WATCH LIVE: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin Testifies Before The Senate Appropriations Committee

Good morning. The committee will come to order. I'd like to welcome Administrator Zelden to the committee here this morning. Uh I think it is important auspicious that as we begin our budget hearings, uh we begin the oversight through the interior appropriation subcommittee with the EPA, an area of interest I think for all of us as we think about how we ensure that Americans from Alaska to Oregon to New York, to all the places in between, have the benefits of clean air, clean water for all of us. So, thank you, Administrator, for being here to discuss the fiscal year 2026 budget request.

We recognize that what we have seen is skinny, as we refer to it around here. Um each year the subcommittee holds a hearing to examine the EPA budget requests. Some years the budget is the focus of the hearing, and others it's agency actions that draw the majority of the questions. I think it's probably safe to assume that this year it's going to be a mixture of both. And again, we've just seen the skinny outline of fiscal year 2026. We have yet to see the full details of the president's budget request, but I have to sum my comments at the outset in saying that, at looking at some of these proposed cuts, I'm looking at them and questioning whether they are serious cuts; I find many of them problematic. And so, I'm just going to be open and honest with my words here this morning, and we will have good dialogue, constructive dialogue in this committee.

So again, while we're waiting for additional details, I want to spend my time this morning talking about the vision for the EPA and, Administrator, how you plan to use your position to continue to better provide clean air, water, and land for Americans from Alaska to Florida, from California to Maine, and how a budget like the one that you've proposed could support that mission.

Under the Biden administration, I had some very serious concerns about the regulatory overreach of the agency. I expressed them often. I also shared the concerns that I felt were overzealous enforcement actions coming out of the agency that went contrary to the needs of Alaskans. We were able to figure out how to find common ground in certain areas to make progress on some things that were certainly good for Alaska. I mentioned to you contaminated lands, residential wood stove testing and certification. We still have a long way to go on PM2.5. I think we know that. POS 301H waivers. We've got work to do. I think we know that.

So now we're in a new administration, new administrator, and perhaps a different direction here. I do appreciate many of the actions and the initiatives that we have had a chance to discuss. I certainly support the willingness to work with the Army Corps of Engineers to review the WUS rule, your reconsideration of clean power plan 2.0, the vehicle emissions rules, and then, of course, a renewed focus on permitting, something I would think that all of us can come together on. But my concern this morning, and what you will hear from me and I think many others, is the approach that's been taken with regards to freezing funds, canceling grants, and the reorganization of the agency.

I'm looking at it through the lens of not only Alaskans, but really all Americans who, regardless of how you feel about the EPA, we benefit from its data-driven decision-making, the remediation efforts, and the mission to protect human health and the environment. And I respect, I give a lot of leeway for an incoming administration's prerogative to implement changes in support of the policies and priorities, but it also has to be done with clear articulation of the goals against which such changes will be measured. And so it's problematic when, as a committee, we're asking questions, we don't receive basic data that would be helpful, would be good guidance for us. And so when we see implementation of significant changes without working or seriously communicating with us, your partners in Congress, it just makes it harder for us to do the job of supporting your mission. We are on the same side here, and so we want to work with you in so many of these areas.

I think we all can agree that there are inefficiencies and redundancies to be found throughout the federal government. Some of EPA's programs we know are overly burdensome, and again I applaud the administration for seeking to find ways to help ordinary Americans cut through red tape and make programs easier to access. But the seemingly indiscriminate freezing of EPA funding, regardless of source, has caused some significant anxiety from the folks that I'm talking to in Alaska. One example is the community change grants. In my state, we've received 150 million from this program. It's communities like the little village of Kipnuk. It's the native village of Kasigluk. It took a lot of work to get to the place where they were able to secure the funding, and they've had their grants canceled by the agency without any explanation. And so this is where some of the anxiety comes is just not knowing why. And it's not just in Alaska. I think members on both sides of the aisle probably will talk about the benefits of the grants to their states and their communities.

You've also proposed massive reorganizations of EPA to include the elimination of the Office of Atmospheric Programs and the Office of Research and Development. Now, it is true that agencies funded by our bill will have the flexibility to reprogram and reorganize, and we provide that flexibility because we know there can be urgent and exigent circumstances that warrant such actions. However, agencies must comply with the requirements and provide the committees with the requisite information, whether it's budgetary and staffing implications, but also the rationale for the actions to include why these actions are so urgent, and so far EPA has not adhered to our reprogramming guidelines and has been largely unresponsive to the questions. So, I would certainly expect timely and transparent responses and information. I would expect EPA to abide by the parameters that are outlined in our reprogramming guidelines. And I think, as a former member of Congress, you get it. You've been on the frustration end of things as well. So, again, ways that we can be working together.

Now, turning our attention to the FY26 budget proposal in Alaska. We've seen on the ground examples of really good things being done with some of the programs that your budget has substantially reduced or proposed to eliminate. Example, the proposed reduction of the state revolving fund, reducing it from 2.8 billion down to 305 million. This is an 88% reduction. This was one of the ones when I mentioned unserious proposals. This is the one that I'm looking at because it clearly is one of the most essential programs that the agency administers, and you mentioned as part of your justification for cutting this program that the account has been heavily earmarked. And this is true. The 66 members of the Senate, including 17 Republicans, making it our most bipartisan account, who requested congressionally directed spending for the SRF accounts, did so in connection with the states to ensure the funding was going to critical clean water and drinking water projects. Now, I would also note that in FY25, Congress voted for and the president signed into law a full-year CR that keeps the SRF fully funded rather than reducing it by the amount of the CDS's.

So, I'm going to close my comments here with I don't know if it's a note of sympathy or just an acknowledgement because I get it. You are, I think, 106 days since you were confirmed and sworn in as EPA administrator. And for an agency as key and as vital as yours, that's really a short time to get everything up and running, from enacting the administration's priorities to establishing a clear working relationship with us here in Congress. We know that you're still getting your team in place because we're trying to move them through our process here, and it is slow, and you need those folks. You need the members of your team. So, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. There's plenty of time for us to be able to figure out what's working, what's not, establish open lines of communication between our teams that will mutually benefit your mission and all those that we work for. So, I'm eager to start on that. I thank you for your testimony today, your willingness to answer our questions, and the opportunity to be working with you. And with that, I turn to Ranking Member Mkeley for his comments.

Thank you very much, Chair McHenry, and congratulations on being chair again. You were chair from 2015 through 2020, so you're well seasoned in that world. And one of the things I really appreciate about the appropriations committee and this subcommittee in particular is the bipartisan collaboration. Eleven of our 12 appropriation bills went out with massive bipartisan support. Most of them unanimously, including the interior bill, over several years. And we look forward to hoping to replicate that again. I just want to see the work that we do in this committee get taken up on the Senate floor, be worked with the House, and have that whole bipartisan spirit result in a bill that lands in the Oval Office.

Administrator Zelden, welcome. This is the ordinary business of Congress that we conduct every year, but this year is not ordinary. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress. And under the U.S. Constitution, the president, executive branch leaders like yourself, are required to carry out those spending laws, even if you disagree with them. As former Appropriations Chair Robert Byrd said, “The legislative control of the purse is the central pillar, the central pillar upon which the constitutional temple of checks and balances and separation of powers rests. And if that pillar is shaken, the temple will fall. It is central to the liberty, the fundamental liberty of the American people.” But this administration, the Trump administration, is striving to topple that central pillar of liberty by seizing the power of the purse. President Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought are pursuing a deliberate strategy of impoundments in which they ignore appropriation laws passed by Congress, laws not just passed by Congress, but signed by presidents, and withhold funding intended for specific agencies and programs. The EPA, the organization that you lead, is one of those agencies.

This is not the first time that a president has tried to impound funds for the EPA. President Nixon strived to do that. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch could not steal Congress's constitutional power of the purse. In other words, the executive branch must implement the laws passed, signed into law, as they are written. That decision was reaffirmed two decades later in 1998 when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not give the constitutional power of the purse, could not delegate it to the executive branch through a line-item veto. Yet under your leadership, Mr. Alden, EPA has illegally and unconstitutionally impounded about $24 billion, including $1.7 billion in environmental justice grants that help communities address pollution and transition to clean energy. Historically, we know that low-income communities and communities of color have suffered the most from pollution. That's because when people are powerful, they don't want those plants in their community. So they end up in communities where people are less powerful, where they have the least resistance. And so this funding provides those communities that have those fewer resources the opportunity to protect themselves from the impacts of pollution.

For instance, in Oregon, a county was awarded $20 million for rural communities like Oakridge and Veneta and Cottage Grove to provide shelter during wildfires and severe smoke events, including upgrades of their HVAC systems and backup power, but the funding was impounded. Also impounded was funding for private capital investments to leverage private capital investments for solar installations and efficiency upgrades through the greenhouse gas reduction fund. You may not like those programs, but you are constitutionally obliged to carry out the law as written, and you're not doing so. Illegally impounding these funds and others, EPA is refusing to spend in dangerous communities by making it harder to address pollution and climate chaos.

If these illegal and unconstitutional impoundments weren't bad enough, your budget proposal makes a bad situation worse. It’s scant on details. It denigrates science. It antagonizes federal employees. It undermines the core functions of the agency. A budget is a statement of values, and your values are clearly to put the profits of polluters over the interests of the people. Your budget slashes EPA by 54%. It drains 90% of funding from the state revolving funds, which support communities in meeting standards for tap water and protecting streams and rivers.

Seldon, I go to every county every year in Oregon and hold an open town hall. I meet with the community leaders beforehand, and almost always they are raising issues of the challenge of providing clean water and wastewater treatment. The cost in small communities per person is extraordinary, and these grants have been the salvation for communities as they seek to update infrastructure that is often half a century or more old. My state knows the benefits of SRF funding, and the Confederated Tribes, the Grand Ronde, used that funding to develop a toxics reduction plan to mitigate toxic pollution in the Willamette River Basin. And the city of Umatilla has had to boil water because of water distribution failures and pressure loss with old infrastructure, and they're using this funding to modernize their clean water supply. Your budget also eviscerates states by eliminating $1 billion in grants for cleanup of waterways, complying with air quality requirements, handling hazardous waste properly, and removing lead from drinking water. Your budget rips $4 billion out of the Office of Research and Development, which conducts the scientific research needed to inform EPA's decisions on questions of environmental and public safety. In my home state, the ORD labs in Corvallis and Newport research how chemical contaminants will harm communities and ecosystems along the Pacific coast. We are both coming from Pacific coast states. It's important to us to understand how to protect the water off our shores. Pacific Northwest fisheries are the most productive in the world. The upwelling of nutrients and the California current combine to make them so productive. And therefore, this research is not just critical to the environment, but to the economy and livelihood of multiple stakeholders along our coast.

Perhaps even more troubling, your budget takes aim against your own employees. The so-called Department of Government Efficiency or Doge has already taken a wrecking ball to EPA's professional staff. EPA is firing and pushing out by threat thousands of staff, including scientists and technical specialists, whose institutional knowledge is irreplaceable, and new staff with nothing but stellar performance reviews. Without adequate staffing, environmental regulations cannot be enforced. Perhaps that is your goal. Without adequate staffing, dangerous pollutants will not be identified. Perhaps that is your objective. Without adequate staffing, Superfund sites will continue to leak toxic chemicals. Perhaps that is your desire. All of this is happening while EPA carries out a parade of reckless policy actions, tearing down bedrock environmental laws, even allowing industry to simply send one email to get waivers from pollution controls that threaten our health and the environment we live in. We need an EPA that upholds the law and upholds the Constitution, is properly funded, is strongly staffed, is empowered to address urgent environmental challenges of our time. I hope to hear today that you're changing course from your reckless and dangerous pursuit in your opening months. The American people expect and deserve nothing less.

Thank you, Senator Merkley. At this time, we will turn to the administrator. It's good to have you before the committee. Your first such engagement. So, welcome. I think you will find that this appropriations subcommittee is very active, very engaged, with great inquiring minds. So, welcome, Mr. Administrator.

Thank you, Chair McHenry, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the president's fiscal year 2026 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA has wasted no time advancing President Trump's directive to help deliver clean air, land, and water for all Americans while restoring common sense, accountability, and cooperative federalism to environmental policy. We are fulfilling our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while powering the great American comeback and removing unnecessary barriers that have burdened American families and businesses for far too long. We hit the ground running immediately upon President Trump's inauguration, completing the largest wildfire cleanup in agency history in less than 30 days after the catastrophic Los Angeles wildfires. We are taking bold steps to combat PFAS contamination and have advanced redevelopment at 21 Superfund sites across 13 states, delisting all or parts of four sites from the national priorities list. We've also completed 25 state implementation plans, 16 of which were backlogged from the prior administration. With this renewed focus and commitment, the EPA is proudly working for the American people. We are revising the definition of waters of the United States to align with the Supreme Court decision in Sackett and have issued immediate actions for Mexico to permanently and urgently end the Tijuana River sewage crisis that has plagued Southern California for decades. Following my trip to St. Louis, we cut nearly two years from the cleanup timeline at the West Lake Superfund site, which has been contaminated by nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project. In fact, to mark the 100th day of the Trump presidency, the EPA released a list of 100 environmental actions we took during those first 100 days, a pace that motivates us to keep up each and every day. Together, these actions reflect the administration's commitment to environmental stewardship, cooperative federalism, and delivering results that make a real difference in people's lives. In lockstep with the president's agenda, EPA is also helping to unleash American energy, pursue permitting reform, make America the AI capital of the world, and bring back American auto jobs. We've eliminated waste and abuse in areas like the greenhouse gas reduction fund, reversed unlawful overreach like the so-called Good Neighbor rule, and begun reconsidering many overreaching rules, including the power plant and EV-related regulation that threatens grid reliability, energy affordability, and consumer choice. These historic actions will reduce regulatory costs, which act as invisible taxes on Americans, making it more affordable now to own a home, heat homes, operate a business, and bring manufacturing back to local communities. By reducing the EPA's budget by billions of dollars, the president's FY 2026 budget demands maximum efficiency from the EPA while we continue to fulfill all of our statutory obligations. Also included in the president's proposal is an additional $9 million above FY 2025 enacted levels to equip EPA with funds to respond to drinking water disasters. There's also a $27 million increase in funding for tribes to address drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on their lands. As I've stated in the past at the Trump EPA, we will not view the status quo as a sacred cow that is untouchable. We will not consider the Biden-era regulations we inherited to be etched in stone, and we absolutely refuse to waste even a penny of tax dollars. Under the president's leadership and with the support of Congress, we will continue to deliver real results with greater accountability and a stronger environmental return on investment per dollar spent. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Administrator. We will have five-minute rounds in order of arrival, and I will begin with my first five minutes, and again appreciate the opportunity that you and I have had to discuss some of the particular issues. I'd like to ensure that we continue that very direct engagement not only between us but also with our staffs. We've had a conversation about transparency, partnership, and responsiveness, and again I think you come to this position from a good place because you've sat in our seats here, so to speak, when you've asked questions of an agency and you get frustrated because you're not able to get what you're seeking. So there is a lot going on within the agency as you have outlined, and as both the Ranking Member and I have outlined, but we need to be more informed rather than getting updates by way of tweets or stories from the media. The agency has issued reorganization notifications, but we're not getting the full picture or the answers to some of the questions that we have asked. So my direct question to you this morning is just a renewed commitment that the promise of transparency, partnership, and responsiveness is there, that we're going to be able to have meetings between your senior teams and our folks on the appropriation side so that we can help you—let me help you—type of an approach. And that's what I'm seeking from you this morning, Mr. Administrator.

Absolutely, Madame Chair. And you uniquely amongst 535 members of Congress have a bat phone into my office, which I would encourage you to use at any time. We've spoken since my confirmation, and when we meet, you often have a very long list of priorities for Alaska that you're fighting for, that you're passionate about, and to make sure that we're working through that list at every opportunity is something that will be a priority for our team as long as I am here as administrator, and I would encourage you to reach out whenever you would like, and I'd be available to work through whatever's at the top of your list that day.

Very good. Very good. Let me ask about the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. I mentioned in my opening these are probably the areas where on this committee we have more bipartisan support for a program, and we're looking at a budget that effectively eliminates the one thing that we're all in agreement on. So, I'd ask you to share with me and the others on the committee why the agency would move away from such a critical on-the-ground program when we're talking about access to clean water.

Madam Chair, as you pointed out in your opening remarks and as you referenced from the skinny budget that was released that we're here to talk about today, there has been a bleeding out of funds deliberately through decisions made by Congress to earmark. I understand that when I came into this position, I inherited a lot of earmarks that many of you have fought for, and I want to be able to continue to work with each of you and your staffs. In some cases, we need to get the recipients to submit paperwork where they're on the receiving end of big earmarks so that we can work through this backlog as quickly as we can. It would be helpful to have a conversation about the SRF and the use of earmarks and how that has been reducing the funding through the years, as you all know there's a difference when these skinny budgets come out whether or not something is funded at zero dollars or it's funded at $1. Now that might not seem like much to the American public in understanding how these conversations go in Congress, the SRF is not zeroed out in the skinny budget, and in fact it has hundreds of millions of dollars there in it. So, as we go forward with this process, I look forward to more conversations about the SRF, and I'm sure members of the House and the Senate will be having conversations amongst yourselves as to what you believe to be the appropriate funding level for SRF as well as the future of the program and whether or not earmarks will continue to be used to reduce that balance. That's obviously a decision that Congress has a very important role to play.

Well, we do, and we can have a separate discussion about earmarks. I think we both know that earmarks don't contribute to the topline number. You're discussing here a concern that I have raised with you that there has been over the years congressionally directed spending, earmarks that have been moved through the process, authorized and appropriated to, and still not spent down. So my time is expired now. I know that on this next round I'm going to ask for a little more discussion about that, but I do think that given the significance of the clean

Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Uh, by so many of us that this is something that let's have a broader discussion about, uh, how we move forward with what I would think, um, uh, most of us recognize has got to be a priority within within the EPA.

Uh, the the ranking member of the full committee has arrived. Um, ordinarily I would defer to my my ranking member here for his questions, but uh, we'll go to him. Okay.

So, as you can tell from my opening statement, I'm I'm very concerned about the issue of impoundments. Um, are you familiar with the concept?

Of course, Senator.

You understand that it involves freezing funds that are to be allocated by law?

Uh, Senator, I I'm familiar with uh with the impoundments. I also understand we're having this conversation in the middle of the fiscal year as opposed to after the fiscal year. Do you understand that the uh the Constitution of the United States assigns the power of the purse to Congress? And do you follow that uh understanding?

Absolutely.

So you understand that when you impound funds, you are violating the law?

No, Senator, we are going to follow all all statutory obligations and we will abide by all laws.

But you're not. You're impounding funds against the law.

Uh, we absolutely uh disagree with you very strongly. And the courts have also found it's not just against the law, it's unconstitutional.

If you're citing a particular district court judge, Senator, that's one thing. Um, but there's a lot of district court uh court judges coming up with their own interpretations of the law. Uh, that'll go through litigation processes, but at at it is the Supreme Court of the United States that has weighed in.

And do you consider the Supreme Court not to be a legitimate source of decision-making?

Of course, the Supreme Court is the uh the highest court in the land.

Then why are you not following the Supreme Court's understanding of the Constitution and the law?

Uh, we are following uh all laws and the Constitution, sir.

Then why have you frozen 1.7 billion in EJ grants illegally and unconstitutionally?

Uh, they are neither illegal or unconstitutionally frozen, Senator.

Are they legally frozen?

Yes, sir.

Under what authority of the law, Senator? Uh, Congress appropriates funding and then say if the Biden administration's in place last year and they're at there at the beginning of the fiscal year, they might apply their own administration's policy priorities. So they might decide to send money to say the state of Alaska and they might include aspects of uh fighting for equity or education instead of remediation.

But it wasn't the Biden administration that passed this law. It was Congress. And so this is in the law as written and as signed by his president.

And yet you're defying it.

Senator, um, I it would be important that uh the the premise of of your question. I mean, we're going to have to just disagree as strongly as possible.

You've also frozen house gas reduction funds again illegally and unconstitutionally. Are you going

Neither illegally or unconstitutionally, Senator?

Well, we now have several court decisions that have said you have acted and you referred to district court decisions, but you don't agree with those district courts.

Uh, Senator, if you're referring to a district court decision that was then stayed by the DC circuit, then I would also encourage you to look at the appeals process uh which uh which is important and as you referenced earlier in a prior question how important it is to look at the Supreme Court.

Well, then that message that you would be making to the DC district court judge is that the DC district court judge didn't have jurisdiction over that case and it belonged inside the court of federal claims. I agree with you how important it is to consider the decisions of the Supreme Court.

So, there is one district court decision you abided by and that was related to the clean school buses. If other district courts uh say that this is an illegal impoundment, an unconstitutional impoundment, will you follow the the findings of those district courts or will you simply appeal it upwards?

We will abide by all laws and the United States Constitution at all times.

Well, again, uh the administration has responded to some district court decisions by saying, "We will simply appeal it. We'll seek a stay in an appeal." Will you follow when a district court says you've illegally impounded funds? Will you follow that district court decision?

Well, as you pointed out, Senator, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. So, if a district court judge makes a decision, we are not going to assume that the United States Supreme Court is going to agree with that district court, even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that impoundments are unconstitutional.

So, your decision is to simply appeal to the Supreme Court seeking a different decision this time around.

Well, I know that we're talking about uh hypotheticals of district court decisions to come, but as far as the district court decision, actually not hypothetical because we already have a series of district court decisions saying that this is illegal and unconstitutional. As far as the district court uh decisions that have been made, it's important to note as I stated a minute ago, the district court judge decision that you're referencing in the DC circuit was instantly stayed by the DC circuit.

You understand that impounding funds essentially makes the appropriation power of Congress very difficult?

uh, we have to reach uh decisions about funding that is important to Alaska, to Oregon, but also to every region of of the country. And if then we strike this law, we strike these decisions to help address environmental issues in every part of the country. And then the executive comes along and says, "We want the power of the purse. We're going to treat these laws as suggestions. We're going to freeze these funds for programs we don't like or regions we don't like or congressional districts we don't like." that that completely undermines the u the dialogue and the ability of here in Congress to produce uh bipartisan bills.

Uh, Senator, I I don't know if on either side of the aisle I've uh ever heard in one round of question uh more premise of questions that I possibly disagree with.

Um, I refuse to waste a dollar of tax dollars. Period.

Since since you are violating both the law and the constitution, will you will you follow your oath? Then if you can't follow your oath, will you resign from your office?

Yeah.

Uh, Senator, listen, uh, you like to preface your questions with declaring everything unconstitutional legal. We couldn't possibly disagree more strongly with what you're saying. What I do believe is would would be illegal is for me to play along where I'm seeing unqualified recipients getting funding where I see an entity uh like a $2 billion recipient power forward communities that gets a $100 of GGR funds in 2023 and then they get $2 billion in 2024. When I see self-dealing and conflicts of interest loading up recipients of people who are Biden officials and Obama officials and Democrat donors, when I see wording of financial agent agreements and account control agreements that tie the hands of the EPA behind its back, will I play along with that? No, absolutely not.

Because this is the

In which case you should resign because the president is involved in resigning on these crypto waste money. I should resign.

Madam Chair, I will just conclude by saying this issue of impoundments is an extraordinary challenge. The Supreme Court has ruled twice. The Constitution is clear. You took an oath to the Constitution and it's extremely destructive of our legislative process for you to be engaged in this. Let's move to Senator Fischer.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Administrator, it is really good to see you today. Thank you for being here.

Before I get to a couple questions, I wanted to quickly just note the support for some of your efforts. Earlier this month, you announced reorganizational efforts to strengthen the agency. You specifically noted how these efforts will help to address the over 12,000 pesticide reviews that need to get done. Nebraska farmers rely on many of these crop protection tools and we need to ensure strong science and risk-based reviews.

Madam Chair, I would ask to enter into the record a letter from the Priya Coalition in support of the administrator's work there.

Without objection.

Thank you. I'd also like to quickly thank you, administrator, for your deregulatory efforts, including reconsideration of the clean power plan 2.0 rule. Nebraska is an all-public power state, the only one in the union, and our rural electric cooperatives. They have raised significant concerns about that rule. So, Madam Chair, I'd like to also enter this supportive press release from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association into the record.

Thank you.

Administrator, a couple of months back, UN Secretary Rollins met with me and several of my colleagues about the importance of Congress passing a permanent nationwide solution to allow for the year-round sale of E15. And I thank you. I thank you for acting on the emergency summertime waivers to allow for the year-round sale of E15 again this year, but certainly this yearly exercise uh it needs um to to be done permanently. We need to pass a solution, a permanent solution and not have your agency have to go through this this uh uh process every single every single year.

The president tried to get E15 done uh permanently through regulation back in 2019 and he has maintained strong support for it since. I want people to understand uh the history here.

Mr. Zeldon, we have effectively been operating under year-round E15 for the last six years. Although President Trump's regulation or through President Trump's regulation and then yearly emergency waivers. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Is it true that despite President Trump's best efforts, if we want real certainty here for consumers, Congress has to act. Is that correct?

The that is the most durable and uh easiest solution to this issue.

Thank you.

And lastly, having that permanent nationwide legislative solution for the year-round E15 would certainly be more efficient and effective use of EPA's time and resources. Is that correct?

Uh, yes, Senator, as the chair pointed out, I've been in the position a little over a 100 days and I have had many, many, many meetings about uh this topic and a lot of passionate uh advocacy from uh including you, Senator, and your and your colleagues and your constituents. uh if if Congress was to uh finalize a a long-term durable solution, uh so much of that advocacy on your part, all of your time can be better spent uh fighting for other priorities of your constituents.

Thank you.

As you know, the last administration failed to issue the renewable volume obligations that were due last November, the RVOs. They also set volumes that were uh 2023 to 2025 uh that were too low and it didn't account for the increased soy crushing levels to support biofuel production including increased crushing capacity that's going to be coming online in Nebraska. I hope that you will set blending volumes for biomass-based diesel that are in line with production and capacity of that industry.

Do you have any update on the timeline for when we can expect to see the RVOs?

Uh, yes, Senator, we are going to be going through a rulemaking process now over the course of the next few months. We did inherit a blown deadline. uh we're looking to not only uh resolve uh that deadline in setting RVOs but to also look to the future and to operate going forward in a way where we don't blow any deadlines moving forward. Uh so over the course of the next few months, there's going to be an opportunity for the public uh to weigh in during a public comment period before a final decision is made. Uh we've already started to hear a lot of advocacy from uh many uh of your constituents in Nebraska fighting hard for RVOs.

As you know, the farm economy is uh suffering right now and farmers are uh worried about a number of things in order to uh help provide more certainty. I would I really appreciate um your your agency being on time uh with with what needs to be done in order to provide them with that assurance and with certainty.

Thank you, sir. We'll next turn to the ranking member of the full committee, Senator Murray.

Thank you very much, Chair Mowsky, Ranking Member Merkley. I look forward to working with both of you this year. Administrator Zeldon.

Um, you helm an agency that was created by a Republican president that is responsible for making sure that Americans can drink clean water and breathe clean air and lead healthy lives. It seems to me the Trump administration's entire vision for your agency amounts to burn it down. Now, burning down the EPA might be a great way to generate smog, but it is a terrible way to protect families' health. Look at the 25 billion in federal funding you have been illegally freezing and cancelling in my state and across the country. We are talking about investments in things like heat pumps to reduce energy costs and pollution. Wildfire preparedness to prevent smoke exposure or infrastructure upgrades to protect drinking water from floods and earthquakes. Blocking this funding is hurting communities everywhere. It is prompt. It has prompted lawsuits as well as investigations by the Government Accountability Office. And I have to say to you, it is unacceptable to hear from GAO that your agency has not been cooperating with those requests from them. And now the president's request would slash funding for your agency by over 50%, taking it back to levels last seen 50 years ago, by the way. And I should note, protecting the health and well-being of the American public does not happen on its own. The EPA is powered by skilled and dedicated public servants, a group you have worked to demonize for months on end. Now, while you proudly gut your own agency's workforce, you leave hardworking Americans who are suffering the consequences. Your job is to make sure kids have clean water when they turn on the tap, fresh air when they go outside. Your job is to make sure that our rivers in Washington state are full of salmon, not toxic sludge. And your job is to follow the law and to get the funds out that Congress passed. For the past two years, this committee has passed bipartisan spending bills to invest in the EPA and into our communities. And despite the draconian budget that you have put forward, I'm going to be pushing to work with this committee on a bipartisan agreement once again that safeguards our health and our environment.

Now, Administrator Zeldon, at the same time you propose cutting the EPA's budget by 54% and slashing staff by over 20% and gutting many of EPA's core programs. You insist that despite these cuts, the EPA can carry out the congressional directives of the bill we passed with bipartisan support through this committee without compromising the EPA's responsibilities. There is no way that can be true. Do you understand, administrator, that your job is to execute the bipartisan laws negotiated in this committee and in Congress and carry them out faithfully, not to gut the uh programs that Congress passed into law?

Of course, uh we will fulfill all statutory obligations. And uh I would encourage you to read uh the announcement that we put out the morning of uh the president's 100th day that has 100 environmental wins from the first 100 days of the the Trump presidency. I don't know if you've had an opportunity to read it yet. Um, but uh based off

I have had an opportunity to see your budget and when you eliminate offices and slash staffing and propose cutting the budget in half of EPA, you are making certain that the government will not be able to protect the public from pollution. That is not what Congress intended.

Now, the federal government has given states significant responsibility to implement our bedrock environmental laws like enforcement of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA provides basic funding categorical grants to every single state so they can carry out more than 90% of the on-the-ground work that is necessary to comply with environmental laws. Your budget cuts 16 of 19 categorical grant programs which the Environmental Council of the States is a bipartisan organization of environmental agency directors from all 50 states says will quote incapacitate state environmental programs. That's from them not from me. We are talking about massive cuts. 843 million for Texas, 459 million for Florida, 169 million for Louisiana. It's hard to see as um this as anything other than the EPA abandoning its responsibility to states. And I want to ask you, have you consulted with any of the states on this proposal to eliminate almost all the categorical grant funding?

uh the the every aspect of uh this skinny budget was done uh deliberately as a result of a lot of conversation uh a lot of uh thoughtful conversation with the states uh states are absolutely uh included uh as it relates to conversations that we take place uh that conversations that take place about our priorities.

Well, I I will say my state and many of the states said this would be devastating and states cannot uh shoulder this burden and I look forward to working with this committee to as we've done before in a bipartisan way make sure that we fund these programs.

Um, finally, um your agency has been cutting billions of dollars in grants indiscriminately, irrationally across the country, including in my home state of Washington. And I want to give you an example. Wildfire and extreme heat waves. They are major threats to public health for a lot of the country. A few weeks ago, the EPA terminated a grant that would have made sure community centers in Spokane had the infrastructure needed to serve as a refuge during extreme weather and wildfire emergencies. There was no explanation for that cancellation. That is a community that saw 19 people die and over 300 people hospitalized during a heat wave a few short years ago where wildfires are a constant threat. So, let me ask you, is it woke to protect people from wildfires and heat stroke?

I I don't know if you're going to get uh anyone in America to uh to answer yes to the way you you put that question out there.

Well, is it inefficient? Is it wasteful? Why was this grant eliminated?

Uh, well, there are hundreds of grants. I would have to have that individual grant in front of me. One of the uh while when Congress sets an appropriated level on a particular type of grant, we need to make sure that over the course of the fiscal year that that money is apparent that we're working decided that this community in Spokane didn't need to deal with their extreme weather and wildfire emergencies. I don't know whether the you won't tell me whether it's inefficient waste, but whatever your word is. Uh, but you need to know that you're abandoning communities in my state and across the country. Um, and that funding was appropriated for work exactly like this.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Let's go to Senator Hoeven.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Administrator. Thanks for being here today. Appreciate having you.

Uh, both NERC and FERC have expressed concerns about grid reliability for our electric grid nationwide. And the reason as you know is very simply because we're losing base load on uh the grid and we have more and more variable sources of energy. And one of the big reasons we're losing that base load is because of the regulatory blizzard that's been put in place by the Biden administration that is forcing coal plants to close down with no benefit to the environment. We continue to move forward in our state with the latest greatest technological uh innovations to address SOx, NOx, mercury, CO2, you name it, right? And yet they're still forcing these plants to close down, but it is putting the grid at risk. So talk to me about how you're going to take steps uh to uh unwind these uh burdensome rules like the MATS rule and like the clean power uh plan 2.0.

Senator, we believe at EPA we can choose to both protect the environment and grow the economy. It's not a binary choice where we have to pick one or the other. Over the course of the last couple years of the Biden EPA, uh there were a lot of regulations that came out, many of which seeking to strangulate entire industries to put, for example, the coal sector completely out. Well, these are jobs for many states. This is how they are powering their lives. This is an important engine of their economy. On March 12th, uh EPA announced many different regulatory actions including a reconsideration of that Biden-era MATS rule, including the what's called clean power plan 2.0 as you referenced and other rules as well. Uh now some people like to post some photograph you know of the 60s and 70s and say that if we get rid of some regulation from 2024 this is what the water is going to look like. This is what the the air is going to be like. We're talking about regulations from the last year or two and we're going to go through a reconsideration. We're going to follow the Administrative Procedures Act. There's going to be a public comment period and while I can't prejudge outcomes now at the end of the process when I'm supposed to we'll make a decision on what the future should look like on each individual regulation, Senator.

Right.

Same thing now for Waters of the US. Talk to me about how we are going to make sure that private property rights are respected uh uh with Waters of the US which once again the Trump administration had put in place a responsible rule. The Supreme Court in Sackett has very clear simple prescriptive language as to what should be a water of the US. EPA seeks to follow the Supreme Court in Sackett and to make sure that there is a simple durable rule that can withstand the test of time that would allow any farmer or rancher, landowner anywhere in America or state like uh Alaska and others, they will know whether or not water that is on land is a water of the US or not. And what's very important to point out is that just because a water might not be a water of the US as it relates to Sackett that doesn't mean that a state loses the ability to have oversight over that waterway. And that's a big misunderstanding uh as to what we're talking about here. So we are uh doing a a rulemaking to reconsider the definition of Waters of the US to get the definition for EPA in line with the Sackett decision of the United States Supreme Court. We do not want uh any of your landowners to have to go pay an attorney or a consultant to tell them whether or not a water on their property is a water of the US. I want every one of your ranchers and landowners to know whether or not there's a water of the US on their property. We owe it to them. And we should look at a map of the United States that has one definition that is being followed in all 50 states. We shouldn't have different definitions depending on what state we are in. And no matter what happens in presidential elections of the future, if we do this right and we come up with a simple definition that follows the Supreme Court decision in Sackett, the definition that we come up with now should be one that withstands the test of time.

Thank you. And I also appreciate um you referencing respect for states' rights. Respect for private property rights and respect for states' rights are constitutionally protected and it's vitally important that the EPA and other federal agencies don't overstep those constitutional rights.

Agreed, Senator.

Thank you. Don't forget permafrost. Senator Baldwin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Zeldon.

Um, Wisconsin's coastal communities and tribal nations uh depend on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to protect uh water quality of both Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. The initiative has been um essential for cleaning up uh pollution, managing invasive species, and safeguarding access to clean water for over 40 million people. uh for every dollar spent on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, nearly $4 in additional economic activity uh is produced. Uh these outcomes have only been possible because of strong collaboration between EPA and its regional partners. So, your fiscal year 2026 skinny budget makes no mention of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative or the staffing necessary to carry it out. So, I'd like you to tell us today what the administration's budget will include for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

Uh, Senator, while uh we're here and we're only able to speak about the skinny budget because the full budget has not been released because you're asking about uh the Great Lakes Restoration Program. Uh and I've heard from uh the vice president uh who uh has fought for this program as well, a former senator from Ohio. Uh this is something that is uh that there is great pride inside of the agency for the Great Lakes Great Lakes Restoration Program. Uh there's a lot of support inside of the administration uh to make sure that this is uh that that this program is is funded and it continues very strong.

Okay.

So there it will continue and it will be fully funded. It it will it will absolutely it will absolutely continue and while I can't speak to a full budget that hasn't been released yet, I'm confident that you'll have a smile on your face as it relates

To the Great Lakes Restoration Program when you see it. Um, Wisconsin communities also face several challenges that make it more difficult to meet the demand and the expectation of access to clean drinking water. And we have increasing threats from PAS contamination, an overabundance of lead service lines still, and inadequate and aging wastewater infrastructure. Our public water systems have relied on the EPA's state revolving funds to upgrade their water systems to fix things that are broken so that they can protect families and workers. This budget decimates the state revolving funds and our nation's primary federal program for funding water infrastructure projects. How do you justify this funding cut, this decimation, to a family in Milwaukee seeking to protect their children from lead in their drinking water due to lead service lines, or a farmer relying on a rural public water system that hopes to provide PAS-free water to their workers and their livestock?

As I mentioned, Senator, to Chairwoman Marowsk's question on this topic earlier, this is a good time for a conversation as it relates to the bleeding out of funding for SRF. Uh, Congress, we're having this conversation right now, and you're hearing, I hope, strongly, from this committee, that we are committed to restoration of those funds because they serve such a vital function in our communities. I wanted to add a couple of words to Senator Fischer's question about biofuels. I just want you to know that the biofuels industry is incredibly important. In Wisconsin, we have several ethanol and biodiesel producers. Certainly, we have corn and soybean farmers and rural manufacturing jobs that depend on a predictable and forward-looking renewable fuel standard. A strong standard would not only provide domestic market certainty to farmers during a time of volatile international market access, as you know, but also invest in our nation's energy independence while lowering fuel costs for consumers and creating domestic manufacturers jobs. So I urge you to release a proposed renewable volume obligation rulemaking soon and hope that the proposal will reflect market growth and demand in this sector. I agree.

Lastly, Wisconsin is home to an array of diverse landscapes, from the coasts of the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes to the wetlands and grasslands across the driftless area of our state, to the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Many of our state's most effective environmental conservation and restoration projects across these regions promote biodiversity to protect their ecosystems. Can you confirm for me right now that the Trump administration's executive order to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion at the federal level has not led to projects being deprioritized, delayed, or defunded by EPA if they mention such terms as biodiversity? I can't think of a particular example. I would have to go back and talk to the team to see if there's anything. You assure me that the executive order on diversity, equity, and inclusion has not led to random word searches for words like diversity that lead to cut-offs in funding. Can you guarantee me that that has not happened at the EPA? I wouldn't guarantee that. I would imagine that if we received an executive order as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion that probably biodiversity in your opinion. What I'm saying is I would have to, as relates to that term biodiversity, I would have to check with the team. I'm not aware of that, but I would have to ask. Do you think supporting and promoting biodiversity somehow violates the president's executive order relating to bans on diversity, equity, and inclusion funding? I would have to see examples of how that term was applied to a particular program or grant in order to be able to answer that. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. On behalf of the chairman, I think she went to vote now that we're actually trying to get our 15-minute votes in again. And I think we're all trying to honor that.

Administrator Zelden, first of all, welcome. I'm new to this subcommittee as well and I look forward to having the opportunity to work with you. I want to thank you first of all for your willingness to revise the waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rulemaking. As you know, the last several decades, wetlands that were drained to become cropland prior to 1985 have remained exempt from regulation under the Clean Water Act. The Trump administration clarified the rules governing prior converted cropland, or PCC, protecting affected land from clean water regulation as long as it was used for agricultural purposes at least once every five years. You're going to hear a lot about these issues as you come into this position. The most recent WOTUS rule under the Biden administration ended the prior converted cropland exemption immediately upon a change in use. This departs significantly from the flexibility provided by President Trump's 2020 WOTUS rule. I recently introduced the Farmers Freedom Act to codify President Trump's earlier definition of prior converted cropland. My question today for you, Administrator Zeldom, as you work to develop an updated WOTUS framework, will you consider revisiting the definition of prior converted cropland? Senator, I'd be happy to follow up with you on that to make sure that we're heeding your calls and considering the merits of your point. Thank you. And look, I really appreciate your comments on WOTUS and where it's going and the concern to have some clear definitions laid out that everybody can understand from administration to administration. The ongoing uncertainty surrounding WOTUS regulations has been a major challenge for American farmers, and I've appreciated your commitment to working closely with the egg producers as you undertake this rulemaking process, and I appreciate that. You're going to find there's a lot of folks that want to work with you on that particular issue.

My next question, and I want to just go back to something just to provide you an opportunity, there's a lot of us here that really do think that there's an importance to the clean and drinking water state revolving loan funds. And there's a $2.46 billion decrease in the skinny budget proposal that's been laid out. So, let me just ask this question on it. Congress appropriates and we direct, we authorize and so forth. My suspicion is that Congress will seriously consider reappropriating those funds. Again, it'll be fair to say, although there's been some suggestions that you're not following the law and so forth, if we appropriate it and direct that it be put back into those revolving loan funds, you'll follow the law and you'll see that it's been done. Of course. Yes, sir. Okay. So I appreciate that because I think the misunderstanding is that somehow that you're not going to follow a law on this when Congress puts it in and we say no, we want it back in and it should go back out to the states. At that stage of the game, we can count on you working with us to get it done appropriately. Senator, I appreciate you raising this point in this example. Congress appropriates funding and then the agency distributes that funding as it's required to under the law. That doesn't mean from one administration to the next that the Trump administration is going to come in agreeing with the policy priorities of the prior administration that just left office. There might be a disagreement of opinion between administrations, and we come in towards the beginning of a fiscal year. The way that funding will go out over the course of a fiscal year might be applying the new administration's priorities as the American public voted for last November. Right. And based upon where there is broad latitude provided to the executive branch in the expenditure of those authorities. But where the Congress is more specific in their appropriations, it makes it cleaner and more directed in terms of your ability to decide upfront whether it is truly the will of Congress to do it in one particular program such as these revolving loan funds. Senator, I love your question and this applies to so much from appropriation to policy. If Congress wants an agency to take a specific action, Congress can give an obligation to an agency. I'm here, as I was during my confirmation process, and I will continue to come before Congress committing to fulfill all statutory obligations. And if there's some new statutory obligation that's created because of some law that's passed, say a month from now, our agency will fulfill those statutory obligations. It's a really important point. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. And at this time, on behalf of the chairman, I would recognize Senator Van Hollen.

Thank you, Senator. And welcome, Administrator Zelden. I noticed that as a member of Congress during the first Trump administration, you opposed their recommended cuts to EPA's Long Island Sound program. Similarly, during the first Trump administration, those of us who represent Chesapeake Bay states successfully opposed on a bipartisan basis their proposed cuts to the Chesapeake Bay program. I'm glad to see that the spend plan that was submitted by EPA for fiscal year 25 shows that you plan to continue to invest in the Chesapeake Bay cleanup program at the appropriated and authorized levels of 92 million. I just want to confirm with you today yes or no. That's right, isn't it? Yes. Everything in the skinny budget that is before us the answer is yes when repeating what you all are reading. Well, this is with respect to the spend plan which is separate from the skinny budget. I do also Senator and by the way that and I'll answer maybe your next question. The Chesapeake Bay program which I know you're fighting hard for as we heard Senator Baldwin referencing the Great Lakes Restoration Program. The Chesapeake Bay program is an amazing program. Our team takes great pride in running it. It's filled with a lot of success stories that span multiple states including yours. And we will make sure that you also have a smile on your face as Senator Baldwin will have on hers when the full budget is released and you see the numbers for Chesapeake Bay. I appreciate that very much. You anticipate and my next question for my fiscal year 26. So thank you.

Now let me turn to an area where we have some significant disagreement, which is the greenhouse gas reduction fund. In just the last few days, an independent analysis of the benefits of that fund was conducted by the University of New Hampshire; it was released. Simple question. Have you had a chance to read it? Is that the one that was written by a former Biden administration official? I do not believe so, but we can check. Here's my question. Have you read it? Was my question. If you're Senator, if you're referring to the what? This is on May 12th. Yeah. If you're if that's the one that I'm thinking of because I was presented a document, it might have been that which you're looking at. I understand it was referred to as independent. Okay. But my understanding from the person who gave it to me that it was written by a well we'll take a look at it but I hopefully just being a member of an administration doesn't disqualify somebody from a fair analysis. Let me move on because this analysis shows significant benefits from the deployment of the greenhouse gas reduction fund, including 41,000 new jobs each year compared to current policy, over $20 billion in additional wages by the year 2031, and very importantly a whopping savings of $52 billion over the next 20 years for consumers. And I hope you will read it and give it a fair look because you have made some wild, untrue, and reckless statements to justify your illegal freezing of these funds. And Mr. Administrator, I can say that with confidence because the veracity of your statements has been scrutinized by the federal courts. Right? That is where, unlike on media outlets, you actually have to present evidence under penalty of perjury. You and your lawyers on your behalf. So, let's look at what federal district court judge Chutkan has said after weighing the evidence and claims that you have made. During a hearing in early April, the judge pressed the lawyers for any evidence to back up your claims of waste, fraud, and abuse and found that EPA, and I quote, "never profered this adequate evidence," unquote. The judge wrote that the EPA, and I'm quoting, "has failed to provide a single piece of evidence to support your claims." She went on to find that EPA acted "arbitrarily and capriciously," unquote. And she goes on to make a number of other factual findings in that case. I'm well aware of the fact that you've appealed her decision. But these are factual findings based on the lack of evidence for the claims that you have made. Let me ask you this. You've received five letters, some as early as February 24th from committees of Congress on this question of the greenhouse gas reduction fund. We checked this morning based on what we know you've not replied to a single one. So my final question here what's that? I don't believe that that's accurate. Okay. Well, we double check. We'll if we're wrong we'll correct the record. But there are five of them. And my question here to you today is twofold. One, will you commit to responding to those letters from members of Congress? And number two, will you meet with me to discuss the greenhouse gas reduction fund, its status, and its future? Senator, we had, as you know, an opportunity to talk about the greenhouse gas reduction fund a couple weeks ago when we saw each other. I'm happy to have a follow-up meeting to discuss it further. I have personally read every single letter that every member of Congress has sent me, whether you're on, you know, Senate Appropriations, you're on Senate EPW or you're not. And that same thing applies to the House side. I've read every letter. I believe every single member of this committee who sent me a letter has received a response up to this particular point. You reference Judge, the DC district court judge's decision. And it's important to note that that decision was stayed by a circuit court. I would further point out because and I don't know, Senator, if you've actually read the judge's 31-page opinion. Actually, I have. I've got it right here. Great. If you wouldn't mind, Senator, if you can look Can I just finish the point real quick? Of course. Then I Okay. If you can if you wouldn't mind checking out the footnote on page 29. Yeah. It it says that that we have not provided any evidence of reduced oversight after the November election, but we provided the judge the January 13th amended account control agreement that does exactly that. Now, it's a decision that the judge makes to make believe that that document that that wasn't provided to the judge. Now, here's the other thing. Mr. Administrator, no, you're I'm going to reclaim my time now. I'm going to intervene because we are in the middle of two votes. We still have three more members that need to ask their questions. So, I appreciate that. I just want therefore, Mr. Minister, I look forward to meeting with you to discuss these things. As you know in court that is where people have to testify under penalty of perjury. I don't mean you, your lawyers on your behalf, and these are the findings I've read from the judge. Thank you. I look forward to continuing the conversation and getting responses to those letters. I wasn't citing them from this committee members. I there are five other members on other committees including EPW who at least have told us they haven't gotten responses. So we'll follow up on that and we will have an opportunity in the second round. Okay. Senator Capito.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to just make a statement, then I have to go back because I have an EPW hearing and you're coming in front of our committee, I believe, next week. First of all, I'm really pleased that EPA officials are in Charleston, West Virginia. The past EPA wouldn't come to Charleston, West Virginia, unless we kind of pressured them under duress to talk about the new WOTUS rule. So, I know I'm pleased that you all are listening to our farmers, our landowners, our local officials are being heard. So, I appreciate the quick and outward listening sessions that you're doing to a very overreaching and impactful rule on your reorganization. And we can dig into this more next week. I'm very pleased that you've put more emphasis on the office of chemical safety and pollution prevention. As you know, our chemical office over the last four years has been extremely sluggish, if non-existent, in terms of licensing new chemicals, which are cleaner, greener, and safer. And for the life of me, could not figure out why they were stuck. We have a small refinery in West Virginia that's had three court cases that have judged in their behalf for the small refinery exemption. I know I brought that I've brought that up to you before, so hopefully you're still looking into that. And the last thing I would say is the Clean Power Plan 2.0. Luckily it's it's getting frittered away because of the impacts it would have on jobs in my state and also on the ability for all of our states to provide the energy that we need and that we know that we're going to want here in the future. So thank you very much. You don't need to respond. I just wanted to say welcome. See you next week and appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Capito. We're all running this morning, so don't take any offense that we're like jack-in-the-boxes here. Let's go to Senator Ossoff.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for convening the hearing. Administrator, good to see you and welcome. Thank you. Administrator, are you familiar with Thomasville, Georgia? I don't know. I've been a lot of parts of Georgia. I was just in Georgia about a week and a half ago. Thomasville is in southwest Georgia. It is a great town known for southern hospitality, great people. Mayor Mobley, Pastor Rich, there's a lot of agricultural activity around there. There's also a history, a legacy of heavy industry that has led to significant air pollution, and there remains significant concerns about air pollution, specifically particulate matter 2.5 and reported high levels of leukemia and pneumonia in and around Thomasville. And as you know, often times these rural communities don't get the love and attention of the federal government. They can be forgotten in Georgia. Big cities tend to get a lot of the federal support. So there was great news for the good people of Thomasville last year when they won an EPA grant to help build a new health clinic, rehabbing the gym and the school to build a new federally qualified health center near three daycare centers as well as to upgrade wastewater infrastructure. Earl Williams, who leads the Thomasville Community Development Corporation, called the grant a game-changer. Mayor Mobley said the award represented a "transformative opportunity to make vital health and safety improvements." But administrator, you cancelled the grant, and I'd like to know why. So I'm looking at this was part of the environmental and climate justice block grant program. That's right. So the and this gets to an earlier interaction that we hear that we had and Senator Rounds got added as well. When Congress appropriates a block of funding, an administration is going to apply their policy priorities to how that money is going to get spent. A new administration comes in, we still have to spend the appropriated funding unless something changes with administrator. With respect, I understand the appropriations process. My question is why you cancelled this grant. What is it about building a new health clinic and upgrading wastewater infrastructure for my constituents in Thomasville, Georgia, that is inconsistent with administration policy? So, I don't have the full grant in front of me. I only have a topline which program it came out of. So when a new administration comes in and they apply their policy priorities, you're repeating yourself. My question is why you cancelled this grant. So when a new administration comes in, in this case, President Trump put out executive orders as it relates to environmental justice with regards to DEI. I would imagine that would have to do is is is a new health clinic for Thomasville, Georgia woke? As I imagine as we look through the details of the particular program, there must be some aspects of this applying the last administration's priorities on environmental justice. Here's a community that suffered from air pollution, has a high disease burden as a result. Finally, the federal government comes. They're going to help build a health clinic and upgrade some infrastructure. You cancelled the grant. Devastating for the community. Here's what the head of the community development corporation said about your decision to cancel this grant, denying my constituents a new health clinic and new wastewater infrastructure, a decision you made that hurts my constituents in Thomasville. Here's what he said: "We all worked so hard for this and we won," and then all of a sudden, one day it's gone. And it was just a great sense of disappointment. It was almost like I lost a good friend. He sent me another letter said, "Our community is devastated." You hurt my constituents and I don't need a civics lesson on the appropriations process or a broad critique of this program. I want to know why you cancelled this grant, Senator. So you're when you go back to them and they ask, "Well, did you find out why the grant got cancelled?" Well, do you know why? I'm asking you. I'm asking you cancelled the grant. I don't need I don't need to ask them why the grant got cancelled because it was your decision. So, tell me why. You could say I asked the question and then decided to spend the entire five minutes cutting him off eight times in the middle of his first answer. So, I was unable to get a full response. Why don't you answer the question specifically and directly? Why did you cancel this grant? Why are you denying my constituents a new health clinic and new wastewater infrastructure? You want me to repeat anything that I said? I want you to actually answer the question with specificity and not give a broad critique of this overall program or a lesson on how the appropriate If you were listening to anything that I said, Senator, say whatever you want, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Administrator, I had asked you or we had had a discussion about the congressionally directed spending projects. You have indicated that indeed we've got a backlog here that we need to address. My understanding is that since fiscal year 2022, Congress had directed 2,264 CDS projects at the EPA. Only 705 have received the funding. So I think both of us would agree, we've got an issue here. There's a problem. The FY25 CR, of course, did not include the CDS projects. So, I'm looking at that and saying, "All right, the agency has the balance of the fiscal year to work on catching up from this backlog of the CDS's." Can you just give me a little bit of your understanding in terms of how you've directed your team to expeditiously get these projects out the door in a more timely manner? I appreciate the question, Madam Chair. The backlog goes back years. Yeah. And I've directed my team to both work with the members of Congress who represent those areas, the members of Congress who requested those earmarks, to get assistance in the case where the recipient has not been responsive and simultaneously to try to engage as much as possible directly with the recipient to try to get the recipient to submit their paperwork. We want to we want to completely get through the entire backlog that we inherited as quickly as possible. Can we help you with that? I mean I mean I'm working with my constituents right now as we're moving forward in this year's appropriations and getting requests for CDS's. So, can you perhaps let me know who it is on your team that we need to be communicating directly to if there are snags on your end or perhaps again you're just not able to get in touch with the applicant? Yeah, 100%. And as you well know the EPA is broken down.

Into all sorts of different program offices, and uh, the it might not be just one person for all grants. It might uh depend on whether the backlog uh might we might be talking about a backlog inside of the office of water where they need assistance from the members of congress, or maybe it's another office, maybe it's the office of air and radiation. Um, we would look forward to an opportunity to work with you and your team uh and and all members of Congress on both sides of the aisle as much as possible to eliminate the backlog that we inherited.

Good. Good. Let's let's let's do that. I think that's a good plan. Um uh many members here have asked about um different grants and programs. Uh uh uh the pauses, the freezes. Um it it's been particularly frustrating in in Alaska when we hear that there is there's been a holdup um in terms of of the uh the the the grant award. Um we've got just a limited construction season. It's just hard. And and even if you're not choked by ice, you might have a barge that comes up with your materials for a project maybe once, maybe twice a season. And so, um, it can push a project back uh not just months, but but by another season, another year, perhaps multiple years. It's been it's been hard to um uh to provide some clarity to our communities on which grants are going to be awarded, which are just going through the review process that you've shared with us, which grants have been terminated. Um so I'd ask if your folks could provide a a list of what's actually been paused for review versus what has been terminated. I think we've heard um for instance, you know, on the EJ grants that that one has been perhaps more clear um but there are a lot in between, and I think it would it would it would help our communities um if there was more certainty as to what has actually been terminated versus what is still in the pipeline for review. So I'I'd ask for your help on that.

Absolutely. Uh, Madam Chair, and uh, we will continue to be distributing funding appropriated by Congress as we go through the rest of the the fiscal year, that will include uh, funds for uh, your great great state. And uh, we we look forward to uh, to working with you on the process. As you know, when uh, the president first came in, there was a uh, administrationwide pause that was lifted. Uh the pause that was then instituted for EPA was more specific to uh some of the uh inflation reduction act programs. There was a a clean school bus program concern that was that that was raised early in the administration when Lion Electric uh and their bankruptcy issue caused um some questions to be asked to make sure that it uh the concerns with Lion Electric were it was just specific to Line Electric. Um, and as it relates to the grants that were uh that were cancelled, um, that that's something that if if you have any questions about uh what was included in that, we're happy to answer any individual questions.

Good. Okay. We'll work forward work with you on on that list. Senator Mkeley.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. And I have four letters from communities in Oregon that I'd like to enter into the record without objection. Uh, thank you so much. So the city of Chiloquin is a city of under a thousand people in rural Oregon, and they had remediated a a brownfield site, winning the award for the Oregon brownfield project of the year and had worked very hard and realized when you only have a thousand people it's pretty hard to even write grants, let alone win one. So they were very excited about their grant for a municipal center. Not only would have been city offices uh but also emergency shelter. It's a community that's affected by wildfire smoke more years than not, and um emergency uh readiness center to respond to emergency with upgraded communications. So they had a grant awarded and obligated that you canceled, and can you explain to the people of Chilquin why this grant was canceled?

Um, Senator, and I I know Senator Murray asked about a specific grant. Senator Oaf asked about a specific grant. You're asking about a specific grant. I don't have all of the details on every single grant in front of me. However, I would uh have no hesitation whatsoever to be able to have a follow-up conversation to the extent you're interested, that Senator Murray's interested, that Senator Oaf is interested to go through all of those individual details. And it's possible that the issue that uh might be present on a particular request is something that can get fixed, that can get addressed as it relates to difference of administrative pol policy priorities from one administration to the next. I went through a bunch of different Alaska grants before we were here today, and I found that that there were different that that's the grants might have an aspect that isn't consistent with this administration's policy priorities, but other as aspects of it were. So we can work through that. So, this is a grant that was both awarded and obligated. How does a community proceed to plan uh because they're contracting for design, they're contracting for construction, the grants already been awarded, you unawarded it. Um it seems to me like once it's been obligated, that should be kind of like, okay, well, we'll take those priorities to the next set of grants rather than undoing the existing ones. So, I think that's particularly uh upsetting uh to the the rhythm of how communities can proceed with confidence if a grant that's already been a awarded and obligated can be snatched back.

Yeah, Senator, I I would encourage um and I'm I'm going to be, you know, in front of House Appropes tomorrow and next week Senate EPW, which you serve on uh and and House ENC subcommittee and for my my message would be for all of your colleagues that if anybody wants to ask about a specific grant, I would encourage them to reach out to us right now as opposed to waiting until we're here for a Q&A and I'm getting asked about a very specific grant as opposed to your office contacting us and say, "Hey, by the way, we're when we're at the hearing, I would like to ask you all sorts of very detailed questions about this one specific grant if you wouldn't mind bringing it. Cuz then in that case, Senator, I'd be standing here uh ready to answer a thousand questions about every individual grant.

Well, there was a kind of a procedural question embedded in that which is if a grant has been already obligated and so here the the community has contracted for design perhaps for construction isn't it kind of deeply inappropriate to then undo that at that point? Senator, if it's not consistent with uh administration priorities depending on how the program was appropriated by Congress and depending on what the details are that individual grant that grant can be subject to cancellation.

Okay. Um I I I will follow up with a question on specifically why these grants were funded or unfunded. Uh the um the second one is from a a plan for a community health project uh to increase uh tree planting in an in a heat kind of dome section of um a very poor part of Gresham, Oregon. Um and um air conditioning and space to address respiratory illness. Is the community there's the philosophy when you say it's inconsistent with the philosophy of the government is is incoming government a against addressing air conditioning to address heat um emergencies or spaces to address respiratory illness during smoke emergencies.

You're you're asking about a specific grant. I would need the details of that particular grant to be able I was asking about whether this the philosophy is is is that the philosophy of the incoming administration that you're against you're you under you may have undid this for who knows what reason but are you you opposed to to tree planting and uh spaces to address respiratory emergencies.

Tree planting is fantastic. We would encourage more of it. Senator, well, would you look at these individual grants which I'm sure there's so many of them. I know that they were done with kind of a huge swath of cancellation, but if you look at them go, well, there's nothing about this that that we oppose. We like to have community health centers built. Um, is there a possibility you'll restore those grants, Senator?

uh over the course of the rest of the fiscal year, it is our intent to continue to uh be spending money that was appropriated by Congress to fulfill our our obligations and to to follow the law. Uh and it's and very well uh will end up including grants that were cancelled. The way that the grant may be finalized under new terms might not include uh whatever the particular aspect was that led to its cancellation the first time, but I'm sure that there's going to be many examples of grants that will end up going back out the door, just not without that issue. Possibly you may be restoring grants if I just summarize what you just said.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh the third one is community health center uh in the town of uh the Grand Rond. um and have a place to coordinate national response to natural disasters. I I know you're not going to give a response to this specifically, but in philosophy, it's not that the administration is against community health centers. I remember during the first Trump term that was something that there was an increase of funding to community health centers. Um that was a subject of legislation, I remember, because it was in the House at the time. And the fourth one is an early learning center and the administration is not against early learning center in philosophy. Uh I have not heard of uh any uh any administration or any member of Congress or or uh otherwise being against something like that.

Well, these are important grants. I I think there may be elements of each of these grants that you don't particularly like, like they're going to put solar panels on the on the roof or the the wording of the grant used uh the word resilience or said we're responding to heat emergencies from climate change. I'm sure there's words you don't like, but I hope when you review these grants, um, and you've stated your intention to spend the money in these categories by the end of the the fiscal year, which is only months away, uh, that you'll you'll examine these. I'll get you a list for for Oregon. I think it's in these small communities. It's so hard to even write a grant. Uh, and it's such a victory when they win a grant and say we can finally solve a major community problem. And I know I'm over my time, Madame Chair, but I I will close just with this this note because you you've responded to the question of uh earmarks or congressionally directed spending on the revolving water fund. So in Oregon, we call these community initiated projects. The communities say here is our very top need and will you fight to get us help because we can't afford this water treatment on the front end or or waste water in the background, and I think very similarly I think it is in Alaska communities say here's our priorities um Senator Marowski is fighting for them uh I think that that's kind of the the best arrangement I it sounded to me like like you didn't like the idea of us fighting for the top priorities for our communities but I think it's absolutely our responsibility better to have the communities say they want their priority and us fight for them than some bureaucratic decision made 3,000 mi away or further away from Alaska.

Yeah. Senator, um there are so many great examples of uh of what's called congressionally directed spending earmarks uh where it's a member community initiated projects. Community initiated projects. Thank you. uh where where a member of Congress, House, Senate is fighting for something that is filled with merit purely. It's a great project that's going to have extremely positive outcomes. Uh there are many of those examples. Uh and uh that's something that I I'm not here to say, you know, generally, you know, encouraging or discouraging. That's a decision for Congress uh to make as to whether or not and how much to do it. My job is to make sure that the money gets out the door when Congress uh does. Uh I I I don't want to use the wrong word, congressionally, not congressionally directed, community initiated, congressionally initiated funds, uh we'll make sure that the money gets uh out out the door. Uh, Senator, um, I the point as it relates to the, uh, the description, the notes in the skinny budget, as it relates to SRF is just the concern of, uh, how, uh, that pot of money has been used. How uh with regards to these uh these funds with that being said I'm sure that there are many different examples many examples of uh what was described there being good uh good outcomes for a particular community that very a very thoughtful um congressionally uh initiated community initiated funding.

So, I was used to the term earmark when I was in Congress, but you know, we call it something else. Now, the reason I don't I don't love congressionally directed is it's not that some invention of us up here that we just say, "Oh, it's what what do we want?" No, it's what have our communities identify they want. So, I've been trying to get the appropriations community to change its terminology to reflect what's actually happening. And I think it puts it in a strong light. So, I want to just follow on uh Senator Mkeley's comments here because um the the uh the operating um plan for FY25 we've received. Um it's it's very much in line with the previous year's funding level for each line item. Um there's a lot of changes that that have been discussed. Um, but it sounds like you are committing to spending the funds as delineated in the AY's spend plans. Um, and I guess my my ask to you is um if that's not going to be the case that the committee or the subcommittee, excuse me, receive a a reprogramming request so that we basically follow follow the the process the procedure here. If in fact we're not doing the agency is not doing the spand out as as we have anticipated as these small communities um understand them.

Uh just I just have two very quick follow on. One is is very easy for you because we've discussed it at length, but it is a significant issue in in my state when it comes to contaminated lands. um uh the history that I have shared with you of Alaskan native um Alaskan natives receiving their settlement of lands um being conveyed by the federal government and basically they were conveyed tainted lands lands that were contaminated uh by various actions of of federal um agencies whether it's the the uh the the land managers or the department of defense and so we have made some good progress um with EPA. And believe me, this is not this is not EPA's um uh fault or liability for for the contamination. Um it's the federal government's. But what we have have learned is that the EPA is uniquely qualified to help us solve this issue. Um over the past couple years there's been uh roughly $20 million in funding that has been directed to contaminated lands and and the agencies have been doing some really good work. I just need your commitment that we're going to continue with this. Um $20 million unfortunately doesn't even get the first project cleanup. We know that uh that these are expensive, but it is an it is an obligation. um it is a liability of our government and we owe it whether it's to Alaskan natives um uh as as conveyance of their settlement or to others and I know that when we're talking super funds, brownfields, uh contaminated lands, we just have so much work to do here. So know that you got cooperation on on my level here.

Yes, Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to visiting uh over the course of the next couple weeks be in in in Alaska. uh might be able to have the opportunity to hear about see about see this firsthand and I I will with regards to all appropriations uh make sure that we are uh fulfilling our obligations under the law. Uh so if Congress appropriates the funds will make sure that it's spent.

Very good. Um POS is something that we talk a lot about um in Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Last month, you announced that EPA will quote tackle POS from all of EPA's program officers, advancing research and testing, stopping POS from getting into drinking water systems, holding polluters accountable, and providing certainty for passive receivers. You said this was just the beginning of the work that EPA is going to do to tackle POS, which um I certainly appreciate and I know most most everyone up here does. Um, can you tell me whether the the operating plan and and the uh this skinny budget requests uh whether whether they actually reflect this kind of full full forward push on on PAS and whether it includes the $10 billion that the bipartisan infrastructure law funding provided to to to take on PAS contamination. I'm just I'm looking at this skinny budget and I'm saying good for you. Let's go on POS. But I'm worried about um making sure that we're actually budgeting to do so. And I'm also worried about whether or not with the the riffs that we have seen um to date as well as what is in anti as what is anticipated um uh about perhaps an additional uh fork in the road whether whether we're going to be able to do the job. So again this is something where you're going to have good support from people on this committee for the initiative but do you have the budget and do you have the people?

Yeah, Senator, we're actually adding people into uh this effort inside of the Office of Water. Uh as as you noted, this spans multiple program offices uh at EPA. A lot of the PAS work uh is done inside of the Office of Water. The reorganization announcement uh that we made a couple weeks ago includes boosting that effort inside of the Office of Water. Uh the uh press release from April 28th that you referenced included a lot of different actions uh that we plan on taking and everything that uh the agency has announced has already factored into the the skinny budget that is before the committee today. And so, uh, let me just ask more directly whether or not you're concerned that the RIFF or the deferred resignation is going to impact your ability to to execute whether it's on the PIFA side or uh contaminated lands or any number of issues that you've you've heard here from from members.

No, no, Madam Chair, this is a very important priority of ours at EPA. When I was in Congress, I was a member of the the PAS task force. I had voted for the PAS action act. When I was a member of the House, uh I represented the district that had all sorts of different PAS contaminated uh contamination issues. Uh this is something uh that in many respects started during President Trump's first term in office uh and has continued uh to progress since. uh and we're going to uh make sure that we're hitting the ground running. Uh that's included in the April 28th announcement. Um but as we noted in that announcement, that's just uh some of the the many decisions and important work that's before us. Uh it is a very high priority.

So you you've spoken to the adequacy to to meet the POS mission. Are you are you concerned about um your your numbers EPAwide to do your overall mission not just specific to POS but with everything else that you're looking at because you're the reduction in in in staffing is is very significant. You've got to admit that. And so you've got a big task um and we want you to be able to execute on that. So, I just want to hear from you whether you uh have any concerns about your staffing levels right now.

Madam Chair, we are going to fulfill all statutory obligations. One of the things that was a surprise to me coming into the position was just how many people who uh are employees at the agency were not working on any any statutory obligation at all. Um, and I also want to say that there are a lot of amazing uh dedicated employees at EPA. Uh, the American public uh might feel disconnected from uh agency employees who might be working in Washington DC. Uh, but there are a lot of people who have been there for a long time. Uh they believe in the agency mission. Uh they work hard every single day. U one of the reforms we brought in coming in is ending coier remote work and it's great to hear noise in the building to see the foot traffic and to see people being productive and and collaborative. Um but if uh anyone out there was tuning in and they and they don't know what uh the agency looks like. It's filled with a lot of amazing dedicated uh workers who believe in the agency's mission and uh we're going to work hard to make the public proud.

Well, I'm glad that you've acknowledged your workforce because um I think you you have you do have people who are are good public servants. They're proud of the work they do. Um and there the work that they do has value and we want to to recognize that. Um I know our second vote is is coming to the end. Uh Senator Mkeley, do you have anything quick?

Uh just very quickly I want to uh accentuate my my concern following on your concern of the employees. By the rough count we have now we lost about 400 people probationary staff who were fired within their first year. 560 in the first round of deferred resignations. 180 and the DEIA who have been rifted. That's uh 1129 uh deferred resignations. Second round 1,800 have opted in. So now we're up to almost 3,000. Office of R&D rumored that the we reduce to 500 positions which would be a loss um of 1300 additional. So now we're at 4,300. I'll just point out that for two decades the level of employment at EPA was about 17,000. Uh right now it's about 14,000. So subtracting the numbers I just uh uh shared, we're talking about more than 4,000 reduction from that. Uh meanwhile, there's all sorts of uh programs that have been established over time. This Congress has said we want to undertake things like the uh addressing the environmental laws and the fuel economy standards and the innovation manufacturing act and updates to the clean water act and updates to safe drinking water. So, you have all these additional responsibilities, but it sounds like you're aiming to reduce the employment to around 10,000. Um, and therefore it raises doubts that this work can really get get done. Um, do you share those those concerns or should should should we should we be concerned?

Senator, uh when the president's full budget comes out in the coming weeks, uh there will be more information uh as it relates to uh what you're you're raising on the number. Uh the number that you just cited though is uh is lower than the actual number. Um so from, you know, from that respect, I I again I I know we're here to talk about the skinny budget because that's what's been released and we're still waiting for the release of the full budget. Uh some of the the numbers uh that you gave were accurate, some wasn't.

What are you aim Well, just fill us in. What are you aiming for? You mean 10,000 11,000? The the the way that the the right answer is going to be based off of as we go through the reorg, each office is going to be identifying how much that office needs, how much each region needs to be able to fulfill our statutory obligations to fulfill our mission and to to power the great American comeback. Each office when they have their number, it all gets added up and that is the right sized number.

We'll get the number later is what you're saying when Right. I'm just filling you in on the the process of how we are going to arrive in that. We're in a process of going through the reorganization now. Uh that's how we will arrive at that uh final total number which is higher than the number.

All right. Well, we look forward to those those details. Um the um you mentioned the POS mission and EPA just announced and so therefore you're announcing I guess that your plans to weaken the rule curbing forever chemicals. And what are those chemicals? Those chemicals are POS original covering six POS contaminants including P PFOA and and PFOS. I'm just I'm concerned that really if I I'm this information which just came out yesterday um sounds like it's at odds with your commitment to tackling PIOS. Uh I'm concerned about the numbers. I know it sounds like we're going to learn a lot more when we have a full budget and a full vision laid out before us and we can have a more detailed conversation.

Uh well, Senator, I I don't know if you're uh quoting a news story. Um I I and you might not might not come as a shock to you, but sometimes the

News says stuff that's not accurate. Um, that is not what, uh, the agency announced.

Uh, and as it relates to PFOA and PFOS, you you said that we were weakening the standard, and that's actually the opposite of what the agency actually announced—that we were keeping the standard. Uh, and uh, there was an issue as it relates to the four other chemicals, and that's something uh that we are going to be going through a process. Um, but that doesn't mean that the that it gets weaker. The the number might end up getting lower, not higher. So um, when you go through a process, you and we follow we follow the law; at the end of it, uh, the final MCL might be a lower number, not a higher number.

Madam Chair, I'll just submit for the record this article from the Washington uh Post titled "EPA plans to weaken the rule curbing forever chemicals and drinking water."

Thank you for your testimony, but we will look forward to a lot more information as we have a full budget and a full reorganization plan.

Yeah, thank you. And and Madam Chair, if I would encourage uh the committee to look at the actual announcement from EPA as opposed to the Washington Post. We will we will have further discussion about so many of these issues, the reorganization, what we're seeing with the grants. Um, but I appreciate Administrator Zelden, you appearing before the committee responding to our questions.

Uh, we will hold the record open until May 21st uh for additional questions from members and would look forward to your responses to those as well. And with that, the committee stands adjourned. We got a vote.