[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   A REVIEW OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                    ACTIVITIES AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
                     PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE USE
                        OF SCIENCE IN REGULATORY
                    AND DEREGULATORY DECISION-MAKING

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 27, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-26

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
 
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-426 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------          
     

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                  HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking 
RANDY WEBER, Texas                       Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee         VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California             KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas              JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
RYAN ZINKE, Montana                  MAXWELL FROST, Florida
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida              YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
DALE STRONG, Alabama                 SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
MAX MILLER, Ohio                     JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              TED LIEU, California
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                SEAN CASTEN, Illinois,
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York             Vice Ranking Member
TOM KEAN, New Jersey                 PAUL TONKO, New York
VACANCY
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                           September 27, 2023

                                                                   Page

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

                           Opening Statements

Written statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................     7

Statement by Representative Max Miller, Presiding Chairman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................     7
    Written Statement............................................     9

Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    10
    Written Statement............................................    11

                               Witnesses:

The Honorable Michael S. Regan, Administrator, Environmental 
  Protection Agency
    Oral Statement...............................................    12
    Written Statement............................................    15

Discussion.......................................................    24

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

The Honorable Michael S. Regan, Administrator, Environmental 
  Protection Agency..............................................    76

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Letter submitted by Representative Bill Posey, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
    ``Management Implication Report: Disclosure of Foreign 
      Support for EPA Research Grants,'' to Dr. Chris Frey, 
      Assistant Administrator and EPA Science Advisor, Office of 
      Research and Development, from Jason Abend, Assistant 
      Inspector General, Office of Investigations, United States 
      Environmental Protection Agency,...........................   102

Letter submitted by Representative Jim Baird, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
    To the Honorable Michael Regan, Administrator, U.S. 
      Environmental Protection Agency, from Mike Braun, U.S. 
      Senator, and Jim Baird, PhD, Member of Congress............   105

Letter submitted by Representative Mike Collins, Presiding 
  Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives
    To the Honorable Frank Lucas and the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, 
      U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space 
      & Technology, from Sean O'Neill, Senior Vice President, 
      Government Affairs, Portland Cement Association............   109

 
                   A REVIEW OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                    ACTIVITIES AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
                     PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE USE
                        OF SCIENCE IN REGULATORY
                    AND DEREGULATORY DECISION-MAKING

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2023

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

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Max Miller 
presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Miller. The Committee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the 
Committee at any time.
    Opening statements, before my opening statement, I would 
like to--also to request unanimous consent to submit Chairman 
Lucas' opening statement for the record.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]

    Thank you for joining us today, Administrator Regan. The 
work you do at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
incredibly important, and it touches the lives of every 
American.
    Nowhere is that more apparent than in my home state of 
Oklahoma where we have abundant natural gas production, 
farming, and ranching. All those sectors of our economy are 
impacted daily by EPA's work. And while the Agency does an 
excellent job to ensure the health and safety of Americans, 
some regulations have costs and consequences that outweigh 
their potential benefits.
    For instance, proposed EPA rules on greenhouse gas 
emissions from the power sector could potentially cost billions 
of dollars and trickle down to customers in the form of higher 
energy bills. A single insecticide, chlorpyrifos, that EPA is 
unilaterally proposing to ban has a value of at least $130 
million to our economy. And the Waters of the United States 
(WOTUS) rule could possibly devastate farmers and ranchers 
whose lands could suddenly be subject to major federal 
regulation.
    Every EPA action has a significant impact on our health, 
safety, and economy. That's why it's so important that the 
regulatory decisions EPA makes are based on the best available 
science.
    Our job on this committee is to make sure that EPA's 
actions are grounded in sound science--and that includes using 
solid data, thorough analyses, cost-benefit assessments, and a 
process that's collaborative and transparent.
    I have a few concerns with some of EPA's current actions 
and whether they are being driven by the best-available science 
as required under law. For instance, the EPA's decision to ban 
chlorpyrifos not only exceeds the safety determinations made by 
EPA's own scientists, but it also runs counter to the 
scientific analysis done by USDA scientists.
    In another example, multiple proposed new rules on 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act are 
raising questions because they are unrealistic and could leave 
our power sector vulnerable to outages.
    When EPA makes decisions that either ignore consensus 
science or create impossible costs for our businesses, it runs 
the risk of prioritizing politics over smart policy. And that 
harms all Americans.
    So I'm looking forward to a lively discussion today about 
how we can improve the way the agency conducts science and--
just as importantly--improve how science informs EPA's 
decision-making.
    Administrator Regan, this is your first time before the 
Committee and I expect this to be a comprehensive hearing that 
touches on a wide range of topics. I'm grateful for your 
participation and, given the critical role of science at EPA, 
I'd like to be sure this becomes a regular occurrence.
    I hope you agree with me that science and scientific 
integrity must be a priority for the EPA Administrator, and 
that there's value in having regular conversations with 
Congress to discuss these key topics.
    I thank you for your time today, and I look forward to a 
productive discussion.

    Mr. Miller. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an 
opening statement.
    I'd like to welcome everyone to this morning's hearing, 
``Science and Technology at the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA).'' I'm pleased to welcome EPA Administrator Michael Regan 
for the very first time in front of the Science Committee. In 
fact, this is the first time any EPA Administrator has 
testified since 2019, so we certainly have a lot here to 
discuss. So thank you for coming.
    While I appreciate you joining us today, I have to say that 
your testimony was sent to the Committee unacceptably late. We 
require witnesses to share their written testimony no less than 
48 hours ahead of our hearings. This isn't an arbitrary 
deadline. Our Members need time to review your statements, sir, 
so we can fully prepare for these discussions and ask 
thoughtful, informed questions. We invited you to testify in 
July so you had plenty of time to meet this deadline, and while 
I know you have an internal review process, previous 
Administration witnesses have had no problem getting us their 
testimony on time.
    Given the importance of science at EPA, it's my hope and 
Chairman Lucas' that the Administrator will come before this 
Committee regularly in the future. So I expect that the next 
time you'll join us, we'll have your testimony ahead of time so 
we can have the most productive discussion possible.
    I anticipate that much of today's conversation will focus 
on the use of science and technology and the EPA's regulatory 
and, when necessary, deregulatory agenda. And although it's 
been a while since we've heard it, every EPA Administrator that 
has come before our Committee has stressed the need for 
scientific integrity at the EPA and the importance of relying 
on the expertise of career staff and scientists when crafting 
the regulations and policies of the Agency.
    That reliance on science is especially important today, 
given the fact that the Biden Administration's EPA has 
promulgated 1,083 rules to date. That's nearly 55 rules a month 
since the President took office. There is no industry exempt 
from the wide range of topics that these rules cover, from 
pesticides and agriculture, to emissions for power plants, to 
chemicals and manufacturing. Regulations have the potential to 
hamstring our economy if not achievable and based on science.
    Administrator Regan's EPA has set very ambitious goals, 
reducing emissions from the power sector by 80 percent, having 
2/3 of the cars on the road be zero emission, and nearly 
eliminating all methane emissions in the country, just to name 
a few. Admirable as those may be, we simply cannot set goals 
without analyzing the economic and social costs to achieve 
them. We can't just flip the switch off for domestic fossil 
energy production unless we have reliable and affordable 
replacements. Otherwise, hospitals and military bases would go 
dark, families would struggle to make ends meet, businesses 
would close, and lives would be lost. We need to be realistic 
about what these goals require from the people we serve.
    Additionally, today's hearing is an opportunity to get an 
update from the Administrator on the $100 billion influx of 
funding the Agency has received through the IIJA 
(Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) and IRA (Inflation 
Reduction Act). No matter what side of the political spectrum 
you sit on, this pace of spending is undeniably vulnerable to 
the waste, fraud, and abuse. This funding has set the potential 
to positively impact crucial sectors of our economy, but it 
also has the potential to fund wasteful projects that line the 
pockets of select environmental groups and prop up technologies 
that will never achieve success on their own in the market. So 
we must carefully examine the Agency's processes to set up new 
programs, get money out the door, and monitor the progress of 
projects well into the future.
    I want to thank the Administrator for being here today, and 
I'll end with a bit of sentiment. Testifying is a lot like a 
doctor's appointment. While we're purposely looking for things 
that are wrong, and you'll hear criticisms on how things look, 
it's because we want to prevent actions from turning into an 
unfixable problem. Everyone here wants an effective, smoothly 
running Environmental Protection Agency, and today is a 
necessary step to ensure that. I hope we can work together to 
ensure EPA is doing things for people and not to people.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

    I want to welcome everybody to this morning's hearing, 
Science and Technology at the Environmental Protection Agency.
    I'm pleased to welcome EPA Administrator, Michael Regan, 
for the very first time in front of the Science Committee. In 
fact, this is the first time any EPA Administrator has 
testified since 2019, so we certainly have a lot to discuss.
    While I appreciate you joining us today, I have to say that 
your testimony was sent to the Committee unacceptably late. We 
require witnesses to share their written testimony no less than 
48 hours ahead of our hearings.
    This isn't an arbitrary deadline--our members need time to 
review your statements so we can fully prepare for these 
discussions and ask thoughtful, informed questions.
    We invited you to testify in July, so you had plenty of 
time to meet this deadline. And while I know you have an 
internal review process, previous Administration witnesses have 
had no problem getting us their testimony on time.
    Given the importance of science at EPA, it's my hope, and 
Chairman Lucas', that the Administrator will come before this 
committee regularly in the future. So I expect that the next 
time you join us we'll have your testimony ahead of time so we 
can have the most productive discussion possible.
    I anticipate that much of today's conversation will focus 
on the use of science and technology in EPA's regulatory--and 
when necessary, deregulatory--agenda.
    And although it's been a while since we've heard it, every 
EPA Administrator that has come before our Committee has 
stressed the need for scientific integrity at the EPA and the 
importance of relying on the expertise of career staff and 
scientists when crafting the regulations and policies of the 
Agency.
    That reliance on science is especially important today 
given the fact that the Biden Administration's EPA has 
promulgated 1,083 rules to date. That's nearly 55 rules a month 
since the President took office.
    There is no industry exempt from the wide range of topics 
these rules cover. From pesticides in agriculture, to emissions 
for power plants, to chemicals in manufacturing, regulations 
have the potential to hamstring our economy if not achievable 
and based on science.
    Administrator Regan's EPA has set very ambitious goals: 
reducing emissions from the power sector by 80%, having two-
thirds of the cars on the road be zero-emission, and nearly 
eliminating all methane emissions in the country, to name a 
few.
    Admirable as those may be, we simply cannot set goals 
without analyzing the economic and social costs to achieve 
them.
    We can't flip the switch off for domestic fossil energy 
production unless we have reliable and affordable replacements.
    Otherwise, hospitals and military bases would go dark, 
families would struggle to make ends meet, businesses would 
close, and lives would be lost. We need to be realistic about 
what these goals require from the people we serve.
    Additionally, today's hearing is an opportunity to get an 
update from the Administrator on the $100 billion dollar influx 
of funding the Agency has received through the IIJA and IRA. No 
matter what side of the political spectrum you sit on, this 
pace of spending is undeniably vulnerable to waste, fraud, and 
abuse.
    This funding has the potential to positively impact crucial 
sectors of our economy. But it also has the potential to fund 
wasteful projects that line the pockets of select environmental 
groups and prop up technologies that will never achieve success 
on their own in the market.
    So we must carefully examine the Agency's processes to set 
up new programs, get money out the door, and monitor the 
progress of projects well into the future.
    I want to thank Administrator Regan for being here today 
and I'll end with a bit of sentiment. Testifying is a lot like 
a doctor's appointment. While we're purposely looking for 
things that are wrong--and you'll hear criticisms on how things 
look--it's because we want to prevent actions from turning into 
an unfixable problem.
    Everyone here wants an effective, smoothly running 
Environmental Protection Agency and today is a necessary step 
to ensure that. I hope we can work together to ensure EPA is 
doing things for people, not to people.

    Mr. Miller. I now would like to recognize the Ranking 
Member, the gentlewoman from California, for her opening 
statement.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much. And thank you, 
Administrator Regan, for being here with us today.
    Before saying anything else. I just want to say how 
delighted I am to see Chairman Lucas back here. Mr. Lucas, on 
behalf of all Members and staff on this side of the aisle, 
we're wishing you continued success on your recovery. We stand 
ready to do whatever we can to assist, and it's just really 
terrific to see you back.
    I also want to discuss the EPA's research and development 
(R&D) work. You know, the EPA has a unique and really an 
important mission, to put human and environmental health at the 
center of everything they do. The Office of Research and 
Development (ORD) serves a crucial role in that mission. The 
office drives the science that the regulatory offices depend on 
to ensure they're setting health protective standards. It puts 
out state-of-the-art assessments that State, local, and tribal 
governments rely on to protect their residents. EPA 
laboratories across the country monitor air for pollutants, 
soil for contaminants like PFAS, and water to track viruses, 
including COVID-19. All Americans, whether they know it or not, 
depend on EPA to deliver on its clear mandate to prioritize 
health and safety above all else.
    Now, under your leadership, this EPA has made incredible 
efforts to bring this mission to environmental justice 
communities. These communities have been on the frontlines of 
really devastating pollution by industry and sometimes by the 
Federal Government itself. Some bear an incredibly high risk of 
cancer due to unfettered dumping by chemical companies. Others 
worry that environmental contaminants and anemic government 
responses will have irreversible impact on their children's 
development. They have been neglected in programs that have 
prioritized clean water, energy efficiency, and climate 
resilience in other better-resourced areas. EPA's new Office of 
Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights is an important 
step in addressing these needs and connecting these communities 
with much-needed information and resources.
    I'm proud of the work we did in the last Congress to fund 
this effort. The Inflation Reduction Act provided $41 billion 
to the Agency to advance environmental justice, and the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $50 billion to improve 
water infrastructure and quality. I look forward to hearing how 
Congress can continue to support this important work.
    Now, I would be remiss not to note the larger context of 
this meeting today. We're hurtling toward a government 
shutdown. There's infighting taking priority over the 
functioning of our government and, by extension, the health and 
well-being of all Americans. Administrator Regan is a perfect 
witness to put this into perspective.
    This year, we've seen at least 23 weather- and climate-
related disasters with losses exceeding $1 billion. In the 
thick of hurricane season, how will EPA determine that it's 
safe to drink the water following the next devastating storm? 
EPA provides rapid response to manmade disasters as well. What 
if there's another catastrophic train derailment like we saw 
earlier this year in Ohio? EPA can't effectively respond and 
inform evacuation orders if their hands are tied by this 
manufactured crisis.
    I hope your testimony, Mr. Regan, can inform the larger 
body of just how many serious consequences of the shutdown that 
we face would exist. As you know, from my previous comments, I 
also want to raise the issue of the last--leaded fuel and 
transportation and that is leaded fuel in general aviation 
airlines. We have a situation where children are being poisoned 
by the lead in these fuels. We have a study out of my own 
county showing that the airborne particles from emissions in 
small planes have actually elevated the lead in the blood level 
of children near that airport to rival Flint, Michigan. We need 
to do something soon and aggressive about this health problem, 
and I'm hoping you can talk further about that as this hearing 
goes on.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our witness' 
testimony and the opportunity to ask him further questions, and 
I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

    Thank you, Chairman Lucas. I'm so glad to be sitting next 
to you again today--on behalf of all Members and staff on this 
side of the aisle, we're wishing you continued success on your 
recovery. I also want to thank Administrator Regan for joining 
us so we can discuss the EPA's research and development work.
    The EPA has a unique and important mission--to put human 
and environmental health at the center of everything they do. 
The Office of Research and Development serves a crucial role 
inthis mission. This office drives the science that the 
regulatory offices depend on to ensure they're setting health-
protective standards. It puts out state-of-the-art assessments 
that state, local, and tribal governments rely on to protect 
their residents. EPA laboratories across the country monitor 
air for pollutants, soil for contaminants like PFAS, and water 
to track viruses including COVID-19. All Americans depend on 
EPA to deliver on its clear mandate to prioritize health and 
safety above all else.
    Under Administrator Regan's leadership, this EPA has made 
incredible efforts to bring this mission to environmental 
justice communities. These communities have been on the front 
lines of devastating pollution by industry and by the federal 
government itself. Some bear an incredibly high risk of cancer 
due to unfettered dumping by chemical companies.
    Others worry that environmental contaminants and anemic 
government response will have anirreversible impact on their 
children's development. They have been neglected in programs 
that have prioritized clean water, energy efficiency, and 
climate resilience in other, better resourced areas. EPA's new 
Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights is an 
important step in addressing these needs and connecting these 
communities with much-needed information and resources.
    I am proud of the work we did last Congress to fund this 
effort. The Inflation Reduction Act provided $41 billion to the 
agency to advance environmental justice. And the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law included $50 billion to improve water 
infrastructure and quality. I look forward to hearing how 
Congress can continue to support this important work.
    I would be remiss not to note the larger context of this 
meeting today. We are hurtling towards a government shutdown. 
Bitter infighting and political gamesmanship are taking 
priority over the functioning of our government--and by 
extension, the health and wellbeing of all Americans. 
Administrator Regan is a perfect witness to put this in 
perspective. This year, we've seen at least 23 weather- and 
climate-related disasters with losses exceeding one billion 
dollars. In the thick of hurricane season, how will EPA 
determine that it's safe to drink the water following the next 
devastating storm? EPA provides rapid response to manmade 
disasters, as well. What if there is another catastrophic train 
derailment, like we saw earlier this year in Ohio? EPA can't 
effectively respond and inform evacuation orders if their hands 
are tied by this manufactured crisis. I hope Administrator 
Regan's testimony today can inform the larger body of just one 
of many serious consequences of the games being played on the 
House floor.
    Thank you again to Chairman Lucas for holding this hearing 
and to Administrator Regan for appearing. I yield back.

    Mr. Miller. Thank you to the Ranking Member.
    And I'd now like to introduce the Chairman of the Full 
Committee, Mr. Lucas, for an opening statement.
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I know my 
opening--official opening statement has been entered in the 
record, but I would like to take just a moment to thank the 
Ranking Member and all the Subcommittee Chairmen who have 
handled the hearings while I've been gone, and for that matter, 
the Membership on both sides of the room.
    This Committee is a very productive Committee, and we're 
very focused. Your ability to accomplish things in my absence 
I'm very appreciative of. And while I may move a little slower 
for a little bit longer, I have great expectations about what 
we're going to accomplish in the rest of this session. And 
again, thank you to all my colleagues. You've been wonderful. I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'd now like to recognize the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina, Ms. Ross, to introduce our witness.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, it's 
wonderful to see Chairman Lucas back. We have missed him, and 
he has been such a great leader of this Committee.
    It is a privilege to introduce my friend and fellow North 
Carolinian, Administrator Michael Regan. Administrator Regan's 
distinguished service at the North Carolina Department of 
Environmental Quality set a strong example for other States 
around the country, and now we're sharing him with the whole 
country. He's been a real champion in addressing PFAS 
contamination in particular. My North Carolina colleague, 
Congressman Rouzer, and I have seen the world-class water 
treatment facility on the Cape Fear River, and our State and 
local governments would not have gotten to this point without 
Administrator Regan's outstanding work in this area.
    Now at the EPA, he and his staff are working tirelessly to 
tackle the PFAS contamination problem and many others. He 
recognizes that we have a duty at the Federal level to protect 
the health and safety of our people, our communities, and our 
environment in order to move this country forward.
    Thank you for your leadership, Administrator Regan, and I 
look forward to hearing your testimony.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you.
    Administrator Regan, you are now recognized for five 
minutes to present your testimony.

          TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL S. REGAN,

         ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. Regan. Well, good morning everyone. And, Chairman 
Lucas, thank you for personally inviting me in April at the 
House Agriculture Committee to join you today. I'm glad to be 
here. Ranking Member Lofgren and Members of the Committee, I 
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to 
discuss the role of science at the Environmental Protection 
Agency. Protecting public health and the environment is EPA's 
privilege and greatest responsibility. And as a science-based 
agency, sound and reliable science is central to all of our 
work.
    EPA continues to uphold the Biden-Harris Administration's 
commitment to relying on science to address public health and 
environmental challenges like PFAS, the climate crisis, lead, 
air quality, water quality, wildfires, threats to children's 
health, and many others. As we do this important work, we're 
guided by the fundamental belief that the health of people, of 
our environment, and our economy go hand in hand. We have a 
golden opportunity not only to make communities healthier and 
safer, but to also deliver lifechanging programs in these 
communities that can catalyze local economic growth and good-
paying jobs. And we're committed to scientific integrity to 
help us achieve our ambitious climate and economic goals.
    Our dedicated and talented staff work on so many critical 
issues, and I'm looking forward to sharing some of our work 
with you today. Over the past two years, we've taken strides to 
ensure that all people have access to clean and safe drinking 
water. For far too long, communities across the United States 
have been exposed to harmful PFAS. That's why in October 2021, 
EPA released its PFAS strategic roadmap, a coordinated strategy 
to protect the public and environment from this deadly chemical 
compound.
    As the science continues to develop, we know more now than 
ever about PFAS and how it can cause adverse health impacts 
that can devastate entire communities. Earlier this year, EPA 
proposed the first-ever legal limits for PFAS, informed by the 
hard work and analysis of EPA scientists. We expect to issue a 
final drinking water rule in the coming months.
    And while science has helped us make significant progress, 
we still have a lot of work to do to increase our understanding 
of PFAS. Our scientists are focused on methods to detect and 
measure PFAS in our environment, on understanding the risks 
that PFAS have on our health and our ecosystems, and on ways we 
can reduce PFAS that are already in our environment. EPA will 
continue making progress by working in close collaboration with 
tribes, States, communities and other stakeholders, including 
Congress, to enact and implement PFAS solutions that follow the 
science and that stand the test of time.
    Science isn't just about finding problems, it's about 
fixing them. That's why I'm grateful to Congress for providing 
$10 billion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to address 
emerging contaminants, which we have begun distributing. I'm 
hopeful and optimistic that EPA's science will lead to a 
cleaner and healthier future for all.
    EPA is also using science to help address many of the 
issues wildfires present to our health and to our environment. 
Over the past 20 years, the numbers of acres burned annually 
due to wildfires in the United States has doubled. Wildfires 
are a major source of air pollution, and emissions can travel 
thousands of miles, impacting the health of millions. This past 
summer, we saw the smoke from wildfires in Canada bring 
dangerous air pollution to the Midwest and the East Coast, and 
last month, we saw how wildfires in Maui brought unimaginable 
loss to families, homes, and businesses. EPA's scientists are 
developing new ways to model and monitor those emissions and 
are working to understand what additional toxins might be 
present in the smoke, particularly from wildfires that cross 
into urban areas and burn manmade structures.
    Last, I'd like to speak about the work our agency has done 
involving lead exposure. The science is clear. There is no safe 
level of exposure to lead, period. EPA is and has been a leader 
in President Biden's whole-of-government approach to protecting 
families and children from lead exposure. To date, this 
Administration has funded the removal of over 100,000 lead 
service lines, and that number will significantly increase 
thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Our scientists 
will continue to research and develop new ways to reduce lead 
exposure until we meet President Biden's goal of replacing 100 
percent of lead service lines.
    EPA is committed to taking actions that are backed by 
sound, quality, and peer-reviewed science. From our actions to 
address and cleanup PFAS, to providing information that helps 
people during wildfires, to decisions that protect our Nation's 
drinking and recreational waters, science is the backbone of 
all we do at EPA. And while I'm proud of the foundation we've 
laid, there's still much more work to do to ensure that all of 
our children have safe, healthy places to live, learn, and 
play.
    So thank you all for the opportunity to be here today and 
to submit testimony for the record. I look forward to our 
continued partnership and to achieve these ambitious yet 
necessary goals and welcome all questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Regan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Miller. I thank the Administrator for his testimony, 
and thank you again, sir.
    The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
    Chemistry companies in Ohio generate roughly around $3.5 
billion in earnings and $1.3 billion in taxes and exports from 
the production plants exceed $6.5 billion. That's why I'm 
concerned by the EPA's proposed updates to the new chemicals 
regulation under the Toxic Substance Control Act, known as 
TSCA, particularly as it relates to PFAS and the manufacturing 
of semiconductors. The Semiconductor Industry Association went 
as far as saying this proposed action would have a devastating 
effect on U.S. competitiveness and would result in the 
semiconductor industry being unable to manufacture devices in 
the United States. Administrator Regan, has EPA measured the 
economic consequences of these actions, and has the EPA sought 
input from the Department of Commerce, which is investing $50 
billion in U.S. semiconductors that your agency might 
completely shut down?
    Mr. Regan. Well, first, I'd like to say that, during my 
time as State regulator, I've spent time with families, the 
mothers and children that have been poisoned by PFAS. I've seen 
it firsthand. That being said, I brought that experience to 
EPA. I believe we're developing very responsible regulations. 
Yes, I've met with the leadership of the National Association 
of Manufacturers. I've met with the American Chemistry Council. 
I've met with CEOs (Chief Executive Officers) from industry. 
There is a way that we can do this where we protect the 
environment and people and economic development. They're not 
mutually exclusive. So I've been in these conversations as late 
as last week with industry leaders and green CEOs, and I think 
there's a path forward, again, where we don't have to 
compromise global competitiveness while we protect our families 
and our communities.
    Mr. Miller. And thank you for that answer, but have you 
been working with the Department of Commerce at all or sought 
any input from them in general, or----
    Mr. Regan. We have. Yes, I think the President pledged from 
day one that approaching PFAS will be a whole-of-government 
approach. So not only the Department of Commerce, I've sat down 
and had conversations with the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of Agriculture. EPA is not doing any of this work in 
a vacuum because we understand the impact that it has on our 
society.
    Mr. Miller. Communication is key, I agree.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Miller. In March, I wrote to you, along with several of 
my colleagues, requesting information on the process and 
procedures that the EPA has taken in cleanup efforts for the 
East Palestine train derailment in my home State of Ohio, but 
just a week or so ago, interagency communications obtained by a 
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) showed that several chemical 
and environmental monitoring experts were not part of the 
disaster response until a full month after the derailment. Even 
more alarming, two of EPA's own scientists discussed their 
concern regarding the lack of testing for dioxins, a highly 
toxic chemical. Even the former Director of the National 
Toxicology Program said of EPA's response, ``Lots of thinking 
went on!'' Exclamation point.
    So, Administrator Regan, are there actions EPA is taking to 
remedy this delayed response specifically related to dioxin 
sampling and instill public trust in its scientific findings.
    Mr. Regan. Well, first I'd like to say that EPA was onsite 
within hours of the derailment, and we're still there. We've 
been working hard around the clock. I think what we've done in 
terms of having our conversations both internally and 
externally is looking at the appropriate response to what the 
science determines. Now, we never believed that dioxin was 
present, but because the community was alarmed and because so 
many people asked for that, we decided to institute additional 
testing for dioxin, which we did not find. But we wanted to do 
that not only to alleviate the concerns of those in the 
community, but as we exported the waste to other waste 
facilities across the country, they had those questions as 
well. My decision was we need to do the testing, do it very 
quickly because we don't need any interruption in the cleanup 
and the export of that waste. I stand by the science, and I 
believe we have done exactly what we need to do to protect that 
community.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Administrator. As major criticism of 
EPA's response has been the Agency's deference to the railroad 
company and giving so much authority to them in conducting 
sampling and crafting the protocols to do so, in response to 
our letter, EPA said there are no plans for the Agency to 
perform long-term studies and that other organizations will 
undertake such efforts. Given this criticism, does EPA still 
stand by that plan? If so, what steps would you take to verify 
the accuracy of these studies and protect the citizens of Ohio?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think I said it fairly simple from day 
one. We were going to hold the perpetrator accountable. And 
Norfolk Southern, just like any other perpetrator, is on the 
hook to foot the bill and do the work with the appropriate 
oversight from EPA.
    Listen, we've been overseeing the cleanup work from day 
one. Norfolk Southern has done everything to date that we've 
asked for. And I think you saw from the President's Executive 
order last week, there are other agencies involved. We will 
continue to sample. We will continue to monitor. We will 
continue to stay there with the people of East Palestine. But 
there are also other agencies that have been brought in to do 
longer-term studies and looking into some of the things that go 
along with a very serious disaster like this one.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Administrator. And the one thing 
I'll say, and I'll wrap up--and if you could just do me a 
favor, and I really do mean it. If you could talk to the 
President and get him to come to East Palestine. You know, he 
said that he would. We would like him to come, and it really 
would mean a lot to the people there. Regardless of political 
affiliation, I think it would really mean a lot for everything 
that they've gone through.
    I yield back.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member Lofgren for five minutes 
of questioning.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator Regan, I want to ask you a question first 
about the subject I referenced in my opening statement, and 
it's something I've been dealing with for quite some time. 
Leaded fuels are the primary fuel for piston engine aircraft. I 
mean, jets don't use, commercial airlines don't use leaded 
fuel. It's just the piston engine small aircraft, which 
comprise really the bulk of the general aviation sector.
    Now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 
has concluded based on scientific studies that there is no 
known safe level of lead in the blood. What this means is that 
residents near general aviation airports live with lead 
exposure in the air and ground every day. Now, as I mentioned, 
there is a small airport in the district I represent Reid-
Hillview airport. The County of Santa Clara commissioned a 
scientific study and found that the blood levels of children in 
the neighborhood surrounding the airport had blood--had lead 
levels that were rivaling that in Flint, Michigan. And so it's 
very important that we get the lead out of this last part of 
transportation and protect the children of this country.
    Congress instructed the FAA (Federal Aviation 
Administration) to come up with an alternative to leaded avgas, 
but they haven't been able to get the job done. More recently, 
various groups have petitioned the EPA to finalize their 
endangerment finding related to leaded avgas. Now, I'm hopeful 
that the finding will force the FAA and industry to come up 
with a plan to stop poisoning children with leaded fuels. Can 
you provide us with an update as to where this effort stands?
    Mr. Regan. Well, Congresswoman, first of all I would agree 
with you that there is absolutely no acceptable level of lead 
for any of us, but especially our children. So EPA has been 
very active in this area, working very hard following the 
science, following the process for a lead endangerment finding 
in this area. We're making significant progress, and we believe 
that we'll have that endangerment finding wrapped up, I 
believe, this fall. So that process is moving along in a very 
scientific and orderly way.
    Ms. Lofgren. So we--we're in the fall. We could expect this 
quite soon?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, yes. It will be done this fall, maybe late 
fall, but this fall. And I don't want to prejudge or 
predetermine the outcome, but what I want to tell you is we've 
been very methodical and disciplined on making this 
determination.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. I just want to touch on 
another matter. As you know, I'm sure as everyone in America 
knows, the House majority has us on the brink of going into 
what I think is a very irresponsible government shutdown. I 
don't think that Speaker McCarthy seems to have a plan to keep 
the government open, and I think that's going to cause real 
harm to the country and real harm to our constituents. I'm 
really concerned about the efforts and effects of a shutdown on 
the EPA. Could you describe the effects of a shutdown on the 
EPA's work?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I'm gravely concerned as well. You know, I 
think the EPA has a mission to protect public health and the 
environment. And while we do have some good systems in place, 
there is a trust-but-verify method to that. All of our 
inspections of our hazardous waste facilities, our superfund 
facilities, those inspections will be suspended. The 
inspections of our water quality, our drinking water, those 
inspections will be suspended. I think you all were very 
thoughtful in some congressionally directed projects that will 
help your districts. That work will be suspended. You know, the 
emergency personnel and those essential personnel will be there 
to handle emergencies, but a lot of essential work will begin 
to slow down. By the way, when we think about pesticides and 
herbicides and our toxic reviews to get new chemicals in the 
market so that our farmers are not guessing, that work slows 
down. So I have grave concerns about a potential shutdown.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Administrator, for your testimony, 
for answering my questions, for being here today, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you to the Ranking Member.
    I now recognize the Chairman, Mr. Lucas.
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Administrator Regan, thank you for accepting the 
invitation to come testify before the Science Committee. We had 
a good discussion that day, the Committee did, on both sides of 
the room in the Ag Committee, and clearly the issues that we 
both addressed, this Committee and you and your agency are so 
intertwined it's important you be here.
    But let me ask about an issue that's near and dear to my 
heart. The EPA is expected to shortly finalize its methane 
proposal, which includes the Super Emitter Response Program, 
allowing private entities, including, I fear, nontrained, 
nongovernmental officials to report super emitter events and 
require follow up action without any agency involvement or data 
verification. And equally alarming to me, the proposed rule as 
it appears to be headed our way would establish two technology 
standards, a less stringent one for the nontrained third 
parties and a more stringent one for the industry.
    So I ask this. Why is the proposed rule so prescriptive in 
the technologies industry is allowing to use to detect 
emissions but has a much lower standard for environmental 
activists? Will the EPA maintain a list of false reports and 
set up prohibitions on repeat offenders? You see where my 
concern is coming from?
    Mr. Regan. I do. I do. And I appreciate the question. And 
let me just say we have received over 500,000 comments on that 
proposed rule. I've personally spent time----
    Chairman Lucas. That says something when you get that many 
comments.
    Mr. Regan. I've personally spent time with a number of 
industry CEOs talking about these very issues. What I can say 
is we take the comment period very seriously. We're looking at 
how to strengthen all of the issues you've raised so that that 
final rule will acceptably address all of these issues.
    Let me just say that we do not want any adverse impacts or 
unintentional consequences to receiving any kind of false data 
or any kind of data that jeopardizes the scientific integrity 
that we have built into this program. So we are looking at 
every single issue raised, and I can guarantee you that we're 
responding in kind.
    Chairman Lucas. Because we don't want to create a system 
that would appear to the outside world to be hiring bounty 
hunters who have a lot more flexibility than those who are 
being pursued, so to speak, right or wrong, and I appreciate 
that.
    This same methane rule proposal calls for new compliance 
requirements at facilities within two months of the rule being 
finalized. A number of industry groups had flagged that supply 
chain constraints for a range of equipment are certain to cause 
a delay in meeting that short deadline. And at the same time, 
I'm aware of only one application to the EPA from a company 
seeking to use new technology in detecting leaks at oil and 
natural gas facilities.
    So, Administrator Regan, given the current state of supply 
chains and the lack of innovative technologies approved to 
lighten the burden, will EPA consider pushing the deadline for 
complying with the Agency's forthcoming methane rules--get a 
little more flexibility?
    Mr. Regan. We're giving a lot of thought to compliance 
flexibility and compliance deadlines. And again, just last 
week, week before last, I sat down with some industry CEOs to 
talk about this very issue and how we balance the potential 
impacts to the supply chain. So yes, we are having these 
discussions. I want to just continually say that a proposal is 
just that. It's meant to spark a lot of good conversation, and 
quite frankly, I'm really proud of the conversations we've had 
with API (American Petroleum Institute), with Hess, with Exxon, 
with BP, and others about how we think about these very complex 
issues. We all believe that there's a technical solution. The 
question is how quickly can we get there? And I think we're 
having some positive conversations about that.
    Chairman Lucas. As you well know, where I live in Oklahoma 
is a traditional oil and gas but primarily natural gas area. 
And methane is money. And the way the equipment, the way the 
transmission systems, the way the processing handled--is 
handled has changed dramatically in the last 40 years because 
to lose methane, you're losing money----
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Chairman Lucas [continuing]. And they understand that. 
Well, Mr. Administrator, I appreciate that, and we will keep a 
very close eye as these rules work their way through the 
process, but again, thank you for coming. And I suspect that 
over the course of the coming months and years, there'll be a 
number of opportunities where we will invite you back to 
discuss our common focus on science and the effective use of 
it.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Administrator. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I now recognize Ms. Bonamici for five minutes.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome back, Chairman Lucas.
    And, Administrator Regan, thank you for joining us today. I 
want to start by aligning myself with Representative--Ranking 
Member Lofgren. As the Representative for Hillsboro Oregon 
airport, I want to emphasize, again, the importance of 
addressing lead pollution.
    Mr. Administrator, protecting public health and the 
environment, which is the EPA mission, requires strengthening--
not cutting--programs that are proven to work. And thank you, 
Administrator, for your commitment that the work of the EPA 
will be informed by rigorous and quality science.
    The climate crisis is causing more dangerous air quality, 
as we recently experienced from the dense smoke caused by the 
Canadian wildfires. We experienced wildfire disasters in Oregon 
as well. In 2021, the transportation sector contributed nearly 
1/3 of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States, 
which amplifies climate events and disproportionately affects 
vulnerable communities. There are effective solutions to 
decarbonize the transit and transportation sectors. For 
example, in northwest Oregon, the Beaverton Oregon School 
District is investing in quieter and healthier electric school 
buses. Portland has an electric fire truck, which I got to ride 
on, and Daimler Trucks is leading the way to electrify the 
commercial freight trucking industry. But in light of record 
high temperatures, we need to scale up and expedite this work.
    So, Administrator Regan, needless to say, I'm very 
concerned about the majority's budget proposal that would cut 
funding for the EPA's science and technology account by 42 
percent and zero out funding for the Agency's vehicle 
electrification efforts. So how would these cuts affect EPA's 
research and development of emission-reducing technologies?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. And listen, 
it would significantly hamper progress. I think that in 
prioritizing people first, we know that these emissions from 
vehicles are very harmful for public health and human health, 
especially when we think about our children, our most precious 
cargo that ride to and from school each day, breathe in those 
diesel fumes. And then we think about what you just talked 
about, which is exacerbating the climate crisis.
    I'd like to say that the technologies in the markets are 
driving this electrification, and so what we're trying to do is 
propose regulations that can really capture that while also 
thinking about fuels, advanced biofuels and others, that really 
contribute to the whole low carbon technology transition that 
we want to see that advances our economy, combats the climate 
crisis, and really does, you know, protect public health. We 
can't do that without the proper budget. We need the people. We 
need the scientific rigor. We need the technical analysis, and 
we need the economic analysis to go with these efforts.
    Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely agree with you. Now is not the 
time to be cutting the EPA budget.
    Administrator Regan, the Supreme Court's decision in 
Sackett v. EPA narrowed the definition of Waters of the United 
States (WOTUS), which limited the EPA's scope of authority to 
regulate under the Clean Water Act. So in light of that 
opinion, how is the EPA working to protect clean water? And how 
might these efforts be made more difficult by a potential 
government shutdown?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, listen, I've pledged from day 
one to follow the science and follow the law, and the Supreme 
Court spoke, and we immediately sprang into action to address 
the prescription that they gave to us. With that, we're having 
to look at our--all of our programs to be sure that we're 
leveraging all of our resources and our statutory authorities 
to protect water quality, our drinking water, our wetlands, and 
our pocosins. We have to do this. It's good for the ecosystem, 
but as you all know, our wetlands and pocosins serve as natural 
filters for some of these emergent compounds as well. So we're 
going to use all of our authorities to do so while complying 
with the law. A government shutdown just hampers our ability to 
effectively engage especially with our rural communities who 
are dealing with these emerging contaminant issues. We want 
people to have confidence in their drinking water, and if we're 
not at work, we can't do that.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. And just as a 
reminder, many of our key environmental laws passed with very 
strong bipartisan support, and many were signed into law by 
then-President Nixon, so this should not be a partisan issue. 
Clean air and clean water are critical to our--the people of 
the United States, but also to our planet.
    And as I yield back, I want to note that in your testimony, 
Administrator Regan, you've mentioned that your researchers are 
studying how native seagrass can store carbon and increase 
coastal resilience to flooding. As the co-Chair of the 
bipartisan Oceans Caucus, I am leading the effort on a 
bipartisan blue carbon bill, which will do just that, plus 
create jobs in coastal and rural communities. So I'm hoping 
that we can move that bill forward soon, and I look forward to 
talking about that in the Committee and with the EPA. It's a 
great opportunity to use the seagrasses, kelp, mangroves as a 
carbon sink, but also restore habitat at the same time. So--and 
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Miller. I now recognize Mr. Posey for five minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And good to see you, Administrator Regan.
    Mr. Regan. Yes, good to see you.
    Mr. Posey. Last month, a company in my district that makes 
outboard motors for its main customer, the U.S. Navy SEALs, was 
raided by armed agents of the EPA. And I tried to get together 
and talk to you about this, but your office said it was 
enforcement-sensitive, so I wasn't able to do that. Since this 
case involves the use of national security exemptions, I just 
wonder how the EPA dealt with requests seeking regulatory 
clarity involving national security exemptions.
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and sorry we 
couldn't get together. I do have some limitations in terms of 
that specific case because of the Office of Inspector General's 
(OIG's) investigation and EPA's. But what I would say is the 
Clean Air Act gives us flexibility to look at Clean Air Act 
flexibilities for vehicles as it relates to national security 
interests. So I'd love for our staffs to get together to think 
about whether or not this specific case outside of the 
investigation fits into a future discussion with the Clean Air 
Act flexibility.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you. Do you think it might be possible to 
expand the exemption to first responders like fire, emergency 
medical services, law enforcement, and et cetera?
    Mr. Regan. You know, our folks have had some conversations 
with those entities, along with the manufacturers. I have not 
really seen the need for that flexibility. I think most of our 
flexibilities are reserved for national security interests, but 
we're open to those discussions, and so I'd love to get our 
staffs together to talk about that.
    Mr. Posey. This Committee has come to learn that the EPA 
has spent $10 million on advanced combat equipment for 
enforcement operations. Could you briefly explain why we need 
advanced combat equipment in the Environmental Protection 
Agency?
    Mr. Regan. You know, I'm not quite familiar with that piece 
there, so I'll have to get back on--get back to you on that 
piece there.
    Mr. Posey. OK. I had some more questions about that issue, 
but I'll respect that and we'll get back together on it.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Posey. Switching subjects, EPA's Inspector General (IG) 
sent a memo to the Agency in April identifying that grant 
recipients were not required to disclose foreign support after 
receiving a grant. This means that an EPA grant recipient could 
receive both Federal funding and foreign support during a 
grant's period of performance. It also means a country like 
China could influence the environmental findings that the EPA 
uses. And so I just wonder if you're familiar with this memo. 
It's from the EPA, and inquiring about what steps the Agency 
might take to ensure full transparency from grant recipients 
since receiving the memo.
    And I ask unanimous consent to enter this memo into the 
record. It's dated April 13, 2020. And it's ``Management 
Implication Report: Disclosure of Foreign Support for EPA 
Research and Grants.''
    Mr. Miller. Into the record.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you.
    Mr. Regan. I'm not quite sure if I know specifically what's 
in that memo. I can tell you that we have taken a number of 
steps to strengthen our research grants disclosure requirements 
consistent with the NDAA of 2021. We've also responded to 
concerns raised by our Office of Inspector General, and we've 
updated the terms and conditions of our research grants to 
ensure that grantees provide disclosures about sources of 
funding both before they get the grants and on an ongoing basis 
once they receive those grants. So we have responded to the 
IG's suggestions there.
    Mr. Posey. Exactly. That's what I wanted to hear. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you.
    I now recognize Ms. Stevens for five minutes of questions.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And good morning, Mr. Administrator. I wanted to give you 
some accolades because you are the right person at the right 
time leading your agency. We have so appreciated your 
dedication to issues important to us in Michigan. I'll never 
forget being with you on Belle Isle after we passed the 
infrastructure law, celebrating the cleanup money that has been 
dedicated to the Great Lakes. So thank you for your time in 
Michigan and for your great leadership of the Agency.
    As you probably know, the United Nations estimates that the 
equivalent of 2,000 garbage trucks of plastic is dumped into 
the world's oceans, rivers, and lakes every single day, and 
addressing plastic pollution and improving recycling 
infrastructure is just absolutely essential. And I have long 
been a supporter of this work. In my very first year in 
Congress as the Chair of the Research and Technology 
Subcommittee on this very Committee, we convened the first-ever 
Committee hearing on recycling in about a decade, and we called 
on the EPA to create a national strategy for recycling. And I 
was pleased to see the EPA released its national strategy for 
recycling in 2021, and then we went on to found the 
congressional Plastic Solutions Task Force.
    So I wanted to ask you, Mr. Administrator, could you 
provide an update on the national strategy to prevent plastic 
pollution and how this strategy will support the EPA's work in 
reducing plastic pollution writ large?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely, but first, I want to say thank you 
for your leadership in this area. As I've traveled the country, 
I've been to probably more than 35 States and over 10 
countries. The No. 1--the No. 2 issue young people talk to me 
about are plastics and recycling. And so in April, we released 
our draft national strategy for reducing plastic pollution. We 
released that for comment. We have received over 100,000 
comments that we're combing through right now. So we plan to do 
our due diligence, follow science, follow the data, and come up 
with a very strong strategy.
    And then, you know, I'm really excited that, thanks to the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and thanks to Congress, we've 
recently distributed over $275 million in just solid waste 
infrastructure for recycling grants to help State and local 
governments with this very issue. So we're on the job, we 
recognize how important it is, and we're paying attention.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes, and we salute your agency for the grants 
work and look toward the future of infrastructure work that 
we're doing in the Congress to support recycling 
infrastructure. It seems like we are learning new things on 
just an almost everyday basis as it pertains to plastic waste 
and recycling opportunities.
    Something else, Mr. Administrator, I wanted to ask you is 
that the EPA is conducting just vital research across the 
board, but particularly with water aquatic life sediments and 
the air of the Great Lakes. And the EPA's research vessel Lake 
Guardian is the largest research vessel in the EPA fleet and 
the largest on the Great Lakes, and having this critical asset 
functionable and mission-ready is vital to the safety of our 
Nation's Great Lakes. So I just wanted to give you a minute to 
provide any updates on the vital work the research vessel Lake 
Guardian is doing in the Great Lakes and why this is important 
to the future of these lakes, and then anything that you could 
maybe add around cuts to EPA and the work of this vessel for 
the health safety of our Great Lakes.
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think this is a vessel that we're 
extremely proud of. Most people think that it's just purely 
ecosystems research. We know that the impacts and effects of 
climate change are changing the physical structure of our Great 
Lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to millions of 
people, and so this vessel is critical for scientific research 
in terms of ecological balance, but also preserving the 
security for drinking water for so many millions of people. 
We're proud of the work that that vessel is doing. Cuts in this 
area are at a significant cost to the people that rely on the 
Great Lakes for recreation and for sustenance, and so we are 
continuing to advocate for those research dollars because 
science will drive the way to a lot of solutions that provide a 
lot of economic opportunity as well.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes, and the monitoring remains so critical 
for us. You know, we've seen from times of austerity in the 
past that cuts to personnel have, you know, just greatly 
damaged, I think, some of the work that my constituents rely on 
to maintain the health and safety of our Great Lakes.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to yield back. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you.
    I now recognize Mr. Babin for five minutes of questions.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Administrator, thank you for showing up and 
talking to us and answering questions.
    The EPA has proposed multiple rules for regulating 
greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions from the power sector, which 
I'll refer to collectively as the proposed 111 rule. This rule 
aims to cut the power sector's greenhouse gas pollution 80 
percent by 2030. But in reality, according to some stated by 
utility providers themselves, this rule will only serve to cost 
hundreds of billions of dollars, significantly raise customers' 
power bills, and require a rapid transition away from reliable 
American-produced natural gas without a realistic plan to fully 
replace that generation.
    But what I really want to focus on, Mr. Administrator, is 
my feeling that this rule is based on politics rather than 
science. In fact, one article quoted six people who said the 
White House sent the EPA's original proposal back to your 
agency and requested that it add more stringent requirements. 
So several questions. Did the EPA original proposal include 
regulations on existing gas plants only? Yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. So I think what we've done is we've had a back-
and-forth, an interaction with experts in the White House on 
the construct of that rule. I think collectively we agreed that 
the proposed rule should include existing resources or existing 
production.
    Mr. Babin. Right, but it seems to have devolved away from 
just existing. Did the White House ask your agency to change 
the proposal to include existing gas plants in addition to the 
future plants?
    Mr. Regan. I think we had a robust conversation internally 
at the EPA and the White House. So the rule that came out of 
EPA is a rule that is really grounded in our technological 
rigor and sound science, and I think we're proud of the rule 
that we proposed and we're taking comment on that.
    Mr. Babin. I understand but thinks--it's--what's happened 
since the rule was proposed is different. Did the White House 
request that the proposal require coal plants to curb emissions 
90 percent by 2035 or to retire? Yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. Listen, our rule is a reflection of----
    Mr. Babin. All right.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. EPA's staff analysis.
    Mr. Babin. OK.
    Mr. Regan. We've had conversations with the White House. 
But I just want to really sort of push back on the premise of 
that question because it sends a signal that the White House is 
dictating the rules that EPA proposed, and that's just----
    Mr. Babin. It does send that signal, and that's why----
    Mr. Regan. And that's just not the----
    Mr. Babin [continuing]. I'm asking these questions.
    Mr. Regan. That's just not the case.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Broadly speaking, please confirm or 
deny that the White House did have some level of input on the 
proposed 111 rule?
    Mr. Regan. Oh, absolutely. We have conversations with the 
White House on all of our rules.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. How many staff scientists are 
employed by the White House Office of Climate Policy? You know?
    Mr. Regan. You know, that question would have to be 
directed to the White House. I'm not sure.
    Mr. Babin. OK. How many scientists does the EPA employ?
    Mr. Regan. I can get you that that answer.
    Mr. Babin. Many----
    Mr. Regan. I'm not quite sure----
    Mr. Babin. Many scientists, right?
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. How many exact scientists.
    Mr. Babin. OK.
    Mr. Regan. I want to be exact.
    Mr. Babin. Do you believe that EPA employees who are 
scientists are some of the best minds in their field and 
knowledgeable in the most up-to-date science?
    Mr. Regan. Listen, I absolutely agree with that.
    Mr. Babin. All right. Yes, sir. You can probably see where 
I'm going with this. Can you explain why EPA scientists are 
being overruled by political appointees? And even if that's not 
the case, or you say so, don't you think that the very fact 
that political appointees get to set the targets and then the 
scientists have to crunch the numbers to make it happen and 
make it get there, that would make for a skeptical public of 
this proposed rule? And wouldn't you agree that the significant 
public distrust in the EPA is a massive problem to that agenda?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I'd have to answer that question as a top 
political appointee and say that I listen to my scientists, and 
I think my scientists would corroborate that. And so that rule 
reflects what I think is really hard, technical rigor. But let 
me just say, I've met in the past two to three weeks with 
industry CEOs on a lot of these issues, and we're receiving a 
lot of feedback. I think that the final rule will reflect the 
thinking of our scientists plus industry scientists in how we 
land this final rule.
    Mr. Babin. Well, thank you very much. It looks like--well, 
I've still got a little bit more time. The--do you think your--
these six individuals that were--I believe came out of the EPA 
that spoke with this group and gave us this information, were 
those six individual scientists? Because I'm under the 
understanding that they were.
    Mr. Regan. I'm not quite sure----
    Mr. Babin. They have concerns.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Of who the six individuals are 
you're referring to.
    Mr. Babin. OK. All right. Well, thank you. And I'll yield 
back then.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bowman 
for five minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much, 
Mr. Administrator, for being here today and for your exemplary 
leadership in protecting our environment and our communities.
    I'd like to ask you about the Environmental Justice 
Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Centers, or TCTACs, 
which you have played a key role in funding and selecting. 
These 16 centers are going to be instrumental in helping 
vulnerable communities take advantage of climate, 
infrastructure, and R&D funding. They're going to be crucial 
for making justice fully a reality.
    How has the EPA helped the TCTACs to get off the ground? 
And how do you plan to stay involved in the process to make 
sure they are a success? Will EPA's Regional Administrators 
help coordinate between the TCTACs, State and local 
governments, and communities applying for funding?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and we're 
really proud of these Technical Assistance Centers because it 
demonstrates that the solutions aren't top down. The Federal 
Government shouldn't dictate all of the solutions, that these 
solutions come from our communities, and so we're providing 
technical assistance, as you've stated, using 17 centers all 
across the country. Each of these centers have been awarded 
approximately $10 million. They have connected with local 
universities. They've connected with local NGOs (non-
governmental organizations) and people who can provide the 
technical assistance to those who are on the frontlines and 
working in these communities.
    To your point, yes, our Regional Administrators will be 
involved, but so will our new National Office of Environmental 
Justice and External Civil Rights, who serves as the 
facilitator for all the work that we do to ensure that 
environmental justice and equity is central to every single 
thing we do.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much for that answer. I'd also 
like to ask about how our K-12 public school system fits into 
your vision and plan for IRA implementation. And I also asked 
Secretary Granholm about this when she joined us a couple of 
weeks ago. So public schools, as you know, are the heartbeats 
of our communities. Our next generation of STEM (science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics) and STEAM (science, 
technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) visionaries are 
public school students, and as you know, too many schools are 
struggling right now with toxic pollution, crumbling 
infrastructure, inefficient energy systems, and the impacts of 
extreme weather driven by climate change. In many cases, these 
issues have to be addressed holistically. Can you please talk 
to us about what is happening at EPA and in coordination with 
DOE (Department of Energy) and other agencies to help public 
schools take full advantage of all relevant funding 
opportunities?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. The first thing I'd say is DOE is a 
very strong partner in these TCTACs, and the purpose of these 
TCTACs is to ensure that all of these communities and our State 
and local governments understand the full breadth of resources 
available to reduce pollution and climate pollution. And so 
we're excited about that in terms of our partnership with DOE 
and other agencies.
    The Inflation Reduction Act creates billions of dollars for 
our State and local governments to apply for pollution 
reduction grants, which we're excited to say that our cities 
and our localities and our schools should be able to 
participate in that process. The thing that I'm most proud of 
is how many school districts across this country are applying 
for the electric school bus and low carbon school bus grants. 
This is really revolutionizing how our children get to school 
and reducing those burdens that so many of them face, 
especially having asthma attacks and respiratory distress 
before they can even get into the classroom at 8 a.m. So we're 
excited about that, really excited about that.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much for that. One final question. 
Can you give us a status update on Justice40 implementation 
from EPA's perspective? What do you see as some successes so 
far, and what are some challenges so far?
    Mr. Regan. Listen, I've said this before and I'll say it 
again, you know, Justice40 is the floor for us. I believe that 
we have designed a programming process at EPA to ensure that 
the most vulnerable are the first in line. Whether you're in 
Appalachia, West Virginia, or the black belt of Alabama, there 
are communities that have been on the receiving end 
disproportionately. And so in many of our programs, we have not 
only met but exceeded Justice40. When I think about resources 
coming from our superfund program, our brownfields program, 
when I think about programs where we distribute our water 
quality resources, we're ensuring that the communities that 
have not had a seat at the table, have a seat at the table and 
get some of those protections. By the way, many of our rural 
communities all across the country fit into that very category.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much, and again, thank you for 
your exemplary leadership.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Baird for five 
minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And we really appreciate you being here today to--anyway, 
the question I have really goes on--with what Congressman Babin 
was talking about, the section 111 proposed rule. And it 
mentioned--specifically, this proposed rule indicates that 
carbon capture is a technology that can be used to comply with 
this rule. So carbon capture projects in many States and 
regions require the EPA to issue class 6 wells for the 
injection of carbon. So my question is how many class 6 well 
permits has EPA issued this year?
    Mr. Regan. I'll have to get you the specific number of this 
year. I know that the most recent, we're on track for looking 
at how West Virginia and Louisiana can participate in our Class 
VI program. And it's my understanding that Texas has just 
recently in August made a Class VI well application. So I will 
say this, that the President has pledged that carbon capture 
technologies will be a part of how we move forward. The Class 
VI well program is aligned with that, and there's a commitment 
at EPA to get these Class VI well permits out.
    Mr. Baird. And along that same line then, do you anticipate 
more being in the pipeline and--as we move forward?
    Mr. Regan. I do. I anticipate that we've really figured out 
some program efficiencies, especially as we've worked with 
Louisiana and as we work with West Virginia. We've identified a 
number of efficiencies and are prepared to move forward as 
expeditiously as possible because we see this as part of the 
solution, not everywhere, but in some places around the 
country.
    Mr. Baird. All right. And I think you make a good point in 
that in trying to--so how's--because it helps answer the 
situation, how can utilities really make plans if they don't 
have--and it requires these class 6 permits? So I guess I'm 
just making a comment for--in order for them to move forward, 
we need to be moving forward with those class 6 permits.
    So now another area I'd like to go into, you know, my 
colleague from Ohio, Mr. Miller, brought to your attention, 
discussed the EPA's handling of the East Palestine train 
derailment in February. And without a doubt, I hold the highest 
assurance for Heritage's ability in my area to handle the 
contaminated material. However, I felt the process was somewhat 
disorganized as it was laid out and as--my constituents had 
extreme concerns about the fact that this material was moving 
to their area and coming to Roachdale, Indiana. And so Senator 
Braun and I wrote you a letter back in March. It took about 55 
days to get an answer to that. So anyway, the questions that I 
have relate to that letter. And if the Chairman will allow, I'd 
like to submit that letter for the record.
    Mr. Miller. Without objection.
    Mr. Baird. So I guess I'm down to trying to figure out why 
some of the facilities were not approved, and yet, Roachdale, 
Indiana, is quite a distance from East Palestine, and so how 
that selection process worked and why some of these other sites 
like Victory, Ohio, Liverpool, Ohio, and some of those sites 
were not selected?
    Mr. Regan. Well thank you for that question. And so, you 
know, when we have a perpetrator of an incident like the one in 
East Palestine, they're responsible for identifying and 
selecting the sites. So Norfolk Southern gave us a list of 
sites that they thought were capable of handling these 
particular waste streams. I know that they exhausted the number 
in Ohio instate that they could so they started to look at 
other States as well. It's our job, once Norfolk Southern 
submits the desired location, to approve or disapprove based on 
the certification, and so that's what we did during that 
process. I know that because East Palestine, was so highly 
visible, that there was a lot more controversy around who was 
receiving these waste, but I would agree with you that 
companies like Heritage and others all across the country 
receive these kinds of waste all the time and handle them with 
the utmost integrity, and we didn't anticipate anything 
different on this one.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you very much for that answer. I see that 
I'm out of time. So I just think that process really needs 
constant review. Thank you.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Baird.
    I now recognize Ms. Ross for five minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank you, 
Administrator Regan, for being with us today.
    I also want to thank all of your employees at the Research 
Triangle headquarters. I visited with them recently, and they 
are inspired by your work and doing fabulous work there, and 
let's hope the government doesn't shut down so that none of 
them have compromised paychecks over the next few weeks and 
months.
    Back to the PFAS issue, as you know, PFAS chemicals affect 
our drinking water, our crops, the air we breathe, and the 
products we bring into our home. And they've contaminated more 
than 2,300 sites across 49 States, polluting the drinking water 
of an estimated 200 million Americans, including thousands of 
households in North Carolina, as you know very well.
    These forever chemicals have been associated with a wide 
range of serious health effects, including probable link with 
cancer, thyroid disease, lower fertility, and more. But we know 
very little about what these chemicals really are, where they 
are manufactured and used, and how the American people are 
being exposed. It is vital for EPA to define PFAS in a way that 
will not deprive the Agency, Congress, States, and the public 
of information necessary to address their harmful effects 
efficiently and effectively.
    I've led bipartisan legislation that has twice passed the 
House that would direct the EPA to use a simple definition of 
PFAS, one fully fluorinated carbon atom. That is consistent 
with the international consensus definition. This definition 
would ensure that we have a full picture of the nature and 
extent of PFAS effects, enabling Congress and the 
Administration to formulate an effective plan of action to 
address the problem.
    I'm hopeful that the EPA's PFAS reporting rule under the 
Toxic Substances Control Act will help us capture the full 
picture of contamination in the United States. How is EPA going 
to ensure that its definition accurately reflects the scope of 
the pollution crisis and the wide range of chemicals our 
communities are suffering from, in particular, PFAS pollution 
from fluoropolymers in North Carolina?
    Mr. Regan. Well, Congresswoman, thank you for that 
question. And so we've recently issued our third test order on 
this PFAS substance because we are in a continual collection 
mode of what these health effects are. To the point you made, 
there are so many of these chemical compounds that are out in 
our environment that we don't understand the health 
implications. So in terms of following the science and 
following the law from a regulatory standpoint, we have testing 
requirements under the order that will improve our 
understanding, and we have a national PFAS strategy that spans 
not only our TSCA program, but our cleanup programs, our air 
programs, and our water programs. So we're really trying to get 
our arms wrapped around what do we do with what's already in 
the environment, and how do we work with industry to ensure 
that we don't continue to put it into the environment?
    Ms. Ross. OK, great. On a different topic, this 
Administration has made significant investments in the 
transition to electric vehicles, especially as made possible 
through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the 
Inflation Reduction Act. We had the privilege of speaking with 
Secretary Granholm in this Committee earlier this month about 
what the Department of Energy is doing to advance this 
transition. Can you elaborate on the work that EPA is 
undertaking to advance this transition?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I can say that we have a proposed rule for 
our cars and trucks that looks at the opportunity for electric 
vehicles to lower carbon pollution, along with advanced 
biofuels and some other technologies that can pull carbon out 
of the air. You know, I laugh because I think that what we're 
doing is trying to codify a technology that industry is out the 
gates with. You have the major car companies running million-
dollar Super Bowl ads, talking about how quickly they're going 
to electrify the future. We have over $500 billion in private 
sector investment into manufacturing and ensuring that we can 
do this domestically.
    Where--our technology standards for cars and trucks and 
vehicles ensures that we leverage the full potential of 
electric vehicles (EVs) to meet the demands of the emission 
reductions for the climate crisis. I think we are in line with 
where the industry and technologies are going, and we want to 
be sure that we give industry the regulatory certainty to 
continue to make those major investments.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Obernolte for 
five minutes of questions.
    Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you very much, and thank you, 
Mr. Regan, for your willingness to be here today.
    I'd like to ask a question about the greenhouse gas 
reduction fund that the EPA is attempting to establish. It's 
trying to get $20 billion out the door this year, which is 
obviously a staggeringly large amount of money to try and move 
in one year. Recently, a Freedom of Information Act request 
revealed that the EPA had a series of meetings last November 
with potential awardees of grants from that fund, and that 
raised concerns that the EPA was picking winners and losers 
essentially. Is it normal practice to have meetings, exclusive 
meetings with potential awardees of grants from a fund, 
particularly when the public comment period for that fund 
hasn't closed yet?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, I'd have to say that I think we met with 
just about everybody under the sun to try to articulate the 
design or the intentions of the program. I would argue that, 
you know, once we got beyond initial conversations, when we got 
into the design of the program, we had the proper safeguards in 
place to be sure that, No. 1, no one was unfairly advantaged; 
and No. 2, those who could potentially be a recipient would not 
be involved in the design discussions. I can say that I met 
with private equity, hedge fund, venture capital, Wall Street, 
commercial bankers, but I also met with CDFIs (community 
development financial institutions), State and local 
governments. So we really tried to be sure that we understood 
sort of the full breadth of the impact of this program. And I 
think you recognize that we've designed competitions so that 
those who are experts in leveraging capital can take that $20 
billion and pull hundreds of billions of dollars off the 
sidelines to advance--to invest in low carbon technologies.
    Mr. Obernolte. Sure. Well, speaking of those safeguards, 
one of the things that was revealed through that Freedom of 
Information Act request was the fact that a former senior 
attorney for the Sierra Club was one of the required attendees 
from the EPA at a meeting that included the Sierra Club. Is 
that a conflict of interest, or would that fall into something 
that you think would be impermissible?
    Mr. Regan. I'd have to look into the specifics of that 
because this is the first time I've heard that. Again, I've 
instructed--we've instructed--I've had a number of 
conversations, actually, with our Office of Inspector General 
on how to conduct and design these programs, and as far as I 
know, we are meeting that letter of the law.
    Mr. Obernolte. All right. Well, I appreciate you--if you 
could look into that and get back to us on it because, I mean, 
obviously, we would never want the public to think that 
government had its thumb on the scale when it came to who was 
eligible for and received funding from this grant fund.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Obernolte. Talking for a moment about nuclear energy, I 
know that we're all aware that we have a big problem with the 
disposal of nuclear waste, and regardless of what one's 
thoughts are on nuclear energy, I think we should all be able 
to agree that storing spent fuels in casks onsite at these 
decommissioned nuclear power plants is not best practice or in 
the keeping of our obligation to protect the environment. What 
is the EPA doing to try to promulgate long-term solutions to 
this problem?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I would say that we work very closely with 
the Department of Energy on that waste storage issue. But let 
me be clear, I'm from the State of North Carolina where 50 
percent of the base load is nuclear energy. We see nuclear 
energy as a low emissions technology that can help us combat 
the climate crisis and public health issues. So I think we have 
to stay laser focused on how we store the waste and 
proliferation as we begin to also look at new and advanced 
modular nuclear technologies. But I want to be clear, we work 
very closely and hand in hand with the Department of Energy on 
how we handle the storage of that waste.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. Well, let's keep working on those 
solutions because I think it's something that is a goal that we 
all share.
    And then last, talking about the--some of the PFAS 
regulations that your agency is promulgating, I just want to 
sound a cautionary note. I think we all share the goal of 
providing clean, safe, affordable drinking water to all 
Americans, but it's not enough just to establish new detection 
technologies and new regulations because if we're not giving 
our water agencies the tools to remove those hazardous 
chemicals from the water, we really haven't accomplished 
anything. I mean, we can pretend we put a new regulation on 
them and, you know, problem solved, but if there's not the 
technology to remove that from water or if it's too expensive 
or if we're forcing these agencies to build that into the cost 
of drinking water that makes it unaffordable, you know, we 
really haven't solved the problem. So I hope we can all work 
together on that.
    I see my time has expired, though, and thank you very much 
for being here today and for your willingness to testify before 
the Committee. I think it's very helpful.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Sorensen for 
five minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Sorensen. I want to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking 
Member Lofgren for convening this hearing, and Administrator 
Regan for your willingness to appear before us. Also, it was 
really great to see Chairman Lucas back in our Science 
Committee this morning.
    I'd like to thank Administrator Regan for visiting my 
hometown of Rockford, Illinois, earlier this year to witness 
replacement of lead service lines into homes, families, we're 
solving the problems. The district that I represent, the--
Illinois 17th Congressional District, we have some of the 
highest percentages of lead service lines of any district in 
the country. Last Congress, we passed the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, which included funds for lead pipe 
replacement. I'm proud of my colleagues for the work they put 
into that bill and the work that we're doing today, we're all 
doing today to keep communities safe and healthy. But as we're 
all aware, Congress is facing an appropriations cliff. As of 
right now, we do not have a set plan to fund the government 
beyond this weekend. Should the government shutdown, what would 
be the impact of that shutdown for beneficial programs like 
lead service line replacement that the EPA is implementing?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for hosting me in your district, 
and it really was a good day. And it's always a good day when 
you watch the extraction of lead service lines and you see 
families throughout the neighborhood celebrating.
    We run the risk of not seeing those celebrations if we have 
a shutdown. Simply put, the work just can't get done. We've got 
$15 billion that we want to get out to eradicate lead service 
lines, both on the public and private side. This money tackles 
both of those. And without the EPA employees in place to do the 
work, we just hit the pause button. And that exposes children, 
the elderly, everyday families, exposes them more to lead in 
the drinking water.
    Mr. Sorensen. Before I was elected to Congress, I served my 
community as a meteorologist for 22 years. I was one of the 
first people to talk on local television about the impacts of 
climate change. I represent family farmers in western Illinois 
that have generations. I've seen these books of old weather 
records that go way back. People understand there's a change, 
as you and I do as well. I'm proud that John Deere and Company 
is focused on precision ag and lowering inputs and emissions, 
and I'm proud that the new Amazon delivery trucks, the EV 
trucks are built in my district by Rivian. And the 
Administration, I'm thankful, is focused on the climate crisis, 
implementing a whole-of-government approach. Could you 
elaborate on what role the EPA is playing in this 
governmentwide but also public and private approach to 
addressing the climate crisis? And can you expand on how the 
EPA is engaging in smaller communities to solve the crisis?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I appreciate that, and, you know, I've 
spent a lot of time with Secretary Vilsack thinking through how 
we use voluntary and regulatory tools for our small rural 
communities, as well as our larger communities. I think it 
takes a holistic approach, and so I am spending a lot of time 
engaging the private sector. We cannot solve this problem 
without the private sector. So we have great opportunities like 
this greenhouse gas reduction fund question that was raised 
about billions of dollars in investment, but we also have the 
responsibility to engage with the regulated community, with the 
ag community on how do we get the best technologies at the 
commercial scale to ensure we are combating the climate crisis 
and using every tool in the toolbox.
    So I have a great deal of respect for USDA (United States 
Department of Agriculture), for Commerce, for DOE, for DOT 
(Department of Transportation). And, you know, the President 
sets the tone, and he indicated from day one that we would all 
work together, and I'm really glad we all like each other 
because we're all working together very closely.
    Mr. Sorensen. Well, I hope you're feeling that here from 
the Science Committee as well because this is a group of people 
here in Congress that are here to solve the problems of the 
American people. We put politics aside in this room, and we 
solve the problems because we know there are real people. We 
know there's another generation and a generation after that 
that are going to look back into 2023 and say, what did we do 
as things were changing? It's got to be a scientific approach.
    I appreciate what you do with the EPA.
    And, Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. Mr. Crawford now recognized for five 
minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regan, thank you for being here, appreciate it.
    The EPA recently offered a proposal, the vulnerable species 
pilot, which I have some concerns with, and I think most people 
in ag and forestry and other pesticide users share that 
concern. The requirements of this proposal could be impossible 
to comply with, which would prevent producers from protecting 
crops and other property. In fact, four out of five producers 
claim they'll no longer be able to continue their farming 
operations if these regulations are enacted. So obviously, it 
would jeopardize the livelihoods of rural communities. So my 
question is can you explain to me why the EPA feels the need to 
put in place such severe restrictions without even first 
looking at the science to determine is there a risk to 
endangered species? Furthermore, how does this approach 
reconcile with the EPA's responsibility under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) and FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act) to conduct effects determinations and risk 
assessments?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I appreciate that question, and I think 
you and I both share a frustration here, which is we've had 30 
to 35 years of a lack of compliance with the Endangered Species 
Act. And, as I've discussed quite frequently with Secretary 
Vilsack as we try to collectively tackle this issue, the courts 
have now taken the driver's seat in terms of setting the bars 
pretty high on EPA not responding to and losing litigation in 
court. And so what we've attempted to do is work very closely 
with USDA, resolve some of these litigation issues, and begin 
to expedite some of the reviews that would comply with the 
courts' guidance, but also bring new products to the market. We 
do not want our farmers waking up and guessing every single day 
what's going to be on or off the shelf.
    Mr. Crawford. So you mentioned--I've heard you and--tell 
two different Members that you've coordinated with and have a 
good working relationship with USDA. So my question is, have 
you coordinated with Fish and Wildlife on this particular 
proposal? And if not, how does that reconcile with EPA's 
responsibility under the 2018 Farm Bill and the Fiscal Year 
2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which required the 
coordination with Fish and Wildlife? I'm giving you credit for 
having coordinated with USDA because you've indicated that you 
have, but other Federal coregulators on proposed ESA pesticide 
mitigations.
    Mr. Regan. We have. I think--we've looked at this issue--
I've looked at this issue through a very frustrated lens 
because I inherited a mess, but we have to solve it. So----
    Mr. Crawford. So if--and I don't mean to interrupt you, but 
my time is limited.
    Mr. Regan. Sure.
    Mr. Crawford. So if I'm understanding you correctly, a lot 
of this is now in the wheelhouse of the courts. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Regan. A lot of it has been, and the courts have made 
rulings. And where you will see a slight difference sometimes 
with USDA or U.S. Fish and Wildlife is the court is telling EPA 
it has to meet that measure, and then we discuss. And, quite 
frankly, maybe USDA or U.S. Fish and Wildlife have a higher 
appetite for risk. DOJ (Department of Justice) is serving as 
our attorney, and they say, EPA, you can't afford to do X, Y, 
and Z. You're seeing a robust discussion across multiple 
agencies to try to get at some of these issues, and quite 
frankly, courts like the Ninth Circuit on chlorpyrifos and 
others have set a really high bar. That bar would not have been 
that high if we had been on the offense instead of the defense.
    Mr. Crawford. Right, and I think we can agree that this is 
a very frustrating process, so I definitely think we agree on 
that front.
    Let me switch gears real quick. In 2020 the EPA's own 
scientific risk assessment demonstrated that the risk from line 
manufacturing emissions are acceptable with an ample margin of 
safety and that no new regulations are necessary. Despite that 
finding, EPA is currently proposing to revise its national 
emission standard for hazardous air pollutants for the line 
manufacturing sector due to ruling in D.C. court case, LEAN v. 
EPA. An economic analysis of the EPA proposal demonstrates that 
the rule would impose capital costs of almost $1 billion on an 
industry with only an annual revenue of about $2.3 billion. So 
given that rule would impose significant costs without an 
appreciable public health benefit, would you commit to adopting 
the maximum flexibilities under the Clean Air Act to minimize 
the burden of this rule on line manufacturing?
    Mr. Regan. I think what we want to do is ensure that we are 
meeting the letter of the law with as much flexibility as 
possible. I think we have to be reasonable, and I think what we 
want to do is protect public health and ensure that these 
industries can be productive because, of course, all of us rely 
on the food, fuel, and fiber that this industry produces.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I appreciate you being here today, 
and I'll yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Crawford.
    I now recognize Ms. Salinas for five minutes of 
questioning.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to welcome 
back Chair Lucas. I really appreciate his leadership on this 
Committee and thank the Ranking Member also for holding this 
important hearing.
    Administrator Regan, I want to thank you for being here 
today. And from clean water and air to ensuring a smooth energy 
transition, the EPA's work is truly essential to Oregon's 
health and prosperity. And I'm really grateful for your work to 
implement the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which is already 
making an impact for my constituents. In February, EPA awarded 
Oregon $18.9 million to address emerging contaminants like PFAS 
in drinking water, and the investments really do target our 
smaller rural communities in our disadvantaged areas.
    In April in House Ag, you testified and we discussed the 
Closing America's Wastewater Access Gap Technical Assistance 
Program, and you assured us then that you are working closely 
with USDA on 11 pilot projects in communities around the 
country to provide a roadmap to scale up unified technical 
assistance and export a successful model all across the 
country. And for my communities, the issue of technical 
assistance has really been a priority since my--since day one, 
since I was first sworn in. My small town, small farmers, 
historically, really are at a disadvantage in trying to access 
some of these grants. You know, if they have any kind of 
assistance in terms of staff capacity, they don't really have 
the legal expertise and some of the capacity to hunt down these 
grants in the first place, and they certainly don't have the 
expertise to apply for them.
    It's my understanding that Closing America's Wastewater 
Access Gap program was meant to equip the participating 
communities with the information they need to apply for funding 
in fall 2023, so this year. So my questions are, are we on 
track to hit that target? And are there key lessons that you've 
learned so far in that process?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and we are. 
We are on target. We are learning a heck of a lot from these 11 
communities. We strategically chose these communities because 
we knew it wouldn't be a monolithic solution, and so we are 
prepared--EPA and USDA--to take those learnings from those 11 
and export those to ensure that they reflect the breadth of 
rural communities, smaller communities that will be competitive 
for these resources. We are on track, and our Office of Water 
is feeling really good about having the capability to make sure 
that these communities are competitive for these billions of 
dollars.
    Ms. Salinas. Great. And then once the pilot program wraps 
up, is their intent to extend the program nationally?
    Mr. Regan. I think the goal is twofold. We will assess 
whether or not we need to continue to pilot, or we will take 
those learnings, compile them, and see if we can export that 
level of learning and technical assistance to those who need it 
the most. We believe that this 11 is reflective of the country, 
and we believe that those learnings will help us get that 
across the finish line.
    Ms. Salinas. And are there--is there anything that you need 
from Congress in order to make sure that this program is 
successful?
    Mr. Regan. Listen, I would say that the $50 billion that we 
received from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to focus on our 
failing water infrastructure was a huge shot in the arm, but we 
have over $700 billion in need. And so what I'm hoping is that 
Congress will see that EPA has used these resources 
strategically and wisely so that when we look for more 
resources to help more people, there will be a compelling case 
to do so.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And then, as you know, shifting 
gears here, China dominates production of many critical 
minerals essential to the clean energy transition, including 
lithium and cobalt used in batteries and polysilicon, a key 
material for producing solar panels. With the CHIPS and Science 
Act and the IRA, Congress set ambitious climate goals, while 
also seeking to reduce our dependence on foreign countries, 
priorities that often for me seem at odds. And the issue isn't 
exclusive to the energy sector. I've heard from Intel employees 
in Oregon that this is top of mind. Tech companies like Intel 
and their suppliers in my district rely on these minerals to 
produce semiconductors and other electronics. How does EPA-
supported research inform sustainability in mining? And more 
broadly, how do you think about expanding domestic production 
of critical materials in an environmentally responsible way?
    Mr. Regan. Well, the first thing I'd say is that we believe 
that we can do it in an environmentally responsible way. We 
believe that we have to have responsible domestic mining 
because we cannot rely on China. And since the Inflation 
Reduction Act, I believe we've seen over $45 billion invested 
in battery supply investments and supply chain--critical 
mineral supply chain issues.
    And so what we do with our regulatory authority is watch 
what the market is doing, watch where the technologies are 
going, and in our regulations or technology standards, we try 
to incorporate best management practices and the best 
technologies to keep this country globally competitive. That's 
the goal, and that's EPA's role.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Tenney for five 
minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Chairman Lucas and Mr. Miller, and 
also thank you to Chairwoman Lofgren.
    I want to thank you, Administrator, for your service and 
for being here and for giving us your transparent answers on 
the operation of the important functions. And thank you again 
to Chairman Lucas. Congratulations. I know he's not in here 
now, but glad to see him back, back in action.
    And I just have a--for the sake of time, I just want to not 
give you an opening statement, but I really want to dive right 
in, Administrator, and I'm going to ask you a string of 
questions, and I just would appreciate a straightforward yes/no 
answer on these if you could. And my first question is are you 
familiar with Arabella Advisors?
    Mr. Regan. Arabella Advisors?
    Ms. Tenney. Arabella Advisors.
    Mr. Regan. I am not.
    Ms. Tenney. OK. Are you familiar with the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, the FAR, Council's proposed rule 
entitled, and I quote, ``disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions 
and climate-related financial risks,'' close quote. That's the 
proposal rule which would require major Federal suppliers to 
publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related 
financial risks, as well as set science-based reduction 
targets?
    Mr. Regan. I am familiar with FAR, yes.
    Ms. Tenney. OK. This rule was proposed by DOD (Department 
of Defense), GSA (General Services Administration), and NASA 
(National Aeronautics and Space Administration), which 
collectively comprise the FAR Council. Did the EPA have any 
involvement, consultation, coordination, or otherwise in this 
rule?
    Mr. Regan. We may have had a peripheral. We typically 
participate in all interagency processes.
    Ms. Tenney. So you didn't directly get involved with this 
as far as you know?
    Mr. Regan. Our agency could have.
    Ms. Tenney. Could have, but you didn't----
    Mr. Regan. No.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Or your staff didn't? OK.
    Mr. Regan. I didn't personally.
    Ms. Tenney. Don't you think that, as the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the premier agency, you should have had some 
kind of consultation in putting forth this rule on climate 
emissions, especially affecting major suppliers and entities 
all over the country?
    Mr. Regan. I believe that our agency may have participated 
in interagency. I'm just answering you straightforward I did 
not participate----
    Ms. Tenney. All right. Do you know if the Council on 
Environmental Quality was consulted?
    Mr. Regan. I assume that they were because they're part of 
the interagency process, but as you know, that council is in 
the White House and I'm not so----
    Ms. Tenney. OK. Appointed by the President. The rule 
requires major contractors to have their climate targets 
validated by a company called Science-Based Target Initiative 
or SBTI for short. Are you familiar with SBTI?
    Mr. Regan. I am not----
    Ms. Tenney. OK.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Familiar with SBTI.
    Ms. Tenney. The EPA's website cites SBTI's criteria as a 
good rule of thumb for companies to align their emission 
targets with, so you may want to know who they are because 
they're going to be actually doing some oversight on behalf of 
your agency and telling U.S. businesses who they need to align 
with. I mean, let me also--are you also--since you don't know 
SBTI, it is a British company, and its interests may not 
necessarily be aligned with U.S. national security interests.
    And I just want to say, so everyone knows--is on the same 
page, including you, I just wanted to inform you SBTI is a 
private foreign company that both sets emission reduction 
targets and validates them for private companies for a fee. 
According to the EPA's website--this is the agency you run--the 
EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership is a resource 
center for all organizations looking to expand their work in 
greenhouse gas measurement and management. It goes on to say 
that the center offers resources to help organizations conduct, 
assess, and reduce their scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions. From 
what you understand and I've described here, don't the center 
and SBTI conduct some of those activities?
    Mr. Regan. I am very familiar with the Center for----
    Ms. Tenney. OK.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Corporate Climate Leadership.
    Ms. Tenney. OK.
    Mr. Regan. So I'm very familiar with that organization, 
which I think to your point is a voluntary----
    Ms. Tenney. Right.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Program that we run because the 
private sector asked for ways that----
    Ms. Tenney. SBTI is not--the proposed rule is not 
voluntary.
    Mr. Regan. The Center for Corporate Climate Leadership----
    Ms. Tenney. Right.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Is a voluntary program.
    Ms. Tenney. But this rule that I'm talking about is 
actually--is going to be--if enacted, it's going to be 
mandatory. So I wanted to ask you, so between the center, which 
you're citing here, and the preexisting voluntary relationships 
that you're talking about with GHG reporting, it covers 85 to 
90 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions. Do you think the EPA 
could at least be compared in offering the services and 
activities the SBTI does instead of SBTI since you're a U.S.-
based government agency, not a private entity that's funded by 
outside donors to which--have ties to--have political ties?
    Mr. Regan. We have a Greenhouse Gas Reporting program 
established by Congress----
    Ms. Tenney. My question, though, is do you think----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. That's 15 years old----
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. That--don't you think that----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. So----
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. We should go to the EPA----
    Mr. Regan. So----
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Versus going to this SBTI?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I'm not negating that that FAR group 
didn't come to EPA to consult with EPA on the Greenhouse Gas 
Reporting program that we already have in place. I think we 
have two, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting program and the Center 
for Corporate Climate Leadership. Both could have fed into the 
FAR process, and that could have happened with senior 
leadership at the EPA.
    Ms. Tenney. So----
    Mr. Regan. Yes. I'm just not familiar with that.
    Ms. Tenney. Let me--yes, I'm about to run out of time, but 
this company is listed as the sole source. This is the sole 
source for getting this information. Don't you think that we 
should have choices and that we shouldn't have a politically 
charged and--you know, there's Arabella----
    Mr. Regan. I guess I reject the premise that we don't have 
choices.
    Ms. Tenney. Actually is sort of--right.
    Mr. Regan. I think your----
    Ms. Tenney. Well, under SBTI and under the proposed rule, 
there isn't a choice. They must go with this----
    Mr. Miller. The gentlelady is out of time.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. SBTI, and SBTI is actually funded 
by Arabella Advisors ultimately, which is funded by, for lack 
of a better word----
    Mr. Regan. I----
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Left-wing political source.
    Mr. Regan. I will take a look into this because I just sort 
of reject the premise that we don't have choice. We have a 
number of programs that are well-established, that could have 
fed an interagency process, and so I don't want to negate----
    Ms. Tenney. I think I agree with you.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. That that didn't happen.
    Ms. Tenney. I think that you would reject SBTI----
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, but the gentlelady's time is 
expired.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Tenney. I appreciate your testimony.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. And I'd like to recognize Mrs. Foushee for five 
minutes of questioning.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Lofgren, for holding this hearing today. And I, too, was happy 
to see Chairman Lucas back into the Committee Room today.
    Administrator Regan, welcome, and I am pleased to have this 
opportunity to discuss EPA's science with you today, where the 
Agency's research activities are such a significant and welcome 
presence in my district. And of course, it's always a pleasure 
to welcome a fellow North Carolinian to the Science Committee.
    My district, North Carolina's 4th, is one of the Nation's 
leading hubs for environmental research, and EPA research 
programs are a huge part of that. The Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and the Center for Public Health 
and Environmental Assessment are both based at EPA's RTP 
(Research Triangle Park) campus where I was pleased to visit 
earlier this year, as well as other critical EPA facilities 
like the National Computer Center, the Center for Computational 
Toxicology and Exposure, and the First Environments Early 
Learning Center, mission-critical offices with world-class 
scientists and devoted public servants whom I am concerned 
about if we are indeed headed for a government shutdown. I 
would like to learn more about how EPA supports its research 
programs in RTP and ensures that they have everything they need 
to continue their essential work on behalf of the American 
people.
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and I smile 
because I think you know my--in 1998, I interned at OAQPS in 
Research Triangle Park, and that's where I got my start with 
the Agency.
    Listen, just so that folks understand the campus and RTP is 
considered a headquarters office. The number of personnel we 
have, the world-class capacity is so large that Congress deemed 
that they would set up that separate campus in North Carolina. 
We rely on those individuals at OAQPS and ORD to continue our 
leading research on PFAS, on the air quality impacts of 
wildfires, on looking at how we really begin to address the 
chemical compounds from emerging compounds, and also as we 
think about, you know, expediting and pushing for our TSCA 
program. And so if we face a shutdown and if we lose the folks 
in OAQPS and ORD in Research Triangle Park, we will see a pause 
in the work that's happening on a national and global level.
    Mrs. Foushee. So, Administrator Regan, can you assure me 
that, under your leadership, EPA is prioritizing scientific 
programs in Research Triangle Park and elsewhere with the 
budgets they need, the staffing they need, and the high-level 
backing they need to conduct their work?
    Mr. Regan. You know, this is why I come before Congress 
often to ask for those necessary resources. It's imperative. I 
think I have stressed from day one that scientific integrity is 
the North Star for us, following the science and following the 
law. So I pledge that commitment to all of our scientists 
across the Agency. We are trying to push as many resources and 
as much opportunity for that scientific voice to be heard in 
all the work that we do.
    Mrs. Foushee. I also want to take this opportunity to 
discuss an important oversight priority. For over a decade, 
EPA's IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) program has 
been working on updating its assessment of formaldehyde. 
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen. IRIS came to this 
conclusion last year. It was a draft conclusion. And last 
month, the National Academies provided its stamp of approval on 
the assessment, its fourth time in nine years affirming the 
progress IRIS has made. GAO (Government Accountability Office) 
and a Science Committee investigation found that during the 
Trump Administration, political influence derailed this 
important assessment from being finalized. As the Academies 
said, it is imperative that EPA finalize this assessment. So 
will you push to finalize this important assessment by the end 
of next year so key stakeholders across and beyond the Federal 
Government can incorporate it into health protective policies?
    Mr. Regan. We are currently reviewing the NAS (National 
Academy of Sciences) and those external peer reviews as we 
speak. We are moving on an expedited timeframe, along with 
looking at hundreds of other studies as well that we have to 
consider. We understand the sense of urgency, and so I can 
commit to you that we've put the necessary resources and 
personnel on this issue and we'll move expeditiously.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. I yield back.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. McCormick for 
five minutes of questioning.
    Mr. McCormick. Thank you, my fellow Marine, and, Mr. 
Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Regan, for your testimony today I also thank you. And, 
Mr. Regan, I wanted to talk to you about EPA's role in another 
part of the Committee's jurisdiction, which is space. Camden 
Spaceport in Georgia went through a six-year process for its 
final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It's estimated that 
Camden County spent nearly $10 million on various studies 
preparing for the Environmental Impact Statement and 
consultants. Well, I'm glad it's finally moved forward finding 
zero impact in 2021. It's alarming that it took a decade and 
$10 million for this development to clear all paperwork 
required, largely because the environmental review process. Can 
you point out some concrete steps that the EPA is taking to 
shorten this approval process and remove bureaucratic red tape 
from the budding commercial space industry specifically?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think what we've done at EPA and you 
know, obviously, the EIS process involves more than just EPA, 
but what we've done is we've streamlined our permitting process 
and our environmental review process. We've automated a lot of 
these processes. As you mentioned, this is--sounds like it's 
been in the making for 10 years. Over the past three years, we 
recognized that. In order to get these EISs done in order to 
get permits out the door we have to use technology and more 
efficient measures so that we can ensure that our States and 
locals get those needed permits so the economy can thrive. So I 
can tell you that we have looked at how we can make processes 
more efficient. We have automated processes, and we have also 
expanded our external stakeholder outreach. Our State and local 
government arm of EPA is much more robust and muscular right 
now, and we have more of a finger on the pulse.
    Mr. McCormick. You know, I would agree actually because 
I've seen it's taken about half as much time for everybody else 
to get their approval, so it's obviously working. So kudos to 
you guys.
    The EPA's rule is to protect human health and the 
environment, yet it seems often more focused on the 
bureaucratic red tape, which I understand is the product a lot 
of times of the regulation we burden people with, although 
bureaucrats also tend to add on to that because it's a job. For 
example, in my own district, a mile and a half road in Roswell, 
$700,000 to do a study that lasted 18 months just to see if we 
could repave a road that's going to get repaved anyways, but it 
costs an almost $750,000 and delays it for a year and a half 
while people are going over potholes and going through the 
process that's so dragged out just to do something we know is 
pretty much inevitable anyways. I'm looking for ways we can 
streamline this process and get rid of the inevitable delays 
that have been making people's lives miserable. Because, after 
all, we're all in government to serve the people and make their 
life better. Can you speak to that?
    Mr. Regan. I don't know if I can speak to paving roads and 
the expediting of that process. I can say that with the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as far as a whole-of-government 
approach, there are a lot more resources to look at how we 
stabilize our roads, our bridges, and our transportation. What 
I can say is our involvement in these environmental assessments 
under my watch has moved much more expeditiously. I can say 
that because, as a former State regulator, I've been on the 
receiving end at the State level trying to work with the 
Federal Government. I've tried to bring that State knowledge to 
the Federal Government and work in an expedited manner to get 
these reviews done. Time is money.
    Mr. McCormick. Time is money. You're absolutely--now you 
sound like a business guy instead of a bureaucrat. I like that. 
What's interesting, we just allocated $40 million for a study 
based on efficiencies last cycle for the budgeting, and I was 
curious if--you talk about the efficiency and the timeliness, 
which was supposed to be part of this review system, you talked 
about how you're making progress. Can you tell me where that 
$40 million expanded your ability to digest that and make you 
more timely and efficient? You mentioned AI (artificial 
intelligence), but other things that that $40 million dollars 
went toward finding out that can make you better at what you're 
doing?
    Mr. Regan. I'm not quite sure if I recognize the $40 
million you're speaking to.
    Mr. McCormick. So I'll--specifically through the Inflation 
Reduction Act, we allocated $40 million to a study to develop a 
more efficient, accurate, and timely review process in the EPA.
    Mr. Regan. Let me get back to you on the specifics of that. 
I mean, holistically speaking, I can tell you that we spend a 
lot of time, money, and resources on efficiencies all across 
the Agency, but I want to answer your question directly about 
that $40 million. I want to be accurate there.
    Mr. McCormick. With that, I yield. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I now recognize Mrs. Sykes for five 
minutes of questioning.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much, 
Administrator Regan, for being with us today. This is a great 
conversation, and one of the reasons I wanted to serve on this 
Committee is to help oversee the implementation of CHIPS and 
Science, as many people have heard, as well as the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    And I know your agency has quite the role to play in that, 
and one of the things that you have the oversight of is $41 
billion in distressed communities to discuss in advancing 
environmental justice. And I know that might seem like one of 
those D.C. bubble phrases, but it certainly is an impactful and 
necessary conversation to have because environmental justice 
means access to safe drinking water, clean air, addressing the 
pollution of the past to make sure things like the Cuyahoga 
River does not catch on fire again. And we know that pollution 
does not know geographical boundaries, as well as congressional 
boundaries, State boundaries, but its impacts can also be 
disproportionate.
    And I want to talk specifically about my district, Ohio's 
13th, because I represent the city of Akron, Barberton, 
Uniontown, and communities that are working to address these 
longstanding environmental issues that we inherited many 
generations ago, and we also want to make sure we get our fair 
share of those $41 billion. And so can you talk about the 
difference that those funds are going to make in our 
communities and how they're being implemented across the 
country now?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. First of all, I'd like to say thank 
you for your leadership locally, and also your role on the 
congressional Black Caucus Environmental Justice Task Force as 
the co-Chair. I think you know and understand that there are so 
many communities like the ones you've identified that have just 
not had a seat at the table and have been left behind. They 
don't have the infrastructure to respond to the 
disproportionate pollution that they faced, which is why one of 
the first actions I took was establishing a new national 
program, the Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights 
program. This program is on par with all of our other national 
media programs, the air, water, lands, chemical program, to 
ensure that all of the resources that we get appropriated in 
addition to the resources from these historic pieces of 
legislation reach the communities that need it the most.
    Whether you're in your community or Appalachia or Lawrence 
County, Alabama, the disproportionate impact and lack of 
infrastructure investment is astounding, and so I have not only 
set up a national program, but we've also set up metrics and 
guidelines and policies to ensure that every regulation, every 
policy, contracts, and procurement have this lens of justice 
and equity applied.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you so much, and I appreciate you saying 
Appalachia because I know you're a legitimate person because 
some people like to say Appalachian and that's not correct, as 
we often are corrected in Ohio.
    But I do want to buildupon something and move to another 
topic, specifically the community of Uniontown. And the State 
of Ohio's EPA has been working with Uniontown since the 1980's 
to fix the Industrial Excess Landfill, and some of the work of 
your agency is being--and because of the work of your agency 
has been remediated and affect the residents who are hooked up 
to municipal water supplies and away from well water, which was 
welcomed. But this process is arduous, it's long term, and it 
becomes very difficult. And we've seen the presence of one of 
the four dioxins, which is a dangerous chemical.
    And so we don't have as much time for me to ask you to go 
into this too deeply, but if you could just blink twice and let 
me know that you're going to continue to work with the State 
Ohio EPA. And I will take that as your commitment----
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Sykes [continuing]. To working with our community.
    But I do want to talk about East Palestine because, one, I 
want to thank you and the members of your staff for coming so 
quickly to the aid of folks in East Palestine. It is not in my 
district but certainly appreciate you. I've heard from people 
in the Governor's administration, their appreciation, and I 
also want to express that to you publicly. And I know we often 
hear about the Administration and what they are doing, and I 
can attest--and I've seen you there a couple of times--that you 
were there. But the thing that unfortunately Members of 
Congress, as we--as Members of Congress push on the 
Administration, we don't push enough on our own colleagues to 
even pass bipartisan legislation like the RAIL Act, we can do 
something to help fix this, and that is passing the RAIL Act, a 
bill that has not received any hearings in Committee. And that 
could happen and that could be very impactful.
    But to your point earlier about Norfolk Southern and 
holding them accountable, I know there is a recent Executive 
order from the President to ensure that they were--that the 
Administration is overseeing that work. There was the 
announcement that you made several months ago in East 
Palestine. Can you talk to us in 10 seconds or less about how 
you are enforcing that and making sure Norfolk Southern is 
doing what they promised to do to the people of East Palestine?
    Mr. Regan. We ordered Norfolk Southern to clean up the 
mess. They have responded to our orders to date and have dotted 
every ``i'' and crossed every ``t.'' We are almost complete, 
cleanup the waste. We will continue to monitor the soil and 
water for the foreseeable future. And the President's Executive 
order spelled out what we at EPA have already been doing, which 
is provide timely updates directly to him so he has a finger on 
the pulse.
    Mrs. Sykes. I yield back.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Williams for 
five minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Williams. Administrator Regan, we've never met, and I 
just want to say how much I appreciate--way over here. They 
tuck me in the corner. I appreciate your direct and relevant 
answers today and also admire your command of the issues that 
are under your jurisdiction, so just please accept my sincere 
appreciation.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Williams. One of the key lessons that I've learned 
about research and development for my business experience, as 
well as my experience as a nuclear engineer, training as a 
nuclear engineer in the Navy, is that scientific innovation or 
invention does not always lead to broad adoption of new 
technologies or new solutions. In fact, actual broad acceptance 
of innovation is quite rare in actual practice. And, as a 
society, we tend to assume that once a new technology like 
solar panels or carbon capture or hydrogen fuel is first 
invented or innovated, it will inevitably be adopted and be a 
good solution for the market. However, in my experience, this 
simply is not the case. New technologies face their greatest 
hurdles after they are invented or the innovation occurs, and 
there are many, many hurdles to adoption, and then beyond that, 
even into broad acceptance into our society. New products face 
significant difficulties expanding. This is quite clearly 
captured in a term coined ``crossing the chasm'' by Geoffrey 
Moore. There's a number of excellent scientific studies on the 
cycle of innovation, adoption that had been done for many, many 
decades.
    So I hear from my colleagues across the aisle that every 
regulatory action by the EPA is urgent and necessary to save 
the planet, but I would urge you to place an even higher 
emphasis on a priority to stop impoverishing working families 
through higher energy costs. In my State of New York, extremist 
environmental policies have rapidly driven up energy costs for 
ratepayers. It's a regressive tax that is unfair, sir. 
Specifically, I'm concerned that the EPA and this 
Administration have failed to properly consider the--this issue 
of crossing the chasm and the cost and difficulties of scaling 
up and implementing new technologies.
    Take the proposed section 111 rule that EPA released 
earlier this year. This rule, if implemented, would burden 
existing natural gas plants that we rely on for power today 
with strict and unrealistic regulations to employ carbon 
capture and hydrogen fuel blending, which there are many 
technical challenges to, including hydrogen embrittlement of 
metals. Many of the utilities who will be subject to this rule 
have warned that bringing these technologies online and in 
commercial scale will require hundreds of billions of dollars 
of new investment. This doesn't take away from their profit. 
This gets passed on to ratepayers and will significantly 
increase energy costs for consumers and businesses.
    So under your leadership, is the EPA and the mandating of 
these massive technology investments by utilities, are you 
accounting for the rapid rise in energy cost to all Americans?
    Mr. Regan. Well, all of the technology standards that we 
propose do take economics into consideration. I think that 
affordability and reliability, along with the technical 
availability, is what we are discussing. And I think we 
proposed a rule. We've received a lot of comments. In the past 
two to three weeks I've met with multiple utility CEOs. I've 
met with--my team has met with grid reliability experts. 
Congressman Bill Johnson convened a very productive 
conversation around these very topics. The proposal is just 
that, and we will continue to evaluate the comments that have 
come in, engage with industry, our ratepayers and others, and 
hopefully the final rule will reflect something that is 
ambitious but also doable.
    Mr. Williams. In the folks that you listed that were at the 
table, I don't hear strong representation, except through 
elected Members like myself, of the helplessness that working 
families feel for forces that are being put upon them, costs 
that are being put upon them, quite honestly, sir, by your 
agency in the mandates that you require, that are simply 
unaffordable. It is literally----
    Mr. Regan. I----
    Mr. Williams. I'm sorry, it's literally impoverishing 
working families. Please respond if you'd like, but my time has 
expired, so----
    Mr. Regan. Well, I'd just like to say that I think 
Congressman Bill Johnson did an excellent job representing that 
constituency and bringing people to the table that my staff met 
with. We are meeting and talking with everyone because we 
understand the impact of the work that we do.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you, appreciate it.
    Mr. Miller. Ms. Caraveo, five minutes of questions, now 
recognized.
    Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I also have been 
heartened by the return of Chairman Lucas and would like to 
thank him and Ranking Member Lofgren for holding this hearing 
today. And thank you, Administrator Regan, for coming to speak 
with us.
    As you may know, my district is home to Suncor, which is 
Colorado's only major petroleum refinery. It is a critical 
piece of local energy infrastructure and our economy, so much 
so that if we see issues at the refinery with production, my 
constituents feel the pain at the pump, and I agree that that 
affects working families.
    That being said, this refinery is right next to underserved 
communities, and their emissions are compounded on the other 
air pollution in the Denver metro area, and so generations of 
children have grown up around this polluting entity. I've seen 
that impact in my clinic where I treat countless children who 
suffer from asthma because of these harmful emissions.
    That is why I was encouraged to see the EPA award R&D grant 
funding to institutions that are doing research to address the 
drivers and environmental impacts of energy transitions in 
underserved communities. Some of these projects even address 
the exact situation some of my constituents find themselves in, 
which is living directly across from petroleum refineries.
    So what is the EPA hoping to learn from the research being 
done at these universities, and how do you see it affecting the 
important work that you all do?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and I think 
the research, it will help do two things. The first is we see 
constantly the juxtaposition of people having to choose between 
employment and breathing air and living, and so it's a very 
tough situation. And so as we think about the transition to a 
cleaner economy, we have to think about the communities that 
are there that we don't want left behind.
    What we hope to learn in our research are a couple of 
things. The first is understanding the total economic impact to 
these communities, while also asking some of these facilities 
to pursue cleaner technologies. At the end of the day, EPA's 
focus is on advanced technologies that reduce emissions. If 
refineries and other constituencies can find that technology 
that allows for them to move forward and keep communities safe, 
that is priority No. 1.
    I think the intersection of that is cost, and so the 
question becomes if the refinery cannot find a cost-effective 
way to protect the communities, what happens then? We are doing 
a lot of research to make sure that we're working with the 
industry and the communities so that they transition together 
and no one is left behind.
    Ms. Caraveo. I appreciate that balance, which is something 
that in districts like mine we strive for every day, making 
sure that we're protecting communities, but also knowing that 
impacts on their pocketbooks are real.
    If the research the EPA conducts is successful, what would 
you recommend that Congress look into to authorize programs 
that might uplift the results of these projects?
    Mr. Regan. I think that we have a broader administration-
wide program looking at communities that are transitioning that 
we are participating in that involves DOE and USDA and others. 
I think, collectively, we will have some reporting that will 
come back to Congress that demonstrates that we can responsibly 
either add controls to protect communities or transition in a 
way where we don't leave anyone behind. So I would just ask 
Congress to be on the lookout for these results. These are very 
good, solid results that are coming from multiple agencies. 
We're working together on that.
    Ms. Caraveo. I appreciate that work and certainly we'll be 
on the lookout for those results.
    Switching gears, I wanted to talk to you about West Nile 
virus. In Colorado, we are unfortunately leading the Nation in 
the number of cases being reported. We tend to do that most 
years. And I recently led a bipartisan effort to Secretary 
Becerra asking him to put together a Federal response to this 
uptick in cases, which may be worse next season, depending on 
our water situation.
    The reason I wanted to talk to you about West Nile virus is 
that because of the role stormwater infrastructure has, whether 
it's ineffective or lacking in playing into the rise in these 
cases, excuse me. We've had a very wet year in Colorado, which 
we appreciate in the West, given our--that we're usually in a 
drought, but because of that, our stormwater infrastructure 
just hasn't been able to keep up with the process and the 
amount of water that we've gotten in an efficient manner.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law authorized the creation 
of Centers for Excellence for Stormwater Control Infrastructure 
Technologies in the last appropriations bill, so I was just 
hoping for an update on where you are with standing these 
centers up.
    Mr. Regan. We're excited about these centers, and we 
recognize that stormwater control is key to West Nile and so 
many other issues. I think that money is flowing through the 
process, and in this case, we are setting up these centers, but 
we also have State funds that receive resources annually. And 
as the States apply for these billions of dollars, we're 
judging their projects based on the solutions on the ground, 
which this is one that we're closely looking at.
    So I think there are two categories there. I think there 
are the State funds that come annually that EPA doles out where 
we are really grading these States on exactly what problems 
they're solving, but we also have these research centers that 
we're actively working to stand up.
    Ms. Caraveo. Appreciate it. Thank you.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Garcia for five 
minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 
Administrator, for being here. Thank you for your service to 
our beautiful country.
    Hey, I want to start by capturing something you said early 
on and just having a discussion around that. You said 
essentially that the mission is to protect the environment, but 
also to protect economic development and that they're not 
necessarily mutually exclusive, and your charter is to try to 
maximize both of those missions. Would it be fair to also 
include in that the premise that national security should also 
be a primary measure of merit in your mission?
    We have in my district--I represent a north L.A. County 
district, which when people hear Los Angeles, they don't think 
of necessarily the terrain in our district, wide open, high 
desert. We have though, in the middle of my district, one of 
the most critical national security assets in our country. It's 
called Plant 42. This is where we are currently building the 
next-generation stealth bomber, the B-21. It's about 30 percent 
of the F-35 production is done at Plant 42. The next-generation 
air dominance vehicle is there. It's taken close to a century 
to build this, and to replicate this Plant 42 anywhere else in 
the country, the carbon footprint of rebuilding that would be 
massively prohibitive to the environment but also economically. 
The workforce is all there.
    You have a new proposed rule that basically changes the way 
these businesses that operate there. It's a part-government 
facility, but also a part-industry facility. And this Clean Air 
Act Change is basically changing the practice of measuring 
emissions for future growth opportunities. When they bring in a 
new piece of hardware, the legacy way of compliance was to look 
at the average emissions that that new hardware or that new 
facility would put out. The rule change that you've proposed is 
to actually--instead of taking the average emissions as a 
projection for offsets, to take the highest level of emissions 
for that equipment or that facility in the determination of 
offsets, which isn't really rational. It's kind of arbitrary 
and capricious to say, hey, in order to put a piece of 
equipment here, I'm requiring you to offset to the highest 
emission output rather than the average of that service life.
    I'd like for you to touch on this because I've got, you 
know, local elected officials in Palmdale and Lancaster--and, 
by the way, many of them are Democrats and they're also 
conservationists, which I am. I want to protect our environment 
and protect our planet. But their hair's on fire about this 
because--and by the way, you know, hair on fire has a carbon 
footprint as well, which we're trying to avoid all fires, 
right? They're fearful of losing the economic development, and 
I'm fearful of that, but also, the national security 
implications of threatening these very precious--these are the 
crown jewels of our Nation's security right now within the DOD.
    Can you talk to what their scientific rationale was for 
going to a worst case emission mindset rather than an average 
emission for new development either projects or assets being 
put into these facilities?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, I think--and I think you're referring to 
our PM (particulate matter) NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards) rule, which we hope to finalize soon. Listen, we've 
taken a lot of comment in on that proposed rule. I will say 
that when I propose rules of this magnitude, I do consult 
across multiple agents.
    Mr. Garcia. I appreciate that----
    Mr. Regan. And----
    Mr. Garcia [continuing]. But I get less process and more 
the rationale for why you're landing on this.
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think we've seen in our prior PM NAAQS 
rules that we've left a lot of people unprotected, and so 
this----
    Mr. Garcia. What does that mean, unprotected?
    Mr. Regan. We have seen adverse health impacts from PM2.5 
all over the countries--all over the country in ways that 
escaped our previous rules. So when we looked at this new rule, 
we looked at how could we design this rule in the most 
protective manner, while also recognizing that the State 
implementation planning process is a process where you can 
build in compliance flexibilities to achieve----
    Mr. Garcia. OK. So we have flexibility to get waivers for 
Plant 42?
    Mr. Regan. Well, there's flexibility that--the State will 
have flexibility in the State implementation plan that they'll 
work on with the Federal Government to be sure that they can 
comply with this rule in a way that takes into consideration, 
No. 1, the population surrounding; No. 2, the national security 
interests as well.
    Mr. Garcia. OK. I think that's very important because when 
we say we want to protect everyone, I don't disagree with that 
statement, but the assets being developed there are meant to 
protect the entire country, frankly, and our allies from this 
very real China threat, and disincentivizing these programs 
from growing and expanding is very dangerous to every single 
human being in this country and even around the globe. So with 
that, I urge--I encourage you to look at this again and figure 
out how we can actually support protecting the environment and 
national security because they are not mutually exclusive in 
this case. You are compromising our Nation's security with this 
rule as it's currently written.
    I'm out of time. I yield back.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Lee for five 
minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Lofgren. And thank you, Administrator Regan, for honoring this 
Committee's invitation to be here today.
    As the first Black woman to represent Pennsylvania in 
Congress, I recognize the weight of responsibility on your 
shoulders as the EPA's first Black leader. You're tasked with 
leading an agency that works to address and combat 
environmental racism and the lingering effects of redlining 
that they've had on the quality of air and water in our 
communities.
    Last week, Secretary Granholm from the Department of Energy 
sat before this Committee, and I had the pleasure of discussing 
with her the amazing things going on in my district and the 
abundant opportunities the future holds for clean, renewable 
energy economy in the region. Today, I look forward to 
discussing with you the opportunities we have and must take to 
rectify the mistakes of the past that separate it, stifle it, 
and at times utterly destroyed environments in communities that 
have been prominently populated by Black and Brown individuals.
    I'm not OK with communities like the one I'm from, the Mon 
Valley of western Pennsylvania, being sacrificial lambs in the 
name of continued fossil fuel exploration, for example. Having 
a good job and a strong economy does not mean we have to undo 
every piece of environmental policy we have fought for for 
decades. Clean water and air are priceless and precious gifts 
that far too many people in our country have not been afforded.
    You can tell how long you're likely to live, whether your 
children should expect to develop asthma or COPD (chronic 
obstructive pulmonary disease), or if the water flowing through 
your pipes will poison you all, based on the ZIP code you live 
in. Why should communities be defined by five digits that are 
often beyond one's control? We all deserve to have air and--we 
can breathe--excuse me, air that we can breathe and water we 
can drink that will not end our lives prematurely. We all 
deserve leaders who will fight for the marginalized and the 
vulnerable in our society to ensure we can all enjoy our 
unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness.
    That said, Mr. Regan, how is the EPA ensuring that 
communities are being better equipped to advocate and protect 
themselves from environmental polluters?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that, and I agree with you 
that ZIP code doesn't matter. Race shouldn't matter. How much 
money you have in your pocket shouldn't matter. And so we have 
stood up an entire national program office, the Environmental 
Justice and External Civil Rights Office, to be sure that every 
single leader across the EPA is coordinating and ensuring that 
everyone has a fair seat at the table.
    This sort of touches on the question I was just posed, 
which is why are we doing the PM NAAQS differently. It's 
because we've seen that the NAAQS has not been protective of 
certain communities across the country, and so I believe we can 
do both at the same time. The way you do that is bring the 
community in, have conversations, and have them as a part of 
the solution.
    We're also setting up technical centers all across the 
country, $10 million in 17 centers all across the country, to 
partner with communities. Let me just say this, solutions don't 
start at the top, and we don't pretend to have all the 
solutions for the communities. It's high time that we get these 
Federal dollars to these communities that have had these 
solutions for decades. Part of that is through the $3 billion 
of the environmental justice and climate resources that come 
from IRA, but it's also part of Justice40. So we have the 
metrics built in place to ensure that communities are involved. 
We've set up a national office, and everything we do is through 
that lens of equity and inclusion.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Last year, you completed your Journey 
to Justice tour, spotlighting environmental justice communities 
across the Nation that have far too long been neglected or 
ignored. As you may be well aware, most existing pipeline 
infrastructure is in closest proximity to communities of color. 
I helped successfully lead the Abandoned Well Remediation 
Research and Development Act through this Committee to support 
research and development into reducing methane emissions from 
abandoned mines across the country. How is the EPA using 
research and development into modeling to mitigate the 
emissions impacts to communities that have historically borne 
the most adverse socioeconomic and health outcomes from the 
development of energy resources?
    Mr. Regan. Well, as we've looked at the new proposed 
technology standard to control methane emissions, we've 
actually had industry come to the table and say we're losing 
product. We're poisoning our people in our communities. We 
believe there's a technological solution, and we believe that 
there are technologies that exist today but will exist in the 
future that we have not quite thought through. So we are 
working on a very flexible regulation that takes into 
consideration technological advancement, but we now have the 
environmental justice communities at the table. We now have the 
NGOs at the table. We now have the industry at the table. And 
in concert with our regulations, we're matching that with these 
historic resources that will allow for localized solutions, 
Federal regulations, and all of this partnership to spur.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. That's my time. Thank you for your time 
today.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Franklin for 
five minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Administrator Regan, for your time with us today, and you've 
been very candid in your responses, and I appreciate that.
    I want to kind of follow up on the questioning that my 
colleague Mr. Williams talked about before crossing that chasm, 
as well as the security implications from my colleague, Mr. 
Garcia. But it's my understanding that the EPA is in the 
process of finalizing regulations that are ultimately going to 
rapidly increase the sale of both passenger electrical vehicles 
as well as medium and heavy duty electric vehicles for 
everything from delivery vans to long haul trucks. A June 
report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that EPA's 
regulatory analysis of its proposed power plant rule ignores 
massive amounts of electricity demand resulting from EPA's own 
EV and hydrogen mandates. And this report--and I'm not sure if 
you've seen it or not, but--from the Chamber of Commerce says 
that the EPA is ignoring 371 terawatt hours of electricity 
demand resulting from its own rules, and that this is 
equivalent to almost nine percent of the nationwide demand or 1 
1/2 times the electricity used each year in the State of 
California.
    It's easy for Administrators to claim that a proposed rule 
doesn't cost anything if it ignores the real-world costs that 
are required to comply with it, but that's not the reality. And 
I understand that even good ideas, depending on the timing and 
how they're implemented, can have unintended consequences, and 
that's a tough position you're in, judging the how do we 
implement advanced technologies, while making it cost-
effective, also protecting our national security? Is it fair to 
say that these proposed rules, if finalized, will add 
significant demand to our electrical grid?
    Mr. Regan. Well, it's sort of frustrating to hear that when 
I've sat in front of utility CEOs who are talking about the new 
demand that will come and what we need to work on is 
reliability and affordability. And I sit with my staff who do 
the proposed rules for cars, trucks, and power plants, and 
they're working for hours to make sure that these things work 
together. So we recognize that demand shifts, that there are 
new technologies out there, and that the utility providers will 
have a new constituency, while another constituency is 
sunsetted.
    So I think the business models that the private sector is 
looking at both on the transportation side and utility side are 
speaking to one another. We are taking these things into 
consideration. And again, I think we've had a number of 
conversations on reliability, cost, and affordability. What 
we've done is proposed a rule. We've received over 12,000--
11,000, 12,000 comments. I've been in conversations with 
utility CEOs since the proposals. All of these things should 
reconcile themselves through the comment period, and hopefully, 
we'll end with a final rule that doesn't do what you describe 
but do something that's more in harmony with the economy, 
protecting the planet, and with where product and technology is 
going.
    Mr. Franklin. So you do think then that the EPA's 
aggressive timelines, with those in mind, that the Nation's 
power grid is going to be able to keep up with what you're 
pushing on a fairly short period of time?
    Mr. Regan. I think what we're doing in real time is 
analyzing the comments and the data that we're receiving from 
the industry, from the grid managers, from technology 
providers, and making sure that we're all working with the same 
data, and then we can determine whether or not the timelines 
align or that our assumptions are correct. So we've taken a lot 
of comment in. We're combing through that data. We're having a 
lot of conversations. And proposals are never perfect. You put 
out proposals to see comment. The good thing is EPA is 
listening.
    And by the way, we do not want to jeopardize this country's 
global competitiveness. We don't want to rely on China. We want 
to figure out how we can corner the market with these 
technologies and these rules and provide long-term certainty 
for these long-term investments.
    Mr. Franklin. Well, I hope you're right, but as we've seen 
even this week, you know, Ford was in the process of doing a 
big plant in Michigan that was going to do batteries, but that 
was in conjunction with a Chinese manufacturer and investments, 
and they've now put the skids on--put the brakes on that. 
There's a lot of concern that we're pushing at a pace that our 
own auto industry is not going to be able to keep up with. 
Would you agree with that assessment or not?
    Mr. Regan. Listen, I would say we're in conversations. I 
mean, our auto industry spends $3-4 million running Super Bowl 
commercials about how quickly we're going to electrify America, 
and then we also see the realities of the data they provide. 
There is a reconciliation of what's truth versus what is 
advertisement and what we are capable of doing, and we are 
carefully looking at the facts versus the commercials. And I 
would say that I think that what we've proposed is reasonable, 
but we're going to take that data in, and the final rule should 
actually reflect what the auto industry can do and what the 
power sector can do.
    Mr. Franklin. Well, I would just ask that, as you make 
those assessments, that you do fairly weigh all the costs and 
the impacts and not just some of the ones that selectively help 
make the case. But I appreciate your time, and, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. McClellan for 
five minutes of questioning.
    Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Administrator Regan, for being here today and for your work to 
protect human health and environmental justice in our 
communities across the country.
    It is my fundamental belief that everyone, regardless of 
ZIP code, socioeconomic status, race deserve to breathe clean 
air, drink clean water. And to that end, the work that the EPA 
and the Biden-Harris Administration are doing for environmental 
justice is critically important because business community has 
always had a seat at the table. Utility CEOs and their 
lobbyists and lawyers have always had a seat at the table. Who 
has not always had a seat at the table are the people in the 
communities where power plants go, where pipelines go, where 
often they destroy communities. They destroy historically Black 
or indigenous communities, or they're concentrated in 
communities where people don't have a voice. They have an 
overabundance of pollutants, and not surprisingly, end up with 
some of the worst health outcomes. And I represent a lot of 
those communities like Charles City County or Hopewell, which, 
as you know, has a number of power--chemical plants that have 
repeated violations of EPA rules. And you and I have exchanged 
some correspondence around that.
    And so I wanted to follow up on Representative Lee's 
question about how EPA is empowering the communities that are 
affected by repeated toxic chemical exposure or an 
overabundance of projects in their area that leads to more 
pollutants. If there's anything else you'd like to add to your 
answer to her or, more importantly, tell us how Congress can 
help you do your job to give these voiceless communities a 
voice and a seat at the table?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that. And I can say that 
Congress has done an excellent job in the Inflation Reduction 
Act, awarding $3 billion for environmental justice projects. 
That is one way money is talking and actually will bring people 
to the table with resources and the technical capabilities to 
not just be at the table, but participate in the conversations.
    Listen, I've said from day one that EPA will use its full 
enforcement authority where we see people cheating and 
violating, especially in these communities that are 
disproportionately impacted. I think we have a track record 
that represents that. I've also done a Journey to Justice tour 
to highlight for the Nation that in 2023, we still have 
communities that have a lack of access to clean drinking water, 
disproportionately impacted by PM2.5 and other pollutants. And 
so we are designing our policies and regulations through that 
lens of environmental justice, we're using our enforcement arm, 
and we're designing programs to be sure that communities like 
the one you just laid out will have access to that $3 billion 
so that they can fund solutions that are on the ground.
    Ms. McClellan. Thank you for that. And earlier this year, I 
led a letter to the EPA in support of protective mercury and 
air toxic standards for power plant emissions, and along with a 
few of my colleagues on this Committee sent a letter calling 
for strong and transparent regulation of PFAS and plastic 
containers under the toxic substances rule. I look forward to 
updates from you on this. And with a government shutdown or 
long-term continuing resolution on the horizon, I'm interested 
in hearing about the impacts either would have on the EPA's 
ability to provide assistance to those communities that need it 
most. And so can you talk about the impact that either a 
shutdown or a long-term continuing resolution would have on 
your work protecting these communities?
    Mr. Regan. It continues to make our communities vulnerable 
if we don't have the personnel on the job focused on community 
outreach, ensuring that these communities are competitive for 
grants, ensuring that they have a seat at the table as we think 
through how to design regulations. It continues to 
disproportionately impact those who are already burdened. So a 
shutdown doesn't do our economy any good, doesn't do any of us 
any good, but it especially disproportionately harms those who 
are on the frontlines of pollution.
    Ms. McClellan. Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly and again 
want to thank you for your work. Given these communities that 
have over the years and, in some cases, over the past century 
been overburdened by pollution in the name of energy and making 
sure that you are helping to give these communities a voice and 
a seat at the table going forward, as well as addressing the 
disproportionate impact that environmental policy and 
industrial policy decisions have had on those communities. 
Thank you very much.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Ms. McClellan. I yield back.
    Mr. Weber [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Tennessee who is quite the nuclear 
expert is recognized.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. 
Administrator, I actually did want to come back specifically. 
I've been at a nuclear event and I left and I came back. I 
wanted to extend my sincere thanks to you and your folks at 
EPA.
    For over 12 years, I have worked very hard in the nuclear 
legacy cleanup area. I represent the Oak Ridge Reservation. We 
worked very hard. And I heard your comments about how you 
worked so well with the Department of Energy, with the 
Department of Energy to get a new disposal cell. We needed a 
disposal cell.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Fleischmann. We could not have gotten that completed 
without the help of our local and State partners and the 
Department of Energy. And then if you will recall, sir, you 
were kind enough to take my call quite some time back, and your 
agency finally signed off on that. So you are partners, and you 
actually sent people to the groundbreaking that we did a couple 
of months ago, so my sincere thanks for that. Our entire 
community in Oak Ridge will benefit for that and the legacy 
environmental cleanup can continue, so thank you, sir.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you. And I would like to say that your 
call, our conversation, your partnership, we would not have 
gotten it done without that effective communication, so I 
appreciate your leadership on that.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
    If I may, Mr. Administrator, I have a question from our 
friends, our home builders. We've heard from them, despite EPA 
and the core announcement that the confirming WOTUS rule was 
immediately effective upon publication in the Federal Register, 
most Corps districts are still unable to process requested 
approved jurisdictional determinations. Our constituents are 
reporting that the Corps field office staff is still waiting 
for guidance on implementing these recent WOTUS--the recent 
WOTUS rule from EPA and Corps headquarters. Unfortunately, the 
rule did not define key regulatory terms. These include 
``relatively permanent'' and a ``continuous surface 
connection,'' two concepts of Federal jurisdiction under the 
Sackett ruling. The Agency's failure to provide a clear 
definition of these two terms is paralyzing Corps districts 
from beginning the Federal wetlands permitting process.
    We're in the midst of a housing affordability crisis across 
the Nation due to inflation and regulatory red tape. The cost 
of homes is skyrocketing. My question, Administrator Regan, how 
is the agency staff interpreting key terms like ``relatively 
permanent'' and interpreting ``continuous surface connection'' 
in the field? And when will the interpretive guidance regarding 
these definitions be shared with the public? And I thank you, 
sir, for your response.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you. And I'll get back to you on the exact 
date of that interpretive guidance. What I'll say is we have 
been working very closely with the Corps to sort of walk and 
chew gum at the same time. I think we are working on how we can 
do this interpretation in a legally safe way, while responding 
directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court spoke. They 
gave a very precise ruling. We are now trying to put a rule in 
place that responds directly to that.
    I'll say we don't want to appear to be trying to be cute. 
We are trying to respond directly to the Supreme Court, while 
also working with the Corps on some of these very timely issues 
and reconcile that process. I will have my staff follow up with 
yours directly on some of these jurisdictional determinations, 
but it's my understanding that we are doing a pretty good job 
getting some of these out while trying to respond to the 
Supreme Court.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. I thank you for your response, 
and again, my thanks for all the work that you've done with us 
in Oak Ridge and DOE. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Weber. Mr. Casten, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 
being here, Mr. Secretary.
    I'd like to ask you some questions about how you're 
thinking about carbon CO2 pipelines and regulation, 
which seems to be a lot of them going up right now and changing 
some of the frameworks, at least as I understand them, and 
hopefully you'll clarify for me. I started--maybe this is a bad 
analogy--but thinking about that if you--if I was to apply to 
build a natural gas pipeline, the permitting for that process 
would be largely independent, maybe entirely independent of the 
permitting of downstream uses, you know, somebody installing a 
boiler or a gas turbine or, you know, the combustion source 
would be an independent permitting process.
    So I guess my first question is, if somebody is applying 
for EPA review of a CO2 pipeline, will that permit 
be independent of the permitting of the injectionsite 
downstream where the CO2 is going to be stored?
    Mr. Regan. So I think right now, what we're seeing actively 
occur is EPA go through the Class VI well permitting process, 
which is squarely in our court. I think we have in our proposed 
111 rule carbon capture technology as one of the technologies 
of choice. And as we think through the comments and finalize 
that rule, obviously, there's a larger conversation, as you are 
aware, just looking at permitting efficiencies across the 
government. We just don't own the whole pipeline permitting 
process.
    Mr. Casten. Well, so let me--and I'm sorry to interrupt, 
but the reason why I asked that first question is because the 
only reason we're building these CO2 pipelines is 
because we want to permanently sequester the CO2, 
right, which is a function of both the pipeline operating and 
the injectionsite being permanent. And so, as you review these 
permits, to what degree are you requiring, throughout that 
entire piece of infrastructure, that the CO2 is 
permanently stored?
    Mr. Regan. It depends on when the applicant provides the 
permit. We have applicants right now who are forecasting, who 
are looking for Class VI wells. Obviously, when you go through 
the pipeline permitting process, our role in that is a 401 
water certification process. So we would have to have the 
project in hand and work on a real timeline. I think that DOE, 
EPA, Army Corps, we're all working through streamlining our 
permitting processes through the hypothetical, but the entry 
point by which these project starts really do matter, and some 
are starting at the Class VI and some may start with another 
permitting process that might start outside of our agency. 
We're trying to get our arms wrapped around that as a 
government and working with the private sector to be sure that 
we're all working from the same sheet of music.
    Mr. Casten. OK. Well, let me maybe try this another way 
then. If I submitted a permit that said I have a high degree of 
certainty that half the CO2 I put down is going to 
leak out 10 years from now, would that permit be approved?
    Mr. Regan. It just doesn't happen that way. I think what 
would happen is someone would put in a permit for a Class VI 
well and demonstrate that carbon would not leak into the ground 
and have an impact on water quality or pose safety issues. That 
is the way the permit comes into EPA. I just can't be the 
grandmaster of CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) projects 
because Congress hasn't given me that authority.
    Mr. Casten. Well, OK, but there are pipelines being built 
that they're going through. And what I'm trying to get my head 
around--and by the way, we've sent a long list of questions----
    Mr. Regan. Sure.
    Mr. Casten [continuing]. And hopefully, we can clarify this 
with your staff, but what I'm trying to get my head around is 
if I build a site that has a permanent pollution risk, you 
know, maybe, you know, some manufacturing site with a disposal 
issue--and I say this as someone who, you know, used to build a 
lot of power plants--I would often have obligations to place 
some permanent amount in escrow for permanent liabilities, 
right? We're now sitting here saying we're going to build these 
assets that are obligating ourselves to store CO2 
underground not for the next Administration, not for the life 
of this asset, not for the life of this company, but for 
geologic time.
    Mr. Regan. Sure.
    Mr. Casten. And if you as the EPA Administrator are 
providing these permits that are essentially making a promise 
over geologic time, who bears the liability if there's a leak?
    Mr. Regan. So what I'll say is there are two ways to look 
at this. The first is EPA can approve these Class VI well 
storage permits, and we're also going through the process where 
the States are asking for that delegated authority. There's an 
accountability measure built in both the Federal and State 
process to hold the depositor of that carbon or whatever it is. 
They have the accountability to ensure that it will not impact 
the environment or public health. So the accountability relies 
to the person applying for the permit. They have to meet 
certain thresholds in order to receive the permits.
    Mr. Casten. OK. Well, I'm out of time, but let's just--
let's continue the conversation because we've got way too many 
examples of that risk being, you know, somebody bankrupts out 
of the risk and all of a sudden the risk is borne by the 
community, which I know you've been a strong advocate for 
protecting those communities. And, as I sit here, it's not 
clear to me that we aren't just punting that risk on to future 
generations.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Regan. Some of that is built into our statutory 
authority, but we can talk further.
    Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back. And we're fixing to 
talk further. I recognize myself for five minutes.
    Mr. Regan, we're glad you're here. In December--following 
up on what Mr. Casten was asking you about--and he's pretty 
good straight man, by the way. In December 2022, Texas filed 
its application to take that primary responsibility for the 
permitting of geologic carbon sequestration facilities as class 
6 injection wells. Now, let me give you a little side note 
about my District 14 in Texas. We have the largest carbon 
capture sequestration storage facility in the country in Port 
Arthur, Texas, OK? While EPA staff has stated that they were 
able to apply lessons learned from Louisiana's recently 
approved application to this Texas application, the final 
Louisiana rule has not been published in the Federal Register 
for comment. Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, I am----
    Mr. Weber. OK.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Aware of where we are in the 
process.
    Mr. Weber. So could you give us a timeline for Texas' 
primacy application reaching a decision point and hopefully 
being published in the Federal Register? Would you give us a 
timeline for that? Would it be within a year?
    Mr. Regan. Well, what I'd say is I think as recently as 
August, Texas has submitted the materials for the Class VI 
application.
    Mr. Weber. Oh, then you'll have it done by the end of the 
year.
    Mr. Regan. So we're looking at the completeness of that 
application. Let me let my staff get back to you on the steps 
and the timeline, but let me just say this. What I've pledged 
to the President and this Administration is Class VI wells play 
a significant role in leveraging and using CCS technology to 
combat the climate crisis. So at EPA, we want to move as 
quickly as possible, but we want to be sure, we want to be sure 
that the States have followed all the rules to do that so that 
we can protect our communities as well.
    Mr. Weber. Well, I'm glad to hear you told the President 
that, but you also committed to Congress that you were taking 
steps to speed up the Class VI permitting timeframe to two 
years. So would you commit to two years here today?
    Mr. Regan. I think whatever we've committed to on the 
record and whatever my staff is committed to we can commit to. 
And I think there are lessons learned from both West Virginia 
and Louisiana that will help us meet the mark that we've 
committed to.
    Mr. Weber. OK. Well, we're quickly approaching a year of no 
action, so if we're going to hit that two-year timeframe----
    Mr. Regan. Well, let's be clear, though, and I think the 
State of Texas would agree, as of August, the State of Texas is 
saying that they turned in their application. So the 
application hasn't been at EPA for a year. The State of Texas 
as of August is saying, we have now turned in a completed Class 
VI well application.
    Mr. Weber. We will have that discussion--did you learn any 
lessons from the Louisiana permit that would help you expedite 
this process?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I think we've learned some best 
practices. I think we've learned some ways we can more 
efficiently engage communities and bridge the gap between the 
State outreach and community outreach to build trust in this 
process. So this is a sensitive issue, as you know, for lots of 
people, so I definitely think we've learned some efficiencies.
    Mr. Weber. Well, from the outside looking in, it looks to 
us like the EPA is waiting to complete the review and finish 
the Louisiana process before it goes on to the Texas process, 
and I was hoping you all could walk and chew gum at the same 
time.
    Mr. Regan. We can.
    Mr. Weber. But that's not the case. OK. Well, obviously, 
it's my home State, so I'm interested in it.
    In your discussion with Congresswoman Salinas, I forget 
exactly what she was asking about, but you mentioned the fact 
that the EPA watches the market to keep the United States 
competitive. I don't know if you remember that exchange or not.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Weber. OK.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Weber. And so now we move on to regs for businesses 
where you've got greenhouse gas reporting, for example. You had 
that discussion with Congresswoman Tenney sometime after the 
discussion with Congresswoman Salinas. When you talk about 
greenhouse gas reporting requirements, do you, in that 
instance, consider the cost that's going to be imposed on those 
businesses?
    Mr. Regan. We do. We've had a Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
program in place for 15 years that the larger emitters 
participate in, and then we have--I believe the question was 
posed, the center that really focuses on a voluntary program 
where the corporate interests have come in and asked us for 
technical advice on how to quantify their greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    Mr. Weber. So if you consider the cost, back to what you 
said with Congresswoman Salinas where you want the U.S. market 
to be competitive, you specifically, rightfully so, mentioned 
China earlier in some of your comments, what matrix do you use 
to compare those costs to the marketplace, No. 1? And No. 2, is 
there a separate part of EPA that does that or who does that?
    Mr. Regan. Basically, what we do is we look at the goals we 
set for emission reductions based on economic vitality and 
technological availability, and----
    Mr. Weber. And that's U.S. versus China?
    Mr. Regan. It's looking at--yes, it's looking globally. How 
can we look at cost-effective technologies that as--you know, 
as we know, many of our companies are international companies. 
And so I spent a lot of time talking with CEOs about this and 
spent a lot of time with Governor Gordon in Wyoming and 
Governor Burgum in North Dakota. We want to position ourselves 
to export these technologies to countries like China and India 
as we compete globally to reduce these carbon emissions. And so 
EPA does take all of this into consideration.
    Mr. Weber. Glad to hear that. I just want to make one more 
final comment. We need to--our grid needs to be resilient and 
needs to be growing. The permitting needs to be fast. There's a 
move to push for a lot of electric vehicles. Back in the day 
when something got ahead of something else, we used to say we 
were putting the cart before the horse. You remember that?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Weber. It looks today like we might be putting the EVs 
before the horse. We've got to be careful.
    I'm going to yield back, and before I do, I want to say, 
Mr. Mullin of California, you are recognized next for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, 
Administrator Regan, for being with us today.
    I won't belabor the point you made and others have made 
about the critical role that EPA plays in the urgent fight to 
address climate change. In my district in California, we know 
firsthand how quickly we need to act on climate. Earlier this 
year, we saw unprecedented atmospheric rivers, causing 
devastating flooding in my district in the San Francisco Bay 
area.
    The White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi told 
Bloomberg News this week, the effects of a lapse in 
appropriations from a government shutdown would be seismic and 
cascade not just through the Federal Government, but into the 
real economy, into our ability to support communities and 
protect them. Bloomberg goes on to note that regulators may 
have to stop working on regulations limiting pollution from car 
and power plant emissions.
    So, Administrator Regan, could you reiterate for us how a 
shutdown could impede the rulemaking process, particularly with 
respect to pollution control measures and other critical 
regulations that directly affect climate change?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I can assure you that a government 
shutdown would be detrimental to any work being done on 
regulations that would help us stay globally competitive and 
take advantage of technologies that we want to corner the 
market on or whether it be regulations to protect our most 
vulnerable communities, our children from horrible soot and 
PM2.5 pollutants as well.
    We are doing critical work to stay ahead of these wildfires 
that we're seeing all across the country, and we have to be in 
a position where our staff is doing the research and can stay 
ahead so we can alert our communities of the adverse health 
impacts that come from the smoke. We're also trying to respond 
to the drought situation that we're seeing from climate impacts 
as well.
    So what you do is you reduce our ability to respond to 
these climate impacts, you slow our ability to regulate PFAS 
and other emerging contaminants, and you prevent us from 
protecting public health.
    By the way, I would say that those inspectors that are on 
the job to ensure that our water infrastructure is following 
the rules so that we have safe drinking water, those inspectors 
will be relegated to their homes if we have a shutdown.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. So switching gears just a 
bit, in June, I introduced H.R. 4296, the Weatherization 
Resilience and Adaptation Program, or WRAP Act, which would 
help low income homeowners, manufactured home communities, and 
affordable housing providers protect their homes from the 
disastrous effects of climate change. As part of such a 
program, various agencies, including EPA, would have a role to 
play in setting standards and guidance for communities on how 
to make homes and property more resilient and adapted to a 
changing world.
    In your testimony you mentioned the EPA's research in this 
area, helping communities improve their resilience to floods 
and wildfires. You mentioned how the Agency is studying natural 
solutions to coastal resilience such as using native seagrass 
to store carbon. Could you share just a bit more about the 
research EPA is doing in this regard, and also talk about how 
you are coordinating on this research with other agencies such 
as NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and 
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) to the extent that 
you are.
    Mr. Regan. Well, we are looking at a whole-of-government 
approach, and I would argue that, you know, whether it's 
seagrass that we're looking at to sequester carbon or the 
plethora of crops that I'm constantly talking with Secretary 
Vilsack about to sequester carbon or our wetlands and pocosins 
that help us filter pollution, we are looking at an all-of-the-
above approach to sequester carbon and filter pollution through 
natural opportunities.
    And I'd like to say that, as we look at these natural 
solutions, we believe that we can do a lot of them through 
volunteer programs, through market-based incentive programs 
that don't have a heavy regulatory framework associated with 
them. So this is an all-hands-on-deck approach. We want to be 
pragmatic. We want to be, you know, on that front leg really 
ready for the race. And I think we're doing a good job working 
with USDA, DOD, DOT, DOE, Commerce, all across the board to 
make sure we're deploying every single tool we have.
    Mr. Mullin. Appreciate the answer. Thank you for your 
leadership, and I yield back.
    Mr. Collins [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes myself 
for five minutes.
    Administrator Regan, I want to let you know we've been all 
bouncing around. We've got several Committees going on, but 
I've been following you and watching and listening to your 
answers, and I want to tell you, you do give thorough answers 
as people are talking to you, and I appreciate that. A lot of 
times we see people with binders, and they're just sitting 
there flipping back and forth just to try to figure out what 
the answer is, the canned answer.
    But I want to go in two different areas real quick. Because 
the EPA is purchasing millions of dollars' worth of advanced 
combat equipment--and I heard a little bit about this earlier 
on a slightly different question--and a lot of this includes 
night vision. And so why does the EPA need military equipment?
    Mr. Regan. Well, and I'll give the same answer I gave 
before. I need to really look into this particular issue and 
the reasoning behind our enforcement arm making these 
purchases. I'd like to give an honest answer, so I'd love to 
get back to you on that.
    Mr. Collins. So you're not going to war against anyone, 
right?
    Mr. Regan. Listen, there's no one to go to war against. I 
believe that our permitted and regulated constituency are 
partners, and we're trying to do these things together.
    Mr. Collins. Well, you know, I guess I just want you to 
know, how are Americans supposed to feel about an agency--you 
know because a lot of us feel like that our rights are always 
trampled on, and especially when you're stocking up on weapons. 
So, you know, I would love to have some sort of detailed answer 
into that, especially if there is no war on the horizon for the 
EPA.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Collins. Another area that I want to quickly go into 
just as--my background is trucking. I've been in the private 
sector for over 30 years, and this is my first term in 
Congress, so I've practically spent my entire life in the 
trucking industry, building a trucking company with my wife. 
And you have proposed a new rule that's going to impose more 
burdens on the commercial trucking industry, and so, if you 
have your way, these new emission standards are going to make 
new trucks even more expensive.
    Now, they--I mean, our truck prices have gone up 
astronomically over the past decade, and a lot of times what 
you do to us has such an adverse effect because the new 
emission rules that we have out there, the sensors are shutting 
down trucks left and right. I'm sure y'all see them up and down 
the interstate. And a lot of times, it's over some sensor that 
we can't even get the sensor to replace, and it is causing a 
huge burden and making trucks even more expensive. And it's 
hurting trucking overall.
    Now, with 98 percent of the trucking companies out there at 
10 trucks or less, 95 percent are three trucks or less. Do you 
understand the hardship, the economic hardship that these types 
of regulations are putting on truckers, especially with small 
businesses?
    Mr. Regan. Well, listen, I appreciate, you know, the 
trucking industry and moving commerce and keeping our economy 
going. And we have proposed a rule. I will say that I've met 
with the American Trucking Association and engine manufacturers 
since that proposal. We've received thousands of comments, so 
we're combing through that. I think the points that you're 
making are pragmatic and rational, and we're listening to 
those. And so what we are trying to think through is whether or 
not this proposed rule really addresses the full suite of 
technologies that are available, have the appropriate 
information in terms of the costs associated, and then the 
timeframes that we're looking at to make some of these 
transitions. All of that is up for discussion, and we're in 
that comment period right now.
    Mr. Collins. Well, I understand that, but what do you say 
to truckers that are just trying to compete? I mean, we've got 
high fuel prices, high insurance. What do you say to them, 
higher prices on everything? And they're the people out that 
are moving the products up and down the road. And frankly, we 
feel like Washington bureaucracy, they just live in 
fantasyland.
    Mr. Regan. Well, I'll say that we're listening. I'll say 
that we have made a proposal based on estimates and technology 
and information. You know, a crude way of saying it is we have 
done things academically, and now it's time to test those 
theories with actuality and implementation, and we've got 
people sitting at the table from your industry and others that 
are saying, listen, your assumptions may be a little aggressive 
or off or the technologies may not be available as quickly as 
you think. We're listening to that. We're taking that into 
consideration.
    Mr. Collins. Well, and I'll be honest with you, and I'll 
finish with this. In my career, I have seen where the trucking 
industry has made great strides in even fuel economy, and then 
all of a sudden the EPA will come out with some rule, and that 
rule will increase the amount of oil that we use in our trucks 
per truck and decrease the fuel--the oil change intervals and 
decrease the fuel mileage that you get out of those trucks and 
decrease the life of the engine. And it seems like--I don't 
know who the EPA talks to or listens to, but it's certainly not 
the trucking companies out there trying to make a living.
    So with that, I'll yield back.
    And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Frost from Florida for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Administrator, thank you so much for being here today.
    My district includes the small rural community of Bithlo. 
Bithlo is an example of a community that has been forgotten 
about by government, both Federal and local. Because of illegal 
dumping and abandoned gas stations, toxic chemicals have leaked 
into the groundwater. Most folks in this community can't afford 
deep wells or water filtration systems, so people don't 
understand or know--people don't have a public water source, 
and it's something that we're hoping to help them fix. When 
we're out there chatting with residents, people are scared. 
They don't know what the quality is of the water they're 
drinking. And, as a result, residents have a higher rate of 
cancer, brain diseases, et cetera. And it's not just that, you 
know, because the community lacks real infrastructure, social 
programs, the environmental issues on top of that, it's 
exacerbated drug addiction as well. Being out there is 
difficult. I mean, it's a difficult situation, suicide, 
overdose, et cetera.
    And so I had a great conversation with Regional 
Administrator Gettle, and she had committed to coming out to 
take a tour of Bithlo, which we're hoping to get on the 
schedule soon.
    The communities with the greatest needs are oftentimes the 
ones without the resources, connections, or knowhow of securing 
the funding needed to take care of these problems. So, 
Administrator, how does the EPA make sure that its grants like 
the clean water and drinking water grants reach small 
communities with limited experience with the Federal grant 
making process?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for your leadership, and I 
appreciate your questioning. And there's a couple of things 
that I'd like to say. Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, we have some resources 
that we can put to use to provide technical assistance to these 
communities so that they are in a competitive position to 
receive these resources.
    I'd like to say two things. The first is, we have gone back 
and looked at our traditional funding at the State level 
through appropriations to see where the Governors are spending 
their money. And we've added criteria in these evaluations to 
ensure that communities like the one you just listed have a 
seat at the table and can be competitive for these resources 
and they're--you know, decisions aren't made arbitrarily. So 
right now, there's a more competitive opportunity for 
communities like Bithlo to be seen and heard. There's $50 
billion in water infrastructure resources coming through EPA to 
funnel to those communities.
    The other thing I'd say is 40 percent of those resources by 
law have to go to communities that are disadvantaged or lower 
income or lack the infrastructure to provide for their 
communities. So it's--your community that you just mentioned is 
a prime target. And then the third is, again, we have really 
ramped up our outreach, so in addition to that technical 
assistance, you now have Regional Administrators like in region 
4 that will come, spend time, listen to the community, and help 
them think through how to work through the system to get those 
resources. We've got a holistic approach there.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. What can our 
office do ahead of the meeting with the Regional Administrator 
to make sure we're in the best place to have a productive 
visit, right? We'll get some good photos.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Frost. We'll show them around, but what can we do to 
prepare for it so we can have some real resources----
    Mr. Regan. I definitely think that your office should ask 
for a meeting, which I'll make sure happens. I think that the 
understanding of the community makeup, the infrastructure 
makeup, the unique challenges that this community faces, if we 
understand that before we get to the meeting, we are better 
prepared to provide answers and some assurances. And so I think 
a preliminary meeting would be advisable. And listen, I think 
what we're learning is so many communities have been left 
behind. They have so many different challenges. There isn't a 
one-size-fit-all. The best way we can be prepared is to be 
armed with the information.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you. What would a government shutdown mean 
for communities like Bithlo across the country having to live 
with undrinkable water, cancer-causing water? What would a 
government shutdown mean for those communities?
    Mr. Regan. We can't have meetings like the one you just 
said we're going to have. We can't have our regional experts go 
down Bithlo and talk through how to solve these solutions. We 
can't send inspectors down to be sure that the water that 
they're drinking is safe. We can't look at those billions of 
dollars that we're dedicating to small rural communities to 
combat PFAS and other emerging contaminants. We cannot do this 
work. Communities will be left behind if the government shuts 
down, but those communities that are already disproportionately 
impacted will be further left behind.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being here 
today. I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Chair and 
Ranking Member for holding this important hearing. And, 
Administrator Regan, thank you. Thank you for your excellent 
leadership at EPA. We appreciate it.
    Scientific integrity is central to EPA's mission to protect 
public health and the environment. I applaud your efforts to 
prioritize and rebuild scientific integrity at the Agency after 
disastrous political interference during the last 
Administration. Scientific integrity is something that I have 
focused on during my time in Congress by authoring and fighting 
for the Scientific Integrity Act. Going forward, I believe it 
is crucial that we continue working together to strengthen and 
to improve policies across the Federal Government.
    I was excited to see the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy release a framework for Federal scientific integrity in 
January. So, Administrator Regan, can you provide an update of 
the progress that the EPA has made in building and implementing 
an updated scientific integrity policy?
    Mr. Regan. We're excited about it. You know, under this 
Administration, scientists have a seat at the table, and we're 
listening. And, you know, it has really invigorated our 
employees. We're actually hoping that we'll have a new policy 
as a result of the leadership you've demonstrated by this 
winter, new guidance, a new way of instilling confidence that 
science, not politics, lead the way.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, Administrator, can you speak to 
the role of EPA's Scientific Integrity Office in providing 
advice to employees and addressing potential issues before they 
become full-fledged violations of the Agency's scientific 
integrity policy?
    Mr. Regan. We take it very seriously, and I'm excited to 
see cooperation at all levels within the Agency to be sure that 
we are not prohibiting the best available science to move 
forward. We're also responding to the OIG's recommendations of 
how we can do that better. I personally have had a number of 
conversations with our Inspector General on how we can really 
follow the guidance that he's given us. So I will say I'm very 
proud of the scientific integrity process at EPA. It's 
something that's taken serious by all of our leaders, and I 
think we are seeing the Agency make significant strides in this 
area.
    Mr. Tonko. Wonderful. And how important is it for EPA 
employees to feel comfortable bringing complaints to and 
seeking advice from EPA's scientific integrity office?
    Mr. Regan. All of our employees must know that their work 
will be done and received in good faith and not face any kind 
of retribution. We want to follow the science. We want to 
follow the law. That is our mission. That is our goal. In order 
to get the best products out of our employees, they have to 
feel safe, comfortable, and they have to believe they're going 
to be listened to, and this Administration is doing that.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you. Earlier in my tenure at in 
Congress, I made it a goal to bring a lot of attention to water 
infrastructure and that network beneath the surface, our hidden 
infrastructure, is incredibly important to our communities, 
certainly to our way of life and to the businesses that require 
sound water. And so as we did many tours along the Eastern 
Seaboard, one of the discoveries that was that was repeated 
over and over was the lack of human interest in issues like 
those that are required to maintain our water supplies, you 
know, very terrific responsibilities, but, you know, failed 
really because there wasn't that attention brought to that area 
of infrastructure.
    So yesterday, I was thrilled to see the EPA announcement 
for $20 million in grant funding for developing career 
opportunities in the water sector. Our water workforce is 
central to protecting public and environmental health. From our 
pipes and pumps to our rivers and lakes, our infrastructure is 
in dire need of restoration and maintenance, and yes, a need 
for human infrastructure buildup. Yet, like many, the sector is 
facing unprecedented staff shortages.
    So, Administrator Regan, can you speak to the current needs 
of the water sector and how these grants will help bolster the 
next generation and attract those young professionals that we 
require to careers in water?
    Mr. Regan. Well, first of all, I want to say thank you for 
your leadership and Congress' leadership. With this $50 
billion, we're now investing in water infrastructure so that 
personnel can have something that they're proud to manage. So 
some of these crippling facilities now will be revived, and 
we'll need a very good skill set to manage. We are spending 
these resources because we've spent time on the ground with 
mayors, with utility operators, understanding that there's a 
huge workforce gap. It's about instilling pride, bringing back 
educated, well-resourced individuals to run these facilities 
and ensure that their communities are receiving good quality 
drinking water. I think we've connected those dots. We've 
invested in the infrastructure. We've invested in the people. 
And I believe that now we're on track to get more people clean 
drinking water than we've had in a very long time.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, I for one am very much encouraged by that 
hidden infrastructure getting so much attention and focus.
    So again, I thank you for your leadership. New York 20 is 
always open to a repeat visit. You've always been a hit, and we 
thank you for that.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. I want to thank the Administrator for joining 
us today and the Members for their questions. The record will 
remain open for 10 days for additional comments and written 
questions from Members.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by the Honorable Michael S. Regan
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              

                   Additional Material for the Record


[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Letter submitted by Representative Bill Posey
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Letter submitted by Representative Jim Baird
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Letter submitted by Representative Mike Collins
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]