[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]