[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 20, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-19
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-553 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia Ranking Member
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama KATHY CASTOR, Florida
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice RAUL RUIZ, California
Chairman SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas DARREN SOTO, Florida
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee KIM SCHRIER, Washington
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
KAT CAMMACK, Florida LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
JOHN JAMES, Michigan JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina KEVIN MULLIN, California
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
GABE EVANS, Colorado
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
------
Professional Staff
MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
Chairman
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas, Vice Chairman PAUL TONKO, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio Ranking Member
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama RAUL RUIZ, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas DARREN SOTO, Florida
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
GABE EVANS, Colorado GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex officio)
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement.................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, prepared statement................... 68
Witness
Lee Zeldin, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency....... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 70
Press release of April 30, 2025, Environmental Protection
Agency\1\
Statement of Daniel Coogan, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Infrastructure and Extramural Resources, Office of Mission
Support, Environmental Protection Agency....................... 71
Statement of Travis Voyles, Assistant Deputy Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, in The Sustainability
Institute, et al., vs. Donald J. Trump, U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina................................. 74
Transcript, March 12, 2025, Motion Hearing, Climate United Fund
vs. Citibank, U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia\1\
Article of May 16, 2025, ``Investigators See No Criminality by
E.P.A. Officials in Case on Biden-Era Grant,'' by Devlin
Barrett, et al., New York Times................................ 80
Report of the Office of Inspector General, Environmental
Protection Agency, ``Actions Needed to Strengthen Controls over
the EPA Administrator's and Associated Saff's Travel,'' May 16,
2025\1\
Report of the Office of Inspector General, Environmental
Protection Agency, ``EPA Law Enforcement Availability Pay
Properly Certified but Controls Over Process Could Be
Improved,'' November 6, 2018\1\
Report of the Government Accountability Office, ``Progress on
Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on
Others,'' February 2017\1\
----------
\1\ Mr. Zeldin's reply has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20250520/118283/
HHRG-119-IF18-Wstate-ZeldinL-20250520-SD022.pdf.
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20250520/118283/HHRG-119-IF18-20250520-SD817.pdf.
Fact sheet, ``Down the Drain: How Slashing Water Investment Risks
America's Economy,'' Banner Public Affairs..................... 84
Open letter, ``We're Not Done Yet!,'' from the Environmental
Protection Agency Alumni Association Board of Directors to Lee
Zeldin, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency......... 88
Article of May 18, 2025, ``Trump orders the government to stop
enforcing rules he doesn't like,'' by Maxine Joselow, et al.,
Washington Post................................................ 89
Letter of May 3, 2025, from the Environmental Council of the
States to Lee Zeldin, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 94
THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Morgan Griffith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Griffith, Crenshaw, Latta,
Carter of Georgia, Palmer, Joyce, Weber, Pfluger, Miller-Meeks,
Lee, Evans, Fedorchak, Guthrie (ex officio), Tonko
(subcommittee ranking member), Schakowsky, Ruiz, Peters,
Barragan, Soto, Auchincloss, Carter of Louisiana, Menendez,
Landsman, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Balderson, Obernolte,
Houchin, Castor, Dingell, Fletcher, Mullin, and McClellan.
Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations; Byron
Brown, Chief Counsel; Clara Cargile, Professional Staff Member;
Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Andrew Furman, Professional
Staff Member; Sydney Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics;
Emily Hale, Staff Assistant; Christen Harsha, Senior Counsel;
Annabelle Huffman, Clerk; Calvin Huggins, Clerk; Megan Jackson,
Staff Director; Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff Director; Sarah
Meier, Counsel and Parliamentarian; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel;
Kaitlyn Peterson, Policy Analyst; Jackson Rudden, Staff
Assistant; Chris Sarley, Member Services/Stakeholder Director;
Kaley Stidham, Press Assistant; Matt VanHyfte, Communications
Director; Katharine Willey, Senior Counsel; Giancarlo Ceja,
Minority Environment Fellow; Timia Crisp, Minority Professional
Staff Member; Austin Flack, Minority Professional Staff Member;
Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Anthony
Gutierrez, Minority Professional Staff Member; Caitlin
Haberman, Minority Staff Director, Environment; Will McAuliffe,
Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Emma
Roehrig, Minority Staff Assistant; Kylea Rogers, Minority
Policy Analyst; and Maxwell Stern, Minority Intern.
Mr. Griffith. The subcommittee will come to order.
And let me first say I apologize for the late start. It
drives me crazy. But the President was speaking with the
conference this morning, very engaging. I did leave a few
minutes--I don't know how long before he finished, but I felt I
needed to get here at least with some semblance, but I do
apologize to you, Mr. Administrator, and to all the members who
were here on time. Please forgive me. I will try not to let it
happen again, but it is rare that the President comes to talk
to the conference.
All right. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
I am glad to have the Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator, Lee Zeldin, a friend and former colleague, back
in the House today.
Welcome back, Mr. Administrator. Is that the proper way to
refer to you?
Mr. Zeldin. Call me Lee.
Mr. Griffith. All right, Lee, it is good to have you back
to testify before the Subcommittee on Environment on President
Trump's fiscal year 2026 budget request. This is certainly an
important time for the EPA.
After 4 years of economically disastrous, legally
questionable, and expensive policies of the Biden-Harris
administration, it is a welcome sight to see President Trump
and Administrator Zeldin focused on the rebuilding of the
American economy and fixing the problems of the previous
administration.
I remember when Administrator Zeldin was in the House
representing the eastern part of Long Island. He was willing to
work across the aisle in pragmatic--in a pragmatic way to try
and address environmental issues like protecting the Long
Island Sound or addressing emerging contaminants like PFAS. It
is great to see him bringing these same problem-solving skills
to the EPA, and there are a lot of problems there to solve, as
we all know.
I am pleased to see that the Administrator recognizes that
there is a middle ground to tread, where environmental
protection does not need to come at the expense of good jobs
and a strong economy. I know that the Administrator is already
working to closely examine the previous EPA spending spree on
Green New Deal-style programs that provided unprecedented
levels of taxpayer funds to environmental groups and
consultants, and to undue burdensome regulations that increased
energy costs and made it more difficult to make things in
America.
The reconciliation bill passed out of this committee last
week is an important step in saving taxpayers money and
redirecting EPA--the EPA to focus on its core mission of
cleaning up the environment and protecting human health.
In February, Administrator Zeldin announced the broad
pillars that the agency will focus on under his plan,
``Powering the Great American Comeback.'' In March,
Administrator Zeldin announced 31 regulatory actions to support
greater energy production, a more robust auto manufacturing
sector, a more predictable permitting process, and a more
State-based enforcement system. I am glad to see that the EPA
is taking another look at a lot of the rulemakings from the
last administration, particularly those regarding air
pollution, as many of those rulemakings didn't take into
account industry's ability to meet compliance timelines on
which pollution mitigation technologies would be able to be
installed.
EPA has a duty to enforce the statutes that Congress
passed, though I do believe encouraging cooperative compliance
with industry will lead to better environmental outcomes and
less economic disruption--and as I have often said, one of the
problems we have is if we push beyond what industry can do,
they just pick up and move to another country. And many of
those pollutants, according to a NASA study, come right back to
us because the NASA study showed a number of years ago,
following a sandstorm, that it takes about 10 days for the air
to get from the middle of the Gobi Desert in China to the
eastern shore of Virginia--as many of those rulemakings that
the EPA did previously didn't take into account industry's
ability to meet compliance timelines--that is what we are
talking about--of which pollution mitigation technologies were
able to be installed.
In recent years the EPA's budget has been about $10 billion
per year. However, under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act,
the EPA received an astounding $41.5 billion, or more than 4
times its historical budget, to spend on electric vehicles,
environmental justice, and renewable energy programs. From its
founding and up until the past few years, EPA mostly operated
as a scientific investigator and regulatory agency and, with
the exception of the water infrastructure and Superfund
programs, it did not administer lots of large grants.
President Trump's proposed budget would reduce EPA spending
to a more sustainable level after years of out-of-control
spending on programs and rules that bore little relation to the
EPA's traditional mission of regulating pollution, setting
science-based standards for potentially hazardous substances,
and cleaning up waste sites. It seems the goal of the EPA in
the last few years was an attempt to force change that
Americans are not willing to buy.
I look forward to hearing more details from Administrator
Zeldin about the reorganization reform efforts he is making.
The Environment Subcommittee stands ready to work with you,
Administrator Zeldin, to help get the EPA back on track.
At this subcommittee's first hearing of Congress, we
examined the implementation of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic
Substances Control Act, often referred to as TSCA. We heard how
the process for reviewing new and existing chemicals are in
need of reform, particularly the ways in which the EPA
evaluates potential chemical risks. We also held a hearing in
March on ways to maximize brownfield cleanups. As we work on
Brownfield reauthorization, I hope to collaborate with the EPA
on ways to possibly set up some sort of preclearance permitting
pilot program.
Our national security, our economic competitiveness, the
health of our families, and the strength of our communities all
depend on an EPA led by you that is working hard and
efficiently for the American people. So I thank you again for
appearing before us today and forgiving me for being late, and
I look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member,
Mr. Tonko of New York.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And Administrator Zeldin, welcome to the committee--to the
subcommittee. And I have to acknowledge that as a former
student you were a constituent of New York's 20th congressional
district, and so we welcome you back in that capacity.
President Trump's fiscal year 2026 budget request for EPA
has been called ``problematic,'' ``an unserious proposal,'' and
``maybe a bridge too far to be achievable.'' Now, these were
the reactions of Republican appropriators last week, and I
expect you will hear even less charitable reviews from
Democrats on this subcommittee today.
This proposal includes a 55 percent reduction from fiscal
year 2025 levels, resulting in agency funding levels not seen
since the mid-1980s. If enacted, this would fundamentally
dismantle the EPA as we know it and cripple the agency's
ability to carry out its core mission of protecting the air we
breathe and the water we drink. The request includes
devastating cuts that will undermine States' efforts to protect
public health and carry out their obligations, including the
$2.46 billion reduction to the State revolving funds for water
infrastructure and the $1 billion reduction for categorical
grants which are critical to supporting staffing of State
environmental agencies.
I do believe this is a part of a disturbing trend we are
seeing to force more costs on to State governments, as is being
done with the proposed cuts to Medicaid in the majority's
reconciliation bill.
Similar to these funding cuts, earlier this year the
Administration expressed the desire to reduce EPA staffing
levels by 65 percent, which would return the agency to 1971
personnel levels, the agency's second year in existence. It is
not credible to suggest that the agency can fulfill its
statutory requirements, including all of the major
environmental laws and amendments to those laws that have been
enacted since the 1970s, with these proposed staffing levels.
Cuts of this magnitude would not only hollow out the agency's
expertise and capacity, but they are insensitive to the public
servants who have dedicated their lives to supporting this
agency's mission.
And it is worth reminding everyone of what that mission is:
to protect human health and the environment. In just a few
short months, I believe, the agency under Administrator
Zeldin's leadership has lost sight of this mission. Mr. Zeldin
launched the Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative
focused on American energy, auto manufacturing, and artificial
intelligence dominance.
Broadly speaking, I am not necessarily opposed to aspects
of that agenda, but I also do not believe it is the appropriate
role for our Nation's environmental regulator to be leading
this effort, because EPA's contributions to those goals more or
less translate to how we can reduce environmental protections
and enforcement of those protections for the benefit of energy
producers, the auto industry, and big tech, even if ordinary
Americans will pay the price by breathing harmful air
pollution, drinking contaminated water, and being exposed to
dangerous chemicals.
We have already seen a slew of agency actions that will
result in greater pollution and reduce our scientific capacity
to understand just how that pollution will impact Americans'
health and their well-being. This includes reconsidering rules
that protect Americans from pollution, from power plants, from
vehicles, and from industrial facilities, and weakening
standards to keep PFAS out of our drinking water. Each of these
public health protections up for reconsideration went through
robust rulemaking processes and economic analyses, which found
that every one of these rules delivers greater benefits to the
American people in public health and in economic benefit terms
than they cost.
I am also concerned by EPA's efforts to terminate
previously awarded grants without producing any evidence of
fraud, waste, or abuse. For each of these awards, the previous
administration carried out competitive selection processes
based upon requirements enacted by Congress.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I am now going to
recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for his
5-minute opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
President Trump's budget is a blueprint for disaster. Trump
doesn't believe in government, and his budget continues his
relentless assault on the Federal agencies whose mission it is
to protect the health and well-being of the American people.
This budget would cut funding for the EPA by 55 percent,
the largest cut in EPA's history. The proposed cut would
seriously threaten public health and the environment. It also
fails to deliver on many of the promises the Trump
administration has made to deal with dangerous toxins like lead
and PFAS, and prioritize polluters over public health and the
environment.
While we only have the skinny budget to review at this
stage, it does not give me confidence that anything more
comprehensive will tell a different story. The budget calls
categorical grants to States a ``crutch,'' flying in the face
of the cooperative federalism that has made EPA so successful
in cleaning up toxic pollution and providing healthier futures
for Americans. EPA is deserting the States to deal with serious
climate and pollution issues on their own while EPA focuses on
giving polluters free passes to poison our communities with
reckless abandon.
And the skinny budget outlines major cuts to historically
bipartisan programs that provide a lifeline to communities
across the Nation. It cuts $250 million from the Superfund
program, undermining our ability to clean up toxic waste sites
throughout the Nation. It seeks to decimate the drinking water
and clean water State revolving funds, which are the primary
funding sources for water infrastructure projects. These State
revolving funds are critical to ensuring communities have safe,
reliable drinking water and wastewater services. This comes
after EPA recently announced plans to rescind and delay the
historic PFAS drinking water standard, raising serious
questions about the Trump administration's commitment to safe,
clean, and affordable water for all.
EPA is also walking away from its commitments by canceling
competitively awarded grants where work is already underway in
communities across the country with little or no explanation.
And I have to say to the Administrator I am outraged by
Administrator Zeldin's illegal freeze of obligated funds under
the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. This fund is meant to make
energy more affordable, foster economic development, boost
supply chains, and create good-paying jobs--all the things that
the Trump administration says it supports--yet the
Administrator has engaged in a smear campaign where he is
spreading false and misleading statements about the program in
an attempt to undermine it and strip away these funds. And I
firmly believe the Administrator's actions are a violation of
the law, and I am hopeful that these funds will be released
soon so that our communities can benefit from these
investments.
It is clear to me that under Administrator Zeldin's
leadership, EPA is becoming an unreliable partner and illegally
withholding congressionally directed funds. I am also concerned
about troubling activities that will endanger the health and
safety of American families, children, and workers. The Trump
administration has made it clear that EPA cares more about
polluters' bottom line than the communities and American
children who will bear the brunt of these foolhardy decisions.
What is potentially most egregious is the attempt to roll
back EPA's landmark endangerment finding. It is absolutely
shocking that anyone in the year 2025 could look around and
honestly say that climate change is not already harming
Americans. It is.
And I am also troubled by EPA's recent reorganization plan.
The effectiveness of the agency hinges on EPA having the career
staff necessary to fulfill its mission. They are the backbone
of the agency. Unfortunately, Administrator Zeldin's actions to
indiscriminately fire hundreds of employees with plans to
release thousands more shows a blatant disregard for the
critical work career staff conduct on behalf of the American
people every day. He continues to disingenuously claim to be
fighting government waste while simultaneously eviscerating
EPA's ability to appropriately manage programs and oversee--
issue grants.
Finally, Administrator Zeldin is thumbing his nose at
Congress's ability to conduct important oversight of this
Administration. Committee Democrats have sent several letters
to the Administrator demanding answers about certain actions he
has taken. We have received very few answers, some coming just
late yesterday, and this is unacceptable. The Energy and
Commerce Committee is your authorizer, and we are tasked with
conducting oversight. As the Administrator of EPA, you don't
just owe Congress an explanation, but you also owe the American
people an explanation.
You know, I--my--Republicans on this committee constantly
talk about how great this committee is, and how they want to
continue the great work of this committee, but we are not going
to be a great committee if we can't actually conduct oversight
over the EPA, which is one of the major agencies that we have
oversight or jurisdiction over. We are not going to be a great
committee if we can't have effective oversight, and
Administrator Zeldin has made that impossible.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. And with that, I yield back the balance of my
time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I thank the
gentleman. We now conclude with Member opening statements.
The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
the committee rules, all Members' opening statements will be
made a part of the record.
Although it is not the practice of this subcommittee to
swear in witnesses, I would remind our witness that knowingly
and willfully making material false statements to the
legislative branch is against the law under title 18, section
1001 of the United States Code.
We will give you an opportunity to give an opening
statement followed by questions.
Today's witness, I think, is known to all of us, a former
Member of the House, the Honorable Lee Zeldin, Administrator of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Zeldin, you are now recognized for a 5-minute opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF LEE ZELDIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member
Tonko, and members of the subcommittee.
Chairman Griffith, thank you for being such a great partner
in ensuring that this committee is able to work closely with
the EPA. That is very important. Thank you for the great work
and leadership. It is an honor to appear before you today to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2026 budget request for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Since day one, EPA has swiftly moved to advance President
Trump's directive to deliver clean air, land, and water for all
Americans while restoring commonsense accountability and
cooperative federalism to environmental policy. We are
fulfilling our core mission of protecting human health and the
environment while powering the great American comeback and
removing unnecessary barriers that have burdened American
families and businesses for far too long.
Since being sworn in as Administrator, my team has hit the
ground running. I have now traveled to 17 States across the
country, engaging with our dedicated regional staff and
scientists, visiting Superfund sites and brownfields, and
listening to farmers, business owners, and community residents
who have had fantastic ideas on how the EPA can better work on
their behalf.
Immediately upon President Trump's inauguration, EPA
completed the largest wildfire cleanup in agency history in
less than 30 days after the catastrophic Los Angeles wildfires.
We have taken bold steps to combat PFAS contamination and have
advanced redevelopment at 21 Superfund sites across 13 States,
delisting all or parts of 4 sites from the National Priorities
List. We have also completed 25 State implementation plans, 16
of which were backlogged from the prior administration.
With this renewed focus and commitment, EPA is working for
the American people. We are revising the definition of ``Waters
of the United States'' to align with the Supreme Court decision
in Sackett, and have issued immediate action items for Mexico
to permanently and urgently end the Tijuana River sewage crisis
that has plagued southern California for decades. Following my
trip to Saint Louis, we cut nearly 2 years from the cleanup
timeline at the West Lake Superfund site, which has been
contaminated by nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project. In
fact, to mark the 100th day of the Trump presidency, EPA
released a list of 100 environmental actions we took during
those first 100 days, a pace that motivates us to keep up each
and every day.
Together, these actions reflect the administration's
commitment to environmental stewardship, cooperative
federalism, and delivering results that make a real difference
in people's lives.
In lockstep with the President's agenda, EPA is also
helping to unleash American energy, pursue permitting reform,
make America the AI capital of the world, and bring back
American auto jobs. We have eliminated waste and abuse in areas
like the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, reversed unlawful
overreach like the so-called Good Neighbor Rule, and begun
reconsidering many overreaching rules, including power plant
and EV-related regulation that threaten grid reliability,
energy affordability, and consumer choice.
I am proud of the monumental steps we took earlier this
year towards energy dominance and expanding cooperative
federalism. We are giving West Virginia and Arizona the primacy
authority they have sought to protect groundwater and regulate
themselves, as other States have had for years. It is no secret
that the best innovative solutions are often found by working
with those most familiar with the challenges faced.
These historic actions will reduce regulatory costs, which
act as invisible taxes on Americans, making it more affordable
to own a car, heat homes, operate a business, and bring
manufacturing back to local communities. By reducing the EPA's
budget by billions of dollars, the President's fiscal year 2026
budget demands maximum efficiency from the EPA while we
continue to fulfill all of our statutory obligations.
Also included in the President's proposal is an additional
$9 million above fiscal year 2025-enacted levels to equip EPA
with funds to respond to drinking water disasters. There is
also a $27 million increase in funding for Tribes to address
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on their lands.
At the Trump EPA, we will not view the status quo as a
sacred cow that is untouchable. We will not consider the Biden-
era regulations we inherited to be etched in stone, and we
absolutely refuse to waste even a penny of tax dollars. With
President Trump's leadership and the partnership of Congress,
we will deliver measurable and real results, greater
accountability, and a stronger environmental return on
investment per dollar spent.
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zeldin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Administrator Zeldin, a.k.a. Lee.
We will now begin the questioning.
I would ask that Members not begin a new question to our
witness as their 5 minutes expire. Because we have a number of
Members who wish to waive on--and that is the practice in this
subcommittee and in this committee--I am going to be fairly
aggressive on the 5-minute deadline on both sides of the aisle,
and so I would encourage you all to be ready to submit--if you
see you only have 10 seconds left, don't ask the question, just
submit it for questions asked after the hearing, which we are
permitted to do.
With that said, I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes
of questioning.
Administrator Zeldin, I understand why the agency
terminated all environmental justice grants to align with
President Trump's Executive order. I recognize those in many
cases were spurious. But as often happens when you do this,
there are some things in there that you think, wait a minute,
that was pretty good.
And so in my district we had some flood mitigation--and
these are not huge dollars, 50,000--in flood mitigation
planning for the town of Clinchco; 50,000 in engineering for a
former bank building demolition--the building is going to
collapse into the road, and it is a problem--and riverwalk
design in the town of Pound; and 70,000 demolition of a
building in Pennington Gap, which flooded again in February.
All of these are issues that are significant, and I don't know
what they did to be put into environmental justice, this is
just something right to do. And I am just asking you if you
would be willing to help us work to see if we can't find some
other ways to take care of some of those important projects
that actually are meritorious.
Mr. Zeldin. I would love to work with you, Chairman, have
my team work with yours.
And the same message goes to other members of this
committee. There are some cases of grants where the entire
grant had major issues. There are other grants where there were
smaller issues. And there's appropriated funding that is going
to continue to go out the door. We are having this conversation
in the middle of a fiscal year. So while we are going from one
administration to the next, we might go from one
administration's priorities to the current administration's
priorities. We, I think, have plenty of opportunities to be
able to work together to get this funding out responsibly.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Now I am going to turn to the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund awards.
I know that you--that is all tied up in litigation, but it
is interesting to me. And I talked about it last week, as well.
One of the awardees is technically headquartered in my district
in southwest Virginia--actually in Christiansburg, the
Appalachian Community Capital. And I understand it is a bank,
and a financial institution, and it is a pass-through. The
problem is that this organization received--underscore--$500
million. Previously, in 2023, their entire budget was $4.3
million, of which 2.8 was from a Federal grant. In 2024 they
suddenly received $500 million.
Now, when I found out about this and I went and looked at
their legal address where they are supposed to be headquartered
in Christiansburg, Virginia, I went up to the building. It was
after hours. There is no sign. There is a financial institution
there, but it is not the Appalachian Community Capital. Now,
whether they have a person assigned in there, whether or not
they have a cubicle, I don't know. Not saying they don't. Not
saying they are not functioning out of that building, but there
is no indication to the public that this institution which
received $500 million to hand out from the EPA is doing
anything there.
Now, again, they very well could have a cubicle inside.
They could have somebody in there working. But the sign on the
door was for a different financial institution. The CEO has an
address in Washington, DC. So if we are trying to get these
monies out, even if you accept that they are trying to get
these monies out into the various communities, it raises all
kinds of questions in my mind.
I am assuming that raised questions in your mind, as well.
Am I correct? That type of thing.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Chairman. And to that point, it is
important to point out Appalachian asked for a billion, and
they ended up receiving 500 million, even though the year that
they asked for the funding, in 2023, they spent less than 4.5
million. One of many issues.
And one more thing to point out, Chairman. A reviewer noted
that Appalachian plants used $215 million to finance 600 zero-
emission vehicles and 105 million to finance 700 charging
stations. This is $358,333 per EV vehicle, $150,000 per
charging station.
So it is important to get into the weeds and understand,
and I think the example that you brought up is one of many
fantastic ones to talk about.
Mr. Griffith. Well, and I would love to know where the
charging stations are, if they exist.
That being said, and my time running out, I will yield back
and now recognize the ranking member from New York, Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And again, welcome, Mr. Zeldin. You previously committed to
following the law, and stated your belief that science should
be left to the scientists. So I would like to focus on just how
well you have been fulfilling those commitments.
To start, you initiated an effort to reconsider the 2009
endangerment finding that greenhouse gas emissions threatened
the public health and welfare of current and future
generations. Now, I have no doubt we may disagree about just
how to appropriately regulate sources of climate pollution, but
I am frankly shocked that there is a question of whether or not
climate pollution harms the Americans' health and welfare.
The endangerment finding is based on science, and
scientists both within and without the Federal Government have
continually reaffirmed that climate pollution does in fact harm
our health and our welfare. So can you cite any peer-reviewed
research that calls into question the science used to make the
initial 2009 endangerment finding?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, first off, Ranking Member Tonko, it is
important to note, to follow the law, to follow our obligations
under the law, I am not allowed to prejudge outcomes. We are
going to go through a rulemaking process. We will follow the
Administrative Procedures Act. There will be a public comment
period.
To your point more specifically, it is important to note
that when the 2009 endangerment finding was done, they didn't
review carbon dioxide alone. It is carbon dioxide when mixed
with five other well-mixed gases, which was called the
``greenhouse gases.'' Even though they were supposed to do it
specifically on mobile sources, some of those greenhouse
gases--some of those other well-mixed gases aren't even emitted
from motor vehicles. But they didn't study each of these six
individually, they studied all six collectively.
They had multiple other mental leaps that were done. They
didn't say that carbon dioxide endangers public health. They
say that carbon dioxide, when mixed with five other well-mixed
gases, contribute to climate change. How much, you might ask?
They don't say. But the numbers north of zero they say
contribute, not causes. And then they say climate change
endangers public health.
So it is just important to follow the multiple mental
leaps. But as far as peer-reviewed studies, it is important
when that--to note when that 2009 endangerment finding was
reached, they didn't study any of these six gases individually.
Mr. Tonko. Reclaiming my time, I hear the prejudged
statement, but I don't think major regulatory processes are
launched on a whim. So can you not point to any scientific
evidence to warrant a reconsideration in the first place?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, in addition to what I just stated, they
also didn't factor in any of the--obviously--the scientific
developments since over the last 16 years, there has not been
any public comment period over the course of the last 16 years,
they haven't factored in innovation. Emissions have been down
over the course of the last 20 years.
But getting back to the heart of your initial question, not
even when they did the 2009 endangerment finding did they ever
conduct reviews of each emission individually.
Mr. Tonko. Well, in addition to the elimination of
atmospheric research, I am very concerned by the public
reporting around the future of the Office of Research and
Development. ORD conducts independent research, and this
independence is critical to both informing regulatory decision-
making and ensuring high levels of scientific integrity at the
agency. The Office of Inspector General identified--and, I
quote--``promoting ethical conduct and protecting scientific
integrity'' as a top management challenge in fiscal year 2024.
How do you plan to address this challenge if ORD is
significantly reorganized or, in fact, eliminated?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, for one, we will fulfill all statutory
obligations. Two, it is important to note that inside of
program offices science and research is done. Additionally, as
part of the reorg that was announced a couple of weeks back,
science and research are being elevated inside of all different
program offices. There is a new office inside of the Office of
Air and Radiation focusing on State air partnerships, advancing
cooperative federalism, and working on State implementation
plans. There is a new Office of Applied Sciences and
Environmental Solutions.
The scientific work that we do in fulfilling our statutory
obligations is important.
Mr. Tonko. OK, let me reclaim my time here. Has EPA
evaluated how closing or significantly reducing ORD would
affect its ability to fulfill statutory obligations while
ensuring scientific integrity across the agency?
Mr. Zeldin. Absolutely.
Mr. Tonko. And will you share that evaluation with members
of the subcommittee?
Mr. Zeldin. Sure, we could talk about it here today.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Well, my time has expired, so I will yield
back, but thank you for your response.
Mr. Joyce [presiding]. Thank you. The ranking member yields
back. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta,
for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Administrator, welcome back to the House. It is
good to see you today.
You know, for far too long, the EPA has ballooned well
beyond its original scope. Over time the agency has amassed
sweeping regulatory powers that increasingly bypass legislative
oversight. What does that leave us with? High cost for the
taxpayer; burdensome, unworkable regulatory conditions for
industry; stifled innovation and manufacturing; and energy
insecurity with decreased domestic production, high costs, and
Federal overreach for our energy mix.
We heard extensive testimony from industrial leaders across
the board that the Biden administration's EPA standards were
technologically unfeasible. President Trump's proposed
discretionary budget decreases the EPA budget by over half of
last year's budget, making many commonsense reforms to spend
American taxpayer dollars in thoughtful ways to effectively
improve our environment.
And one of the things that we have heard so many times is--
well, you know, what are your thoughts, especially when we hear
from the industry that the EPA would come up with some kind of
a standard that there was no existing technology to even meet
it, but they were demanding that it be done. In a lot of cases,
it was just going to put businesses out of business because
they couldn't meet the standard.
So how do you see the EPA dealing in the future on issues
like that?
Mr. Zeldin. We inherited a lot of regulations that were
enacted in 2023, 2024 seeking to stimulate the economy,
choosing to suffocate the economy as if it is a binary choice
between protecting the environment and growing the economy. The
Trump EPA chooses both. We want to protect the environment and
grow the economy. This isn't a binary choice. These regulations
would cause all sorts of companies and entire industries to
have to go out.
The concerns end up impacting the American economy, the
American national security, and our environment, as it is
important to point out that we tap into our own supply safer
than so many other countries do elsewhere around the world. And
it is important to look at the ability of American companies to
be able to hit the compliance with these regulations that are
put into place.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. You know, I read with interest your
Powering the Great American Comeback. And you know, in this
committee we have been talking about two things in particular.
We have to have more energy produced in this country and, at
the same time, we have to really make sure that we are looking
at permitting, we have got to get the permitting reform done to
be able to move forward. Because especially when we look at our
data centers that are coming online, that--the amount of--more
energy is going to have to be produced in this country.
So could you share how the Powering the Great American
Comeback Initiative is going to help, especially in these two
areas that you talk about on the energy side and also on the
permitting?
Mr. Zeldin. Sure. There's five pillars. Number one, clean
air, land, and water for all Americans. Number two is unleash
energy dominance. Pillar three, advance cooperative federalism
and permitting reform. Four, making America the AI capital of
the world. Five, bringing back American auto jobs.
Why are we doing this? Because the American public is
demanding it. The core mission of EPA is protecting human
health and the environment. So one might ask, well, why would
you be working on helping to unleash energy dominance? Well,
because we were paying attention to the American public last
fall when they were demanding that we heed their concerns as it
relates to their struggle to be able to afford to make ends
meet, because we heard from Americans who had to choose between
whether or not to put groceries in their refrigerator, heat
their home, or get prescription drugs they need to survive.
They had to choose between the three.
So we could say, you know, listen, we are not going to do
anything to help with this other stuff, it is not part of the
core mission of EPA, and we can thumb our nose to the American
public. But instead, the Trump EPA chooses to heed the call of
the American public. That is what we are going to do. We are
going to do it proudly.
Now, as it relates to the two that you might be referencing
as far as unleashing energy dominance, make America the AI
capital of the world, this is a partnership. In working with
other agencies, the President created the National Energy
Dominance Council. These agencies are going to work together.
And when you talk about permitting reform, here is an idea.
Those who want to invest in America, that they don't have to go
through 15 months of a permitting process before some other
agency comes in and tells them, here is an issue that is going
to stop your project. The person who is making the investment
scratching their head, saying, ``Well, why don't you tell us
that 15 months ago?'' Well, that is because the Government was
being its normal self and not working efficiently and not
collaboratively. And as a result, the permitting process might
require more time, more cost, less certainty.
So EPA is going to do our part, and one of the ways that we
can help with permanent reform actually doesn't even require an
act of Congress. We can just stop gumming up the works with all
sorts of different processes that we inherited where we
realized the EPA was just trying to slow things down to slow
things down. Well, we don't feel good about taking away,
stripping away that investment in this country. And I am glad
that you are asking, Congressman, and I look forward to working
with you on it.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My time has expired and I yield back, and I will submit my
other questions to the Administrator in writing. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes the
ranking member of the committee, Mr. Pallone, for his 5 minutes
of questioning.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I have to disagree with the Administrator's vision. I
don't think anyone in America voted last November to harm --to
ask the Government to harm their health and safety. And if you
are talking about grocery prices, they are not lower, they are
higher. And if you talk about our energy dominance, that has to
be linked to clean energy, which you and the Trump
administration just are completely getting rid of.
And if you talk about getting a permit, well, under the
reconciliation bill--which is the reason I think most of our
colleagues aren't here on the other side of the aisle, is
because the President is here trying to convince them to vote
for that garbage--and under that bill, if you just pay $1
million--I guess that is for the LNG permit--or you pay 10
million for a pipeline permit, then you automatically get the
permit, and you don't have to go through any kind of EPA review
whatsoever because the permit and the payment of the check is
deemed in the public interest.
So, you know, you have undertaken multiple waves of utterly
arbitrary and harmful cuts to important programs and grants.
Thankfully, courts have recognized that your actions are
illegal, and have ordered a hold on these mass terminations and
withholding of funds unless you could show that grants were
only terminated after an individual review.
And EPA officials have attempted to exploit that loophole
by asserting that grants have been individually reviewed,
without offering evidence to support such claims. Fortunately,
the courts have not been falling for it. One judge recently
wrote that, even after reviewing thousands of pages of
documents produced by the EPA, there was not a single document
demonstrating an individual review of any individual grantee.
In another case, an EPA official submitted a sworn
declaration stating that--and I am quoting now--``EPA
leadership conducting an individualized grant by grant review
to determine which grants should continue, which should be
modified, and which should be terminated.'' But a declaration
in a separate case indicates that another Trump appointee in a
single day conducted a review and determined that nine entire
programs constituting hundreds of grants should be terminated.
And I would ask unanimous consent to enter the declarations
of Daniel Coogan and Travis Voyles into the record. Mr.
Chairman, these are actually court records. They are two EPA
Trump employees that have contradicted each other, in my
opinion, on the individual review issue.
In any case, if--I will hold them so I can reference them
if necessary, and then give them to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Griffith [presiding]. And is it the complete transcript
of their testimony, or just an affidavit?
Mr. Pallone. A transcript of their testimony.
Mr. Griffith. Oh, if it is the complete transcript, then--
Mr. Pallone. All right.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. It will be acceptable.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I want
to clear this up with a question.
Administrator, please explain what, if any, process EPA has
undertaken to individually review grants prior to their
termination, who was involved in that process, and what records
exist documenting the supposed process of this review for each
individual terminated grant, if you could.
Mr. Zeldin. That has been an extensive process.
First, it is important to point out that one of the two
employees you mentioned are actually a career EPA employee, it
is not a Trump political appointee.
When we came in, we started working with the career staff
that was here previously. That includes career staff involved
with oversight, or lack thereof, of the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund.
Mr. Pallone. But Mr. Zeldin--I know, because I am going to
be cut off by the chairman, not that he is, you know, trying to
do it, but the time is there--I would like what records exist
documenting the supposed process of this review for each
individual terminated grant. If you can't give that to me
today, then I would ask that you submit it through the chairman
in the future, as soon as possible. Would that be OK?
Mr. Zeldin. Whatever explanation that you are looking for--
--
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. Zeldin. Again, we have a process----
Mr. Pallone. OK, you said you will provide it.
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Every individual----
Mr. Pallone. Now, let me ask you one more question, and
then I will close.
Do you think that one EPA official deciding in a single day
that nine separate programs with hundreds of grants should be
terminated constitutes an individualized review?
That is what one of the employees said in--to the court. Do
you think that that----
Mr. Zeldin. I was the one who made the decision, and I made
the decision after doing an individual review of every grant
specifically. I personally----
Mr. Pallone. Did not----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Reviewed every single grant that I
canceled.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Now, in the time--in my opinion, you know,
in the time that you have led this agency you have decimated
the critical work that EPA does. You have left communities
across the country scrambling with few answers. Your polluter-
first agenda will have a damaging impact on American workers,
families, and children for years to come. And if this is the
great American comeback, then I pray for the country.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognizes
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Griffith and Ranking Member
Tonko, for holding this important hearing.
And thank you, Administrator Zeldin, for testifying here
today.
The Biden administration's EPA championed the worst
tendencies of bureaucracy, unleashing a slew of burdensome
rules that were often unrealistic or impossible for U.S.
businesses, U.S. farmers, or U.S. communities to address. Now,
with the Trump administration and your leadership, we have seen
a return to a more commonsense approach that seeks to realize
our shared goal of a cleaner and a healthier environment by
prioritizing engagement with all stakeholders and leveraging
something that we recognize to be so important, and that is
American innovation.
We have also seen the benefits of this approach, as the
relief provided from these burdensome regulations has been
accompanied by a multitude of environmental wins.
I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
release detailing these clean environmental actions.
Mr. Griffith. Without objection, so ordered.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20250520/118283/HHRG-119-IF18-20250520-SD817.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Joyce. Administrator Zeldin, how has streamlining the
EPA's workforce and creating a more efficient agency helped you
better accomplish your mission of protecting human health and
the environment simultaneously?
Mr. Zeldin. One of the beauties of how we have approached
this process is that we solicited feedback from people who had
been inside of the agency for a very long time inside of each
of the program offices. And we asked them, ``What do you need
in order to be able to do your job better?''
With regards to all statutory obligations, we inherited so
many backlogs. The pesticides review was something like 14,000.
New chemical review, several hundred. State implementation plan
backlog, small refinery exemption backlog, and the list goes
on. All these backlogs we inherited. We show up on day one, it
is like, ``Hey, here you go.'' That is OK. We don't mind
getting a big mess to fix. We are happy to do it.
So what happens when we have this 14,000 pesticide review
backlog, or the--a 500 or so new chemical backlog? How do we
fix it? So we go to the Office of Chemicals. I speak not just
to the political staff, I speak to the career staff. ``What do
you need?''
There's primarily two needs. One is they need--they could
use more scientists. Great. That is part of the reorg, we get
them more scientists. And two, they need help in updating their
infrastructure. Now, Congress helped with that. It was part of
an anomaly in a CR, $17 million to update the infrastructure.
Thank you. And we are putting it to good use. And we are going
to be able to get down that backlog. With the pesticide review
we have already gotten it down over 2,300 coming into this, and
we are going to keep going.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you for that hard work. I appreciate the
EPA providing a path to regulatory relief for companies
impacted by the EPA's HON rule, which imposed new regulations
on ethylene oxide. As you know, ethylene oxide is critical in
many sectors, including the use of sterilization of medical
equipment. Over 50 percent of medical devices in the United
States utilize ethylene oxide for that sterilization.
When can we expect decisions on the request made under the
relief pathway to ensure companies are not spending millions of
dollars in an effort to comply with the flawed Biden rule?
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Congressman, for raising this, and
we are working to get it done this year. We are doing a lot at
once, and that is OK. I know that it is a lot that is on our
plate, but we are going to get it done.
We received a lot of concerns and, you know, for the sake
of time I--you know, I could either go through some of them or
not. It is up to you, Congressman.
Mr. Joyce. Well, thank you. I look forward to that answer.
Administrator Zeldin, at the start of this month the House
passed my CRA, which would overturn the EPA's rule that granted
a California waiver, allowing them to more effectively utilize
what consumers want. You talked about that in your statement,
listening to what the consumer, what America wants. America
wants to be able to choose what type of engine is under the
hood of their car.
Can you speak on the importance of consumer choice and how
free-market innovation, not unattainable government mandates,
are the most effective way to lower emissions in the auto
industry?
Mr. Zeldin. Congressman, the Trump EPA believes that if you
want to go out and purchase a gas-powered vehicle, you should
be able to go out and purchase a gas-powered vehicle. If you
want to go out and purchase an electric vehicle, you should go
out and be able to purchase an electric vehicle. Consumer
choice is very important.
The ranking member of the full committee made a reference
to clean energy without referencing baseload power and the need
for it as if wind, an intermittent source, is going to be a
substitute for all of these forms of baseload power. So
consumer choice is important, and being realistic is incredibly
important. Common sense is something the American public
demands.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. My time is expired. Thank you for the
realistic, commonsense approach that you are directing the EPA.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator.
Illinois has about 1 million lead pipes, and these are very
dangerous for our communities. It is the second-highest number
of lead pipes in the Nation, and it presents a real threat to
our children, our children at school, our families, our
businesses, and we need help.
And it seems to me that the EPA, who has cut a lot of money
out of things that could go to addressing the lead pipe issue--
and I would hope that when you think about what that really
means, we are talking about very dangerous chemicals that then
get in the water, that get in our children. And I am asking you
if you think this is a serious issue and if there is a way that
the Environmental Protection Agency would take a sense of
responsibility and help us in our State--the second-highest in
the country of lead pipes--to help us create more safety for
our community, for all aspects of our communities.
We need you to take some responsibility with us. We are not
asking just for a handout. We are doing work ourselves. But
isn't there some way that this would be a priority for the
Environmental Protection Agency?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Congresswoman, that is--it is an important
issue, and EPA fulfills all of our statutory obligations. If
there is a desire of Congress to create a new statutory
obligation from EPA, we will make sure that we get it done. We
do offer technical assistance to States on this, and we also
are working with States as it relates to lead replacement.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, with that, then, I am going to keep
your word, I know, and come back to you and talk about what you
can do to make sure that all the families and the children and
the businesses that are suffering now--I look forward to
working with you on that.
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. Now recognizes
the--recognize the gentlelady of Florida, Ms. Lee, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome to you, sir. We appreciate you being with us
today. I would like to start by acknowledging that we
appreciate your commitment to returning the EPA to its intended
and appropriate mission.
You touched on something just a few moments ago that is so
important, and that is that we can both protect the environment
and grow the economy simultaneously. So your commitment and
your vision that the EPA needs to get back to that function and
focus on finding efficiencies, whether it relates to
permitting, application review, or any of the other compliance
standards that have operated as an inhibition to productivity
and economic growth, that you are committed to doing that
responsibly is very important.
Among other things, you have emphasized a return to the
EPA's core statutory responsibilities. Basing regulatory
decisions on sound science is essential, whether the issue is
air, water, or chemicals. We have seen repeated reliance on the
Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, a program that was
not authorized by Congress and has long been criticized for a
lack of transparency and scientific rigor.
Can you speak to how you intend to restore confidence in
EPA chemical assessments and ensure greater transparency for
those who are engaging with the agency?
Mr. Zeldin. Number one, it is important to follow the
science, to follow sound science, to consider all science in
making--to making the best decision possible.
Ms. Lee. Now, one thing you touched on a moment ago that I
think is really important on the subject of Powering the Great
American Comeback and the five pillars, the American energy
dominance, you referenced not just permitting reform but that
one essential component of that was interagency coordination so
that people who are engaged in that process don't go through
years of review only to then get to the end and encounter a
different Government agency. Share with us a little bit more
about how you are working on that, and why you think it is
important.
Mr. Zeldin. There are equities that different agencies have
in a permitting process, and it would be a much better idea
going forward when Congress is considering possible ways to do
it legislatively or agencies are figuring out ways to do it in
the meantime, to work with those who are applying for the
permit in a simultaneous, efficient process.
I have heard from Members of Congress where there is a
company over in Europe that does 70 percent of their business
in China, and they want to bring a multibillion-dollar
investment into the United States. But the reason why they are
not going into that state here in the U.S. is because they feel
like it will take too much time, that years down the road and
after they spend a fortune they may still not get an approval
at the end of the process. And if there is more certainty, less
time, less cost, that decision for that business in Europe will
be to come to bring their dollars here.
It doesn't make sense to me that 20 months down the road,
out of nowhere, you know, Fish and Wildlife might be giving
them a complaint of something that they need to deal with that
you could have just told them a year and a half earlier.
And the same thing on EPA's front. If there is any EPA
equity in permitting reform where we need an applicant to do
something, we don't want to wait 2 years down the road and then
gum up the works. Just be forthcoming with those applying for
the permit out of the gate, and let them know what EPA is going
to need so that they can address it. And that is what we have
been doing with permit applicants all across the country since
I was confirmed.
Ms. Lee. Similarly, one of the things that is of great
interest to many of us here in Congress is ensuring that the
United States does remain the artificial intelligence capital
of the world. I would love to hear more about your perspective
on how the EPA can be part of ensuring that we achieve that
objective.
Mr. Zeldin. For one, it is going to require more baseload
power. It is going--what is interesting, when I was going
through the confirmation process, meeting with Senate
Republicans and Democrats, everyone was agreeing that we need
to make America the AI capital of the world. And at least
privately, everybody was agreeing that we are going to need
more power in order to be able to do that. And I think that
there is a--there is room here for Congress and for the
administration to heed the call of the American public to help
get that investment to win this race. And there are some people
who might be your constituents who might be a bit spooked by
how powerful AI is and what it might become. But if we don't
lean into it, we are going to lose and China will eat our
lunch.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. Now I recognizes
the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being here. I am going to
begin with ``thank you'' because I represent San Diego, and I
want to just thank you for your recent visit to the South Bay
and for your work--your tour of the Tijuana Valley
International Water--Wastewater Treatment Plant. That
contamination issue remains what I believe is one of the
catastrophes, environmentally, of the hemisphere, and we were
so encouraged by your commitment to working on 100 percent
solution. Even today I got your release as if it was written
for me, that you are advancing the timeline from--to get to 35
MGD, million gallons a day, within 100 days. So I can't say
anything but thank you for that. That is really a welcome
thing.
We have all worked really hard to get resources here,
Republicans and Democrats. Democrats, we are all committed, but
I will tell you some of my best advocates were the seven
Republican Navy Seals who had to train in that water. So again,
thank you very much. You have a partner here, and we are happy
to have a partner with you.
I will say, you know, I do--I appreciate the need for
energy here, and I know that that may be Secretary Wright more
than you, but I would just say I think that is all-of-the-above
energy--I don't think it is just oil and gas--to achieve
American energy dominance. And to the extent we do permit
reform, which I am very interested in, I hope we are talking
about all kinds of energy, and we are not selecting out some
things for fast tracking and other things for slow tracking. I
don't think that is what industry wants. I don't think that
serves the country.
But I want to talk to you about something along those lines
that I hope we can agree on, and that is methane. You know, we
had--in 2016 President Obama issued administrative rules to
limit fugitive methane emissions. The Trump administration
repealed them, the first Trump administration. The Biden
administration issued new rules to limit methane emissions, and
now we are looking at a repeal or partial repeal or a total
relook. And I would just suggest to you that that is not good
for the environment, and it is not good for business.
What we are hearing from industry, actually, is they wanted
a partial reconsideration of methane rules that would preserve
the majority of the rule structure. And either--places like
Exxon, Total Energy, Cheniere, AXPC, which represents 60
percent of U.S. production of oil and gas--or gas, they want
strong rules on methane and they want bipartisan and durable
regulation. I think we have to do that with Congress, because
when the Trump administration leaves you are going to have
potentially another administration that takes a whole different
tack.
And what we are hearing again and again is these producers
need certainty. And I know you worked here, I know how
frustrated you must have been from time to time when you
couldn't get engagement from the administration on working out
a rule. So I would suggest to you that if we could come up with
a rule that regulated emissions--it could be emission-specific,
not technology-directed, which the last two Democratic
administrations have put out there--let industry figure out how
to achieve an emissions target, give them an emissions target,
give folks who have a hard time to comply assistance--we tried
to do that in the IRA--give enough time to do it, but put
enforceability in so that everybody is in the tent.
I think we could come up with something that both protects
the environment to the extent we are using oil and gas but also
helps business achieve what you say, unleash energy abundance
or dominance, because they can't do that without certainty. Is
that something that you think we could work together on? I
would just hope that we could do that together.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Congressman, I would be happy to sit down
with you and to be able to hear your concerns and requests. We
are at an early stage of the process that will include a public
comment period. As we are going through the rulemaking, I have
not prejudged outcomes of that rulemaking. If you would like to
sit down at this early part of that reconsideration, I would
love to do it.
Mr. Peters. Well, here is the advantage of legislation, is
we don't have to go through that. We could come up with a deal
within 30 days and put it into legislation and not have to go
through the rulemaking process that takes so long.
And I would just say, too, that to the extent you are going
to--I think you suggested you are going to wholly reconsider
the methane rules quad O and subpart W--the industry has no
idea what that entails, and then there is even more
uncertainty. And they have invested billions of dollars in
compliance. And when Exxon tells you, you know, ``Hey, leave
the rules in place, we would rather have the rules than have
you repeal the rules and, you know, jerk us back and forth
again''--and this is, you know, this is on both parties--maybe
it is better for us to do that here, without the incredible
drag of the regulatory process, which, again, can be reversed
by the next administration.
So I would suggest we--if you want to do the rulemaking,
that is fine. But simultaneously, why don't we see if we can't
come up with a deal that this committee could put before the
full committee and then on the President's desk? Would you be
willing to work on that?
Mr. Zeldin. As far as the legislation piece, I am happy to
work with the committee to the extent that they are asking for
any technical assistance or answers. From the regulatory
standpoint, that is where the agency has the lead. As far as
legislation crafting, that is something for you all to let me
know if there is any way I can assist.
Mr. Peters. We would love your help.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognizes
the vice chairman of this subcommittee, the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this important hearing.
And most of all, thank you to you, Administrator Zeldin. It
is good to see you in this position. I can't express my
appreciation for, I think, bringing this agency back to a sense
of pragmatism and away from ideological endeavors and--because
I think we all want clean air, we want clean water, and we care
about the environment. We care about being good stewards of the
environment. And I look forward to working with you more on
getting us back on track.
One question that is--I have for you important to my
district. You know, being--my district being the hub of many
energy companies, but also many chemical companies and
chemicals, the word ``chemical'' even seems to have a bad
connotation to it these days, but it is vital for our modern
way of life. And we are coming up on review of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, TSCA.
What actions is the agency taking to address this backlog
for reviewing new--for reviewing--sorry--the backlog that--
reviewing under section 5 of TSCA, what actions is the agency
taking to address that backlog and fulfill the obligations to
review new chemical applications within 90 days? This is
something that hasn't happened under the last administration.
Mr. Zeldin. Congressman, there are two key aspects of how
we have attacked this. One, on the personnel side, we want to
and are adding more scientists towards this effort. There is an
ability to get through more of the backlog if we can increase
the bandwidth inside of that office. And the second piece of it
is with technology. It is outdated technology. There is a lot
of new technology, including AI, that we are able to
successfully tap into. You add those pieces, the expanded
bandwidth of personnel plus the advancements in technology, and
we are confident that we are going to be able to tackle the
backlogs that we inherited.
Mr. Crenshaw. I am glad to hear it is a priority. Again,
these companies need some consistency and some understanding of
what they--what kind of timelines they can adhere to.
Related to that question, I think in the past we have seen
some unreasonable assumptions while conducting risk evaluations
under section 6 of TSCA. So that includes failing to
differentiate between different conditions of use for
chemicals, assuming workers don't have appropriate personal
protective equipment, making very, very outlandish assumptions
in order to deny certain chemicals and, you know, despite
existing regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, OSHA, that require PPE. So they would assume
that, you know, this chemical is unsafe because, well, what if
somebody just drank it? Well, I mean, that is an unreasonable
assumption.
So what--you know, what steps is the EPA now taking to
ensure that these risk evaluations for existing chemicals
follow the best available science, properly evaluate risks, and
I think just take common sense into account?
Mr. Zeldin. We have to make sure that the decisions are
tethered to actual science, to be considering the best
available science, and making sure that that process is also
more efficient inside of the agency. Rather than having the
agency in conflict with each other where there is different
opinions and different program offices, to have more
consistency with that process is also key.
Mr. Crenshaw. Yes, we will send you some of those strange
stories that we have heard, too, where just common sense was
thrown out the window, and I think you would be a bit surprised
by it. Thank you for taking that on.
And again, as we work through the reauthorization of user
fees under TSCA, are there additional implementation challenges
for the agency with TSCA in the 2016 Lautenberg Amendment that
the committee should address?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, I would say, as far as durability goes,
any type of challenges, lessons learned that you lived through
in the last administration, while we are addressing it now.
Pendulums swing, and you can write legislation thinking
about where you want this process to be, where things look 5
years down the road or 10 years down the road, and if you have
an opportunity to legislate a fixed based off of a lesson
learned, we shouldn't be inheriting backlogs when we come in.
We should be using the best available science. It should be
tethered to actual science. So we are fixing it right now on
our own at the agency. There could be an opportunity through
legislation to make sure that it is more durable with whoever
would be in charge of the agency in the future.
Mr. Crenshaw. Yes, your feedback on that would be great.
And I am out of time. I yield back, thank you.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognizes
the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is a transformative
program that will leverage private capital to support
community-led projects that reduce pollution, create good-
paying jobs, and lower energy costs. Now, several organizations
applied and were competitively awarded funding to deploy to
these economic development projects, just to have their money
frozen.
You, Mr. Administrator, have made several accusations at
awardees of the fund and former employees at EPA, but EPA's
attorneys have not presented these accusations in court. A
judge in a case brought by an award recipient asked EPA's
lawyer from DOJ--and I am quoting--``Can you proffer to me the
evidence of commission of a violation of Federal criminal law
involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity
violations?''
And any one of those things--and the EPA lawyer responded--
and I am quoting--``I cannot, Your Honor.''
Just last week, The New York Times reported that the
Department of Justice's investigation into the program is
coming up empty, as well, stating that the investigation has,
quote, ``so far failed to find meaningful evidence of
criminality by government officials.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter a recent New
York Times article entitled ``Investigators See No Criminality
by E.P.A. Officials in Case on Biden-Era Grants,'' as well as
the transcript from the Climate United v. Citibank court
hearing into the record.
Mr. Griffith. Is that the full transcript?
Ms. Barragan. It is.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Without objection?
So ordered.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The article appears at the conclusion of the hearing. The court
transcript has been retained in committee files and is included in the
Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20250520/118283/HHRG-119-IF18-20250520-SD817.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Barragan. OK, so I want to know what actual evidence
you have of any fraud or wrongdoing. And I am talking about
actual evidence of fraud or criminality, you know, documents or
statements, hard proof, not just theories or hunches or policy
disagreements.
So Administrator Zeldin, what evidence is there of any
fraud or criminality, if it exists?
And why have you not provided it to us or to the Department
of Justice?
Mr. Zeldin. That is a great question, Congresswoman. So I
will start with a Biden political appointee saying, ``Now it is
how to get the money out as fast as possible before the Trump
administration comes in. It is like we are on the Titanic and
we are throwing gold bars off the edge.''
Ms. Barragan. OK, Mr. Zeldin----
Mr. Zeldin. In 2024, a watchdog organization--
Ms. Barragan [continuing]. I am going to stop you for a
second.
Mr. Zeldin. Congresswoman----
Ms. Barragan. I am going to stop you for a second.
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Do you want me to go through the
evidence or not?
Ms. Barragan. I am going to reclaim my time. You mentioned
gold bars.
Mr. Zeldin. Do you want me to go through the evidence?
Ms. Barragan. You mentioned gold bars. That structure--one
former employee that was secretly recorded, and it was not even
talking about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, is not
evidence of fraud or wrongdoing.
So do you have something else, something better than that
that is actual fraud or criminality?
Mr. Zeldin. So, Congresswoman, I don't know--if you are
going to allow me to go through the list, that is the first----
Ms. Barragan. I am talking about the Greenhouse----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Evidence. The second is in June of
2024----
Ms. Barragan. It is very specific.
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. A watchdog organization revealed
that David Hayes, a Biden administration climate adviser
previously on the board of the Coalition for Green Capital,
rejoined the board as----
Ms. Barragan. Mr. Administrator, did you say the name----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. In 2023----
Ms. Barragan. Hold on. I want to clarify the name. Did you
say the name Jahi Wise? Is that who we are talking about?
Mr. Zeldin. I did not.
Ms. Barragan. What is the name you said?
Mr. Zeldin. David Hayes.
Ms. Barragan. David Hayes. OK. Can you repeat that? I was
trying to get the name.
Mr. Zeldin. OK. I wish you----
Ms. Barragan. The name David Hayes.
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Had about 30 minutes for me to go
through the list.
But in June 2024, a watchdog organization revealed that
David Hayes, a Biden administration climate advisor previously
on the board of Coalition for Green Capital, rejoined the board
in 2023 while the organization was applying for Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund, which it ultimately received.
A March 4, 2025, media article identified a number of
potential conflicts of interest regarding personnel at several
grantees: Beth Bafford, Climate United Fund----
Ms. Barragan. Mr. Zeldin, I am going to reclaim my time,
because I want to make sure that we can have a meaningful
exchange about some of the things that you are citing to.
You just mentioned two examples. Have you or EPA lawyers
actually given that to the court, or used that or cited that as
fraud or criminality?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, first off, the standard----
Ms. Barragan. It is a yes or no.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
Ms. Barragan. Have you--you are a lawyer.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
Ms. Barragan. They have mentioned this? Which hearing was
it at, because I don't see it in the transcript of that
happening in the United Climate conversation. As a matter of
fact, I am going to read to you the court transcript.
``Can you proffer any evidence that there was illegal or
evidence of abuse or fraud, that any of this was improper or
unlawful?''
EPA lawyer: ``I am certainly not suggesting any of that was
illegal or improper.''
OK. Just yesterday, an EPA lawyer at the hearing suggested,
``We are not accusing anybody of fraud.''
Mr. Zeldin. Did you understand----
Ms. Barragan. So----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. That the evidence for EPA----
Ms. Barragan. So----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Is not to establish criminality at
the agency?
Ms. Barragan. Well, you are alleging criminality. You did
so in a Fox News interview, and you said that----
Mr. Zeldin. But do you understand----
Ms. Barragan [continuing]. Is what this Greenhouse
Reduction Fund was.
Mr. Zeldin. In order to----
Ms. Barragan. You shouldn't be doing that if you cannot
proffer the evidence.
Mr. Zeldin. But Congresswoman----
Ms. Barragan. This is not Fox News. We are not going to
just allow you----
Mr. Zeldin. But Congresswoman, you----
Ms. Barragan [continuing]. Just make allegations here
without that evidence.
Mr. Zeldin. Well, if this isn't a media interview, you
should allow me to go through the entire list, rather than just
going through----
Ms. Barragan. Well, fortunately, I only have 5 minutes, and
I don't have time for you to filibuster.
Mr. Zeldin. If you are truly interested in the entire list
of all----
Ms. Barragan. I am asking for very----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. The evidence----
Ms. Barragan [continuing]. Specific fraud----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Cutting me off and allow me to get
through the list.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentlelady yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you, Administrator, for being
here. We are really glad to see you, and thank you, and we are
just delighted to have you in the position you are in, my
friend.
I want to briefly mention a company in my district.
Carbonade USA, a company I have met with that is on the cutting
edge of turning carbon waste and PFAs into usable products,
getting them out of our environment and into products such as
sustainable aviation fuel.
Administrator, I personally delivered a letter to you and--
from this company, and--with some questions surrounding EPA
policies on PFAs, coal ash, et cetera. Can you commit, please,
that you will take a look at this letter?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you very much, and thank you.
And now moving on, under the Biden administration the EPA
received over $100 billion in new supplemental funding through
the IIJA and the IRA, the largest investment in the agency's
history. The funding created or greatly expanded, one or the
other, programs such as environmental justice grants under the
Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, an
office that was immediately tasked with managing a $3 billion
grant portfolio.
In 2023, EPA Inspector General Sean O'Donnell testified
here that the newly created office could be at particular risk
for misspent funds, and that the IRA did not allocate
sufficient oversight funding. Thankfully, President Trump and
yourself are hard at work, clawing back funding and exposing
waste, fraud, and abuse in the system. We cannot thank you
enough for this, and American people cannot thank you enough
for this. We are all taxpayers, regardless of which side of the
aisle you are on. Calling back this waste, fraud, and abuse is
important to all of us.
We have received pushback regarding EPA's right to
terminate many of the grants awarded under the previous
administration, particularly under environmental justice
programs funded by the IRA. Again, I know that litigation about
these decisions is ongoing, but is there anything you would
like to clarify or share with Congress at this point in your
understanding of EPA's authority to terminate these awards?
Mr. Zeldin. We refuse to waste a penny of tax dollars. We
are going to ensure that the zero-tolerance policy is
implemented.
For some of the grants that have been terminated, it is
important to note, as I stated earlier, that we are in the
middle of a fiscal year. So as Congress has appropriated top-
line numbers for different programs, EPA will fulfill our
obligations under the law in making sure that money goes out
that has to go out unless we hear otherwise from Congress as we
are going through that fiscal year. But one thing that we have
zero tolerance for is that there will be zero waste and abuse
of even a penny of your constituents' tax dollars.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Not only do I applaud you for that,
Administrator, but I commit to you that we will back you up in
everything--way we can in that effort. So thank you for that.
As you know, members of this committee have expressed
serious concerns about the previous administration's attempts
to stand up the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, such as giving
billions of dollars to organizations led by Democratic
political allies to further hand out as they see fit.
Initially, the previous administration also decided to use a
financial agent to hold these funds, something that EPA has
never done before.
To your knowledge, has that been done before?
Mr. Zeldin. EPA has never done that before.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Has the way the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund programs been executed or structured made it
more difficult to investigate these programs or to monitor the
use of the funds in these programs?
Mr. Zeldin. Absolutely, $20 billion sent to the bank to
give to 8 pass-through entities. Many of those entities were
brand new. In one case--Power Forward Communities, for example,
received $100 in 2023. They got $2 billion in 2024.
In fact, EPA decided to put into the grant agreement that
they would have 90 days to complete a training called ``How to
Develop a Budget.'' The Biden EPA felt like the recipient
needed to complete a training on how to develop a budget--90
days to complete the training, yet they could start spending
the $2 billion as that timeline was going on, even before they
have learned how to develop a budget, intentionally reduced
oversight in the way that the financial agent agreement was
drafted, the grant agreement, the account control agreement.
And when the money goes through the first pass-through, in many
respects it goes through other pass-throughs, and EPA isn't
even a party to any of those subgrantees.
So we are just starting to scratch the surface. There was a
congresswoman who just asked the question, said, ``What
evidence do you have?'' So we started going through the list,
and they didn't want--I guess the other side of the aisle
doesn't want me to go into any real list, one, two, three,
four.
Do you want me--I mean, how much time do you have? Because
if you want to yield a full 20 minutes, I am happy to go
through all the specifics, and we are right here going through
more. And I appreciate you asking, Congressman.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Well, and thank you again,
Administrator, for being here today, and thank you for your
work, and know that the American people support you and
appreciate all of your efforts at the EPA. Thank you, my
friend.
And I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here today.
You know, the Energy Star program is a popular program. It
is there to make sure that we have energy efficiency
certifications for dishwashers, for refrigerators, dryers, and
home appliances. It has been around since 1992. You and I are
in our mid-forties, so you were probably an early teenager in
Long Island when this was coming out, and a lot of our parents
over the years were able to buy those appliances, and then now
we get to do that. It saved about 5 trillion kilowatt hours of
electricity, about 500 billion in energy costs, and achieved 4
billion metric tons of greenhouse gas reductions.
This is merely providing info for consumers and encourages
innovation. But it is not a mandate, right?
And we have--I have read some articles from the New York
Times and others that the EPA plans to shut down this program.
Is this true? Do you--is it your intention to ask Congress to
shut down this program?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, Congress never created the program, so
it--as far as the future of the program, you know, I start
thinking of a program like LEED, and there's other examples of
programs that are run outside of government. This program is an
example of one that can be run outside of the government, and I
have actually had multiple entities reach out to EPA over the
course of the last few weeks because they want to take over
Energy Star, which is a program that requires a big staff, a
big taxpayer-funded staff, and a whole lot of tax dollars, a
lot of tax dollars.
Mr. Soto. Mr. Secretary, have you proposed any rulemaking
to try to adjust this program yet, or do you have any drafts of
that, of what your proposal would look like?
Mr. Zeldin. It doesn't require rulemaking.
Mr. Soto. OK. So you believe you could do it just by an
administrative order, then?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, again, Congress--this is not a statutory
obligation set by Congress.
Mr. Soto. And then, you know, you served here for 8 well.
So when we are talking about funds like the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund, let's take you at your word. Let's say there
are programs and funds that you want to claw back to examine
and look at to make sure that tax dollars are being spent well.
There is a distinct possibility those programs are going to be
around for the next couple of years and not actually pulled out
under this reconciliation package.
So I am trying to understand. What do you think the full
extent of your power is to pull these back before it becomes
impoundment, before it becomes unlawful? Can you give this
committee some idea of what you intend over this next couple
months to a year? When does it become impoundment and unlawful,
versus reviewing programs that have already been funded by
Congress?
Mr. Zeldin. There are programs appropriated by Congress. We
are in the middle of the fiscal year, and we are going to get
money out that we are required to get out.
Mr. Soto. And so--and you understand you have the power to
be able to propose a budget, right? And if you want to cut
programs, isn't that the proper way to do that, to--in your
skinny budget and then in other budgets--like, you had proposed
initially a 55 percent cut in the EPA budget. Isn't that the
proper way to try to cut programs as you are reviewing to make
sure money is being spent well?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, if we are--and here, we are here talking
about the fiscal year 2026 budget. If it is something with
regards to the current fiscal year, it wouldn't be part of the
skinny budget for next year.
Mr. Soto. I understand, but we are talking about--I am
trying to understand your role as you see it, as Secretary, of
where you can work with Congress on this, rather than doing
things unilaterally, which you know from being here for many
years is not the way we are supposed to do things.
You were a member of the Climate Solutions Caucus when you
were here in Congress, and that was a bipartisan group that
came together to try to develop bipartisan ways to deal with
climate change. So I just want to make sure we are still on the
same page here. Do you believe that climate change exists, and
that it is human-caused, and that we have some obligation to do
some things about it in a bipartisan fashion?
Mr. Zeldin. Humans have contributed to it, but humans are
not the only cause of it. Climate change has been around for a
very long time, including preindustrialization. You could go
back looking thousands, tens of thousands of years, and you
will have the Earth at different temperatures.
Mr. Soto. I understand, Mr. Secretary. So do we have an
obligation to do something about the human-caused parts of it
that you just recognized occurs?
Mr. Zeldin. I think that there are individual
responsibilities and collective responsibilities to be good
stewards of the environment.
Mr. Soto. And I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, it is nice to see you again. I am glad
to hear you got accolades for being a very well-versed lawyer
and having spent 8 years here. I am surprised you would even
set foot on this place again.
But listen, if you would like, Mr. Administrator, I can
give you time to go back through that list where she was
asking, actually, for some of those. Would you like to
reiterate those for us?
Mr. Zeldin. Sure. Thank you, Congressman. And this is one
of the things that might not come as a shocker to you, but not
everything the New York Times says is always true.
Mr. Weber. Say it isn't so.
Mr. Zeldin. So, you know, we have seen from the New York
Times, Washington Post, Politico, they will write a story and
they will say that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing,
anything wrong with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. No
evidence?
We have expressed concern with regards to self-dealing and
conflicts of interest, unqualified recipients, and reduced
oversight. I started to get into some of the examples of self-
dealing and conflicts of interest, which--by the way, the list
is long of the leadership of a lot of these NGOs as former
Biden and Obama officials, including prominent Democratic
donors.
We have individuals who are serving in leadership
capacities helping to create these programs, giving it to their
former employers in some of the examples.
A government reviewer for Justice Climate Fund awarded $940
million, noting that only 3 of the nonprofit's 12 board members
are independent from the organization and its coalition
members. No mention of conflict of interest like if a family
member benefitted from an entity receiving greenhouse gas
reduction funding through the GCF.
Unqualified recipients. Power Forward Communities had
reported a total of $100, even--in 2023. They get 2 billion in
2024.
CGC expended only 1.42 million in 2023 before receiving a
$5 billion award.
Earlier we were talking to the chairman about Appalachian
Community Capital receiving $500 million, and they never
managed anywhere near that much money.
Concerns about the lack of oversight. You can ask me all
sorts of basic questions about where the money goes once it
goes to those eight prime recipients, and I should have an
answer, but we don't.
As was pointed out with one of your colleagues, it is the
first time that EPA is using a financial agent agreement in
connection with one of these programs, the first time,
actually, that it was ever used as a nonexchange grant program
administered by the Federal Government across all agencies.
Last-minute modifications to the grant agreement in ACA
appeared intentional to reduce oversight, including amending
the Account Control Agreement January 13th of 2025, just one
week before the inauguration. Those amendments limited EPA's
contractual rights to terminate for misconduct, short of a
Federal crime, and limited EPA's contractual rights to assert
exclusive control over funds in the Citibank accounts.
EPA determined that the amendments left EPA with
insufficient authority to retain control of funds short of
outright termination. Former EPA IG testifying to this
subcommittee says the EPA's ``pace of spending GGRF funds
escalates not only the risk for fraud, but also the urgency for
oversight.'' He said that the EPA's OIG would need to hire
oversight professionals with specialized expertise to conduct
sufficient oversight regarding the NCIF grants, in particular,
not only to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, but also to ensure
that the IRA funds deliver the real environmental and human
health benefits the public is paying for.
EPA's Acting IG, Nicole Murley, testified to the House
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The EPA was
particularly concerned the GGRF program, including because the
grant structure makes providing effective oversight
challenging, and that EPA is concerned that there will be
critical gaps in monitoring, accountability, and compliance in
the GGRF.
Now, here is the thing. We are just scratching the surface.
And I see your time is now running short, and I appreciate you
allowing me to spend many minutes, but here is the catch. If
you had 20 minutes that you were yielding to me right now, I
would just keep going through the list and, no matter how much
further down that list we get, the New York Times and the
Washington Post and Congressional Democrats will dig in even
deeper, saying there is no evidence of anything.
The more time that you all give me to go further down the
list, the more dug-in Democrats will say with their hands and
their ears saying there is no evidence of any misconduct, there
is no evidence of any way that there is anything wrong with any
of this.
But we have a zero-tolerance policy for any waste and
abuse, and we are not going to apologize.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Administrator, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman. And so the sky is falling. So we appreciate you,
Administrator.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Auchincloss, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairman.
Welcome back, Administrator. I want to talk about PFAS.
When you were a Member here, you were on the PFAS Action Force,
yes? And I believe you voted for PFAS legislation, yes?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Auchincloss. My inclination is to think that is because
you represent--you represented New York. And like
Massachusetts, which I represent, both States have a pretty
significant PFAS challenge: contaminated soil, contaminated
water. You have contaminated DoD site in Calverton, right,
former--in your former district, which I know you advocated
for, and advocated to reduce PFAS levels there. So I was
hopeful, and remain hopeful, that you can be a partner on PFAS
remediation as Administrator.
Last week you announced that the EPA would rescind the
drinking water standard for four PFAS chemicals and extend the
compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS by an additional 2 years,
giving water systems 7 years to comply. I know you had
indicated in previous testimony that for those two--that for
PFOA and PFOS--you may actually consider lowering it from 4 to
2 parts per trillion, yes?
Mr. Zeldin. For PFOA and PFOS we are maintaining the 4
parts per trillion MCL.
Mr. Auchincloss. So you won't consider lowering it to 2?
Mr. Zeldin. With regards to the other four, we are going to
be going through a rulemaking where, at the end of that
process, that number will be determined. It could be 4----
Mr. Auchincloss. Right----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. It could be 2, it could be
something else.
Mr. Auchincloss. Not the other four. I am talking about the
two, PFOA and PFOs. I am just asking because you had said in
previous testimony you could potentially bring it down to 2,
but it sounds like you are going to keep it at 4. OK, extending
the timeline to 7 years.
So now let's talk about the other four PFAS chemicals:
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and then the hazard index mixture. So the
EPA has its own science as well as up-to-date peer-reviewed
science that says that these four PFAS have been linked to
serious human health harms, even at very low levels. Why,
instead of just retaining the MCLs for those four PFAS in
accordance with the no-backsliding provision, why would you
just rescind it?
Mr. Zeldin. One of the things that I understand as
Administrator of EPA is that every single decision that I will
ever make I will probably get sued for, whether I say yes or no
on anything. I have inherited some litigation, as well,
including litigation on that rule that was finalized before I
got there. There was a procedural error in the way in which
they moved through the process on those four. I inherited that
procedural error, and I am going to fix it.
Mr. Auchincloss. All right, so just reclaiming my time,
then, so you are not contesting that there is good science that
those four PFAS that you rescinded the rule for had been linked
to serious human health harms. What you are asserting is that
there are procedural errors under the APA?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
Mr. Auchincloss. Under the APA. That means that you have to
rescind--but you are committing that you are going to reissue a
rule for those four PFAS.
Mr. Zeldin. We are going to go through the rulemaking
process on those four.
Mr. Auchincloss. I see. OK. Moving towards the budgeting
aspect of this, the skinny budget proposal has a 90 percent
reduction for the drinking water State revolving fund. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
Mr. Auchincloss. How is New York and the 1.3 million New
Yorkers who have PFAS in their water above the MCLs by the
former rule--how are they going to get water treatment plants
with a 90 percent cut? That is the primary funding mechanism
for water infrastructure.
Mr. Zeldin. So, great news, and it is something that
Members of Congress who care about this issue would be very
happy to hear. I would say the right word would be
``inundated'' of how many--how much outreach I have received
over the course of the last few months from companies that have
acquired new technology that they are very proud of in ways to
far more efficiently than ever before be able to remove PFAS.
Mr. Auchincloss. Can you name those new technologies?
Because I have been doing this research, as well, and all of it
costs money. So you are talking about, like, carbon filters?
You are talking about electrochemical----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Companies, and I am happy to share
with this committee the names of whoever has reached out to----
Mr. Auchincloss. Just give me a broad sense--just, like,
the technology broadly. Like, give me an example of a
technology that is going to be cheaper, faster, better that is
not going to require money to update the water treatment
facilities.
Mr. Zeldin. It is going to cause a--it would require a
small fraction, but we are in the process--I am not going to--
--
Mr. Auchincloss. Can you name a technology, though?
Mr. Zeldin. What is that?
Mr. Auchincloss. Just the technology, broadly.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes. So these are ideas that are being pitched
that we are vetting right now. And I am not going to endorse
any of it, but I would say that it is important to us----
Mr. Auchincloss. You don't have to endorse it.
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. And the agency----
Mr. Auchincloss. Just name a technology that you have heard
about.
Mr. Zeldin. It is a treatment that breaks down the forever
chemicals so that it is no longer a forever chemical. It is a
treatment of the water that breaks down the chemical.
Mr. Auchincloss. If you are talking about electrochemical
oxidation, you can do that for the very, very condensed
landfill, but you can't do that at the scale of municipal water
treatment facilities. It is way too diffuse. If that is what
you are talking about, that is not the answer, which is why I
am asking about other technologies, which you don't seem to be
able to name.
I am going to yield back my time.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes
of questioning.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
Thank you, Administrator Zeldin. Thanks for being back here
amongst your colleagues. We welcome you back here to the--to
Capitol Hill, and so happy you are in the position you are.
Last night you talked about new technologies moving
forward. We had--last night we had a rule--a CR, Congressional
Review Act that--before Rules, and it was if you are a major
source and you had new technology or new operational procedures
that lowered your standard, your emissions, then you could go
into the area source. And we were accused of doing everything,
of giving kids asthma and things like that, which is
unfortunate, because what we want to do is we see new
technology coming and we see the opportunities for people to
improve, and that is what we want.
And I went to college in your home State, and right down
the river from the ranking member. And when I was in the Hudson
River in the 1980s, you couldn't swim in it--at least around 50
miles up from Manhattan at West Point--because it was
contaminated. And the first time I remember hearing of the HHS
Secretary--of course I had heard of his family--was he was the
leader of Clean Up the Hudson River, the Riverkeepers, which
was a group that I kind of followed because I was dismayed that
such a beautiful piece of our country was in the position it
was in because of industry. And we all agree, and there is
nobody saying anywhere on our side of the aisle--and you are in
the administration--that those types of things absolutely
cannot happen. And so we are all there.
So now we are getting on to things you are trying to fix,
where the small regulatory--it seems like small regulatory--
that costs a fortune that you were talking about with PFAS and
some other things we are seeing with our water plants.
But getting back to the Greenhouse Gas Fund, could you kind
of just walk us through again? There was at least one, if not
many, agents, nonprofit, that essentially was formed after the
IRA, had $100 in his checking account, got $2,000--I mean $2
billion grant. So it seems like,``Here is the money, go form
your thing,'' and get--instead of trying to invest, they talk
about investing in known technologies to improve the
environment. People were creating businesses who were
politically connected to chase the money.
Could you talk about--you said if you had 20 minutes. You
have, like, 2:45 if you want to talk more about it.
Mr. Zeldin. Great, Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity
to be able to continue to go through the list, and I would
encourage anyone at home who doesn't want to hear it to put
their finger in their ear, because we will keep going through
specific examples that the New York Times says doesn't exist.
An EPA panel--this is the Biden EPA--the Biden EPA panel,
reviewing the application for Power Forward Communities--that
is the one that you referenced, they received $100 in 2023, and
then they get 2 billion in 2024. The Biden EPA panel was
questioning the salaries it planned to pay its executives, the
salary structure for top officers. This is a quote from the
Biden EPA: ``The salary structure for top officers seems high
for a nonprofit. Wondering if this could be a problem with
public perception,'' the reviewer noted.
Another comment on a part of Power Forward Community's----
Mr. Guthrie. I hate to interrupt you, Secretary--I mean
Administrator. Do you know what the top salary was?
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you for asking.
Another comment, which was part of the application, a
reviewer writes, ``For such an important section, it was pithy,
though not always in a good way. Many of the costs were just
presented, but little or no explanation as to why they are
reasonable. I would have preferred they omitted the travel
discussion, explained why they need to pay the CEO $800,000,
growing to $948,000 in year 7, and chief operating--operations
officer $455,000 per year. It was reported that 22 of Power
Forward Communities' employees were slated to earn more than
$150,000.''
Reviewers also criticized Power Forward Communities--this
is the Biden EPA. The Biden EPA criticized Power Forward
Communities for its lack of planning for ``proactive
oversight.'' So the Biden EPA is giving this entity that made
$100 in 2023, $2 billion in 2024. And the Biden EPA is
concerned that this entity isn't going to be able to conduct
proper oversight. That is just an example of going down the
list a bit more on one of the eight NGOs.
Mr. Guthrie. So the group didn't exist. They came into
being in 2023, had $100 in their checking account, gets a $2
billion grant, and the CEO gets almost $900,000, and over a
year will get over $900,000.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Chairman.
Mr. Guthrie. That is what your testimony is today.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Chairman.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
Well, we have about 6 seconds left, so I will yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being here. I
represent the State of Louisiana, a State that knows intimately
the cost of inaction and indifference when it comes to
environmental protection. In Louisiana the environment is not
some abstract policy issue, it is a matter of life and death,
survival and displacement, health and chronic illness.
You mentioned in your opening statement--or in one of your
statements, and I really appreciate it. I want to zero in on
the fact that you said that you believe in coexistence, and
ensuring that industry and healthy communities are able to work
together. It is a message that I often send. But I also add to
that the importance of making sure for industry to ever
survive, you have to have healthy communities. Would you agree
with that?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. We have to make sure that
individuals have clean water, clean air, and they are being
listened to because they are the ones who are frontline. Would
you agree with that, as well?
Mr. Zeldin. Of course.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And the past few years, under the
previous administration, the previous Administrator took my
invitation seriously and visited with me in Louisiana to meet
with industry and individuals, to meet with people like Rise
St. James, to meet with people like the Bucket Brigade, to meet
with communities like the Concerned Citizens for a Better St.
John, and industry, as well. Sir, would you be willing to
accept such an invitation to work closely, to listen, and to be
a part of solutions?
Mr. Zeldin. I love any good excuse to come to Louisiana.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I will take you up on it. We got
lots more, too, so thank you. Thank you very much. That is
important, because we need to demonstrate not just in word but
also in deed that coexistence begins with and is paramount with
having safe communities, because industry can't survive if it
doesn't have people to work in these facilities. So I thank you
for that.
I want to jump to just--let's talk a little bit about
resilience and disaster preparedness, specifically the grant
your agency canceled that was designed to increase in my
district resiliency, flooding, and extreme heat. One such was
the community organization Stay Ready NOLA, for creating a
solar-powered resilience facility in New Orleans to house
linemen and other first responders in the aftermath of
hurricanes. It would also provide the surrounding communities a
safe place to cool off, charge their phones, and receive
supplies.
This project is a direct response to lessons learned from
Hurricane Ida in 2021, where parts of my district lost power
for several weeks. The deaths that occurred from Hurricane Ida
were not just because of flooding or storm surge, but the
elderly and sick residents overheating without power, without
air conditioning during the scorching summer days in following
the storm.
Stay Ready NOLA executive director Neil Morris is here
today. I want to take a moment to recognize him and the
incredible work that he does in our community to build this
vital facility.
When these grants were pulled, you didn't just cancel
paperwork, you undermined lifesaving mitigation efforts in
vulnerable communities. Dillard University is another one of
those perfect examples of an HBCU that had funding to retrofit
its facilities to serve as community resilience hubs during
emergencies--was also terminated. Mr. Administrator, do you
commit to restoring these grants after review?
Mr. Zeldin. So--well, that commitment I am not going to
make. However, I am happy to work with you to be able to
identify any portion of the grant where there would be
alignment with the administration. We can work together, our
teams can work together.
As far as the entire grant, one of the differences of
opinion in administration priorities and policies from the
Biden administration to the Trump administration is that we
believe that money should get spent--if there is a dollar to
get spent in the name of remediating an environmental issue,
the dollar should get spent on directly remediating the
environmental issue, not giving money to----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. OK, I hate to cut you off. I got
36 seconds. I want to ask you one final question.
Your office's termination letter to Stay Ready NOLA and
their project to build a hub for first responders stated,
``Objectives of the awards are no longer consistent with EPA
funding priorities.'' How is assisting linemen and other--
providing others--providing lifesaving services in the
aftermath of a natural disaster no longer consistent with your
agency's priority?
Mr. Zeldin. So the difference is that the--at the Trump EPA
we do not agree with spending the money by giving it--a pass-
through grant to an entity where even a portion of the funding
is used to prop up an NGO as opposed to spending it on directly
remediating an environmental issue.
So, again, I am happy to sit down with you. I know that
there are a number of grants----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Yes, sir.
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. On top of just the two that you
referenced inside of your district. I am happy to go through
the entire list with you.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I would love to visit with you.
Thank you for being here today. And I am going to accept your
offer to come to Louisiana to visit with these stakeholders to
talk about these individual grants, whether it is Dillard
University or any other that is out there that have been so
critically important to the people of Louisiana, both
Republican and Democrat and the like.
Environmental issues, environmental justice, environmental
concerns don't have color, don't have race, don't have party.
They only have people. So thank you very much.
And my time is up, and I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentlelady from Iowa, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, for her 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Guthrie and Ranking
Member Tonko, for holding this important hearing today. And I
also want to thank Administrator Zeldin for appearing before
the subcommittee.
Wonderful to see you again, sir.
The EPA under past administrations took a one-size-fits-all
approach that buried farmers, energy producers, and small
businesses in red tape. The result was not necessarily better
environmental outcomes but delayed projects, increased costs
for consumers, and real harm to rural communities like those in
Iowa.
This administration has rightly set a new tone focused on
cutting unnecessary regulations, streamlining permitting
processes, and rolling back out-of-touch, impractical,
unworkable, and expensive climate mandates that ignored energy
demand and local economic realities.
As we consider the EPA's budget, I want to see a shift in
focus, fewer dollars spent on expanding Federal control and
more on empowering local solutions, science-based policy, and
regulatory certainty. That is how we deliver real environmental
progress without sacrificing economic opportunity.
Your Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative
emphasizes permitting reform as a key pillar. Given the lengthy
environmental reviews that have delayed critical infrastructure
projects across the country, what specific steps is EPA taking
to streamline permitting processes while maintaining
appropriate environmental safeguards?
Mr. Zeldin. There are some in government who are trying to
get to the answer of no, looking for any excuse to say no and
to gum up the works. We want to be able to get to yes. We want
to be able to work with people and companies out there, want--
that want to invest in communities, that want to invest in the
American economy.
Right now, for example, in Arizona, Taiwan Semiconductors
are trying to get a permit through to make a major investment
inside of Maricopa County. When I meet with elected officials
in Arizona, ranging from the Democrat Governor or the two
Democratic Senators or Republican Members of the House, it
doesn't matter what side of the aisle you are on. Their ask of
EPA is that we work with them and TSMC to try to get that
approval done as quickly as possible.
And there are so many examples all across the entire map
where there were applications that were stalled that we have
been able to implement permitting reform without waiting for a
bill from Congress. Just do it ourselves. Where we were gumming
up the works, we are no longer gumming up the works.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. Biofuel production helps us
meet our growing energy needs, supports our farmers and it
creates, most importantly, American jobs with American-made
energy and supports our America First agenda, helping to create
manufacturing jobs that can't be offshored.
The proposed 2026 Renewable Volume Obligation, or RVO rule,
was due last November and just went to OMB last week. Every day
of delay creates unnecessary uncertainty for Iowa's farmers,
biofuel producers, and workers. Industry and ag leaders have
asked for at least 5.25 billion gallons for biomass-based
diesel and 15 billion gallons for ethanol. We can produce it,
we can make it homegrown, and it fits in with energy dominance.
When do you expect the EPA to release the proposed RVO
rulemaking?
Mr. Zeldin. Very soon.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Great, thank you. We look forward to
that.
Iowa leads in E15 retail availability, yet we still face
unnecessary barriers each summer due to the outdated volatility
rules. Consumers lose access to lower-cost, cleaner-burning
fuel just when gas prices rise. Can you provide a timeline for
EPA's final action to ensure permanent, year-round E15 access
nationwide, voluntary?
And will you support this fix?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, Congress almost passed this last
December. That is the most durable, simplest way to answer your
question and to resolve it.
To leave it to EPA, you have all sorts of different asks
and steps in the process as you go throughout the entire year.
We have made a number of decisions since I was confirmed at the
end of January, heeding the asks from you and your colleagues
in Congress as well as the Governors.
We are currently--we are in the middle of the summer
driving season, where the emergency waiver that was issued
before May 1 is something that we have to revisit every 3 weeks
or so, and I just did that again yesterday. And that process is
not as simple. It is not as quick, and it is going to require
more bandwidth for you, it is going to require more bandwidth
for me at the agency until and unless there is any type of
statutory change.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. OK, Mr. Chair, I have some questions
that I am going to submit for the record on the Clean Power
Plan 2.0 and on WOTUS and small refinery exemptions that I will
be submitting for the record.
And I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields
back. I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Menendez, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.
As many others have emphasized today, the EPA's main
purpose as established by Congress is to protect the
environment and public health. Today I want to talk to you
about the importance of managing contaminated sites.
As you may know, New Jersey's industrial legacy presents
environmental challenges in our communities. That is why the
Brownfields Program is particularly important in my district.
Just a few weeks ago, this committee held a bipartisan hearing
on its successes, and Mayor Bollwage from the City of Elizabeth
testified to the program's importance. Elizabeth leveraged
Brownfields funding to convert formerly contaminated sites into
affordable housing and other projects that enhance community
well-being and economic development.
And we heard from Republican witnesses at that hearing that
this program has a significant return on investment. For every
Federal dollar spent there is an average $20 return in economic
activity. So we are really proud of the work that Elizabeth has
done, and all my colleagues here have success stories from
their districts, as well.
So Mr. Zeldin, yes or no, given the success of and
bipartisan support for the Brownfields Program, can you commit
to this committee that it will not be impacted by budget cuts?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, ultimately, the funding level is going to
be something that is decided between Congress and the
administration. The Brownfields Program, as you point out, is a
very amazing, great, successful program that should be a source
of strong bipartisan support and pride. And the success stories
all across America are overwhelming.
Mr. Menendez. Correct, and it is a bipartisan success story
that, as we heard in that hearing, so many good projects across
the country. So funding is part one.
Part two--again, yes or no--can you commit to me that the
program staff will be maintained, as it is a bipartisan
priority for this committee?
Mr. Zeldin. You said the program staff?
Mr. Menendez. That is correct.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, the--it is important to make sure that the
Brownfields Program is fully staffed to be able to
extraordinarily accomplish its mission.
Mr. Menendez. OK. And while I hope that is true, I am
concerned about some recent EPA actions. My office has heard
from Groundwork Elizabeth, a nonprofit promoting environmental
resilience, education, and youth leadership in Elizabeth, that
a $500,000 Brownfields grant was paused without clarity on when
it--when that--it might be reinstated. That was a job training
grant to help students access stable, good-paying environmental
work while also giving back to their community.
And we have heard numerous stories about grant
cancellations at other EPA programs in addition to the ongoing
layoffs of staff at EPA who provide technical assistance across
EPA programs.
So while we are addressing industrial pollution, I would
like to discuss the Superfund program. There are over 100 of
those sites in New Jersey, including 6 in the district that I
represent. My constituents in the Ironbound section of Newark
live near a former factory that manufactured 700,000 gallons of
Agent Orange, and reportedly dumped bad batches directly into
the Passaic River. Ensuring that sites like this one are
robustly monitored, managed, and remediated is integral to the
well-being of families in my district and a priority for me and
the people that I represent. That is why I am profoundly
concerned that you are proposing to cut Superfund's budget by
over $250 million.
So my question to you is, for a family that lives in the
Ironbound section and in close proximity to a Superfund site,
what would you say to a mother who is concerned for her
family's health and well-being to justify why you are cutting
funding that could protect her children from carcinogens and
other health risks associated with contaminated sites?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, with regards to Superfund, which is
another very successful, important program, I have had the
opportunity to visit Superfund sites inside of New Jersey since
becoming Administrator, and I look forward to coming back.
Our goal is to be able to successfully delist all or parts
of these sites. As it relates to your question, Congress
imposed large taxes in the IIJA and the IRA to finance the
Superfund program. As it says inside of the skinny budget,
between these 1.6 billion in taxes estimated to be available in
2026 and litigation recoveries from responsible parties, that
is why there is a need for an additional funding for the
Superfund cleanup, as reflected in the skinny budget.
Mr. Menendez. Correct, and--but that--those funds were
intended to supplement and accelerate Superfund remediation,
right?
Because what I always talk about is today there are
families living near these Superfund sites, right, and they
don't have the luxury of waiting. And so we need to do this
work as quickly as possible. But between the funding cuts and
staffing cuts, we are concerned that the work is not going to
get done in a timely manner or as fast as it could if we had a
whole-of-government approach. And that is why I really hope
that the EPA will continue to partner with Congress so we can
make sure that all of our communities have the healthy outcomes
that they deserve.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I thank him for
being efficient with his time. We are running out of it. And I
now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5
minutes.
And I will remind everybody that the witness has to leave
at approximately 12:30, so we are trying to hurry through.
Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator Zeldin, for being here.
I am, like some of my colleagues, concerned about some of
the decisions that the EPA has made, but I am looking at it
from a little different perspective. For instance, there was a
rule on lime dust emissions that was put forward by the EPA
last summer. Even though their own--EPA's own scientific
assessment said that emissions from lime manufacturing industry
were already acceptable with an ample margin of safety, this
rule would have--would impose $2 billion on the industry, which
gets passed on in multiple ways. Most people think of lime in
the context of the manufacturer of cement products, but it is
also used to enhance soil quality. There are a number of other
uses for it.
Administrator Zeldin, are--is the EPA now taking a look at
some of these rules that I think have gone outside of what is
necessary, and imposing an unnecessary cost on our economy and
on people?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Congressman. Yes, we have received various
concerns regarding NESHAPs, including regulations not squarely
grounded in the statutory authority compliance costly to
industry deadlines for compliance with some requirements might
be too short. Some of the rules may disproportionately impact
small businesses.
Questions exist regarding the science underlying certain
standards. Test data used in calculating standards may not
fully reflect variability and/or real-world operations.
Questions exist regarding the appropriateness of setting
certain technology-based standards rather than health-based
standards. And questions exist regarding the appropriateness of
setting certain numeric emissions limits rather than work
practice standards.
Mr. Palmer. I am glad you mentioned the technology-based
standards, because it is--also involves the particulate matter
standards.
Now, some of the things that EPA has imposed on people
require what I jokingly refer to as black box technology. And
people say, ``Well, what is in the box?'' Nothing. That
technology doesn't exist yet. And it imposes enormous costs on
the economy but also on city governments that gets passed on to
consumers. So I am hoping that the EPA will take a more
scientific approach to some of these rules, and--but also go
back and look at the science behind some of the rules that have
been imposed by the past administration and possibly consider
repealing those.
There is something else that I want to talk with you about
that I think is really critical right now, and that is our
ability to have access to rare earth elements. China controls
94 percent of the rare earth refining. They have the largest
deposit of rare earth elements in the world. The United States,
I think, is seventh on that list. And we are finding ourselves
in a position where there is not a single major refinery for
rare earth elements in the Western Hemisphere. There's only
nine in the world. Eight are in China, one is in Malaysia.
I think that we are at a point where we are going to have
to look at permitting, look at the regulations in order for the
United States to catch up, to secure the supply chain that we
need. And there are multiple opportunities to do this. You can
find rare earth elements in coal ash, you can find them in
things like discarded hard drives. But we need to be able to
mine, process, and refine our own rare earth element supply
because it is not just important for our economy, it is
important for our national security. I would like your comments
on that.
Mr. Zeldin. Congressman, this is one of the issues that are
on the plate, the priority list, for the National Energy
Dominance Council. EPA has some equities. The Department of the
Interior has equities. The Department of Energy has equities,
the Department of Commerce.
There is an opportunity here for us to be able to not just
benefit economically, but I would also look at it as a matter
of national security for us not to have to rely on other
nations at a moment where it would matter most in the future to
make sure that we are prepared here domestically. So I think it
is an important--it is a very important priority for the
National Energy Dominance Council and for the Trump
administration at large.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I am very grateful to have you in the
position that you are in, Administrator Zeldin.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Landsman, for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Landsman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to jump into
waste, fraud, and abuse. It is very important to you, yes?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
Mr. Landsman. OK. The Government Accountability Office lays
out a whole host of changes that would get at waste, fraud, and
abuse, and I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the
GAO reports for the EPA.
Mr. Griffith. Do you have a date on it, or----
Mr. Landsman. I think----
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. All of them?
Mr. Landsman. Yes, I think we are submitting all of the
reports.
Mr. Griffith. All right. If you can, give me the specific
reports, because I think there is thousands of GAO reports over
the years on the EPA. But just give me the date, and we will--
--
Mr. Landsman. Yes, we will get you the dates.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you.
Mr. Landsman. We went back and forth, but I think it was--
--
Mr. Griffith. OK, that is fine.
Mr. Landsman. No problem.
Mr. Griffith. Give us the date, so we can get that into the
record properly.
Without objection.
Mr. Landsman. To the Chair's point, there are so many, and
so I am going to mention a few: strengthen controls over the
EPA Administrators and associates' travel--obviously, there is
the possibility--in fact, they found waste, fraud, and abuse
there; implement controls to prevent unauthorized access to the
EPA facilities; implement comprehensive fraud risk management
framework.
Have all of the GAO report recommendations on waste, fraud,
and abuse been implemented?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, the ones that you are referencing I have
had meetings on all. We have been addressing all. For example,
when we were doing the COVID-era return to work inside of our
headquarters here in DC, it was easier to know who was coming
into the building because they have to badge in. But in
regions, there are regional offices where they didn't have to
badge in or, in some cases, one person is badging in on an
elevator and there's seven other people on the elevator. So we
have been working on addressing that with all the regional
offices.
Travel contracts, vending, real estate consolidation----
Mr. Landsman. But all the GAO report--the recommendations
you have implemented, yes or no?
Mr. Zeldin. As the Chair points out--pointed out that there
is--that there are a lot of reports, I would--we have been
implementing a ton.
Mr. Landsman. It is just--it is so important to me because
the GAO reports focus entirely on waste, fraud, and abuse, and
it is a huge issue for you, it is a huge issue for me, and my
frustration has been why the focus hasn't been at least
significantly on the GAO reports.
To that end, are you currently under investigation by the
GAO, is the EPA?
Mr. Zeldin. I am not aware of an investigation by the GAO.
Mr. Landsman. The GAO is currently investigating the EPA.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, I--when you say ``investigating,'' what
are you referencing?
Mr. Landsman. The GAO has opened up an investigation on the
EPA that was public. That is my understanding. But you are
saying no?
Mr. Zeldin. No, no, I am not aware of an investigation----
Mr. Landsman. OK, the--
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. By the GAO.
Mr. Landsman. The $5 billion that you have cut from the
EPA, 55 percent, that is not included in GAO reporting,
correct?
Mr. Zeldin. This is a--we are talking about a fiscal year
2026 number that is now going through the legislative process.
I wouldn't anticipate that that would be something GAO would be
looking at, but I can't speak for GAO.
Mr. Landsman. Yes. So again, the GAO focuses on waste,
fraud, and abuse. The $5 billion cut in the EPA does not go
under that category.
We have in southwest Ohio the second-largest research and
development facility. The administration has proposed cutting
75 percent of ORD, putting at risk about 400 jobs in our
district. Would you be willing to either come to the district
or sit down with me and let us make the argument to keep these
jobs over the course of the next couple of weeks? I mean, it is
just so--it is so many people.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, there is--so I have been visiting all the
regions, all of the labs. I have been to 17 States, and we are
going to keep going. So if--are you saying that you have a lab
in your district?
Mr. Landsman. Yes.
Mr. Zeldin. I am happy to come visit that lab.
Mr. Landsman. Yes or no, did the ORD play an important role
in determining that the air was OK to breathe in East
Palestine?
Mr. Zeldin. The EPA has multiple programmatic offices that
were involved----
Mr. Landsman. They played a huge role. Did the ORD play a
big role in Deepwater Horizon; Flint, Michigan water crisis;
California water fires?
Mr. Zeldin. Again, the--we have multiple programmatic
offices, and the scientific and research----
Mr. Landsman. They played a huge----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Functions, and the statutory
obligations are all going to be fulfilled----
Mr. Landsman. They played a huge role. Cutting ORD so
significantly will be devastating.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the long-suffering gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you, Administrator. Congratulations. What a
breath of fresh air. And to my colleague's question, will you
come visit? Thank you for saying yes to--whether it is the
gentleman from Louisiana or any other State. We couldn't get a
single visit in west Texas from the previous Administrator, and
we desperately needed it because of the overreach.
And what you saw was the Supreme Court of the United States
struck down the overreach of agencies like the previously run
EPA in their Loper Bright decision. That was so important when
you are talking about quad O, B, and C. And what the other side
told me for 4 straight years is, oh, we are working with
industry. No, there was no collaboration with industry. And I
want to thank you for saying yes and agreeing to go visit a lab
or whatever it is.
And by the way, the money-laundering scheme that we saw in
the previous administration that sent $2 billion to that
company, who was the CEO of that company?
Mr. Zeldin. Power Forward Communities? I will get that for
you.
Mr. Pfluger. Not meant to be a trick question. I just
thought it might have been a gentlelady from Georgia.
Mr. Zeldin. Sure. The CEO of Power Forward Committee--
Communities was Tim Mayopoulos, who was also CEO of Fannie Mae
during the Obama administration.
Mr. Pfluger. OK. Moving to what I want to talk about, quad
O, B, and C, and the subpart W reporting included in your 31
points, thank you for that. We have to compete with China.
We want the EPA to make sure that our environment is
protected. There is no argument whatsoever there. Can you give
us a status on what the quad O series for new and existing and
also the subpart W will get to? Because this is not workable
for our producers that are especially small scale.
Mr. Zeldin. Both reconsiderations were announced on March
12. We will be following the Administrative Procedure Act on
both, working to get this work finalized this year. It will
include a public comment period. I will not prejudge outcomes
of either rulemaking before, and we will follow our obligations
under the law in going through that rulemaking, Congressman.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you. And I will advocate for reality. We
were very pleased that Mr. Mason, the region 6 director, came
and visited the Permian Basin just before your visit. I would
like to invite you again. But one of the things we talked about
was, especially with regards to methane, the monitoring that is
being done. And to incentivize that good behavior, we have
reduced the intensity of methane in the Permian Basin by almost
30 percent, and that has happened in the last 10 to 15 years,
while also increasing the amount of barrels produced from 1
million barrels a day back in 2010 to 6 million barrels a day.
And that--the complexity that goes on to reduce that intensity,
we want to work with you. I encourage that work.
Do you have any ideas on where--the previous Administrator
was looking at the Permian Basin in general to place into a
state of nonattainment with regards to the ozone reporting. Are
there any updates on that for us? This was something that
interjected a lot of chaos into that region.
Mr. Zeldin. It is a very important pillar. It is a very
important pillar of the Powering the Great American Comeback
Initiative to advance cooperative federalism. Part of that with
the reorg is creating an Office for State Air Partnerships
inside of the Office of Air and Radiation. We have approved 25
State implementation plans, including 16 that were backlogged
from the last administration. We are working through.
These nonattainment requests and issues, including inside
the Permian Basin, we want to be a partner at EPA for Texas and
the local community.
Mr. Pfluger. Well, thank you. It was very apparent to my
constituents that the EPA had become weaponized. And working in
partnership is exactly the key word. We appreciate that.
And again, I will say it very clearly. Not a single person
in my district wants--in fact, we are true conservationists, we
have lived there for a long time. Water is something that is
very important to us.
I will yield the last 30 seconds to you for any rebuttals
or followups that you needed to make from previous questioning.
Mr. Zeldin. Well, a couple days after our regional
Administrator, Scott Mason, was with you in your district, I
was there and we--I thought it was a very productive, helpful
visit meeting with the community.
I think it is important for whoever is the EPA
Administrator to come, for them to include that as part of, you
know, being familiar with how EPA regulations out of
Washington, DC, end up impacting realities on the ground. So it
was an important early stop to make. I was happy to do it, and
I am grateful for your invite and Senator Cruz's invite for
that trip.
Mr. Pfluger. Well, thank you. We want to work in
partnership. We have to compete with China. We have to compete
around the world, which means that we can't have a weaponized
agency. Thank you for your leadership.
And I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. Now I recognize
the gentlelady from North Dakota, Mrs. Fedorchak, for her 5
minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Zeldin, it is great to meet you and to have you
here. I represent the entire State of North Dakota, and North
Dakota feeds and fuels the world. And we--so your agency has a
huge impact on the people of my State.
So first I want to say thank you for what you are doing
already. One of the first actions I took in this role was to
write the President and Secretary Burgum to ask them to repeal
20 burdensome rules and regulations from the previous
administration, and you are well on your way to doing that.
You have outlined a number of grave abuses from the last
administration, and I would say one of the gravest abuses was
the impact the past administration had on our power sector. I
come from the regulatory side of things. I was most recently
the president of the National Utility Regulators Association,
and in that role I worked hard to get the last administration
to be reasonable on their 111(d) rules. They completely ignored
everything we said. They ignored the power--the grid operators.
And that rule was completely disconnected from reality. And
even though it is being pulled back, it had grave consequences
on our power grid, and today we are short--are dangerously
short--of having enough power to meet demand because of that
agency's overreach in the last administration. So thank you for
your commitment to correcting that and getting us back on
track.
Mr. Zeldin. Now, Congresswoman, first off I want to
congratulate you and the people of North Dakota for what was a
massive upgrade in their representation here in the House.
Congratulations on your election.
We inherited a lot. I often get asked what the biggest
surprise--or what was most shocking once I was confirmed as
Administrator, and I would say it is--it was surprising how
much we were able to do at once. And we have heard your calls
for action at the agency, and we want to tackle it all at the
same time. We don't even want to pace ourselves.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Good. A couple of things. There is about
three things I wanted to mention that are really important to
my State that you are already working on.
You announced last week that you proposed to approve my
State's proposal to manage the Coal Combustion Residuals Permit
Program in lieu of the Federal CCR. That is a huge decision.
Thank you for that. When--any sense of when that--what the
timeline will be to finalize that?
Mr. Zeldin. As quickly as possible, following the law. As
last week's letter indicated, the application that was
submitted is complete, and we are moving through that process
over the course of these next couple months.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. Thank you for that.
The farmers across my State are really significantly
impacted by Waters of the U.S. In North Dakota we have
something somewhat unique. It is called the Prairie Pothole
Region, and that area creates a lot of uncertainty for our
farmers and producers, particularly as it relates to the kind
of whiplash of changing regulations. So will you commit to
working with North Dakota farmers and ranchers to make sure
that your WOTUS rule rewrite accurately reflects the unique
wetlands in my State?
Mr. Zeldin. Absolutely, Congresswoman. It is imperative
that we get it right. And we don't believe it is going to be
hard to get it right. We are going to follow the simple,
prescriptive, straightforward decision in Sackett. We want a
definition that all 50 States are able to get behind. Right now
that is not the case. And we want to make sure that everyone in
your State knows whether or not what is on their land is a
Water of the United States subject to Federal regulation or
not. We want them to be able to know that without having to
hire an attorney or a consultant, without having to pay
somebody in order to tell that to them.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. And let's hope it is not a
trickle of water that is only there at certain parts of the
year.
I hope--I have heard from our electric utilities throughout
the State about the negative impacts of the Biden MATS rule.
This regulation targets critical coal units across the
country--again, threatening grid reliability, one of our most
important issues that we must address. I was pleased to learn
that EPA is considering a 2-year compliance exemption while you
write the MATS rule. This goes at something I am working on
legislatively, that we can't be forcing generation offline at a
time when demand is increasing. As you work on that rule, will
you work with me and this committee to get it right?
Mr. Zeldin. Absolutely, Congresswoman. And it is important
to note that there was a--there were mercury and air toxic
standards before this most recent rule was put into place. So
some people tried talking about it as if this recent MATS rule,
if it went away, that there is just no mercury and air toxic
standards, and that is just--that is not accurate.
As we go through the reconsideration, we want to get it
right. We want to--we will have a public comment period. We
want to work with Members of Congress. We want to reach the
right decision.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. Yes, the rule had already been
complied with, and at great expense. So thank you very much. I
appreciate it. I hope you will come visit North Dakota this
summer.
Mr. Zeldin. I look forward to it.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. Now we are at
waive-ons. We may have a member of the committee come back.
Administrator Zeldin has indicated he will give us some
additional time. But what we are going to do, by agreement, is
we are going to have 3 minutes per person waive-on both sides,
and we will try to get through everybody with a 3-minute rule
for those who have waived on. We appreciate it.
Ms. Castor of Florida is now recognized for 3 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Administrator, to our committee. Thank you for
being here.
You know, working families and small business owners across
the country are really facing an affordability squeeze, and I
am very concerned with the actions out of EPA and others across
the administration on--it is just you have added on to their
pain, and they are really feeling it in their wallets. Utility
companies in at least 19 States have hiked rates as much as $40
per month just over the past few months.
You know, one important way that families save money is
energy-efficient appliances. In my neck of the woods families
are rebuilding after Hurricanes Helene and Milton. They are
replacing a lot of their appliances. And it was just so painful
to hear you announce that the Energy Star, this popular program
that certified energy efficiency of home appliances for more
than three decades, was coming to an end. That distinct blue
label that is recognized by Americans has just been a godsend
to them. And the data shows that this voluntary program has
saved $500 billion in utility bills for Americans and prevented
a whole lot of pollution.
So this Energy Star was codified by Congress in 2005. It is
the law. So how do you justify an announcement that--how do you
justify that you have the authority to end this and these
important consumer savings?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, for one, we don't believe that this--that
Energy Star would cease to exist if the Government wasn't
propping it up. There are plenty of programs outside of
government. As I referenced to one of your colleagues earlier,
the LEED program is another example. Over the course of the
last couple of weeks, we have had all different kinds of
outreach to EPA of different entities----
Ms. Castor. But why take an anticonsumer----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Nonprofits that want to run it.
Ms. Castor. Why take an anticonsumer bent that is in
violation of the law at a time when people really need those
dollars back into their wallets?
How can you--let me ask it this way: Who has pressed from
outside the agency to end these consumer savings under Energy
Star? Which organizations and interest groups and polluters
have pushed for this?
Mr. Zeldin. As you all know, Energy Star requires a lot of
taxpayer-funded salaried positions, as well as a lot of tax
dollars. And the Government----
Ms. Castor. What is the budget for Energy Star, do you
know?
Mr. Zeldin. I believe about 19 million or so, on top of----
Ms. Castor. But if you measure that against the $500
billion----
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. The 5----
Ms. Castor [continuing]. Saved for American families, isn't
that an important investment, especially when it is consistent
with the law passed by Congress?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, I would happily and eagerly find out from
inside of the agency how they had previously calculated that
figure, because I anticipate that they are taking credit for a
heck of a lot more than they should.
Mr. Griffith. All right, the----
Ms. Castor. I yield back my time.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. Now I recognize
Mr. Evans of Colorado, who is a member of the subcommittee, so
I recognize him for 5 minutes.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Administrator Zeldin, for coming today. My first
question to you--you know I come from Colorado. Actually, the
northeast part of the State, the Denver-Julesburg basin area,
Weld County. And one of the issues that we are running into up
there is we are in the front range ozone nonattainment area for
Colorado along the front range.
But when you look at the constellation of monitors in some
of the major oil- and gas-producing areas, that county is
actually in ozone attainment. But geographically, we are
getting looped into the nonattainment area, which has a really,
really negative impact on the over 80 percent of oil from
Colorado that comes from my area and the 50 percent of natural
gas that comes from my area.
So I am curious on hearing your thoughts about how we can
work together to make sure that we are promoting energy
dominance and working in places like Colorado, where a lot of
our producers are facing some of those challenges from being
geographically looped into the nonattainment area, even though
they themselves are in attainment.
Mr. Zeldin. I think that the Colorado example highlights
how there shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all Federal answer, that
we should be working closely with Colorado on their State
implementation plan, that the State implementation plan
shouldn't have any unnecessary pieces, asks, demands from the
Federal Government. It should be simple and straightforward to
allow Colorado to be able to come into compliance and have that
partnership with the EPA and the Trump administration. That is
something I have communicated to your Governor.
I also don't believe that Colorado should be a victim of
its own success in that so many businesses and people want to
move to Colorado. Anyone who flies into Denver airport, it
might look different than when you were there 2 weeks earlier
because there is that much activity of people and businesses
moving to the area, and you all shouldn't be punished for that.
Mr. Evans. Thank you. Kind of along those same lines, not
being punished for some of those things, one of the other areas
where it really feels like we are being punished is interstate
transportation of a lot of these different pollutants.
For instance--you know, we have satellites, we can track
this stuff--there is pollution in Colorado that originates from
China. And if you took out just the contribution of Chinese
pollutants along the Colorado Front Range, the entire Front
Range would be an ozone attainment. And so talking about
programs like the 179(b) waiver for international transport or
exceptional events for things like wildfires, what are ways
that we can work together, to your point about making sure that
places like Colorado aren't punished for events that are
outside of their control and that are pushing us over that
attainment limit?
Mr. Zeldin. I agree with you, Congressman. We have taken
down the 179(b) guidance. It is--it shouldn't be on our website
anymore. This is an ask that has also come in from Arizona, it
has come in from Utah. These international impacts are
resulting in a situation where some are saying, ``Hey, listen,
if we didn't have--if we went zero emission, if we took every
car off the road, that--we still would not be able to come into
attainment.'' And obviously, we are not doing something right
in a--as a process if a State can take every car off the road
and go zero emission and still not be in attainment, and they--
there are serious consequences for EPA determining that they
are in that serious nonattainment. So that is very important.
As far as exceptional events, that was part of our March 12
announcement, to be reconsidering that rule. We need to
understand that Western States, in doing forest management,
need flexibility to be able to keep their people safe and
shouldn't have fear that, by doing responsible practices of
forest management, that they are going to be penalized for it.
Mr. Evans. Thank you. And then one final question for you
along those same lines, not being penalized for things outside
of your control. State data from Colorado says 50 percent of
the ozone along our Front Range does not originate from things
that are under Colorado's control. But one of the impacts that
being in a nonattainment zone has on consumers in Colorado is
we are mandated in the summer months to be--to buy reformulated
gas.
I just sat down with all of my gas station suppliers, who
said that that is a $300 million impact on consumers being
forced to purchase a product that is 40 cents more per gallon,
that has a 0.1 part per billion impact on Front Range ozone. In
the last 30 seconds, can you just talk about how we can work
together to protect consumers from things like the reformulated
gas mandate?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Congressman, thank you for raising it. You
are not the first, but--the first one since I have started
these hearings. This is--I had two last week, this is my third,
and I will have another one tomorrow. I am happy to make sure
that I am connected with you, our teams are connected to be
able to work through your asks, your concerns, your questions,
to be responsive.
Mr. Evans. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentlelady of Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, for three minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. It is great to see you, my fellow
classmate. I am going to be short, but I have a lot of
questions.
Brownfield sites. Southeast Michigan, like many places in
the country, has communities that have been left behind for too
long. They have got--borne the brunt of toxic waste, industrial
pollution, and contaminated sites. We have got a lot of legacy
issues, as you know, not just in mine, but other manufacturing
States, from fighting to get PFAS and lead out of our water to
implementing funding and strengthening the Brownfield Programs
to working across all levels of government. So I am going to
hit three issues quickly, and thank you for being here.
I have to say that the announcement by EPA to roll back
this--roll back the PFAS drinking water standard really worried
me. Rescinding this standard means more Americans will be
poisoned and have harmful PFAS contamination. That has been
spreading, so too many people have already suffered the adverse
effects of PFAS exposure. You know it is a forever chemical. It
is in 98 percent of the people's blood. And we got to do
something. We got to do everything possible to combat this
dangerous things--this dangerous--for too long Michigan, quite
frankly, had a drinking water standard that was more stringent
under a Republican Governor than the guideline.
How do we make sure people have clean and safe drinking
water?
Mr. Zeldin. Congresswoman, we--as you noted, we had an
announcement last week. The 4 parts per trillion MCL on PFOA
and PFOS are staying. There is a procedural error in the way
that the MCL was set on the other four. We are going to fix
that. It has been inaccurately reported that this is a
weakening of the MCL for those four. As I have noted since that
reporting started, as a result of this process the MCL might be
lower than 4. We will see.
Mrs. Dingell. That is good, I mean, just so we can continue
to work on safe drinking water.
Let me--yesterday it was announced that you had taken Flint
off the--lifted the emergency order, which is good news for the
people of Flint, and they reacted positively to it. But we
still have to make sure that people have access to clean, safe,
and affordable drinking water, because it is not a luxury.
Can--will you work with us to defend last year's rule requiring
all water systems remove lead from pipes within the next decade
so we don't poison any more children?
Mr. Zeldin. Congresswoman, I would like to have a meeting
with my staff, including the talented, dedicated career staff
inside the Office of Water, on that topic, and then huddle back
up with you. We have spoken on the phone since I was confirmed,
I am happy to stay in touch and do it again on--with regards to
this question.
And I would just like to say, as far as Flint, Michigan,
goes, it is a cause for celebration. As they pointed out to me
when I visited Flint after confirmation, they have worked very
hard for it. But it is important for them to know that the
State and the Federal Government isn't abandoning Flint by
lifting an emergency order.
Mrs. Dingell. And I still need to talk to you about the
plume, but I will put it on record because we have too many
pollution problems in Michigan.
So thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
the gentlelady of Texas, Mrs. Fletcher, for her 3 minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Griffith,
Ranking Member Tonko, and Administrator Zeldin, and thank you
for extending the time to hear from all of us who are waiving
on.
With the limited time, I do want to raise an issue for you,
Administrator. I represent the energy capital of the world in
Houston, and our region is home to the largest petrochemical
complex in the United States, the second-largest in the world.
And we have the benefit of having the EPA's region 6 lab
located in Houston. This has been a particularly important
issue for us in the Houston region.
As I am sure you know, we are right there on the Gulf and
subject to extreme weather events with too much frequency, and
so the region 6 lab plays a critical role in helping us during
these disasters. We had a hurricane last summer, we have had
just record hurricanes and flooding over the last decade.
In 2019, EPA announced that it was going to close the
region 6 lab in Houston and move the lab and all the employees
to Ada, Oklahoma. I believe you are familiar with that facility
and testified about it last week in Appropriations. But I have
been fighting this move ever since I got here, ever since the
announcement, because it is bad for our region to have to send
those samples of air and water in these--potentially in
disasters, but all the time as we experience these things in
our region. It is also bad for EPA. I think the studies show
that you will lose a lot of really talented, experienced
professionals who don't want to move from Houston to Ada,
Oklahoma. And so I think those are huge challenges both for our
region and for the agency.
I have gotten several responses over the years that people
agree that we need to keep a region 6 lab in Houston, and EPA
leaders have confirmed multiple times that there will be a
region 6 lab presence in Houston. So can you confirm for me
today that we can work together to make sure that EPA will keep
a region 6 lab in the Houston region?
Mr. Zeldin. I can tell you that at no point since I was
confirmed have I had any conversation with anyone about closing
the region 6 lab in Houston. It hasn't been broached to me. I
am not aware of conversations going on at the agency on the
topic. I am happy to be in touch with you or work with you, and
I will look into it and let you know if anyone else has had any
conversations that haven't been brought up to me.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, and I can tell you it is being done
pursuant to the 2015 law, the Federal asset sales transfer
from, I guess, 2017. And so that is the idea of moving folks to
Ada.
It is critically important that we keep this lab in Houston
both for the agency and for our region. So I appreciate your
willingness to engage on this. Many people have agreed at the
agency that it is a problem, that we need to keep this lab in
Houston. And of course, we want to make sure that we keep a
qualified and talented workforce there, too. So I appreciate
the opportunity to raise this and to work with you on this to
ensure that we keep this lab in Houston.
Mr. Zeldin. I will----
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
Mr. Zeldin. I will look into it as soon as the hearing is
over, and we will get back in touch.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Balderson, for 3 minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, thank you for being here. And I know
that you have a hard stop. And guess what? I forgot my cheater,
so I am just going to ask you one question and hopefully get
through this with being able to see.
First I want to thank you and the Trump administration for
bringing back some much-needed common sense back to the EPA.
Mr. Zeldin, I would like to discuss an issue specific to my
home State of Ohio. Ohio's nuisance rule was originally
instituted as part of the State's plan to enforce compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards after the
passage of the Clean Air Act. In 2020, the EPA correctly
removed this rule from the Ohio State implementation plan
following considerable procedure and removal of similar
provisions in other States. However, in the final days of this
of his term, President Biden moved to reinstate this rule.
As the rule does nothing to enhance air quality protection
and subjects Ohio businesses and manufacturers to weaponized
litigation and lawsuits, I introduced a resolution under the
Congressional Review Act to rescind this rule. Senator Husted
is also carrying it in the Senate. How will your administration
work to roll back unnecessary Federal interference in State air
pollution policies?
Mr. Zeldin. Congressman, I have had many meetings
internally with our team at the Office of Air and Radiation
with regards to this request from the State of Ohio. I have
been in touch with Ohio officials. I appreciate your advocacy
on behalf of your State. Those conversations and meetings
between EPA and Ohio EPA will continue, and with the State, to
go through this process with the State implementation plan.
As you pointed out, Senator Husted has also been advocating
on this. He has spoken to me. And our new regional 5 Regional
Administrator comes to that position coming from being the head
of the Ohio EPA. So at the regional office there, they are very
intimately familiar with this request. So at region 5 the
Regional Administrator is also a key asset in working through
this ask from Ohio.
Mr. Balderson. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate
it, Mr. Administrator.
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentleman from California, Mr. Mullin, for 3 minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Administrator, for being here.
East Palo Alto is a vibrant community in my district on the
San Francisco Bay. The people there have an incredible spirit
and history of advocating for their community. It also happens
to be down the street from the Meta headquarters and Stanford
University. Despite being so close to such wealth, East Palo
Alto residents have struggled with a history of heavy
industries being sited next to residential areas. There are
over 62 toxic waste sites within the city's 2.5 square miles.
Not surprisingly, East Palo Alto faces challenges with air
pollution. The biggest highway in the district, Highway 101,
runs right through the middle of that community. The impacts of
this pollution are undeniable. The community experiences
significantly higher rates of asthma and respiratory disease.
They have an average lifespan that is 13 years lower than the
rest of San Mateo County.
That is why it was such a big deal for this community when
your agency last year awarded funding to a community
organization to address air pollution. One local leader noted
that he had ``residents calling me in tears, saying how
incredible it was to see their struggle finally recognized.''
Pam Jones, a resident of East Palo Alto for over 45 years,
remarked that the community had been ``hopeful for a moment.''
As you know, it takes tremendous effort and organizing just
to pull together a grant application. This money would have
provided air purifiers to over 400 families for kids with
asthma, and seniors, as well. This wasn't about ideology or
some slogan, this was about helping children and seniors
breathe easier. So Administrator Zeldin, you canceled this
grant, and I am just wondering why you made that decision.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Congressman, I don't have the details of
that grant. I had for all of the subcommittee members of all
the--of all your colleagues on this committee, all the grants
in their district.
I would say that 10 times out of 10 or 100 times out of
100, when I look at the details of every single one of the
grants that are canceled, there is something in it that
conflicts with this administration's priorities. However, if
you would like to work together on any aspects of the grant
where it is in alignment with the administration's priorities
to successfully resolve it for the community, I am happy to
work with you on that.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, sir. And do you believe the EPA or
the President can decide not to spend money that Congress has
appropriated?
Mr. Zeldin. We have an obligation to spend money
appropriated by Congress. We are in the middle of a fiscal
year. We are not required to agree with the administration's
priorities of the last presidential administration, but we will
continue to get funding out the door before the end of this
fiscal year with those top-line appropriations from Congress.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. Now, if you can
bear with us, Mr. Administrator, I recognize Mr. Obernolte from
California for 3 minutes.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service and thank you for
the work that you are doing to transform the EPA into an agency
that, instead of being an impediment, is helping people comply
with regulations and getting to a yes. I know that means a lot
to me and to the different air quality management districts
that I represent.
I wanted to ask you specifically about a concern I have
about the--some of the reductions in force that have been
occurring at EPA. And I understand this is out of a desire to
right-size the agency, and that is something I certainly am
very supportive of. However, many of my agencies rely on the
EPA to do things like issue permits or issue approvals or
review plans, and there has been concern expressed that the
reductions in force, even though we are transforming the EPA
into a more streamlined organization, will result in delays in
those approvals and permits getting issued. Can you give us
some assurances that that is not the intention?
Mr. Zeldin. Congressman, yes, we are going to fulfill all
of our statutory obligations. And the way that the
reorganization was proposed a couple of weeks ago allows us to
better focus on those statutory obligations and reduce the
backlogs.
So, for example, as I referenced earlier with a couple of
your colleagues, we inherited a massive backlog with the
pesticide review, a massive backlog with chemical review, with
State implementation plans, with small refinery exemptions, and
much more. We are putting resources into getting through those
backlogs we inherited as quickly as possible. And with the
pesticide review backlog as one of the examples, we have
already worked through over 2,300 of those backlogged cases. We
will continue at that pace, and we are taking measures to
increase the pace of working through the backlog we inherited.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you. And certainly, we all support
your efforts to do that, and let's work together to make sure
that we are turning the EPA into the type of agency that is not
an impediment to getting some of these projects accomplished
that we all prioritize.
One of those projects that is very near and dear to me is a
project called the Barstow International Gateway. That is going
to shift some of our freight from the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach onto rail, instead of being on the highways. What
can we do to--at the EPA to assist in advancing freight
infrastructure that makes some of those projects become a
reality?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, there's certain aspects of permitting
where an environmental assessment might be done, our technical
assistance may be requested. We are here looking to help all
members of this committee to help your constituents. If there
is a specific request that you have on how EPA can help you,
please let us know so that we can work through it.
Mr. Obernolte. OK. Well, thanks. You have got a great
Regional Administrator in Joshua Cook. He is an amazing man,
and we thank you for your service and his, and let's work
together on getting some of these projects across the finish
line.
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentlelady from Virginia, Ms. McClellan.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Administrator Zeldin, for staying 3 more
minutes. As you know, this hearing follows a 26\1/2\-hour
markup of a bill that is still moving its way through Congress
that sends a clear message to the States to do more with less.
And if members of the Freedom Caucus get their way, States will
have to do even more with even less, depending on what the
final cuts to Medicaid look like.
But even though sometimes government governs in silos,
people don't live in silos, and State governments are dealing
with all of the impacts of the Trump administration. So you
take a State like Virginia that has the second-highest number
of Federal employees, has already been hit hard by mass layoffs
as our labor market is cooling, our unemployment rate is
expected to reach its highest rate since 2021, bucking a
national trend, and our GDP growth is looking to slow down, and
that is at the same time that the Commonwealth, like other
States, is going to have to look to fill severe budget gaps due
to Medicaid cuts, funding cuts, and the shifting of more
responsibility to the States.
And so the proposed budget cuts more than $1 billion from
categorical grants to the States, and these grants give States
a baseline capacity that they need to carry out federally
mandated environmental protections. So slashing them handcuffs
the States' ability to continue to address pollution.
And earlier this month the Environmental Council of States
sent the EPA a letter highlighting how States carry out more
than 90 percent of the Nation's Federal environmental programs,
and States, State legislatures, and the business community
depend on Congress to fund their efforts through grants and
partnerships with the EPA. This letter warned that if Congress
were to adopt the White House recommendation for discretionary
spending, States may be required to terminate primary
delegation or authorization agreements and return full program
implementation to the EPA, which would overwhelm the EPA and
have detrimental impacts to the economic development.
So Mr. Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
enter this letter into the record.
Mr. Griffith. Without objection----
Ms. McClellan. And----
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. So ordered.
[The letter appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. McClellan. And I will get this question out, and I know
you are going to have to answer it later.
But I really want to know how States are supposed to
implement critical environmental programs under the drastic
cuts proposed in the budget. And if the States can't and are
forced to return those responsibilities to the EPA, how do you
plan to carry them out with the severe staffing and funding
cuts at the Federal level?
Mr. Zeldin. Well, Congresswoman, I know we only have 8
seconds here, so we are happy to follow up.
But we at the EPA are going to fulfill all of our statutory
obligations. We are receiving many requests for additional
primacy coming from States. I just signed off on moving forward
with class 1 through 6. The primacy request coming from
Arizona, we are dealing with one right now. A request came in
from Texas and elsewhere, and we have signed off on 25 State
implementation plans, 16 of which were backlogged from the last
administration. We want to advance cooperative partnership with
States. We want to hear their concerns and try to figure out
how to help them deliver clean air, land, and water for their
constituents, which is an obligation with--for all levels of
government.
I appreciate your concern and your interest on this
particular issue, and welcome the opportunity to work with you
on it.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. Seeing no
additional Members, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the
record any documents not previously admitted into the record
included on the staff hearing documents list.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Griffith. I remind Members they have 10 business days
to submit questions for the record, and I ask the witness to
respond to the questions promptly.
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]