    [Senate Hearing 118-59]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 118-59

                   THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
                        PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 22, 2023

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    53-001 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

                   Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 MARCH 22, 2023
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................     4

                                    WITNESS

    Regan, Hon. Michael S., Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    14
        Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin.......    18
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Capito...........................................    18
            Senator Cramer...........................................    36
            Senator Lummis...........................................    38
            Senator Ricketts.........................................    39
            Senator Sullivan.........................................    42
            Senator Wicker...........................................    45

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    The Employment Situation--February 2023, Bureau of Labor
      Statistics.....................................................    53
    Final Rule: Revised Definition of ``Waters of the United
      States,'' Fact Sheet for the Agricultural Community, U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, December 2022.................    93
    Letter:
        To U.S. Senate from 350.org et al., March 10, 2023...........   105
        To Senator Carper from the Choose Clean Water Coalition......   107
        To Senator Carper from the Delaware Nature Society...........   108
        To Senator Carper from the Coalition for the Delaware River
          Watershed, March 14, 2023..................................   109
        To Senator Charles E. Schumer, Majority Leader, and Senator
          Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, from the American
          Fisheries Society et al., March 14, 2023...................   117
    Does the US lead in cutting greenhouse gases? It depends on how
      you look at it, PolitiFact, April 6, 2022......................   122
    Letter to Hon. Rahm Emanuel, Ambassador of the United States,
      from Senator Sullivan et al., March 6, 2023....................   141
    To U.S. Representative Sam Graves, Chair, House Transportation
      and Infrastructure Committee et al., from the American
      Sportfishing Association et al., February 17, 2023.............   143
    Letter to U.S. Representative Sam Graves, Chair, House
      Transportation and Infrastructure Committee et al., from Trout
      Unlimited, February 8, 2023....................................   146
    Message from Trout Unlimited, February 28, 2023..................   151
    Letter to Senator Carper from the American Fisheries Society,
      March 9, 2023..................................................   152
    EPA IRA Power Sector Impacts, the U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, February 15, 2023......................................   156

     THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2024
                                     BUDGET

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2023

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
    Markey, Kelly, Padilla, Cramer, Lummis, Boozman, Wicker,
    Sullivan, Mullin, and Ricketts.

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

        Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone.
        A familiar face sits before us. Welcome.
        I am going to ask you to introduce, who is the fellow
    sitting next to you, Mr. Regan, on your left?
        Mr. Regan. Our EPA Budget Director.
        Senator Carper. What is he doing here?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. We will see if his lips move when you
    speak.
        Good morning, and I am pleased to call this hearing to
    order and join Senator Capito in welcoming back Administrator
    Michael Regan before our Committee to discuss President Biden's
    fiscal year 2024 budget proposal for the Environmental
    Protection Agency.
        I think it was about 2 years or so ago that you sat pretty
    much right here. I am trying to remember who was sitting right
    behind you in the audience, right behind you, he was a young
    guy, looked to be about 8 or 9 years old. Was his name Matthew?
        Mr. Regan. The superstar of the Regan family, Matthew.
        Senator Carper. I want to just say, we have a couple of new
    members on our team, some of you will recall, he was the best
    behaved 8 or 9 year old kid I have ever seen in my life. We
    said later on, we thought you probably had him medicated, to be
    able to behave that well.
        Mr. Regan. No, just a promise of a lot of Pokemon cards.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Whatever it takes.
        We are happy to welcome you back today to discuss President
    Biden's fiscal year 2024 budget proposal for the Environmental
    Protection Agency. Over the years, I have often said that
    budgets are about priorities. Or as the late Jim Frock once
    said, anybody ever heard of Jim Frock? Probably not. But you
    have heard the saying, ``Don't tell me where your priorities
    are, show me where you spend your money, and I will tell you
    what they are.'' Jim Frock.
        Rest in peace, Jim Frock, wherever you are. You are gone,
    but not forgotten.
        Budget proposals are an opportunity for our Presidents,
    Democrats, Republicans, and others as well, to lay out a
    forward looking version for the people of our country. I
    believe that President Biden's $12 billion budget request for
    EPA, after years of starving the agency, starving the agency
    for years, prioritizes now the needs of the American people.
        At this moment in history, Americans want a well resourced
    EPA that takes action to protect our health and our
    environment, especially when tragic accidents occur like the
    recent Norfolk Southern train derailment in East Palestine,
    Ohio.
        Communities throughout the U.S. that are overburdened by
    legacy pollution want a well resourced EPA that works to clean
    up the air they breathe, the water they drink, as well as the
    contaminated land, which if cleaned up, could be used for
    economic development and job creation.
        Those of us who are concerned about the future of our
    planet, and that is just about all of us, want a well resourced
    EPA that takes strong action to combat the greatest threat we
    face today on this planet, and that is our climate crisis,
    while at the same time creating millions of new jobs in the
    process.
        Earlier this week, the United Nations Intergovernmental
    Panel on Climate Change released its latest report underscoring
    the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As many of
    us here know today, climate change is already impacting
    communities across our country, large and small.
        According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, extreme weather fueled by climate change in the
    form of hurricanes, flooding, drought, and wildfires cost
    American taxpayers nearly $170 billion in 2022. I said $170
    billion in 2022. That is billion with a B. And to put that
    figure into perspective, that is about 14 times the size of
    your budget, Mr. Regan, at EPA.
        Fortunately, last Congress we worked to pass the American
    Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the
    Inflation Reduction Act. My thanks to everyone who worked on
    one or more of those bills. In doing so, we have directed EPA
    to do more than ever before to tackle climate change, address
    pollution, and protect our health in a way that supports
    economic growth.
        I am a recovering Governor, and we have a couple of others
    here who are recovering Governors. I am always looking for how
    do we support economic growth and job creation. It is never far
    from my mind, and it is especially here in my mind today. But
    how, you may ask.
        Well, we have tasked EPA with overseeing historic
    investments in clean drinking water free of contaminants like
    PFAS and lead. We have also invested in EPA's work to clean up
    legacy pollution from contaminated urban brownfields, abandoned
    wells leaking methane, acid mines leaching heavy metals, and
    more. And we have empowered EPA to help build a clean energy
    economy, made here in America, made here in America with good
    paying jobs and lower energy costs for households across our
    Nation.
        The President's budget would build on our legislative
    progress by providing EPA with the resources it needs to
    implement these new programs that Congress has created. Among
    them are the Clean School Bus Program, the Methane Emission
    Reduction Program, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and new
    investments in wastewater facilities, all while continuing the
    important work of carrying out our Nation's bedrock
    environmental laws.
        Make no mistake, the agency truly needs these investments.
    It is no secret that EPA has not always received the resources,
    at least in the last decade or so, the resources required to be
    successful. In recent years, flat budgets and staffing
    shortages have severely undermined the agency's ability to do
    its job in many respects.
        As EPA's responsibilities and workload continue to grow in
    the face of climate change and other human caused environmental
    disasters, it should come as no surprise that the agency is
    overburdened.
        That is especially true when we look at the agency's work
    force. EPA's current number of staff, that is about 15,000, is
    well below the range of 16,000 to 18,000 that the agency had
    from 1990 through 2012, below the range we had in 2012. For
    years, we have asked EPA to do more with less, much less.
        Fortunately, instead of proposing to slash the agency's
    budget further as the previous Administration did, President
    Biden's budget proposal would increase the EPA's budget by
    roughly 19 percent in fiscal year 2024 as compared to the
    previous year. It is really a leveling up to where we ought to
    be if we had not cut the budget so much. The increase in
    funding under the President's budget for EPA is necessary as
    the agency works to rebuild itself and address emerging and
    ongoing challenges.
        It is also worth noting that the President's budget would
    add nearly 2,000 full time career staff at EPA. The staff
    levels have either been cut in recent years or actually frozen.
    At the same time, your workload has increased dramatically.
        These additional staff would make a real difference in the
    agency's ability to do things like manage toxic chemicals under
    the Toxic Substances Control Act, which we passed by a big
    bipartisan vote in this Committee a number of years ago. Still
    it is not being fully implemented because of the lack of staff
    at EPA to do that.
        Other things that need to be done is to convert
    contaminated brownfields sites. Almost everybody on this
    Committee can think of brownfields in our States that are
    contaminated and could be turned into areas for economic
    opportunity. Also, we need to replace a bunch of lead pipes
    throughout our country, and probably throughout every State
    that is represented on this Committee.
        I am also pleased that EPA's budget would make good on
    President Biden's Justice40 initiative and ensure that all
    Americans, including those in historically overlooked and
    underserved communities, receive their fair share of Federal
    assistance from EPA.
        As a co-founder of the Senate Environmental Justice Caucus,
    I am particularly grateful that this budget focuses on the
    needs of our most vulnerable, communities of color, as well as
    low income and American Indian and Alaska Native communities. I
    call them the least of these.
        That is something I know that you, Mr. Regan, continue to
    prioritize as well, along with the folks you lead. You should
    know that many members of this panel, including me, support
    your efforts to advance environmental justice. Indeed, we have
    a moral obligation to do so.
        Let me close by saying that I believe President's Biden's
    budget represents a brighter vision of the future for our
    Nation, all of our Nation, from coast to coast, one that
    delivers on the promise of cleaner air and cleaner water in
    every ZIP code and better ensures that every American has an
    opportunity to live up to their God given potential.
        Administrator Regan, I know we are heading in that
    direction thanks to your outstanding leadership at EPA and the
    work of the team that you are privileged to lead during an
    especially challenging time in our Nation's history. We look
    forward to hearing your testimony today and to the responses
    you will give to the questions that we will be posing.
        Before I do that, I am delighted to turn to our Ranking
    Member, Senator Capito, for her opening remarks.
        Senator Capito.

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

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Administrator Regan for being here. It is really good to see
    you.
        While we both know we don't always agree on policies, I
    really appreciate your willingness to meet and talk and how
    seriously you take your commitment to testify. So I am very
    appreciative.
        A lot has happened since you appeared here for last year's
    hearing. The EPA has received enormous funds, enormous amounts
    of funding. In addition to the annual appropriations for fiscal
    year 2023, the EPA received an astounding $41.5 billion in
    additional funding as part of the so called Inflation Reduction
    Act, which many of us refer to as the reckless tax and spending
    spree. For context, that is four times the appropriations that
    EPA would receive in a typical year.
        As part of the funding, EPA received hundreds of millions
    of dollars specifically for administrative expenses, which
    could include hiring personnel for implementation of the IRA
    programs. With these eye watering numbers, I was quite
    surprised to see in the fiscal year 2024 proposal that EPA
    requests another $1.9 billion increase over last year's annual
    appropriation, including more money explicitly for the IRA
    program implementation.
        Across the country, with inflation, high energy prices,
    grocery prices, and rising interest rates, Americans are having
    to do more with less. But EPA got more, and still wants more.
        I am particularly troubled by the largesse of this request
    because I am not convinced that EPA is using the resources it
    already has effectively. I recently received a response from
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that had some eye popping
    statistics about current office attendance and work culture. I
    would like to get similar answers from you today about the EPA
    work force.
        Last year when you testified before the Committee we
    discussed EPA employees, when would they be back to work in
    person, and you said, ``All employees are scheduled to be back
    by the last period in April 2022.'' This year's budget proposal
    suggests, however, that back in the office does not mean
    actually present in the office.
        We are heating and cooling massive, and nearly uninhabited
    buildings, 3 years after the pandemic started. Now with the
    public health emergency over I want to understand the agency's
    current work practices and how we can avoid some of this energy
    waste to the benefit of the environment and the taxpayer.
        We need to do this before we seriously consider any more
    administrative outlays, including the EPA's desire to hire
    approximately 2,000 additional FTEs. The need for so many
    additional workers is at best questionable given recent EPA
    announcements about how it is going to manage large buckets of
    money appropriated by the IRA.
        The EPA is sitting on more money than it has had in its
    history, and I find it worrying that its method for handling
    some of these particularly significant new pots of money is to
    push implementation to groups outside the agency, and beyond
    traditional accountability and oversight. Take for instance the
    $3 billion Climate and Environmental Justice Block Grant
    program from the IRA. The EPA, with that program, receives a 7
    percent administrative expenses set aside. So that is $210
    million, a lot of money, even here in Washington.
        According to the EPA's plans for initial awards under the
    program, all your staff is going to do is pick a limited number
    of third party grantees outside the agency, which can then can
    take another 20 percent to administer and distribute grants to
    their grantees. That does not sound like an efficient way to
    use taxpayer dollars to me.
        Unless current plans for the program change, the EPA will
    get $210 million for doing not as much as I am sure the vision
    of those who voted for the IRA thought. These investments,
    which could be partisan, and could be environmentally
    meaningless, I guess that is in the eye of the beholder, will
    then have more than a quarter of those dollars that are going
    to be blown on administrative costs before it even gets
    started. So I would like to discuss my concerns today about the
    way that you are prioritizing certain regulatory actions.
        The agency spent a lot of time and resources completely
    rewriting and finalizing a broad, new Waters of the United
    States definition, but we are waiting for the Supreme Court to
    make a ruling in a pending case. That threw yet another
    definition of WOTUS into effect, and now that definition has
    already been stayed in, I believe just two States, but maybe
    more. The EPA could have minimized regulatory uncertainty by
    just waiting for the Supreme Court ruling.
        During that same time, the Biden EPA took 2 years, 2 years,
    to develop a proposed drinking water standard, but believe me I
    am happy you finally did, for PFOA and PFOS. It concerns me
    that the EPA Water office could have been prioritizing PFAS
    instead of writing the WOTUS rule, which is going to have to be
    changed in all likelihood after the Supreme Court makes its
    decision this summer.
        Meanwhile, the agency continues to go full bore on a
    regulatory agenda targeting the energy and power sectors, one
    that is going to hurt my State's economy and further raise
    energy bills. The EPA continues to push forward with its so
    called EGU, or Electric Generating Unit, Strategy.
        As part of that strategy, the EPA recently finalized a
    water rule targeting coal plants called the ELG rule. It says
    the ELG rule is ``aligned with other rules so that we can help
    the industry be very thoughtful about long term investments for
    all the regulations that are coming out of the agency.'' That
    is kind of code word for me for how are you going to shut your
    plants down.
        You went on to say, ``not aimed at driving a specific
    outcome in terms of investment strategies.'' But I would
    disagree. I think it is clear what the Administration is doing:
    An accelerated transition from coal and natural gas seems to be
    the playbook here. The Biden administration is calling the
    shots that were started during the Obama administration's war
    on coal.
        Earlier this month, Mr. Goffman and I talked about the EPA
    modeling, and I know you and I talked about this actually at
    breakfast the other day, that the IRA is a gut punch to the
    coal and gas industry. The EPA modeling projects that the IRA
    could lead to transformative impacts on the power sector,
    including a dramatic decrease in not just generation but also
    capacity. We see that in the projections generated from the EPA
    itself.
        So I am concerned about potential job loss in Appalachia,
    all across the country, in the natural gas industry, and I am
    very concerned about what we see coming out.
        But today we are going to talk about the budget and other
    things. And I am worried about the oversight in terms of the
    Inflation Reduction Act since it looks like you are sort of
    outsourcing some of the oversight to these subgrantees. And I
    wonder what kind of oversight we would have there, not to
    mention the 27 percent in administrative costs that are going
    to be dedicated toward engaging those dollars. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Capito. A tale of two
    cities here in the Environment and Public Works Committee
    today.
        I want to reiterate something I said in my opening
    statement. Earlier this week, the United Nations
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest
    report underscoring the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions. It said it is actually getting worse faster rather
    than slower, and imparted a sense of urgency.
        Someday, 10, 20, 30 years from now, folks are going to
    gather here in this room, serving on this Committee, and they
    are going to either say, what were they thinking, what were we
    thinking, as we considered this budget and the priorities of
    this Administration and our country, or they are going to say,
    thank God they took some steps that needed to be taken to make
    sure that our children and our grandchildren have a future.
        My wife and I have three sons, and we have four
    grandchildren. I want to make sure that they have a planet to
    grow up on. I want to make sure they have a planet to grow old
    on. The work that we are doing here today is really with that
    in mind. Almost all of us have kids or grandchildren. I think
    we want the same thing for them.
        With that in mind, Mr. Regan, thanks for joining us. Thanks
    for your statement and for being with us today. We will begin
    with hearing from you. Go right ahead. Thank you.

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

        Mr. Regan. Thank you, Chairman Carper. I want to thank
    Ranking Member Capito and members of this Committee.
        I really do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss the necessary vision laid out in the United
    States Environmental Protection Agency's proposed fiscal year
    2024 budget request.
        In this budget request, we lay out an ambitious and
    transformative plan for EPA with the goal of building a
    healthier, more prosperous Nation while ensuring global
    competitiveness, energy independence, and security.
        President Biden's proposed fiscal year 2024 budget request
    for EPA provides $12.1 billion to advance key priorities
    including protecting air quality, upgrading our Nation's aging
    water infrastructure, tackling the climate crisis, and
    rebuilding the core functions in our agency. Over the last
    year, we have made significant progress toward these goals. I
    am proud of the foundation we have laid and the partnerships
    that we have developed to underpin the successes.
        But there is still much more work to do to ensure that all
    of our children have safe, healthy places to live, learn, and
    play, to build a stronger, more sustainable economy, and to
    advance American innovation and ingenuity. Simply put,
    investing in EPA is investing in America.
        Across the country, poor air quality still affects millions
    of people, perpetuating harmful health and economic impacts.
    For fiscal year 2024, the agency will protect our air quality
    by cutting emissions from ozone forming pollutants, particulate
    matter, and air toxics.
        The President's budget includes $1.4 billion to improve air
    quality and to set standards that reduce pollution from mobile
    and stationary sources. EPA's work to set these standards
    provides certainty to the industry, builds on advances in
    technology, and reinforces market movement toward a cleaner
    energy system that provides reliable and affordable energy.
        A thriving economy also requires clean and safe water for
    everyone. Although progress has been made, many still lack
    access to healthy water, face inadequate wastewater
    infrastructure, and suffer from the effects of lead pipes.
    America's water systems are also facing new challenges,
    including cybersecurity threats, climate change, and emerging
    contaminants such as PFAS.
        The budget proposes more than $4 billion to upgrade
    drinking water and wastewater infrastructure nationwide, with a
    focus on underserved communities. Over the last year, I have
    had the privilege of traveling across the country from Jackson,
    Mississippi, to East Palestine, Ohio. I have visited
    communities in your States and seen first hand the
    environmental and public health challenges that many of your
    constituents continue to face.
        I have spoken to families who have been sickened by the air
    they breathe; I have met with people who live with toxic waste
    in their backyards. I have seen conditions that are simply
    unacceptable in the United States of America.
        From investing in our Nation's climate resilience to
    cleaning up contaminated land and water, there is no shortage
    of important work to be done. Members of this Committee, I
    assure you that EPA is up for the task. We are eager to work
    with all of you to deliver for our fellow Americans and to
    secure our Nation's global competitiveness.
        But we do need your support. Both the urgency and economic
    opportunity presented by climate change require that we leave
    no stone unturned. We know the development, implementation, and
    enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies
    has not always ensured the fair treatment and meaningful
    involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national
    origin, or income.
        In fiscal year 2024, EPA requests more than $375 million
    and 265 FTE for the Environmental Justice Program. The funding
    will help to expand support for community based organizations,
    indigenous organizations, Tribes, States, local government, and
    other territorial governments, so that they can identify and
    develop solutions to their environmental justice concerns
    through multi-partner collaborations.
        The fiscal year 2024 President's budget positions the EPA
    to create durable environmental policy, investing in America
    and setting our Nation on a path to win the 21st century. It
    will allow for us to meet the pressing needs faced by millions
    of Americans and fundamentally improve people's lives for the
    better.
        Thank you all for the opportunity to be here today and to
    submit this testimony for the record. I look forward to our
    continued partnerships to achieve these ambitious yet necessary
    goals. I welcome all of your questions. Thank you again.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Regan follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Regan.
        Let me ask for the record, the IRA, Inflation Reduction
    Act, is it fully paid for? Is it fully offset? Or does it
    increase our deficit?
        Mr. Regan. It is fully paid for.
        Senator Carper. It is fully paid for. Imagine that.
        Are we losing jobs in this country over the last couple of
    years or gaining jobs, any idea?
        Mr. Regan. We are gaining significant jobs.
        Senator Carper. If I told you the number is 10.7 million
    jobs that have been created in the last 2+ years, would you
    believe that? Well, it is true. The unemployment rate, what is
    the unemployment rate today? It is 3.4, which I think, the last
    time I checked, is the lowest it has been in how many years? A
    long time. I think that is a good thing for us to keep in mind
    as we take up these issues.
        I say, and my colleagues get tired of hearing me say this,
    it is possible to do good things for this planet, clean air,
    clean water, climate change, and create jobs. We are doing it,
    and we can continue to do it. We need to do it in a fiscally
    responsible way. I will get off my soapbox.
        In his budget, President Biden has clearly prioritized
    protecting public health and the environment. EPA needs more
    people and additional funding to do the critically important,
    lifesaving and planet saving work we are asking you to do. This
    includes reducing the greenhouse gas pollution that is driving
    climate disasters, working with industry to support a host of
    new, well paying jobs and clean energy industries, and ensuring
    that EPA can effectively respond to chemical disasters like the
    one that you visited in East Palestine, Ohio, and Darlington
    Township, Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Regan, how would the additional people and funding
    recommended by the President in his budget help the agency you
    lead fulfill your mission to protect public health and the
    environment with an eye toward reducing emissions, promoting
    economic growth, and increasing resiliency to natural and man
    made disasters?
        Mr. Regan. Thank you, Chairman Carper. I want to start by
    thanking you and this Committee for your leadership in passing
    the Omnibus Bill, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as well.
    These pieces of legislation have helped the agency move the
    ball forward to invest in America.
        The town of Ellenboro, West Virginia, has received $1.5
    million to address aging infrastructure, the town of Temple,
    Oklahoma, approximately $1 million in loan forgiveness to
    upgrade its water treatment facility, and Chairman, in your own
    city of Wilmington, Delaware, expected to receive a half a
    million dollars to upgrade its de-watering process to remove
    PFAS in the wastewater treatment facilities.
        In order for us to continue the great work like this, we
    need additional resources to continue investing, and that is
    included in the proposed budget. Additional funds would invest
    in our infrastructure more than $4 billion to upgrade drinking
    water and wastewater infrastructure for all people. We do know
    that we received a lot of resources through the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law for water infrastructure, but we also know
    that those resources pale in comparison to the size of the
    problem.
        Once we move beyond clean and safe drinking water,
    additionally in the 2024 budget request, it would enable EPA to
    fully realize the promise of the bipartisan TSCA law that this
    Committee wrote, getting protective chemical safety rules on
    the book. Also, getting the innovative new chemistries needed
    to propel the semiconductor, automotive, and battery sectors
    forward is extremely important for us. Last year's
    appropriations helped, but this year we needed a little bit
    more.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        My next question is, environmental justice communities,
    front line communities, and disadvantaged communities are
    disproportionately affected, as you know, by environmental
    hazards. I am a firm believer, I know you are as well, in
    something called the Golden Rule. I think if you asked the
    question of everyone on this panel, they would say, we are all
    in favor of the Golden Rule, treat others the way we want to be
    treated. We are in the same situation.
        That means we must ensure fair and equitable treatment for
    these communities, too. I know that you share a similar desire
    to assist and uplift those communities that have been affected
    by toxic pollution. Here is my question: How does this budget
    proposal do, what does it do, to help the communities that need
    it the most, including those economically volatile and
    environmental justice communities?
        Mr. Regan. Senator, I believe in the Golden Rule, and I
    believe that rising tides lift all boats. I would like to start
    by saying 85 percent of this budget request goes to States and
    Tribes.
        Senator Carper. Say that again.
        Mr. Regan. Eighty-five percent of the budget request goes
    to our States, our Tribes, our local governments, which as a
    former State regulator, I believe that our States and
    communities know better than the Federal Government, and they
    have the solutions.
        I have traveled all across the country, from the backyards
    of Jackson, Mississippi, to Mandan, North Dakota, to McDowell
    County, West Virginia. I have heard the stories; I have seen
    with my own eyes the struggle many families have for clean air
    and clean water.
        This new, national program and these resources create a
    laser focused opportunity on environmental justice. We can do
    that while providing a clear point of accountability for both
    our internal and external stakeholders in coordinating this EJ
    work.
        So we are excited to see that many States are actually
    revising the definitions of disadvantaged communities for the
    State Revolving Loan Fund programs as a result of our guidance.
    We are excited to see that our State, tribal, and local
    partners are embracing these resources to create equity in all
    of our communities.
        So this budget does request additional resources so that we
    have the capacity to ensure that every person in this country
    has access to clean air and clean water.
        Senator Carper. My time has almost expired. I am going to
    yield to Senator Capito, who has stepped out of the room for
    just a moment. Who would be next?
        Senator Cramer, would you mind?
        Senator Cramer. Oh, if I must.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cramer. I am happy to, thank you.
        I am afraid I might jump ahead of Senator Capito, even in
    the questions, on my first question. She brought it up in her
    opening statement.
        First of all, Administrator, thank you for being here.
    Thank you again for your trip to North Dakota. As I mentioned
    to Assistant Administrator Fox last week, it was a fun day. I
    hope you found it useful.
        I know that you implemented some of the things you heard
    from our landowners and farmers concerning Waters of the United
    States, and while we think it still comes up way, way short,
    you were there. Showing up matters. You did listen, and we
    appreciate that a lot, and continue to look forward to working
    with you more.
        The Chairman said that we asked the EPA to do more with
    less. I am asking you to do less with less. He talked about a
    tale of two cities, I am talking about a tale of two
    philosophies. And I am going to start by challenging you a
    little bit on what I think Senator Capito probably wants to
    talk to you about as well, and that is why the EPA went ahead
    with the WOTUS rule, a durable WOTUS rule, it is anything but
    durable considering we are in the middle of a case in the
    Supreme Court, the Sackett case, and now awaiting that ruling.
        This durable word was of course to prevent the ping-ponging
    of the rule. Twenty-four States have already challenged your
    new rule. Wouldn't it have made sense to just wait until after
    the EPA, and maybe have a more durable rule, and then free up
    all that time and all those resources to do something high
    priority, perhaps?
        Mr. Regan. Senator Cramer, I think maybe my count is right
    now we have two States that have challenged the rule, maybe
    more will join. When I embarked upon my listening tour, I think
    farmers and ranchers asked for certainty and durability,
    recognizing that the Trump Navigable Waters rule had been
    vacated and that there was no Obama Clean Water rule in place,
    which means we were faced with a pre-2015 scenario.
        So we worked really hard. We held regional listening
    sessions all across the country, went through a very thorough
    regulatory process. Basically, we looked at the pre-2015
    regulation and what we did was we codified two Supreme Court
    rulings post-2015, and then in this rule I think we threaded a
    very good needle. What we did was codified over eight
    exemptions that were requested by the ranching and farming
    community, in addition to providing this durability or this
    certainty to move forward.
        Now, we recognize that the Sackett case will have some
    impact on the rule. But what we didn't want to do was wait
    until after June, wait for the Supreme Court, and then start a
    2 year process which would have left farmers and ranchers in
    limbo.
        Senator Cramer. All right. We are going to disagree on
    that, for sure. I don't want to get into the details of WOTUS
    right now, because I do want to move on.
        You said 85 percent of the money in the IRA for EPA goes to
    States or something to that effect. The authority rests with
    States, that is the area where I am most concerned, with regard
    to another Supreme Court ruling, of course, on the Clean Air
    Act ruling, West Virginia v. EPA.
        I worry that the EPA is still presuming authority that it
    doesn't have. After that ruling, and I will be real specific,
    in the IRA, there is $45 million specifically for perhaps using
    within Section 111, which is what of course West Virginia v.
    EPA was all about, to engage in even more Clean Air Act
    intervention, if you will, on the part of the EPA.
        Is there anything in the IRA in addition to the $45 million
    that gives the EPA this authority to go at the source and to
    fuel change, or to suggest fuel changing or require fuel
    changing for generation? Is there new authority that you didn't
    have before?
        Mr. Regan. No, what I would say is, the Supreme Court made
    it clear that it was not permissible for EPA to base emissions
    guidelines under Section 111 on generation shifting.
        Senator Cramer. Right.
        Mr. Regan. And so the court's decision did not draw any
    conclusions regarding any other control measures, but it was
    specific there.
        So we are designing, we have an obligation, the law
    requires that we put forward a regulation around greenhouse gas
    emissions. We are following the Supreme Court's ruling, we are
    following our Clean Air Act authority. We have engaged
    extensively with the power sector on this rule.
        So I can assure you that we are going to stay well within
    the guardrails. But our rule will set the structure for the
    opportunities in this country, especially those that have come
    about because of the Inflation Reduction Act.
        Senator Cramer. I do prefer States' authority, of course. I
    think the Supreme Court does as well.
        I was going to ask next about the methane rule, because I
    think it is similar. It is another one of those things where
    State primacy is being dictated or overridden by the EPA,
    perhaps. As I always like to say, please don't impose the
    Federal Government's mediocrity on my State's excellence. They
    just do it so much better. And it doesn't cost as much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Cramer.
        A couple of unanimous consent requests. I ask unanimous
    consent to submit for the record recent economic data from the
    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which show that our economy
    added, this last month, in February, another 311,000 jobs,
    311,000 new jobs, surpassing economic estimates which had
    called for about 200,000.
        The unemployment rate remains near an historic low, just 3
    and a half percent. Compared to what? Well, that is the lowest
    rate on unemployment in this country in almost, ready for this,
    54 years. Fifty-four years.
        I also ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a
    December 20, 2022, fact sheet from the EPA that confirms its
    new WOTUS rule does not impact longstanding permitting
    exemptions provided in the Clean Water Act for agriculture
    activities. The Clean Water Act has exempted normal, ongoing
    farming activities from permitting since 1977, and President
    Biden's WOTUS rule does not change that. This fact sheet
    explains the new rule actually includes new exclusions long
    sought by the agriculture community, including a definition for
    prior converted crop land and exclusions for certain ditches of
    irrigation, areas and artificial lakes and ponds.
        With that having been said, I am happy to yield to my----
        Senator Wicker. Reserving the right to object. Do either of
    those documents speak to the inflation rate that consumers are
    having to pay for products like eggs and groceries and
    agricultural products?
        Senator Carper. I am going to check, and I will get back to
    you right after this hearing.
        Senator Wicker. I withdraw my reservation.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I would note, for the last 6, 7 months,
    each month, you may have noticed the rate of inflation is going
    down, down, down. If the Federal Reserve continues to do their
    job, and we do our job, maybe it will just keep coming down. I
    hope so.
        Senator Wicker. With respect, I haven't noticed it going
    down, down, down. There have been upticks in certain sectors
    and down in others. Inflation is a serious problem. I just
    wondered if those documents reflected that.
        Senator Carper. Senator Cardin.
        Senator Mullin. Sir, hold on, I would like to just object.
    If you are putting your labor statistics into the record, I
    want to object to it, too. Because I am reading the labor
    statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and it said
    actually the unemployment rate edged up to 3.6 percent from
    February 2022, not the lowest that we have seen in record
    history. In fact, if you start looking at it, people that left
    the work force is 5.1 million in the last 4 weeks, which is
    what almost doubled the unemployment rate.
        So your statistics aren't accurate to what you are saying
    for your unemployment. So your staff either, one, didn't brief
    you right on that, or they didn't read the same Department of
    Labor statistics which I am reading.
        Senator Carper. So you are saying the unemployment rate has
    gone up from 3.5 percent to 3.6 percent. I am not going to get
    into----
        [Simultaneous conversations.]
        Senator Mullin. It is not accurate when you say that it has
    actually dropped.
        Senator Carper. Regular order. Thank you.
        All right, who will be next?
        Senator Cardin. I am.
        Senator Carper. Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        I appreciate your visits to Maryland. We know it is easy on
    your travel budget when you visit our State, so we always
    welcome you to the State of Maryland.
        I also want to thank you for your help in regard to our
    priorities for the Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake Bay
    region. The budget provides $47.6 million in fiscal year 2024
    from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Bill that provided $238 million to the
    Chesapeake Bay over a 5 year period. So we appreciate those
    funds being made available. We also appreciate your budget that
    increases the Bay Program directly by $100,000.
        I really want to acknowledge and urge you to continue to
    work with the surrounding States in the Chesapeake Bay
    watershed as well as other agencies, including the Army Corps,
    as we develop strategies to move forward with the Chesapeake
    Bay.
        A second issue, I want to just acknowledge the challenges
    you have in regard to the work that you are doing for the Phase
    3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy Trucks. Maryland is home
    to Volvo Mack Truck, 1,500 jobs in Hagerstown. They are working
    on the electric vehicles, electric trains, I should say the
    electric drive trains for new clean trucks.
        Our concern is, and we have mentioned this before to you,
    is that as you develop your rule, be mindful of this
    infrastructure or structures that are available to implement
    this in transition. We think the work being done in Hagerstown
    is important to that. We want to preserve that manufacturing
    here in the United States, to make sure we can comply within a
    reasonable period of time of any of the new requirements that
    are made.
        Let me go to one of the public health challenges. You said
    you are prepared to meet these public health challenges. You
    have been to Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant in
    Baltimore. You know the challenges we have there.
        Just recently, there was an explosion and fire.
    Fortunately, no one was hurt. But we do know that that plant
    discharges an excess amount of nutrients and bacteria. And
    Baltimore is not alone. This is a problem that we see in man of
    our older wastewater plants throughout this country.
        My question is, it needs resources, but it also needs help
    in developing the proper management structure in order to meet
    the needs going forward. You indicated you are up to the task.
    So, tell me how you are going to be up to the task to help us
    in Baltimore and other places in this Nation that have real
    challenges in their wastewater treatment plans.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you, Senator Cardin, for that question. We
    are up for the challenge. Part of our strategy there is to
    leverage our strong regional leadership. We have 10 regions
    across the country that work in very close partnership with our
    State regulators.
        So we are heavily engaged with the Department of
    Environment in Maryland and Baltimore City around how we look
    at this particular issue, the Back River issue. And we have our
    regional administrator, Adam Ortiz, who has got his finger on
    the pulse there.
        Senator Cardin. And he is doing a great job. I really want
    to acknowledge his incredible work in Region 3.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you. He is doing an incredible job. Part
    of that is ensuring that these States get the resources that
    they deserve.
        So as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, when we
    look at the 50 billion or so dollars, there are significant,
    hundreds of millions of those dollars that we are providing
    directly to States for technical assistance.
        Senator Cardin. I think that technical assistance will be
    very important. We do have a resource problem, but we also have
    a management issue. So I hope the technical assistance will be
    sensitive to meet those needs.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Absolutely.
        Senator Cardin. Let me raise one additional issue in the
    time I have remaining. That is on the lead abatement issues
    that you are dealing with. There are two grants that are going
    to be funded, I think to the tune of about $219 million in the
    President's budget.
        Tell me how you are going to target those funds,
    particularly to the underserved communities that have had the
    challenges in the past in dealing with lead poisoning in their
    homes and their schools. How do we target it to make sure it
    gets to the communities of greatest need?
        Mr. Regan. That is one of the really important tasks, not
    only of the entire agency, but of our new Office of
    Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. No. 1, we are
    grateful for the language in the bill that basically stipulates
    a certain percentage of these resources must go to
    disadvantaged communities. We also know that many States
    already have a lead inventory, and those that don't are
    continuing to develop that.
        So we do have a formula in place. And we do have a
    structure in place that ensures that those who need these
    resources the most will get them first. We are grateful for the
    $15 billion in the bill that targets eradicating lead pipes.
    But we all know that there are more financial needs in this
    country than the $15 billion. That is why this budget request
    is so important.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator.
        And Senator Capito has graciously yielded to Senator Lummis
    for the next round of questions.
        Senator Lummis, you are on.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Ranking Member. I appreciate it.
        Administrator Regan, welcome. I would comment first before
    I ask a question about PFAS that it is simply impossible for
    EPA to absorb and responsibly spend the amount of money that is
    being requested. I look forward to visiting with you about, if
    this amount of money is thrown at EPA, how you think you could
    possibly spend it responsibly. At any rate, that is just an
    editorial comment.
        Administrator Regan, I have heard from public wastewater
    utilities concerned that a CERCLA listing for PFAS could leave
    them liable to bear the costs of contamination, putting the
    onus on local communities and households. Public water and
    wastewater utilities did not produce or benefit from PFAS, but
    since it flowed through their systems, they could be left
    bearing the costs associated with clean up, which will mean
    higher rates in people's water bills.
        If the designation moves forward, does EPA plan to hold
    public wastewater utilities and local communities liable for
    PFAS contamination under CERCLA?
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question, Senator. Our goal is
    to use all of our enforcement authority to hold the companies
    responsible, accountable. That is goal No. 1.
        No. 2, we do not want the burden and the onus to fall on
    our wastewater treatment facilities, especially those smaller
    ones in our rural communities.
        That is why there is $8 billion in the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law, thanks to many of you all, that got that in
    that law, that will provide some financial reassurance to these
    smaller communities as we begin to pursue this regulation.
        Senator Lummis. Does EPA have authority to provide
    exemptions? Because exercising enforcement discretion doesn't
    seem sufficient.
        Mr. Regan. We do have enforcement discretion. I think that
    we have to look at the tools that we have within our tool box.
    Enforcement discretion is one, but it is a very powerful tool
    that we can use.
        Senator Lummis. Do you have statutory authority to provide
    exemptions?
        Mr. Regan. We don't. We have the enforcement discretion
    tool.
        Senator Lummis. Can EPA use its regulatory authority to
    strengthen existing Federal exclusions under CERCLA, including
    the federally permitted release and normal application of
    fertilizer, by clarifying that these apply to public wastewater
    utilities adhering to their Clean Water Act permits?
        Mr. Regan. I will have to take a look into that request.
        Senator Lummis. Perfect. Thank you for that answer. And I
    am going to submit some other questions for you for the record.
        But with my remaining time, I would like to switch to the
    Good Neighbor Rule and ozone transport. In your most recent
    Ozone Transport Rule, the EPA released updated modeling showing
    Wyoming's contribution to downwind States at .68, which is
    below the .7 parts per billion national standard for ozone
    threshold. The EPA should have approved Wyoming's State
    implementation plan rather than deferring. Any other action is
    arbitrary and not in accordance with the law.
        So, do you have a timeframe of when the agency is going to
    act on Wyoming's plan?
        Mr. Regan. I would like to say I have enjoyed my
    conversations with Governor Gordon. I think our teams are
    working extremely well together. I think it is because of that
    productive relationship that we deferred action on Wyoming.
        I don't have a particular timeline with me now; we can
    follow up with that. But I think it is instructive that the
    conversation we had with Wyoming was one of the reasons that
    the Good Neighbor Rule was as targeted as it is, using the best
    available information, having these constructive conversations,
    not only with Governors, but with State regulators, I believe
    produced the best results for the country.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you. I do believe that the EPA should
    have approved Wyoming's State implementation plan rather than
    deferring, because we fall below EPA's own updated modeling in
    a way that makes us compliant. So the fact that this hasn't
    been approved is a source of frustration.
        I have some questions, Mr. Chairman, about small refinery
    exemptions, RFS and coal combustion residual, and some other
    things, that I will submit for the record, and look forward to
    continuing some of these conversations with you. Thanks so
    much, Administrator Regan. I yield back.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Senator Lummis, thank you.
        Senator Padilla, how old are you?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. How old are you, really?
        Senator Padilla. Turning 50 today, sir.
        Senator Carper. Turning 50. So 50 years ago today, you made
    your first appearance. Is your mom still alive?
        Senator Padilla. We lost Mom a couple of years ago.
        Senator Carper. Well, we are grateful to her for bringing
    you into the world and sharing you with all of us. With that
    having been said----
        Senator Lummis. Mr. Chairman, would you yield the floor for
    a second?
        Senator Carper. Sure.
        Senator Lummis. Fifty is a good time for a mid-life crisis.
    I scheduled mine, because I wanted to have one. But I was too
    busy, so I scheduled it.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Lummis. And I went to Surf Divas in your home State
    of California, which is an all women's surfing school for
    pencil pushing women. It was absolutely tremendous. So I
    recommend that you schedule your mid-life crisis. And I wish
    you a very happy birthday.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I don't know how to top that. You are
    recognized.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Lummis. I would think
    about scheduling it, but I think it would conflict with another
    hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Padilla. I will choose to go to Committee instead
    of a crisis.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to begin by also thanking
    Administrator Regan for your staff and their close
    collaboration with me and my office on so many pressing issues,
    not just for the country, but specifically for California in
    the areas of chemical clean up, clean water, and clean air
    challenges.
        Earlier this month, if your scheduling process is anything
    like mine, it might not have gotten to your eyes yet, but you
    do have an invitation from me to come to California and visit
    the South Coast Air Basin to see again first hand how pressing
    air quality challenges are impacting the community,
    particularly as a result of the tremendous amount of goods
    movement that we see in southern California.
        We are proud to play such an important role for not just
    our region, but our national economy. But it doesn't come
    without impact, as you can appreciate. So we do hope to see you
    in the Los Angeles area very soon.
        As you know, and as you will see, air pollution from mobile
    sources like freight trucks, ships, and locomotives
    disproportionately impacts the health of lower income
    communities, communities of color, tribal communities, and
    other marginalized communities. And while California is
    certainly doing all it can, we have leaned in at the State
    level and at the local level to tackle sources of air pollution
    under State jurisdiction and local jurisdictions, these heavily
    polluting mobile sources that remain our biggest challenges are
    under Federal jurisdiction.
        So we need to continue this collaboration, we need the EPA
    to expedite reductions in pollution from these mobile sources.
        I also want to recognize, in all fairness to you, that
    years of underfunding during the Trump administration has made
    it particularly challenging for EPA to fulfill its obligation
    to these disproportionately impacted communities.
        But thanks to your leadership these past 2 years, there has
    been this new life that has been taken into the agency. Your
    rules, like the EPA's recent rule strengthening emissions
    standards for heavy duty vehicles, are establishing some of the
    most significant protection that we have seen in decades.
        But EPA has a mission to also protect public health and
    advance environmental justice. But that work cannot be done
    without sufficient resources and staff. I know Chairman Carper
    asked generally about staffing needs. I want to ask you to
    specifically address how increased funding for EPA's Office of
    Air and Radiation can enable the agency to move forward on this
    work to cut pollution and to save lives.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for that, Senator Padilla, and thank
    you for your partnership.
        Absolutely, if you talk to my staff, they are very grateful
    for last year's budget. But we are still in need of significant
    resources. There are some that might suggest that we can't
    absorb these increases. That is a hard message to give to
    people who are already overworked and working 6 and 7 days a
    week.
        So absolutely, when we look at the challenges facing our
    country, especially on the transportation side, the amount of
    skills and resources and bodies that we need to keep pace with
    a changing economy and technologies, we absolutely need these
    bodies that we are requesting.
        We did publish a Heavy Duty Truck Rule in December 2022
    focused on NOx. But as you are noting, we have
    another obligation to do another trucks rule focused on
    greenhouse gas emissions. So we are continuing to move forward
    with these regulations that quite frankly are technology
    standards. They are really driving the markets of where
    technology is going, and we have to keep pace with that.
        So in the Office of Air and Radiation, when we look at a
    Good Neighbor Rule, our transportation rules, our 111 focusing
    on the power sector, our Mercury and Air Toxics Rules, these
    are the same individuals focusing on significant regulations
    that have to capture the market, analyze technologies, and do
    all of these things in a way that we can remain globally
    competitive.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
        Time is zipping by fast, so I will just raise another issue
    and submit it in the form of questions for the record after the
    hearing. That is acknowledging the vision and leadership that
    you are providing, as well as the significant amount of
    investments that Congress has approved in recent years through
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Rule, through the Inflation
    Reduction Act, and how we advance this whole of government
    approach, bringing along other departments and agencies to
    advance this priority of again, not just environmental
    protection broadly, clean air specifically, and bringing all
    the other powers and resources of the Federal Government to
    bear.
        So we will follow up with you and your team.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, thanks again for sharing
    part of your birthday with all of us. Happy birthday from all
    of us across the aisle and on the same side of the aisle. Happy
    you are with us.
        Senator Capito is next. She has yielded graciously to
    Senator Mullin. Then whenever she wants to ask a question, she
    will be recognized.
        Senator Mullin. Fortunately, I haven't reached that 50 year
    mark, and I don't plan on getting there any time soon or any
    time faster than I have to. So I don't know about the mid-life
    crisis yet, but I will take your advice.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Mullin. For the record, Mr. Chairman, I sit on the
    committee that has jurisdiction over the Department of Labor,
    and that is why I wanted to correct the statistics to which you
    were quoting. And I will do so, if you say something that isn't
    actually correct statistically speaking, I will be happy to
    make sure we understand for the record.
        Senator Carper. Please do.
        Senator Mullin. So going to WOTUS for a little bit, and I
    want to talk about heavy trucks, a Federal court recently
    struck down or actually put a preliminary injunction stopping
    the implementation of WOTUS in two States, Texas and Idaho. I
    am sure you are familiar with that. Thankfully, the court
    didn't grant Chevron deference.
        You consistently said that you want a ``durable rule'' at
    the end of the day, but at least 25 States, which is half the
    country, are suing to prevent the WOTUS Rule from going into
    effect. Are you familiar with that?
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Senator Mullin. Given that everything is happening in the
    courts, aren't you just gambling on this one, hoping that the
    courts will apply Chevon deference to the WOTUS?
        Mr. Regan. We didn't see it as that. We looked at this
    rule, and we have got 45 years of experience in terms of what
    has happened in the past.
        Senator Mullin. Right.
        Mr. Regan. We took a look at the fact that the Trump rule
    was vacated, there was no Obama rule. So this rule basically
    tries to take advantage of every experience----
        Senator Mullin. You have half the country, which means half
    of the local jurisdiction over their backyard, over their
    environment, is saying, whoa, we don't want this. EPA is
    overstepping here. Half the country.
        You don't think that is something that you should take into
    consideration? I mean, Washington, DC, doesn't rule the rest of
    the world. Nor does it rule the rest of the country. I mean,
    there are States that have the right to oversee and regulate if
    they are able to do so. And we have 25 States that are saying,
    we don't want WOTUS.
        Do you not take that into consideration at all? Are you
    just saying, hey, Washington knows best, forget you all, we are
    going to do what we want?
        Mr. Regan. I basically have to say that the Constitution
    and the statutory authorities and the request by Congress for
    us to execute on safe and clean drinking water laws is what
    guided my actions. I do understand----
        Senator Mullin. WOTUS, when you start looking at the Clean
    Water Act, if you want to get into that, it specifically talked
    about navigable bodies of water.
        Mr. Regan. Sure.
        Senator Mullin. Intermittent streams that eventually flow
    into navigable bodies of water is not what Congress covered.
    Congress is very specific underneath the Clean Water Act when
    it stated a navigable bodies of water is to which we would have
    jurisdiction over. So how are we overreaching in this? And that
    is where I get into this, is where something I think you need
    to take into consideration.
        I respect the job you did in North Carolina, and we spoke
    about that. But I think we need to take into consideration the
    rest of the country.
        Going to, what is your definition of environmental justice?
    You mentioned that in your statement, that is why I say that.
        Mr. Regan. I think the definition, not mine, but the
    definition is that everyone, despite your race, your community,
    your ZIP code, your income, everyone deserves equal protection
    under the law from environmental pollution.
        Senator Mullin. So the 25 States you just ignore, that is
    half the country.
        Mr. Regan. Twenty-five States----
        Senator Mullin. Twenty-five States are saying they don't
    want WOTUS, and you are talking about clean water, clean air,
    environmental justice. WOTUS does do with that, 25 States are
    saying they don't want it. And you are going around it.
        Mr. Regan. We will continue this conversation, but the
    intention is that you have what the Clean Water Act requires us
    to do. You have Justice Kennedy's opinion, you have Justice
    Scalia's opinion. And then you have where we are today. I think
    we did our best job to look at what Congress has requested,
    took a look at those two Justices, to look at what the Obama
    administration and the Trump administration failed to do, and
    to respond in terms of what we are required to do which is----
        Senator Mullin. Communities that live in this environment,
    communities that live right where they stay, like my family has
    been in Oklahoma, right where we are at, since the 1830s. I
    think we know our backyard better than the EPA.
        And no one takes more pride in it than we do. No one plays
    in the creek and swims in the creek that my kids play in,
    nobody from the EPA that I know of, they never have.
        I promise you no one has better interest in it than I do.
    And I would just like the EPA to take that in consideration.
        Real quick, going to heavy trucks, I know we are talking
    about zero emissions. But has EPA taken into consideration the
    safety and health and the hazard that it would cause on the
    roads? Because when you take combustible out, and you put in
    electric vehicles, you are going to add a minimum of 5,000
    pounds to it, plus you are going to add length to it.
        So you are going to have a two to one option that you are
    going to add for every truck that is on the road, the
    congestion that has already taken place in California, which is
    causing a humongous backlog on our supply chain. And if you
    take and consider their rule, they are going to have a de facto
    by saying that they go to zero emissions, isn't that going to
    affect interstate commerce, how we are going to get equipment
    to and from the rest of the United States, not to mention that
    we are going to add a tremendous amount of traffic on the road?
        EPA needs to be considering this, because we don't have the
    infrastructure to add these additional trucks on the road. So
    before we just continue down this road, we need to once again,
    sir, take all this in consideration.
        I am sorry I am out of time.
        Sir, if you want to give him time to respond, you can. But
    I am out of time, so I will yield.
        Senator Carper. Very briefly.
        Mr. Regan. Yes, I would love to continue the conversation.
    The statements suggest that we have not taken those things into
    account. And when you see the proposed rule that is coming out
    in the weeks to come, I think you will see much of that taken
    into account. But we can have that conversation.
        Senator Carper. Before recognizing Senator Kelly, I ask
    unanimous consent to submit for the record several letters that
    are collectively co-signed by over 100 stakeholder groups,
    including some in my home State of Delaware. There are letters
    in support of the 2023 WOTUS rule, describing the negative
    impacts that a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal
    the rule would have on water, wildlife, and human health.
        These letters reflect that the stakeholders who support the
    2023 WOTUS rule span both urban and rural areas, and include
    small business owners, as well as millions of Americans who
    rely on outdoor recreation for their livelihood.
        [The referenced information follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Senator Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Regan, good to see you again. Almost 3 years
    ago, the EPA announced the creation of the Office of Mountains,
    Deserts, and Plains, which is a new regional office focused on
    effectively cleaning up abandoned mines and mine lands across
    the West, and accelerating the clean up of Superfund sites on
    western lands.
        The EPA needs to do more to clean up the hundreds of
    abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo Nation. There are more
    than 500 of them. And tribal leaders, just like tribal leaders,
    I am concerned that these sites fail to compete well for annual
    Superfund appropriations funding. I believe that a properly
    funded and authorized Office of Mountains, Deserts, and Plains
    can make meaningful progress on these projects.
        But Administrator Regan, I noticed that the fiscal year
    2024 EPA budget does not include funding for the Office of
    Mountains, Deserts, and Plains. Can you explain why that is?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, and I will echo your sentiments. We
    absolutely understand the importance of this particular office.
        This particular office receives its funding through the
    Superfund Emergency Response and Removal and Superfund Remedial
    program, which in this budget, the fiscal year 2024 budget, the
    President is proposing to transition to Superfund Tax Receipts.
    So it is definitely built in, it is just built in under the
    Superfund program.
        Senator Kelly. So you say the EPA budget does include, my
    question was, my understanding was it doesn't include funding.
    But you are saying it does include funding, but it is coming
    from another source?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, it is coming from the Superfund program,
    primarily from the Superfund Tax Receipts program.
        Senator Kelly. And do you have an amount of funding?
        Mr. Regan. Our chief financial officer indicated that we
    are anticipating collecting over $2 billion this year to be
    used for the subsequent year.
        Senator Kelly. So you say the Office of Mountains, Deserts,
    and Plains will be funded at that level?
        Mr. Regan. It will get a percentage, it will get some of
    those resources coming out of those $2 billion.
        Senator Kelly. All right. Could you get back to me on what
    that number is?
        Mr. Regan. We can.
        Senator Kelly. OK.
        I have introduced legislation with Senator Lummis to
    authorize the Office of Mountains, Deserts, and Plains. Did you
    support this legislation?
        Mr. Regan. We have absolutely provided technical assistance
    to previous legislation. So we have weighed in there. Any
    additional or new legislation, we would be happy to continue to
    provide that technical assistance, to be sure that we are
    accomplishing the shared goal.
        Senator Kelly. And can you share with us any ways that you
    think that Congress, what can we do to ensure that the office
    has the authorities it needs to support Superfund clean ups in
    the western United States?
        Mr. Regan. We feel pretty confident right now that we have
    the authorities. I would love to continue this conversation, if
    there is some perceived indications that we don't. But we
    believe right now we have those authorities.
        Senator Kelly. Great.
        In the remaining time, I want to talk about PFAS for a
    second. So I am going to shift gears here. It is important to
    Arizona, cleaning up PFAS. Groundwater is our backup source of
    drinking water for both Phoenix and Tucson. And it is going to
    become more critical if this extended drought gets worse in
    Arizona.
        Our groundwater aquifers in both Phoenix and Tucson, they
    have growing PFAS plumes. I understand the EPA has just
    finalized a drinking water standard for PFAS just last week,
    and more regulations may be finalized soon. So taken in
    combination with funding from the Infrastructure Law, I am
    hopeful that these actions can help make a difference for
    Arizona communities.
        Administrator, will the new proposed drinking water
    standards, will that speed up any of the EPA's timelines on
    releasing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds for treating
    contaminants like PFAS?
        Mr. Regan. It absolutely will. We will have them timed to
    coincide with this regulation and the needs that these
    communities have. Over $10 billion in BIL are focused on PFAS
    and emerging contaminants; $5 billion of that specifically
    focused on PFAS.
        So yes, all of these things, our regulations and that law,
    are working in concert.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Senator Kelly, thanks for joining us today.
        Now, Senator Capito is recognized.
        Senator Capito, please.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    again, Mr. Administrator.
        These should be pretty easy questions. How many people are
    full time equivalents at EPA right now today?
        Mr. Regan. Right now, we have 14,900 employees.
        Senator Capito. Fourteen thousand nine hundred, and what is
    the max, 15?
        Mr. Regan. Fifteen thousand, yes.
        Senator Capito. And this budget is asking for an additional
    2,000. Of the 14,900, how many are in the office 5 days a week?
        Mr. Regan. Most of our employees are working on a hybrid
    schedule, just like the rest of the Federal Government and
    corporate America. But I would like to say that we are
    definitely meeting all of our performance targets. So our staff
    is fully engaged----
        Senator Capito. So you don't have a percentage of how many
    people actually come in every day?
        Mr. Regan. We can get you that percentage.
        Senator Capito. Yes, I would like to see that. Because in
    your budget, you talk about hoteling, which means you are going
    to share space. You have a vision of some sort of shared space
    arrangement, where somebody would use an office and then the
    next person who comes in uses the same office. Is that correct?
        Mr. Regan. What we are trying to do is do what everyone
    else is doing, which is think about, how do we have a
    responsible policy in place that leverages our work force.
    Whether you are in corporate America, State government, or the
    Federal Government, people have hybrid working conditions. And
    we are trying to make sure we are accommodating that schedule
    while meeting our mission.
        Senator Capito. Yes. I would also like to see when you give
    me the statistics of how many people are in the office 3 days
    every 2 weeks. This is the same statistic we have from the NRC.
        You and I have talked about this a little bit, something
    that I am deeply concerned about, what kind of culture we are
    creating here if nobody is seeing anybody, and nobody is in the
    same workplace. This is reflected not just in government, but
    also in the private sector. We can get those statistics from
    you.
        I am going to put two charts up here that were generated
    by, I used them with Mr. Goffman last week. Basically I just
    want a quick answer from you. These were generated by your EPA.
    They basically are showing that in coal capacity and natural
    gas generation, that because of the IRA, coal capacity will be
    significantly lower than it would be had we not had the IRA.
    And the same with natural gas generation. These are models that
    he stands by.
        I would like confirmation that this is EPA's firm
    projection of where the IRA is driving our energy production.
        Mr. Regan. Yes, those models look consistent.
        Senator Capito. So the IRA will directly cause closures of
    natural gas and coal powered plants in all certainty.
        Let me ask you about, because I talked about this in my
    opening statement, I want to give you a chance to respond, the
    $3 billion Climate Environmental Justice Block Grant program. I
    was shocked to see that EPA gets 7 percent administrative
    expenses, $210 million, to basically give money to subgrantees,
    and that they get another 20 percent for administrative.
        Is that an efficient way to use Government money? What kind
    of oversight, and who are these people?
        Mr. Regan. We definitely have very good oversight over our
    grant program.
        Senator Capito. Well, you might, but do we? We are the ones
    who are providing the dollars. Is that something that you are
    going to be fully transparent on, so we can see where these
    dollars are going?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. We will have the same transparency
    for all of the resources that Congress affords to EPA. This
    won't be treated any differently.
        Senator Capito. Who are these groups? Who are the groups
    that are going to get the bulk of the $3 billion Climate and
    Environmental Justice? Do you have a list?
        Mr. Regan. Some of the groups I am sure we do have a list,
    and maybe some we don't have a full list.
        Senator Capito. I need to see the list.
        Mr. Regan. Sure. These grantees will meet all requirements
    and oversight principles that all of our grantees do. We are
    not treating anyone any differently, they are treated in a
    responsible way.
        Senator Capito. Doesn't it seem like 27 percent of the
    dollars that the IRA, which none of us voted for, which is
    billions of dollars, is going to go to administrative costs, is
    that really providing environmental justice? Twenty-seven
    percent of that is already out the door.
        Mr. Regan. These are similar percentages to all of our
    administrative oversight and cost dollars for pass throughs and
    grant programs. This may be an issue that we have with the
    Government's grant programs. But this program is not being
    treated any differently than any other grant program that EPA
    administers.
        Senator Capito. Well, I think one of the issues here is the
    enormity of the dollars. EPA received $41 billion, and yet the
    President wants another 19 percent increase, 2,000 more people,
    when with the $41 billion you are allowed to hire people to
    move forward with these programs. To me it is just mind
    boggling in this time of fiscal restraint where people are
    really watching their dollars, this kind of overreach and
    overspending. It just seems so exorbitant to me.
        Mr. Regan. We are not solely an energy agency. We focus on
    environmental protection. So IRA and BIL don't afford dollars
    to very critical programs that oversee TSCA, pesticides,
    herbicides. But we have a lot of programs that are in need of
    resources that don't fit neatly under the umbrella of IRA and
    BIL.
        So I would say that while the percentage seems high, the
    dollar amount that EPA is asking for of an agency this size and
    the scope and magnitude of our responsibility is a catch up
    game. We have been in decline for decades, not just one or two
    Administrations, for decades.
        So we are trying to develop a work force that can keep pace
    with a very challenging and growing economy.
        Senator Capito. What increase did you get last year from
    your previous budget, percentage-wise?
        Mr. Regan. I think we are estimating a 5 percent increase,
    but we will get you that.
        Senator Capito. All right, thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Capito. Thanks for yielding
    all your time and being so patient.
        Next, Senator Ricketts.
        Good to see you. Welcome, thanks for coming.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Mr. Regan, for being here today. I appreciate it.
        So I am going to go back to the Waters of the U.S. You said
    in your opening remarks that you want a durable and certain
    rule, and that is going to be, I think we have agreed, it is
    best for everybody, correct?
        Mr. Regan. I am sorry?
        Senator Ricketts. You want to have a durable rule, correct?
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Senator Ricketts. And that would be best for everybody,
    people would have certainty, whether it is farmers or ranchers
    or small businesspeople, correct?
        Mr. Regan. That is correct.
        Senator Ricketts. And you are familiar with the 1972 Clean
    Water Act, correct?
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Senator Ricketts. And do you know how many times in that
    Act the word navigable water appears?
        Mr. Regan. No, I haven't counted that.
        Senator Ricketts. It is 50 times, 50 times in that Act it
    says navigable waters. And I am going to pull up the Merriam-
    Webster Dictionary here of the definition of navigable. And it
    says, navigable, 1(a), deep enough and wide enough to afford
    passage to ships. Navigable waterway. That is 1(a).
        Then it goes on to 1(b), capable of being navigated, like
    navigable terrain, and 2 is capable of being steered. But the
    definition is pretty clear.
        Now, I am from a landlocked State. We don't have lots of
    oceans around Nebraska. But to me navigable means you can put a
    boat on it and go someplace. And you cannot do that from a pond
    on a farm, you can't do it from a roadside ditch that is
    temporary, and you can't do it from a puddle on a construction
    site.
        And yet it seems that is what you are trying to do with
    this rule, is extend that very clear definition of navigable to
    waterways that are clearly not navigable.
        And you talked about exemptions, but you don't need
    exemptions when you are very clear, when it is very clear what
    Congress' intent was. Congress' intent could not have been more
    clear. Navigable waters, where you can put a boat and take a
    ship and go someplace. And that does not account for the things
    that you are trying to extend it to.
        This to me seems to be an expansion of executive power. By
    the way, don't take it personally, Mr. Regan, because you are
    not the first Administration to try and expand executive power.
    But you are trying to expand the definition beyond what is
    here.
        My question then goes to, with the Sackett case coming out,
    won't the Sackett case, is it your opinion the Sackett case is
    not actually going to clarify what navigable is with regard to
    these definitions?
        Mr. Regan. I really wish it was as simple as you laid out.
    But to your point, multiple Administrations haven't gotten it
    right since 2015. The Supreme Court has weighed in multiple
    times. So it is not quite as clear as that picture you painted.
        I do agree that the Sackett case will have some impact on
    the rule. Part of our calculation is this rule is designed to
    absorb whatever ruling the Sackett case renders, so that so
    that we can move forward with that latest version of the law.
    The reason we did not wait is because we have a rule in place
    that will be impacted, we don't know how much potentially, by
    Sackett. And we will adjust that rule and move forward.
        If we had waited until this ruling in June, we would have
    had to start a 2 year process, if not more. And that would have
    left a lot more uncertainty because of the vacatur of the Trump
    rule and because the Obama rule was not in place.
        Senator Ricketts. So if the Sackett rule, the Supreme Court
    comes back and says, no, navigable actually means navigable as
    defined by Merriam-Webster and what Congress' intent was in
    1972, aren't you going to have to go through that 2 year
    waiting period all over again?
        Mr. Regan. No. We believe there are other aspects of WOTUS
    that we have already taken care of. Then we will adjust to that
    new definition. WOTUS is a little bit more expansive and
    impactful than just navigable waters. So we have taken care of
    all those other externalities. We would adjust whatever
    decision we get from Sackett, and then we would be moving
    forward on what we predict to be a much shorter timeframe.
        Senator Ricketts. OK. I also note, and this is just a yes
    or no question, you mentioned the regional listening sessions.
    Did your staff clarify that those listening sessions are not,
    don't count as official comments for the rule? Is that
    accurate?
        Mr. Regan. One of the reasons to do that, No. 1, is it
    never hurts to listen. No. 2, we developed a very strong
    partnership----
        Senator Ricketts. It is a yes or no question, Mr. Regan.
    Did your staff clarify those don't count as official comments
    for the rule?
        Mr. Regan. But it helps with the implementation.
        Senator Ricketts. But it doesn't count for official, is
    that right? Yes or no?
        Mr. Regan. In terms of?
        Senator Ricketts. I think your staff clarified those
    comments don't count for the official comments on the ruling.
        Mr. Regan. But they count toward how the rule is
    implemented and how we partner with the USDA and the resources
    that USDA can bring to bear to help with the implementation of
    the rule. So those listening sessions were extremely valuable
    for both EPA and USDA.
        Senator Ricketts. So I want to switch gears on you real
    quick with the few seconds I have left. With the new RFS rule,
    the EPA put out biomass guidelines for 3 years that are all
    below what EPA says is the 3.1 billion gallon capacity that the
    industry already has. Why did you set the targets below what
    the industry was already creating?
        And if you are going to do that, I would ask, do it for 1
    year, don't make it something for 3 years when we know we are
    already at the capacity of 3.1 billion gallons and you have it
    below 3 billion gallons. Why did you set it below that?
        Mr. Regan. I think that when we look at the lack of
    progress that had been made in previous years, we had to go
    back and do the homework of a previous Administration and catch
    up for 2020, 2021 and 2022. So now we are looking at setting
    rules in the future. We are trying to set these volumes for
    multiple years so that we can create some certainty in this
    space for the industry, which is what the industry has
    requested that we do.
        So I think the industry was pretty satisfied with where we
    landed on 2021. And now they are looking for that same
    trajectory and certainty in those out years.
        Senator Ricketts. Well, I am talking about 2023, though.
    You are setting the amount below 3.1 billion gallons, which is
    where the industry capacity is already at. Why did you set the
    biomass goal below what the capacities are at right now?
        Mr. Regan. I will take a look into how to answer that
    question accurately.
        Senator Ricketts. OK, thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Ricketts.
        We are joined by Senator Sullivan.
        Before I yield to him, I am going to ask unanimous consent
    to enter into the record a letter submitted to the Senate
    leadership from sportsmen's organizations, such as the Theodore
    Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the American Sports Fishing
    Association, the Back Country Hunters and Anglers.
        The letter expresses support for President Biden's Waters
    of the U.S. Rule and emphasizes the impact of clean water on
    hunting and fishing opportunities, as well as the economic
    benefits of hunting and fishing, which is valued at some $200
    billion per rule.
        Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. All right, Senator Sullivan. Welcome.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Regan, good to see you again, sir. Thanks for coming.
        I have a chart that I keep trotting out to all your
    nominees and everything. This is the global emissions chart, it
    is fact checked, from 2005 to 2020. It shows the fact that
    isn't often discussed in our national media that the U.S. is
    the leader, leader by far of any country in the world on global
    greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Here, that is America.
    Some of our allies, Germany, U.K., and then of course, you have
    the dirty countries, particularly China, that is the greenhouse
    gas emission machine of a coal plant a month.
        So I asked your nominees, I am sure you have hopefully seen
    this, do you understand why that happened? What was the major
    reason that the United States has been the leader in the world
    on emissions reductions? Do you know? And I will give you a
    hint. It is not because of EPA regulations.
        Mr. Regan. I think that is pretty clear, and I think I have
    been pretty clear that the markets over the past 10 years have
    really steered this country to be as competitive as it is.
        I would also say that the power sector has asked for more
    certainty so that they can make longer term investments, which
    is why we have worked to kind of bundle what the Clean Air Act
    requires us to do in terms of some of these regulations----
        Senator Sullivan. So the answer to my question, that is
    primarily, the reason for that is the revolution in the
    production of natural gas in America, the private sector,
    American innovators, American entrepreneurs undertook some
    great innovations and made clean burning American Alaska
    natural gas the predominant power generation source, which
    dramatically helped us lead the world in emissions reduction.
    So that is a fact, so you guys should all know that.
        So here is my question. You are the G7 delegate, you play
    an important role in the G7 negotiations. Well, let me just
    back up here. If the rest of the world could undertake a chart
    and record like that, meaning you move from power generation
    sources into natural gas, you lower your emissions
    dramatically, wouldn't that help global emissions, if other
    countries had this profile like we do?
        Mr. Regan. I think that our country----
        Senator Sullivan. Mr. Administrator, these are really easy
    questions. You should just say yes, right? Wouldn't it help?
        [Simultaneous conversations.]
        Mr. Regan. I reject the premise of the statement that
    natural gas is the reason emissions are where they are. There
    is a combination of----
        Senator Sullivan. You reject that statement? You have got
    to go do your homework, there.
        Mr. Regan. No, I have done a lot of homework.
        Senator Sullivan. OK, and you----
        Mr. Regan. There are combinations of technologies----
        Senator Sullivan. The primary reason for that chart is----
        Mr. Regan. There are combinations of technologies that are
    driving our emissions reductions in this country. That is just
    a fact.
        Senator Sullivan. You don't think the primary reason for
    the emissions reductions in America was the movement from coal
    powered generation to natural gas, revolution in the production
    of natural gas?
        Mr. Regan. I absolutely----
        Senator Sullivan. That is a fact, too.
        Mr. Regan. I absolutely----
        Senator Sullivan. And as the EPA Administrator, you guys
    are amazingly good at like avoiding this fact. I don't know
    why. You should be proud that America is the leader in emission
    reduction, and you should know the reasons why it is. So let's
    move on.
        Mr. Regan. But there is no accounting of the transportation
    sector in your statement. We know that transportation----
        Senator Sullivan. Let's move on. Let's move on.
        Mr. Regan. All right.
        Senator Sullivan. G7, the Japanese want to make LNG and
    energy security a key part of their G7 presidency, which you
    are member of in terms of G7 delegates. We have been hearing
    that some members of the Administration were trying to thwart
    the Japanese on this, that makes complete sense, particularly
    given this chart.
        So a number of us sent a bipartisan letter to Ambassador
    Emanuel, and I would like to submit it for the record, Mr.
    Chairman, have written saying we support that, and we should
    have the Japanese support that. We were hearing it was John
    Kerry, so I actually had a discussion with John Kerry down in
    Houston a couple weeks ago. He said no, it is not him, he is
    supportive of a strong G7 presidency by the Japanese that
    emphasizes energy security, particularly LNG.
        So can I get your commitment as the G7 delegate on the
    energy and environment side to also support our ally Japan's
    strong desire to want to make this G7 about energy security,
    lowering emissions, helping our allies, particularly in the
    aftermath of the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia?
        Can I get your support to do that, which is what our allies
    are trying to do? John Kerry says he is good to go with it, so
    nobody else should be problematic on that issue.
        Mr. Regan. I haven't stood in the way of the conversations
    you just laid out.
        Senator Sullivan. The Japanese are making that an important
    element of their G7 presidency. Will you be supportive of that?
    Will you be supportive of that as the G7 delegate?
        Mr. Regan. I have had a number of conversations with
    Ambassador Emanuel, and I will continue to converse with him. I
    don't see any daylight in these conversations that he and I
    have had. I can't purport to know all of what you just laid
    out, and I haven't talked to Secretary Kerry about this issue
    in particular.
        But EPA, Michael Regan, we have not weighed in on any LNG
    discussions that may or may not benefit the country of Japan.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, I mean, it benefits all of us,
    right? This is part of the G7 negotiations that you are a part
    of?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
        Senator Sullivan. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a
    couple additional questions for the Administrator for the
    record. It would be good to get your view, we can send you
    things that relate to this chart.
        It is very important to have common understanding here. And
    I think the common understanding is that the revolution in the
    production of natural gas has played a critical role in
    emissions reductions in America and in the world, and that is a
    good thing we should all celebrate. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record findings
    from PolitiFact showing that the United States is not leading
    the world in reducing global emissions.
        What is PolitiFact? An independent fact checking journalism
    website. The article finds, ``Relative to the scale of
    emissions, other leading economies, other countries show much
    deeper emission reductions.'' The article also finds that
    carbon dioxide emissions per person in the United States
    remained high compared to four leading countries between the
    years of 2005 and 2019.
        I ask unanimous consent.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I am prepared to ask questions next in this
    round.
        Senator Capito, I think you have some more questions, too,
    don't you?
        Senator Capito. I have an additional question, then I am
    going to have to scoot.
        Senator Carper. Do you want to go first?
        Senator Capito. That would be nice, thank you.
        Mr. Administrator, one of the issues, and we talked about
    this at the derailment with the EPA official who was there, is
    the mixed communication as to what is safe and crisis
    communications that EPA has moved forward with. If you don't
    have specific and detailed information, the gaps get filled
    with misinformation. It is concerning.
        So I want to ask you about, I congratulate you on finally
    setting the maximum, the MCL levels for PFAS, we talked about
    that. But at the same time, oh, gosh, several months ago, you
    put out something called a health advisory level. The health
    advisory level is so low that it can't be measured, so nobody
    knows whether the health advisory level is safe or not.
        So basically now you have two levels. You have a health
    advisory level, which is very low and unmeasurable, and then
    you have the four parts per trillion that you set last week, I
    believe, that was considered safe. However, when Assistant
    Administrator Radhika Fox was here, she said there is no safe
    level for PFAS in drinking water.
        This is a very sensitive, as you know, we all know, very
    sensitive issue across the country, and very grave implications
    on how do we fix it, yes.
        But on the health side, what does this really mean? How is
    that kind of communication helping the American public, the mom
    with the kids or the grandparents with frail health, or anybody
    who is drinking? How are they really going to know with the
    Assistant Administrator saying nothing is it, very low health
    advisory, and then the maximum contaminant level being slightly
    higher?
        How do you square that to the American who is turning on
    their tap every day?
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for that question. This has been a
    challenge for risk communication for a long period of time.
    Obviously whether it is lead, whether it is PFAS, the agency
    traditionally puts out what we call a health advisory level
    that really does follow the science and determine at what
    levels things are or are not safe.
        We put that out there because we want to educate the
    public, because there are actions that can be taken beyond
    those actions that can be taken by the Federal Government. So
    our standards are required based on what is detectable, and
    then the technologies available to get them to that level. Just
    because something can be detected at a certain level and a
    technology can reduce it to that level doesn't mean that
    therefore it is 100 percent fully safe. There is that gap
    there.
        So there may be things that you can do as an individual or
    that a State or local can do to get even lower vulnerabilities
    or risk or exposure to that health advisory level.
        Senator Capito. So what I am hearing you say is that the
    safe drinking level that you set last week is not really safe?
    Is that what you are saying?
        Mr. Regan. What we are saying is----
        Senator Capito. Why would you set it there?
        Mr. Regan. We have set a level that is more protective of
    public health, meaning we have set it at that four parts per
    trillion level because we can detect it at that level, and we
    have the technology to reduce it to that level. It is more
    protective than if we had not had a regulation in place.
        Senator Capito. Well, I mean, I am glad. I am glad that we
    have this MCL. I applaud it. I have been complaining for years
    that we can't get this level. So under your EPA, you set the
    level. So thank you.
        But you are really saying, I don't know, now I am confused.
    Because what I am hearing you say is, well, we set a level
    because that is all we can detect, but we are not really sure
    it is safe. See, if you are sitting at home thinking, well,
    what does that mean, in terms of turning on the tap and
    drinking?
        So I just think we have to be really careful what we tell
    the Americans. I went through a water crisis with heavy
    chemicals in my own municipal system. It is a crushing thing to
    live through, and to try to figure out who is telling you the
    truth and what is safe and what isn't.
        So I would just implore you to be, I don't know why you
    wouldn't want to be unified with your health advisory level and
    your maximum drinking level so that people can be assured that
    your science is telling me that this is safe. So this is a
    discussion we need to have, because I do think it foments
    confusion. And I think it is difficult for water systems, but
    it is difficult just for regular folks to figure out with
    everything in the news about PFAS what is really safe in my
    drinking water, and am I using the best methods that I can use.
        So we can talk about it. I just wanted to say there is a
    lot of confusion here, and I think we could avoid that. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely, thank you, Senator.
        Senator Carper. Senator Capito, I know you need to leave,
    but I am going to ask you just to bear with us for a couple
    more minutes. I need to take a call. In the meantime, I yield
    to Senator Ricketts, and I will be right back. Thank you.
        Senator Ricketts. Great, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Regan, as you know, actually, you may not know, I was
    previously the Governor of Nebraska, and then I joined
    Governors from across the Midwest to formally request, to
    permanently remove the 1 pound volatility waiver to allow
    States to sell gasoline with E15 all year round. This is an
    important point, because one of the things, I love this
    Committee because I get to talk about this, and now that
    Chairman Carper is gone, I can say this, and he won't get on my
    case. Last time he corrected me, and ended my time.
        Ethanol is something that will help consumers save money at
    the pump. I just filled up my tank at Hi-Vee a couple of days
    ago when I was back in Nebraska, and I saved 60 cents a gallon.
    That was just E10. It helps clean up the environment.
        I know you know how much it reduces things like particulate
    matter and NOx and all that sort of stuff coming
    out. Then of course, it is also great for our farmers and
    ranchers. So we asked to be able to sell E15 all year round.
        The Clean Air Act states that the Administrator should
    publish the regulation resolving this action no later than 90
    days after receipt of a notification from a Governor, but our
    renewable fuels industry and producers or refiners didn't
    receive anything until March 1st. This should have been done in
    July.
        So can you tell me why, explain why it took more than the
    90 days that is in the Clean Air Act to respond to this
    regulation? And what are your plans for E15 this summer? And I
    know that you have a rule for 2024 to be able to allow it. But
    can you talk to me a little bit about that, please?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely, and thank you for the letters. I
    understand why this is important, and I know it was important
    to you before you took this position. So we are excited about
    moving toward the waiver for 2024. We know the timing is
    different than what was initially requested. And I believe our
    folks were being responsive to fuel distribution companies so
    that they could be prepared for next year, not this year.
        I recognize that we are on a slightly different clock. I
    will get you a more specific answer as to what took longer than
    the 90 days to figure out. But I can say that we are excited
    about 2024. And for 2023, what we will have to do is do what we
    did last year, which is assess it case by case as we get closer
    to that time.
        Senator Ricketts. All right, very good. And I also want to
    get back to the biomass thing, very quickly. Because I do think
    it is important that as we look to take carbon out of the
    environment, we look at an all of the above strategy. And the
    biomass is important.
        One of the things I wanted to call out in that is, I was
    talking to people in the industry, and do you know, when we
    talk about heavy trucks, the difference in the cost of a
    vehicle that can use biodiesel versus an electric vehicle, do
    you know what the ballpark difference is? It is pretty big. I
    take it by the way you are looking at me that you don't really
    know that answer.
        It is $180,000 to buy that tractor, versus $500,000 to buy
    an electric tractor. And I think my colleague Senator Mullin
    pointed out that when you have electric vehicles, it is a lot
    heavier, which means you are not going to be able to carry as
    much with you, and you are also not going to, you have the
    whole distribution issue, and it is also going to beat up the
    roads.
        So again, that is one of the reasons why I think I might
    really like you to re-look at that biomass thing. I think that
    is going to be important for us as we look at an all of the
    above kind of strategy.
        And then one other question I have is, getting back to your
    budget request, you are asking for 2,000 new people. Help me
    with this part of it. So I believe part of the justification,
    and correct me I if am wrong, has to do with the Inflation
    Reduction Act and all the programs that are in that that you
    are assigned to be able to tackle.
        When this goes through the budget process, like when I was
    Governor of Nebraska, and we would have a bill, my
    administration would score a bill to say, hey, if you pass this
    legislation, we are going to need X amount of people, and that
    would go into a fiscal note.
        Does that happen, or did that happen with this, so that
    when the Inflation Reduction Act was being talked about, you
    had a chance to weigh in and say, hey, if you pass this I am
    going to need 2,000 or 1,000 more people or anything like that?
    Is that part of the process?
        Mr. Regan. We can provide technical assistance as these
    pieces of legislation are developed. I will give you some real
    numbers, when we think about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,
    .5 percent of that is for administrative.
        So when we look at some of these bills, like TSCA for
    example, that was passed in 2016, some of these bills are
    passed, and they don't give the agency the adequate resources
    to keep pace with what the legislation requires. That is just
    part of the reality.
        It is not new with the Inflation Reduction Act. Again,
    going back to TSCA, we were facing that similar situation.
        So that happens, and we try to reconcile some of this
    through the budget process. And a good deal of that is what we
    are trying to do now.
        Senator Ricketts. So we need to do a better job on our side
    as is what I hear in making sure that we are consulting with
    different agencies to make sure we get an accurate budget
    reading when we are passing these bills. Is that a fair
    statement?
        Mr. Regan. We do the best that we can to provide the
    technical assistance to any piece of legislation to say, this
    would be the human capital impact to our agency, along with
    what we think we need to execute or implement that legislation.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Ricketts.
        Again, Administrator Regan, we thank you for joining us
    today and responding to our questions.
        I want to ask a couple of questions. One deals with
    investments in State and tribal air offices and permitting. It
    is easy to forget how large a role that States and Tribes and
    local governments play in implementing our clean air laws.
        EPA's budget provides, I think, $423 million, a $158
    million increase over fiscal year 2023 in financial support to
    tribal, State, and local partners to implement air quality
    management programs, including air permitting.
        Could you please provide our Committee with some insights
    on why these additional funds to States, to Tribes, and to
    local governments are needed, and how could these funds help
    with local air permitting and other local air and climate
    issues?
        Mr. Regan. It is a great question, Senator. As you know,
    for most of our water and State programs, we have delegated
    authority to the States for the implementation. So again, 85
    percent of our budget request on average goes to our State,
    local, and tribal partners. They use these resources to, No. 1,
    do a lot of public engagement, not just with communities, but
    with the companies that reside in their districts, those who
    are regulated by the agency.
        No. 2, they invest in air quality monitoring and other
    practices to be sure that they have the latest and greatest
    data, so the permits can be set at the accurate levels. So
    again, these State agencies know their communities better than
    the Federal Government. That is why they need these resources,
    to continually engage, not only with the regulated community,
    but the communities that are impacted by the pollution.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        Another question dealing with certainty and predictability,
    a heavy duty NOx rule. Throughout my time in public
    service, which has been a while, I hear more often than not
    from the private sector about the need for Federal Government
    and State government and local governments as well to provide
    certainty and predictability. I hear it all the time.
        Businesses need certainty and predictability to make long
    term investments and decisions. That is especially true for
    vehicle and engine manufacturers who are making investments
    today for the vehicles of the future.
        This past December, I was fortunate enough to join your
    celebration of the signing of the Heavy Duty Vehicle
    NOx rule. This rule will reduce smog contributing
    pollution from our heavy duty vehicles by 48 percent by 2045,
    48 percent by 2045. I believe many companies were there
    celebrating with us.
        Here is my question. How is the Heavy Duty Vehicle
    NOx rule a good example of an EPA action that is
    good for public health and good for predictability and
    certainty for businesses that need it and ask for it all the
    time? Go ahead.
        Mr. Regan. It is a great example of how, under this
    Administration, we have engaged with industry, with the unions,
    with our communities to try to get the best technology
    standards possible.
        So we are proud of this rule. We engaged heavily with the
    industry looking at where the markets and the technologies are
    going. We engaged heavily with the unions to ensure that there
    wasn't an adverse impact but actually a jobs component to this.
    And we engaged with those communities, especially vulnerable
    communities that are disproportionately exposed to
    NOx emissions.
        Where we think we calibrated this action was toward a rule
    that satisfies all three constituencies. We are going to do the
    exact same thing as we continue to roll out other technology
    standards for the transportation sector. We are looking forward
    to rolling something out in the coming weeks on greenhouse gas
    emissions reduction for heavy duty and light duty as well.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        I am going to ask another question. Would you elaborate on
    how streams and adjacent wetlands are very directly connected
    to the health of our Nation's navigable waterways? Is that why
    the 2023 Waters of the U.S. rule includes protection for
    streams and wetlands?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. We know that the Clean Water Act
    requires that we protect and not degrade our stream and our
    wetlands. We also know that our wetlands serve as natural
    filters to reduce pollution to some of our larger bodies of
    water.
        So it was really important for us to be sure that we were
    protecting not only our ecosystem and our waterways, but giving
    our farming community and our ranching community the
    flexibility to perform the way that they normally do, which is
    in a protected manner.
        We have done our best to look at multiple exemptions,
    codify certainty, while also following the law to be sure that
    we don't expose ourselves to litigation while we are protecting
    the ecosystem. We try to strike that balance to understand that
    everybody is not satisfied, but we are trying to follow the
    law, follow the science, and work with our partners like USDA
    to be sure that we are not overly burdening our ranching and
    farming community.
        Senator Carper. All right, thanks. I am going to ask you to
    elaborate by responding for the record on how the 2023 rule
    responded to concerns from stakeholders and is narrower than
    the 2015 Obama rule on isolated wetlands. I will ask you to
    respond for the record on that.
        Mr. Regan. This is for the record?
        Senator Carper. Yes, on the record.
        Mr. Regan. Yes, sir.
        Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
        Senator Sullivan has rejoined us.
        Senator Sullivan, please.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am doing this for the Ranking Member, she didn't have
    time to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters
    opposing the EPA's Waters of the U.S. final rule, supporting
    efforts to reverse the rule under the Congressional Review Act.
    These letters are from the National Federation of Independent
    Businesses, the National Association of State Departments of
    Agriculture, representing our State officials most
    knowledgeable on the concerns of farmers, the Associated
    Builders and Contractors, and a coalition letter from more than
    40 organizations opposing the rule, from organizations
    including the American Farm Bureau, Association of Home
    Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber.
    So I ask unanimous consent.
        Senator Carper. Without objection.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Sullivan. I also ask unanimous consent to enter
    into the record a coalition letter from many of these same
    stakeholder groups explaining specifically why the current
    WOTUS rule is significantly worse for farmers, ranchers, energy
    producers, manufacturers, construction workers than the pre-
    2015 guidance that would take effect if there was a CRA
    resolution of disapproval passed and signed.
        Senator Carper. Without objection.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        So, Mr. Administrator, two final quick questions for you on
    topics you and I have talked a lot about. One is, in December,
    you and I had what I thought was a constructive discussion
    regarding the EPA's use of its 404(c) authorities. Particularly
    we talked about particular mining projects in Alaska. And you
    committed to me that any use of those authorities would not be
    precedent setting when the EPA finalized its recent 404(c)
    action on the already denied Pebble Mine.
        I appreciated your statement at the press event where you
    said by no means is this meant to send any signal as a
    precedent beyond this specific project. And last week,
    Assistant Administrator Fox committed to me essentially the
    same thing that you had, both in our meeting in December, when
    you said publicly, since you are here in front of the EPW
    Committee, this is a bit pro forma, but you have already
    committed to me on this.
        But for the record, will you make the same commitment about
    this not being precedent setting, that you have in our
    conversations, and then in your press statement?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. It is definitely case by case, not
    meant to send any signals. This is a tool that we use very
    sparingly, I think only three times in 30 years. So I think the
    record for that speaks for itself, and I think Assistant
    Administrator Fox and I are 100 percent aligned on that.
        Senator Sullivan. Great, thank you.
        Let me turn to the issue of, I know environmental justice,
    racial equity are important to you. I want to raise an
    environmental injustice in Alaska, an issue against the Alaska
    Native people that unfortunately some people in this
    Administration consistently overlook. This is another one,
    though, that you and I have talked about, where I believe you
    and your administration have been helpful.
        We have over 1,000 sites that are contaminated land sites
    that are owned by the Alaska Native people after the passage of
    the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, that was 44 million
    acres of land and the largest land settlement in the history,
    probably in the world, for Native people. And yet, in many
    cases, that land that the Federal Government provided to the
    Native people was contaminated.
        Now, I am not saying the Feds knew it was contaminated. But
    it is very contaminated, a lot of that land. And initially,
    believe it or not, it was unclear whether the EPA and the
    Federal Government was going to come after these Native
    organizations and Tribes for liability to clean up land that
    the Feds had given to them that was contaminated.
        Fortunately, in this Committee, and I thank the Chairman,
    we worked together in a bipartisan way to say, hey, that would
    be nuts to hold them liable, since they were the ones given the
    land that was already polluted.
        But what we need to start working on now is helping these
    indigenous people in my State clean up the lands. So will you
    agree that this is an environmental injustice that we have got
    to work on, to get them lands? And an important landmark
    agreement, but a lot of the lands were very polluted, and they
    can't use them.
        Mr. Regan. Yes. I will absolutely agree that we need to
    work diligently together to clean up these lands that were
    unfortunately impacted.
        Senator Sullivan. Good, thank you. And I will say, the EPA
    under your leadership, has been helping us on this, so I
    appreciate that. It is going to take money, of course, to clean
    up. But the one thing I would like to get a commitment from you
    on is working with us on some innovative approaches.
        You and I have talked about the mitigation banks for
    wetlands and things like that where you might be able to get
    credit for cleaning up, if someone, as opposed to putting land
    in a mitigation bank was able to help clean up these lands.
    Same kind of overall goal to help the Native people clean up
    their contaminated lands that were provided to them by the
    Federal Government.
        Will you commit to me again, Mr. Administrator, to help on
    not just the funding, which you guys have been doing a good job
    on, and I commend you on that, but on some innovative ideas
    that we have talked about? The Trump administration had some
    really good ones, and I would like to continue to follow up on
    that with you.
        Mr. Regan. Our folks are laser focused on innovation, along
    with these resources. So absolutely.
        Senator Sullivan. Good.
        And finally, let me just ask, can I get your commitment
    that in working with us on these issues to ensure that Tribes
    and Alaska Native Corporations, remember ANCs were created by
    Congress, a lot of people forget that, that they are eligible
    for the brownfields grants to clean up contaminated lands?
        Right now in Alaska there is confusion on who qualifies for
    that. From our perspective, if you want to help the indigenous
    people it is through tribal help. It is also through ANC help.
    There shouldn't be any real differences. As a matter of fact,
    the ANCs are the ones that own the vast, vast majority of the
    lands. So not including them on brownfields grants kind of
    defeats the purpose.
        Can I get your commitment on that?
        Mr. Regan. We have got a $20 million grant program
    specifically for ANCSA for last year and this year in the
    budget request.
        Senator Sullivan. Great, so ANCs and Tribes?
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan. Great.
        OK, thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Sullivan.
        We have been joined by Senator Whitehouse and Senator
    Markey.
        Senator Whitehouse, you are recognized, and you will be
    followed by Senator Markey. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much.
        Administrator Regan, welcome, glad to have you back at the
    Environment and Public Works Committee again. Congratulations
    on the progress that seems to be coming on GHG emissions rules
    and regulations. I appreciate that very much.
        You may have said it in your prepared testimony, but do you
    have a general idea of what the schedule is for the rollout of
    GHG emissions rules in the months ahead?
        Mr. Regan. We do. I would say for the 111 rules, we are
    looking at late April, which focuses on controlling greenhouse
    gas emissions from our power sector. We have rules coming out
    for our heavy duty vehicles and light duty vehicles in the
    coming weeks, which we are excited about.
        Senator Whitehouse. Ahead of the power plant ones?
        Mr. Regan. Ahead of the power plant rules. And then we hope
    to have soon a rule that is focused on our risk and our Mercury
    Air Toxics Standard as well, which is important, because it is
    an air toxics rule. But we are trying to provide some
    regulatory certainty and a picture for the industry and for our
    communities on how all of these things coincide with one
    another.
        Senator Whitehouse. It matters a lot to us in Rhode Island,
    and I suspect in Massachusetts as well, and I suspect Delaware
    as well, as downwind States. We get a lot of that stuff that
    comes our way. I can remember when the plan for dealing with
    pollutants coming out of power plants was to raise the
    smokestacks higher so that it shot farther up into the air and
    traveled away from the polluter State and landed more on our
    States. Thanks a bunch.
        So you guys being there to regulate that is really
    important to us. Because when the home polluting State, their
    solution is that they dump it higher up into the atmosphere so
    it falls on other States more, that is not a great solution.
        Let's talk a little about methane. You guys have a terrific
    methane rule rolling along. We have talked before about how bad
    the reporting is of methane leakage, and there are
    organizations that have taken a hard look at it, and are
    concerned that we are really under-reporting by a lot.
        What are you doing to make EPA methane reporting more
    accurate to the actual methane leakage that is out there?
        Mr. Regan. We have been engaged in a lot of robust
    conversations with the industry, with the private sector, with
    non-profits, looking at the best available technologies and
    best management practices that we can all use and coincide
    with, or collaborate on. We do have a proposed rule and a
    supplemental that is coming out.
        Senator Whitehouse. Will it improve the reporting accuracy?
        Mr. Regan. It is going to improve the reporting, the data
    collection, and the innovation around the technologies that can
    be used to control methane. That, coupled with the $1.5 billion
    from IRA, will go directly to the States to help with some on
    the ground community led projects, abatement projects. It is
    going to be transformational for this sector and for methane.
        Senator Whitehouse. We had your colleague in the Cabinet,
    Attorney General Garland, in the Judiciary Committee. And in
    response to my questions, he acknowledged that the Department
    of Justice was going to put together a task force to look at
    enforcement against methane leaks across the various
    departments and divisions within Justice.
        I asked him to keep building it out, that I would like to
    see a whole of government enforcement approach in which EPA,
    Interior, Treasury, Justice, and also potentially State and
    local enforcement officials had a role designing strategies to,
    when you find a leak, fix the leak, and make sure that the
    response is quick by the lawyers to make sure it gets fixed.
        What is your status with respect to interagency cooperation
    on methane enforcement, once a leak is detected?
        Mr. Regan. I am proud to say that we have a very strong
    relationship with DOJ on all of our enforcement programs. This
    one won't be any exception. So our folks are conversing. We are
    definitely prepared to take a look at this new regulation and
    the supplemental, and how it will be implemented and enforced
    along with these resources, the $1.5 billion that we are doling
    out to the States to hold them accountable for oversight and
    implementation and execution on how these resources will be put
    in place.
        So we feel pretty good about it.
        Senator Whitehouse. Good. I urge you to support a
    completely broad, across the government, multi-agency, not just
    you and a DOJ task force to respond.
        Last of all on methane, I know that the IRA was a big deal.
    Even with the IRA, we are still not on a pathway to climate
    safety. We are not even really close. We still need other major
    interventions.
        One of the most important interventions is the social cost
    of carbon. And I know there is one baked into your methane
    regulation and that that is working through the administrative
    process. I urge you to make sure that the administrative
    process is as rapid and robust, not rabid and robust, although
    rabid might not be a bad way to look at it these days.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Whitehouse. As rapid and robust as it can be, to
    get that social cost of carbon into law as quickly and firmly
    as possible. Will you do that?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for
    interjecting a little levity into a Committee that needs it
    right now.
        Senator Markey, you are on.
        Senator Markey. Actually, rabid is how dark money groups
    view Senator Whitehouse every day.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Strike that from the record.
        Senator Markey. He is like the Javert of rabid,
        Senator Whitehouse. Point of honor for me. I don't resent
    that description at all. But I am taking Senator Markey's time,
    so let me yield it back.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Obviously, the U.N. this week made it very clear that the
    world is now on thin ice, and that we have to do even more. So
    these regulations that the EPA is about to announce, they are
    our response, they are the answer that we have to have, for
    light trucks, heavy trucks, for utilities, for mercury. Strong
    new regulations send the right signal to the rest of the world
    that we are serious about this, that we are going to be the
    leader, that we lost time during the Trump administration, but
    now the United States is back, not as the laggard, but as the
    leader.
        So it is just so important that those regulations be the
    strong regulations that the planet needs, especially what was
    just announced this week by the United Nations.
        As well, and we thank you, Mr. Regan, for your leadership,
    you understand better than any Administrator ever how local,
    hyperlocal so many of the effects of pollution are, and that
    hyperlocal air quality monitors can identify air pollution hot
    spots, empower residents with information about the problems
    and the solutions of the injustice of poor air quality. Because
    we can't manage what we don't measure.
        I have been introducing legislation for years on
    environmental justice, air quality monitoring, and a lot of
    funding was included in the Inflation Reduction Act in order to
    accomplish that goal. The Administration has already awarded
    over $53 million for 132 community air monitoring projects
    across the country, including Bedford, Massachusetts.
        As we know, it is tribal, low income communities,
    communities of color that have been living as sacrifice zones.
    And it is just so important for us to ensure that healthy air
    is no longer determined by ZIP code.
        Mr. Administrator, will the EPA have a strategy to ensure
    that additional investments outlined in your proposed budget to
    ensure air monitoring data can be used to address those sources
    of pollution and empower communities to take action?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. The 2024 budget maintains that $100
    million commitment for air monitoring. We are going to build on
    that with what we have received in the American Rescue Plan
    starting out, and then those resources in the Inflation
    Reduction Act.
        To your point, it is critical that these local communities
    have the technological ability to measure the air quality
    impacts that they are seeing on the front lines, feed that
    trusted data in concert with our State agencies' regulations to
    ensure that the permit reflects the adequate protection for the
    community.
        Senator Markey. Beautiful. And in terms of the budget that
    you have, you are the watchdog on the beat. Is the budget you
    are submitting allowing you now at the EPA to build your work
    force, both through recruitment and retention, so they can
    properly perform their incredibly important job of protecting
    the air we breathe and the water that we drink?
        Mr. Regan. It is definitely putting us on a trajectory to
    do that. The percentage increase that we received last year was
    the first step. This year, I know 19 percent sounds like a lot.
    But when you look at the dollar amount and the needs of the
    agency, it is not. But it is positioning the agency to help
    this country stay globally competitive and keep up with the
    21st century.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        On PCBs, asbestos, lead, they continue to poison our
    schools, households, workplaces across the country. And we
    absolutely have to provide the resources to make sure we are
    focusing on those issues. How necessary is this increased
    budget if we want EPA to actually be able to address toxic
    substances in communities and in our schools as well as to get
    them out of our economy to begin with where they are completely
    unnecessary?
        Mr. Regan. It is extremely important. I know that TSCA was
    a bipartisan victory that you and others hold high. I know it
    was one of the more personal motivators for you.
        When I think about illnesses that are caused by toxics like
    TCE and the fact that we are just decades later finally getting
    to the point where we can propose the rights kinds of
    protections, it demonstrates how much of an uphill battle
    controlling these hazardous toxics are. We need the work force,
    we need the resources, and we are ready to do it.
        Senator Markey. Yes. I only had two unions endorse me in my
    first race for Congress. One of them was the Asbestos Workers.
    Joe Zampitella, Sr., died from asbestosis, ultimately. That is
    why I was always interested in that issue.
        So to the extent to which in the 2016 bill, Mr. Chairman,
    that passed on TSCA, it is just so important that we get the
    resources to the Administrator so that job can continue to be
    worked upon.
        I might add as well something that is very near and dear to
    the heart of the Chairman and myself, it is the Climate Bank
    that we know you are working on to make sure that it is
    constructed in a way that will maximize the incredible
    potential which it has. And I want to thank you for working
    with us in terms of the construction of it, so that it can
    ensure that every community in America has access to the tens
    of billions of dollars which can be unleashed with a kind of
    bank that is properly constructed.
        So I thank you for working with us.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. We will continue to work with you
    and your staff every step of the way.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Senator Markey, thank you. Thank you for
    your good work and allowing me to be a partner on the Green
    Bank and the Methane Emission Reduction program and much other
    important work that we and others on this Committee have done.
        They are waiting for me in the Finance Committee, but not
    for long, in order to get there and ask questions. So I am
    going to close out very quickly.
        In doing so, I am going to ask for the record if you have
    any final comments you would like to make. And this is for the
    record, not for right now. Any final comments you would like to
    make, maybe a question you weren't asked but would have liked
    to have been asked. And if you had been, what your answer would
    have been. That is one I like to close with.
        Also, I want to thank you for joining us today and fielding
    our questions and responding to them at some length. Leading
    EPA is not without its difficulties. And I think you are, and
    it is not just my belief, but I have actually heard it from
    some of my Republican colleagues here today, that you are doing
    good work. You don't hear that every day in this room with us.
    You are doing an exemplary job, and we thank you and the team
    that you lead.
        For EPA to be successful in protecting human health and the
    environment while also providing greater certainty and
    predictability to stakeholders, the agency needs robust funding
    and a strong leadership team in place. With that in mind, I am
    hoping that this Committee can lead, again by example, and work
    together in bipartisan way to ensure that EPA has the resources
    and the leadership team that the American people deserve.
        Before we adjourn, a little bit of housekeeping. Senators
    will be allowed to submit written questions for the record
    through the close of business on Wednesday, April 5th. And we
    will compile those questions and send them to you, to our
    witness and your team. We will ask you to reply by Wednesday,
    April 19th.
        Again with heartfelt thanks, this hearing is adjourned.
    Thanks.
        [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]