we will wrap in 5 minutes. I have to run and vote; 
you may have to as well.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Goffman, I wanted to follow-up again on that issue that 
I talked about on the Clean Power Plan rule that the Supreme 
Court rule was a violation of EPA's statutory powers from the 
Congress. I am a little concerned that move by Gina McCarthy, 
which again, she publicly stated, hey, heck, even if we don't 
win, it was 3 years ago, all the power plants, most are already 
in compliance, investments have already been made, again, 
shocking disregard for the rule of law in America.
    I am a little worried about the electric generating unit, 
EGU, strategy announced by Administrator Regan that could have 
the same kind of impact where it is an overreach on your 
statutory authority. You guys mandate that everybody complies. 
It is billions of dollars of compliance.
    What can you do to assure this committee that you are not 
going to be undertaking the same Gina McCarthy lawless strategy 
that she did with the Clean Power rule, that Supreme Court six 
to three ruled was not within EPA's statutory mandate?
    Mr. Goffman. One of the things I want to confirm is that 
Administrator Regan himself, the current EPA Administrator, is 
absolutely committed in word and in his deeds as a leader to 
following the rule of law.
    Senator Sullivan. I believe that. I happen to be, I happen 
to like Administrator Regan. I think he is someone who believes 
in the States' role. So just, if you can commit to me to work 
with him and this committee to make sure that kind of lawless 
Gina McCarthy maneuver doesn't happen again, can you commit to 
that?
    Mr. Goffman. Absolutely.
    Senator Sullivan. Good. Let me go to the issue of ethics 
and conflicts. I have written the IG at the Department of 
Interior. There are a number of senior officials at the 
Department of Interior who are making decisions on issues in 
which, in the private sector, they were leaders on 
environmental groups and then meeting with these same groups 
later, that is clearly a violation of ethics in my view. I have 
asked for investigations by the IG at Department of Interior.
    I did notice that you had a bit of a dust-up on this issue 
as part of your 2-year bar on meeting with folks from the 
Harvard University Environmental Energy and Law Program and the 
EPA Director of Ethics mentioned that you should have recused 
yourself. Am I stating that correctly? I don't want to 
misinterpret that.
    But can you make a commitment to me on the issue of ethics 
that you complied fully with those? It looks like you did have 
some kind of issue where you were, I think, somewhat 
reprimanded for not immediately recusing yourself. I am quoting 
from the EPA Ethics Director. Am I getting that right, and did 
you learn a lesson from that?
    Mr. Goffman. I certainly did. The lesson I learned involved 
an email from a former colleague at Harvard, which I forward to 
an EPA employee. The lesson I learned is, don't just read the 
subject line, read the ``from'' address to make sure that I am 
absolutely 110 percent complying with my recusal obligation.
    Senator Sullivan. And that recusal was a 2-year bar of 
meeting with people you had been working with. I understand 
that. And again, I am not trying to make a big deal about it. I 
read the record. It looks like it was an honest mistake.
    A less honest mistake, though, seems to be Gina McCarthy 
recently met with the head of the NRDC at the White House. This 
was only 8 months after she had been head of the NRDC. To me, 
that is just like a blanket violation of her ethics agreement.
    How is it ethical for Gina McCarthy to meet with her former 
employee less than a year from joining the Administration?
    Mr. Goffman. I am not qualified to answer that question.
    Senator Sullivan. But if it is a 2-year ban, she met with 
him after 8 months, isn't that a violation of ethics? You 
wouldn't do that, would you?
    Mr. Goffman. My recusal commitment is 2 years.
    Senator Sullivan. So is hers.
    Mr. Goffman. I really----
    Senator Sullivan. Assume hers is. Isn't that a violation of 
her ethical obligations?
    Senator Carper. Senator Sullivan, I hate to interrupt, 
but----
    Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, these are important issues.
    Senator Carper. I know they are important, and I have been 
very generous----
    Senator Sullivan. The Department of Interior they are 
violating ethics laws----
    Senator Carper. Senator Sullivan, I am always very generous 
in providing time for you to go over and beyond the time that 
is allotted. Finish up----
    Senator Sullivan. No one is waiting on me, Mr. Chairman. 
These are really----
    Senator Carper. We have a vote underway----
    Senator Sullivan. Federal Government, really important 
issues. I would just like an answer. And I would like a 
commitment to make sure you abide by ethics. But is Gina 
McCarthy currently abiding by ethics? The answer is no. Right? 
The answer is no.
    So can I get a commitment from you to do that, to not 
follow the suit of your current and former boss, the example of 
her?
    Mr. Goffman. I remain in continual contact with ethics 
counsel, because I want to be 100 percent on the mark in 
implementing my own recusal requirements.
    Senator Sullivan. I believe you. But I just think it is 
important.
    Mr. Goffman. I agree, it is important. Often, what ethics 
counsel will tell me is that large group meetings, for example, 
can be permissible even if they include a former employer. So 
that is why I was hesitating. I do not know what the 
circumstances were, still do not know what the circumstances 
were of Ms. McCarthy's meeting, because those circumstances 
could provide the answer to your question as to whether or not 
she was in violation.
    Senator Sullivan. Well, I think she was. But thank you for 
the answer, and thank you for your commitment. I will have one 
more follow-up question on a PM 2.5 issue in Fairbanks that we 
hope you will continue the good work that the EPA had been 
doing with the State and the borough there. I know you are 
familiar with it.
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. We actually really appreciate the 
constructive approach the EPA has been taking on that tough 
issue in Alaska. I am sure you are familiar with it. I 
appreciate your commitment to continue to work on that.
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. You are welcome.
    I want to close by thanking you, Mr. Goffman, for appearing 
before us today. You are nominated for a critical role at EPA, 
and I am pleased that we have been able to hear from you today.
    Before we adjourn, a little bit of housekeeping. First, I 
want to ask unanimous consent to submit into the record a 
variety of materials relating to today's hearing, including 
letters of support for Mr. Goffman's nomination, along with 
articles and independent analysis relating to his nomination. 
Without objection, those items will be entered into the record.
    [The referenced material follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Finally, Senators will be allowed to submit 
written questions for the record through close of business on 
Wednesday, June the 8th. We will complete those questions, send 
them to our witness. You, Mr. Goffman, will be asked to reply 
by Wednesday, June 22d.
    Would you like to make a last closing, brief statement, 
maybe a minute or so?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you, Senator Carper. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today, and thank you for the extreme 
care you put into leading this hearing. I am going to give in 
to the temptation to repeat something I said briefly before. I 
think there is no higher calling than public service, and it is 
a calling. If you hear the voice, you can't resist it.
    As I said briefly, but I will say again, the essence of 
public service is identifying yourself with everyone whom you 
serve. As I said, that means everyone, so that everyone sees in 
whatever action the government takes, some vindication or 
honoring of their interests and needs. I have always looked to 
you, Senator Carper, and members of the committee, as 
exemplifying that. I hope to continue to meet that standard.
    Senator Carper. That is a lovely way to close the hearing. 
Thanks again to you for your service, for your willingness to 
serve in this capacity and joining us today. I thank your 
spouse, who is sitting over your left shoulder, for listening 
intently and smiling, never rolling her eyes at any of your 
responses. We are grateful to her for her service as well and 
her willingness to share you with all of us.
    I want to say thanks to our staff members, both majority 
and minority, who helped us prepare for this hearing, as we 
will begin the next step in this confirmation process. It is a 
wrap. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                           [all]