• 6 months ago
On Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee held a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2025 Request for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript


Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Transcript
00:00:00 [no audio]
00:00:27 Did it go on? Yeah. Threatening the reliability of the electrical grid.
00:00:31 Just last week, EPA finalized four power plant rules that severely threaten affordable, reliable power in this country.
00:00:38 When I am home in Idaho, I often hear from farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and many others
00:00:43 who are concerned about their very existence given the growing cost to comply with EPA regulations.
00:00:49 Of particular interest and relevance to my district is the waters of the United States rule,
00:00:54 which we've discussed with Mr. Reagan in the past.
00:01:00 The Supreme Court ruled that it was too broad.
00:01:04 I will cover this and other EPA regulations during my questions,
00:01:07 but I will just point out the clear overreach of the administration on some of these regulations.
00:01:13 The President's FY25 budget requests totals of just under $11 billion.
00:01:19 The Fiscal Responsibility Act forced the agencies to reduce its budget request by $1 billion compared to last year's request,
00:01:27 but I am still astounded by the proposed increase of over 2,000 FTEs,
00:01:33 which is more FTEs than what was proposed in last year's budget request.
00:01:38 This is a glaring sign of the agency's priorities.
00:01:41 Compared to last year's request, when the agency is forced to request less,
00:01:45 it chooses to take hits to programs that go directly to our states and tribes.
00:01:51 But even still, the FY25 request of $10.99 billion is $1.8 billion, or 20 percent above the enacted level.
00:01:59 If enacted, this would be the highest level of funding for the EPA in history.
00:02:03 And not included in this request is the more than $100 billion EPA received
00:02:09 from several large spending packages outside of the annual appropriations process.
00:02:14 Already, the agency has hired an additional 1,200 FTEs using this supplemental funding,
00:02:20 but this money is temporary, not permanent,
00:02:22 and I am concerned that the agency is going to be pinning Congress with a hiring cliff down the road.
00:02:28 Lastly, it's concerning that the budget proposes to reduce or eliminate many bipartisan popular programs
00:02:36 and grants that go directly to states, tribes, and local governments.
00:02:40 I know many of my colleagues have questions for you today.
00:02:42 We are ready to have tough conversations about how best to spend our limited federal resources
00:02:51 to ensure our natural resources are protected and preserved
00:02:54 while still promoting economic development and job creation.
00:02:57 Thank you, Administrator, for being here today to have this discussion with us.
00:03:02 Now I'd like to yield to my Ranking Member, Ms. Pingree, for her opening statement.
00:03:06 Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
00:03:08 Welcome back to the subcommittee, Mr. Regan and Mr. Amin.
00:03:12 Thank you both for being here with us today.
00:03:15 The EPA budget request totals $11 billion, an increase of $1.8 billion over the enacted level,
00:03:21 to support its mission to protect human health and the environment.
00:03:25 The request proposes substantial increases to address the climate crisis
00:03:29 through robust funding for the EPA's science and technology and environmental programs.
00:03:34 It makes important investments in environmental justice so that we can continue to address
00:03:39 historic underinvestment in underserved and overburdened communities.
00:03:44 The budget request also makes significant investments in the EPA's workforce,
00:03:48 including funding for 2,000 new staff.
00:03:51 Not only has the need for EPA's expertise expanded tremendously over the last decade,
00:03:56 but the growing challenges around climate change require more expertise and more staff.
00:04:02 I want to acknowledge some of the important work the EPA has done over the last year.
00:04:06 You have established, for the first time, a national and legally enforceable drinking water standard for PFAS.
00:04:13 This is a very big deal, and it will go a long way in keeping families safe from these harmful chemicals.
00:04:20 The EPA so far has invested $9 billion to address PFAS and has issued guidance on how to dispose of and destroy it.
00:04:29 But there's more work to be done, particularly when it comes to PFAS in agricultural settings,
00:04:33 which is a big issue for our farms in Maine and I know in farms across the country.
00:04:38 I hope we can talk more about those efforts today.
00:04:41 The EPA has also made significant progress in environmental justice,
00:04:45 awarding millions in grant funding to communities all around the country.
00:04:50 This will help communities from Alaska to Maine to lower energy costs, improve drinking water,
00:04:55 breathe cleaner air, and become more resilient during times of extreme weather.
00:05:01 I also appreciate how you're continuing to hold polluters accountable.
00:05:05 These efforts reduce our community's exposure to hazardous waste and toxic chemicals.
00:05:10 Thank you so much for appearing before us today.
00:05:12 We appreciate your testimony, answers to our questions, and with that I yield back.
00:05:16 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
00:05:17 Thank you, Ranking Member Pingree.
00:05:27 With your opening statement, your official submitted testimony will be included in the record.
00:05:32 Well, thank you, Chair Simpson, Ranking Member Pingree, and members of the committee.
00:05:36 Thank you all for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the bold vision laid out in the U.S. EPA's
00:05:42 proposed fiscal year 2025 budget request.
00:05:45 Our partnership and open dialogue with Congress is invaluable for EPA to carry out its mission to protect
00:05:51 public health and the environment.
00:05:53 Over the last year, we've been hard at work at EPA.
00:05:55 Under President Biden's leadership, my agency has finalized protections that will bring 100 million people
00:06:01 cleaner and safer drinking water, free from PFAS, and we've worked hard to right many of the historic wrongs
00:06:08 communities have faced for generations.
00:06:10 Through our critical rulemaking, we banned the last remaining kind of asbestos used in our country and issued
00:06:16 final technology-based standards that will eliminate more than 6,000 tons of toxic air pollution from chemical
00:06:22 plants each year, slashing cancer-causing pollution from covered processes and equipment by 80 percent,
00:06:29 and reducing elevated cancer risk for those living near these facilities by an astounding 96 percent.
00:06:36 EPA is committed to protecting public health and the environment for the American people.
00:06:40 But more than just powerful health impacts, we're undertaking.
00:06:44 My agency is working hard to implement the historic laws that you've passed in President Biden's
00:06:49 Investing in America agenda.
00:06:51 President Biden's Investing in America agenda has not only directly invested in communities nationwide,
00:06:56 but it has generated nearly $700 billion in funding for private sector manufacturing and clean energy projects,
00:07:03 creating good-paying jobs and enhancing our global competitiveness.
00:07:07 Together, President Biden's Investing in America agenda and EPA's 2025 budget request will continue to invest in
00:07:15 environmental actions that will promote cleaner communities and produce economic benefits for years to come.
00:07:21 President Biden's proposed FY 2025 budget request for EPA provides nearly $11 billion to advance key priorities for
00:07:29 the American people, including protecting air quality, cleaning up pollution, upgrading the nation's aging water
00:07:36 infrastructure, urgently fighting the climate crisis, and advancing environmental justice.
00:07:42 Millions of people across the country are still grappling with the effects of poor air quality,
00:07:46 perpetuating harmful health and economic impacts.
00:07:49 In fiscal year 2025, EPA will improve air quality for communities by reducing emissions of ozone,
00:07:55 forming pollutants, particulate matter, and air toxics.
00:07:59 The President's budget includes $1.3 billion to improve air quality for communities across the country,
00:08:06 to reduce exposure to dangerous levels of radiation, and to leverage regulatory tools and public and private sector
00:08:13 partnerships that promote environmental stewardship and encourage the adoption of cost-effective technologies and practices.
00:08:20 EPA's work to set these standards provides certainty to industry, builds on advancements in technology,
00:08:27 and reinforces market movement that reduces power plant emissions without sacrificing reliable and affordable energy.
00:08:35 Clean and safe water is the foundation for healthy communities and a thriving economy.
00:08:40 Although substantial progress has been made, many areas across our nation still face significant barriers
00:08:46 and challenges to achieving this goal.
00:08:49 Aging water infrastructure, the effects of lead pipes, cybersecurity threats to our water system,
00:08:54 climate change, and emerging contaminants such as PFAS all pose dangerous health risks to our nation's water supply
00:09:02 and to the American people.
00:09:04 EPA's budget request includes a total of $101 million for two EPA grant programs dedicated to remediating lead contamination
00:09:13 in drinking water.
00:09:14 Back in February, I joined Vice President Harris in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to announce that EPA would invest over $5 billion
00:09:21 in drinking and clean water infrastructure upgrades nationwide.
00:09:26 This investment builds on the historic funding for lead pipe replacement through Bill and underscores the President's
00:09:32 commitment to ensuring access to safe drinking water and creating good-paying jobs in the process.
00:09:38 From investing in clean air to cleaning up contaminated land and water, there is no shortage of important work to be done.
00:09:47 But, members of this committee, I assure you EPA is up for the task.
00:09:51 We're eager to work with all of you to deliver for our fellow Americans and to secure our nation's global competitiveness,
00:09:57 but we need your support.
00:09:59 The fiscal year 2025 President's budget continues the historic progress and investments made by the Biden-Harris
00:10:06 Administration and positions EPA to advance our vital mission of protecting public health and the environment while
00:10:13 championing environmental justice and tackling the climate crisis.
00:10:16 Thank you all for the opportunity to be here today to submit testimony for the record, and I look forward to our
00:10:22 continued partnership to achieve these ambitious yet necessary goals.
00:10:26 Thank you.
00:10:28 Thank you, Administrator, for that opening statement.
00:10:31 I'll start off by saying I was pleased that the Supreme Court reigned in the EPA with a second decision on the Waters of the
00:10:37 United States rule, a rule that has been changing and no one seems to be able to come up with a final rule that we're going to be using.
00:10:47 The decision narrowed what the waters are – what waters are – what waters are federally regulated under the Clean Water Act.
00:10:56 I have long been concerned that the Biden Administration's definition of federal waters are overly broad and took control away
00:11:02 from the states.
00:11:03 I was also concerned – in fact, a lot of people don't understand that just if the EPA doesn't control the waters, the states
00:11:10 regulate the waters.
00:11:12 It's not that they're unregulated; it's that the states regulate them.
00:11:15 And the overbroad rule that was written by the EPA takes that power away from the states in many cases.
00:11:23 I was also concerned that the impact of the rule on farmers, business developers, and even property owners – and I'm glad that the
00:11:29 Supreme Court provided needed clarity on this issue – but now the agency needs to do its part to appropriately implement the
00:11:35 Court's decision.
00:11:37 There are 27 states, including Idaho, under the injunction.
00:11:41 The remaining states are operating under the Waters of the United States conforming rule.
00:11:45 In both cases, the agency says it will implement the definition of waters consistent with SACCT.
00:11:51 But I've heard a lot of questions and concerns about implementation, and I know you have too, which, by the way, I hope you will
00:11:57 commit to substantially responding to the letters you've received from the regulated community.
00:12:03 Questions?
00:12:05 How many requests have you – have been submitted to the agency for a jurisdictional determination since the conforming rule was
00:12:12 finalized in September, and how many of those have been approved?
00:12:16 I understand that many of the requests are being elevated to headquarters for a decision.
00:12:20 What percentage of the requests are being elevated, and how long are those reviews taking?
00:12:25 And finally, what guidance is the EPA staff using to make jurisdictional determinations under both the pre-2015 framework and
00:12:33 the conforming rule?
00:12:35 Aside from what is already public on your website, are there other guidance documents or memos that have been issued or that you are
00:12:42 planning to issue, and can you make those documents public so that the regulated parties can understand how you are
00:12:47 implementing LOTUS?
00:12:49 Well, thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
00:12:52 And yes, this has been an issue that has ping-ponged for a number of years, decades.
00:12:59 I will say this, that I committed to following the science and following the law when I took this role.
00:13:06 And when the Sackett case was – the decision came from the Supreme Court, that is no different.
00:13:13 We are following the law.
00:13:15 The Sackett decision was very prescribed, and so we issued guidance quickly after issuing our revised rule last fall and
00:13:24 continued to work with the Army Corps to be sure that we are following the implementation desires of the Supreme Court.
00:13:32 What I will say is, with the finalization of that rule in 2023, the Army Corps of Engineers has resumed issuing jurisdictional
00:13:40 determinations that were previously paused in light of the Sackett decision.
00:13:45 We have codified the clarifications – codified and clarified exclusions in support of farmers, like prior converted
00:13:51 cropland, and for ranchers, like the artificial ponds used for drinking water.
00:13:55 So there were a lot of good things that were preserved as well.
00:13:58 What I can do is circle back with you on the specific number of requests that we have received and what those
00:14:05 percentages look like.
00:14:07 But I can tell you that there is agreement, whether it's in our regional offices or headquarters, that we are
00:14:13 following the prescribed direction of the Supreme Court and want to ensure that we provide certainty to our
00:14:19 states as soon as possible.
00:14:21 Thank you.
00:14:22 And I would appreciate circling back on that with us.
00:14:26 Absolutely.
00:14:27 Ms. Pingree?
00:14:28 I should say also that we're going to have a vote, apparently, at about 1130.
00:14:33 I'm going to move relatively quickly and stop.
00:14:37 Ms. Pingree?
00:14:38 Sure.
00:14:39 Thanks.
00:14:40 As I mentioned in my opening statement, I want to congratulate you on all the work that you and your team have
00:14:44 done on PFAS.
00:14:45 I know how complicated this is, and it's a long time in coming.
00:14:49 I want to ask you a little bit about EPA's risk assessment on PFAS and biosolids.
00:14:54 As you know, I think, Maine is ahead of the federal government on this issue, and our state is currently looking
00:15:00 into alternative disposal options.
00:15:03 Additionally, with the recent regulatory action on PFAS, some of the requirements can be difficult on the states.
00:15:09 So I have a couple of questions about this.
00:15:11 First, can you give us a quick update on your risk assessment of PFAS in biosolids?
00:15:16 Yes.
00:15:17 We are working on finalizing that risk assessment this year.
00:15:21 That will include a specific focus on certain PFAS that help us understand better the specific risk that it poses
00:15:29 to farmers and the uptake in crops and livestock.
00:15:33 So, you know, we're working on that for this year.
00:15:36 I will say that I've personally been engaged on this issue with Secretary Vilsack, and I'm very proud that we're
00:15:44 co-leading a work group on PFAS with both USDA and the FDA.
00:15:50 So I can assure you that this is top of mind, and it's something that not just EPA, but multiple agencies are taking
00:15:57 a serious look at.
00:15:59 Thanks.
00:16:02 Can you talk a little bit more about the impact to the states of your recent regulatory actions on PFAS?
00:16:09 I'm just going to say for everyone on the committee, you know, sometimes when you talk about biosolids and all this
00:16:14 stuff, it just sounds like a lot of jargon.
00:16:16 This is basically the issue of, for decades, in our state and probably in yours, too, biosolids, which is just
00:16:24 sewage sludge, has been an acceptable, basically, a fertilizer that gets spread on farms.
00:16:30 It's a good way to dispose of it, and it's enhanced the fertility of the soil.
00:16:34 But because PFAS are contained within it, now we have, unfortunately, multiple farmers who have found that their
00:16:41 land is contaminated.
00:16:42 They can no longer grow crops, and we don't really know what to do.
00:16:46 Do we buy them out?
00:16:47 Is there a remediation for it?
00:16:50 It's a significant issue, and it's an issue the USDA is tackling, but it's something that everybody is going to have
00:16:56 to deal with this in your own state.
00:16:58 We, unfortunately, were just a little bit ahead of the curve and started testing, and now our state legislature has,
00:17:05 you know, had to spend tens of millions of dollars already just to support the issue of farmers going out of
00:17:11 business or having land that they've worked on forever that is no longer usable.
00:17:17 Not only is their land contaminated, but in some cases, these are family members, little kids, you know, people
00:17:23 themselves are contaminated by their own soil and water.
00:17:26 So that's just a little -- like it sounds sort of, what are you talking about, PFAS, biosolids?
00:17:31 This is like a serious small agriculture -- small -- issue of small farms and farms of all sizes.
00:17:37 So, I'm sorry, go ahead.
00:17:38 So what do you -- I'm just -- I guess I'm telling you what this impact is on our state, but I don't know if you want to
00:17:43 say more about the regulatory actions that you're taking.
00:17:46 We're very sensitive to this issue.
00:17:48 Number one, thank you for securing that $16 million in research grant funding so that we can better understand how
00:17:55 it is impacting our food supply.
00:17:57 I will say that FDA, USDA, EPA, we are doing the proper research, again, to properly understand what the risk is for
00:18:07 this biosolid application.
00:18:09 But to cut to the chase, two things.
00:18:11 The first is, we are intent on holding the polluters accountable.
00:18:17 We do not want our farmers, we do not want our water systems, we do not want taxpayers and communities bearing the
00:18:27 burden of some of these unfortunate situations.
00:18:31 And so, in terms of our regulations, we are tightening down our regulations to ensure in our drinking water that these
00:18:37 forever chemicals are not making it into the bodies of our parents, our children, our grandparents, while also pursuing
00:18:44 enforcement action for those who have put these into the environment.
00:18:48 At EPA, we've worked really hard to look at our enforcement discretion opportunities there.
00:18:58 And what we're doing is, we're, again, looking at how we enforce the laws and ensuring that our farmers and our
00:19:05 water utilities are not the unintended victims of any of EPA's actions to contain and regulate this pervasive and
00:19:15 long-standing chemical.
00:19:17 Well, thank you.
00:19:18 And I really appreciate the work and the research that you're doing.
00:19:21 Because, again, we don't know yet how to clean it up in the soil when it's already contaminating a farm.
00:19:27 We don't know how to determine exactly what's an acceptable amount in a carrot or a head of lettuce or some hay that
00:19:33 dairy cows might eat.
00:19:35 And now, since we're no longer allowing sewage sludge to be spread on soil, on agricultural soil, which was the best way to
00:19:42 dispose of it, we have a landfill issue.
00:19:44 So now we're accumulating it in landfills, and our landfill operators are saying, "What do you want us to do?"
00:19:50 And we don't know how to deal with it or handle it.
00:19:53 And, again, like Maine, we're just a tiny little state, but we weren't the only ones that had to deal with PFAS.
00:19:58 It's everywhere.
00:19:59 And so when it sounds like sort of an abstract notion, if it hasn't hit your state, you're going to learn about it.
00:20:05 And if it hasn't hit your small farmers, you know, that's a hard conversation when you have to talk to a family that's been
00:20:11 contaminated or somebody who's been working the land their whole life and now finds out that the stuff they're selling to their
00:20:17 customers is no longer acceptable, that it's toxic.
00:20:21 So, anyway, I appreciate it very much.
00:20:23 Sorry for going on on that one question, but it's a really tricky issue, and I know you guys are working on it.
00:20:28 Thank you for that.
00:20:29 Thank you.
00:20:30 Thank you.
00:20:31 You're right.
00:20:32 That is a tough issue.
00:20:33 Mr. Zinke.
00:20:37 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here, and thank you for your service.
00:20:41 Thank you.
00:20:42 And on your comments, I wanted to impact the states.
00:20:47 So you know Montana, through either Bidenomics, which is inflation or higher energy costs,
00:20:54 over the last three years has cost Montanans $28,000 on average a family.
00:21:00 So that's how much EPA and the Bidenomics have cost.
00:21:04 You said impact the states?
00:21:06 I think we should look at that.
00:21:07 So I've got to ask up front, climate change.
00:21:10 Have you ever read the 2017 multi-agency climate report?
00:21:17 No, I can't say I have.
00:21:18 You know, it's amazing that no secretary has.
00:21:22 That wasn't my report.
00:21:24 It just happened when we signed it.
00:21:26 But no secretary has actually read the multi-agency definitive 2017 report.
00:21:34 So let me ask you this.
00:21:35 Since you're not aware of it, I'll just enlighten you.
00:21:38 It has 2,000 -- sorry, 200 models and 1,000 variables.
00:21:44 According to the report, you can paint it as no impact or global nuclear combat,
00:21:50 depending on the model.
00:21:51 So I caution Mr. Secretary to be careful.
00:21:55 Secondly, are you aware that China is the world's largest producer of CO2?
00:22:00 I am.
00:22:01 Nearly twice as much as the U.S.?
00:22:05 Are you also aware that China, 90% of the plastic in the ocean comes from four rivers in China?
00:22:13 Are you aware of that?
00:22:14 I was not aware of that.
00:22:16 When we talk about environmental justice, do any of these regulations have anything to do
00:22:22 with the world's largest polluter, both on sea and land and in the air?
00:22:28 I can say that I am not basing our decisions or aspiring to be China.
00:22:34 Right, but you're globally conscious.
00:22:37 I am very globally conscious.
00:22:39 Well, I'm also conscious.
00:22:40 I want to be competitive.
00:22:41 Right, competitive.
00:22:42 Yes.
00:22:43 And that's a funny term.
00:22:45 Competitiveness, as far as manufacturing goes, how important is energy cost to that?
00:22:51 Oh, it's very important.
00:22:52 Okay.
00:22:53 So your recent rule that you did on mercury toxins, are you aware that that targets coal strip in Montana?
00:23:01 I'm aware that 93% of our coal facilities will be complying.
00:23:07 Page 80 is targeted.
00:23:08 Will be complying with that rule.
00:23:10 But the coal facility that you referenced, it is the highest emitter in the country.
00:23:16 It's at 99.8.3, I think, as far as toxins goes.
00:23:22 And this rule that you put up, do you think it will have an effect on costs of power in Montana?
00:23:31 Is this the mercury air toxin rule?
00:23:33 Yes.
00:23:34 We've taken a look at, number one, I will say, for all of the rules that we announced.
00:23:38 Are you aware that energy costs will go up?
00:23:40 About $1,000 a family.
00:23:42 So you add $28,000, is what the Biden nominations cost, and then another $1,000 a year.
00:23:48 So where are you going to get the power?
00:23:50 When you take that offline, where are you going to get the power?
00:23:53 I think we just disagree with the $1,000 number, and I'm not quite sure of the underpinning of the $28,000.
00:23:59 But our analysis shows that that rule will have, over the years, less than a 1% increase in energy cost.
00:24:07 We've done specific analysis on the combination of the mercury rule, the affluent power rule.
00:24:15 So you're saying that taking power offline will decrease power costs?
00:24:19 We don't intend to take any power offline.
00:24:22 So you know, Montana Power -- I'm sorry, the coal strip is a significant producer of power in Montana.
00:24:29 You take it off, it's going to cost about $1,000 in there.
00:24:32 And you say, well, cleanup, since you're on the cleanup.
00:24:37 And I do agree, cleanup is a problem.
00:24:39 So what are you going to do with your administration's push on EV,
00:24:45 the fact that 90% of the solar cells in this country go to some landfill that are past their life cycle?
00:24:54 So does the EPA have a plan for that?
00:24:56 We do.
00:24:57 So where is the rule for that?
00:24:59 Because you have a rule to take down our power system so we're less competitive,
00:25:04 and you pointed out that we have to be competitive.
00:25:07 Well, energy costs are -- I can guarantee you energy costs make America competitive.
00:25:13 So when you take power offline and there's no plan to put more power or substitute the power,
00:25:20 that's going to raise energy costs.
00:25:22 That's basic economics.
00:25:24 And when you say about we want to be globally competitive, labor costs, commodity costs,
00:25:31 and power and innovation, those are the costs that drive manufacturing.
00:25:35 We can't pay the same cost as China on labor, even though China is the largest polluter,
00:25:41 so we're not going to be competitive on labor.
00:25:44 The cost of steel is the same in Pennsylvania as it is in South Korea.
00:25:48 Where America's competitiveness is is innovation and power.
00:25:53 And when your administration and you attack America's power without having a reasonable accommodation
00:26:00 or replacement, it's going to make power costs go up.
00:26:04 And my concern from a Montana perspective is this.
00:26:07 Montana gets a little cold.
00:26:10 So when my co-op said we already have a power grid problem,
00:26:14 and then when you're dictating where the power comes from in Montana,
00:26:17 our power system itself can't handle it.
00:26:20 So when winters become 20 degrees below zero, it's a little problem out there.
00:26:25 And I can tell you part of being upset is that D.C. doesn't listen to outside the beltway.
00:26:34 So when you put regulations that target our number one power producer,
00:26:40 and you know that China is producing them all the time, they're making new coal strips,
00:26:45 they're the biggest polluter in the world, and yet we're focused on Montana and 20-degree winters,
00:26:51 I get concerned.
00:26:53 So do you share that same concern?
00:26:55 Well, I would say that we're not targeting Montana.
00:26:58 And in all honesty, the investments --
00:27:01 Hey, J.D., I bet J.D. specifically targets coal strip, so you are targeting Montana.
00:27:06 Coal strip can make the same investments in controlling mercury that North Carolina does,
00:27:11 that West Virginia does, that North Dakota does.
00:27:14 Are you an engineer?
00:27:16 Are you aware that plants were designed and manufactured during different periods?
00:27:25 You realize that?
00:27:26 Yeah.
00:27:27 So you take one plant --
00:27:29 93% of the coal facilities in this country have magically figured out how to control mercury
00:27:36 at a level that doesn't produce this toxic for our children.
00:27:40 And I will tell you this, there are four years to comply with this rule.
00:27:44 My folks have talked to the people at coal strip.
00:27:46 We know that there can be investments that can be made to meet this rule.
00:27:50 Coal strip has said that they're going to be online through the 2040s.
00:27:53 All we're saying is if you're going to be online through the 2040s,
00:27:56 make the same investments that 93% of coal has across this country --
00:28:01 So you talk to coal strip on the record,
00:28:04 and coal strip said that they can comply with this rule, with this toxin rule,
00:28:10 and be competitive and be in function and running until the 2040s.
00:28:17 Is that what coal strip told you?
00:28:19 Because that's what you just told the committee.
00:28:21 Our analysis shows that coal strip --
00:28:23 Did coal strip say -- because you said --
00:28:25 I said we've talked to them.
00:28:26 I said we've talked to them.
00:28:27 We've engaged.
00:28:28 We've listened.
00:28:29 And has coal strip said this?
00:28:30 Well, I don't know exactly if coal strip --
00:28:32 I know you don't know exactly because I have the notes from coal strip what they said.
00:28:36 Exactly.
00:28:37 Well, if coal strip has been cheating the system this entire time --
00:28:40 So coal strip has been cheating the system --
00:28:42 Well, 93% of coal plants have complied with EPA regulations
00:28:46 and will comply with this new match rule.
00:28:49 Coal strip is the highest emitting facility in the country.
00:28:53 It's the highest emitting facility in this country.
00:28:56 I believe that the children in Montana deserve the same protection --
00:29:00 Have you ever been out to Montana?
00:29:02 Have you ever been out to Montana?
00:29:04 In all fairness, this is a joke.
00:29:06 You said you were going to invite me to a meeting last year.
00:29:10 I didn't know --
00:29:11 Well, you know what?
00:29:12 I think we should go out, Mr. Chairman.
00:29:13 I'm going to invite you to coal strip.
00:29:15 I will.
00:29:16 Coal's taste.
00:29:17 Yes.
00:29:18 And you can explain how coal strip told you that they can comply with the mercury
00:29:21 and they can be in business up to 2040 according to your testimony.
00:29:25 I didn't say coal strip said that they would do it.
00:29:27 I said that our analysis shows that they can and they need to be.
00:29:31 At what cost?
00:29:32 And they need to be.
00:29:33 At what cost, sir?
00:29:34 Our analysis shows that it's a cost-benefit investment,
00:29:38 that this is a cost-available technology, that 93% --
00:29:41 again, this is important --
00:29:43 93% of coal plants across this country are going to be shown to comply with this rule.
00:29:48 Coal strip consistently is the highest emitter, the highest emitter in the country.
00:29:54 Does coal strip meet the Clean Air Act?
00:29:58 Does coal strip also remove 99.6% of hazardous air pollutants?
00:30:06 And are they in complete compliance with the American Clean Air Act?
00:30:11 Hey, listen, I didn't paint coal strip as a bad guy.
00:30:13 You just did.
00:30:14 All I said was --
00:30:15 You just did.
00:30:16 All I said was in terms of the mercury air toxics standard, they're the highest emitter.
00:30:21 But on record, on record, you have said that coal strip has talked to you
00:30:26 and they can make the adjustments to be in business until 2040.
00:30:31 Now, you've added a ton of words.
00:30:33 I said that our agency has engaged --
00:30:34 I'm not sure.
00:30:35 So what did coal strip actually tell you?
00:30:37 Our agency has engaged with coal strip.
00:30:40 We are listening to the industry.
00:30:42 Our analysis shows that they can make cost-effective investments to reduce mercury
00:30:47 to protect children in Montana just like you have --
00:30:50 Does your analysis --
00:30:51 Does coal strip agree with your analysis?
00:30:53 Does coal strip agree with us?
00:30:55 No, because you don't listen.
00:30:57 Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
00:30:59 Coal strip appears to be the only utility in the country that wants to continue to be the highest emitter of mercury
00:31:05 in these emissions in the country.
00:31:07 Those are the facts.
00:31:09 Those are the facts.
00:31:10 Mr. Elsie?
00:31:11 The fact is they meet the clear air standard.
00:31:14 The fact is your new regulation no one can meet.
00:31:17 The fact is that you are going after coal and you have been.
00:31:20 The fact is you don't understand Americans' competitiveness.
00:31:23 Mr. Elsie?
00:31:24 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:31:26 Mr. Administrator, thank you for being here.
00:31:27 Thank you.
00:31:28 We're going to get some tough questions.
00:31:30 Ethylene oxide is colorless flammable gas with a sweet odor that's used to produce other chemicals,
00:31:36 mainly that do everything we need, and they clean medical equipment.
00:31:42 So I'd like to discuss two recent rules in the Clean Air Act, sterilizers, NESHAP rule,
00:31:49 and the hazardous organics NESHAP rule.
00:31:52 These rules have an impact, building block chemical that has a variety of critical applications,
00:31:57 including sterilizing medical equipment.
00:31:59 They both rely on the integrated risk information system, or IRIS, value for ethylene oxide,
00:32:05 which demands a level 19,000 times lower than what we have in our own bodies,
00:32:12 19,000 times lower than what naturally occurs in our bodies.
00:32:15 So the first question I'm going to ask, because it's kind of a stump the chump,
00:32:19 and I don't want to do that, so I'm going to ask for an answer down the road from your staff,
00:32:24 and that is why has the EPA decided to rely on the IRIS rule for ethylene oxide
00:32:29 and ignored other credible and readily available assessments on the state level,
00:32:34 like the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which does what you do at the state level?
00:32:39 So I know that's hard to find that information, so if you could reply in writing later on.
00:32:44 But for me, how do you justify using a program that's not authorized by us, by Congress,
00:32:50 lacks transparency, and doesn't have any statutory backing to replace the scientific requirements
00:32:55 which you have stated is very important to you in the congressionally authorized
00:32:59 Toxic Substances Control Act?
00:33:01 If you can make this a quick one.
00:33:03 Yeah, I think, listen, IRIS is a well-founded, strategic, scientifically sound program
00:33:12 that we've used for the underpinning of a number of our rules.
00:33:16 And I think it does comply with all of the statutory authorities
00:33:20 and all of the transparency that we believe it should.
00:33:23 I will say this, because we've had a lot of conversations with the FDA and with the industry
00:33:29 and we understand the importance of ethylene oxide, chloroprene, and others.
00:33:34 We don't want to see any disruptions in sterilizing and the like.
00:33:37 The decisions that we have made, though, we believe do a good balance of providing a control technology
00:33:45 that can reduce the cancer risk of neighboring communities by 96 percent,
00:33:50 while also costing the industry less than 1 percent of their annual revenue.
00:33:55 Again, I think that there is a scientific approach, a cost-effective approach,
00:34:00 to reduce what we see as a highly cancerous or cancer-causing chemical exposure.
00:34:06 While that may be in high doses, what we're talking about is your limitation is 19,000 less
00:34:12 than what we have in our own bodies right now.
00:34:14 So what you're going to do is you're going to kill the patient
00:34:18 because that which we use to sterilize medical equipment can't be used
00:34:23 because it might be cancer-causing in high doses.
00:34:26 That's not going to work, and more people are going to die because of that rule.
00:34:30 So let's move on to something else.
00:34:31 Let's talk about national security real quick.
00:34:34 No secret here, irrefutable, China controls the vast majority of critical minerals mining,
00:34:40 processing, and manufacturing for EVs.
00:34:43 They control the majority of Africa's largest lithium projects,
00:34:46 which I might add is extremely important in Ukraine, which is part of why Russia wants Ukraine.
00:34:52 From the upstream supply chain of these minerals,
00:34:55 China controls 80% and 66% of refining for lithium and cobalt, respectively.
00:35:01 The Chinese government has used its mining companies to take control of cobalt mining in Africa,
00:35:06 which is this picture behind me.
00:35:09 A number of these foreign-controlled mines have faced allegations of extremely low pay, long hours,
00:35:13 child labor, and physical abuse of workers.
00:35:15 This is from a cobalt mine that is controlled by China in Africa.
00:35:20 So would a government-mandated transition to EVs perpetuate these human rights violations abroad?
00:35:26 Because it seems like we want to outsource our sin.
00:35:29 We don't want to produce any of this stuff here cleanly with American jobs in the American way.
00:35:35 We would rather outsource it and act like it doesn't exist.
00:35:40 So it seems hypocritical to me to force us to use foreign materials using child labor in Africa.
00:35:46 This is going to harm them.
00:35:47 This is cobalt.
00:35:48 These kids are going to die.
00:35:50 And they're using it for the batteries that are produced in EVs in this country.
00:35:55 I'm assuming you know why cobalt is used, right?
00:35:57 I do.
00:35:58 Would you explain?
00:35:59 Well, let me just say something.
00:36:01 No, I'm asking you a specific question.
00:36:03 Don't answer the question I'm not asking.
00:36:05 We have limited time.
00:36:07 What is cobalt used for in these batteries?
00:36:09 It's a critical mineral that is a part of cobalt.
00:36:13 There's a number of critical minerals that make up the need and necessity of a fake battery.
00:36:19 It's okay if you don't know.
00:36:20 It goes in the batteries.
00:36:21 It prevents fires in the batteries.
00:36:22 I'm not trying to put you on the spot.
00:36:24 I assume that you knew.
00:36:26 However, using this to force us into an EV world that the American public is rapidly rejecting,
00:36:35 2,700 workers in Austin just laid off at Tesla, which is the best-selling vehicle in the EV community.
00:36:41 But this seems like it conflicts with your equity action plan because we're outsourcing our sin.
00:36:47 It's almost like we act like when China pollutes that the air just stays over China.
00:36:52 It doesn't.
00:36:53 It flows over the United States.
00:36:54 So while we are harming American jobs, American production, and American national security,
00:36:59 we are also violating the very tenets of what you have said is very important to you as administrator of the EPA,
00:37:05 and that is environmental justice.
00:37:08 This is not a picture of environmental justice.
00:37:10 And I don't get upset about many things.
00:37:12 I keep pretty stoic about stuff.
00:37:14 But this is not made up.
00:37:16 This is a legitimate picture of children being used to mine cobalt for batteries for EVs that we use.
00:37:23 So I ask you, does this not conflict with your equity action plan?
00:37:27 I think the question is ridiculous.
00:37:31 All of us agree and think that child labor is abhorrent.
00:37:37 Okay, number one.
00:37:38 Number two, there is no such thing as an EPA EV mandate.
00:37:43 If you read the rule, you will see that in consultation with the industry that there are numerous options for meeting the emissions goals,
00:37:51 plug-in hybrids, advanced biofuels, cleaner burning fuel efficiency vehicles, and EVs.
00:37:58 Number three, I think that under the bipartisan infrastructure law and investment inflation reduction act,
00:38:05 there are billions of dollars that have been invested in domestic manufacturing,
00:38:10 which we're seeing in states like North Carolina, West Virginia, Georgia, Nevada.
00:38:15 I also know that EPA is a part of a government-wide approach to look at how we expedite the mining
00:38:24 and the procurement of these critical minerals, both domestically and encouraging this in other countries,
00:38:30 that will help us remain globally competitive.
00:38:33 China is going to produce its cars, its batteries.
00:38:37 The goal is for us not to be reliant on these technologies that, quite frankly,
00:38:44 we're seeing the market uptake continue to move forward on.
00:38:48 I would also argue that as you see companies like GM and Ford and Stellantis and Toyota run $7 million Super Bowl ads,
00:38:58 they themselves are saying the future is electric.
00:39:02 They themselves are saying give us some certainty so we can compete
00:39:05 and develop some of these technologies domestically for American jobs.
00:39:09 And so I just sort of reject the premise that as the market demand encourages new technologies like EVs,
00:39:17 like plug-in hybrids--
00:39:18 That's not true.
00:39:19 No, it doesn't.
00:39:20 It very much is true.
00:39:21 Tesla just laid off 2,700 people because they're not selling their cars.
00:39:24 So don't talk about--
00:39:25 Well, Tesla now can't compete with GM and Chrysler and Stellantis.
00:39:28 If you pay these companies to build something, they will do it until the money runs out, just like the windmills.
00:39:33 If you pay them money to build it, they will come.
00:39:37 So let's move on just a little bit.
00:39:39 I'm about out of time.
00:39:41 It seems that in the last few years, the EPA has transformed from an agency that is responsible for cleaning up PFAS,
00:39:49 which years ago we didn't know was as bad as we know now.
00:39:53 I think that's admirable, and partnering with states to do that is good.
00:39:57 But what you have done in the last few years is become a super Congress, a super governor in our Federalist system.
00:40:05 We have elected officials in our states, in our cities, in our legislatures that do this job.
00:40:10 We have our own agencies in Texas, which does a great job of doing this.
00:40:14 And you have taken extraordinary power, which is not granted by Congress and only by executive order, not by law,
00:40:20 to do the things you're doing, and it's time we wheeled you back.
00:40:23 Thank you.
00:40:24 My time has expired.
00:40:26 Mr. Harder.
00:40:29 Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Administrator, for being here today.
00:40:35 I'm going to focus my comments on an issue that we've talked about before, which is air quality in the Central Valley,
00:40:42 and especially air quality monitoring.
00:40:44 The American Lung Association released their 2024 State of the Air Report,
00:40:49 and they found that last year was the worst year for air quality in 25 years for the number of days with hazardous
00:40:56 or very unhealthy air quality.
00:40:58 And as you know, my district is ranked one of the most polluted in the entire country.
00:41:04 This is a major issue.
00:41:05 I had childhood asthma as a kid.
00:41:07 My brother had it.
00:41:08 I don't want my two daughters to grow up with the same challenges that I had.
00:41:14 One source of this air pollution is catastrophic wildfires.
00:41:18 And as you know, Congress put together a bipartisan wildfire mitigation and management commission that came out with a
00:41:27 report last year that highlighted some issues of what we can do to deal with air quality
00:41:32 and specifically air quality challenges coming from these wildfires.
00:41:36 One of the commission's recommendations was to improve the EPA's air quality monitoring.
00:41:44 So people had real-time alerts that there was a nationally consistent smoke monitoring system that could convey real
00:41:52 information on poor air quality to the public.
00:41:55 I'm working on bipartisan legislation right now to expand those recommendations into law.
00:42:02 But I'd love to hear from you about what you thought, what you think we could do to help give resources to the EPA to
00:42:10 improve Air Now's capacity to be a real state-of-the-art resource for the public during smoke events.
00:42:17 Well, thank you for that question.
00:42:19 And, yes, I think that the commission's report has been very instructive to us.
00:42:23 We do have a very complicated air monitoring system across the country.
00:42:28 We do have the Air Now system, which, you know, is on mobile apps or laptops where parents can take a look at that
00:42:37 and see what the air quality is to know if they want to send their kid to a soccer game or go out jogging and such.
00:42:43 So we feel really good about a robust air quality monitoring system.
00:42:46 One of the things that we have requested in this budget that seems to be continually ignored or getting struck down
00:42:54 or saying the EPA is trying to grow itself is developing the technological capabilities, right?
00:42:59 We know we're going to have wildfires.
00:43:01 We know that our forestry system needs to use prescribed burns.
00:43:05 So we have to do a better job of understanding where the air pollution as a result is coming from
00:43:12 and how we protect public health.
00:43:14 This commission that you referred to has been extremely helpful, and you'll see in our budget resource requests
00:43:20 specifically to enhance our air quality monitoring capabilities and our ability to share that information nationwide.
00:43:29 It used to be that these wildfires were just on the West Coast.
00:43:32 Now we're seeing them in North Carolina.
00:43:34 We're seeing wildfires come from Canada.
00:43:36 So we need those investments, both technology and people, to keep the American public safe.
00:43:42 Thank you.
00:43:43 Well, I look forward to advocating for those resources to go to the EPA.
00:43:47 I think it's absolutely imperative that we upgrade Air Now's capacity to be a real-time resource.
00:43:53 I think it's great what the mobile app does today, but as the commission highlighted, it's not enough.
00:43:59 There's opportunities to improve, and I think EPA can be a real leader towards getting that real-time information
00:44:04 directly to the public so folks can make informed decisions about when they go outside, where they go,
00:44:10 and making sure they're keeping their kids safe.
00:44:13 The second question that I wanted to focus on is in my district we have a National Laboratory Experimental Test Site,
00:44:20 known as Site 300.
00:44:22 This was created many, many decades ago when it was all just a bunch of farmland around.
00:44:27 Now there's been major residential development over the last few decades.
00:44:31 In fact, my own home is just a few miles away from this experimental test site.
00:44:36 And to protect some of the workers and nearby residents,
00:44:40 EPA came out and commented on the draft environmental impact study for Lawrence Livermore Lab to add air quality monitoring,
00:44:50 air quality monitoring facilities so folks had a good sense of some of the radiological constituents
00:44:55 and criteria pollutants.
00:44:57 Can you walk me through the timeline for implementing those air monitors?
00:45:02 What is actually necessary to make sure that they are procured and installed so cities like Mountain House
00:45:07 and Tracy have real information about what's going on in this experimental test site?
00:45:13 Well, thank you for that question.
00:45:15 There are air monitors currently at that site.
00:45:19 I do want to be clear that EPA is providing oversight over the Department of Energy's long-term investment
00:45:27 and cleanup of the site.
00:45:29 So they're in the driver's seat.
00:45:31 We're in that advisory capacity.
00:45:34 The timeline question and those next steps, I would say that DOE is in a better position to answer that question.
00:45:42 That will follow up with them, but you did recommend, or the EPA Region 9 did recommend,
00:45:47 additional air quality monitoring facilities for the EIS that came out pretty recently.
00:45:54 Do you have any sense of when that would happen?
00:45:58 I know that Secretary Granholm and I have a great working relationship.
00:46:02 They have been very receptive to our recommendations.
00:46:05 I'm quite certain that we're, as I understand it, working in full partnership.
00:46:09 Again, in terms of the total receipt of those recommendations from one agency to the other
00:46:15 and the timing for the implementation of those recommendations, I'd have to leave that to DOE.
00:46:21 We would not want to get in front of them on that.
00:46:23 Okay. Well, I agree with the EPA recommendations.
00:46:25 I think additional air quality monitoring makes perfect sense in that site,
00:46:28 and we'll look forward to working with you to make that happen.
00:46:31 Thank you, and I yield back.
00:46:32 Thank you.
00:46:35 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
00:46:37 Mr. Reagan, I appreciate you being here.
00:46:39 It's always good to see somebody from North Carolina back up here.
00:46:44 It is good to see you.
00:46:46 You mentioned in your earlier comments that, or at least your budget request,
00:46:51 is asking for 2,000 additional federal employees.
00:46:56 Was that right?
00:46:58 Yes, it is.
00:46:59 And I heard a couple times through, I think, your comments and some of the others
00:47:04 that a portion of those would be dedicated towards addressing climate change.
00:47:12 Help me understand how many positions of those 2,000 would go towards climate change.
00:47:21 Well, what I'll do is I'll circle back with you on that breakdown
00:47:24 because it's sort of looking at how those positions would help us develop some of these technology-based standards
00:47:34 that we use to regulate some of these greenhouse gases.
00:47:37 And so as we think about the ones that we're currently regulating from natural gas, from cars, from trucks,
00:47:44 we also have a remit that's focused on cement and other places.
00:47:50 And as we look at how we build up that capacity to design these technology standards to be, again,
00:47:56 completely competitive on a global standpoint,
00:47:59 but also reduce the levels of pollution that we want to see here domestically,
00:48:04 I can get you the specific breakdown of how many FTEs would go to which organizations in EPA
00:48:11 that focus on various technology standards.
00:48:14 All right.
00:48:16 Maybe it's me.
00:48:17 I'm new to this committee.
00:48:18 Somebody just told me.
00:48:20 How many positions would be dedicated towards climate change -- let's start with this -- in any capacity?
00:48:31 I'm looking for a number.
00:48:32 I'll get you that specific number because some people work on technology standards that regulate a public health --
00:48:39 So you don't know?
00:48:40 Well, there are co-benefits there.
00:48:44 We work on a standard that's controlled on a certain aspect of a power plant,
00:48:49 and there are co-benefits there.
00:48:51 We might get NOx reductions, but we also may get some CO2 reductions based on the technology that the power plant chooses
00:48:57 or any of the regulated community might choose.
00:49:00 And so I certainly don't want to be combative in asking my questions,
00:49:05 but it seems to me like you're passing rules for companies to adhere to certain standards,
00:49:15 and now we're hiring people to go back and see what the effects of those rules are.
00:49:21 No, no, not at all.
00:49:23 I think what we're doing is we're focused on designing technology standards in a way that the industry can make investments,
00:49:33 long-term investments.
00:49:34 I'll give you a good example.
00:49:36 The power plant rules that we just announced, there were four rules that focused on carbon, mercury, water, and coal ash cleanup.
00:49:46 When I spent time with the utility industry two years ago, they said, hey, instead of dieting by a thousand paper cuts,
00:49:52 just present these regulations in some bundles so that we can make longer-term investments
00:49:56 because there are co-benefits in some of those investments and the like.
00:50:00 And so what we're doing is trying to do more of that.
00:50:03 And we have a slew of rules.
00:50:05 We have hundreds of rules that by law and by Congress we're required to put out.
00:50:11 We've been asked by the industry, various industries, can you work on some of these rules in a simultaneous manner
00:50:18 so that we know what we're getting and investing in.
00:50:21 So that's why we're asking for some of these additional FTEs.
00:50:24 How many unfilled positions are there currently in the EPA?
00:50:50 About 700 positions.
00:50:52 700?
00:50:53 So wouldn't it make sense before you ask for 2,000 more employees to fill the 700 that you've already got appropriation for?
00:51:00 Well, listen, we are ramping up in some of this hiring.
00:51:03 Some of these skill sets are very hard to ascertain.
00:51:07 Obviously, there's some matriculation going on, so it's not necessarily a full 700 people on every given day.
00:51:13 That's the answer you just gave me.
00:51:16 Well, right, that's the number that we have today, but we have people going out and coming in.
00:51:21 Let's shift gears just a little bit.
00:51:24 Less than a week ago on Thursday, April 26, your agency issued a new regulation that expedites the requirement for coal-fired power plants
00:51:32 to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent by the year 2039.
00:51:39 What's your instruction to them?
00:51:42 What's the plan?
00:51:44 What actions will they take, do you think, to reduce their emissions by 90 percent?
00:51:50 You know, it will vary.
00:51:52 I think what Duke Energy will do in North Carolina will be drastically different than what happens in West Virginia or Texas.
00:51:58 There's a process that we have in place.
00:52:00 They have a number of years to comply.
00:52:03 As a former regulator, I'll tell you, they will work -- each state secretary will work with their utility to design a state implementation plan.
00:52:12 So what are the possibilities?
00:52:14 There's a number of possibilities, ranging from the choice of running their plant differently from an efficiency standpoint,
00:52:20 because they may be shifting more of their demand from coal to natural gas or some other generation source that they've chosen.
00:52:28 There are technologies like CCS that they may choose.
00:52:31 So there are fuel, there are technology switches, there are new technologies that they may be adding.
00:52:38 As a matter of fact, some are looking at retiring some asset and bringing some new assets online.
00:52:44 I think, obviously, nuclear energy and other things will be in place.
00:52:47 So stop using coal is the plan?
00:52:49 No, I think that the plan offers control technologies that will reduce emissions if a plant decides to continue with coal.
00:52:58 Yeah, with all due respect, I just asked the question,
00:53:02 what would be your instructions to them to reduce emissions by 90%?
00:53:10 And in your explanation, you said switch to natural gas and nuclear and some of these other things.
00:53:16 That's stopping to use -- that effectively is an order to not use.
00:53:23 There's a coal plant in Texas right now using CCS technology.
00:53:27 What I don't want to do is what you're asking me to do, which is tell them what to do.
00:53:31 I think we've given them a suite of options.
00:53:34 We've talked to a lot of these utility CEOs.
00:53:37 There are a number of ways that they can meet the emission reductions that we've laid out.
00:53:42 So without being too prescriptive, I think the rule lays out a plethora of options and routes that they could choose.
00:53:49 One more question, Mr. Chair, if I may.
00:53:53 The EPA's new Endangered Species Act herbicide strategy adds significant cost and new regulatory burdens to the agriculture community.
00:54:05 I'm hearing that from farmers in North Carolina especially.
00:54:09 Many farmers say that they might go broke trying to comply with these new restrictions, while others wouldn't even have a choice.
00:54:17 Can you detail to me how the EPA plans to make these proposals workable for agriculture so that they don't put family farms out of business?
00:54:29 I'll say that you and I are probably talking to the same folks in North Carolina.
00:54:34 I think we share those relationships.
00:54:36 No farmer should wake up in the middle of a growing season and have to choose or take a tool out of the toolbox.
00:54:42 I think who has taken those choices out have been the courts.
00:54:46 And EPA's administering of the Endangered Species Act for 30 plus years proves that.
00:54:53 And so what I will say is a number of farm groups have spoken positively about these new strategies and updated plans that we've laid out,
00:55:02 including groups like the American Soybean Association and Ag Retailers Association.
00:55:07 So what I would say is we are trying our best to put this pesticides program back on track.
00:55:13 And in one place, I'll say that unfortunately Congress just cut our pesticides budget.
00:55:19 But when I talk to the Farm Bureau or my folks back at home, what they're asking us to do is increase the staff there so that we can put some of these
00:55:27 newer products on the market because we're seeing the courts consistently both tie the farmers' hands and tie EPA's hands.
00:55:35 And I think we've seen that with dicamba, and I think we've seen that with some other pesticides and herbicides that, quite frankly,
00:55:42 many farmers rely on.
00:55:45 Thank you.
00:55:46 Mr. Chair, you'll --
00:55:47 Mr. Cohen.
00:55:50 Thanks, Chairman, and thank you for being back with us.
00:55:53 And thank you for your leadership and partnership on the work specifically related to Puget Sound.
00:55:59 I really like this job.
00:56:00 I like when we get to learn things in this job.
00:56:04 I have now been at it long enough that I get to see how science changes and how our views on issues change.
00:56:13 I still remember, I think, in my first term, university researchers in my state showed a video of salmon dying when exposed to stormwater runoff.
00:56:24 And they weren't entirely sure why.
00:56:26 And then as time has progressed, they were able to distill it down and realize that it was a chemical in tires that when it wore down,
00:56:37 it became basically poisonous to fish.
00:56:42 And it was called 6PPDQ.
00:56:45 I feel like now I get an advanced degree in chemistry or something.
00:56:49 But it was -- it's fatal to several salmon species.
00:56:55 Last year we had several tribes in our region, including the Port Gamble, S'Klallam, and Puyallup in my district,
00:57:01 that petitioned the EPA to regulate 6PPDQ under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
00:57:08 And I appreciate EPA granting that petition.
00:57:11 I'm glad that you are committed to working across the federal government and with state agencies to understand how 6PPDQ gets into our water
00:57:19 and what we can do to keep it out.
00:57:21 This is not just sort of an environmental issue.
00:57:25 It's not just a moral issue.
00:57:27 It's a legal one.
00:57:28 There are 17 tribes that have treaty rights in Puget Sound to harvest shellfish and to do fishing.
00:57:37 So the first question I have for you is when EPA granted that petition,
00:57:44 it indicated that the agency planned to issue the advance notice of proposed rulemaking under the Toxic Substances Control Act by the end of 2024.
00:57:55 Is that timeline still accurate, and is there anything we can do in Congress to support that work?
00:58:02 Well, yes.
00:58:03 Well, thank you for your leadership on this issue and all sincerity.
00:58:07 You have been a champion there.
00:58:08 And I think we're going to do a little bit better by the end of the year, and we'll have that ANPR done by the fall of 2024 to gather this important information.
00:58:19 It's really important that we make this step.
00:58:22 Thanks to your leadership and thanks to the original vision of all of Congress with the TSCA legislation,
00:58:29 these are the types of things that we were asked to do, and we're going to try to get those done.
00:58:33 Great.
00:58:34 The 6PPDQ issue is not the only threat facing Puget Sound.
00:58:40 I appreciate the chairman's partnership in securing funding for the geographic program for Puget Sound.
00:58:49 Even in a tough budget, we were able to maintain funding for that, and it really matters.
00:58:53 I also want to express gratitude for the work that EPA is doing in the rivers that feed into the Sound,
00:59:02 and restoring these riparian habitats is critical for species recovery.
00:59:07 It's critical for clean water.
00:59:08 It's critical for climate resilience.
00:59:10 I'm excited to see the funding for the Climate Resilient Riparian Lead go out into our communities over the next four years.
00:59:17 Are you able to give any additional information about the work you're doing to restore estuary and riparian habitats in Puget Sound?
00:59:25 Yes, I can tell you that we continue to work on the Puget Sound and enjoy those partnerships we have.
00:59:32 I think we just funded the Kitsap Conservation District, which is providing that strong technical assistance
00:59:40 and funding to help agricultural landowners employ the best management practices and improve the water quality there as well.
00:59:48 And I'll say specifically for Puget Sound, we have successfully followed through with our new statutory requirements
00:59:54 to stand up the Puget Sound Recovery National Program Office and the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force.
01:00:01 These are very concrete steps that we're taking to look at the entire system, and not only how we reduce 6PPD,
01:00:11 but as you say, all of these toxic impacts to our precious water systems that you all, we all rely on for food,
01:00:21 for recreation, and for just economic stability.
01:00:26 Thank you. I really appreciate your leadership and partnership on this.
01:00:30 We'd love to invite you out to see Puget Sound.
01:00:33 I recommend August and September are really nice months, and the rest of the year it rains.
01:00:38 But we'd love to have you out.
01:00:40 Thank you so much.
01:00:41 Thank you, Chairman.
01:00:44 Thank you.
01:00:46 Last month, the EPA finalized a rule lowering the standard for a particular matter.
01:00:50 Aside from my concerns with the agency revising this rule outside of the standard five-year cycle,
01:00:56 I'm more concerned that you're shutting down industry and manufacturing in America.
01:01:01 In addition to the new counties that will be non-attainment with this lower standard, including counties in Idaho,
01:01:08 most of the country will not be able to permit new or expanding manufacturing projects.
01:01:14 Then what?
01:01:15 We will be forced to import products and become even more dependent on our foreign adversaries,
01:01:20 and we will drive jobs overseas and turn our back on American workers, as Mr. Elsie was talking about earlier.
01:01:27 A particular issue concerning attainment in our western states is the impact on wildfire smoke.
01:01:34 Unfortunately, wildfires will continue to happen and intensify,
01:01:37 and our federal and state partners need to be able to continue using prescribed burns as a forest management tool.
01:01:44 It is imperative for the EPA to work with the western states to accurately account for these events
01:01:49 when determining attainment with the new stricter standards.
01:01:53 Just a few weeks ago, the governor of Idaho joined 21 other governors in writing a letter to the agency
01:01:58 outlining these wildfire-related concerns, and I'd ask unanimous consent that that letter be included in the record.
01:02:07 Recognizing the far-reaching impacts of this rule, the FY24 House Interior Bill included a provision blocking the rule.
01:02:14 But at the very least, the states are asking the agencies to pause implementation of the rule until their concerns are addressed.
01:02:22 Are you concerned that this rule will prohibit new economic growth throughout the country
01:02:26 and will drive jobs and industries overseas?
01:02:29 Hopefully you'll surprise me with your answer.
01:02:31 Do you think the agency has a solid, fair plan on how to handle events like wildfires and prescribed burns?
01:02:38 Tell us what your coordination has been with the states thus far and what you're planning for the future.
01:02:44 Thank you for that.
01:02:45 I will say that hopefully it's not a surprise, but maybe it is.
01:02:49 When this rule is scheduled to the earliest that it can come into place, around 2032,
01:02:57 we believe that 99 percent of all the counties will meet the new standard.
01:03:01 The reason we believe that, the first is that we've got an incredible working relationship with a lot of our state environmental regulators,
01:03:10 and so there are resources coming from both the By-Paws and Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act
01:03:16 that's going to infuse some capital in to help with some of these PM concerns that we have.
01:03:21 The second is we have absolutely listened to our western states and our western governors
01:03:27 and taken a lot of advice on, from a data standpoint, how we calculate the monitored data from wildfires and from prescribed burns.
01:03:39 So we have a great strategy for differentiating that particular matter of data that's coming from a very sophisticated air monitoring system
01:03:48 that points to wildfires, prescribed burns, and those emissions that we're actually targeting.
01:03:53 So I believe with the infusion of capital from Bill, from Ira, from listening to some of the concerns that we've heard from some of the western governors,
01:04:01 and looking at my conversations with the Secretary of Commerce and the President and others
01:04:10 who want us to continue to be a beacon of light for jobs and creativity, I think we can meet that goal.
01:04:18 Just remember that prescribed burns are how you prevent, hopefully in the future, catastrophic wildfires.
01:04:25 And so if we put too many restrictions on prescribed burns, you are increasing the chances of catastrophic wildfires.
01:04:34 I'm very concerned about our wildfires. Losing fire retardant is a tool to fight wildfires.
01:04:40 Our firefighters should not be out in the field without the means to fight the fire.
01:04:44 They are already putting their lives at risk.
01:04:47 Can you provide an update on how the EPA is working with the Forest Service to ensure the continued use of fire retardant?
01:04:54 Absolutely. This is a conversation that Secretary Vilsack and I together have been looking at and monitoring.
01:04:59 I'll say that we both want to be very clear that we do not want to take any tools away from our firefighters, and so we will not do that.
01:05:07 The first is the EPA and the Forest Service have a signed facilities compliance agreement
01:05:13 that allows the Forest Service to continue fighting fires exactly the way they are.
01:05:18 And then meanwhile, so that we can be on the right side of the law, we're working with USDA and the Forest Service
01:05:25 in looking at how we can issue a Clean Water Act permit as soon as possible.
01:05:32 That is very clear and concise and really in a very transparent way demonstrates that the Forest Service can use these tools
01:05:42 and do it in a way that's protective of the Clean Water Act.
01:05:45 Appreciate that. I'm not opposed to trying to find more environmentally friendly fire retardants and stuff,
01:05:55 but we can't ban what we currently have if we don't have the replacement in place, and right now we don't.
01:06:01 One last question for me.
01:06:03 For yet another year, the budget request proposed to zero out funding for the Rural Water Technical Assistance Grants,
01:06:08 which is currently funded at just over $30 million.
01:06:11 It's unfortunate that we play games with this program by zeroing it out to make room for other priorities
01:06:17 because you know Congress will put the money back in.
01:06:19 It just doesn't send the right message to the folks in our states who are working very hard every day
01:06:24 to help ensure our rural communities have access to safe drinking water.
01:06:28 But that's why I will work with my colleagues to ensure the program is continued and not zeroed out as is proposed in this budget.
01:06:35 The agency has been trying to change the way funding is awarded under this program.
01:06:39 I expressed my opposition at the end of last year and will reiterate it again now.
01:06:43 Can you commit that the agency will continue to operate this program on a one-year funding cycle,
01:06:48 and can you commit that the agency will follow the congressional direction to award funding to organizations
01:06:54 that are most qualified and experienced in providing training and technical assistance to small public water systems?
01:07:01 I can absolutely agree that we will follow congressional direction 100 percent,
01:07:06 and I can tell you that I've been briefed on the budget games that have been played for a number of years.
01:07:12 I will say that the thing that I'm heartened by is there was $43 billion from the bipartisan infrastructure law to invest in water infrastructure.
01:07:23 We've already invested, or our plan is to invest up to $500 million in water technical assistance programs through just 2024,
01:07:32 including increasing funding for the National Rural Water Association and Rural Community Assistance Program.
01:07:40 So what we've done is at EPA we've focused on the ability to have a concrete, consistent stream of revenue going to our rural communities,
01:07:50 recognizing that there are lots of budget maneuvers that have happened in the past.
01:07:55 This is a way to make sure that the money gets to these rural communities.
01:07:57 Well, I appreciate that because this rural water technical assistance program has been working, frankly.
01:08:04 When I talk to small communities that have, as we talked on the phone the other day,
01:08:09 have a water system that maybe it's a town of 1,000 people, they don't have the ability to go out and hire somebody with the technical assistance
01:08:15 to really meet the Clean Water Act, the Clean and Safe Drinking Water Act, and all those different acts and stuff like that.
01:08:21 Who do they turn to? They turn to the people they know, and that's the people in the local rural communities,
01:08:26 the water and rural water assistance programs that give them great advice.
01:08:30 And that's how it has worked in the past, and I think it's working very well, and that's why Congress continues to support it.
01:08:37 So I suspect you'll see some money put back into that program in this budget when we finish it.
01:08:43 Thank you.
01:08:44 Ms. Pigree?
01:08:45 Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again for your testimony this morning.
01:08:49 And I just want to reinforce that I wholeheartedly support the work you're doing related to climate change,
01:08:55 reducing our dependence on fossil fuel, removing the toxins from our environment,
01:08:59 making sure that we don't have kids growing up with childhood asthma and the issues that we're dealing with today.
01:09:05 So thank you.
01:09:06 I'm very grateful for the work you're doing and the work this administration is doing.
01:09:11 Thank you.
01:09:12 A lot of my questions are about waste.
01:09:14 I'm very concerned about whether it's PFAS or this one.
01:09:16 I just want to bring up textile recycling.
01:09:19 So fast fashion is something I've learned about fairly recently.
01:09:23 Just in terms of a topic, and at first I was like, well, okay, fine, that's just a trivial matter.
01:09:29 But it turns out even in 2018, the EPA estimated that 100 billion garments are produced annually,
01:09:36 most of which end up in incinerators, generating about 17 million tons of textile municipal solid waste.
01:09:43 So 85 percent of the garments, more or less, end up in our waste stream.
01:09:48 Sometimes this plastic is in the ocean because of the synthetics that they're made of.
01:09:51 But right now our national recycling strategy doesn't address this critical source of pollution and waste.
01:09:58 So can you provide a little bit of an update about the work you're doing around fast fashion
01:10:02 and what kind of resources would the EPA need to make a significant impact?
01:10:07 Well, thank you for this.
01:10:08 I was telling you, I believe, a while back that fast fashion wasn't something that was on the tip of my tongue.
01:10:13 As I've traveled the country and traveled the state, this is something that especially young people are adamantly focused on.
01:10:19 And so we're taking this very serious.
01:10:22 We released Part 1 of the National Recycling Strategy in 2021,
01:10:26 and as you pointed out, it did not have enough in that focused on this specific topic.
01:10:31 So we've gone to work since then.
01:10:34 I will say that we anticipate releasing new data specifically on textile waste and recycling this year.
01:10:40 So that is on the way.
01:10:42 And I would just say that in our budget we're making requests so that we can focus on these waste issues,
01:10:49 these new emerging issues that are not only waste issues from a municipal standpoint,
01:10:55 but that they tie into these municipal landfills that contribute to methane, that contribute to climate change.
01:11:01 And this is why I have such a -- not a difficult time,
01:11:04 but not a straightforward way of answering Congressman Edwards' question,
01:11:08 which is we're hiring people to work on climate change.
01:11:11 We're coming at climate change from so many different angles,
01:11:14 it's not very easy just to say this person is focused on that.
01:11:18 But we are focused on the textile waste.
01:11:20 We are focused on reducing that textile waste.
01:11:22 And again, later this year you will see new data as part of our National Recycling Strategy.
01:11:28 Great.
01:11:29 Well, thank you.
01:11:30 I look forward to working with you on that.
01:11:31 And I know it's a variety of factors.
01:11:33 Some of it has to do with a plethora of garbage that are made in China using kids,
01:11:39 using not the environmental controls that we have.
01:11:43 Some of it has to do with how they're shipped into our country.
01:11:46 There's a lot of different things we need to get at, but understanding what's in our waste stream I think is important.
01:11:51 And I want to bring up one other waste topic that I've been working on for quite a long time, and that's food waste.
01:11:58 Once again, the first time I heard about this several years ago, I thought, okay, good.
01:12:02 My grandmother told them not to waste food.
01:12:03 Of course you shouldn't.
01:12:04 But it turns out we raise somewhere around 30 to 40 percent of the food in this country.
01:12:08 So that's just not -- it's not only food that doesn't go to people who are actually hungry,
01:12:13 that doesn't get to the right places, but it's also the land that we're using, the water that we're wasting, the transportation.
01:12:19 And it starts to add up to a pretty significant environmental issue, not to mention the same thing.
01:12:25 When food ends up in a landfill, it turns into methane gas,
01:12:29 and so you're just contributing once more to some of the challenges we have around climate change.
01:12:35 So I appreciated your agency extending the comment deadline so more groups could provide feedback on the national food waste
01:12:43 draft strategy that you are doing with the USDA and FDA.
01:12:48 Can you tell us a little bit more about the timeline for finalizing the strategy,
01:12:52 and can you talk more about how EPA will further support efforts to reduce food waste?
01:12:57 We were excited to expand that timeline because we received so many comments.
01:13:03 They gave us more time to process those comments, and in that time frame we expanded, we got new comments.
01:13:09 That being said, time is of essence, and so we're hoping to have the draft strategy out --
01:13:14 or the final strategy out later this summer.
01:13:17 So that direction will be out, and it will be stamped by USDA, FDA, and EPA.
01:13:21 We also intend to invest around $83 million of the first round of bill funding under the Solid Waste Infrastructure
01:13:32 for Recycling Grants program to support programs that are directly focused on organics recycling, composting,
01:13:40 and anaerobic digestion.
01:13:42 So we've got that strategy coming out, and we have that $83 million that is focused solely on this issue.
01:13:48 That's great, because I know a lot of municipalities would like to move towards composting their solid waste,
01:13:53 take it out of the waste stream, reduce the cost to those municipalities,
01:13:56 but they often need assistance or grants, and this country is way behind in our biodigester capacity
01:14:02 and certainly in what other countries are doing to reduce food waste at all levels.
01:14:07 So anyway, I appreciate the work you're doing, and I'll continue to stay in touch, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
01:14:12 Thank you.
01:14:15 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:14:16 On your FTEs, do you know what the force is in D.C. as far as your EPA?
01:14:23 I'm sorry?
01:14:24 How many personnel you have in D.C.?
01:14:31 About 16,000 of that total workforce in D.C.
01:14:35 I looked at the --
01:14:37 I'm sorry, across the agency, 16,000.
01:14:39 You're looking for just in D.C.?
01:14:40 In D.C.
01:14:42 Well, the reason why I ask is I looked at the Department of Interior, Department of Ag, and in office, they're about 21 percent.
01:14:50 So remote, when COVID caused a disruption, but --
01:14:56 I'm just curious what the occupancy rate is on EPA, because if --
01:15:02 you know, Interior is eight stories and a couple blocks, and agriculture is about the same,
01:15:08 and for that 21 percent occupancy rate, it seems to be an opportunity to look at building space in D.C.
01:15:16 You know, I know the FBI wants a new building, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera,
01:15:19 but it's interesting among the bigger agencies within D.C. how many people are actually in the office as opposed to remote.
01:15:29 So, you know, I just ask that if you can get that number.
01:15:32 Absolutely, we can get you that number.
01:15:34 Recycling strategy, and I agree with a gentleman from Maine that we need to look at recycling.
01:15:40 It disturbs me that China is producing 90 percent of the plastics in our ocean.
01:15:45 It disturbs me.
01:15:47 It disturbs me we have toxins that we never really thought about a lot of times, and methodology of extracting minerals.
01:15:54 We've changed over time.
01:15:56 On strategy, because I see a lot of regulation on the energy side.
01:16:00 We may agree to disagree on energy source and fossil fuels and those type of things.
01:16:05 I don't think we disagree on pollution, and we can do it better.
01:16:10 Part of that is on the look at the supply chain from the beginning to the end, and let's take solar cells, for instance.
01:16:18 When solar cells are past their lifestyle or life cycle,
01:16:22 90 percent of the solar cells are being dumped into some landfill across this country,
01:16:27 and as you know, what's in a solar cell is not good.
01:16:31 And then we have the battery issue between toxins and the battery technology.
01:16:38 Is there an idea of when a regulatory push is going to be to solar cells and batteries?
01:16:46 I don't disagree with making things cleaner and better,
01:16:49 but what I disagree with is making sure the supply chain, both on the production side, is competitive globally
01:16:56 and the recycle side is well thought out, so not creating a problem.
01:17:01 So is there regulation coming on solar cell recycling and toxins?
01:17:09 Because it seems to me that seems to be a problem that we need to address in the short term.
01:17:15 Yes, we agree that we need to always stay ahead of any potential pollution.
01:17:21 I will say that from a policy standpoint and looking at all of our authorities, we are examining this issue.
01:17:28 We are having some very constructive conversations with the private sector,
01:17:32 because what they are suggesting is on a voluntary basis,
01:17:37 they are beginning to claw back these panels, these batteries,
01:17:42 because they are comprised of so many critical minerals, it's cheaper for them to get those minerals,
01:17:47 extract those minerals, and reduce that waste profile.
01:17:50 I will say that currently, we have done some analysis, because I share your concerns,
01:17:55 less than 1% of municipal waste is comprised of batteries and solar panels that have been used.
01:18:04 But as we see more in the system...
01:18:06 But that 1% happens to be highly toxic.
01:18:09 Yes.
01:18:10 So the difference between burying a 2x4 and a battery will come back.
01:18:14 And so we are strongly looking at this.
01:18:17 Another question, I was asked about locomotives.
01:18:21 Even though Montana is far away from California, what happens in California affects Montana,
01:18:28 especially on locomotives.
01:18:30 And you recently just closed a comment period on a request from our state of California
01:18:37 to begin enforcing their own emission standards on locomotives.
01:18:42 Locomotives don't generally stay inside a state, so they transit.
01:18:47 By the way, Montana is the same size as from here to Chicago, plus 45 miles.
01:18:52 Montana is a pretty big state.
01:18:54 So locomotives are a big deal with me.
01:18:56 So when you close the period, just so you know,
01:19:01 between shippers and agriculture groups and labor and construction, all are opposed to this.
01:19:11 So my comment to you is, will you commit to fully and carefully reviewing each of these comments
01:19:19 filed by the ag groups or rail labor, construction trade unions, and shippers
01:19:25 to make sure that any decision you make is rooted in legally sound analysis,
01:19:32 both legally and within the Constitution, is mindful of the supply chain impacts?
01:19:39 Because if this goes in, what people are telling me is once again--
01:19:43 and I'll show you the numbers--$28,000 is what an average family is paying due to inflation
01:19:49 and the higher energy costs.
01:19:51 Energy costs make manufacturing costs, and it's out of control on housing.
01:19:55 A lot of difficult issues outside the D.C.
01:19:59 And then coupled with taking down Coal Strip, that adds another $1,000.
01:20:03 I can show you our statistics on that.
01:20:05 And then locomotives on top of it, it's real hard for states that live outside the Beltway
01:20:12 to be competitive when shipping costs more money, energy costs more money,
01:20:17 and just living out there costs more money.
01:20:19 So will you commit before you make a decision on that to fully review
01:20:23 and make sure that we have the right science and the impacts?
01:20:28 Yes, you have my word on that.
01:20:30 And with that, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for your service.
01:20:34 Not being easy, but I get it.
01:20:37 I appreciate all the work you do.
01:20:39 Thank you.
01:20:41 [Unintelligible]
01:20:54 I told you this would be fun.
01:20:58 The EPA has obligated nearly all of the $27 billion from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,
01:21:04 $20 billion of it, $20 billion, this was a B, went to only eight recipients to run green banks.
01:21:12 That's quite a lot of money going out the door, especially to so few participants.
01:21:16 A less suspecting person than I might think that the reason that this was done
01:21:23 was to make sure that the money was obligated so Congress couldn't rescind it.
01:21:28 So we had to get it out the door and get it obligated,
01:21:33 and so we picked eight recipients to receive $20 billion.
01:21:37 Do you agree that there needs to be appropriate oversight on how this money is spent,
01:21:41 and should we increase the funding for the IG to oversee how this money is being spent
01:21:48 in this Inflation Reduction Act?
01:21:51 I can assure you that I meet with my IG frequently,
01:21:54 and we've had a number of conversations about oversight.
01:21:57 Let me just say from an oversight perspective, $20 billion is a lot of money,
01:22:04 and the way the Inflation Reduction Act was written, we were to create a competition
01:22:10 and choose individuals who we knew knew how to leverage capital and knew what to do with resources.
01:22:17 I hope the IG would agree with this, that it is much better to choose eight strong candidates
01:22:22 that you know can leverage those resources than have 30 different organizations
01:22:27 that you're trying to have oversight of.
01:22:29 So we developed very strong metrics, very strong criteria.
01:22:33 We had a really robust competition.
01:22:36 Eight candidates emerged as the strongest,
01:22:40 and I have confidence that they know how to handle capital, they know how to invest capital,
01:22:45 and they know how to get that capital to the people that Congress intended for them to receive those resources.
01:22:51 Okay.
01:22:52 Ms. Minkley?
01:22:53 Just one quick one.
01:23:01 This is quick.
01:23:02 I was glad to see there's been the establishment of the new Office of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.
01:23:07 Can you tell me a little more about the office,
01:23:09 and will you be engaging through that office on the PFAS issues impacting farmers?
01:23:13 Absolutely.
01:23:14 This is an office that I'm extremely proud of.
01:23:16 Irrespective of Republican, Democrat, this administration,
01:23:21 the President committed to agriculture having a seat at the table,
01:23:25 and I wanted to follow through on that, which is why I created this new office.
01:23:30 The issues facing agriculture are so complex and so wide, from climate change to PFAS to drought to food, fiber, and fuel.
01:23:39 So I'm excited, Rod Snyder is leading that office, that we have a very capable group of people who are going to help us
01:23:47 not only manage the Federal Advisory Committee for ranchers and farmers in rural America,
01:23:54 but to begin to think about how the agency can be more responsive to our agriculture community,
01:24:00 whether it's biosolids or whether looking at how we're managing the Endangered Species Act
01:24:05 and getting these new products on the market.
01:24:07 So this is a proud point for me at EPA, and I think it's the right kind of history we need to make.
01:24:13 Great.
01:24:14 Good work.
01:24:15 Thank you.
01:24:18 Just to follow up on your question, $20 billion is a lot of money.
01:24:23 I'm curious if you would share in writing the metrics you used.
01:24:28 I just got to ask, was ESG protocol and a score used in determining?
01:24:36 I will respond to you specifically in writing the criteria for getting those resources.
01:24:42 I don't want to get ahead of myself and go down that specific list,
01:24:45 but we put forward a very transparent process that laid those criteria out.
01:24:50 Thank you for your indulgence.
01:24:51 I'm just curious of the metrics used.
01:24:53 Yes, and 14% of our staff are working remotely now.
01:24:57 I wanted to get you that answer as well.
01:24:59 14% working remotely, so you have 70%, 80% in office.
01:25:03 That's good.
01:25:04 You're much, much higher than your group of other agencies.
01:25:13 Congratulations.
01:25:15 Thank you.
01:25:16 Just a little bit of a follow-up on what Ms. Pinger is talking about.
01:25:20 Last fall, EPA submitted a reorganization plan for reprogramming.
01:25:26 I thought it went beyond what a reprogramming plan should be,
01:25:32 and consequently we -- I kind of rejected it, sorry --
01:25:37 said you ought to put it in the budget and stuff.
01:25:41 I know that as we put together this budget,
01:25:44 we're going to be very interested in what the purpose of this reorganization is,
01:25:48 what we hope to accomplish by it, and why we're doing it,
01:25:51 why we created the Office of Agriculture, whatever it is.
01:25:55 I know there's actually some kickback to that
01:25:57 because agriculture doesn't directly want to be associated with the EPA,
01:26:02 if you know what I mean.
01:26:04 Times are changing.
01:26:05 Yeah, so I'm starting to hear some questions from other members about,
01:26:09 did you know they were doing this and stuff?
01:26:11 So you're probably going to get some questions about that.
01:26:14 But you need to explain to Congress and to the authorizing committees why the
01:26:20 reorganization and what we hope to accomplish by it and that kind of stuff.
01:26:23 I'm also worried about the fiscal cliff -- not the fiscal cliff,
01:26:26 but the employee cliff that we're going to come up on when these short-term funds
01:26:33 used to hire people run out.
01:26:37 And then Congress is going to be sitting here looking,
01:26:39 you've got to lay off how many people, 2,000 or whatever you know.
01:26:43 I hope you're taking that into a mind, and I know you are.
01:26:47 Beyond that, I hope to see you out in Idaho at the water test bed.
01:26:50 Awesome.
01:26:51 Thank you, sir.
01:26:52 Thank you all for being here today.
01:26:53 If there's no other questions, committee's adjourned.
01:26:57 Thank you, everyone.
01:26:58 Thank you.
01:26:58 [BLANK_AUDIO]

Recommended

2:00
I
Up next
Watch John Lewis 2024 Christmas advert in full as sister battles to find perfect family gift
The Independent
0:32
Wildfire breaks out in New York City park — in November
The Independent
4:50
Top Project 2025 Policymaker Calls Out 'Reverse Discrimination' During Congressional Testimony
Forbes Breaking News
1:22:04
Joe Manchin Leads Senate Energy Committee Hearing On The US Forest Service’s FY2025 Budget
Forbes Breaking News
4:31
Pressley Says Infrastructure Projects Must Be Done 'In A Way That Addresses Longstanding Inequities'
Forbes Breaking News
1:51:20
BREAKING NEWS: FBI Director Christopher Wray Testifies Before House Appropriations Committee
Forbes Breaking News
1:21:48
Ron Wyden Leads Senate Finance Committee Hearing On Youth Residential Treatment Facilities
Forbes Breaking News
54:33
Richard Blumenthal Leads Senate Homeland Security Committee Confirmation Hearing For Nominees
Forbes Breaking News
2:12:24
Administrator Bill Nelson Testifies Before House Science, Space & Tech Committee On NASA's Budget
Forbes Breaking News
4:14
‘Country Is On An Unsustainable Fiscal Path’: Hagerty Urges Congress To Get Fiscal House In Order
Forbes Breaking News
1:41:20
BREAKING NEWS: Boeing Airline Whistleblower Testifies Before Senate Homeland Security Committee
Forbes Breaking News
1:01:28
Senate Appropriations Committee Holds A Markup On Pending Legislation
Forbes Breaking News
10:33
Bill Huizenga Decries Use Of Federal Funds For 'Social Justice Themed Adventures'
Forbes Breaking News
1:29:51
CBO Director Phillip Swagel Testifies In Front Of The Senate Budget Committee
Forbes Breaking News
16:26
JUST IN: House Democratic Leadership Hold A Briefing Ahead Of Biden Executive Order On The Border
Forbes Breaking News
53:27
JUST IN: White House Holds Press Briefing As Biden Unveils Proposal To Reform Supreme Court
Forbes Breaking News
1:09:40
Federal Bureau Of Prisons Director Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee
Forbes Breaking News
5:09
'Louder For The Far Right Folks In The Back': Pressley Asks Rohit Chopra To Dispel GOP Claims
Forbes Breaking News
19:33
BREAKING NEWS: Hakeem Jeffries Grilled By Reporters Amidst Calls For President Biden To Drop Out
Forbes Breaking News
25:58
JUST IN: Hakeem Jeffries Holds A Press Briefing As Republicans Mull Plan B For FISA Authorization
Forbes Breaking News
3:43
‘Is The President Concerned About This?’: WH Pressed On Polls Showing Declining Support For Israel
Forbes Breaking News
2:53:36
House Energy & Commerce Committee Holds Hearing On CDC’s Efforts To Improve Public Trust & Health
Forbes Breaking News
2:13:26
BREAKING NEWS: Jim Jordan Leads Weaponization Committee Hearing To Probe ATF Overreach
Forbes Breaking News
2:09:30
Senate Commerce Committee Holds Hearing About Major Broadband Affordability Programs
Forbes Breaking News
5:48
WATCH: Doug LaMalfa And Dem Lawmaker Throw Jabs At Each Other During Testy Exchange
Forbes Breaking News