The Fiscal Year 2027 Environmental Protection Agency Budget

Subcommittee will come to order, but before we begin, I want to note for the record that I am filling in for subcommittee chairman Gary Palmer. Uh, Gary had a uh conflict to rise in scheduling and was unable to attend this morning's hearing. I now recognize myself for five minutes. Today we will consider President Trump's fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget request for the U S Environmental Protection Agency. I'm glad to welcome back uh Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, who I and many of us remember fondly from serving with him in the House and working with him at in his capacity as Administrator. Administrator, when you testified before this committee last year to discuss EPA's budget request for fiscal year twenty twenty six, I noted that you faced a difficult but important job as the EPA Administrator. I believe that you've done an excellent job as Administrator. The people across my district have been excited to see the direction that you and President Trump have steered the EPA under your great American come-back initiative. Thank you and President Trump for returning the EPA to its rightful role of protecting human health and cleaning up the environment, not as an anti-jobs agency. It is refreshing to see the Trump administration take a measured and thoughtful unlike under the previous administration where the agency operated as a center for pushing uncompromising ideologies. The EPA under Trump has closely followed its enabling statutes and not stretched the meaning of the law for the benefit of overzealous activists. I commend you for taking a pragmatic pragmatic approach to regulatory actions that closely uphold the laws the EPA is charged with enforcing. The EPA has done great work over this past year from cleaning up sewage spills in California to expediting Superfund site closures and to clarifying, clean air act guidance. You were tasks you were tasked with undoing the regulatory overreach of the Biden-Harris administration, and refocusing EPA's work, and I believe you're off to a good start. Also, I would like to take a moment to personally thank you and President Trump for prioritizing the rollback of blatantly anti-coal regulations, They were churned out in what seemed w what seemed to me to be a almost a monthly basis by the Biden-Harris EPA. Under your leadership, EPA finalized a repeal of the Obama administration's two thousand nine so-called greenhouse gas endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act which led to a series of costly regulations that limited consumer choices. And as I pointed out at the time that uh originally started coming out, I didn't understand how you could do one side of the science and not the other side of the science. There was no balance-counterbalance, it was just one side of the story. Over the past year the EPA has worked also worked to improve permitting guidance under the Clean Air Act. EPA has prioritized actions to safeguard drinking water, including proposing to require monitoring of micro-plastics, PFAS, and pharmaceuticals under the Safe Drink Drinking Water Act. Administrator, you have also been successful in reining in the wasteful Green New Deal and DEI initiatives that characterized the Biden administration. For fiscal year twenty seventy-seven, President Trump is requesting four point two billion in new budget authority for the EPA. This budget proposal would provide more than two point five billion for EPA environmental management programs as well as almost seven hundred and fifty million in grant assistance for states and tribes more than five hundred million for science and technology activities and two hundred and ninety million for Superfund cleanup. Despite what our friends across the aisle may say, this is a significant amount of taxpayer dollars.

Mm.

It is important to remember the EPA received a an a very large hundred billion in appropriations for fiscal years twenty twenty-two through twenty twenty-six from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. Such heavy funding levels or high funding levels, over ten times the average historical EPA appropriation, was intended to be a one-time, once-in-a-generation supplement with much of the increased funding for specific water infrastructure and clean-up programs. These appropriations were never, never intended to be the new normal for EPA funding. This budget request is physically responsible and focuses on infrastructure and disti distinct clean-up goals. The EPA's budget request will continue to support EPA's core programs and is in line with limited legal authority and cooperative federalism, the and a cooperative federalism framework that Congress envisioned for the EPA. It is important for Congress to examine how the laws, it and acts are working, and whether they need to be amended or even repealed. When I was Chairman of the Environmental in the Environment Subcommittee we began reviewing all of EPA's statutory authorities. Chairman Palmer has continued with this important work. by holding hearings and markups on reauthorizations for the Toxic Toxic Substances Control Act, the Brownfield Laws, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and by considering amendments to the Clean Air Act and the federal waste and recycling laws. Thank you again for coming before us today, Administrator Zeldin. I look forward to hearing about your priorities for the EPA and how Congress can help ensure that we have clean air clean water and Good jobs. With that, I yield back and now recognize my colleague, the ranking member, Mister Tonko from New York for his five minute opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Administrator Zeldin, welcome, welcome back to the uh subcommittee. Fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget request proposes a more than fifty two percent cut to EPA. This includes a ninety one percent reduction to categorical grants that states rely upon to support implementation of im- environmental laws. The EPA's budget claims it will empower states through cooperative federalism. But we all know what this really is. It's cost shifting, requiring states to find more revenue to carry out federal requirements at a time when costs from Medicaid, nutrition, assistance, and other programs are being passed on to those state budgets. This budget request also claims to return primary responsibility for water infrastructure to state and local governments. And it includes a nearly ninety percent reduction to the state revolving funds over two point five billion dollars which local governments rely upon to finance water system projects. This budget completely fails to recognize that the federal government is currently responsible for a whopping four percent of water system's capital and operating expenses. Ninety per six ninety six percent of water utility expenses are paid for by non-federal sources. Primarily, uh, customers. If the federal government further reduces its financial commitment, people inevitably will see their water bills go up, especially as systems work to reduce risks from lead, PFAS, and other public health, um, issues. It is an understatement to say that I am concerned by the direction of the EPA, and I believe the American people are right to be concerned also. Let's just look at the agency's track record on protecting people from dangerous chemicals. the Trump administration's first maha commission record correctly identified industry capture of the EPA's chemical safety program as a problem. Today there are uh there is a s uh are several political appointees running EPA's chemical safety program, who previously worked for the chemical industry. And I suspect they will return to lucrative jobs working for the industry at the end of this administration. And why do I suspect this? Because some of these very same people also worked in the chemical safety office during the first Trump administration, and then went on to work on behalf of chemical manufacturers during the Biden administration. With such strong past financial ties, and the high likelihood that their future incomes will come from the companies they are charged with regulating today, can there be any doubt why people are suspicious that this EPA may not put the health and safety of regular Americans over those of the interest of powerful chemical and pesticide manufacturers. This is to say nothing of the industry representatives and industry paid consultants who have been appointed to EPA's science advisory bodies. Inevitably, empowering people with such obvious and deep financial connections to regulated industries erodes public confidence in the agency's willingness to be an effective regulator and this is a problem that can be found across program offices. Last year, Administrator Zeldin, you announced a major deregulatory agenda, despite analysis that the rules targeted for repeal were estimated to save thousands of American lives and billions of dollars each year. Time and time again, we have seen that to effectuate this agenda, EPA has needed to change its cost-benefit rules and ignore agency and independent analyses that have not agreed with the administrator's predetermined outcome. In January, EPA announced it would stop considering the value of live save from putting limits on air pollution. EPA ignored its own analysis that a rollback of limits on mercury pollution threatens public health and imposes costs on Americans. EPA also ignored its analysis of the revocation of the endangerment finding, which found that the cost of the action would indeed outweigh any savings. So President Trump has issued sweeping exemptions to entire industries from complying with hazardous air pollution standards, which were granted with no transparency and seemingly no analysis of how they might harm public health. And to repeal vehicle standards, EPA's analysis found that elimination of these standards would increase consumer costs and gas prices, adding another three billion dollars per year in fuel costs by twenty thirty five, for American drivers. And you can bet that EPA took a rosy estimate of future gas prices. It certainly did not account for President Trump's illegal war with Iran, which has now raised average gas prices to over four dollars and ten cents per gallon. This deregulatory agenda is giving Americans the privilege of paying more to have worse health outcomes. Because apparently in the Trump administration, the only costs worth considering are how much environmental protections will affect polluting corporations' bottom lines. EPA's budget cuts and deregulatory actions will result in more pollution while reducing our scientific capacity to understand just how pollution will impact Americans' health and well-being. I find that an unacceptable and I believe most Americans would agree. With that, Mister Chairman, I thank you and yield back.

Gentleman yields back, now recognize the Chairman of the full committee, Mister Guthrie, for his five minute opening statement.

Good morning and thank you, Chairman Griffith, for uh holding this hearing and and for being here today. Uh welcome back, Administrators Eldon. Great to have you here. We look forward to hearing about your plans for the Environmental Protection Agency over uh the next fiscal year. But first, I wanna commend you and and your team for restoring EPA to its core mission to protect human health and the environment within the statutory authority in the mandates provided by Congress. As a former member of Congress, uh, you respect the Constitution, including Article one. The Biden administration and the Obama administration before it both pushed laws, uh, like the Clean Air Act far beyond what Congress had intended and blindly pursued a hostile regulatory agenda to shut down the fossil fuel, energy producers and critical manufacturers. You have reined in the EPA within bounds of the law, while ensuring it fulfills its statutory duty. You have also been laser focused on making sure dollars are invested wisely and have worked hard to end wasteful spending on the Green New Deal and DEI programs. EPA's budget request strikes a balance between building on historic investments and core programs in responding to current environmental and economic challenges. We especially appreciate the budget request focused on improving permitting. The co- and the cooperative federalism framework that respects the role of states, tribes, and local communities. restoring public confidence in EPA's science activities and positioning EPA to both support and benefit from the rise of the AI economy in a strong domestic manufacturing base. We need for the United States to be a leader in innovation, freedom and economic prosperity to compete effectively with China and to maintain a healthy environment for our constituents. We appreciate your hard work and willingness to serve in this very important role. We appreciate you being here on Capitol Hill, your old home, And welcoming to the committee, and look forward to working with you, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Polon of New Jersey, for his five minute opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. President Trump's budget, in my opinion, is an insult to the American people. At every opportunity this budget undercuts public health, affordability, and sensible environmental protections to line the pockets of Trump's corporate polluter friends. The budget would cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by more than fifty percent, the largest cut in EPA's history. This would hamstrung EPA's ability to fulfill its core mission of protecting human health and the environment and despite claims to the contrary, it fails to deliver on the Trump Administration's promise to make America healthy again. The budget eliminates nearly all state categorical grants, all but ending the cooperative federalism that has made EPA so successful in cleaning up toxic pollution, and providing healthier futures for Americans. EPA is deserting the states to deal with serious climate and pollution issues on their own while EPA focuses on giving polluters free passes to poison our communities with reckless abandon the budget also takes a sledgehammer to the clean water and the drinking water state revolving funds which are the primary funding sources for water infrastructure projects. At a time when communities are experiencing aging infrastructure and rising water costs, and are fearful of threats of contamination, these funds are critical to ensure all communities have access to safe, affordable water. And the Trump administration clearly doesn't recognize this value, especially when you consider EPA's plans to rescind and delay the historic PFAS drinking water standards that were put in place during the Biden administration to protect public health. Now under Administrator Zeldin, the EPA is going in a dangerously wrong direction. At every turn, Administrator Zeldin has demonstrated that he is the beckon call of special interests, providing broad exemptions and handouts to his polluter friends. He has eliminated EPA's climate and clean air work, turned his back on environmental justice communities, and looked the other way as bad actors poisoning communities across the United States. What is potentially most egregious is EPA's shockingly irresponsible rollback of the landmark endangerment finding, which has, which, that rollback in my opinion has no basis in law, science or reality. especially in twenty twenty six, EPA is abandoning in its responsibility to protect human health and the environment from the harm of air pollution, replacing it with nothing. Ensuring the climate crisis gets far worse puts the health of Americans in jeopardy. It'll result in even higher food and electricity than we're also seeing due to the Republican affordability crisis. And it'll put homeownership even further out of reach as unchecked pollution wreaks havoc on property values insurance rates and jobs. It will also cause cascading consequences across all sectors of our economy. And at a time when Trump's reckless war of choice with Iran has already caused gas prices to skyrocket, EPA eliminated all clean vehicle standards and incentives, increasing costs on families and businesses when they can least afford it, a fact that EPA conveniently ignores. Simultaneously, the Zeldin EPA has slashed critical protections by leaving radioactive coal ash in unlined ponds and communities, reversing limits on cancer-causing ethylene oxide pollution in cities, and allowing the chemical industry to burn plastic. From the agency tasked with protecting our public health and safety, these rollbacks cater to the whims of polluting interests while American communities pay the price. And finally, the effectiveness of the agency hinges on EPA having the career staff necessary to fulfill its mission. They are the backbone of the agency. Yet Administrator Zeldin's actions to indiscriminately fire hundreds of employees and retaliate against those who raise concerns about the mismanagement of EPA show a blatant disregard for the critical work career staff condu conduct on behalf of the American people every day. He's created such a toxic and hostile environment for career staff that EPA has lost about a quarter of its staff since Trump assumed office. And that doesn't make the government more efficient. It simply decimates EPA's ability to So in my opinion, EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment, and that should be its north star. Yet at every turn, Administrator Zeldin has placed polluter's favors over the needs of the people the agency is tasked with protecting. The agency should be taking action to protect our air, water and public health. But unfortunately, it seems the administrator's legacy will be selling the health of Americans to the highest bidder. And with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman yields back. We now conclude with member opening statements. The chair would like to remind members that pursuant to committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made a part of the record. We wanna thank our witness for taking his time to testify before the subcommittee today although it is not the practice of this subcommittee to swear in witnesses, I would remind our witness that knowingly and willfully making material false statements to the legislative branches against the law under title eighteen section one zero zero one of the United States Code. You will have an opportunity to give an opening statement followed by questions from members. And our witness today is Lee Zeldin, a former member of the house and administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Per p committee custom, our witness will have the opportunity for a five minute opening statement, followed by a round of questions from members. The light is on the timer in front of you and will turn from green to yellow when you have one minute left. I now recognize you, Administrator Administrator Zeldin, for your five minute opening statement.

Well, thank you, Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member Taco, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year twenty-seven budget request for the US Environmental Protection Agency. From day one, I have made it clear that we are going to fix the mess that we inherited and reaffirm our commitment to cooperative federalism, understanding that the best solutions are found outside of Washington. Last year, EPA political and career leadership worked to reorganize the agency workforce to better support EPA's mission, fulfill statutory obligations, protect human health and the environment, and power the great American comeback. This past January, at the one year mark of President Trump's term in office, I announced five hundred top environmental wins from during that first year. These actions directly advance our agency's core mission. EPA environmental accomplishments these past fifteen months including include the signing of the historic agreement with the Mexican government to end the decades-long Tijuana River sewage crisis. Highlights also include responding to the Potomac River interceptor collapse, accelerated enforcement efforts to stop foreigners from profiting off sending poisons and pollution to the United States, and unlocking billions of dollars in funding to reduce lead in drinking water. Our commitment to gold standard science at EPA guided our decision to bolster scientists in our national program offices and establish the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions. We inherited a backlog of chemicals and pesticides from the Biden administration. The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has worked tirelessly to bring down this backlog while keeping pace with new incoming reviews. With the addition of new technologies and scientists, our team of dedicated career and political staff has made tremendous strides. At the same time, I announced last March the largest deregulatory action in our nation's history. This announcement consisted of thirty-one actions to apply common sense, unleash U. S. energy dominance, and strengthen the American economy. In February of this year, we proudly announced the elimination of the two thousand nine endangerment finding. This has been the source of sixteen years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in regulatory costs for Americans. The Trump EPA believes growing our economy, bringing down costs, and protecting the environment is all achievable, and we are proving it every day. President Trump is committed to rebuilding base load power, including coal, which is vital to our national security, and to the wallets of taxpaying Americans. The Biden EPA tried hard to strangulate coal out of existence, and we are urgently reversing that damage. Meanwhile, I fulfilled a commitment that I made during my confirmation to visit all fifty states as EPA Administrator, and I completed that effort in just nine and a half months. I heard from many of your constituents about the hardships burdensome regulations cause. Faithfully abiding by the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett, we are working to finalize a clear, durable Waters of the United States rule. We're reining in federal overreach and gutting the prior administration's so-called " Good Neighbor" rule, which was used on an ill-advised expansion of federal jurisdiction. The good news is that EPA is once again working closely with our state partners on their state implementation plans. We are committed to advancing cooperative federalism and recognize the important responsibility EPA shares with our state agency partners to ensure clean air for all Americans. The Trump EPA is serious about ensuring future generations inherit clean air land and water and the foundation for healthy lives. That is why I recently announced alongside HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the EPA is adding microplastics and pharmaceuticals to our contaminant candidate list for the first time ever. The President's FY twenty-seven budget will continue to make EPA efficient and effective stewards of Americans' hard-earned taxpayer dollars and fulfill all our statutory obligations and our core mission. This budget proposal captures significant efficiencies and a return focused on what Congress has directed us to do, demonstrating our commitment to a leaner, more efficient, and accountable EPA focused on environmental work that directly benefits the American people. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Administrator. We will now begin questioning. I'll ask I'd ask that members not begin a new question to our witness as their five minutes is about to expire. So if you look up at the clock and you only have about fifteen seconds, you can make a statement, but please don't ask a question. You've got plenty of time to do that as a written question for the record. And that being said, I will now recognize myself for five minutes. Um, and first I would like to offer for introduction the list that, uh, Administrator Zeldin mentioned in his, uh, opening statement of the more than five hundred things done in the first year of the EPA's accomplishments under the Trump administration. And that has been offered to my colleagues. Without objection, we'll add that to the committee document list. Hearing none. All right. Now also we heard uh comments about, you know, how the budget uh slashes EPA funds. I mentioned this in my opening where I said that, you know, that the monies that came from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Act were meant to be a one-time uh shot in the arm for special projects no matter how that money was spent it was never intended to be a uh new norm at the EPA for spending. Is that your understanding as well, m Administrator?

In an a budget that uh was an annual operating budget of about ten billion dollars a year, EPA in twenty twenty four obligated and spent over sixty billion dollars. It was more money than they knew how to spend. It was money that was disseminated uh to left-wing NGOs. It was given out to former Biden and Obama officials, democratic donors. They created entities that at times would go through up to four pass-throughs where each of them were taking their own cut to administer the dollar. Uh, by design, when congressional Democrats put forth the Inflation Expansion Act, uh, they were using it to raid, uh, the taxpayer till to be able to pay off, uh, those people who had supported them through the years. Uh, fortunately, uh, the the era of tossing gold bars off the Titanic, that's the word that the Biden administration was using to describe how they were spending the money. Uh, those days are done. Uh, we are being responsible steward of taxpayer dollars. without any apology or regret, even though I know that makes a lot of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle quite sad.

And and you feel that the budget requests from the administration is one that's appropriate for the EPA to be able to get its core functions done. Is that correct?

Not only will we be able to fulfill all of our statutory obligations, uh, we will be able to do more with less. We inherited backlogs of over fourteen thousand pesticide reviews, five hundred new chemicals, uh, hundred and seventy-five small refinery exemptions, blown deadlines on setting numbers for renewable volume obligations, hundreds of state implementation plans, the core statutory obligations set by this body were ignored by our predecessors. And guess what? All of those backlogs are either eliminated or greatly reduced since we came in, doing more with less. Wild concept.

Congratulations. All right, let me move to some stuff important to my district. Under the Biden EPA, the coal ash rule was a one size fits all and it's

Uh, it's uh an import for anyone who cares about the environment. There are good, as you re- referenced, it's called beneficial reuse. Uh, it is putting to good use uh what is being produced by these plants. While plants have enacted, for example, the twenty twelve mercury nurse to toxic standards, uh which were strict uh and we see them continuing to improve their environmental technology rather than trying to get rid of coal altogether uh through a combination of regulations, coal combustion residual, steam electric, ELG, clean power plant two point O uh and more they uh were trying to make you know this send this message to coal miners that they should just learn the code. Well this is reliable, durable base load power uh that is important to provide to American families. Uh and we are reversing that damage in earnest, uh and one of the ways to do it is to understand the benefits of beneficial reuse and to make sure that we are supporting it uh not suffocating it.

Yeah, and and Virginia Tech in my district is uh studying how to recover rare earth elements from coal ash, uh which could strengthen domestic supplies. Now it's it's not an easy thing to do, but it would uh strengthen our domestic supplies of rare earth. How would the previous coal ash rule have restricted these uses?

Well, for uh for one, I mean the goal was, i- and then w- as we saw coming in, the effective implementation of these twenty twenty-three and twenty twenty-four rules that were put forth by the the Biden administration was leading to coal plants all across the country to announce that they were closing altogether. That was by design. I mean there are people uh who serve in this body uh who will talk about a source like wind as if it is a substitute for baseload power. Uh they just don't care that you have many states across this country that rely on coal in order to heat homes. When you're going through a winter uh like we just went through where so many families for so long were so cold uh rather than ramping up baseload power, they're trying to get rid of it. And we we don't play along with that, and we're proud of it.

Yeah. I appreciate that. My time is up. I yield back. I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mister Tonko, for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Um, Administrator Zeldin, last June, hundreds of current and former EPA employees signed an open letter to you, raising their concerns about the way you have mismanaged the EPA, undermined science, and harmed communities across our country. EPA emails from that time show that EPA's Office of General Counsel advise that, and I quote, " the letter is likely protected speech under the First Amendment", and that again further quote, the agency should not take any personnel actions against employees who signed a letter or take any other action against them, that may be viewed as retaliatory or that may have a chilling effect on other employees taking similar action. Likewise, the Director of EPA's Ethics Office wrote that the employees are simply exercising their First Amendment rights and in another email wrote that and I quote, " there is no ethics concerned". Mister Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter in the record emails conveying legal guidance and assessments on July first and July second of twenty twenty five as well as an ENE news article published on July third of twenty twenty five.

Alright, I'll I'll have the team take a quick look at it, but it shouldn't be a problem. We'll add it to the uh committee document list.

Uh, I thank you. Despite the view of EPA's Office of General Counsel that these employees were exercising their rights and should not be punished, you placed nearly one hundred and fifty employees on paid administrative leave for roughly two months and investigated them before most were finally allowed to return to work. So, Administrator Zeldin, why did you retaliate against EPA employees speaking out against your leadership at EPA despite clear opinions from the general counsel's office and ethics office that these employees were exercising their constitutional rights.

Well, obviously, uh, I'll disagree with a lot of the the premise of your question. Uh, what I instructed my team to do was to conduct an investigation. They conducted an investigation. There w- uh, was personnel all across the agency that recommended, uh, different actions for personnel following the investigation. There were then deciding officials uh that acted on the recommendation of that pers of those people from across the agency and then different uh uh areas of discipline uh were then followed through with. It was followed in investigation, it was done on the advice of counsel, but I imagine that you know that and deciding not to include that, but that's okay.

Well, but did you consult with the ethics office or the general counsel's office uh before taking the action?

My the action that I took was instructing our team to conduct an investigation.

Well, how much did EPA spend paying the employees that you put on leave instead of allowing them to continue their work as they should have been allowed to do?

We're gonna conduct the investigation, and then we're and then you're gonna have a recommendation that comes from across the agency and their decisions on those recommendations. It's a it's a process that that I would do again.

Well, if you could get back to the committee in terms of the amount paid, uh, the employees that were put on leave, uh, not only did you violate the law and the rights of these employees, you wasted taxpayer dollars and deprived the public of the work of these employees. Now, with the TSCA program, the new chemicals program, there is a significant backlog of chemicals under review. I know you said that you inherited this backlog from the Biden administration. The Biden administration would say they inherited

It's very important for uh the Office of Chemical Safety to have the the personnel, as well as the IT advancements in order to be able to do their work. Uh, when we went through our reorganization, we added scientists, we added personnel to that office to get through that backlog. Uh, we also, uh, were implementing a congressional appropriation from March of twenty twenty five of seventeen million dollars to update the IT inside of that office which, uh, was a very important appropriation by Congress because when the system would go down for days, that will end up resulting in a lot of lost time. Congress obviously faces uh decisions to make uh between now and the end of September, as it relates to uh an expiring fee. Uh, as far as what we're doing inside of the Office of Chemical Safety, it's been to increase bandwidth since the moment that we ki have come in both with scientists personnel and IT.

Rec- Reclaiming my time, I have other questions on timeline and transparency that I'll get. uh, be via the subcommittee to your office. And uh with that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and yield back.

Thank you, sir. And the gentleman yields back. Now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thanks for being here, Administrator Zeldin, and I think when you first came to Congress we connected, cuz I went to college in New York and I remember talking about Long Island. I went to uh not on Long Island but Down River f at West Point for Mr. Tonko just a little bit and when I was there the Hudson River was polluted it was being cleaned up. First time I ever remember I guess, knowing of Robert Kennedy other junior other than his father, this famous name is cleaning up the Hudson River. And so I I asked these questions in the to know that we should never be in that situation ever again. But I know we have AI coming, we have a a a surge in need of energy. So can you discuss how reforms, now we're not changing the standard of the Cleaner Act, we're how we how we implement it. So can you discuss how reforms to the Cleaner Act and the Toxic Substance Control Act will help the United States support advanced manufacturing of domestic energy.

Well, first off, uh, uh, Chairman, thank you for uh for for being here. I just wanted to uh to point out that the work on the the Hudson River uh PCB Superfund site uh has been a very important uh effort of EPA. I'm actually surprised that the uh the ranking member didn't ask about it, but I appreciate the the chairman from Kentucky uh asking about it. And uh in early January of twenty-five, EPA uh came in uh uh obviously inheriting many years of hard work. Secretary Kennedy uh deserves a ton of credit. Uh the recent review, the five year review concluded that the levels of PCBs in water and fish are going down. Um we have seen news stories in recent weeks where uh people are catching fish and and eating it. The water quality has greatly improved and that work uh continues. Um but uh as far as uh the priorities of yours under the uh the Clean Air Act, where do you want me to start?

Well, we want a situation that's nothing like that. But how how do you what do you think we need to do so we can get the permitting done quicker? Not change any standards, get the permitting done quicker, so we can compete with China?

So I know Congress is considering a a number of different actions in looking at modernizing the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, uh the Endangered Species Act, the uh uh WNIPA, um I commend the efforts of this committee, uh, as it relates to that permitting. I would, uh, say that a good permitting bill will result in a permitting process that takes less time, costs less money, and has more certainty. If it sacrifices any one of those three, you can easily turn a good bill bad. Uh, we, uh, through the White House Council of Environmental Quality have a list of recommendations as it relates to each of these laws I cited. EPA has additional ideas On top of that, um, I I believe that we, uh, have provided that list. We can, uh, provide that, uh, again to any members of the of, uh, of your caucus who are asking for it and involved in this process. There are many ways that you can modernize these landmark laws that have been on the books for a long time. To have a permitting process, it takes less time, costs less money, and has more certainty, and we'd like to help.

So one of the ma- things that drives our economy is automotive. Um, industry and last year we repealed the uh mandates from uh the electric vehicle mandates. Uh also uh you you repealed uh can you explain, I'll just ask you this straight up, can you explain how the repeal of the endangerment finding helps consumers support it supports manufacturers and complies with the Clean Air Act?

Uh for one it's uh going to result in twenty-four hundred dollars per new vehicle with savings. Uh the But this is a combination. As you pointed out, there are multiple actions that have been taken. Congress, through the Congressional Review Act, got rid of the electric vehicle mandate in California. And I absolutely commend uh those of you in this body who uh were leaders in in that effort to make sure that that happened. Uh we've s- seen an an an announcement uh from Secretary Duffy with the President in the Oval Office as a result as it relates to cafe standards as it relates to the two thousand nine endangerment finding. Uh, this was not just a decision that was sent in two thousand nine endangerment finding but also all greenhouse gas emission standards on light, medium and heavy duty vehicles that followed, and all off-cycle credits, including the uh Obama climate participation trophy to manufacturers, uh, to create an incentive to have that annoying start-stop feature in vehicles, which is gone as well, which by the way seems to be the aspect that Americans have uh related to the most and they've been most passionate about. We believe that Americans should be able to buy whatever vehicle they want. And when manufacturers are able to make the vehicles that customers want as opposed to those vehicles that politicians and bureaucrats demand uh you end up with a market where you don't have vehicles that are created to just sit on lots, like we're seeing uh with electric vehicles. Uh so applying common sense, uh following the law, and uh being able to pursue these efficiencies

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Pilon, for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. In its twenty twenty seven budget request, EPA says the agency is, I quote, taking action to ensure cleaner, healthier air,

Absolutely.

Thank you. And I agree too. But unfortunately in my opinion, under your leadership, EPA has taken actions that will increase our children's risk of to harmful toxins. And last March, EPA set up an inbox for companies to request exemptions from critical Clean Air Act safeguards that protect Americans from pollution. And while the Trump administration provided no transparency into this process, an organization obtained some of these requests through FOIA. And the documents show that seventy-one coal plants in twenty-four states will not be required to comply with the updated mercury and air toxic standards that were set to go into effect next year. And because of this polluter giveaway, the people living near those power plants will be exposed to higher levels of mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollution that can cause heart and lung disease, cancer and brain damage. And children are especially vulnerable. So, every single company that requests an exemption from the suite of Clean Air Act section one twelve standards, and even some facilities that didn't ask, were given a two year free pass to

Under the Clean Air Act, decisions on section one twelve presidential exemptions are made by the president. Uh, EPA's role was to accept the submissions and

Mm.

transmit them to the White House consistent with The White House has publicly posted the proclamations and annexes listing the sources that received exemptions, including actions on April eighth, July seventeenth, October twenty fourth, and November twenty first,

Okay. So, but,

twenty twenty five.

so the law provides that the president can grant exemptions. That's true. But they must be based on merit. So did President Trump or someone in the White House review and evaluate each exemption request?

EP uh as I pointed out, w- the the role of EPA was to accept the submission and transmit them to the White House.

So you just accepted it, OK. Does allowing more mercury, arsenic, or other toxic pollution make Americans healthy in your opinion?

M- the fortunately, since the twenty twelve uh mercury neurotoxic standards that were put in place, uh very strict standards that were put in place, there uh were substantial reductions. Uh fortunately, because these are toxins and reducing them is an important goal that EPA has been leading the way on.

Well, look, I I think that poisoning our air and water makes Americans sicker, and based on EPA's own data facilities that were given these waivers, saw the biggest jump in pollution last year. So there's no question that there was more pollution as a as a result of um these waivers. Um, but I think the whole process was an enormous giveaway

Th- there's more pollution even though it hadn't even gone into effect yet? Is that your position? You just stated that the Mercury and the Tuxedoes in twenty four didn't go into effect yet.

My my position is that I see cons- uh my c- position is that I see every effort being made to increase pollution as a result of these exemptions and I believe it's being done by the president or you or at least says you enable because of what the president tells you to do, uh to help uh polluters as giveaways to the corporations that pollute. But look, I have to ask one more question and um this is a local issue, uh administrator, so let me just ma- mention it. Earlier this month, I sent EPA a letter about a suspected cancer cluster in Keyport, New Jersey, which is in my district, demanding that the agency work with other federal and state partners to secure the site and address the ongoing contamination. And corporate polluters have been let off let off the hook for too long in this area, and the community is paying the price. And I think this matter deserves the full attention and force of our public health and environmental agencies. So, Region Two Administrator, uh, uh, I do wanna say has been cooperative. He met with my staff last Friday to discuss this cancer cluster and possible remediation of the landfill uh that we believe may be causing it. So I just wanted to mention it to you and ask you to prioritize this issue as we proceed with uh Region two Administrator to address remediation and the health concerns, if I can ask for your commitment to prioritize it.

And you're asking about Aero-Marine landfill?

Yes, exactly.

Yeah, a- absolutely. We're very well aware of it. Uh, the Region two Administrator has briefed me on it. Uh, I know how much of a priority it is. Uh, this is um, an issue that uh, New Jersey DEP has been on the lead on enforcement at the landfill. Uh, they have not asked for our assistance, um, but uh, we stand ready to uh to help.

Gentleman's time has expired.

They've uh b- you've been Yeah,

Gentleman's time has expired.

I just wanted to say they've been working with us and I appreciate that.

The chair now

Thank you.

the gentleman's time has expired. The chair now recognizes myself for five minutes. Um, Director, thank you for being here. Thank you for uh your service in in riding the ship. Uh my colleagues across Seattle claim that this EPA's deregulatory actions are killing Americans. couldn't be more false. The truth is actually the opposite. And what kills Americans is unaffordable energy in a unreliable electric grid, and that's exactly what the previous administration's EPA was delivering. The Biden EPA imposed trillions of dollars in regulatory costs in uh based on widely inflated benefit calculations assigning speculative dollar values to statistical lives while ignoring the real world consequences of making energy unaffordable. Twenty-five million American households have reported going without food or medicine to pay their energy bills. That is the human cost of regulatory excess. This EPA is doing what the agency is supposed to, rigorous, honest cost-benefit analysis, not rubber-stamping regulations that strangle reliable energy production while claiming to save lives on a spreadsheet. Affordable, reliable energy is the foundation of American health and safety. And Administrator uh Zeldin, your reforms are protecting Americans, not by speculating about benefits but by delivering them. And I'll get to Loper Bright. It's shameful that some of our colleagues have no idea what Loper Bright actually is and what it does. Thank you for uh the words that you had yesterday at a hearing here on Capitol Hill. Uh and Loper Bright happened because of left left wing EPA overreach. That's exactly why we are here. Um and I'd I'd like to ask you how do you respond to the claim that faithfully reading the Clean Air Act as written, somehow harms public health? And what actual authorities did Congress provide that this administration is now properly executing to benefit health?