[Senate Hearing 119-279]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-279
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF BRIAN NESVIK TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED
STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, JESSICA KRAMER TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND SEAN DONAHUE
TO BE AN ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 26, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-698 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK KELLY, Arizona
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ALEX PADILLA, California
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland
JON HUSTED, Ohio
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 26, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 3
Lummis, Hon. Cynthia, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming..... 16
WITNESSES
Gordon, Hon. Mark, Governor from the State of Wyoming............ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Nesvik, Brian, Nominee to be Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service........................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Cramer........................................... 23
Senator Husted........................................... 23
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 24
Senator Merkley.......................................... 30
Senator Markey........................................... 30
Senator Schiff........................................... 33
Senator Blunt Rochester.................................. 37
Kramer, Jessica, Nominee to be an Assistant Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Cramer........................................... 42
Senator Husted........................................... 43
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 43
Senator Merkley.......................................... 46
Senator Markey........................................... 48
Senator Blunt Rochester.................................. 49
Donahue, Sean, Nominee to be an Assistant Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Wicker........................................... 58
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 59
Senator Merkley.......................................... 62
Senator Schiff........................................... 64
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter of support for Brian Nesvik to Senator Capito, Senator
Whitehouse, Senator Ricketts, and Senator Schiff from National
Audubon Society................................................ 92
Letters of support for Brian Nesvik to Senator Capito and Senator
Whitehouse from:...............................................
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies...................... 93
Boone and Crockett Club...................................... 94
Ducks Unlimited.............................................. 95
American Sportfishing Association and multiple other
organizations.............................................. 97
National Alliance of Forest Owners........................... 99
National Association for Biomedical Research................. 101
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.................... 102
National Cattlemen's Beef Association and Public Lands
Council and two other organizations........................ 103
Letters of support for Brian Nesvik to Senator Capito from:
Wyoming Wildlife Federation.................................. 105
National Association of Conservation Law Enforcement Chiefs.. 107
Wyoming Outfitters & Guide Association....................... 109
Wyoming Stock Growers Association............................ 111
Wyoming Wildlife & Natural Resource Trust.................... 112
Letters of support for Jessica Kramer to Senator Capito and
Senator Whitehouse from:
American Water Works Association............................. 114
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies................... 115
Coalition of Recyclers of Residual Organics by Practitioner
of Sustainability.......................................... 117
Dave Ross, former assistant administrator, Office of Water,
EPA........................................................ 119
National Association of Clean Water Agencies................. 121
National Rural Water Association............................. 124
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.................... 126
National Water Resources Association......................... 127
Northwest Biosolids Association.............................. 129
Xylem, Inc................................................... 130
Letters of Public Financial Disclosure from nominees:
Jessica Kramer............................................... 132
Brian R. Nesvik.............................................. 133
Sean Donahue................................................. 136
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF BRIAN NESVIK TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED
STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, JESSICA KRAMER TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND SEAN DONAHUE
TO BE AN ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore
Capito (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Cramer, Lummis,
Sullivan, Ricketts, Wicker, Boozman, Husted, Merkley, Kelly,
Padilla, Schiff, Blunt Rochester, Alsobrooks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Good morning, and thank you for everybody
who is here today. I am pleased to welcome everyone to today's
hearing where we will consider the nominations of Brigadier
General Brian Nesvik to serve as Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Jessica Kramer to serve as Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Water, and Sean Donahue to
serve as General Counsel at the EPA.
General Nesvik has more than 29 years of experience with
the Wyoming Game and Fish Department prior to his retirement
last September, where he was going to go ranching permanently,
until he told me when he came to see. He has a little peek in
the system here, and we are glad he does.
During his tenure with the Department, he served in various
roles including Chief Game Warden and Wildlife Division Chief,
until ultimately being appointed the Director in 2019.
Wyoming is a world-renowned destination for hunters and
anglers and General Nesvik led the State's wildlife management
programs ensuring that the conservation of species and
recreational existence can coexist for generations to come.
Simultaneously to his full-time job with the Wyoming Game
and Fish, General Nesvik served in the Wyoming Army National
Guard. His service included deployments to Kuwait and Iraq in
progressively more senior leaderships, culminating in his final
posting as the commander the Wyoming Army National Guard. After
35 years of service, General Nesvik retired from the National
Guard in 2021 at the rank of Brigadier General. Thank you,
General Nesvik, for your service to our Country.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Service, needs
greater structure and efficiency. It will benefit to have a
former general as its Director.
As the director of the Service, General Nesvik will be
tasked with overseeing the operations of the agency, to
conserve and manage our Nation's wildlife and natural habitats.
Under the Biden Administration, the Endangered Species Act was
leveraged to slow down and sometimes even halt infrastructure
projects going through the Federal permitting process. We must
be able to efficiently permit projects while protecting
wildlife and natural habitats at the same time.
General Nesvik will oversee many other issues, such as the
management of the 570 national wildlife refuges and
implementation of congressionally authorized conservation
programs. I trust that his background will offer him a unique
perspective on how the Service can better manage wildlife
programs and protect species without hindering critical
infrastructure projects. I look forward to hearing his
testimony.
This morning we will also hear from Jess Kramer. We call
her Jess, Jessica, Jess, President Trump's nominee to serve as
the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water. This
committee has a long tradition of working in a bipartisan
manner to strengthen environmental policies, improve water
infrastructure and ensure Federal regulations are effective,
not unnecessarily burdensome. Clean water is not a partisan
issue. it is essential to the health, safety and economic well-
being of every American.
The Office of Water plays a critical role in ensuring
access to safe and reliable water for all Americans. That means
ensuring Federal programs like the State Revolving Funds are
effective, addressing Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids, PFAS,
contamination without undue burdens on ratepayers, and working
with State and local governments to streamline permitting.
Jess is well-qualified to lead the EPA's Water Office. She
has built a career crafting practical, bipartisan solutions to
improve water policy and ensure communities, regardless of
their size and geography. She has also worked to have access to
safe and reliable drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
During Jess's time working with me on the Environment and
Public Works, EPW, committee, she played a key role in shaping
the water provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, IIJA, securing historic investments to modernize drinking
water and wastewater systems, remove lead service lines, and
address emerging contaminants.
Beyond her experience on Capitol Hill, she has served in
both State and Federal roles, most recently as the Deputy
Secretary of Regulatory Programs at the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, where she oversaw critical programs
related to water quality, permitting, and enforcement. Jess
understands that environmental protection and economic growth
can go hand in hand, and she knows how to ensure regulations
are clear, fair, and based on sound science.
This morning, we will also hear from Sean Donahue, the
nominee to serve as General Counsel at the EPA. The EPA's
Office of General Counsel serves as the chief legal advisor to
the agency, providing critical guidance on implementing
environmental laws like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act,
the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Superfund.
The General Counsel plays a central role in shaping EPA's
policies, ensuring legal compliance, defending the agency from
legal challenges, and advising on matters that impact
communities nationwide. The office also works closely with
Congress, EPA regional offices, and enforcement teams to
provide the legal foundation for strong environmental
protections.
Mr. Donahue has served for three years in the prior Trump
Administration at the EPA as a Special Advisor, including
working in the agency's Office of Land and Emergency
Management. After working at the agency, Mr. Donahue joined a
law firm in Buffalo, New York where he practiced environmental
law. In 2024, he served as a counsel for a solar energy
development company in New York State.
In 2025, Mr. Donahue was appointed Principal Deputy General
Counsel at the EPA. He currently serves as a Special Advisor in
the EPA Administrator's Office. With his experience in both
private practice and at the agency, I look forward to hearing
more about Sean Donahue's qualifications and vision for this
important role.
With that, I now recognize my Ranking Member, Senator
Whitehouse. I would like to welcome Senator Barrasso, and we
will give him a chance here to introduce the General shortly.
Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much.
I would like to take my time this morning to discuss
something that is going on with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund, which is a fund that was appropriated by Congress,
obligated and the funds disbursed to a private fiscal agent,
Citibank. It relates to climate and because the President
insists falsely that climate change is a hoax, people who are
subordinate to him feel obligated to go after this Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Fund.
The problem is that the manner in which they have gone
after it reflects the actual weaponization of the Department of
Justice in ways that the prosecutions of President Trump never
saw. It begins with the interim United States Attorney saying
publicly, before he is even in office, that this fund is total
graft and needs to be stopped. He has already announced his
predilections about that. This fund includes nefarious actors
like Habitat for Humanity.
The veto clock had run, so there was no role to undo the
funding. It was even disbursed, as I mentioned. What they had
to do was to try to cook up a way to freeze the fund. The way
they tried to cook up to freeze the fund was to create a
pretend criminal investigation, and then they could point to
the criminal investigation and tell Citibank to freeze the
funds pending the criminal investigation.
The problem was, there was no evidence of any crime. That
became apparent when the ask went from interim U.S. Attorney
Martin to the Chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and was told by
the Chief, there is no crime here, I cannot do that.
Rather than stop, what he did was force the resignation,
fired, the career criminal chief. This is a guy who has never
been a prosecutor before, and he is firing the criminal chief.
That is a pretty big red flag, when you get an answer from
the career staff saying, boss, there is no crime here, and then
you fire them for telling you that.
Then he tried to shop this notion around the office, and no
career U.S. Attorney would sign. I have been a U.S. Attorney.
It is almost unfathomable for a U.S. Attorney's office to send
out a pleading without a career attorney being involved.
He could not get a career attorney, another big red flag.
Then he went forward himself. Again, this is not an experienced
prosecutor, this is not somebody who brings a lot of game with
him. He just wanted to do it.
With no support from the career people in the office, he
went forward alone. The alone bid is another very strong signal
that something is very badly amiss in what is going on.
Then, going ahead solo, as the interim U.S. Attorney, he
went before a magistrate judge who said, no dice, you have
nothing here. He shot him down. For a U.S. Attorney's office to
be shot down over a warrant application is like a hospital
never event. If that ever happened in Rhode Island when I was a
U.S. Attorney, there would be after-action investigations,
reports, what the hell went on here, because you never want to
put your Federal judges in a position where they have to shoot
down a warrant application of yours. You want to make sure that
they are iron-clad.
This failure by the U.S. Attorney to get the magistrate
judge to go along with him, that is yet another red flag
flying. Then after that, they started shopping it around other
U.S. Attorneys' offices. That is also pretty much unheard of.
What resulted was something I have never seen before, which
is a letter out of the FBI recommending a temporary freeze. I
do not know any procedure for doing that. It had no sign-off
from anybody in any U.S. Attorney's office. Again, it is just
bizarre incident after bizarre incident after bizarre incident
after bizarre incident.
In the backdrop to this are out of court statements made by
Lee Zeldin, our EPA guy, and Ed Martin, this interim U.S.
Attorney, derogatory, about the bank and the recipients of the
program. It started with graft, but they went on to make
allegations of fraud and criminality.
Well, there are a number of things that are wrong with
that. First is, allegations of fraud and criminality are
defamatory per se. It is not the kind of stuff anybody should
be saying about anybody else falsely.
It is particularly bad when it is the prosecutive branch
that is saying things falsely about people that they are either
seeking to investigate or are investigating or are prosecuting.
The U.S. Attorney's Manual, now call the Justice Manual, is
rife with warnings, not only to the Department of Justice
employees, but to the agencies working together on
investigations, that you do not say derogatory things about
people while you are investigating them. You let your pleadings
do the talking. That is Federal prosecution 101.
All of these false statements that are being made, they had
the chance to try to prove their false statements, by the way,
and a Federal judge took a look at the best they could do and
said, there is no evidence here of any criminality, period. You
have the magistrate judge who shot down the warrant, and you
have the Federal judge who shot down the argument that there
was fraud or criminality here. Yet they persist.
The aberration here from proper prosecutive process is
really telling, and both in this committee and the Judiciary
Committee, I am going to keep digging at this. Over and over
and over again, there are multiple red flags flying of
prosecutorial misconduct, of legal violations, and ultimately
probably you will find out from civil litigation, either under
42 U.S. Code Section 1983, or in a straight defamation case,
what the heck went on.
I can tell you, Madam Chair, as somebody who has had to sit
in that seat as a U.S. Attorney, everything about this stinks
to high heaven and we need to get to the bottom of it.
Thanks for letting me take the time to discuss this when we
have the witnesses here today, and we have my beloved friend,
Senator Barrasso, and Governor Gordon here.
Senator Capito. All right, well, thank you, Senator
Whitehouse.
We will now turn to introductions of the nominees. This
morning we have the pleasure of being joined by Governor Mark
Gordon and Senator John Barrasso from the great State of
Wyoming, which Senator Lummis, also here, as we are privileged
to have her on the committee.
Governor, thank you so much for being here, and I will
recognize you for your introductory remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK GORDON,
GOVERNOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Governor Gordon. Thank you, Madam Chairman Capito, Ranking
Member Whitehouse, distinguished members of the committee. My
friends Cynthia, John, great to see you. I am Mark Gordon, 33d
Governor of the 44th State. I want to thank you for this
opportunity to be here to provide a brief introduction to Brian
Nesvik, President Trump's nominee to become the 19th Director
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Before I do that, though, I want to say how nice it is to
see my friend Cynthia here, and to know that there are other
Senators here like Senator Ricketts that I have served with
before.
It is a particular pleasure to be able to introduce my
former director of Wyoming's Game and Fish Agency, retired
National Guard Brigadier General, and most importantly, close
friend. Brian could not be more qualified and suited to serve
in this important and pivotal role.
Before I highlight his impressive career, I want to
acknowledge Brian's remarkable family and especially his wife,
Penny, to whom I owe an enormous apology. I really did not
think Brian would ever consider this position, having just
retired from the Game and Fish, but I knew he was the right
person for the job, and I knew how much he was looking forward
to getting back to the ranch and spending more time with his
family.
Then I am not sure why any of us, that any of us had any
idea where we might be in 6 months after we packed up camp last
September in four inches of freshly fallen snow. For that
matter, I do not think any of us expected to see a young
grizzly forced so close to the trail 60 minutes into our ride
out from the Absarokas on a very sloppy, cold, wet, snowy,
lightning and thunder filled day.
One thing I do know is that Brian has an abiding commitment
to his family, to this Nation, and to service. Members of the
committee, it is my honor to introduce Brian Nesvik, a man for
whom I have the upmost respect. I have known and worked with
Brian for many years. I asked him to be director of our Game
and Fish six years ago when I became Governor.
Though I could just as easily asked him to become my
adjutant general for Wyoming's National Guard, where he served
35 years, retiring as a Brigadier General in 2021. We share a
friend, who neighbored my ranch and served with Brian in Iraq.
Terry told me stories of a game warden who could rope, ride,
shoe a horse and lead men. He told me this fellow had a good
sense of humor and an unparalleled ability to find solutions to
difficult circumstances. Brian also has 29 years of experience
with the Wyoming Game and Fish, our Nation's first such agency.
Wyoming understood how critical it was to preserve and
recover wildlife at the turn of the last century, when Wyoming
people came to realize, if we were not careful about our
wildlife management, we would lose one of the most precious
assets in what made our State the place where the deer and the
antelope play.
Wyoming is home to the Nation's first national park, first
national forest, first national monument. Our conservation
ethic runs deep in our DNA. It is an ethic spoken of in Teddy
Roosevelt's New Nationalism speech, which I know you all know:
``Conservation means development as much as it does protection.
I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop
and use the natural resources of our land, but I do not
recognize the right to waste them or to rob by wasteful use the
generations that come after us.''
As ranchers, my wife and I are committed to stewardship. We
were proud to partner with our neighbors and the Game and Fish
to conserve sage grouse habitat in one of Wyoming's core areas.
Brian exemplifies Wyoming's approach to fostering stewardship,
working with stakeholders across all interest groups. He
recognized what Aldo Leopold articulated in his opus Game
Management: ``The central thesis of game management is this.
Game can be restored by the creative use of the same tools
which have heretofore destroyed it, the axe, plow, cow, fire,
and gun.''
Brian's real world, on the ground experience, managing
Wyoming's 800 species of fish and wildlife, made him an
outstanding director of our Game and Fish, and will be a
tremendous asset to the Trump Administration and our Country.
Brian has taken part in and led Wyoming's efforts to
successfully recover some of the world's most charismatic
megafauna. In Wyoming, that is grizzly bears, gray wolves, as
well as some of our treasured species that were declared
extinct like the black footed ferret, which our Game and Fish
recovered.
His leadership continued to keep Wyoming free of
destructive zebra and quagga mussels, especially with
interstate transport concerns and new vectors, such as aquarium
plants. He is a strong leader, a humble leader, who brings a
sense of mission and professionalism to any critical
conversation.
For example, Brian oversaw the development of the State's
chronic wasting disease management plan, one of the most
challenging wildlife diseases impacting deer, elk, and moose,
on the landscape today. He has been a leader for the Nation and
worked to prevent wildlife vehicle collisions, ensure wildlife
can move freely through wildlife crossing and preserving
migration routes for big game.
Alongside the Wyoming legislature, Brian led in efforts to
reform the State's most challenging wildlife management issues
under the Wyoming Wildlife Task Force. With a background in law
enforcement and as a game warden, he has enforced and overseen
game laws, ensuring the value of North America's wildlife
remains intact.
Brian is truly masterful in developing bipartisan
relationships at all levels, in bringing together sportsmen,
outfitters, conservationists, and those who enjoy the outdoors,
for sound, durable policymaking.
Brian's leadership on behalf of the State of Wyoming has
been exemplary, while it has not been easy. As I mentioned,
Brian has had to wrestle with some of the most challenging
issues facing wildlife today, from our work to recognize our
State's primary role in managing grizzly bears to recovering
the black footed ferret from extinction.
Brian understands these issues. He knows the science and he
knows who to call.
He can be assiduous. Brian and I were discussing outlaw
horses on our previous pack trip to the most remote part of the
lower 48, Cynthia, you know that place, and the injuries we
have received because of their behaviors. I told him about a
flashy little gray that had dumped me on my head in front of my
eight-year-old daughter years ago, and he told me about a roan
that had bucked him off and broken his wrist after a day
working cattle. He told me he was going to sell that roan to
someone, so nobody would get hurt. There the roan was at our
camp on the Wood River last fall, bucking panniers off on day
five.
I thought he was gone, I said, though I know he was an
optimist at heart. He replied, well, I thought he'd pack all
right. Brian ought to know. I can think of no one who has spent
more time outdoors or knows more about the outdoors than Brian.
Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of
the committee, thank you for this opportunity and for your
forbearance on my overtime. It is an honor to be here.
[The prepared statement of Governor Gordon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you, Governor. Thank you for being
here.
Senator Barrasso, former Chair.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman, thank you,
Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee. Thank you
for allowing me to take just a few moments to help in joining
in the introduction of Brian Nesvik. He has been nominated to
be the head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is
critical to Wyoming and the Nation. It is an agency that plays
a crucial role in the conservation and management of our
Nation's natural resources.
This agency serves as the cornerstone of our efforts to
protect wildlife while following the best available science.
From managing national wildlife refuges to implementing
programs that enhance habitat restoration, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service are the front lines preserving our Nation's
resources.
Over the last four years, politics has driven much of the
agency's decisions rather than following the science. For
example, the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem population of
grizzly bears has been fully recovered for 20 years. Republican
Administrations, Democrat Administrations, all agreed for 20
years. Grizzly bear, fully recovered.
In my home State of Wyoming, we are proud of its lead role
in leading this recovery and investing over $50 million to this
end. Brian Nesvik played a large role in advocating for Wyoming
and advancing these policies.
He served as the Wyoming Game and Fish Director since 2019
until his retirement in September. He grew up in Cheyenne,
graduated from Cheyenne East High School, went on to earn a
Bachelor of Science degree in wildlife and fisheries biology
and management from the University of Wyoming. He was selected
by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to serve as a wildlife
law enforcement technician in 1995. He has dealt with
significant endangered species issues all the way throughout,
involving both grizzly bears and wolves.
He dealt with complex elk management challenges in herds of
the elk around Yellowstone National Park. In March 2019, he was
appointed to be the Director of Wyoming Game and Fish, but
additionally, I actually first met him when he served in the
Wyoming Army National Guard. He has been in the Guard since
1986. Currently serves as the Commanding General for the
Wyoming National Guard and Assistant Adjutant General, holding
the rank of Brigadier General. I visited with him when he was
leading troops in Kuwait, and Cynthia was there with me on that
trip. We were there for Thanksgiving with him, where we saw
that he was a respected and admired leader of the troops.
He served as a commander of two deployments to Operational
Iraqi Freedom in Baghdad and southern Iraq and in Kuwait. In
2005, he was awarded the Bronze Star medal by the U.S. Army for
his service. He is a graduate of the Army War College, holds a
Master of Science degree in strategic studies. He is smart, he
is capable, he is strategic.
I want to congratulate him on his nomination. I look
forward to working with him on all of these important issues,
and what are the very best for Wyoming and for the Nation.
Once again, thank the committee for the opportunity to be
here today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you for being here. Do not be a
stranger. Thank you.
Senator Lummis, I know you wanted to say some words.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Lummis. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. I want
to pile on when it comes to Brian Nesvik.
In Wyoming, we have a highly respected author, C.J. Box,
who has created a series of books, national bestseller, always
on the New York Times bestseller list, where the protagonist is
a guy named Joe Pickett. Joe Pickett is a game warden in the
series. It is as if he styled, Chuck Box styled his Joe Pickett
series after Brian Nesvik. Brian is Wyoming's real life Joe
Pickett.
Here is what I love about Brian and this job. He was first
a game warden, then regional wildlife supervisor, then chief
game warden, then wildlife division chief and finally, director
of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. As John says, Wyoming
Game and Fish Department was the first of its kind in America.
This is a State that loves and respects and nurtures its
wildlife and Brian Nesvik has been a true leader in that
regard.
Of course, as John mentioned, if that was not enough, he
also served the Wyoming Army National Guard for 35 years,
retiring as Brigadier General. Now, being a rancher myself and
knowing that is where I want to retire, the fact that you would
retire from the Wyoming Game and Fish and allow us to recruit
you to come back and do the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service job
is a testament to, Brian, to your willingness as a public
servant to serve this Nation.
You know it from the ground up. You were a boots on the
ground game warden. That is the kind of person I want in the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, someone who has held every
aspect of the game and wildlife management close to his vest.
He has also worked closely with Federal, State and local
partners. I know he was the head of the Organization of Western
Wildlife Managers. He was on the board of the National
Organization of State Wildlife Managers. He has worked with
every State and particularly with the western States, where are
issues are somewhat similar with regard to wildlife. He knows
the players. He knows who to call. He knows the people who are
trying to manage wildlife and do it well. He is the right guy
for this job at the right time.
Wyoming has led the way in species protection. Especially
with sage grouse, we have the most sage grouse of any State in
the Country, and our efforts to be forward looking about sage
grouse management have allowed us to continue to keep that
species at the forefront in Wyoming, in spite of the fact that
it has created real challenges for Wyoming's development.
Brian has been involved in those efforts as well. I know he
will bring this approach to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
He will work on cooperative federalism, that is the way these
agencies were designed. Wildlife and fish are primarily managed
by our States. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plays a
collaborative, supporting role, not the primary role. Brian
Nesvik understands the difference. He is the right guy at the
right time.
I want to thank you, Brian, for accepting this call to
service. I look forward to working with you in your new role,
to make sure that our Country appropriately nurtures this great
resources, this wonderful blessing we have. I say it as an
angler more than as a hunter. Like you, Governor, I have been
to Hawk's Rest, the most remote place in the lower 48. When I
got there, after riding 26 miles on a horse, I looked at the
ground and thought, I am never going to be able to get off this
horse, because my knees are going to buckle and I am going to
fall flat on my rear end.
It is the amazing blessing of being raised in the west,
that we have places like that that are so remote that you just
feel grateful that you had a chance in your life to be there
and see these things. That is the kind of person I want in this
job. Brian is the right person, and I strongly, highly endorse
his nomination.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
I will excuse the Senator and the Governor and ask the
witnesses to move forward. I will introduce the other two.
I do not think I can say anything more about Brian.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. I am just saying.
Our next nominee is Jess Kramer. She is a former staffer of
mine, as I mentioned earlier, and I could not be happier to
introduce her this morning. She brings a wealth of experience
working on water policy. She has worked for the Wisconsin and
Florida State governments previously, and previously served at
the EPA, worked on Capitol Hill, and advocated for private
entities.
In these positions, she combined her diligence and charisma
to support policies to improve our Nation's water quality and
the development of water infrastructure. Welcome, Jess.
Our final nominee this morning is Sean Donahue. Mr. Donahue
currently serves as the Special Advisor to Administrator Zeldin
at the EPA. Prior to that position, Mr. Donahue worked as a
counsel for a solar energy company, and as an associate at a
Buffalo, New York law firm, where he practiced environmental
law.
Mr. Donahue has also served three years at the EPA during
the Trump Administration. He is a graduate of the University of
Central Florida and Florida State University College of Law.
Welcome.
Before we go to opening statements from our nominees, I
will ask you all to rise and I am going to swear you in. If you
would raise your right hand. Answer the following questions.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to
this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God? I will just go down the line.
Brian?
Mr. Nesvik. I do, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Kramer. I do.
Mr. Donahue. I do.
Senator Capito. Let the record show that the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative. We will now proceed to their
opening statements. Thank you. Be seated.
General Nesvik, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN NESVIK, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED
STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Nesvik. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. I am
honored to be here today to discuss my nomination by President
Trump to serve as the 19th Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Senator Barrasso, Governor Gordon, Senator Lummis, I really
appreciate your support, your gracious comments here today. I
thank all of you who are just incredible public servants for
our home State of Wyoming, but also for our Country. Thank you
for that, and your willingness to serve as well.
I am joined here today in person by my wife Penny, my son
Rudy and my daughter Aspen, and virtually by my daughter
Brittany. I am also joined here in person and virtually by many
friends and family and supporters from across the Country.
I spent the last 38 plus years serving my State and Country
in a variety of roles. I grew up in Wyoming and was blessed by
my parents who provided me outdoor experiences at a very young
age. I developed an early interest and love for wildlife and
the wild places that they lived, and it would shape my life's
work. I worked as game warden and a wildlife manager in the
field, interacting directly with wildlife and the people who
entrusted me to manage their natural resources and trust.
I know how to put tire chains on a four-wheel drive pickup
in a snowstorm, how to classify deer from a helicopter, and how
to patrol some of America's most remote and wild country from a
horse. I know how to lead. I served in the military and began
my career as an enlisted man, starting as a private, training
to defend out great Nation with my boots muddy and my face
dirty.
Serving in uniform is a strong part of our family culture
and history. My father served, my brother served and two of my
grandfathers fought in World War II.
In my dual careers both as a wildlife manager and a
soldier, I earned the privilege to lead and embraced the
responsibility that came with that honor. Ultimately, I served
as my State's chief game warden and then its Game and Fish
Director. In my military career, I had the incredible
opportunity to lead our Nation's best and brightest in a
variety of roles, including on two combat deployments.
My military career culminated with my promotion to
Brigadier General and the opportunity to command Army National
Guard for almost four years.
These experiences and opportunities, starting in the field
and working my way up, have prepared me well to work complex,
convoluted problems and to take decisive action in uncertain
environments. I am proud of my work on big game migration
corridors, protecting my State from the scourge of invasive
species, and working with the public and talented wildlife
managers to recover species listed under the Emotional Support
Animal, ESA.
I am grateful for the people who worked with me toward
these ends. I cherish the opportunity to build a strong track
record working with ranchers, farmers, sportsmen and women,
tribes, and all people who care about natural resources. These
people, citizens of our great Nation, are the ground level of
our government and the foundation of the mission of the Service
and my personal leadership mission.
Respecting values, building effective teams, communicating
candidly and transparently, leading by example, and treating
all people with dignity and respect are the core tenets of my
leadership commitment. If confirmed, I will bring these
attributes and my continuing dedication to a wider array of
Americans and international partners.
Foremost, I will serve the American people and their
natural resources, specifically wildlife, fish and plants. I
will serve with honor and integrity. Every day I will lead the
employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service. I know firsthand
the dedication of these incredible people to their profession
and their Country.
If confirmed, I will execute my charge decisively, and work
every day to provide the men and women of the Service with the
leadership that they deserve and the American people expect. I
look forward to working with the team to deliver and achieve
together and in the best interest of America.
When this committee, its members, other Senators, other
members of the House, need my attention to requests or
initiative and informing you, I will be available and prompt.
President Trump's America First agenda includes building a
government that better serves the citizens of our Country, and
there are immediate and transformational opportunities to
demonstrate that. Improving the Service's interactions with the
public, simplifying regulations, accelerating permitting with
technology, and relying more on education, voluntary compliance
and verification.
I share Secretary Burgum's vision that innovation
outperforms regulation. Creative, innovative, purposeful action
is a proven hallmark of American success.
President Teddy Roosevelt personified such action as
America's earliest and most influential conservationist. His
leadership and achievements have long influenced my career in
wildlife conservation. His oft-quoted arena metaphor combines
thoughtfulness, pragmatism, and courage.
If confirmed to enter this arena, I will dare greatly. I am
honored by President Trump's nomination and Secretary Burgum's
support, and thankful to all of those who have supported my
potential appointment.
Thank you again, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, members of the committee. I look forward to
answering your questions here today and then any that you may
submit for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nesvik follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Ms. Kramer?
STATEMENT OF JESSICA KRAMER, NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Kramer. Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, and distinguished members of this committee. My
name is Jessica Kramer and I am honored to have the opportunity
to appear before you today.
It is my privilege to come before this committee as
President Trump's nominee for the Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Water at the Environmental Protection Agency. I
want to thank President Trump for the confidence instilled in
me through this nomination and Administrator Zeldin for his
support in this nomination as well.
If confirmed, it will be the highest honor of my career to
work every day with the dedicated career staff in the Office of
Water to protect human health and the environment, and to
support Administrator Zeldin as he does the same.
I want to thank my family, my husband Tony Frye, who is
here with me today, my parents Deb and Dennis Kramer, my sister
and brother-in-law Christy and Ben Cupps, my 2-year-old
daughter Daphne, and the little boy my husband and I will
welcome this summer, for providing unwavering support through
this process, every step of the way.
Anyone who has ever had a toddler will understand that my
husband and I made a strategic decision to not have our
daughter come support me in person today. However she has heard
this statement multiple times at this point and I can
confidently say she is in full support.
EPA's mission has a deep-rooted place in my heart. I was
raised on 80 acres of land in central Wisconsin, where my
family grew and sold Christmas trees. My parents worked to
balance the agricultural use of that property while supporting
the robust wildlife that roamed the land as well as with
ensuring we had safe drinking water from the private well our
home utilized.
Growing up, I learned the importance of stewardship and
that is what drove me to become a natural resource major in my
undergraduate studies, and ultimately to focus on environmental
law in earning my legal degree.
Coming out of law school, I was privileged to join the
first of three State agencies I would have the pleasure of
serving through my career so far, the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. I started my career as an environmental
enforcement specialist and the case that sticks with me the
most was working with a community that had a lead action level
exceedance that tripped the regulatory requirement, at that
time, to begin replacing 7 percent of their lead service lines
every year.
I worked closely with that community to ensure they were
providing safe drinking water while also utilizing a pathway
for compliance that ensured that the system was not regulated
out of business.
Four years ago, during my time in EPA's Office of Water
under the first Trump Administration, my career felt like it
had come full circle. I was in a home in Newark, New Jersey,
taking water samples as we worked through the challenge that
was unfolding related to elevated levels of lead in drinking
water. Through our cooperative work with both the State and the
community, we were able to avoid a crisis situation and utilize
the ultimate cooperative federalism framework to ensure the
public health of the community was protected.
In addition to those positions, I have served as an
environmental prosecutor and defense attorney for the Wisconsin
Department of Justice, a government affairs specialist for
drinking water and wastewater associations advocating for a
polluter-pays model as it relates to PFAS contamination, and
the Deputy Secretary for Regulatory Programs at the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
In saving the best for last, I also supported this very
committee as Water Counsel for then Ranking Member Capito,
where I lead negotiations for the minority on the Drinking
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021, which passed
off of the Senate floor 93 to 7.
Each of these positions has further refined my true passion
for securing access to clean and safe water services for
everyone in this Country. Each of these positions has also
instilled in me the vital role of cooperative federalism as it
plays in this Country's construct of environmental protection.
Through these roles, I have also seen firsthand the
importance of a thoughtful, legally and scientifically sound
regulatory framework. A regulated community has no hope for
compliance if it does not have a definitive and clear framework
to work from.
Additionally, each of these positions has shaped my
perspective on the importance of common sense in regulation.
For example, regulating water systems across this Country out
of business through siloed rulemakings without providing an
achievable path for compliance is simply not good government,
nor is it good public health policy.
If I am confirmed, I will work every day to weave each of
these principles into sound, durable, and understandable policy
and regulation as I work to support Administrator Zeldin.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I look forward to hearing your priorities and answering
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kramer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you, Jess.
Mr. Donahue?
STATEMENT OF SEAN DONAHUE, NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Donahue. Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse,
and esteemed Senators, it is an honor and privilege to be here
today and testify before you as you take part in the important
advice and consent responsibility of this esteemed body and
consider me for the General Counsel post at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
I greatly appreciated the opportunity to meet with many of
you and your staff to hear about the issues impacting your
constituents, your views on the EPA and how the new
administration can find ways to improve EPA's regulations and
processes, ensure a predictable and durable regulatory regime
for the American public, and realign the agency to put it in
the best footing to fulfill its core mission of protecting
human health and the environment to ensure the brightest
possible future for generations to come.
I would also like to take the opportunity to express my
gratitude to a few others. First, I would like to thank
President Donald Trump for nominating me for this position. I
would also like to thank Administrator Lee Zeldin for his
tireless efforts, his supportive and steady hand, and for
entrusting me with this important role.
I would like to thank the dedicated and hardworking career
staff at EPA for their tireless work to advance the agency's
mission. In particular, I would like to thank the impressively
talented career staff attorneys in the Office of General
Counsel, I believe they are watching, I hope they are, who I
hope to rejoin, if confirmed. I genuinely believe they are the
best and brightest the world of environmental law has to offer.
I must also take the time to thank my partner, family,
friends, and colleagues, many of whom are here today.
On a personal note, I grew up on the Space Coast of Central
Florida, where I had the privilege of watching what seemed at
the time to be a very regular and routine thing, at least for
me, space shuttle and rocket launches from the nearby Kennedy
Space Center. Things changed when the space shuttle program
ended in the early 2010's, and I witnessed by hometown ravaged
by the loss of jobs and a crippled economy which was already
severely hurt by the lingering effects of the global financial
crisis.
Things got worse for me personally, aside from the lack of
launches. My father lost his well-paying job, and our family
situation and outlook for the future changed dramatically and
rapidly.
You may remember that as a result of the cancellation of
the space shuttle program, NASA was forced to rely on Russian
spacecraft to get our astronauts and scientists to the
International Space Station. As you might suspect, the decision
to cancel the program affected many families and their
livelihoods, in both tangible and direct ways in the form of
economic hardship, and indirectly by posing severe and serious
national security threats and limiting our Country's scientific
capabilities.
If you recall, one of the reported motivations for this
tragic policy change was concerns about climate change. I share
this story with you today to illustrate how short-sighted,
ideologically driven policy decisions here in Washington, DC.
impact not only Americans' livelihoods but also the security of
our great Nation.
I will go ahead and answer what I believe will be a
question posed by some on the committee today. Yes, according
to many scientists, the climate is indeed changing. Yes,
according to many scientists, human or anthropogenic causes are
contributing to the experienced greenhouse gas effect.
We should not forget that everything done here in D.C. has
real-world consequences that impact real people, their jobs,
their futures, the price at the pump or the charging station,
the cost of groceries, and our national security.
Turning next to my qualifications, I have worked in both
State and Federal Government and in the regulated community.
While my background and interests were initially in financial
services, I made the jump over to the environmental world and
never looked back.
I started this journey at EPA back during the first Trump
Administration, where I was in the Office of the Administrator
and the Office of Land and Emergency Management. I quickly grew
to love the agency, adore its capable staff, and appreciate the
complex and dynamic area of environmental law, which as you all
know, I am sure, is a continuously exhilarating, engaging, and
intellectually stimulating area to practice in.
Following my service at EPA, I was an associate at a
prominent regional firm, worked at a solar company, and
recently landed back at EPA, where I have served first as the
Principal Deputy General Counsel and more recently as a Senior
Advisor to the Administrator.
I sit before you today as the President's nominee for
General Counsel at the EPA. I am running out of time, so I look
forward to answering your questions both here and in the form
of QFRs. Thank you for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donahue follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you all three very much,.
Before we start individual questioning, I am going to ask
you three questions. I will just, usually we do this at the
end, but I forget, so they put it in the beginning for me.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee
or designated members of this committee and other appropriate
committees in this Congress to provide information, subject to
appropriate and necessary security protections with respect to
your responsibilities?
Mr. Nesvik. Yes, Madam Chairman, I do.
Ms. Kramer. Yes.
Mr. Donahue. I do.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings,
documents, and electronic and other forms of communications of
information are provided to the committee and its staff and
other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
Mr. Nesvik. Yes, I do.
Ms. Kramer. Yes.
Mr. Donahue. Yes.
Senator Capito. Good. Finally, do you know of any matters
which may or may not have been disclosed that may place you in
conflict of interest if you are confirmed?
Mr. Nesvik. No, ma'am.
Ms. Kramer. No.
Mr. Donahue. No.
Senator Capito. All right. We will start the first round of
questions.
My first question is for Brian Nesvik. You obviously, we
have heard, have served at every level almost within your
State. We know that the Fish and Wildlife, the Service has
regional and field offices. I am sure you have interacted.
They do not always have the same depth of knowledge as,
say, a State wildlife agency may have on an issue. I have heard
from my West Virginia government officials of instances when
they have tried to advise the agency on these local issues and
it has sort of fallen on deaf ears.
Your interactions in the past, will you please share your
experience as Director of Wyoming Game and Fish with your
department's efforts to coordinate with those State, regional,
field offices, and how that experience will inform your
efforts, to strengthen the relationship between the Service and
those State agencies?
Mr. Nesvik. Thank you, Madam Chair. Certainly, I have had
many years of opportunity to interact with and work directly
with different employees of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, all the way from field employees up to previous
directors.
One of the things that, certainly at times there is this
natural tension and friction between State and Federal
agencies. I think one of the things that has been very helpful
for me and would be helpful for me in this position if I am
confirmed, is understanding both my frustrations with some of
those decisions and interactions, but also understanding what
challenges those folks face as well.
Certainly, Fish and Wildlife Service is guided and directed
by congressional action and laws as are State agencies. A lot
of times, those interests are conflicting. I recognize that,
and look forward to being able to bring my experiences and
maybe a little bit different perspective to the United States
Fish and Wildlife, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
We talked about this in our office, and I thanked all three
of you for your visits. Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
ECA, Section 7 consultations are an important step in the
Federal permitting process, ensuring that threatened and
endangered species as well as critical habitats are not
jeopardized.
While there are deadlines the Service must meet for these
consultations, they are often missed, the deadlines are missed,
leading to costly delays.
Will you commit to expediting Section 7 consultations while
ensuring wildlife and their habitats are protected?
Mr. Nesvik. Madam Chairman, I am very interested, as I
stated in my opening statement, in giving this issue a hard
look. I have heard about this from a lot of folks, including
you, and I appreciate our time in your office the other day.
Certainly, I think it is an issue that, I know it is an
issue I am very interested in digging into and trying to find
out where we can find some efficiencies. I am a strong
believer, as I said, in using technology. Oftentimes processes
get bogged down and there is a lot, every day there is new
technology available to help with those things. I am interested
in looking at that.
My commitment to you is that I will take the deep dive into
this issue.
Senator Capito. Great. That will be appreciated. Thank you.
I just have to call you Jess, I can not go to the Ms.
Kramer much more. It is too hard for me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. I was going to ask you about what is the
motivation for you to move in this direction. I am going to
skip that question, because I want to get a little bit more
specific with you.
In West Virginia, we saw firsthand how innovative State-led
approaches can deliver real environmental results. I am talking
about the Muddy Creek restoration project. It successfully
restored 19 miles of waterways that was impacted by acid mine
drainage, using a cost-effective watershed based strategy. This
model was faster, more efficient, less expensive.
Initially, it was launched under the Trump Administration.
Later it was touted by the Biden Administration for its
success. It was ultimately abandoned in favor of a slower, more
bureaucratic process that threatens the progress of being able
to clean up Muddy Creek.
If confirmed, how will you get the EPA's Water Office back
to proven, results-driven approaches like this Muddy Creek
model I am speaking about?
Ms. Kramer. Absolutely. Thank you, Chairman.
If I have the honor of being confirmed, one of the things
that we will focus on in the Office of Water is looking at
every one of the regulatory matrices that we implement as the
EPA, and looking for opportunities for both innovation as well
as expediting, ensuring that we are still fulfilling our
statutory and regulatory obligations.
The project you mentioned is an exact opportunity for us to
try to replicate, to look for those additional opportunities,
and to offer, not only for other locations in West Virginia,
but also across the Country. I would hope to be able to have
the opportunity to replicate that model and continue to look
for other opportunities to expedite projects in a similar
manner across this Country.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much.
Mr. Donahue, what is the maximum number of lawyers that you
have supervised in your experience as an associate in a law
firm?
Mr. Donahue. Thank you for your question, Senator. It
varies, but it was typically anywhere from six, usually eight
to ten, with summer associates as well.
Senator Whitehouse. All lawyers?
Mr. Donahue. Not all lawyers, including summer associates.
Senator Whitehouse. Okay. What was the maximum number of
lawyers you supervised in your job at the solar company?
Mr. Donahue. None, Senator, none at the solar company.
Senator Whitehouse. In your work as an associate in the
Buffalo law firm, did you hold yourself out as an environmental
attorney?
Mr. Donahue. As an environmental lawyer, I did.
Senator Whitehouse. You spent 1 year and 6 months
practicing law for that firm in Buffalo, correct?
Mr. Donahue. I was located in that firm in Buffalo, yes,
Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. You were terminated by that firm after
1 year and 6 months?
Mr. Donahue. That is correct, Senator. If I may just add
some color to that--
Senator Whitehouse. Well, I have a pretty short time, so we
can followup with QFRs, because I promise you there will be
QFRs on this.
Have you practiced law anywhere else, other than that, as
an associate in the firm that terminated you and in the solar
company where you supervised no lawyers?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I have not.
Senator Whitehouse. Apart from your associate experience in
Buffalo, and the solar company, have you practiced law in any
other place?
Mr. Donahue. I have not, Senator. I was at the agency
before in the first Trump Administration.
Senator Whitehouse. Not in a legal position?
Mr. Donahue. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Have you ever taken a deposition?
Mr. Donahue. I have not, Senator. This is probably the
closest I have ever come to that.
Senator Whitehouse. Have you ever tried a case to verdict?
Mr. Donahue. No, Senator. In the firm and at the solar
company, we relied on, in the solar company we relied on
outside counsel.
Senator Whitehouse. You were providing inside advice at the
solar company rather than active litigation work?
Mr. Donahue. It was an in-house counsel, yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Have you ever argued a motion?
Mr. Donahue. I have not, Senator. As you--
Senator Whitehouse. Do you know what a motion in limine is?
Mr. Donahue. I do vaguely, yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, you should have been better
prepped, because John Kennedy asks this question.
Mr. Donahue. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Have you ever authored and signed a
legal pleading?
Mr. Donahue. I have not, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. There was a gap of several years
between your graduation from law school and when you entered
the bar in Washington, DC. During that period, did you take the
bar and fail to pass?
Mr. Donahue. I did, one time, Senator, yes. There was a--
Senator Whitehouse. In what jurisdiction? Mr. Donahue.
Sorry?
Senator Whitehouse. In what jurisdiction did you take the
bar and fail to pass?
Mr. Donahue. In Washington, DC, Senator, but there was a
gap before I actually took the bar. I was not sure if I
actually wanted to go and practice law, frankly.
Senator Whitehouse. Under what circumstances would you
counsel the EPA Administrator to violate a court order?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, thank you for that. I would never
counsel the EPA Administrator to violate a court order.
Senator Whitehouse. Under oath, can you assure us now that
EPA is presently in compliance with the Federal court decisions
by Judge Alikahn and Judge McConnell, right now?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I believe that the agency is.
Senator Whitehouse. When a public official makes public
accusations of criminal activity with no credible evidence to
support the accusations, what legal liabilities and concerns
does that raise?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, as you mentioned in opening,
potentially defamation, that sort of thing. I am not a criminal
investigator, I am not at the Department of Justice. I do not
handle the various aspects of that criminal probe, so I am not
privy to that information.
Senator Whitehouse. There is an internal memorandum out of
the agency's counsel office that relates that a significant
number of grants were terminated based on a significant error,
agency's words, in the terms and conditions for those grants.
As the Washington Post reported today, an agency lawyer warned
officials that they had cited contractual language that did not
apply to many of the grants the EPA had ended in recent weeks.
Grants had been terminated on grounds that they no longer fit
the agency's priorities, referring to a clause in their grant's
general terms and conditions that applied only to grants issued
between August 13, 2020 and September 30, 2024. Almost half of
the terminated grants were finalized outside of that relevant
period.
Have the grants impacted by this significant legal error
been restored to the recipients?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I have seen the reporting on that. We
received your letter, in fact, two letters yesterday on this. I
was not on that email, I think it was an email, not a
memorandum. I think we are working to track an answer down for
you on that.
Senator Whitehouse. My time is expired.
Senator Capito. Senator Cramer?
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you to all
of you for your service and your willingness to serve again.
I am going to go fairly quickly here. Almost nothing I am
going to ask you was in my notes. Except I am going to start
with one.
Ms. Kramer, aka Jess, looking forward to calling you
Assistant Administrator. Would you walk me through the
guidance, the new guidance regarding Waters of the United
States you offered, that the agency has provided, in the
context of Sackett, and why it complies with Sackett and why
the previous rule did not, speaking of ignoring courts
decisions?
Just kind of walk us through that. The prescriptive nature
of the Sackett decision, perhaps, for us.
Ms. Kramer. Absolutely, thank you, Senator. I really
appreciated the opportunity to get to talk to you in a little
bit more detail about Waters of the United States, WOTUS, when
we met.
The guidance document that was put out by the agency I
think is, hopefully, is pretty clear to folks. It is a
straightforward guidance document that essentially says that in
implementation, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, they are
going to follow the law. That gets exactly to your second
question about what does Sackett say, what does it mean for
implementation by both agencies to follow the law.
To your point, Sackett was prescriptive. It was
prescriptive in a number of ways specifically focused around
wetlands, which is what the guidance document focused on.
Sackett held that the Rapanos plurality was correct, which
means that the significant nexus test that had been previously
applied and implemented by both agencies no longer stands.
It specifically focuses on the fact that only those
wetlands that are adjacent to or abutting relatively permanent
waters are jurisdictional moving forward.
I do have to say, while Sackett was very prescriptive in
certain aspects, there are some terms and phrases of ambiguity
that are remaining from the courts. I am thinking about things
like the phrase continuous service connection, relatively
permanent waters, what does it need to be connected to, a
relatively permanent water. Then the age-old question of, is
this ditch in or out?
Paired with that guidance document, the agency released a
Federal Register notice, kicking open a docket, kicking open a
docket, that sounds very aggressive, opening a docket to take
public comments related to some of those ambiguous terms and
phrases. Any potential rulemaking that would be taken by the
agency would hope to shore up those remaining areas of
ambiguity. A landowner can confidently stand on their property
and know whether or not they have a WOTUS or they do not have a
WOTUS.
Senator Cramer. Thank you for that. That was very helpful.
Would you mind coming to North Dakota real early? I know
you have been there, but real early in the WOTUS sort of
process? We have a lot of landowners that are very familiar
with the problems of the ping-ponging, and frankly, the flaws
in the previous rule. Would you commit to coming to North
Dakota? It is not that far from Wisconsin.
Ms. Kramer. That is very true, I will just take a Northwest
flight. Absolutely, Senator, it would be my pleasure.
Senator Cramer. Okay, thank you.
General Nesvik, first of all, I do not even know why you
gave an opening statement, because after the three tributes to
you, you could only do worse.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. Honestly, it can not all be true. Listening
to Wyoming politicians talk about their States is like reading
a book that I want to be part of. Having said that, I feel a
little bit of Penny's pain.
You referenced, or maybe it was even Senator Lummis that
referenced something that Ms. Kramer also referenced in the
context of these jobs, and that is a reference to cooperative
federalism. I would be interested, and really, all three of
you, if we have the time, to just give me a little primer on
what you mean by cooperative federalism. You, having been a
State leader, certainly would have a good definition, I am
sure.
Mr. Nesvik. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator, and I sure
appreciate our time in your office yesterday. I can not look at
you and not think of something that I learned, though, from our
new Secretary of Interior, and that is that both North Dakota
and South Dakota have badlands, but North Dakota's are badder
badlands.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nesvik. I appreciate that question and certainly, what
cooperative federalism means to me is that there are certainly
roles that are very clearly defined for both the Federal
Government and the State government. Broadly speaking,
wildlife, most wildlife species are the responsibility of the
individual States to manage, with the exception of those who
have been listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Then there are a few other acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
Horse and Burro Act, there are some other species that
certainly have a Federal role. At the end of the day, there is
an opportunity on all those, both State managed species and
Federal managed species, for the two entities to work together
with their common stakeholders to find solutions. It is a more
efficient way to run government, it is better when the States
and the Federal Government are working together on these
things. As long as they stay within their own lane on those
things that are sovereign to their particular entity, whatever
that may be, whether it is the Federal Government or the State.
Ms. Kramer. Absolutely, thank you, Senator. I would like to
use an example in talking about what cooperative federalism
means to me. In the Office of Water context, there are many
statutes underneath both the Safe Drinking Water Act and the
Clean Water Act.
We have talked about Waters of the United States, but I am
going to focus on the Underground Injection Control Well
Program in the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is an example of a
program that can be delegated from the Federal implementation
and oversight, from the Federal implementation, excuse me, to
the State for them to actually implement the program.
The great thing about that is that the States know their
resources best. Part of this is the remaining oversight role
that EPA has to ensure that the States are continuing to
implement these programs consistent with the requirements of
the Federal law. It also allows the States the ability to be
more stringent in the restrictions that they put in place,
which again, States know their resources best. To the extent
that there is a need for a little bit of additional protection
from their perspective, that is the ability to do it.
It is that, it is that joint working together, recognizing
expertise of the States while also maintaining the oversight
role that is required under the Federal law.
Senator Capito. All right. Senator Blunt Rochester?
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and
Ranking Member Whitehouse. I also want to welcome the nominees
and your families.
I would like to start off by thanking Ms. Kramer for your
work on Chairwoman Capito's staff in crafting the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, otherwise known as the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I was proud to be a part of that
as well, on the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House.
The issue of clean drinking water is just paramount. It was
before the pandemic; I think it became even more so after the
pandemic.
Then the issue of water affordability was also very
important to us. I want to thank you for that.
These programs, as you know, are vital, particularly for
rural communities like in Delaware, also disadvantaged
communities. I am concerned about some of the executive orders
that the President has put forward, how they may jeopardize
some of these programs. As a matter of fact, we have been
learning of pauses to the funding.
I would love it if you could just spend a minute talking
about, first of all, are you aware of some of these freezes or
blocking of the funding for these water quality programs, and
if so, how would you in your role really live up to the work
that you helped to create?
Ms. Kramer. Absolutely, thank you for the question,
Senator. First and foremost, I think to address more of the
back end of your question, there was a pause to review the
funding that was rolling out the door initially at the
beginning of the administration. I was at the administration
during the time of that pause, during the time of that review.
When I joined as a senior advisor to the Administrator's
Office, all of the funding through, especially I think about
the SRFs, State Revolving Funds, I think about Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, WIFIA, all of that
was back and being implemented.
I did learn yesterday of one State that had not been
receiving money for lead replacement service lines. That was a
surprise for me to learn about. The Office of Water promptly
acted on that, our Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
promptly acted on that to clearly communicate the expectation
that that money should be going out to the States, and there
should not have been a reason that it was withheld.
Anything like that, if I am in this role, anything like
that that were to come across my desk would receive prompt
attention and action.
As you talked about this funding, especially as it relates
to the State Revolving Fund and the WIFIA program, I think
sometimes there is a little bit of confusion about those as
grant programs. They are not grant programs; they are loan
programs.
One of the great things, and I think why they have been so
fundamental for so many years in this space is that it gives
the opportunities for communities to access those funds and
then repay them in a way that does not put them out of
business.
I do think if I was confirmed, one of the areas that I
would specifically focus on is our provision of technical
assistance to those small and rural communities, some from
central Wisconsin, we are riddled with them. Ensuring that they
have the resources they need to access those funds, that would
be a huge priority of mine.
Senator Blunt Rochester. We will followup with you on some
questions for the record on everything from water affordability
and making sure we have a pilot program that was going to
really look at the data. We are concerned about wastewater
infrastructure as well.
We would love to followup with you on those.
Mr. Donahue, I have a few questions for you as well. Do you
know someone named Trent Morris?
Mr. Donahue. I do, Senator, yes.
Senator Blunt Rochester. What is your relationship?
Mr. Donahue. Trent Morris is my partner. He is here today.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Okay. Also, I know that property
records show that you lived in the same location in D.C. and in
Buffalo. I know he also is a part of the administration, the
Trump Administration. What is his role?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I believe his title is Deputy
Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Presidential
Personnel.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Working in personnel, that office
is responsible for aiding, as you mentioned, the President in
recruiting and vetting and nominating political appointees. Is
this position that you are up for one of those positions that
might be within that purview?
Mr. Donahue. I believe every position that is a political
appointment is indeed in that purview.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Okay. I just wanted to put that on
the record. As a person who worked in State personnel, it is
very challenging with having conflicts. I just wanted to put
that on the record.
Then last, for Mr. Nesvik, I have heard, I was pleased to
hear of your leadership in the Recovering America's Wildlife
Act. I am hopeful that you will work with this committee to
make sure that we can pass this bipartisan legislation. We
would love to have a commitment from you on that.
Mr. Nesvik. Thank you, Senator. I look forward to working
with you and with all of the members of the committee or any
other Members of Congress on any potential legislation.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, and I yield back.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
I am going to call on Senator Boozman, then I am going to
go make my vote and come back. Senator Boozman, you are up
next.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Nesvik, the 2025 State of the Birds report highlighted
long-term trends in bird populations. While many species are
struggling, ducks have remained stable, partly due to duck
hunters' commitment to wetland and waterfowl conservation.
Arkansas, as home to some of the most important duck
habitat in the Country, has benefited directly from that and
the annual Fish and Wildlife Service surveys used to manage
seasons in Arkansas and across the Mississippi flyway. However,
those surveys are at risk due to declining support in funding.
As Director, how will you ensure the Migratory Bird Program
maintains the resources needed to support Arkansas and other
States to safeguard the wetlands they have invested so much to
preserve?
Mr. Nesvik. Thank you for that question, Senator.
Certainly, there is requirements, there is legal requirements
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and under the way that the
Service manages flyways for the Service to, it is responsible,
has a major leading role in managing migratory waterfowl. Just
for the record, I am a big supporter of ducks. You can look at
the lining of my jacket and it has mallard ducks in it.
I think there is a lot of opportunity right now to evaluate
the priorities for the Service and where resources are
allocated, especially in resource constrained environments. I
think those are some of the things, the things that you
identified are part of the core mission.
It certainly would be something I am very interested in
learning more about with you and your staff and others. I do
believe it is very important.
Senator Boozman. Thank you. Along with that, the National
Wildlife Refuge system is a uniquely American success story,
public lands managed for wildlife conservation and outdoor
recreation, including hunting fishing. However, over time, the
system has suffered due to staffing shortages, failing
infrastructure, and inadequate funding, which collectively
hinder habitat management and the quality of recreational
opportunities.
As Director, what steps will you take to begin rebuilding
the refuge system so these critical assets are fully optimized
for both wildlife and the American people?
Mr. Nesvik. Well, Senator, first I will just tell you right
up front, I completely agree that the National Wildlife Refuge
system is a jewel for our Country. It is in my top five
priority list of things that I am very interested in looking at
if I am lucky enough to be confirmed.
I will tell you that I think the refuge system provides an
opportunity for the Service to interact with the American
public, and it also provides a venue for folks to experience
the outdoors, to experience wildlife. Wildlife refuges provide
a vast amount of public recreation and also as they were
originally intended when the first refuge was created in
Florida in, I believe, 1905 by Teddy Roosevelt, they are there
to provide sanctuaries and places for wildlife to thrive.
I strongly believe that the wildlife refuge system is very
important, and it is something that is going to have my focus.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Ms. Kramer, Arkansas faces a range of water challenges,
from agriculture needs in the deltas to drinking water
infrastructure in our rural communities. One size fits all
Federal water policy simply does not work in a State with such
diverse needs.
Can you commit to ensuring the EPA will work
collaboratively with Arkansas agencies, cities and communities,
respecting their role as co-regulators and engaging
meaningfully in the policymaking process?
Ms. Kramer. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Boozman. Very good. How will you ensure that
Arkansas continues to benefit from the strong, flexible water
financing tools like the State Revolving Fund, so that local
decision makers can invest in solutions that work for their
specific needs?
Ms. Kramer. Thank you for the question, Senator. One of the
priorities that I would have if I am honored to fill this role
would be to take a look at those financing programs, such as
the State Revolving Funds, to look for opportunities where EPA
can cut red tape that has been established across the years.
There are some fundamental principles that have been set in
statute by all of you that we would want to be sure that we are
undertaking those, and that the implementation is going
properly. However, allowing for additional flexibilities where
we can in things like the intended use plan, as States submit
them, would be something that I would be interested in
exploring.
Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you. I thank all of you
for your willingness to serve.
Senator Whitehouse. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator
Boozman.
Senator Merkley, you are up.
Senator Merkley. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Donahue, I wanted to ask you a few questions. We have
lots of grants in Oregon for different purposes that have been
either canceled or put on the targeted list for cancellation.
We find a number of these somewhat confusing as to why they are
being canceled.
For example, a grant to reduce transportation congestion
and facilitate tourism in rural Oregon, why would that be
canceled under a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, DEI,
argument?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, thank you for your question. I have
read the press about this; we received two letters from the
committee yesterday as well. I have not seen this list, I am
not familiar with it, so I can not speak to that today. I
apologize.
Senator Merkley. You do not have any conception yourself,
any explanation of why this would be something that should be
canceled?
Mr. Donahue. As a policy matter, or legal one, I do not. I
do not know enough context.
Senator Merkley. The second grant provides technical
assistance to tribes and rural communities to improve water
infrastructure. Is there a reason that that would be canceled
under DEI? Is there something the Administration dislikes about
water infrastructure being reconstructed in America?
Mr. Donahue. I do not believe that is the case, Senator.
Again, I do not know all the context. I have not seen this memo
or email. I have not seen this list.
Senator Merkley. Another grant is one that prepares for
extreme wildfire smoke. It is a big issue in my State, not
everywhere. Oregon had the earliest, most fierce wildfires in
the Country last year, and then a lot of firefighters came from
other States to help, then other States were hard hit, and our
firefighters went to help.
Smoke is a growing problem, because of people with asthma.
We get hospitals flooded with people who need safe places to
breathe, if you will. It also has a big impact on commerce in
ways that you would not anticipate, like furniture salesmen
whose shops that now all the furniture is smoke-tainted, or
wine grapes that are being affected and so forth.
One of the grants was to help communities prepare for
extreme wildlife smoke. Is there a reason that that would be
canceled under DEI?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I hear your concerns. I myself have
asthma, so I apologize if throughout this I am coughing a
little bit with allergies in the air. Again, as with the
others, I do not know the particulars of this, so I would be
unable to comment on that.
Senator Merkley. Another grant was to upgrade a school
built 100 years ago to serve as a shelter during extreme
weather events. That could be smoke, that could be heat. We
have had some pretty remarkable shifts. Anyone who is familiar
with Portland, Oregon would be astounded to find out it hit 115
degrees in Portland, Oregon.
Is there anything the administration particularly thinks is
wrong with preparing to help people during extreme weather
events have a safe haven?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I do not believe so. We will look
into that and the other grants.
Senator Merkley. Were all of these canceled because the
administration said, let us run some AI list and anything that
pops up with certain keywords is getting canceled?
Mr. Donahue. I do not believe so, Senator. I am not sure.
Senator Merkley. Well, a lot of things were canceled so
quickly, so many different grants, or put on the list for
potential termination. How was that list developed?
Mr. Donahue. Again, Senator, I was not involved in this. I
do not know what email or memo you all are referring to yet. I
have not checked that out.
Senator Merkley. Would the idea of just massively canceling
grants because someone ran a search engine or an AI list and
said, well, anything that ever mentions the word
``opportunity,'' well, that is too close to ``equity,'' so we
are going to cancel this grant, does the administration not
like opportunity for everyone?
Mr. Donahue. I do not think that is the case, Senator. I
think the administration is pretty clear that we--
Senator Merkley. If such a list was developed by running
some computer program because it was done basically overnight,
you would say that was irresponsible to do it in that fashion?
Mr. Donahue. Not necessarily, Senator. I would be very
impressed with the technology. I get your question and your
concern.
Senator Merkley. Given all the work that goes into
communities to plan these things, and often very short
personnel, rural communities have very few staff to write
grants and prepare, it is often like the mayor has to do it or
the city council member, they can not even afford a grant
writer. They put all this work into getting these grants, and
they are just wiped out by a computer program run overnight. Is
not that really unfair and inequitable to rural communities
across our Country?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, again, I do not know if AI or a
computer program was used here for this. It sounds like you all
have a little more information than I do myself.
Senator Merkley. Would you reverse these efforts and say,
no, we have to go back and fairly examine each grant?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, if confirmed for the General Counsel
position, I will ensure that the best legal advice is given in
all matters including this one, to ensure that the agency is
complying with the law.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Next on the list, I have Senator
Ricketts.
Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much.
I am sorry Chairman Capito is not here, because she knows
how much I love this committee, because we get to talk about
biofuels all the time. It is one of my favorite topics and I
know it is one of hers as well.
Mr. Donahue, one of your primary responsibilities as
General Counsel is implementing the agency's statutory
obligations. I think Senator Merkley, you were referring to
that as well when you were responding back to as General
Counsel you will give advice to the agency with regard to what
they are supposed to be doing to follow the law.
One of those laws, the Rural Fuel Standard, very clearly
mandates periodic rulemakings for renewable volume obligations.
This is something where the last administration failed to
comply with the law. In June 2022, the Biden Administration
published retroactive rulemakings in 2021 and 2022 that under-
protected biofuel volumes by billions of gallons.
The 2023 Renewable Volume Obligations, RVOs, were published
a year later, too late in the year for producers or the fuel
markets to adjust. The 2026 RVOs were due in November 2024, but
will not be published until December 2025. Again, the last
administration failed to follow the law.
Mr. Donahue, if you are confirmed, how do you plan to
comply with the clear statutory directives outlined in the
Renewable Fuels Standard to provide timely, reflective RVOs?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, thank you for raising this as you
did, of course, in our meeting a couple of weeks ago. As Lee
Zeldin, the Administrator, has indicated, this is a, fixing it
from the agency's side is a priority for the administration.
Things are in progress there.
In my role, if confirmed as General Counsel, I will ensure
that the Office provides the best, again, legal advice in this
matter. Again, as I think you may be leading to, a
congressional fix may be appropriate here.
Senator Ricketts. Well, the congressional fix is more like
on the E15. The law is already out here, Mr. Donahue, what the
EPA is supposed to be doing with regard to their obligations on
the RVOs, getting those published in a timely manner. What I am
asking you is, will you give the administration, the EPA, the
advice that they need to follow the statutory RVOs and do it in
a timely manner, as the law prescribes?
Mr. Donahue. We will follow the law, Senator, yes.
Senator Ricketts. Great. That is what I wanted.
General Nesvik, congratulations on your nomination. After
the last four years, the Interior Department stands to benefit
greatly from your experience as a Brigadier General, and few
people understand Federal land management agencies better than
westerners.
As Governor of Nebraska, I hear about NEPA compliance
issues relating to the Endanger Species Act implementation for
critical energy infrastructure and other development projects.
As Senator, I hear about these same issues. The Fish and
Wildlife Service plays a critical role in implementing the
Endangered Species Act, especially through this statute of
Section 7 authorities.
Considering your experience in Wyoming as Game and Fish
Director, how can Congress, and you mentioned this a little
bit, how can Congress empower State and local stakeholders to
play a more active role in Section 7 consultations with Fish
and Wildlife?
Mr. Nesvik. Thank you, Senator. Certainly, Section 7 has a
real purpose and meaning. I think it was a good piece of law or
a good portion, a good component of the Endangered Species Act
when it was enacted back in 1975. I do think there are some
opportunities to be more prompt and timely in the way that
Section 7 consultations are completed.
I look forward to being able to look and analyze exactly
what processes are in place. I appreciate yesterday you shared
with me some of the tools and techniques that you were able to
use when you were Governor.
Things like that are different tools that I want to
evaluate and look at to improve not only Section 7 but all
permitting. There is a lot of permitting that the Fish and
Wildlife Service is responsible for. There is also some
opportunities, I think, too, with simplifying regulations.
Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you, General.
Ms. Kramer, Senator Cramer had talked to you a little bit
about Waters of the U.S. Obviously, this is a big deal for
Nebraska as well. The Clean Water Act mentions navigable waters
50 times. Congress' intent could not have been more clear about
what waters the EPA has responsibilities for.
We talked a little bit about, or you mentioned it, about
landowners. Specifically, can you talk to me a little bit about
agricultural producers and other development industries, and
how will they benefit from President Trump's WOTUS rulemaking?
Ms. Kramer. Absolutely, thank you, Senator. I think, so to
take it from the beginning, sorry, there are two parts to your
question. I want to make sure that I hit them both. I think to
the extent that we are talking about navigable, you are right.
It is said extensively through the Clean Water Act. As a very
helpful point, now we have Sackett to give us a little bit more
flavor on the bones of how extensive that reach can be.
Looking forward to every stakeholder having the opportunity
to provide extensive public comment as we work through the
process. Once we get to the point of kicking off a rulemaking,
it is vital that we hear the voices of agriculture. These are
the folks that feed our Country. These are the folks that
ensure that we have an available food supply that makes it so
that grocery prices do not eat up an entire paycheck.
It is vital that as we lock down the process of coming up
with a clear and definitive and durable rulemaking that they
have a seat front and center at the table to ensure that while
we are following the mandates of the Clean Water Act we also
are doing so in a way that does not prohibit and preclude the
growth of food for our Nation.
Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you, Ms. Kramer.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Padilla?
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for EPA
Administrator Zeldin's interest in one of my top EPA
priorities, which is finally resolving the Tijuana River sewage
crisis. For decades, communities in that part of Southern
California have faced persistent both environmental as well as
public health impacts of untreated sewage that has come across
the border. Now, during President Trump's first term, the late
Senator Feinstein as well as our House delegation from the San
Diego region worked to secure $300 million to expand a
wastewater treatment plant in San Diego. During the last couple
of Congresses, we have worked together to secure another $300
million to complete the necessary upgrades.
We recently invited Administrator Zeldin to tour the plant
to see firsthand the challenges that we face. I would like to
begin by asking you, Ms. Kramer, how familiar you are with this
issue, with the projects. Assuming you are confirmed, I would
look forward to working with you to bring this project to
completion.
Ms. Kramer. Absolutely, thank you, Senator, for that
question. During my first tenure at EPA, under the first Trump
Administration, this is in fact one of the issues that worked
on. EPA had been appropriate that first amount of funding that
you referenced. I was involved in the consideration of the
various projects that could be funded to ensure that this
trans-boundary flow crisis, to be completely frank, raw sewage
flowing anywhere, in my mind, is a crisis, comes to an end.
While I left before those projects were finally selected,
since I have returned in the senior advisor role I have been
brought back up to speed on exactly what is happening. I think
the challenges that we are seeing there, one, stems to ensuring
that the infrastructure that is in place, to ensure that these
flows cease, but also to ensuring that there is communication,
robust communication, that allows for partnership that is
required to ensure that operation and maintenance of those
infrastructure investments takes place.
It is especially easy when it is in the U.S., and it is a
little bit more challenging when we have infrastructure on the
other side of the border that we need to be collaborating on.
Senator Padilla. Well, that is music to my ears, your
familiarity with it, your history with it, your commitment to
it as a priority. Yes, collaboration is key, not just with
partners south of the border, but even within the Federal
Government, you have brought to bear the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the intricacies of the State Department
involvement here. Thank you for that.
Next question is going to be for Mr. Nesvik. I want to
first of all thank you for your public service both as well for
wildlife manager in Wyoming as well as in the armed services.
If confirmed, you will be the latest in a long line of folks
facing a steep learning curve on the contentious water issues
in California, which require a large amount of careful
attention and collaboration as well.
In the Klamath Basin, for example, in the far northern part
of the State, water scarcity challenges, our efforts to support
agriculture, restore fish populations, and improve water
quality. At Lake Tahoe, invasive species and water quality
concerns threaten the lake's clarity.
In the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay delta, we are balancing
the water needs of agriculture with the need to protect
endangered species and adapt to our changing climate. In
Southern California we face serious challenges like habitat
loss and water scarcity, with the Salton Sea being a prime
example of the need for Federal and State cooperation.
Each of these, let alone all taken together, are certainly
tough, high-stakes issues that demand significant time,
attention, and collaboration between Federal and State
governments, and a shared commitment to practical solutions.
I am looking to responsible public servants to help inform
the President and work with partners on the ground. That I
guess is my first question to you, Mr. Nesvik. If you are
confirmed, are you willing to roll up your sleeves and listen
to both career professionals at Fish and Wildlife Service as
well as experts within California's State agencies as you
navigate these complex issues?
Mr. Nesvik. Yes, Senator, I appreciate that question. I
know water is an extremely important issue for California. I
know it is very complex. I come from a State that is a
headwater State. In my entire career, I have dealt with water
policy and the challenges and the contentiousness around water.
In Wyoming, we say whiskey is for drinking and water is for
fighting.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nesvik. It is true. Yes, I do commit to diving deep
into this issue. I know it is really important to you and your
constituents and frankly, other States as well.
Senator Padilla. We are interconnected by the Colorado
River, and that speaks again to the need for Federal-States,
plural, collaboration.
On just the Federal Government side, I want to make sure
that you commit to working with the State of California as well
as the Bureau of Reclamation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, NOAA, and other executive agencies, to assure
that we are effectively making progress on California's water
and wildlife challenges, and all the States, for that matter.
Mr. Nesvik. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
I have a followup question that I will submit for the
record. In response to a question from Senator Boozman, you
made mention of migration patterns. I know in Wyoming you have
been working on it, as we have in California, on advancing
wildlife corridors as an important strategy to maintain both
development and wildlife populations. I look forward to working
with you on that as well.
Mr. Nesvik. Absolutely. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. [Presiding.] Sure. Senator Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank
the witnesses for their willingness to serve their Country.
General, I have a lot of questions for you. We are going to
meet here soon.
As you probably know, Alaska has unique wildlife and
management challenges spanning 16 wildlife refuges, 76 million
acres of Fish and Wildlife Service managed land. If you want a
little context, that is much larger than the State of Wyoming,
16 million acres bigger than Wyoming, just our Fish and
Wildlife Service land.
Hopefully, you have read Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act, ANILCA. Have you read the Sturgeon I and
Sturgeon II Supreme Court cases?
Mr. Nesvik. I have read, Senator, about ANILCA. I do not
know Sturgeon I and Sturgeon II.
Senator Sullivan. Sturgeon I and Sturgeon II, recent
Supreme Court cases, twice, nine to zero, the Supreme Court of
the United States said Alaska is unique. All these Federal
lands, all these Federal agencies who try to shut us down, we
are unique. It was a great, very strong statement, nine to zero
twice in two years. I would like you to read those cases. You
and I are going to have a long discussion.
The Supreme Court has said that ANILCA recognizes that
Alaska is different. It is unique. It is a vast wilderness. Its
subsistence needs, and the need for special treatment in the
management of its resources are all reflected in the Federal
law ANILCA, which a lot of Alaskans do not like, I do not like,
but at least there are some protections.
We are unique in other ways. When Democrats get into power,
they try to crush my State. This is what I call the Alaska Last
Frontier Lockup, 70 executive orders and executive actions, 70
from the Biden Administration exclusively focused on Alaska,
most of which were hurting the Native people of my State.
Now, why did they do this? The radical far left
environmental groups want to crush my State.
Will you work with me and the President of the United
States, I am going to get to this, to undo this illegal, by the
way, most of these were illegal, seven zero, the national media
never wrote the story, not one story, can you imagine? A
Federal Government comes and says, I am going to crush one
State, and really hurt the Native people, and we are going to
do it illegally, and nobody ever wrote about that. It is
amazing.
They are not going to write about this, either. Most of
these actions were illegal. Yesterday, a very liberal judge in
Alaska said the Biden Administration's shutting down of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWAR, lease sales was not
illegal. New York Times, Washington Post, going to write that
story? No. They love it when my State gets crushed.
Here is help, help is on the way, though. Day one of this
administration, the Trump Administration, President of the
United States issued this executive order, unleashing Alaska's
extraordinary resource potential. Day one. I want to thank the
President and his team. Undoing all the illegal stuff that they
did against my State, hurting my constituents, hurting working
families, especially hurting the Native people.
By the way, whenever you hear the Biden folks and some of
my national Democrat friends talk about indigenous people and
they really care about them, big asterisk, except if you are
indigenous in Alaska. Then they come for you. I have a list a
mile long of how national Democrats in this city come after
negatively the Native people of Alaska, which really makes me
mad. You can kind of tell.
Will you commit to work with me on implementing the
President's day one executive order, very long, very detailed,
on unleashing Alaska's extraordinary resource potential and
economy and jobs in my State? We are the only State that has
one of these. It is because we got crushed by Biden. Can I get
your commitment on that?
Mr. Nesvik. Senator, absolutely, I look forward to our
meeting, I think tomorrow. I also look forward to visiting your
State and learning about a lot of issues that you are very
passionate about.
Senator Sullivan. I am very passionate about it. I do not
like being singled out by Democrats, Chuck Schumer, to crush my
State. It is just wrong. Again, I want to thank the President,
this President, for what he is doing to help Alaska.
Ms. Kramer, I got a couple quick questions for you. Alaska
has over 170 million acres of wetlands subject to Federal
jurisdiction. It is home to 63 percent of the waters subject to
the Clean Water Act and 65 percent of the Nation's wetlands.
Again, we kind of have a little bit of issues with our Federal
agencies.
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett, will
you assure me that permafrost and permafrost wetlands are not
considered Waters of the U.S.?
Ms. Kramer. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I know
you will appreciate the fact that I cannot prejudge a
rulemaking outcome. However, I will commit to ensuring that we
follow Sackett to the letter of the law. If you would have me,
I also would love the opportunity to come visit your State to
see the features you are talking about in person, to be able to
help as we walk down that path.
Senator Sullivan. Great. I would like actually commitment
from all three of you to come to Alaska and visit. We have so
many unique challenges. I have just mentioned two. There is a
whole bunch of other ones.
Mr. Nesvik. Absolutely, Senator.
Ms. Kramer. Absolutely.
Mr. Donahue. I would love to.
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Donahue, real quick, I am sorry I am
over my time, but these are such important issues, the EPA has
a long and very negative history of oppressive tactics in my
State. I have talked many times about the Chicken Alaska raid
on our placer miners, 20, 30 armed EPA agents, body armor,
assault weapons, to arrest placer miners for Clean Water Act
violations. They found zero, Okay? Scared the heck out of my
constituents, by the way. They were lucky. A lot of my
constituents are armed. We take the Second Amendment very
seriously.
Then just a couple of years ago, a group of 30 armed EPA
agents, some from the lower 48, were doing raids on mechanic
shops in Alaska, armed raids, 30 agents. By the way, I do not
even know why the EPA has armed agents. One of my first bills
is to get rid of the EPA, they just go to State troopers and
say, we are going to do something, why does the EPA have SWAT
teams? Calling DOGE, calling DOGE. Right? Let us get rid of the
EPA's armed brigades, what the hell is that? We do not need
that in America.
Can I get your commitment to as opposed to coming up to my
State with 30 armed agents scaring the heck out of everybody
working with us on compliance with the law rather than jumping
to very aggressive, very aggressive, enforcement? I mean, they
should have gone to these placer miners, these mechanic shops
saying, hey, we think you are violating the Clean Air Act, we
want to work with you, we will fine you, civil fine. No. They
show up, 30 armed agents.
By the way, the EPA never answered my questions. What were
these lower 48 agents doing in my State? Did they go fishing
after they--it is crazy. Can I get your commitment on this? It
is a real problem. Someone is going to get hurt. They keep
doing it in my State, and we do not appreciate it.
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I hear your concerns. It is not the
first I have heard about this. Just to point out, this is a
different office within the EPA.
Senator Sullivan. It is not under your General Counsel?
Mr. Donahue. It is not Office of the General Counsel, OGC.
It is the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The
Office of General Counsel works hand in hand with OGC, or with
OECA, rather, and the regional counsels in the regions as well
as the Department of Justice on a lot of this.
I can commit to you that we will look into it, and
hopefully see a path forward to resolve your concerns.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Senator Schiff?
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Donahue, how long have you been practicing as a member
of the bar?
Mr. Donahue. Since 2021, Senator.
Senator Schiff. For roughly four years?
Mr. Donahue. That is correct, Senator. I graduated law
school years before that, in 2017.
Senator Schiff. As a practicing lawyer four years, do you
know how many attorneys you will be supervising at the EPA?
Mr. Donahue. Yes, Senator. It is over 200.
Senator Schiff. Over 200 lawyers?
Mr. Donahue. Yes. Thankfully, there is a very well laid-out
hierarchical structure.
Senator Schiff. You would be at the top of that hierarchy,
right?
Mr. Donahue. That is correct.
Senator Schiff. Let me ask you, with your four years of
experience, can you open a criminal investigation without
evidence of wrongdoing?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I am not a criminal pro expert. The
answer to your question would be no.
Senator Schiff. If an attorney was asked to open a criminal
investigation without probable cause, to believe there was
evidence of a crime, that would be improper and abuse of
authority, would it not?
Mr. Donahue. It very well may be, yes, Senator.
Senator Schiff. You are aware, are not you, that a senior
Department of Justice official with 24 years of experience
practicing as an Assistant United States Attorney, AUSA, was
asked to write a letter to a bank about the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund and to assert that the funds needed to be frozen
because of a criminal investigation? You are aware of that?
Mr. Donahue. I read about this in the press, as I am sure
you did. I was not involved and still not involved in whatever
criminal probe is ongoing.
Senator Schiff. You have been a participant in meetings and
discussions over trying to go after the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund, have you not?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, OGC is always involved in matters of
great significance as this, to provide sound legal advice.
Senator Schiff. I am not asking about the office generally.
I am asking about you personally. You personally have been
involved in discussions with others at EPA about going after
these funds, have you not?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I have been involved in a variety of
discussions, including those concerning the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund. Mostly on the civil defense side, once we were
sued by three of the big recipients.
Senator Schiff. Knowing that it would be improper abuse of
power to open investigation or to allege that investigation was
ongoing without evidence of wrongdoing, you are aware that a
senior attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office of 24 years
resigned because she felt she could not ethically write such a
letter to the bank or open such an investigation? Are you aware
of that?
Mr. Donahue. As I indicated before, Senator, I did see
those news reports. I am not intimately familiar with her, her
work, or any----
Senator Schiff. Well, let me ask you this. If you were
asked by Lee Zeldin to instruct the lawyers in the Criminal
Division at EPA to open an investigation without evidence of a
crime, would you instruct the attorneys to do it, nonetheless?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, the direct answer to your question would
be no. I will follow the law.
Senator Schiff. What should the repercussion be if
attorneys, as Denise Chong alleges, instructed her to do so in
the absence of probable cause? What should the consequence be
for those lawyers?
Mr. Donahue. I would not want to comment on that, Senator.
Senator Schiff. Well, I would like you to comment on it.
You are going to be overseeing the Department. You will be
responsible for disciplining attorneys who engage in unethical
conduct.
What would your recommendation be for how to discipline an
attorney that would use the coercive power of the government,
would announce an investigation without a basis for political
reason? What would your recommendation be? Should they continue
to work at the EPA? Should they continue to work in the Justice
Department?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I would not like to answer
hypotheticals.
Senator Schiff. Well, this is all too real a circumstance,
not hypothetical. The actions that have taken place right now,
that have caused senior prosecutors to resign over this action
by EPA, that have caused other prosecutors to resign over other
Department of Justice misconduct regarding the Mayor of New
York, the illegal actions to target law firms that represent
clients or have in the past averse to the President's personal
interests, these are all terrible abuses of the coercive power
of the Federal Government, its most dangerous power, the power
to prosecute people.
We need people in all these departments who are willing to
say no, and are willing to sanction those who engage in that
kind of unethical conduct.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Alsobrooks?
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kramer, Mr. Donahue and Mr. Nesvik, first of all,
welcome. Thanks for being here and congratulations to each of
you on your nominations.
Ms. Kramer, if confirmed, you will be head of the office
that ensures safe drinking water and protects our watersheds
and aquatic ecosystems. Mr. Donahue, if confirmed, you will be
responsible for ensuring that the EPA follows the law.
My questions begin by raising the importance of the
Chesapeake Bay. This is relevant for both of the positions that
you have been nominated for. The Bay is so important as a
source of drinking water, and it is important to Marylanders.
It serves as a habitat for wildlife, it drives tourism in the
region, it supports our seafood industry.
Now, the funding that Congress recently passed continues
previous funding levels for the Bay, that is $92 million, for
the EPA Chesapeake Bay program. Broken down, it is about $10
million for Chesapeake small watershed grants, $10 million for
innovative nutrient and sediment reduction programs, $8 million
for the State to target pollution. That is the greatest impact
on Bay water quality.
I just want to ask each of you whether you can commit that
you will follow the law and get those dollars on the ground
without delay in Maryland?
Ms. Kramer. Thank you, Senator. Absolutely.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I love the Chesapeake Bay. I will
absolutely commit to that.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
Second, Congress reauthorized, this is for Mr. Nesvik,
Congress reauthorized the $8 million that Congress intended.
Will you make sure that the grants get out the door
expeditiously?
Mr. Nesvik. Excellent question. Thank you, Senator. I am
familiar with the Chesapeake Bay and how important it is to
many States, not just one. It is such a central and integral
part of a larger ecosystem.
I remember sitting in front of this committee probably six
or seven years ago on a bill that included funding for
Chesapeake Bay. Absolutely, I think there has been some
excellent, exceptional progress made there on a lot of great
initiatives with water quality and wildlife habitat. I am
certainly interested in continuing to execute any directives or
appropriations by Congress.
Senator Alsobrooks. Okay, so you support the $8 million for
that Chesapeake Works Worlds of Work, WOW, program for
Maryland?
Mr. Nesvik. Senator, yes, I do.
Senator Alsobrooks. Okay, thank you so much.
Now, unfortunately, and this again is for Mr. Nesvik, the
latest round of Chesapeake WOW grants has faced some delays. We
have seen the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, for example,
received a grant of $500,000, and the administration has frozen
this funding. This project, in cooperation with private
landowners, is set to protect approximately 500 acres of marsh
habitat between the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and
Nanticoke River in Dorchester.
Freezing these funds, as you might imagine, really reduces
efficiencies, because the cost of the project could increase.
If confirmed, will you work with me to ensure that the Fish
and Wildlife Service and partner agencies can quickly release
the funds for this project, so that the intended restoration
work can continue?
Mr. Nesvik. Yes, Senator, absolutely. I have a lot of
experience and I have found a lot of achievement in being able
to work with private landowners who are incentivized to provide
good wildlife habitat. I am certainly very interested in
working with you on this.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
Just quickly, I only have a few seconds left, for Ms.
Kramer, I know the PFAS effluent work you have done in this
area. You know the importance of all of the efforts that have
been made. In 2024, Maryland received $124 million for drinking
water, wastewater, stormwater infrastructure upgrades, all
through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that you worked
really hard on.
Now, as you might know, the administration has pledged to
roll back the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law related funding. I
just wonder whether or not you will continue to work with us
and work with members of this committee to continue
implementing the law or whether you would agree to roll back in
concert with the administration the Bipartisan Infrastructure
funding?
Ms. Kramer. Thank you, Senator. I of course will commit to
working with this committee to follow the law.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much.
I yield. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Senator Kelly, thank you.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
of our witnesses for being here today.
I will start with Ms. Kramer. Ms. Kramer, thank you for
being here. I want to start with PFAS. As I have spoken about a
lot in this committee, PFAS contamination is having a big
impact on our groundwater aquifers in Arizona. In both Phoenix
and Tucson, especially in Tucson, we have banked groundwater
for decades to create resiliency, if we have to, in dealing
with this long-term drought.
The problem we now have is that there is PFAS contamination
in our groundwater aquifers, making it hard to access our
backup groundwater.
Ms. Kramer, when you worked in the Senate, I know you
helped write the water cleanup provisions included in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, do you think the programs
created in that law to address PFAS contamination have been
successful?
Ms. Kramer. Thank you, Senator, for that question. That is
a great question. I think defining success with relation to
PFAS is tough and a bit of a moving target. I say that simply
because it seems that every year that goes by, we learn more,
and we also have a better understanding of the impacts that
have occurred to groundwater systems and the impacts that are
facing drinking water and wastewater systems as they work
toward addressing these challenges.
I think incremental progress is progress. Every step in the
right direction is a good one. There is a lot of work yet to be
done in this space.
Senator Kelly. Is it fair to say that because of these
programs we have been able to remove some PFAS from drinking
water?
Mr. Kramer. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Kelly. After those programs expire in 2026, what
are the next steps that Congress and EPA should take to
continue to address PFAS contamination?
Ms. Kramer. Thank you for that question, Senator. I have to
be mindful of the fact that I know I am not allowed to lobby in
front of you to tell you what I would recommend Congress does.
However, what I can tell you is two things. One is that EPA
is going to be evaluating all of its tools to address PFAS.
The second thing I will tell you is that along the way, if
I am confirmed in this position, we will have conversations
that will involve Senate staff and House staff to provide
information as to what those actions are that we have, what the
limitations are of the law, for us to be able to go further, or
to address things with a finer point. Hopefully, that will
provide a sound basis for you, Senator, for your colleagues,
for your staff to be able to see the challenges that we face
and address those head-on should you choose to do so.
Senator Kelly. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Donahue, do you support the principle embedded in the
Superfund law that parties responsible for pollution should be
held to strict retroactive, joint and several?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, the polluter pays model that is
reflected there I believe is a very effective model for cleanup
and holding polluters accountable, yes.
Senator Kelly. That sounds like a yes, thank you.
Do you agree that Perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA, and PFAS
were appropriately designated as hazardous substances under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, CERCLA, law last year?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, thank you for that. I am not going to
comment on that directly, because that is a policy matter and I
am here potentially for a legal job. I know that there are
other tools that many have argued are better suited for dealing
with the PFAS problem without unleashing an enormous amount of
liability that could be felt throughout the entire economy.
Senator Kelly. How about from a personal perspective? Do
you want PFOA and PFAS to be in your drinking water?
Mr. Donahue. I think the PFAS problem is very, it is
critical that we address it, so no, I do not. I actually have a
PFAS filter, or a filter that filters out PFAS at home. No.
Senator Kelly. Does the CERCLA statute allow for EPA to
create carveouts or exemptions for specific industries or
chemicals?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I think it would depend on how that
is done, potentially.
Senator Kelly. No, does it currently allow for carveouts?
Mr. Donahue. No, Senator.
Senator Kelly. It does not. Okay.
Will you commit to ensuring EPA implements the recent
designation of PFOA and PFAS consistent with the CERCLA law?
Mr. Donahue. Senator, I will commit to you that if
confirmed, the Office of General Counsel will ensure that the
Administrator and the client offices receive the best legal
advice, so that we do comply with the law, CERCLA in this case.
Yes.
Senator Kelly. Thank you.
Madam Chair, could I have another minute, or maybe 90
seconds?
Back to Ms. Kramer. I also want to ask about the WOTUS
definition. Administrator Zeldin has named this as one of a
number of regulations the administration plans to address. A
frustration I voiced for years is that the litigation around
how we defined WOTUS creates real problems for Arizona. Some
definitions have captured literally every dry wash and ditch in
the State. Others have eliminated critical protections for
drinking water in Arizona. In just the last four years, I think
there has been three or four regulatory changes for the WOTUS
definition.
Ms. Kramer, now that the Supreme Court has weighed in on
WOTUS, on the definition, how will you work to make sure that
we establish a durable definition of WOTUS that provides
certainty for stakeholders across the Country, including in
desert States like Arizona?
Ms. Kramer. Thank you for that question, Senator. I am
aware of the challenges that your State faces, and I think,
going back to the cooperative federalism framework for just a
second, that also allows some assistance outside of just the
Federal jurisdiction and moving forward.
With respect to WOTUS specifically, we will be following
Sackett. To the extent that we have ventured down a rulemaking
path, the goal will be to refine those remaining somewhat
ambiguous phrases and terms that are remaining in Sackett to
ensure that we are doing a little refining around the edges,
hopefully to stop the ping-pong that you referenced and the
litigation going back and forth. That does no one any good, not
the regulator, not the regulated community.
As we venture down that path, even before we have started
to venture down that path, we will be holding robust listening
sessions and opening a docket to take public comments. That was
something that was kicked off by the Office of Water a couple
of weeks ago at this point.
Through those conversations, through that public comment
process, that is the opportunity that we will have, and
especially if I am confirmed, we will take those unique
perspectives into account to ensure that we are regulating
while acknowledging the unique challenges that face every State
across this Country.
To the extent that there is something along the edges that
does not fall into the Federal jurisdiction that would be
defined via rule, that would be the opportunity for the State
to be able to regulate with a little bit more stringency than
perhaps where we land on the rule.
Durability and the ability for people to clearly understand
the rule, that is the name of the game here.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks
for the extra time.
Senator Capito. All right, so I want to ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record several letters of support for
today's nominees. Without objection, these letters will be
entered into the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. With no further questions, I would like to
thank the nominees, all three of you, thank you very much, and
all of my colleagues, for participating in today's hearing.
Senators who wish to submit written questions, I know they
are all listening, Senators who wish to submit written
questions for the record have until 5 p.m. next Monday, March
31st, to do so. The nominees' responses to those questions are
due back to the committee no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, April
7th, and will be submitted for the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you all very
much.
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]