Hearings to examine the President's Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request for the Environmental

Good morning everyone. The subcommittee will come to order. We're convening for our third hearing uh for fiscal year twenty twenty seven, this time to consider the president's request for the Environmental Protection Agency. Uh you'll note that we're beginning the hearing without uh, my ranking member, he is on the floor. He's asked us to go ahead and - and begin, um, begin the hearing so that we can respect everybody's time, which I - I appreciate that. Uh, so I will make my opening statement and then turn to Administrator Zeldin and then - and hopefully, uh, Senator Merkley will have returned by then. So, Administrator, thank you for joining us here this morning. Appreciate, uh, appreciate you being here. Uh, also a personal thank you for - for traveling to Alaska. Um, not everybody wants to come in winter. Maybe you didn't want to come in February, but I think you get a little taste of - of what some of the locals, um, get to enjoy. Uh, for colleagues we had a hundred and fifty-two consecutive days in Fairbanks, where the temperatures did not get above zero. So it was cold winter. So I think you were able to enjoy. uh a little bit uh of that but uh again thank you for making the trip not only to my state but to other colleagues as well to know and understand and and to to uh uh really gather the facts on the ground it's a it's appreciated um i want to acknowledge um several many of the steps that you've taken over the past year to help alaska specifically um uh the transfer of a hundred million dollars to the dinalia commission to start addressing the serious bulk fuel storage issues that face so many Alaskan communities. Um, we got more work to do on that, but we're starting that off. Um, you, uh, drafted new waters of the United States rule to provide regulatory clarity and certainty. You're tackling some technical issues like the diesel exhaust fluid sensor requirements to help reduce system failures in cold climate states. These - these things matter. And so I appreciate that. Um, but as with as with government as with uh bureaucracy uh you know the world's not entirely perfect um we still have more work as you know to do when it comes to to the draft rual as it relates for alaska it's just it's not it's not right yet we wrote you as a delegation to outline its shortcomings particularly the inclusion of permafrost within the definition of uh again when you're up there in fairbanks you have an opportunity maybe not in the heart of winter when everything is really pretty dramatically frozen. Um, but we see the impact of a permafrost, um, thawing permafrost. And so, uh, I would urge you and your team to - to - to fix that and all the concerns that regulated Alaskans raised during the comment period before that rule is - is finalized. Um, I mentioned bulk fuel storage. Uh, Alaska has gratefully received a significant down payment. on this more than one billion dollar uh problem. Um, this is something that again I think is - is - is pretty unique to Alaska, where you have all of these communities that are off-roaded and so um, their fuel needs are - are met when they're able to fill up their - their bulk fuel storage. Um, uh, but we have a - we've got a - a tired history, I guess. Um, uh with regards to the status of those of those above ground storage tanks so we started funding that program in our fy twenty six bill i'm gonna be looking to build on that this year and and beyond um in the immediate term i will tell you uh administrator zeldin uh people in in alaska particularly in our off-roaded communities are very very anxious about the impacts um uh that we're seeing rising from the conflict in iran and the the impact not only on prices for for fuel uh but also being able to source uh fuel um in in so many of these communities eighty two percent of our community is not not connected by road uh but for the coastal and and many of the river communities they get their fuel basically twice a year so you're locked into fuel prices in the spring which we consider to be june and then in September. Um, so right now people have ordered their their fuel for their village, and they had to order it probably within the past thirty days or so, right when of course the prices are are exorbitantly high. And these, uh, th- this is going to a region where we already experience fuel prices in the range of seven to ten dollars a gallon. So they're anticipating fuel costs. in the in the range of fifteen to seventeen dollars a gallon. And and when you put it into context, it's not just it's not just filling up your pickup truck. For most of these communities it's not like there's a lot of roads, but it's the the community is powered by diesel generation. So to keep your lights on, it's costing you to to power that diesel generator. Um, uh, to fill up your skiff, to go fishing. for subsistence or to fill up your four-wheeler to go hunting uh for subsistence, to be able to go out and collect firewood uh so that you can keep your - your home, your cabin warm, it all requires fuel. So the impact on - on people's ability to either uh provide food, provide for some level of economy, or to stay warm is - is already challenged before we've even had the delivery. And what we're hearing is a concern that so much of this supply is - is actually - the refined product is - is coming from South Korea and South Korea of course gets much of their uh uh oil from uh - from the Gulf and so their limiting quantities that they are sending out of Korea - so- South Korea - so I've shared this with Secretary Bergemey, shared it with uh Secretary Kennedy, basically anybody who's listening because I'm I'm going to I'm going to be um making asks and and and encourage the in encouraging those in the administration to do what you can to help us provide for some relief, some flexibility to ensure that the fuel um not only arrives uh but also that that people are going to be able to to afford it. So there's a lot of stress there. Um you've heard me talk about our our issue with cleanup of contaminated lands in Alaska. We've appropriated funding for this for the last few years. My goal is to keep expanding on that. And again, this is one where w- when we you think about a raw deal, um, federal government comes in, for a host of different reasons, leaves an area, uh, and they leave - they leave contaminated waste, you know, after the war, um, uh, in - in some of the building projects. But they just And um and then when we uh settle up with Alaska natives, with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, um so many of these contaminant contaminated lands were were transferred um as a part of that settlement but now you've got now you've got a huge problem on your hands. So we've worked beyond the liability issues, now it's just about the clean up and it's just uh it's an area that is a a considerable source of - of - of frustration, so, um, working with you and your folks on this, uh, continues to be a priority of mine. Another area of frustration has been EPA's decision to freeze or cancel grant funding that Congress approved and Alaska communities had - had secured on a fair and a competitive basis. Um, we've talked about the situation with Kipnuk. They were a small small village in southwest Alaska, they were awarded a a grant to address coastal erosion. Um, EPA canceled that grant just months before the community was - was literally wiped out - wiped out by, uh, ex-typhoon, um, Halong. And I grant you that that - that particular grant would not have saved Kipnuk, but we have a lot of other coastal communities that, um, need federal help who don't have it. Um, and so it's - it's - it's hard when - when you have, um, kind of this view from Washington that, uh, says, you know, this is a waste of money to go to help a community of - of eight or nine hundred people. Um, uh, it was really stunning to hear an EPA spokeswoman who went on the record to claim that the grant cancellation kept taxpayer dollars from being quote " swept into the Kuska-Kwim River." Uh, that was really hard, um, for people in that region to hear. It was - it was pretty offensive, and it made me question what EPA political staff here in Washington, D. C. think of these - these threatened, um, Alaska Native communities. So I'm gonna be putting a lot of my - my muscle into this effort, um, because it's not just Kipnick, it is - it is small, uh, small Alaska Native communities up and down the coast who are - are threatened right now um, with everything from coastal erosion to these devastating fall storms that we're seeing. Um, I, uh, I, I'm very appreciative of what you have done, um, and your team within the agency to end what we would call regulatory overreach that we saw um throughout the Biden administration. It was just just daily. Um, but I also recognize that, well, overreach is not good. Underreach sometimes doesn't help us either. Every American counts on EPA to insure clear cleaner air, cleaner water and a livable environment around them. And the baseline that determines what happens on those fronts and - and all the other things that I mentioned, that's in your annual budget. So that brings me back to the President's request. Like I said last year, there's good and bad within it. We continue to target inefficiencies, overlap and waste at the agency. We must do that. Um, but I I will share with you again I I do not support the elimination of virtually all funding for clean water and drinking water state revolving funds or the categorical grants. Um, I think they're good, I think they're reasonable investments, and I figure they're probably gonna be some big topics today. Cutting them would hurt public health and safety, especially with with many states, including a state like Alaska, that are are just not unable not able to take over and cover the cost. particularly on short notice. So. Um. Kind of kind of feels like we're in the same place that we were last year. So my approach is is going to be the same. We we take the President's budget request as as a suggestion. We work together to produce a good bill that allows EPA to fulfill its core missions and meet the needs of our communities. I think we did that last year in working with your team. We wanna be able to to do that. uh again this year. So, uh Administrator Zeldin, I will invite you to um to give your opening comments to the committee, and if Senator Merkley has returned uh we will turn to him, otherwise we'll just start kicking it off with questions. But welcome and thank you for being here.

Well thank you Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Merkley. Members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year twenty twenty-seven budget request for the US Environmental Protection Agency. At the EPA, under President Trump, we have rejected the false choice between protecting the environment and growing the economy. We can and must do both. In January, marking one year President Trump back in office, I announced five hundred top environmental actions from our first year. These actions advance our core mission of protecting human health and the environment. Included in this list is the signing of our historic agreement with the Mexican government to end the decades-long Tijuana River sewage crisis. Highlights also included completing five-year reviews for twenty-six Superfund sites across New England, and announcing three billion in new funding for states to reduce lead exposure in drinking water. In collaboration with EPA, political and career leadership, our work to reorganize the agency workforce made it possible to achieve this milestone continue to fulfill statutory obligations, protect human health and the environment, and power the great American comeback. To help inform our decisions, during my first nine and a half months as Administrator, I visited all fifty states. I sat with farmers, small business owners and energy providers who feed, support and fuel our country. They weren't asking for special treatment. They asked for clear rules and consistent enforcement. The Trump EPA wants to get it right when it comes to our rulemaking process, so hardworking Americans can do their job without the threat of regulatory whiplash and federal overreach. EPA has also been hard at work to create a durable and clear definition of waters of the United States, faithfully abiding by the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. EPA has the responsibility to ensure federally jurisdictional water resources are protected, while setting clear and practical rules of the road that accelerate economic growth and advance cooperative federalism. Following the Supreme Court's overturning of the Chevron Doctrine, they made it clear that agencies like EPA no longer have the freedom to creatively bend the law to fulfill the demands of unelected bureaucrats. In accordance with this monumental decision, EPA rescinded the two thousand nine endangerment finding. 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. That's why we are 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 now once again working closely with our state partners on their state implementation plans. This great work is just a fraction of what EPA accomplishes on a daily basis, as we continue to fulfill the agency's core mission of protecting human health and the environment. The Trump EPA is committed to bringing down costs for American families by ending the insensible policies driven by a radical climate agenda. The Biden administration used the EPA to funnel billions of dollars to their well-connected friends advancing pet projects over meaningful environmental remediation. President Trump has ended this practice. Real- realigning the agency to its core statutory obligations. I've cancelled roughly thirty billion in wasteful grants and contracts, and will continue doing everything in my power to ensure the Trump EPA remains an exceptional steward of tax dollars. And science remains the foundation of our work. We have strengthened scientific capacity across our national program offices, and stood up the new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions. The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has aggressively worked down the chemical and pesticide review backlog we inherited, while keeping pace with incoming submissions. And alongside HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr., I announced that EPA is adding microplastics and pharmaceuticals to our contaminant candidate list for the first time ever, meeting emergent threats with the emergency that they deserve. The President's FY twenty-seven budget will continue to make EPA efficient and effective stewards of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars and fulfill all our statutory obligations and our core mission. This budget proposal captures significant efficiencies and a return focus 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. The budget supports and aligns with President Trump's goal of right-sizing the federal workforce, with the staff not want more or less than what is necessary. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Administrator. I know that you have voluminous binders there, so I'm sure you will be prepared for each of our uh uh very local and parochial questions. Before we turn uh to questions, I I would invite um a ranking member, Senator Merkley, to offer his opening.

Thank you very much, uh, Chair, and my apologies, uh, Mister Secretary, the, uh, I'm at the, uh, whimsy of the majority's schedule on the - on the floor. Uh, but, uh, having - having, uh, uh, adapted to their schedule, I'll - I'll - I got here a little late. Um, welcome back. And thank you for your recent visit to Oregon, including the Portland Harbor Superfund site. I really appreciate your attention. to this. This is not an issue in terms of the budget since it's in mandatory uh spending, but it is an issue of can we get things done. And uh when I first came into the Senate, you know, almost eighteen years ago, Congressman Blumenauer insisted I immediately go out and inspect the the Superfund site and it all came down to, OK, we've tested all these areas, we're going to have to cap some and we're going to have to scour some. And we've gotta make the decision and do it. And here we are eighteen years later, we're still wrestling to get to that point where we actually get to the action uh stage. And so I really appreciated your attention to that, cuz I think it it points to your determination that we take some of those those sites, and get the get the work work done. While that is not a issue in the budget, a lot of things are. Uh and um it takes a a long-term commitment and Congress and the legislative branch uh working together. And in that sense I do have some concerns that I'll just share with you. Uh the uh the first is a question of of resources. Your budget request is for four point two billion dollars, which is a cut of four point six one billion. And that's a that's a big change in terms of the enterprise, the complicated enterprise that that you lead. And so, uh, within that larger cut there are certain accounts that I've become familiar with over time that know are very important. One of those is the State Clean Water Revolving Fund. And I go to every county every year. Just the weekend before last I was at the last nine counties, uh, meeting with the local leaders and then holding a public town hall of my thirty-six counties. And in every single meeting with local leaders, there was some city saying, and some small town saying, how can we get the resources? It's so expensive to meet the modern standards with a smaller population that we really need more help from the federal government. And that normally comes in the, in the, the funding of the state revolving funds. Uh, in some cases it's an immediate significant challenge. In the Umatilla Basin, it's nitrates in the ground water that are necessitating that we do, people can't use their wells. So for years they've been getting water deliveries. But the ultimate strategy is - is really to put them on a municipal type system, but it's expensive. So it's just an example of the - the challenge that's - of one challenge that's faced. Other cases it's just the old infrastructure is - is worn out. I've still got communities where the water's delivered through wooden pipes. And that was quite a revelation to me when I first uh came into - into office. And so, sustained, uh, investments are important. Uh, your budget also eliminates categorical grants to states who implement long-standing human health and environmental protection standards, uh, including two hundred and thirty-seven million to monitor air quality, and a hundred and seventy-five million to monitor storm runoff, snow melt into rivers and groundwater, and a hundred and seventeen million to oversee the drinking water systems. And all of that, of course part of monitoring is see where is something going wrong, so we can collectively work together uh to address it. And your budget eliminates the environmental justice program. And I, we probably have a different perspective on this. My perspective is that so often development has occurred near low income communities often, minority communities who suffer disproportionate health impacts. And so I felt that the environmental justice focus was very important in terms of serving all the citizens of of the United States. So that is a a concern to to me. And I'm also concerned about research. The budget reduces the science and technology account by, at our count, thirty-two percent, excluding a almost, well, two-thirds cut, sixty-six percent cut to research and data on air quality, risk from pollution and energy related impacts. And if we don't research it, how do we find the - the answers to work together on? And certainly these issues aren't blue and red issues in Oregon. They're of concern to every community throughout my state. And of course money and staff are - are both essential components. And the budget uh is looking at Well, if I have it right, up to date, about twenty-five hundred staff who have been, if you will, invited to, uh, find a new career through the deferred resignation program or just straight-out terminations. On the research side, we have EPA labs in Oregon and Corvallis and Newport, and one is to understand how chemical contaminants harm communities and ecosystems along the Pacific coast. Um, we all value our c- our coast ecosystems very much. And, um, we have the commercial side, the commercial fishing, we have the crabbing industry, we have, you know, all kinds of - of - of fishing. And those EPA labs ensure that those ecosystems are safe and thriving and productive and sometimes we have to shut down uh fisheries because we - we have, um, uh, toxins that are created through certain algae blooms at times that we have to monitor and make sure that - that people don't get sick. So that's um that's key. Uh the Columbia River Basin program, a great water program, uh is cut by fifty-eight percent. Um the Columbia carries more water than any river in the country, including the the Mississippi, it's extraordinary where it cuts through the Cascade uh mountains. And it's a very, very long river, it even goes up into Canada and back down into Montana. And um so all along the way there are a lot of factors that affect quality and function of the river that's important to every city and every state it it passes through. And its final stretch is between Washington State, uh, and, uh, and - and Oregon. The WIFIA program is something that I was very involved in creating, uh, because I heard about the larger cities' just massive projects. Sometimes it was, uh, separating, uh, combined sewer runoff. stormwater from the actual sewage side and uh or other really massive uh rebuilding of of uh outdated infrastructure or infrastructure that was sufficient for the growth of commercial or residential uh activity and that program has been quite quite a quite effective. Now there is one uh project in Oregon, the Morro- the Port of Morro that submitted an application through WIFIA Uh, and um, submitting by port is a novel use. They're relying on those infrastructure loans and they need help. So I just wanted to - to mention that. And one more item that deserves attention is the moving Energy Star out of EPA. And I do recognize that I think the plan is to move it to the Energy Department. Uh, but EPA's done an excellent job administrating that, uh, pro- program. And, um, so I'd love to see it stay, uh, right - right where it is. I'm somewhat concerned it'll be a little more exposed - less exposed to the science of EPA and a little more exposed to the politics and the - you know, the energy side. And so maybe, in your department, might be the right place to continue to - to manage that operation. So, those are some of the factors that I look forward to us discussing uh today. And um, thank you for coming before us.

Thank you, Senator Merkley. We will now begin with a round of questions and I'll I'll lead off here, Administrator. Um, I mentioned as as did the ranking member here, uh, about the clean water and drinking water um SRFs. I've I've I've long made the argument that the the best way to help ensure clean clean air, clean water is for the agency to priorit prioritize funding that, um, uh, that really has on the ground impact. And when you look to to these funds, um, I think we certainly see that. In fact, this is this is probably the one area of bipartisan agreement, um, that we have here. Uh, certainly the most requested programs, um, that we see each year. So, um, uh, I know, I know it's about, um, prioritizing. Um, uh, I, I know that you have to make choices, but, um, I will ask what I probably asked last year, which is you've got a budget now that requests that we effectively eliminate, the one, the one thing that we all agree on. So why, why, would the emer- a- a- agency move away from what we consider to be pretty critical on the ground programs to ensure that Americans have access to clean clean water and um so I guess it's a it's a why and then how um given your budget direction does the agency plan to address the the significant backlog of both the drinking and the water uh wastewater infrastructure um challenges that we have around the country. So just speak to this program if you will, cuz I know that many members have concerns about it.

Thank you, Chair Murkowski, for the for the question and uh we we don't want to get rid of the program. Um we are proposing um a what we would call a significant amount of funding. What we don't include in our funding re- request respectfully is uh any of the uh the congressionally directed spending. I'm not uh gonna opine on individual uh requests. Our agency is focused on making sure that all of the congressionally directed spending uh that is administered through this program, through EPA, is able to get out as quickly and effectively as possible. Um, but our budget request doesn't include any of that amount, which is largely what the plus up was last year from what was originally proposed in the President's FY twenty-six budget and then the final appropriation. Um, I would also, uh, report that as of the last time the balance of, uh, these accounts were given to me, uh, the total uncommitted fund balance for the clean water and drinking water SRFs was nearly fourteen point eight billion dollars. Um, of this amount, the agency has determined that five point seven billion dollars have sat unused by states now for more than a year. And that's an estimated eighteen hundred projects that could have broken ground but didn't. Uh, and too many states have been guilty of maintaining excessive, uh, uncommitted amounts within their state SRF programs, including fourteen states within the clean water program and twenty-eight states within the uh drinking water program. So, similarly to how we've taken action to reallocate the lead service line replacement funding from states that, uh, have been laggard to those that are prioritizing action, the agency is currently reviewing options to make sure SRF capitalization dollars go to states that are ready and willing to use them to improve their local communities. Uh, we look forward to continuing to work with you and, uh, and this committee, uh, members on both sides of the aisle to make sure that, uh, that this massive amount of funding that is currently at EPA that has gone undeployed, uh, as well as the upcoming decisions for Congress to make, which includes congressionally directed spending, the, uh, uh, funding that might be included, uh, Congress's, uh, decision in the, uh, in the upcoming negotiations. uh, making sure that that's done as quickly and effectively as possible.

Well, I I I appreciate you raising that. And, um, uh, I think what I'd like to do is is dig a little deeper in terms of what states are holding, um, uh, these these balances, if you will, in trying to understand a little bit more there. Um, when it comes to to the CDS's, uh, i i, you know, we can have our discussions about it, but the fact of the matter is we continue to allow for it in both the House and and the Senate. Um, I don't consider at all uh, congressionally directed spending to be anything in the wasteful spending uh uh account. Um, earmarks do not, as and you know this because you come from the House side, but they don't contribute to the top-line number. Um, uh, the projects are already eligible for the funding. And so I I guess I look at this and say what what we wanna do is we wanna have proper coordination with with local community and our our state water managers and and its members of congress that are in a better position to do that rather than somebody who is sitting um in in your office over there at at at epa um but let me ask uh about congressionally directed spending projects and the execution there because it has it's come to my attention we are still really, really backlogged um with the EPA executing the CDS rec- uh uh spending projects. Um so my understanding is that since twenty twenty-two only about a third of Congress's directed projects have received their funding from the EPA. Uh just over a thousand more CDS projects from the FY twenty-six bill just came to you at the beginning of the So, um, that's a challenge as well. So, we acknowledge that CDSs are - are an allowable, uh, use. Um, majority of - of members, um, uh, in the Senate use them. Um, uh, and so they have been authorized, appropriated to, and my hope is is the agency isn't just sitting on these um it's the law now so can you give me uh any update in terms of progress in funding projects um and not only on this newest tranche that you have just received in the fy twenty-six but but what you're doing to catch up on the backlog of the cds projects

So it's currently thirty four hundred uh grants totaling about five billion dollars uh typically once the application is submitted at grants dot gov it takes us about three months to complete the process of pushing out the award uh we continue to to do that

ok

nothing is being uh held up or stopped i i would say what i have experienced in my first fifteen months in the position that the uh primary hurdles that we've um seen is that in uh from one stand point we have recipients where the congressionally directed spending funds part of a project but uh it doesn't fund the entire project and they're still working on securing the rest the rest of the funding

mmm

in some cases we actually don't hear back from recipients and that's why working with congress in a few cases has been helpful where the member of congress then contacts the recipient says hey you should probably return this phone call from uh from epa uh in some cases we've seen costs go up for a particular project uh the uh the recipient might be in a different financial situation than maybe earlier on when uh that the congressionally directed spending was secured and uh and and sometimes they want to spend the money on something completely different than what the congressionally directed spending is for, so these are some of the hurdles that i have experienced in working with these uh these applications these applicants over the course last fifteen months uh continuing to engage uh directly between epa and this committee members on both sides of the aisle uh to engage with those recipients to make sure the applications are submitted but typically Uh, they will be awarded within three months of the completed application being submitted to Grants Go- to Grants. dot gov.

Well, that's - that's an encouraging time line. I don't think that we're seeing it in three months. I appreciate what you're saying about some of the - some of the challenges that you have with certain recipients. Um, and if there are resources that this committee can provide to help, um, provide execution in a more timely manner, I'm certainly happy to work with you and team on - on that. Let me turn to my uh ranking member here for his first set of questions.

Uh thank you very much Madam uh Chairman and I'll just jump right into the WIFIA program that I that I mentioned. It's resulted in seven point five billion in savings for borrowers and created a hundred and sixty five thousand jobs working on water infrastructure projects across the nation. Thank you for recently closing the City of Medford's hundred and forty seven million Dollar WIFIA uh application. I can tell you there was a a quite a festive celebration upon upon that word. Uh, I did want to highlight the Port of Morros' uh effort to undertake and address the nitrate contamination. Uh, and that's the example of a very expensive undertaking of the uh that can really use this help. And uh, can you take a, can I ask you to take a look at that? particular application and see if we can get that one wrapped up.

Uh, yes, uh, Senator, we are definitely tracking the the port of Morrow. It's uh in the process of negotiation and underwriting. I would also uh point out that another one, Sweet Home, has been invited uh to apply. They haven't yet submitted their loan application. Um, definitely well aware of uh how hard you were advocating for the uh the WIFI loans that were approved in twenty twenty five. Uh, and yeah, as you pointed out, uh, you're, you've been involved with the WIFI program since uh, its founding, uh, it's now been fifteen total loans to communities in Oregon, totaling over two billion dollars in financing to support nearly five billion in water infrastructure investments. So it's certainly been a, uh, a big success story in your state.

And I think a success story in, in many other states as well, and thank you for mentioning Sweet Home. There are nationwide eighty-two projects in the pipeline. And so um, anything that I or others can can do to encourage closing of many of those is possible, because often it's the last piece of the puzzle that enables uh a project to get launched. I, every time I meet with the community leaders and they say, while we've been waiting for the last piece of the puzzle, the construction costs have gone up by X, uh it's always a very frustrated room, so it really makes a big difference uh to be able to um get to a conclusion on these these key factors. Then I wanted to turn, you mentioned in your testimony that uh uh plastics in the contaminant candidate list, and I do appreciate that you've included that, the plastics on that - on that list. Uh, we held a number of - of - of hearings in uh the Environment Committee where uh folks really highlighted the - the recent studies, and each seems like each study tells us a little bit more now that we're able to to look at micro and nano plastics more carefully we're finding them food and water but also in our blood in our brains, in our breast milk, in our skin tissue in our and when it comes to brains the last study I I saw said that uh currently the categories they're examining have the equivalent of plastic in the brain equal to a plastic spoon. And that's kind of a scary thought when I think this much of an endocrine disruptor inside of our of our brain. So it's an important undertaking and you've taken a significant step by putting it on the contaminant candidate list. I did wanna submit for the record a few of those recent studies, microplastics in arteries linked to heart disease, levels of microplastics in human brains are rapidly rising, and microplastics a threat for male fertility. Uh, not, a little bit kind of scary reading. Can you give us a sense of how you might take forward, uh, other efforts beyond the candidate, candidate list to address this challenge?

Uh, for one, that, that research that you are citing, the efforts to continue to learn more is very important. Uh, this is something that is of great importance, uh, amongst our team, uh, at EPA. Uh, it's a topic, uh, that has been of importance with Secretary Kennedy and his team at HHS. Uh, and continuing to learn more would be key. Uh, thi- this was a first step, a first ever step in adding it, but, um, we, we need to build on what we learn now and, and, and learn more as rapidly as possible.

Great. I, I look forward to when, uh, research is essential here, and I think it sets the foundation for thinking about things like how we address it under the Safe Drinking Water Act and - and other key steps that I'll - I'll be happy to follow up on. Uh, the, I'm glad you mentioned, uh, Maha. Uh, and, uh, the Maha report was very explicit about, uh, the, the heightened risk that comes from, uh, plastics. And so, a lot, a lot more people are paying attention to this issue as we're discovering more and more, and, and seeing those, those, those, those studies. And one of the things that has been raised in the Maha movement, if we really want to try to diminish the impact of plastics, we're also going to have to quit expanding the production of plastics. Are you willing to take a look at the question on whether we should keep permitting new plastics operations, both in terms of their impact on the local community, but also their impact on the on the massive flow of plastics inundating our air, our water, our soil.

Well, Senator, I I know that this is a a very important topic for you. Uh, right now our uh economy and way in li- way of life uh is just so intertwined. uh with the the use of plastics uh that uh that would be a pretty radical idea for me to sit here today and say that we're looking to you know just get rid of plastics the uh the research on the microplastics issue that you cited uh is something that we're aware of and we wanna do more of um uh but as i sit here today um i wouldn't say that i'm i would be proposing by any means to uh propose to just separate plastic from our lives altogether so much of our economy and way of life right now

I acknowledge,

But we do need to learn more.

I I do acknowledge your point, but that's not the argument anyone's making. Uh, the argument is simply whether we should keep expanding additional production of plastics and whether we should be looking at individual products where we might have the possibility of reducing the exposure, either what gets into our or air or soil or water, or what gets into our our our bodies, uh, not a, if you will, an elimination of of plastic. serves many, many functions, but maybe there are functions uh where it can be replaced with other possibilities or reduce the impact on our health.

Yeah, I understand, Senator, and and also the uh the effort to remove uh uh plastics, the disposal of plastics, uh everything from I mean I I went to visit uh an advanced recycling operation which is ramped up in it's ramping up in Europe, it's ramping up in Asia, it's it's been stalled for years uh here inside the United States. uh where they they're able to reduce plastic to raw chemical compounds uh plastics that end up in landfill that end up in trash uh that can be properly disposed of is important and plastics that are ending up in uh our water uh is another important topic and you know the sea grant is something else that uh the appropriations uh committee has funded and save our seas act a legislation has been passed um by by congress that we want to continue to work with uh with all of you on

You mentioned advanced recycling, I'll just say that's merits a longer conversation. Uh, I have visited advanced recycling. I've uh looked at it quite carefully around the country. It's it's actually been used in pretty limited uh plastic flows. And it also is producing um vapors that affect the local community. So it's a longer discussion. Uh, I don't I'm not convinced it's the right answer.

Senator Hoven.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um. Mister Minister, good to have you here today. Appreciate it. Um, we've been working in Minot, North Dakota on a site, a Superfund site that was actually approved by the EPA for redevelopment in two thousand sixteen so we've been working on it now for almost a decade. Uh, and uh, that would be to utilize it for a disc golf course, mountain biking trails, cross-country running trails and actually uh there's a community uh indoor hockey arena right next door that i think also would like to expand so it'd be a it'd be a great use for this site and it's located near a a very nice hockey arena indoor hockey arena and and one of the main golf courses so it's it's just sits situated very well and we'd like to bring this to uh for fruition there's two steps left and we need your help with one is uh there is a there's been a uh modified uh consent decree filed uh by doj on behalf of epa that includes a modification that specifically allows us to to utilize the property for that purpose that was filed uh by doj on april thirtieth of this year uh with district court in north dakota and uh the uh the comment period um but it's out for comment right now which you put it out for comment and the comment period ends june one So first we need you to expeditiously respond to comments, if there are any, and then make a motion to the court to approve uh the uh modified consent decree. And then the second thing is the city's work plan. They put forth - and you - and you have it at EPA. You've got their work plan to uh - to utilize this property. And I just wanna ask for you to act on it expeditiously. Uh, like I say, we've been working on it for almost a decade, it - and it's a really great project.

Uh, Senator, thank you for uh continuing to advocate for - for this and being a champion to uh to make this happen. Uh, as you pointed out we're in the middle of that public comment period, as uh as we see here having this uh discussion. Uh, we are certainly committed to work with the - the city to allow for uh the safe and uh protective public usage of this land and uh we look forward to continuing to work with you as we know how important it is uh for you uh on behalf of your constituents to get this over the finish line.

yeah this is a good one i mean this is a good one that i think everybody is gonna be excited about uh and then uh similarly in fargo on the red river between uh fargo north dakota and moorehead minnesota it's really all one metro area there's a huge site there it it was uh mid america steel and it's a actual foundry that goes all the way back to eighteen seventy one so big old huge area that that had a steel foundry there And when we put the permanent flood protection in there, we have a huge three point two billion permanent flood protection that will protect the whole region, both sides of the river. It's a marvelous project. We actually used WIFIA as part of it, which was very helpful. Um, but that's coming to completion and so that property was purchased a- and the - the uh Mid-America s- uh steel relocated. Same thing, we wanna utilize here the EPA's brownfield program uh so that the city can really develop this. property it's right along the it's just a beautiful area right uh and we've already right next door we uh did that we used that uh brownfields program for the last school it's high rise site it was amazing we had this huge high rise we did the deal where you implode it and it drops the building you know i mean it's a huge crowd watching it was pretty cool we already so we've already been developing affordable housing and senior housing in the area and this whole area all lays out along the park so again will you work with me and with the city of Fargo and our other partners, we've got a variety of partners, but it it's a big area on both sides of the river here and uh would be awesome for parks and all kind of things, but again great project, ask for your help to expeditiously move on it.