[Senate Hearing 115-325, Volume 1]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-325; Volume 1
OVERSIGHT HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR SCOTT PRUITT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 30, 2018
__________
Volume 1
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-599 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JERRY MORAN, Kansas JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
JONI ERNST, Iowa CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 30, 2018
VOLUME 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 3
WITNESS
Pruitt, Hon. Scott, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 14
Senator Carper........................................... 21
Senator Booker........................................... 48
Response to an additional question from Senator Boozman...... 55
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Ernst............................................ 56
Senator Fischer.......................................... 59
Senator Markey........................................... 61
Senator Merkley.......................................... 69
Senator Sanders.......................................... 78
Senator Van Hollen....................................... 83
Response to an additional question from Senator Wicker....... 84
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
From Senator Barrasso............................................ 447
From Senator Carper:
Endangerment Finding and Climate Science..................... 594
Transparency................................................. 641
VOLUME 2
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
From Senator Carper (continued):
EPA Workforce Reductions..................................... 742
EPA Budget Cuts.............................................. 796
Pruitt Expenditures.......................................... 838
EPA Politicizing Grants...................................... 862
Pruitt Travel................................................ 883
Deregulation and Delays...................................... 926
Air...................................................... 992
Chemicals................................................ 1042
Hazardous Waste...................................... 1093
Water.................................................... 1097
Conflicts of Interest........................................ 1111
EPA Scientists............................................... 1206
GOP Criticism................................................ 1257
Climate.................................................. 1280
Environmental Justice........................................ 1298
Pruitt-Style Enforcement..................................... 1308
General Materials............................................ 1361
Letter to Hon. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, from John Carney, Governor, State of
Delaware, January 30, 2018..................................... 1466
OVERSIGHT HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR SCOTT PRUITT
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Cardin, Booker, Markey,
Duckworth, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Sanders, Van
Hollen, Inhofe, Moran, Boozman, Rounds, Fischer, Sullivan, and
Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order.
We have quite a full house today. I welcome the audience.
This is a formal Senate hearing in order to allow the
Committee to conduct its business, I am going to maintain
decorum. That means if there is any disorder or demonstration
by a member of the audience, that person causing the disruption
will be escorted from the room by the Capitol Police.
First, I would like to welcome the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, Hon. Scott Pruitt, to the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for your
testimony today.
With respect to today's hearing, we are going to abide by
the Committee's 5 minute rule for length of member questions in
the first round. Time permitting, we will also have a 2 minute
second round of questions until 12:30, when Administrator
Pruitt has to leave the building. Of course, members will also
have the ability to submit written questions to Administrator
Pruitt for the record.
Today's hearing is to examine the EPA's record to date
after this first year of the Administration. The Environmental
Protection Agency, under the leadership of Administrator
Pruitt, has been doing the hard work of protecting the air we
breathe, the water we drink, and the communities where our
families live.
Administrator Pruitt has led the agency fairly. He has
balanced the need to prioritize environmental protection with
the desires of Americans to have thriving and economically
sustainable communities.
His leadership of EPA is vastly different than that of the
last two predecessors. Under the Obama administration, the
agency had lost its way. In some very high profile cases, the
EPA harmed the very communities it pledged to protect.
During the last Administration EPA administrators created
broad and legally questionable new regulations that undermined
the American people's faith in the agency. These regulations
have done great damage to the livelihoods of our Nation's
hardest working citizens. The regulatory rampage of the
previous Administration has violated a fundamental principle of
environmental stewardship to do no harm.
This failed environmental leadership has contributed to two
of the worst Government created environmental disasters in
decades: the Gold King Mine spill and the Flint, Michigan,
water crisis. Those disasters hurt people--many from low income
and minority communities, who can least afford it.
Under Administrator Pruitt's leadership, the EPA has taken
a number of bold steps to protect the environment, while not
harming local economies. Administrator Pruitt is a key leader
of the President's de-regulatory agenda, including ending the
war on coal. Scott Pruitt's policies at the helm of EPA likely
have protected more jobs and promoted more job growth than any
other EPA Administrator in history. He has done so while making
significant environmental progress.
The American economy grew 2.4 million jobs since President
Trump's election. This job growth happened in critical
industries, like manufacturing and mining. When the Department
of Commerce asked manufacturers at the beginning of 2017 which
Federal Government regulations generated the greatest burdens,
the answer was clear: the EPA. The top nine identified
regulations that impact manufacturing are all EPA regulations.
At the top of the list were the Waters of the U.S. Rule and the
Clean Air Act Rule.
Administrator Pruitt is working to address these and other
EPA rules. His commitment to revisit misguided policies is
growing our economy in manufacturing, in mining, and across the
board. Two prime examples are proposals to repeal the Clean
Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. Rule.
With regard to the Clean Power Plan, the prior
Administration wanted to put coal out of business. Twenty-seven
States challenged the Clean Power Plan because they saw what
the EPA was doing. EPA, under Pruitt's leadership, is on the
right track and getting that rule off the books.
As he undoes that rule, I appreciate the Administrator's
desire to hear from those who would have been hurt the most.
The Administration has already held a listening session in
Senator Capito's home State of West Virginia. I look forward to
welcoming the EPA to a listening session in Gillette, Wyoming,
in March.
Another key way that Pruitt has put environmental policy on
the right track is the EPA's withdrawal of the Waters of the
U.S. Rule. The Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. Rule
would have given EPA almost boundless authority to regulate
what Americans can do on their property. This would have
impacted farmers, ranchers, landowners, and businesses.
The EPA can and must redefine Waters of the U.S. in a way
that makes common sense and respects the limits of the EPA's
authority. This issue is a priority for my home State of
Wyoming, as well as many other States.
The Administration's deregulatory approach is working. The
White House Counsel on Economic Advisors reports that the
unemployment rate for manufacturing workers is low, the lowest
rate ever recorded. The facts also show that according to the
last Energy Information Agency quarterly report, coal
production in the west is 19.7 percent higher than the second
quarter of 2016. In addition, the stock market is reaching
record all time highs.
Administrator Pruitt has also made significant progress in
protecting the environment and righting the wrongs of the past
Administration. He has made it a priority to clean up America's
most contaminated sites. He has held polluters accountable,
even if it was his own agency that was responsible for the
pollution.
Pruitt rightfully called the Obama administration's
response to the EPA caused Animus River spill wrong. And he
allowed for victims of the spill to refile their claims that
had been denied by the previous Administration. Administrator
Pruitt also allowed the city of Flint, Michigan, to have their
$20 million loan forgiven so that money could be better used to
protect the health and safety of its citizens. Pruitt stated,
``Forgiving this city's debt will ensure that Flint will not
need to resume payments on the loan, allowing progress toward
updating Flint's water system to continue.''
Administrator Pruitt, the reward for good work is often
more work. I don't need to tell you that we have a lot more
work left to do. Knowing that, on this Committee, we look
forward to supporting your continued efforts.
So I would like to now ask Ranking Member Carper for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for finally getting this hearing on the books. Oversight is a
critical part of our Committee's work. Regardless of which
party is in power, I am glad that we finally have a chance to
hear from Mr. Pruitt today.
Welcome.
Mr. Pruitt, it has been a while since you have been with
us. Thank you for postponing your planned trip to Israel and
Japan to facilitate your appearance before this Committee today
for the first time in more than a year.
I have a friend who, when asked how he is doing, he says,
``Compared to what?'' Sometimes he says, ``Compared to whom?''
What I would like to do is say, how about compared to your
immediate predecessor? Gina McCarthy appeared before this
Committee six times in 2 years. Six times in 2 years. Her
predecessor, Lisa Jackson, appeared before us 14 times in 6
years. Fourteen times in 6 years. You could do better on this
front. It is important that you do.
Today, we not only are going to hear from you about how
things are going at EPA, we will also hear tonight from
President Trump about the current state of our Union. So it
seems like an appropriate time to also take a look at the state
of our environment. I understand that EPA has been highlighting
its so-called first year achievements on posters around the
agency. In fact, we have a copy of one of those posters here.
Let's take a closer look at what is being celebrated as
achievements. First, EPA has moved to repeal the Clean Power
Plan, but with no real replacement to fulfill the agency's
legal obligations to protect Americans from carbon dioxide
pollution, all while rolling back additional clean air
protections. Similarly, EPA has moved to repeal the Clean Water
Rule, but again, with no new plan to protect the drinking water
sources on which 117 million Americans depend.
You have been touting the agency's work on contaminated
Superfund sites by repeatedly taking credit for cleanups
completed under President Obama's administration, all while
proposing to cut the program by 30 percent. Thirty percent.
As part of the TSCA reforms that Congress passed in 2016,
we gave EPA more authority to assure that chemicals being sold
on the market are safe. That way, families can have confidence
in the products that they use every day. Under your leadership,
EPA has not used that authority, so American consumers still do
not have the confidence that they deserve and that we intended.
Finally, EPA has moved to either repeal, reconsider, or
delay at least 25 environmental and public health protections
in the last year alone, which certainly does not create
certainty for the entities that you regulate and that we
represent.
Those are not achievements. Those are the exact opposite: a
clear failure to act. The state of our environment is also
fundamentally linked to the state of our climate. And what do
we see in 2017 alone? Second hottest year on record, multiple
Category 5 hurricanes resulting in more than $200 billion in
damages and counting. Catastrophic fires in the West followed
by deadly mudslides, severe droughts that have wreaked havoc on
our crops, rising sea levels that threaten coastal communities
and cause frequent flooding.
From Alaska to Delaware, from Maine to Miami, climate
change is clearly affecting every corner of our country. Yet
instead of spending time and resources trying to tackle what
many of us believe is the greatest environmental challenge of
our lifetime, this EPA--under your leadership, Mr. Pruitt--is
waging a war on climate science.
This EPA has scrubbed its Web sites of non-partisan climate
science data collected over decades. This EPA replaced science
advisors who have worked on climate issues for years with
individuals backed by industry. Doing nothing would be bad
enough. The fact that this Administration seems to be actively
working to discredit and hide the clear science is the height
of irresponsibility.
For the past year we have heard you give responses to
questions from members other congressional committees, and
cable news hosts have asked you, and many of the so-called--I
really think they are platitudes that you often use to repeat;
they are not really answers.
So let me just run through some of your recurring responses
now, so that we can actually get to real answers today. Mr.
Pruitt, you often say--these are your words--you often say that
``rule of law matters.'' Well, Congress was very proscriptive
when it wrote the Clean Air Act. The law sets timelines that
EPA must use to determine our country is meeting Federal
standards for harmful ozone pollution. But your EPA has chosen
to continuously ignore and delay that very specific mandate
from Congress, which leaves downwind States--like mine--and
other vulnerable communities at risk indefinitely.
Mr. Pruitt, you say over and over again that process
matters. Do you really think that verbally directing career
staff at EPA to delete the inconvenient economic benefits of
the Clean Water Rule is good rulemaking process? Do you? Do you
think that ignoring the advice of EPA scientists helps us clean
up our Nation's water? Do you?
You repeatedly insist that you are committed to cooperative
federalism and that EPA ``needs to work together with the
States to better achieve outcomes.'' Yet this Administration
has sought to zero out funding for critical State programs,
like those to clean up the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay.
And your EPA has refused to allow States to work together to
address harmful pollutants like ozone.
You like to tout that the U.S. is--your quote--``actually
at pre-1994 levels with respect to our CO2
footprint, thanks to innovation and technology.'' But that
comment ignores the common sense and bipartisan regulations put
in place over the last four decades to get us up to those pre-
1994 levels. It did not happen by accident, Mr. Pruitt.
Reducing carbon emissions is the result of smart vehicle
emissions standards, clean air regulations, and our Federal
efforts to incentivize investments in clean energy, including
natural gas and renewables, most of which your EPA is now
trying to weaken or repeal.
You also remind people that you are a former attorney
general. You say that you ``know what it means to prosecute
folks.'' But under your leadership EPA has slowed actions
against polluters. Though you have touted EPA's recent
enforcement successes, saying EPA has collected billions of
dollars in penalties during your time at the agency, you
conveniently forgot to mention that more than 90 percent of
those penalties are from cases prosecuted entirely by the Obama
administration.
You say that you are ``getting the agency back to basics.''
But actions like the one you took just last week--just last
week--to reverse critical prosecutions against hazardous air
pollutants show that your EPA is actually moving us backward--
all the way back, in fact, to the early 1970s, when polluters
were able to spew the most dangerous toxins--like mercury,
lead, and arsenic--into the air we breathe and the water that
we drink.
Perhaps the most egregious response we have heard you give
repeatedly is when you claim, ``President Obama said we had to
choose between jobs and growth at the expense of the
environment, or choose the environment at the expense of jobs.
That is a false choice.'' That is your quote.
Mr. Pruitt, I have been saying that choosing between our
economy and our environment is a false choice for most of my
time as Governor and U.S. Senator. My colleagues here will
testify to that. Because I know, and our country's history has
proven it to be true. I have easily said that hundreds of
times.
You know who else famously said that very same thing
hundreds, maybe even thousands of times? Well, it was Barack
Obama. Time and time again he told us, ``There will always be
people in this country who say we have got to choose between
clean air and clean water and a growing economy, between doing
right by our environment and putting people back to work. That
is a false choice.'' Whose words are those? Barack Obama. And
he didn't just say it once. He said it hundreds of times.
But he wasn't just waxing poetic, as some do. Under the
Obama administration, our country rebounded, if you will
remember, from the worst economic recession since the Great
Depression. We went on to add 16 million new jobs, all the
while implementing landmark environmental protections and
lowering energy costs at the meter and at the pump for
consumers.
I don't say this lightly, Mr. Pruitt, but you are
repeatedly misrepresenting the truth regarding President
Obama's record. Surely we can disagree about policies; that is
normal. But to take the very same words, the very same words
that President Obama used on countless occasions, use them as
your own and then claim that President Obama said the exact
opposite is frankly galling. Stop doing it.
I will end with this. Mr. Pruitt, when you were sworn in as
EPA Administrator, you took the very same oath of office that
every member of this Committee has taken and that some of us
have taken many times. You swore that you would well and
faithfully discharge the duties of office on which you were
about to enter.
Well, one of those duties is to be responsive to the co-
equal branch of Government, which means showing up here more
than once a year to answer our questions.
Today, Mr. Pruitt, please spare us the kinds of platitudes
that you frequently use. Now that you are finally here, I want
some real answers. My colleagues want real answers. I think the
American people deserve real answers. We look forward to those
answers, Mr. Pruitt.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
We will now hear from Hon. Scott Pruitt, the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I would like to remind you, Administrator, your full
written testimony will be made part of the official hearing
today. I look forward to hearing your testimony. Welcome to the
Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PRUITT, ADMINISTRATOR,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Pruitt. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper,
members of the Committee, Senators, good to see you this
morning. It has been too long, as was mentioned by Senator
Carper, and I am looking forward to the exchange and the
discussion today.
You know, as you know, I was confirmed by this Senate in
mid-February of last year. As I began my journey at the agency
I took the opportunity to spend time with the entire agency. I
did in fact, Senator Carper, mention three priorities by which
we would govern and lead the agency.
The first was rule of law. And rule of law does matter.
Rule of law is something that people take for granted, but as
we administer the laws at the agency, the only power that we
possess is the power that you give us. So as we execute our
responsibilities in rulemaking, what you say in statute matters
as we do our work. Because it provides certainty to the
American people.
And second, as you have indicated, Senator Carper, is
process. Process is often overlooked. Process matters in
rulemaking, because of the decisions that we make involving
stakeholders across the country, those that seek to offer
comment as we make decisions.
So the EPA, the proposed rules that we adopt, the comments
that we receive, responding to those comments on the record,
then finalizing decisions in an informed way, is very, very
important. One of the actions that I have taken as
Administrator is to do away with the sue and settle practice
that has gone on for years, not just at the EPA, but across
executive branch agencies, where someone will sue the agency,
and a decision will be made in a courtroom, and a consent
decree will be entered, and the rulemaking process is bypassed
entirely.
So process is something that we have emphasized over the
last several months, and it is something that I believe is
working as far as providing clarity and confidence to the
American people.
Then third, as Senator Carper mentioned--and this is very
important--is federalism principles. Statutes that you have
passed here in this body, I think more so than others,
cooperative federalism is at the heart of environmental
stewardship. And so I have visited almost 30 States these past
several months. And as we have visited stakeholders across the
country, we have talked about Superfund, to the financial
assurances rule in Minnesota, to the WOTUS rule in Utah, across
the country, hearing from folks on how those rules impact them.
So we have taken seriously those principles of rule of law,
process and federalism.
But as we look forward to 2018, I want you to know that
there are some opportunities that we have to work together on
some very important issues. The first I will mention to you is
lead. One of the things that I think is terribly troubling is
the lead in our drinking water. I believe that as we consider
infrastructure in the first quarter of this year, as we head
into the rest of 2018, investing in infrastructure changes to
eradicate lead from our drinking water within the decade should
be a goal of this body and I think a goal of the
Administration. It is something I have mentioned to the
President. The President is very supportive of that. And we
look forward to working with you to declare a war on lead as it
relates to our drinking water.
Second, abandoned mines across this country are a huge
issue. We have hundreds of thousands of those across the
country. We have private citizens, companies who have the
expertise, the resources to clean up those abandoned mines, but
there are liability issues that need to be addressed, as you
are fully aware. We should work together to advance an
initiative to make sure that we do all we can to clean up those
abandoned mines across the country.
Superfund, you have mentioned, Senator Carper. I think one
of the most tangible things we can do for our citizens with
respect to environmental protection is to make decisions and
get accountability with respect to our Superfund sites across
the country. Just in the last several months, San Jacinto,
Portland, and soon West Lake and St. Louis, Missouri--all sites
that have been struggling for years--we are providing direction
and leadership to ensure that we get answers and clean up those
sites for remediation. It is about leadership and money. I look
forward to working with you in that regard.
Now, Senator Carper, I would say to you as I close, I think
one of the greatest challenges we have as a country as it
relates to environmental issues is the attitude that
environmental protection is prohibition. And I don't believe
that. I don't believe environmental protection is putting up
fences. I believe that we have been blessed as a country with
tremendous natural resources that we can use to feed the world
and power the world. And we should, as a country, choose to do
that with stewardship principles in mind for future
generations. We can do both. It is something we must embrace.
And I hope that we do work together to achieve that.
I look forward to your questions today, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to open with an opening comment.
Thanks so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pruitt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Pruitt. We
appreciate your being here.
With my time, let me ask one question and reserve the
balance of my time to interject as needed during the
discussion.
I would say to our Republican members, in order to assist
Senator McCain, Senator Inhofe is going to be chairing the
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today. I know a number
of you are members of that committee. So if it is OK with my
colleague counterparts here, I would ask that he be allowed to
go out of order when he arrives, and then he can quickly return
to the Armed Services Committee. Thank you very much.
Administrator Pruitt, I want to thank you again for
implementing a new vision at the EPA that takes State input
seriously. We are certainly feeling that at home in Wyoming.
Wyoming has a very experienced Department of Environmental
Quality. Wyoming strives to use the best representative air
quality data available to make sound regulatory decisions on
issues like ozone protection, regional haze, and permits for
industrial facilities. I think it is very critical to have good
data.
So as a result, Wyoming spends a lot of time and resources
to review data and determine when so-called exceptional events
occur, as they do. An exceptional event might be a wildfire
causing air pollution levels to seem high. Under the Clean Air
Act, States and EPA are supposed to exclude data collected
during these exceptional events, because they don't represent
everyday circumstances.
So from 2011 to 2014 my State identified many exceptional
events that we asked the EPA to recognize these events and
exclude the data from these time periods from regulatory
decisions. Well, in 2016 the EPA refused to act, and there were
46 of these Wyoming identified exceptional events between 2011
and 2014.
Because this previous Administration failed to act, my home
State faces real consequences. So the failure to act is going
to make it seem like there are violations of air quality that
have occurred, creating the perception that there are air
quality problems, when there really are not. This could lead
EPA to base future decisions on bad data, and it could
interfere with permitting and put some restrictions on
Wyoming's economy.
So I sent a recent letter to you, explaining the situation
that the EPA had not yet acted on our filing. I just ask, if
you had a timeline for when the EPA will be acting on Wyoming's
46 exceptional event filings and any thoughts on that.
Mr. Pruitt. Mr. Chairman, I think a couple things I would
say, and you are speaking with, I think, particular emphasis on
ozone. As you know, we are in the process of designating
attainment and non-attainment with respect to ozone now. That
has been priority. We will finish that in April. There are
around 50 or so areas that have not been designated yet that we
endeavor to finish by April of this year.
I think what is important when you think about ozone, there
has been a lot of focus on whether the parts per billion--75
parts per billion, reducing it to 70 parts per billion, was a
wise decision. That has not been our focus. Our focus has been
on more the issues and implementation that you have raised.
You mentioned exceptional events; there were others.
Background levels--in addition to international global
transport, we have some tremendous challenges with
international air transport on ozone we also need to somehow
consider, as we engage in the designation process.
So we are earnestly looking at those implementation issues,
Mr. Chairman, in addition to finishing that designation process
by mid-April. And your exceptional events question is very,
very important as we engage in implementation going forward.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. I will reserve the remainder
of my time.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Pruitt. You have repeatedly stated that you
want to follow the rule of law and work with States to protect
our environment. Sadly, you fail at both when it comes to clean
air. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to partner with the States
to address cross-State air pollution. These protections are
critical for downwind States like Delaware and our neighbors.
They are critical for downwind States, not just like Delaware,
but others up and down the east coast. We are located at what I
call the end of America's tailpipe.
Instead of working with States to address this pollution,
your actions are actually making the problem worse. For
example, you rejected a request from northeastern States to
coordinate with upwind States to reduce ozone pollution. You
have also failed to answer at least six State petitions--
several of which are from Delaware--that ask EPA to require
upwind power plants to install or consistently operate already
installed pollution controls.
Last week you issued a memorandum to allow industry to
increase air emissions of toxic chemicals like arsenic, like
mercury, like lead, and impact the health of millions of people
and further burdening States dealing with cross-State
pollution. Later on we will get to some questions that are not
yes or no questions; I have a limited amount of time.
Let me start off with a series of yes or no questions. Just
answer them yes or no if you will, please. Later on you will
have a chance to expand.
Let me start off; yes or no, Mr. Pruitt, did EPA do an
analysis of the health effects of last week's decisions,
including an analysis of the potential increased risk of
cancer? Did you?
Mr. Pruitt. Are you referring to the once in, always in
decision, the policy decision from last week, Senator?
Senator Carper. Yes.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, that was a policy decision that we have
authority to make and the interpretation of statute.
Senator Carper. Yes or no, it is my question.
Mr. Pruitt. As I indicated, Senator, that is a policy
decision that we made. As far as the once in, always status of
determining whether someone qualifies at certain levels under
statute. So that was a decision that was made outside of the
program Office of Air. It was a policy office decision.
Senator Carper. I find it--well, I will ask another
question.
Yes or no, did EPA do an analysis that shows exactly what
facilities are likely to increase the toxic air pollution due
to the action taken last week?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, that decision was a decision that took
major emitters, as you know, under the statute, there are major
emitters, and what I would call minor emitters.
Senator Carper. I am sorry, I don't have a lot of time. I
am asking for a simple yes or no, otherwise I will run out of
time.
Mr. Pruitt. Those are not yes or no answers, Senator. I
have to explain what we were doing with that decision.
Senator Carper. OK. I find it incredible that EPA did this
seemingly without knowing or caring about potential health
effects of its action.
Again, yes or no, will you revoke this memorandum until the
analysis is actually completed and the public has had a chance
to comment on it? Will you?
Mr. Pruitt. If I may, Senator, I can explain our decision
from last week, if you want me to. If not, we can continue. But
that is a decision. I can't give you a yes or no answer.
Senator Carper. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pruitt, I wasn't too happy when the Obama EPA asked for
a 6 month delay to answer Delaware's cross-State air pollution
petitions. However, your Administration seems to be ignoring
those petitions altogether. The law requires an answer from the
EPA in 60 days. You and your team had over a year to answer.
Again, this is a simple yes or no, will you commit to answering
the petitions already submitted to EPA by Delaware and other
States that request EPA's help on cross-State air pollution
within the next 30 days? Will you do that?
Mr. Pruitt. I commit to you that we will get an answer to
you very, very expeditiously. It is important, Senator, you are
right.
Senator Carper. Will you do that within 30 days? Is that
asking too much?
Mr. Pruitt. We will endeavor to respond within that
timeframe.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Pruitt, both the Bush administration and the Obama
administration EPA concluded that global warming pollution from
cars and SUVs was dangerous. This is known as the Endangerment
Finding. Federal Appeals Court also upheld its finding after
you and others tried to overturn it.
When you appeared before us during your confirmation
hearing a year ago, you agreed that the Endangerment Finding
was ``the law of the land.'' You often say that ``rule of law
matters.'' In fact, you actually made similar statements in
comments no fewer than a dozen times.
But since your confirmation hearing, it seems you have
changed your tune. For example, last July you told Reuters that
there might be a legal basis to overturn EPA's decision. You
also stated in October and December of last year that the
process EPA used to make the decision was flawed.
Mr. Pruitt, the White House--Trump White House--has said it
wants EPA and the Transportation Department to negotiate what I
would describe as a win-win on CAFE and tailpipe standards with
California. That means that the policy of the Trump
administration must be to leave the Endangerment Finding alone,
because the Endangerment Finding is what gives EPA and
California the authority to write these rules in the first
place.
Another yes or no, Mr. Pruitt, for as long as you are
Administrator, do you commit not to take any steps to repeal or
replace the so-called Endangerment Finding? Do you?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as I indicated in my confirmation
hearing, that is something that is likely----
Senator Carper. My time is just about expired. Please, yes
or no.
Mr. Pruitt. But Senator, the CAFE standards that you refer
to----
Senator Carper. Yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. We are working through that process.
Senator Carper. Do you plan on taking any steps to repeal
or replace the so-called Endangerment Finding, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. We have made no decision or determination on
that.
Senator Carper. One last question.
Well, I will just stop there. My time is expired. We will
have a second round.
Thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator, for being here today.
EPA's back to basics agenda has resulted in economic
viability across the Nation, while still ensuring the EPA's
primary mission of protecting our environment is upheld. I
thank you for that.
In 2017 Nebraska hit a jobs milestone, with an unemployment
rate of 2.7 percent, which was reported last December. Mr.
Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit for the
record an article from the Lincoln Journal Star highlighting
Nebraska's unemployment standing as the fourth lowest in the
Nation.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Fischer. Administrator, this is a direct
correlation to your efforts at the EPA to streamline the
regulatory process that has for many years negatively impacted
job creators' ability to hire workers because they were forced
to allocate resources to comply with many cumbersome
regulations. This past year has been a welcome change for
Nebraska's public power utilities, our farmers, and our
ranchers, manufacturers, and small business owners.
I am encouraged by the EPA's recent decision to revisit the
2017 Regional Haze rule, which was issued in the final days of
the Obama administration. If implemented, that rule would take
authority away from the States and impose a one size fits all
Federal implementation plan that simply doesn't make sense.
Many rural utilities have been adversely affected by past
regional haze actions.
During the prior Administration, EPA repeatedly second
guessed States' plans--including Nebraska's 2012 plan--and
instead imposed Federal plans that forced the installation of
unnecessary and costly controls that went well beyond what the
States had demonstrated what was needed. As you know, Nebraska
is the only 100 percent public power State in the country. That
means that any cost that is incurred by the utility from
regulations gets passed on to every single one of our citizens.
It is very important to me that you get this rule right.
So can you describe what additional efforts EPA is taking
to improve the next phase of the Regional Haze program and the
timeline for those actions, and how will the EPA respect States
and also make sure that electricity is not made more costly
through these unnecessary regulations?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, thank you for the question. I would
say to you that one of the interesting pieces of information
that I discovered upon arriving at the agency was a collection
of about 700 or so State implementation plans that had been
prepared by States all over the country where resources,
expertise had been deployed to improve air quality across the
full spectrum of programs, from NAAQS--excuse me, from Regional
Haze across the spectrum. There was a backlog with no response.
We put an emphasis on that, and that backlog is being
addressed.
But to the question about regional haze, regional haze is a
portion of our statute that I think even provides more primacy
to the States. As you know, the only requirement is to reach
natural visibility by the year 2064. So while the States are
taking steps to reach that level by that point, they have
tremendous latitude on how they achieve it.
So we are revising all those SIPs, looking at those State
implementation plans, to which you refer, making sure that
States are submitting plans that will reached objectives by
that timeframe, as you have indicated in statute.
Senator Fischer. I thank you for your commitment to that
and always taking into consideration the time and the expertise
that States put forward on those plans.
I would now like to turn to a topic that you are well aware
of, and that is the 2015 WOTUS rule. I applaud you and the
Administration's commitment to rescind the rule and focus on
providing American businesses and families with really a clear
definition of WOTUS that does not go beyond Federal authority.
Can you share with us what the next steps are in the EPA's
process for repealing this rule?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator.
And Senator Carper, this really goes to some things that
you mentioned in your opening statement as well.
This is not deregulation, when I am talking about WOTUS or
even the Clean Power Plan. We are not deregulating in the
traditional sense. We are providing regulatory certainty,
because there are steps being taken to provide a substitute, a
replacement for WOTUS. There are steps being taken to provide a
substitute, a replacement to the CPP that we are in the midst
of presently.
So with respect to WOTUS, we have a withdrawal proposal
that is out in the marketplace that will deal with that 2015
rule to provide certainty. Then we have a step two process that
is ongoing to replace a substitute definition with what the
textual and statute and case law says is waters of the United
States. So we are working through that process.
I anticipate that proposal, Senator, coming out some time
in April, May of this year, the proposed substitute. Then
hopefully finalizing that by the end of 2018.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Administrator. I look forward
to reviewing that.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Administrator Pruitt, first of all, thank
you for being here.
Let me just preface my comments with your statements in
regard to lead in drinking water. There is strong bipartisan
support to help eliminate lead in drinking water. We hope that
we can have an actionable agenda to accomplish that in a
bipartisan way.
I am going to use my time to follow up on our confirmation
hearings, to talk about the Chesapeake Bay. You are not going
to be surprised to know that. We have one new addition to our
Committee; my colleague from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, is on
the Committee. So you are going to get more than just one
Senator, and I also want to thank Senator Carper for his
interest in the Bay, as one of the Bay States, and Senator
Capito and Senator Gillibrand.
So we have synergy here in our Committee as it relates to
the Bay, and we make progress. The Bay is in better shape today
as a result of the Bay Program. The recreational values,
economic values, land values, public health have all been
improved.
So I hope I will have a chance to ask you three questions.
If I don't have enough time, I will do the rest for the record,
dealing with the Chesapeake Bay program budget submitted by the
Administration, the Chesapeake Bay Office, EPA's office in
Annapolis, and the support for the Bay Journal.
So first, in regard to the appropriation level. The
Committee's fiscal year 2017 budget passed by Congress was $73
million. Our appropriation committees are working up numbers
for fiscal year 2018 that are comparable. This Committee, on a
bipartisan basis, passed an authorization bill after the
President's budget submission at $90 million. We need your help
as an advocate. I remember our conversation, as the Chairman
talked about, programs of which are State up, they are local
government to the Federal Government, asking for the Federal
Government's participation. That is the Bay Program. This is a
local program in which the Chesapeake Bay Office is the glue
that keeps it together so we have an independent observer and
enforcer that we do what we say we are going to do.
So can we get some help from you with OMB to get the money
in the President's budget?
Mr. Pruitt. I seek to be persuasive there, Senator, but
sometimes I am not as persuasive as I endeavor to be. But as I
mentioned to Senator Van Hollen during the appropriations
process, I will say the same thing to you. It is important. I
believe there has been tremendous success achieved through the
program. I really appreciate Congress' response during the
budgeting process, and I will continue to work with you through
that to ensure that we address those issues that you have
raised.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
I want to talk about the Chesapeake Bay Office, the EPA's
office, which is located in Annapolis, today. It is co-located
with USDA, U.S. Forest Service, NOAA, USGS. And there is a
synergy in this office.
Now, as I understand it, there is some concern by GSA
particularly in that it is located in the flood plain. So there
may very well be a need to relocate; we fully understand that.
But I would ask that you get engaged on this. I think keep the
synergies with the other Federal agencies is important, and
having a location near the Chesapeake Bay is symbolic and
important.
The location that EPA was looking at was to move the EPA
office alone to Fort Meade, which is Federal facilities, and I
can understand the cost issue of locating in a Federal
facility. The problem is that it is not near the Bay. And
second, it is behind the fence line, which for DOD has a
significant cost. Because every person who visits the EPA
office has to go through the security network, which is already
overtaxed because of budget concerns and the number of tenants
that are located at Fort Meade.
Would you work with us to get a more reasonable answer to
EPA's location with other agencies, so that we can accomplish
the purpose of the Federal partnership with the other agencies?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely, Senator. I was actually briefed on
this in anticipation of our hearing. As we talked about it, if
there are issues there at the current facility, we need to try
to work through those issues to keep the facility there as best
we can. So absolutely, you can count on my participation and
cooperation with you and the other agencies.
Senator Cardin. Understand that DOD does not want EPA
behind a fence line. There is a cost issue there. So I just
hope they would be sensitive to that, even though it may not
come out directly of the EPA budget.
Mr. Pruitt. I will.
Senator Cardin. I appreciate that.
The last thing, on the Bay Journal, we talk about this
being a public-private partnership, the Bay. And it is; we have
tremendous public support for the Bay programs in all of the
jurisdictions here. And the significant part of the cost
burdens are shouldered by the private sector.
But public information about the Bay is very, very
important. The leading source of that is the Bay Journal. It
receives one-third of its funding through the EPA. And it is
currently in a 6 year grant from the EPA, I think year 2. As I
understand it, a decision was made to cut off the funding as
early as February 1st. I would just urge you to give us time to
make sure that this program continues, because it is an
important part of our public-private partnership.
Mr. Pruitt. It is under reconsideration, Senator, even in
anticipation of this hearing. I think that was a decision that,
I learned of that decision after the fact. I think it was
probably a decision that should not have been made in the way
that it was. So it is under reconsideration already.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing.
Administrator Pruitt, thank you for your attendance.
Let me start with CRCLA. I have sponsored legislation in
the past to exempt ag emissions or reporting requirements under
CRCLA and EPCRA. And I support this Committee moving forward on
a bill to provide certainty to ag producers.
But in addition to the uncertainty and unnecessary burden,
threat of citizen lawsuits that requirements would add to our
farmers and ranchers, I am also concerned about privacy,
privacy of farmers and ranchers. Most producers live on their
farm or ranch, so any public disclosure about this, the data,
private information is problematic.
I secured report language in an Interior appropriations
bill directing EPA to safeguard the privacy information. I
would ask you, Mr. Administrator, if the EPA is required by the
court to collect emission reports before Congress acts, what
assurances can you give Kansas farmers and ranchers that any
sensitive information required on those reports, including
their farm location, would be protected from the public?
Mr. Pruitt. You know, Senator, thank you, it's a very
important area, as you indicate, with both EPCRA and CRCLA.
There is more latitude that we have, probably under CRCLA
statute, than we do under EPCRA presently. But we are looking
at all options available to us to provide clarity. But also, I
think opportunity for farmers and ranchers to know that as
information is collected--if in fact it is--that privacy
concerns will be addressed.
So it is a very important issue and something that I think
Congress does need to look at, very, very expeditiously. I
think our team has been visiting with members of the Senate to
that end, and I am hoping that we can address it legislatively.
But until that occurs, we are taking all steps available to us
to address these issues.
Senator Moran. Thank you. If there are particular issues
that you would like to raise with me, I would be happy to have
this further conversation.
Let me turn to another topic. Thank you for your efforts to
approve an RFS pathway for the production of advanced biofuels
from sorghum oil. Once that is finalized, the pathway will
result in the production of up to 20 million additional gallons
of advanced biofuels.
The comment period on that proposed rule closed on Friday.
I appreciate the progress being made, but want to continue to
urge you to act quickly. You and I have talked about the
pathway on the phone on two occasions. But we want to see that
Kansas sorghum farmers and sorghum ethanol facilities can
utilize and benefit from that pathway. Can you provide me with
an estimated timeline for reviewing and submitting comments and
finalizing the rule?
Mr. Pruitt. You know, as you indicated, the period closed
this past week. I am not aware of the number of comments that
came in, Senator, so it is very difficult to say how long the
process is. But I understand the urgency, and it is something
we are focused upon it from a program office perspective.
Senator Moran. Would you ask your team to get back with me?
Mr. Pruitt. I will.
Senator Moran. Thank you.
And then finally, just a more general question, the voices
of farmers and ranchers, it seems to me, are often left out of
the decisionmaking process at EPA. I appreciate that you
personally have developed a much stronger working relationship
with the agriculture community. If in the future, we have
different Administrations in charge of EPA, we may revert back
to the old ways in which farmers and ranchers are once again
left out of a seat at the table.
Can you talk to me about the changes you have instituted at
EPA that you believe will be carried forward beyond your
tenure? What are the long term effects of your actions to make
sure that agriculture is considered?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, as you know, I have an agriculture
advisor that interfaces with those stakeholders on an ongoing
basis. That person, that position will continue post my time at
the EPA.
We also have something called the smart sector strategy. It
is an effort on our part to work with those across various
issues from air, water, chemicals, across all the things that
we regulate to deal with issues prospectively and proactively
as opposed to just responding to rules. So the ag sector is in
that smart sector strategy. And so hopefully that will live on
as well. But that is something that we have instituted.
Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Pruitt. I echo the
concerns, it really would be helpful if you were here more
often.
First and foremost, just talking about Superfunds, I was
alarmed--I know this is a budget recommendation about the 30
percent cut; this is an area that needs a lot more attention,
and in the last Congress I asked for information about
Superfunds, are we driving them down. But actually, they are
increasing, the number of these contaminated sites are
increasing in our country.
And you know this, I am sure, but 11 million people--
including about 3 million children--live within a mile of a
Superfund site. We have a lot of data now, longitudinal data
coming out of Princeton, that shows that people living around
Superfund sites, children born, have higher, significantly
higher rates of birth defects, significantly higher rates of
autism.
But Superfund sites don't just contaminate the ground and
the water. We know that these birth defects and serious
problems could come from a lot of other contaminants in the air
and the like.
But there is an urgent risk from a study that I know you
are familiar with, about a recent analysis that showed that 327
Superfund sites are at risk of flooding due to some of the
impacts that we see with the climate changing. Thirty-five of
those flood prone Superfund sites are located in New Jersey,
and it is a big concern in my State.
Last week one of the EPA's top career Superfund staffers
told the House Energy and Commerce Committee, ``We have to
respond to this climate challenge. That is just part of our
mission set. So we need to design remedies that account for
that. We don't get to pick where Superfund sites are; we deal
with the waste where it is.''
So with this increased flooding that we are seeing, we
really have the urgency--the threat--of these Superfund sites
growing. So do you agree that we must design remedies for these
Superfund sites, the 327 that right now are at imminent risk of
flooding?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, absolutely. In fact, we had a decision
recently, Senator, down in Houston, called the San Jacinto
site, that the dioxin that was in the inner harbor area, and
the remedy that had been deployed for the last 10 years was
simply covering with rocks on top of it. And we came in and
provided a more permanent solution to the tune of $150 million.
Senator Booker. I am sorry to interrupt you, and I am
interested in hearing about Houston.
Mr. Pruitt. But that is----
Senator Booker. Yes, so if you could maybe get me in
writing some of what you are trying to do to remediate these
327 sites, and some sense of a timeline and the resources that
might be needed if there needs to be congressional action.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
Have you directed your staff to do some kind of analysis on
these sites?
Mr. Pruitt. We have taken the Superfund portfolio, and we
have as a priority to identify not just those 327, but of all
the sites, what poses immediate risk to health. So across the
full spectrum.
Senator Booker. I would love to get, for QFR, sort of
understanding your approach to this imminent health crisis.
The next issue--we have talked about this--is environmental
justice. It is an issue that I have been doing a lot more
traveling on and seeing the most unconscionable realities in
places like Alabama and North Carolina and other States. I am
not sure--what I am really concerned about is how much you are
taking into account the environmental burdens that are
disproportionately impacting communities of color, indigenous
communities, and low income communities.
One example is on December 19th the EPA initiated a
rulemaking process to revise protections provided to
Agricultural Workers Protection Standard. The Worker Protection
Standard is a primary set of Federal standards to protect over
2 million farm workers, including half a million children, from
the hazards of working with pesticides. Among the other
problematic changes that I am seeing is the EPA is now
considering lowering the minimum age requirement that prohibits
children from handling dangerous pesticides if they are under
18 years old. The protection was put in place because
pesticides can increase the risk of cancer for children, whose
brains are still developing, and more.
I don't know if you believe this personally, but do you
think that children handling dangerous pesticides is a good
idea? This rule seems to be placed for a reason. You know
probably about Executive Order 12898, which requires the EPA to
identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human
health effects that affects, disproportionately affects
minorities. It is an Executive Order that looked at minorities
and low income communities being disproportionately impacted.
It is one of those Executive Orders around the issue of
environmental justice. And again, these are communities
disproportionately harmed.
As my time is expiring, I really, and I will ask this for
QFR, if I can just finish my question, you decided to move
forward with this process to potentially weaken these
agriculture protections that hold the notice that you have
here, not only the requirements for minimum age, but also the
designated representative requirement, which often, populations
that might not be English fluent, having that designated
representative is often their best chance of getting an
advocate. I am really worried about the weakening of the rules.
You cite the Executive Order, President Trump's Executive
Order on deregulation. But you don't have anything in here
about expressing concerns about disproportionate impact on low
income folks and minorities. So just for the record, Mr.
Chairman, and I recognize your indulgence here, would you
please be able to provide for me in the record how you are
considering the disproportionate impact on minorities when it
comes to this advertised rule change that really raises alarms
with me that these vulnerable populations will be
disproportionately hurt, whether it is children that might be
handling these chemicals, or the lack of advocacy that might
exist for one of the more vulnerable populations we see in
America, which is farm workers.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as you know, that is a proposal. So we
are in the process of taking comments on that now, so that many
of those issues will be addressed and unpacked during that
process.
Senator Booker. Well, consider this my comment, sir.
Mr. Pruitt. But on environmental justice generally, I want
you to know, that as an example, East Chicago, with respect to
the Superfund site there, I think you and I have talked about
this during the confirmation hearing process. I very much
believe that we need to make sure that as we make decisions on
key issues, like East Chicago and the Superfund space, I spent
time there listening to the stakeholders and making decisions
one on one. So it is a very important aspect. We will get the
information to you on the other.
Senator Booker. Will you come to New Jersey, for some
visits to the Superfund sites?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Administrator Pruitt, for being here today and taking the time
to answer our questions. I really do appreciate that.
As you know, Americans do expect good governance from all
of us. They expect accessibility, participation,
responsiveness, and accountability. Since taking the reins at
the EPA, you have shown that you are not afraid to engage with
the American population. You just gave that example of going
out, visiting those sites for Superfunds. You have also shown
that you are willing to hear first-hand the concerns of
Americans, while getting those that are affected an opportunity
to engage in the decisionmaking process. So thank you for that.
In addition to the Superfund issue that you just address,
in August of last year you traveled to Des Moines, Iowa, and
you met with over 50 stakeholders from across the ag industry
at the Farm Bureau. We left that roundtable really encouraged
by what we heard and what we were able to engage in, knowing
that we do now have a partner in EPA.
Under your leadership, EPA has taken necessary actions to
walk back and repeal destructive Obama era rules, as discussed
earlier today, like WOTUS and like the Clean Power Plan. Those
are all things that have harmed our farmers and ranchers and
our constituents at large in Iowa.
Most importantly, you followed the rule of law and
fulfilled the Administration's promise, protecting high quality
American jobs by providing key commitments to maintain the
letter and the spirit of the Renewable Fuel Standard. Today I
want to thank you again on behalf of Iowa's farmers and rural
communities.
All of these actions have created certainty, they have kick
started economic growth and generated countless jobs across the
country. Your back to basics approach has helped Iowa's
unemployment rate dip below 3 percent for the first time since
the year 2000. So thank you for that.
During a more recent trip to Iowa, on December 1st, you
noted that EPA was actively exploring whether it possessed the
legal authority to issue a nationwide RVP, or Reid Vapor
Pressure waiver. Three months ago you sent a letter to a group
of Senators, myself included, stating you would look at ways
EPA could fix the restriction preventing E-15 from being sold
during our summer months.
Can you give me an update on where this stands, and do you
today have clarification on whether or not the agency can
extend the RVP waiver to ensure that our consumers have year
round access?
Mr. Pruitt. So, Senator, thank you for your comments. With
respect to the RVP issue, as you know, it is not really a
policy issue. It truly is a determination about the legal
authority on whether it can be granted nationally or not. It is
my understanding that Senator Fischer actually has some
proposed legislation on that particular issue.
Senator Ernst. Yes, she does.
Mr. Pruitt. And we have talked about that. But the process
internally, to determine the legal authority, continues. I am
hopeful that we will have a conclusion on that soon. I
mentioned that to--I made a second trip to Iowa in the fourth
quarter of last year and shared that with stakeholders there.
It is very important. And we are working to get an answer as
soon as we can.
Senator Ernst. Do you have a projected timeframe?
Mr. Pruitt. No, but we can get that to you. I will get a
follow up from this meeting and provide that to you.
Senator Ernst. OK, because that will be very important to
us as we move through a lot of discussions between the
consumers, between those that are producing E-15 and of course,
those in the Administration. So we look forward to having that
answer very soon.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator.
Senator Ernst. Last August, while you were in Des Moines,
you also touched on the potential benefit of moving Federal
agencies or various departments out of Washington, DC, and into
the countryside and across the country where an agency's
decision are actually felt. This could be a relatively simple
way to shift economic activity to hard pressed communities and
prevent harmful rules and regulations from even being
considered.
With a more decentralized EPA, do you feel misguided
policies, such as WOTUS, could have been prevented? And do you
support relocating Government functions outside of the
Washington, DC, metro area?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Senator, and Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Carper and others, this is a very important question
with respect to how we do business and how we deliver services
as an agency. About half of our employees are located in those
10 regions across the country, and half are here in Washington,
DC. One of the things that ought to engage in as far as a
collaborative discussion is whether it makes sense to locate
operational units in each of the State capitals across this
country to ensure that there is a focus on issues that are
specific to that State, whether it is Superfund, air issues,
water issues, the rest.
So I really believe that this is a discussion, we have just
begun this discussion internally. But I would welcome the input
of members of this Committee as well as Congress on what makes
sense there, as relates to better delivering services across
the States and the country.
Senator Ernst. And I appreciate that so much,
Administrator. I do believe, having that easier access, the
access closest to the people, is the best way that our Federal
Government can work. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I hope, Administrator Pruitt, that you would then continue
to reconsider a shut down of the EPA office in Chicago, Region
5, which, I believe there was a memo stating that you wanted to
potentially shut down that office and move it to Kansas,
leaving no EPA offices in the entire Midwest-Great Lakes
Region.
Mr. Pruitt. That is inaccurate, Senator.
Senator Duckworth. Well, I hope that it stays inaccurate,
and that you don't shut down that office.
Mr. Pruitt. I am not sure where that came from.
Senator Duckworth. It came from a memo from the EPA.
Last month, before the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
you said regarding lead in our drinking water, that it is one
of the greatest environmental threats that I think we face as a
country. You have repeatedly referenced your war on lead and
said that you wanted to eradicate lead poisoning in the next 10
years, which was music to my ears.
During your nomination hearing I had asked you if you knew
what the safe blood lead level was for children. You had stated
at the time that you were not familiar with the latest science
on lead exposure. Given your comments on your war on lead, I
take it since then you have familiarized yourself with what the
safe blood lead exposure is for children. Can you state for the
record what that level is?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, EPA has a level of 15 parts per billion.
There are States that are considering lowering that. But from
my perspective, Senator, as I indicated, I don't think there is
a safe level, and we need to eradicate it from our drinking
water.
Senator Duckworth. The right answer is zero, according to
scientific literature. So it would be wonderful if you could
take what your opinion is and actually apply it at EPA. I am
really glad that you have reviewed the science literature since
we last spoke a year ago; the last time we saw you in this
Committee, you said you didn't know.
Unfortunately, your rhetoric doesn't match your actions.
Over the last several months, the Administration has taken
several steps that will make it harder--not easier--to limit
lead exposure. For example, the EPA had planned to update the
Lead and Copper Rule in 2017, and finalize it in 2018 under the
Obama administration. Since taking over as Administrator, you
have instead decided to kick the can down the road by at least
2 years. And now, during your war on lead, we can expect
updates to the rule not in 2018, but 2020.
This doesn't sound much like a war on lead. Yes or no, will
you direct EPA to finalize this rule in 2018 instead of waiting
2 whole years, as recently announced?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator, I think that, as you know it is a
1991 lead and copper rule, it has been in just----
Senator Duckworth. No, no, no. Yes or no. Yes or no. Yes or
no.
Mr. Pruitt. Mr. Chairman, may I ask----
Senator Duckworth. I am happy for you to elaborate in
writing for the record, I just don't have much time.
Is that all right, Mr. Chairman, if he would elaborate in
writing for the record?
Senator Barrasso. We will take this as a question for
response and----
Mr. Pruitt. It is. And the agency has been working for a
decade to update the rule, Senator.
Senator Duckworth. OK, thank you.
Mr. Pruitt. And I can tell you, it is a priority for this
Administration to update the rule.
Senator Duckworth. Well, then a 2 year deal is not
acceptable. Because every day I have children who are exposed
to lead, and they don't have 700 days to wait. The President's
fiscal year 2018 budget proposal, which outlines the
Administration's 10 year policy priorities, called for the
elimination of EPA's lead risk reduction program that trains
contractors and educates the public about safely removing lead
paint from homes. The budget, in reality, also cuts millions of
dollars in grant money to States and tribes to address lead
risk.
This does not sound like a war on lead. Again, given your
war on lead, your words, yes or no, will you commit to
prioritizing this program and make sure it is fully funded?
Mr. Pruitt. We are working to update the lead and copper
rule expeditiously. We are also working with this body,
hopefully, to engage in an infrastructure spend on eradicating
lead from our drinking water.
Senator Duckworth. What about the EPA's lead risk reduction
program that the President attempts to cut in his fiscal year
2018 budget, actually eliminates?
Mr. Pruitt. It is a point of emphasis for us to update the
rules and take an aggressive posture to eradicate lead.
Senator Duckworth. So you will not fight to keep the EPA's
lead risk reduction program, is what you are saying?
Mr. Pruitt. I didn't say that, Senator.
Senator Duckworth. So you will fight to keep the program,
as opposed to the President's budget, which seeks to eliminate
it?
Mr. Pruitt. We will continue discussions with this body to
properly fund it, as you decide.
Senator Duckworth. Will you speak with the President and
say, don't cut this program? His budget eliminates it.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, as you know, your marked up version of
the budget is $7.9 billion. So that is not in the marked up
budget, I think.
Senator Duckworth. So you are not going to fight for the
EPA's lead risk reduction program. For something that is a
priority for you, remember, war on lead, get rid of it in 10
years, not enough to fight for it.
Senator Pruitt. We will continue to work with the agency to
fund that, yes.
Senator Duckworth. OK.
I am also alarmed to see that the Trump budget slashes
funding for the Office of Ground and Drinking Water, which is
responsible for implementing our lead and drinking water
program. How about this priority? Will you prioritize this
program to ensure that it is fully funded? The Ground and
Drinking Water Program, the Office of Ground and Drinking
Water. And surely, the Office of Ground and Drinking Water is
consistent with your back to basics vision for EPA.
Mr. Pruitt. Very important, and we will continue the
dialogue with Congress on that issue.
Senator Duckworth. What about the White House? Will you
fight for this program?
Mr. Pruitt. I will continue to work with this body to make
sure----
Senator Duckworth. OK, I am going to have to take that as a
no, because you are not answering my question.
I am out of time. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
I get the impression they don't like you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pruitt. At least one.
Senator Inhofe. Well, anyway, you have been doing a great
job.
I do have something for the record I wanted to put in, Mr.
Chairman. It is an article out of the Oklahoman. It talks about
all the improvements in the economy that are coming with
getting rid of some of these very punitive regulations that we
have been going through. I want to ask unanimous consent this
be made a part of the record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. I will ask unanimous consent to insert for
the record a report from Moody's which suggests something a bit
different. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. OK. I walked in just at the tail end of
somebody else's who is not here now inquisitions of you talking
about the regulations. You know, I remember so well, because I
was all during the Obama administration, I was either the
Chairman or the Ranking Member of this Committee. And that guy
sitting right behind you and I used to look at what was
happening to our economy, which is in the process of being
reversed right now. But he was implying that some of the
poorest, the most vulnerable people are the ones who are
being--that we are trying somehow, or that you are trying
somehow, to punish. And I want to just remind you that we had a
guy, I remember so well, Harry Alford, he was the President of
the National Black Chamber of Commerce, he provided some of the
most powerful testimony that I have ever heard when it comes to
the effects of the Clean Power Plan and some of the other
regulations, but he was referring specifically to that, would
have on the Black and Hispanic poverty, including job losses
and increased energy costs when it comes to regulations that
you have been quoted as saying, and who benefits, the elites,
the folks who can least afford those kinds of decisions pay the
most.
So I would ask you, how is the EPA working to ensure that
the most vulnerable communities are being considered and that
the agency's cost benefit calculations are accurately
portraying realities on the ground?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Senator, good morning to you. I think
your question goes to the heart of the cost of electricity,
largely, and our power grid. And there are issues around that
that obviously go to cost. We can't consider cost in our NAAQS
program, but we can these other provisions that impact the cost
of electricity. So we endeavor to make sure that our cost-
benefit analysis is considerate of those things, and to make
sure that we are making informed decisions as we finalize our
rules.
Senator Inhofe. Well, he was very emphatic as to who is
paying the price on these. And I think sometimes that previous
Administration forgot those individuals. There are people out
there paying all they can pay to try to keep--try to eat and
keep their house warm. And that is one of the things that we
have observed.
I was happy to see that you ended the practice of sue and
settle. Oklahoma has been on the wrong end of this tactic used
by the Obama administration, which was nothing more than a way
to create regulations behind closed doors without public input
or even input from affected parties. Can you explain more about
how you see this being a positive environmental outcome?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. The sue and settle practice I mentioned in
my opening comment, Senator, with respect to regulation through
litigation, it is something that is not unique to the EPA. It
is something that has happened at other Federal agencies.
Justice is also involved in a reform effort there. But I think
what is important to note that as we engage in regulation,
regulation is intended to be--there are laws of general
applicability. And when you go into a litigation, and you
negotiate a consent decree with one party that affects others,
that is not transparency, and it is also not, I think,
fundamental to the APA and the opening process to rulemaking.
So that was the motivation in addressing the sue and settle
phenomena, the regulation through litigation. We have stopped
that at the agency. That doesn't mean that we won't ever enter
into consent decrees or settle cases. It just means as we do it
we will publish those settlements up to 30 days for people to
provide comment and interested parties that want to be aware of
that can be aware of it and participate as necessary.
Senator Inhofe. Well, Mr. Pruitt, I wasn't here during your
opening statement, so I missed it. That was a very good
explanation.
Let me--in an interview with the National Review last
month, you stated that we still have a lot of work to do on
clean air. But that was for the last decade. The EPA was so
focused on CO2 that we have let a lot of other
things slide. From my view as Chairman and the Ranking Member
of this Committee for the Obama administration, I agree with
you that his singular focus on regulating a naturally occurring
gas as a pollutant came at a heavy cost. Now that you have been
Administrator for nearly a year, what areas of environmental
protection were neglected by the previous Administration? Do
you have any that come to your mind?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, the attainment issues specifically. We
still have 40 percent roughly of our country that live in areas
that don't meet the air quality standards, about 120 million
people. I think as I look at the investment, for instance,
counties that are making decisions collecting data, a lot of
times we are using model data as opposed to monitored data. And
that is primarily for a cost issue. So I think as we talk about
the budget through this process, I think it is important to
maybe look at ways that we can help States and counties put
more monitors in place to get real time data to ensure that we
are making real time decisions in air quality. That is
something I would love to work with Congress to achieve.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Well, right now I am chairing the Senate Armed Services
Committee, and I have to get back to that. But I appreciate the
fact that you are here. But why in the world did you agree to 2
and a half hours?
Senator Barrasso. That is an end point, but we possibly
will be done before that, Senator Inhofe. If you have a chance
to come back, come back.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, you used to blame Ryan Jackson for a
few things. I will do the same.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. I hope you get further than that in.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Pruitt, welcome to the Committee.
Let me start by asking unanimous consent to put three
documents in the record. One is a report entitled Abandoning
Science Advice by the Center for Science and Democracy. With it
are two internal documents from the EPA that chronicle how
political appointees are stacking the scientific advisory
committees with industry representatives, in this case the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced material follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Mr. Pruitt, you were confirmed about a year ago, in
February. And about a year before that, in February 2016, you
went on a radio talk show at a radio station called KFAQ in
Tulsa. The show's host is a man named Pat Campbell. I don't
know if you remember that.
Mr. Pruitt. I appeared on that program a few times. So I
don't remember the particular program you are referencing.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, the reason I mention it is that
we have a transcript of the interview that you provided. And I
don't know if this is what you had in mind when you said you
were interested in reaching common ground. But I can assure you
that there are a great many Americans who share the concerns
that you expressed in that interview.
The first one is this one; you told Mr. Campbell, ``I
believe that Donald Trump in the White House would be more
abusive to the Constitution than Barack Obama. And that is
saying a lot.'' Do you recall saying that?
Mr. Pruitt. I don't, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Would you----
Mr. Pruitt. And I don't echo that today at all.
Senator Whitehouse. I guess not. We have--I am having
technical difficulties. So anyway, that was one statement. Then
the interview continued, and Mr. Campbell said the following:
``Everything that we loathe and detest about Barack Obama and
the abuses of power, Donald Trump is the same thing except he's
our bully.'' Your answer to that, ``That's right.''
As the interview continued, Mr. Campbell talked about his
dad, who, as I recall from the interview, was a veteran and was
now elderly, had served our country. Mr. Campbell said, ``I had
a conversation with my dad not long ago.'' And he went on to
say, ``He summed up Donald Trump in one word. He said''--this
is Mr. Campbell referring to his dad--``He said he's
dangerous.'' You said, ``You know, your dad is very astute.''
We are going to hear from the President tonight. I think
the President is going to be speaking to a country in which
millions of people share your concerns of February 4th, 2016,
about a President who you believed then would be abusive to the
Constitution, a bully and dangerous.
In my minute remaining, I would like to ask you about your
schedule, because you have an unusual propensity for not
releasing what is going on on your schedule. I direct you to
Friday, May 5th, when you spent the day in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
That night you were scheduled to give a keynote address at a
fundraiser for the Oklahoma Republican Party. Because of the
Hatch Act, you canceled that event. You are not allowed to go
and do fundraising for parties in the position that you are in.
That was the original reason for your trip to Tulsa that day.
The only thing that shows on your schedule for that day is
lunch with a guy named Sam Wade. It seems to me like it is an
awful long way to go at taxpayer expense to Tulsa for lunch
with one guy. Could you please let us know what all else you
did that day? Specifically, did you go to the Oklahoma
Republican Party fundraiser? And because my time is up, that
can be a question for the record.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter that the Arkansas Department
of Environmental Quality sent me yesterday in support of EPA's
recent decision to approve Arkansas' revised Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan. To quote the letter, ``Arkansas
applauds the EPA's recent improvements in regard to fostering
increased cooperation with the States in order to achieve
environmental goals in a sensible and practical manner.'' I
would like unanimous consent to enter that.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, I was very happy to see the EPA approved
Arkansas' revisions to the Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan. Many in Arkansas are thrilled that we now have an EPA
that is willing to listen to the States and are excited to
proceed toward the goal of improving air quality.
In the past we have had a situation where the EPA wanted to
hear input as long as the State agreed with them. If not, then
they got themselves in trouble. Can you explain your approach
to cooperative federalism and the change that we are seeing in
that regard?
Mr. Pruitt. You know, I think, Senator, with respect to the
Regional Haze Program, I appreciate your comments. Arkansas has
worked very diligently to submit a plan that is approvable
under the statute. I think that would be something I would
highlight for you, is that the agency needs to take a more
proactive approach working with States in submission of plans
to actually recognize their expertise and resources at the
local level to achieve those outcomes. And then help provide
clarity in the timing as far as getting that done.
I think in the past we had an effort of displacing State
authority there, and issuing Federal implementation plans at
the expense of those State plans. I think the opposite should
be true. We should work with those States, let them adopt the
plans that are particular to the issues that they face, and
provide the type of support that helps them achieve that.
Senator Boozman. Good. So working with all the States in
that regard. What else, since your confirmation, have you done
to reach out to other stakeholders besides the States?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, I think one of the things that is so
different, DNRs, EEQs across the country, Departments of
Natural Resources or Departments of Environmental Quality,
obviously vary by State. But their interaction with the
Governors is different. So we have worked very diligently with
Governors--both Democrat and Republican Governors--to ensure
that issues that the State faces, they are aware of those
issues, that, from our perspective, and we are learning from
them, and making sure that their respective executive branch
agencies are working with us to achieve that, too.
So it is an effort to work with Governors in addition to
those agency partners that we have worked with for a number of
years.
Senator Boozman. Very good. The folks on the left have
spent a lot of resources selling a narrative that you've locked
career employees out of meetings, don't heed their input when
considering the direction of the EPA. Are these allegations
accurate? And----
Mr. Pruitt. They're inaccurate. They're inaccurate. You
know, some of the things that I have heard with respect to not
bringing notepads, I am very encouraging of the folks taking
notes during meetings. Because I forget things often, and we
want to make sure we are keeping track of where we are heading
on issues. So I am not sure where those things came from, but
they are in fact inaccurate.
Senator Boozman. What does that, again, these false claims,
what does that do to morale in the office?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, look, I think that we had a lot of work
to do, a lot of opportunities to do good things, and we try to
stay focused on that. I try to stay focused myself, and then
working with those career employees; yesterday we had our SES
conference that I attended. I talked about the importance of
establishing goals and metrics, keeping track of those, and
celebrating successes. And I think for too long, the agency has
not been willing to state goals, where are we going to be in
air attainment 5 years from now, setting that out there on the
horizon and working to achieve that.
And I think that is something, both in the water space,
across all the program offices, we need to do better at.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
I would like to just reinforce Senator Inhofe's words,
discussion about sue and settle, how important that is. And can
you again tell us how that is actually helping the environment
versus hurting the environment and getting rid of that?
Mr. Pruitt. Primarily, when you, again, enter into a
negotiation through litigation and a consent decree comes out
of that that doesn't involve voices from across the country, it
is short shrifted. For instance, there have been examples where
States have endeavored to intervene, and those discussions are
part of the core process and have been denied. And then an
agreement is reached, and then it is foisted or forced upon
those States.
So it is kind of subverted, the voice of those
stakeholders, at the State level, among others. That is not a
good way of doing business.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Earlier, you did not answer Senator Carper on whether EPA
performed an analysis of the health impacts of your decision
last week to allow significantly more amounts of extremely
dangerous pollutants to be put into our air. Your decision
means that industrial facilities like power plants, or chemical
facilities, or hazardous waste incinerators will no longer be
required to use state of the art technology--the gold
standard--to reduce these harmful emissions.
This should be a very simple answer. There are 187
dangerous pollutants covered by this policy that you have
rolled back. Let's just go through a few of these. Arsenic. Do
you believe that more arsenic pollution is harmful to the
public?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Senator Markey. Do you believe that more mercury pollution
is harmful to the public?
Mr. Pruitt. I do.
Senator Markey. Do you believe that more lead pollution is
harmful to the public health?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator.
Senator Markey. Do you believe that more benzene pollution
is harmful to the public health?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, sir.
Senator Markey. Well, your decision allows more of these
pollutions, more of these toxics to go into the atmosphere, to
go into the air, to go into the water, to go into the
environment. Children will be exposed to these pollutants;
seniors will be exposed to these pollutants. We should have a
gold standard of pollution control in this country. That is
what the EPA should ensure is on the books.
But you are going to replace the gold standard with a lead
standard. And that will not be good for the health of the
children in our country. The President has a slogan of MAGA.
But here it is going to mean Make Arsenic Great Again.
So this is not good for our country. It is not where we
should be heading. That decision is an historically bad one
from last week. I urge you to reconsider it immediately.
On the question of fuel economy standards, you say that you
are reviewing them right now in response to Senator Carper. The
head of EPA's Air Office, Bill Wehrum, recently said that he
has no interest whatsoever in withdrawing California's ability
to regulate from a good, solid public policy standpoint; the
very best outcome for all of us to achieve is one national
program. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Pruitt. One national program is essential.
Senator Markey. One national program is essential. And do
you support, once again, the maintenance, the retention, of the
California waiver, which Massachusetts uses, and many other
States also use? Do you----
Mr. Pruitt. California, yes, there are ongoing discussions
with CARB in California, the agency that oversees these
matters. It is our hope that we can come to a resolution as we
visit about these standards in April of this year. Senator,
federalism doesn't mean that one State can dictate to the rest
of the country, that we recognize California's special status
on the statute. And we are working with them to find consensus
around these issues.
Senator Markey. Well, Massachusetts is part of that waiver,
as are the States of many of the members of this Committee. And
we want to retain that ability to have the highest standards
possible. Yes, we do want there to be harmonization. It
happened under the Obama EPA and Department of Transportation.
But we are increasingly fearful that there will be a rollback
of the fuel economy standard.
So there is one thing that I would like you to keep in
mind. We still import 3 million barrels of oil a day from Saudi
Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar. We should not be importing
oil from these countries if we can increase our fuel economy
standards. Fracking is reducing our dependence, but so is the
fuel economy standard.
And we cannot have no retreat. Because we are sending young
men and women in uniform over to the Middle East to continue to
protect that oil coming in from the Middle East, we have a
moral responsibility to put the fuel economy standards of our
vehicles at the highest possible level. I just want the EPA and
the Trump administration to understand that these young men and
women are over there, not exclusively, but in part to protect
that supply of oil.
We will never be energy independent; we will never produce
all the oil that we need in our country. At 10 million barrels
a day, 13 million barrels a day, we are still consuming 19
million or 20 million barrels a day. Fuel economy standards
will back out 2.5 million barrels a day. We should honor that
commitment, and you should honor what Massachusetts and
California and the other States want to accomplish.
Mr. Pruitt. If I may, Senator, I think the issue that you
have raised is important, but also the harmonization with DOT.
As you know, there are joint equities there between DOT and
EPA. We are working diligently with them to harmonize these
efforts, again, to provide clarity on these issues. So it's
State, it's federalism, and it's also interagency at the
Federal level.
Senator Markey. The most important equities are those young
men and women we send over to the Middle East to protect that
oil. We should just ensure those standards stay as high as
possible.
Senator Barrasso. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. I will ask unanimous consent, if I could,
just following on to Senator Markey's comments and questions,
to submit for the record if I could, Mr. Chairman, the Bush
Regional Record, as the Bush Regional office concern stated
several years ago with respect to air toxic rollbacks. Thank
you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. And I would like to use a little of my
time to interject and respond to comments on the EPA's once in,
always in policy. Because in 2017 the State of Connecticut
supported the EPA's decision to withdraw the policy. As a
matter of fact, the State of Connecticut said, ``Such a policy
discourages pollution prevention efforts and often forces
business owners with very small actual hazardous pollutant
emissions to expend significant resources not consistent with
air emission and health benefits achieved. State and Federal
regulatory agencies.'' This is the State of Connecticut going
on, ``State and Federal regulatory agencies also must expend
significant resources on compliance and enforcement efforts for
these facilities with small actual emissions often gaining
little in air quality improvement.''
So I ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be
included in the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Rounds.
Senator Carper. If I could just say, it would be
interesting to know if the current Governor of Connecticut
shares those same views. We will have to find out. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Pruitt, Senator Markey and I actually served
together for the last 2 years on a subcommittee with oversight
of the EPA. One of the items that I think we would both agree
on, coming from different political approaches, was still the
idea that sound science was going to be critical in our
discussions.
I would like to go back just a little bit; we have had
Senator Markey make his statements and express his concerns
versus the existing, as he identifies it, a gold standard. But
I didn't hear the opportunity for you to respond and to share
your thoughts on this. I would like to give you an opportunity
to share your thoughts and perhaps analyses on the decision
that you have made and the reasoning behind it.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, the Chairman, I think--thank you,
Senator--and I think the Chairman just made reference to that,
too, with his comments. The once in always in decision was
really about incentivizing investment by a company to achieve
their outcomes for the environment. Under statute, there are
entities called major emitters. All this policy says is those
major emitters make investment and achieve the outcomes to
improve air quality, or whatever their objective is, is they
meet those standards, they ought to be rewarded and not have to
be treated as a major emitter if they are no longer in that
category.
Senator, the issue is, if you are a company, and you
invested hundreds of millions of dollars to improve outcomes,
and you were considered a major emitter before, you ought to be
considered a minor emitter under the statute, once you make
those investments. This rewards investment and conduct to
achieve better outcomes.
So my response to you, with respect to all those
pollutants, is absolutely what I believe, that I believe that
we can achieve better outcomes through this kind of policy by
rewarding investment and encouraging companies to do that.
Senator Rounds. I'd like to take another step down that
same line, and that is with regard to sound science. We had a
lot of discussion about the need to return back. Many of us
feel that in some cases, on either side of the aisle, we either
win or we lose when more information is interjected. I think we
take our chances, and we look at the best sound science
available to us.
Would you explain the steps that you have taken to make
sure that the agency decisionmaking is based on the most
current, best available science? Can you elaborate on how your
new guidance on the role of scientific advisory boards and
conflict of interest will enhance the use of sound science at
the agency?
Mr. Pruitt. As you are aware, Senator, and members of the
Committee are aware, we have 22 advisory committees that are at
the agency: the Science Advisory Board, the CASAC, BOSC, the
Board of Science Counselors are 3 of those 22. And members of
those committees historically have been able to serve while
receiving grants and also providing independent counsel under
the statute to the agency as far as rulemaking. That is
something from my perspective that is not consistent with
providing independence, if they are receiving a grant, and
there are oversight responsibilities at the agency with those
members that serve on those advisory committees at the same
time that they are rendering counsel on the others.
So we established a policy that if you want to continue
receiving a grant providing hope to the agency on that side of
the ledger, you can continue or you can continue serving as a
member of the committee, but you can't do both. Because that
goes to the independence of the review with respect to the
integrity of that process. So that was the heart of the policy
initiative that we adopted.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
There has been a lot of discussion back and forth about
biofuels and all sorts of items like that. I am just curious--I
have focused on, particularly in South Dakota, corn ethanol is
a critical part of our economic activity. We also think we have
a long term opportunity to add corn ethanol as a very valuable
octane enhancer with regard to liquid fuels.
I am just curious, I think it is an item that I suspect you
spend some time on with regard to all of those issues. I would
just like your thoughts. Are we reasonable in a discussion long
term about the viability and the need for octane enhancements
with regard to fuel standards and so forth coming of age?
Mr. Pruitt. I think this goes a little bit to the questions
that the Senator just raised on fuel efficiency standards, on
CAFE review. I think the agency long has not been considerate
of the fuel side of the ledger as far as how to achieve better
outcomes. High octane is one of those. Europe has looked at
that rather extensively, implementing that rather extensively.
We have not. It has been one of the design element of the
vehicles, which obviously is important. The fuel side is
equally important.
So as we go through the CAFE process, we are in fact
looking at those kinds of issues.
Senator Rounds. OK, and that includes the ability and the
most efficient ways of delivering octane from any one of a
number of different sources, including ethanol in the future.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. We are agnostic about the source. It is
more of just a high octane kind of approach generally.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
During the time that you have now been Director, the agency
has taken 15 actions related to air quality. Fifteen of those
diminish air quality, and zero of them improve air quality. And
yet I heard from you quite a bit today about your interest in
air quality. But right now you are zero for 15.
So my question is, how many of those 15 actions were
supported by the American Lung Association, which has made air
quality a significant part of its advocacy effort?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not sure, Senator.
Senator Markley. Well, it is zero. As you would expect,
since 15 actions have diminished air quality. And how many of
them have been supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not sure.
Senator Markley. Well, do you want to take a guess?
Mr. Pruitt. I am sure you will advise me.
Senator Markley. Well, if I was giving you advice, I would
say, actually run the agency to improve air quality, rather
than to diminish it in areas such as ozone and smog and methane
and mercury. And the list goes on and on.
Mr. Pruitt. One of those issues, Senator, is an example on
ozone. We are implementing the 2015 standard as we speak. On
methane, I have indicated that----
Senator Markley. Well, I will have you submit your
extensive answer for the record, because I know you are very
good at filibustering, but we would like to cover as much
material for the public as possible. I will note on ozone, you
delayed defending and complying with the ozone rule on April
7th, 2017.
But let's turn to asbestos. To my colleague, you answered
that there were a number of items you thought didn't contribute
to health when you increased the amount of pollution. How about
asbestos? Have you increased the amount of asbestos pollution?
Does it contribute to Americans' health?
Mr. Pruitt. No. It is something we ought to seek to do all
we can to eradicate.
Senator Markley. Thank you. That really is supported by the
scientists. The Center for Disease Control reports that
malignant mesothelioma is a neoplasm associated with
occupational environmental inhalation exposure to asbestos. It
makes sense that you would have that position. Patients have a
median survival of approximately 1 year from time of diagnosis.
So in this particular area, the President has been very
clear about his position, which is the opposite of your
position. So I just want to be absolutely clear. You disagree
with the President when he says that asbestos is 100 percent
safe?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, disposal issues with respect to asbestos
I think are some of our initial challenges, and we are working
through those.
Senator Markley. I am not asking about disposal. I am
asking if you agree or disagree with the President when he says
asbestos is 100 percent safe.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I think I have indicated to you that
asbestos, it is actually one of the priority chemicals we are
reviewing with respect to the TSCA program.
Senator Markley. Thank you. And in that regard, there is a
group that is a major importer of asbestos into our country; 95
percent is imported. It is seeking an exemption from the
asbestos standard, whatever that might be that eventually comes
out of the EPA. Are you inclined to grant an exemption for the
group that imports 95 percent of the asbestos into the United
States?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, that is something I would have to look
into, the status of that petition. I am not familiar with the
status at this time.
Senator Merkley. OK. But conceptually, the standard doesn't
mean much if 95 percent of the imports of the asbestos is
exempted from the standard.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, as I indicated, I would have to check on
the status and report back to you.
Senator Merkley. Well, I encourage you also to look at
Canada and to look at Brazil, which have reached the logical
conclusion, where we started from, that asbestos is hazardous,
and they have banned it. Also, there is an emphasis at the EPA
now to only look at the production of new items that have
asbestos in them, while ignoring the vast amount of asbestos
that is already in the environment and causing significant
problems, because it frays, and it therefore causes
contamination. Containment is not complete.
Will you commit to taking on asbestos, both with the new
asbestos that is being put into products but also in terms of
the existing asbestos?
Mr. Pruitt. It is one of those priority chemicals that we
are reviewing under TSCA, Senator, and I can tell you that the
legacy issues that you make reference to is very important.
That is the reason I mentioned disposal earlier.
Senator Merkley. A recent report noted that although it is
one of the priority chemicals that it and nine other of the
priority chemicals are being slow walked in the agency. Are you
slow walking the priority pollutants for Americans?
Mr. Pruitt. No, Senator. As you know, under the TSCA law,
we had obligations last year to adopt three rules consistent
with implementation. We achieved those. We have actually added
resources in the office to address a backlog of chemical
review. So no, it has been an absolute priority during our
first year.
Senator Merkley. Well, outside observers are finding the
opposite. So I do hope that we will get details from you
showing that in fact you are working hard. This is a singular
bipartisan accomplishment of this Committee, getting the TSCA
Act passed. And it would be nice to see it implemented
aggressively.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Administrator Pruitt. I appreciate the exchange
you had with Senator Cardin on the Chesapeake Bay. I am still
hoping you will prevail upon the Administration to put the $73
million or more in for the Bay program.
You would agree, would you not, that it is important that
EPA's decisions be based on the facts, be based on merit, be
based on the law and not on politics? Would you agree with
that?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely, Senator, in the sense that as we do
rulemaking, as you know, we have to build a record. And the
record is based upon----
Senator Van Hollen. I don't mean just that, though. I mean
in your procurement, in your contracts, wouldn't you agree it
needs to be based on the law and the merits, not on politics?
Mr. Pruitt. I believe generally what you are saying, yes.
Senator Van Hollen. Generally?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. I am not--I meant----
Senator Van Hollen. Well, it disturbed me to find this
report back in December, it was headlined ``EPA Contractor has
spent past year scouring the agency for anti-Trump officials.''
In an exchange with one of my colleagues on the Republican side
who asked you about EPA employees and morale, you said you
don't think there is any reason for bad morale. Are you
familiar with this article?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not.
Senator Van Hollen. It is a New York Times piece.
Mr. Pruitt. I am not, Senator.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, you should be, because Senator
Whitehouse and Senator Harris have written you a letter about
it that you haven't responded to. What the article stated was
that the EPA contracted on a no bid basis with an entity called
Definers Public Affairs. Are you familiar with that entity?
Mr. Pruitt. I am familiar with the clipping service that we
have. I think that is what that is. So I am familiar with that
entity.
Senator Van Hollen. That is right. So this is a clipping
service, the co-founders of the clipping service are both well
known Republican operatives. And they got a no bid contract.
Can you commit to the Committee that you will be responding to
the letters from Senators on this Committee regarding what
happened in this case?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. Yes. It is my understanding that the
contract was actually $87,000 less than what had been paid the
year before for clipping service.
Senator Van Hollen. That is right. Is it appropriate that
this entity was doing searches on EPA employees to determine
whether or not they were ``part of the resistance''?
Mr. Pruitt. And I am not familiar with that happening. But
I will say this to you, the contract has actually been
terminated to date. But we will provide additional information
to you.
Senator Van Hollen. OK. The reason it really caught my eye
was in connection with something that Senator Cardin raised. I
appreciate your mentioning that the decision to end the
contract for the Chesapeake Bay Journal, known as the Bay
Journal, is being reconsidered. It should not have gotten to
this point. It worries me, as a window into politicization at
the EPA, that is captured in this other article as well.
Because what happened in that case was it was shortly after the
Bay Journal published an article. And there are lots of
articles and opinion pieces in the Bay Journal. Shortly after
they published an article questioning and criticizing the
Administration's position on some environmental issues,
especially climate change, and the impact that could have on
the Chesapeake Bay. I encourage you to go to the Naval Academy,
because there they talk about the risks of rising sea level in
Annapolis, on their operations there and around the world.
But the Bay Journal had a piece in there, and it was
shortly after that that its contract was terminated despite a
good performance review from EPA in April. And the retired head
of the Bay program, just earlier this month, in an interview to
Energy and Environment Daily, said that it was politics that
killed the funding for the Bay Journal.
Have you looked into this issue at all?
Mr. Pruitt. As I shared with your colleague, Senator
Cardin, about this, it is something that is under
reconsideration. I am familiar with it at this point. We are
taking steps to address it.
Senator Van Hollen. OK. Well, Senator Cardin and I wrote to
you back in October on this issue. We would appreciate a
written response as well.
But in an exchange that the folks at the Bay Journal had
with the EPA folks making the decision, specifically John
Konkus, who was on the phone with them, who is your Assistant
Administrator for Public Affairs, he reportedly said the
following. This is John Konkus: ``Well, everybody knows that
the American public doesn't trust the press, and he saw no
reason for us to fund the Bay Journal.''
Is that a position that EPA takes regarding its review of
contracts like this?
Mr. Pruitt. I think I have indicated, Senator, that the
contract is under reconsideration, and we are going to deal
with it fairly.
Senator Van Hollen. I understand. But you understand that
this is now under litigation. And my concern is a broader
issue, right? We should never have gotten to this point. We
should not get to the point where EPA is making politically
driven decisions on contracts where EPA is previously, ever, on
political grounds. This is one where EPA found them to be in
full performance.
So I just hope you will work with us to get all the
documents regarding this decision. It is a small contract. It
is meaningful to the Bay Journal, which assembles a lot of this
information. But I am most worried about it, also in
combination with other stories about political decisions in
contracting coming out of the EPA.
So Mr. Chairman, I hope we will agree on a bipartisan basis
that no agency should be basing its decision on politics.
Again, I appreciate your review of this decision. But we really
need to get to the bottom of how it happened so that there is
integrity in the process. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Pruitt, good to see you. I am glad you are
here. I heard it has been going great.
It is good to have you here on a regular basis, so I
appreciate that. I also appreciate the meeting you and Senator
Whitehouse and I had recently. I am not sure if he mentioned
it. I am actually serious; we had a very good meeting over in
your office, the three of us and your staffs.
Great to see Senator Van Hollen here in a Committee that
actually gets a lot of stuff done. We welcome him.
I do want to mention on that issue of marine debris that
you and Senator Whitehouse and I talked about, we do want to
look at opportunities for the EPA--in addition to NOAA and
other Federal agencies--to play an important role on that. It
is a very strong--there is a lot of strong bipartisan support
on this issue, which is a huge environmental issue. It impacts
my State, it impacts Rhode Island, it impacts every State,
really, not just States with coastlines but every State in the
country. I know we had a lot of follow up from our meeting, but
I appreciate your working with me and Senator Whitehouse on
that.
I also appreciate, at the outset, the Chairman mentioned
some of the things you have done. Your focus, as you said,
during your confirmation hearing, on the rule of law process,
which is important, certainly important in my State. You made
some decisions recently with regard to Pebble Mine and others
that I think you are focused a lot on that process.
And on the WOTUS rule. Some of the complaints here, on this
side, the vast majority of the States in America, Democrat and
Republican-led States, were opposed to the WOTUS rule. I think
there were 30 States that sued the Federal Government. There
was no process. That was a huge Federal overreach. I appreciate
your drawing that back. You have the vast support of the
majority of the States and American citizens on that one. I
just want to thank you on that.
I do want to mention another one that is actually very
important to me, and I am really glad that you highlighted it.
Two, actually, in your opening testimony. You mentioned lead
with regard to water infrastructure, water and sewer. I think
that is important. And I think you can get a lot of bipartisan
support on that.
I do want to remind you, though--and we have talked about
it a lot--after the Flint, Michigan, scandal, really, occurred,
a lot of people were talking about how we need to address aging
infrastructure. My own view, though, is we need to address
communities who have no infrastructure first, like over 30
communities in Alaska that don't have water or sewer systems,
that don't have clean water, that still use what are called
honey buckets, which don't smell good; they don't small like
honey. It is actually American citizens removing their own
human waste from their house because they don't have sewer
systems, and putting them in a lagoon. American citizens. It is
a disgrace.
We passed a bill, a bipartisan bill last year, last
Congress in this Committee that significantly advances funding
for that, for communities that don't have water and sewer. In
America? In America. Thousands of my constituents. I certainly
want your support on that. Can you comment on that? I would
like you to get to that before you get to the lead issue.
Because it is a disgrace, right? Whether you live in Alaska
or--no American citizen should live in a community where it is
essentially like a third world country.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. I think this, Senator, actually goes to
part of the President's infrastructure proposal. As I think you
are aware, 25 percent of the moneys that are a part of the
infrastructure package are going to go to rural communities
across the country. I think water infrastructure is terribly
important, as you have identified. So I think the
infrastructure opportunity we have, as we go to the first
quarter and second quarter of this year, hopefully we will be
able to address those issues in that package.
But I do think with respect to lead, it is also an
infrastructure issue, aging infrastructure. But those rural
communities that even have it also need upgrades and corrosion
control measures and the rest. So there are opportunities
across the spectrum with respect to these matters.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Let me just touch on another one.
I would like to be able to work with you and your team on an
issue that you raised here, on abandoned mines. With regard to
abandoned mines, it is actually not just abandoned mines in
America. We have a significant challenge with our good
neighbors to the north, not really to my north, they are
actually to my State's east, Canada, where there are trans-
boundary mines that impact the waters and fishing and tourism
of southeast Alaska. These are mines that are in Canada, some
of which have been abandoned, some of which have recently had
huge spills, like the Mount Polley Mine in British Columbia.
I am actually going to be heading to Canada this weekend to
meet with senior officials there with my Lieutenant Governor to
talk about this trans-boundary mine issue and others. But
having the full weight of the Federal Government, the State
Department, and the EPA helping us on this--well, to be
perfectly honest, Canada has not acted like a good neighbor on
this. They are ignoring our concerns, and they are very
legitimate concerns.
So if I could get your commitment to help me and my State
with regard to not just abandoned mines, which I think is a
great topic to focus on, but trans-boundary mining in Canada,
which negatively impacts, certainly has the potential to
negatively impact, clean water in America. Can I get your
commitment to work with us on that, and the State Department,
on that issue?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, and we should work with Ambassador Craft
as well on those issues.
We have similar challenges on the southern border, not with
respect to mines, but in Tijuana and California, with respect
to water issues, sewage issues, with Mexico. So we do have some
boundary issues that are very, very important, air and water,
that we need to work with our neighbors to improve outcomes.
Senator Sullivan. Great. I look forward to working with you
on that. Thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso. We are heading now into the second round
of questions, the 2 minute round of questioning.
Senator Carper would be first, although if you wanted to
relinquish your time and call on Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. Two minutes is short, so I
will try to be as quick as I can.
I mentioned the May 5th day that you were going down to
speak to the Republican fundraiser in Oklahoma. Do you recall
off the top of your head right now whether you actually went to
that? Do you remember?
Mr. Pruitt. I did not attend, Senator. We did in fact
receive an ethics review of that, and I was actually authorized
to go. But when the event was publicized, they did it
incorrectly.
Senator Whitehouse. Would you tell us what you actually did
that day?
Mr. Pruitt. I am sorry?
Senator Whitehouse. Would you tell us what you actually did
that day, and unblock your schedule?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, we will provide the information pursuant
to----
Senator Whitehouse. Unredacted.
Mr. Pruitt. That is something that we will coordinate with
this body.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. Because I don't see why you would
block out parts of your schedule. That is all we have, is the
lunch.
Mr. Pruitt. And again, Senator----
Senator Whitehouse. It is a long way to go for lunch with
one man.
Mr. Pruitt. I did not attend that event, so the day could
have been rescheduled entirely as far as activities.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, we would never know it, because
it is all redacted and blacked out. We don't see that.
Mr. Pruitt. We will look and see how productive we were
that day.
Senator Whitehouse. I would appreciate it.
The second thing is that I had a request in to you
regarding the EPA scientists who were instructed not to speak
and then withdrew themselves from the speaking role at the
Narragansett Bay Conference. You may recall that, because it
kicked up a big fuss in my area. And it even kicked up quite a
national fuss as well, because it was a patent case of
scientists being told not to speak about something that they
had worked on for years.
What you answered in response to our questions about that
was, ``This will not happen again.'' And I am delighted that
this will not happen again. I think you are right, that it
should not happen again. What we have not been given is any
explanation of how it happened, who told whom what. Could you
please--I mean, I don't know why it is hard to get an answer,
but will you guarantee that you will tell us how that happened
and give us an actual explanation, looking back at how this
happened, who told who what, what were the e-mail chains,
whatever the story was? Let's get it out there.
Mr. Pruitt. And Senator, yes, in response to your other
question, I am advised by staff that they did communicate to
your office that I did not attend that event that you asked
about. So that has been confirmed.
Senator Whitehouse. Great. So now the question boils down
to unblocking your schedule for that day.
Mr. Pruitt. We will work on those issues.
Senator Whitehouse. I think that is a very soft yes. We
will see where we go.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Thank you very much.
And in your testimony, Administrator, you have highlighted
how EPA is committed to undoing regulation that is strangling
economic growth and job creation. I travel all 99 counties in
Iowa, so I hear this from businesses and manufacturers who are
experiencing now tremendous growth as a direct result from
undoing some of those burdensome regulations.
How will the EPA continue to chart a path forward by
returning power to the States and maintaining this economic
growth trend?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, that is the reason I mentioned in my
opening comments the importance of the three principles, from
rule of law to process to federalism. That isn't just simply
academic. It is not just obligatory to say that. It is actually
essential to how we do business. Because when we adopt rules
that are untethered to statutes, that means there is
uncertainty. And most of the folks across the country that are
regulated, they want to know what is expected of them, that it
is grounded in the statutes that you have passed and that they
can allocate resources to achieve those outcomes.
So those are very important principles, fundamental
principles to achieve clarity, certainty, confidence in the
American people that what we are doing is well grounded in both
science and the law and that they can take confidence in our
actions.
Senator Ernst. And in the remaining 45 seconds that we have
left, I would like to allow you that time to answer any
questions that maybe you didn't have enough time to answer.
Mr. Pruitt. You know, Senator, I think overall, sometimes
on these issues around the environment, there are passionate
issues on both sides. That is the reason I keep talking about
civility and I keep talking about this approach doing business
that tries to find the pro-jobs and pro-environment
combination. We don't have to choose between the two. We as a
country have always done that well. We don't celebrate our
progress and our success enough.
We have reduced those pollutants under the Clean Air Act
that we regulate under the National Ambient Air Quality Program
by over 65 percent. We have made wonderful progress there. We
in fact have reduced our CO2 as a country by over 14
percent from the years 2000 and 2014. And it is largely through
innovation technology, Senator Carper. Obviously, there are
Government regulations involved, in the mobile sources,
particularly. But it is a partnership, it is an approach that
we as a country, I think, are setting the pace. It is striking
the balance between a growing economy and protecting our
environment, being good stewards of our environment going
ahead.
Senator Ernst. And I appreciate that very much. Thank you
for your partnership.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pruitt, I am holding in my hands a memorandum from the
EPA dated March 21st, which is after you were confirmed as its
head. I would like this memorandum submitted for the record, I
ask unanimous consent.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced material was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
It is titled Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget, Major
Policy and Final Resource Decisions. It communicates final
resource levels and policy guidance to support the
Environmental Protection Agency's fiscal year 2018 President's
budget submission. In it, it lists elimination of the Great
Lakes Restoration Program, numerous programs that we talked
about, including my previous mentioning of the statement about
shutting down EPA Office Region 5 as a rent cost avoidance
measure, listing Potomac Yards North, Region 1, Region 5, and
Region 9. You might want to make yourself familiar with this
particular memorandum, as it is being submitted for the record.
I would like to go back to your travel, Mr. Pruitt. In
addition to your hefty domestic travel schedule, you have taken
at least four foreign trips, to include a recent trip to
Morocco at a cost to taxpayers of $40,000, where according to
the Washington Post you spent 4 days promoting the sale of
American natural gas. Now, while your home State of Oklahoma is
the third largest producer of natural gas in the country, I
don't understand what the sale of natural gas has to do with
the EPA's mission.
This is certainly inconsistent with your claim to bring
back the basics, the vision of EPA. Natural gas, in case you
were unaware, is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department
of Energy. And promotion of natural gas is the kind of thing
that the Secretary of Energy would do, or perhaps someone
running for Governor of Oklahoma or some other elected office
there, but not consistent with what the head of the EPA should
be doing.
So will you provide this Committee, yes or no, with a
detailed schedule of your meetings and receipts for
international travel you have taken since being confirmed?
Mr. Pruitt. I will do so, because it will show that I have
attended two countries, not four. So I am not sure where you
got your information.
Senator Duckworth. Well, the last two were canceled, Japan
and Israel, during the shutdown.
Mr. Pruitt. We will provide that to the Committee, yes.
Senator Duckworth. Wonderful; thank you. And can I assume
that like all decent Americans, you did not find Morocco, a
North African nation, to be a shithole when you visited?
Senator Barrasso. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Pruitt, as we have discussed previously, I am
really concerned about the levels of a toxic PFOA and PFOS that
have been found throughout New York State, from Hoosick Falls
in upstate New York to Newburgh on Long Island. Just over a
year and a half ago Congress granted EPA the authority to
regulate the safety of chemicals when it revised the Toxic
Substances Control Act, TSCA.
In that law, Congress instructed the EPA to consider the
risks from all of the uses of a chemical that are ``intended,
known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed,
distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.'' Your agency
recently finalized its TSCA implementation rules. Despite
Congress' very clear direction, those rules ignored the
public's exposure to the past uses of chemicals called legacy
uses. However, legacy uses pose risks to public health, because
the past manufacturing and disposal of those chemicals can
still contaminate groundwater as is currently the case with
PFOA in Hoosick Falls, New York.
This means that EPA will likely not study the health risks
from widespread exposure to chemicals like PFOA under the TSCA
law. You have said that ``any action by the EPA that exceeds
the authority granted to it by Congress by definition cannot be
consistent with the agency's mission.'' EPA's decision to
choose to ignore the clear intent of Congress is therefore not
consistent with the agency's mission.
Will you please direct EPA to revise the TSCA
implementation rules to comply with Congress' direction that
all uses of a chemical, including legacy uses, are studied?
Mr. Pruitt. We are in fact going to look at foreseeable
uses, as you have indicated. I am very concerned; PFOA and PFOS
have not been manufactured or distributed since the early
2000s. So all the issues we have with PFOA and PFOS are in fact
legacy issues.
Senator Gillibrand. Legacy, all of it.
Mr. Pruitt. And we are very much going to focus on that.
Senator Gillibrand. OK.
On the Hudson River, specifically, I would like to begin by
saying that I was very glad to see yesterday's announcement
that EPA is broadening the scope of its Hudson River cleanup
analysis to look at sediment samples from the upper Hudson, the
flood plain, and assess the impacts of contamination from the
lower Hudson. As you know, the EPA is currently in the process
of finalizing the 5 year review that examines the effectiveness
of dredging for removing PCBs from the Hudson River.
I am very concerned that in the draft review report, EPA
determined that while the remedy is not currently protective of
human health and the environment, no additional PCB removal is
needed, even though restrictions on the consumption of fish
from the river are expect to remain for more than 50--five-oh--
years. New York State and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
both natural resources trustees for the Hudson River, strongly
disagree with EPA's analysis. Will you incorporate the new
sampling data in the 5 year review analysis?
Mr. Pruitt. We in fact are reviewing those samples as we
speak. And so there has been no final determination on that.
And I am concerned, as you are, there has actually been PCBs
found in the flood plain.
Senator Gillibrand. Yes.
Mr. Pruitt. In the 40 miles that has already been dredged.
So there is much work left to be done before we get clarity on
that issue.
Senator Gillibrand. And will you personally review the
final report before it is released to the public and ensure
that all the concerns raised by the trustees and the public are
fully addressed?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, I will.
Senator Gillibrand. OK, third topic. In December EPA
released a list of 21 Superfund sites that need immediate,
intense action. Not a single one of the sites on the list is in
New York State, despite the fact that there are currently 86
Superfund sites in our State. EPA has offered no detailed
explanation of how it arrived at this list.
Additionally, it is my understanding that when a Freedom of
Information Act request was filed, asking for documents
associated with EPA's Superfund Task Force, the response was
that not a single document from this 107 member task force
existed, other than the final public memo. So that obviously is
not true.
Will you commit to producing all documents related to how
EPA developed the 42 specific recommendations on how to improve
the Superfund program and the immediate intense action list of
Superfund sites within 15 business days?
Mr. Pruitt. We will deliver them to you by the end of the
week.
Senator Gillibrand. Great. Given your focus on interest in
Superfund sites, do you believe it is wise to cut the budget
for EPA's Superfund program?
Mr. Pruitt. As indicated, Senator, with respect to the
budgeting process, I have made it clear to this body, as well
as to the House, that we will continue to work with you to make
sure priorities are funded. I am concerned about orphan sites
across the country in the Superfund portfolio. I think there
are greater challenges beyond money, but money matters to our
success in that side of our responsibility. So yes, we will
continue the discussion with you.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Before turning to Senator Inhofe, it was interesting, there
was this full page article in the Washington Post, Friday,
January 26th, 2018, about going through the work that the
Administrator is doing with regard to Superfund, with maps of
before and after, basically talking about the exceptionally
good job that is being done by the Administrator of the EPA in
addressing Superfunds. I don't know if you had seen that
article, but I would recommend it to your attention.
Mr. Pruitt. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just for a second, in
that regard, I think the sites that we highlighted in the last
year, they are not meant to be exclusive. Those are sites that
we see that immediate progress can be made within a timeframe.
So that list will continue to be populated with new sites. So
it is not an exclusionary list at all. It was a matter of
providing focus to our Land and Emergency Management Office on
getting achievement in each of those respective areas.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit for
the record Superfund materials, including several news articles
about EPA's Superfund activities, including an article that
found that the majority of the Superfund cleanups touted by Mr.
Pruitt was the work of the Obama administration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. And without objection, I will submit this
article.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since we were in the other committee, not able to be here
at this time, I was told there were a couple of things where
you didn't have ample time to respond. Actually, there were two
questions I was going to ask; I am going to go ahead, since I
didn't get a chance to before. These were the subject matter
that you didn't have time to respond to.
You have been vocal about the differences of the EPA being
about stewardship versus prohibition. We have been through a
period of prohibition. What is the difference, and how are you
moving EPA from a policy of prohibition to stewardship?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, I think it is something that the American
people, and I think this body, and as we do our work, we need
to wrestle with what is true environmentalism. That is a very
important question. I think as we ask and answer that question,
to your question, Senator Inhofe, many look at that as a
prohibition to say that even though we have been blessed with
natural resources to, again, power the world and feed the
world, that we put up fences and prevent the development of
those resources. We just never have done that as a country. We
have always been about implementing technology, innovation to
achieve better outcomes as far as emission.
But the American people I think expect us to use the
natural resources, focus on stewardship, and not let
prohibition be our aim. So that is something we intend on
talking about as an attitude as we go through 2018, and getting
back to basics in these core, fundamental areas that we have
already talked about as far as showing outcomes.
Senator Inhofe. What are some of the enforcement or
response efforts that you believe show that you take your role
as a steward of the environment under the law, that you take it
seriously?
Mr. Pruitt. It is interesting, Senator Carper just made an
entry in the record as far as the Superfund, and saying that
that is the work of the previous Administration. Look, I mean,
we take cases that come to us that the previous Administration
began. But I will tell you, I am very proud of the work we have
done over the last year getting accountability with respect to
Superfund.
As an example, in Houston, Texas--I mentioned this
earlier--there is a responsible party there that for years has
simply put rocks on top of a site that has dioxin. And I went
into Houston with our team in Region 6. We came up with a
conclusion of $115 million, and we are enforcing it. The
company has been very much barking or objecting to that. But we
are given accountability with respect to cleanup.
So, Senator Carper, I think we as a team, I am very, very
proud of the career employees as well as the appointees working
together to achieve better outcomes in the Superfund area. That
is one example of those.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Carper. Could I just say something very briefly,
this will be part of my time. To that point, as I understand,
there are 300 Superfund sites yet to be cleaned up. We have an
Administration----
Mr. Pruitt. More than that.
Senator Carper. Over 300 yet to be cleaned up. We have an
Administration that is asking for not more money to clean them
up, but actually less money.
That is all. I yield back.
Senator Barrasso. I still have a little time from my round.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Pruitt. There is actually 1,340-plus sites across the
country that are yet to be remediated. Most of those sites have
a responsible party--a company-- that polluted that is
responsible that has the money to do it. We have to have
processes in place to hold them accountable to get those
cleanups occurring. That is our focus, along with advising
Congress on needs that we have on funding.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper, we are going to head to
Senator Merkley next.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Mr. Pruitt, you had talked quite a bit previously about
having a Red Team, Blue Team exercise to examine the issue of
climate change, global warming. Is that still part of your
plan?
Mr. Pruitt. It is under consideration, Senator. The
discussion is not whether, there are questions that we know the
answer to, there are questions we don't know the answer to. For
example, what is the ideal surface temperature in the year 2100
is something that many folks have different perspective on. So
that Red Team, Blue Team exercise is an exercise to provide an
opportunity to the American people to consume information from
scientists that have different perspectives on key issues, and
frankly could be used to build consensus in this body.
As you know, the Clean Air Act that was amended in 1990, as
you look at it, many who are involved in that process recognize
that CO2 was not part of the discussion under
Section 111. So we have much work to do legally and
procedurally. But this is still under consideration.
Senator Merkley. So it is my understanding that the White
House has asked the agency not to go forward with the Red Team,
Blue Team.
Mr. Pruitt. That is untrue.
Senator Merkley. So the public reports were incorrect?
Mr. Pruitt. In this instance, yes.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Well, I will say that the perception of the Red Team, Blue
Team was that your entire intention was to, on behalf of the
Koch Brother cartel, continue to mislead American people about
the very significant impacts of carbon pollution, casting doubt
on established science, contrary to your contention that you
like to listen to scientists. Is it in fact your sense that the
scientific world is split down the middle on this question of
whether carbon dioxide is warming the planet and causing
significantly damage in many ways to rural America, to our
farming, to our fishing, and to our forests?
Mr. Pruitt. This idea, the Red Team, Blue Team exercise,
did not originate with me. It originated with the scientist
from NYU called Steve Koonin, who actually worked for the Obama
administration in the Department of Energy. This is something
that we are considering based upon that original publication in
the Wall Street Journal.
Senator Merkley. I will be watching with interest whether
you conduct it, if you do conduct it, because you are a year
in, and we have not seen any evidence in a way that sheds
additional information on important issues, as you have
suggested. Or it is just another effort to confuse the public
over well established scientific information.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Merkley, thank you.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Merkley, Markey. It took me 20 years to get
Volkley, Markey in Massachusetts out of my life. And now Jeff
and I have to have Merkley, Markey.
Senator Inhofe. Your time expired.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. As you figure out your identity
situation, I would submit to the record, Superfund has been a
priority under Administrator Pruitt. Last week, the EPA
announced a cleanup agreement for the Nation's largest
Superfund site. The Montana Standard is reporting, and I am
going to submit this to the record, ``EPA Administrator Pruitt
put both Butte and Anaconda, which is a separate Superfund
site, on the emphasis list last month.'' This means that both
sites are being fast tracked for completion and getting
Pruitt's ``immediate and intense attention.'' I would like to
enter this into the record, without objection, an article from
the Montana Standard, January 26th, 2018.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I appreciate it.
Mr. Pruitt, it is my understanding that the EPA has
finalized its conclusion that formaldehyde causes leukemia and
other cancers, and that that completed new assessment is ready
to be released for public review. But it is still being held
up.
Can you give us a status update as to the EPA's handling of
the formaldehyde issue and the conclusion that it in fact does
cause leukemias and other cancers?
Mr. Pruitt. My understanding is similar to yours, but I
will confirm that and provide the information to you from the
program office.
Senator Markey. Will you commit to releasing that report,
which is already completed, in a short period of time once you
have reviewed it, if in fact meets the standards which your EPA
staff has already established that it does cause----
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I commit to you that I will look into
that and make sure your office is aware of what we have and
when we can release it.
Senator Markey. Can you get me an answer within 10 days?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
And I have also sent you over a series of letters seeking
information about several different policies and processes that
have been put in place at the EPA. I have not received any
response to those letters. I would ask that you also look at
those letters and provide a response in the shortest possible
time.
Mr. Pruitt. My very handy staff behind me indicates that we
provided answers to 100 questions 1 week ago. So if there are
additional questions beyond the 100 that you have already
submitted, we will get that to you.
Senator Markey. OK, great, thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Administrator Pruitt, last month I sent
you a letter encouraging the EPA to withdraw its proposed rule
on in situ uranium recovery, ISR.
Mr. Pruitt. I am sorry; I didn't hear you, Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Last month, I sent you a letter, EPA a
letter, asking the EPA to withdraw its proposed rule on its in
situ uranium recovery, ISR. The thing that is interesting about
this rule, this is a rule that the Obama administration
proposed on January 19th, 2017, 1 day before President Obama
left office.
Since then, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has come
out--our Nation's principal regulator on these activities--and
has stated there is no health or safety justification for this
rulemaking by the EPA that came out 1 day before President
Obama left office. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission went on to
say, in almost 40 years of operational experience, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission staff is aware of no documented instance
of ISR, in situ uranium recovery, wellfield being a source of
contamination of an adjacent or nearby aquifer or of a non-
exempt portion of the same aquifer in which the ISR activities
are being conducted. No documented instance.
Wyoming produces more uranium than any other State. Uranium
production is vital to our energy and national security. When
can we expect the EPA to decide whether or not to scrap this
unnecessary regulation?
Mr. Pruitt. I will get information on that, Mr. Chairman,
very quickly, and get it back to your office. I am not sure of
the timing presently.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper, do you have a final round
of questions? I have one final question.
Senator Carper. I do. I would ask unanimous consent, since
no one else is going to come to have 5 minutes to ask these
questions.
Senator Inhofe. Reserving the right to object, say that
again?
Senator Carper. Since no one else appears to be going to
arrive, I would ask that I have 5 minutes to ask my last round
of questions. And if Senator Inhofe would like to have another
3 minutes or so, that is fine by me. Whatever time the Chairman
wants.
Senator Inhofe. Since I have been at the other committee
hearing, have you had your second round? Are you taking your
second round?
Senator Carper. No, I have not.
Senator Barrasso. He is taking a second round.
Senator Carper. And you want to turn that into a 5 minute
round?
Senator Inhofe. I object.
Senator Carper. Why, thank you.
We have something called the Golden Rule--yes, go ahead.
Senator Markey. Just for 20 seconds, if the gentleman would
yield. I just checked with my staff and there has been no
answer to the questions which I posed to you, Mr.
Administrator. So I would ask, again, that you respond to me in
a timely fashion.
Senator Carper. There is something called the Golden Rule,
almost every Thursday when we gather in Senator Inhofe's
office, we meet with the chaplain of the U.S. Senate, and he
reminds us to treat other people the way we want to be treated.
It is not only appropriate in a forum like this, it is also
appropriate when we are considering pollution that is put up in
the air in States to the west of downwind States, including all
of us who live on the east coast.
To the extent that this EPA and this Administration
believes that the Golden Rule is a good idea, I would ask that
you consider applying the Golden Rule when it comes to cross-
border pollution. When I was Governor of Delaware, I could
literally shut down my State's economy--all the cars, vans,
trucks off the road, shut down all of our businesses--we would
still have been out of compliance for clean air because of all
the stuff that is put up in the air in other States.
I don't like that, and frankly, I am not sure I like being
denied the opportunity to actually go from 2 minutes to 5
minutes when we have plenty of time.
Senator Inhofe. Listen----
Senator Carper. No, I will not.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, since we have been, my name
has been referred to, let me just respond and say that there
are four committee hearings at the same time today. We are
trying to balance. And if you continue one going longer, the
ones who suffer, you are punishing, are the ones who have not
had ample to time to even their first round of questioning in
some of the other committees. So in sense of fairness, I would
like to--there is going to be an end to this sometime.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask unanimous
consent to submit to the record the history of the Obama EPA's
years long process to address the Waters of the U.S. Rule. This
included hundreds of meetings across the country, including one
in Delaware involving EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, farmers and
builders. I think over 100, there were over a million public
comments that were received during the course of the years long
activity. I am told that those million or so comments were
actually responded to.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have one more question I want to ask. This gives the
following on implementing TSCA.
Mr. Pruitt, you have said on numerous occasions, ``The only
authority that any agency has in the executive branch is the
authority given to it by Congress.'' When Congress was
negotiating the final text of the Toxic Substances Control Act,
EPA came to Congress and asked for specific provisions that
would allow the agency to move forward with bans for some uses
of three highly toxic chemicals. Congress agreed, and that
language was included in the final law.
One of those chemicals, a paint stripper called methylene
chloride, is so dangerous that it has killed dozens of people,
even when they were wearing protective gear. EPA proposed rules
banning these chemicals more than a year ago. But more recent
reports indicate that EPA may delay action on the uses of these
chemicals for several more years, which almost certainly will
mean that more people will get sick and probably some of them
will die.
Yes or no, Mr. Pruitt; to wrap it up, will you commit to
use the authority given to EPA by Congress and the Toxic
Substances Control Act and finalize these bans within the next
30 days? Will you?
Mr. Pruitt. It's my understanding that is actually on the
priority list as far as the chemicals that are we reviewing.
TCE and others. So that is something that I will clarify and
confirm with the agency. But that was my understanding.
Senator Carper. I hope that means yes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
submit for the record more materials describing Mr. Pruitt's
record at the EPA. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. And my final question is, can you just
share a little bit maybe some of your goals and metrics you are
going to set for yourself for the year ahead? I know this is
something you and your team work on.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator. In fact, at the end of last year,
we had solicited and surveyed each of our program offices in
the agency to submit 5 year goals in air, water, across the
full spectrum of our regulation. In that dialogue, we had a
very collaborative discussion to set ambitious goals on
attainment issues and other matters.
The metrics are really--if you don't set an aim, it has
been said if you don't know where you are going, any road will
take you there. I think that what we are trying to do is set
aims and objectives in each of our key priority areas, from
water to air to chemical, to Superfund, across the full
spectrum, so that we can track day in and day out how we are
making progress toward those objectives.
We have not done that before. In fact, before we arrived at
the agency, we didn't know how long it took to do a permit
under the Clean Water Act. We have collected that data,
surveyed that, and it takes years for us to do that. States
sometimes do it within 6 months to a year.
So we are trying to find out how good or not we are at
certain things and then set objectives on how to improve and
measure that daily to achieve outcomes.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Administrator
Pruitt. I appreciate your being here.
Members may submit questions in writing for the record by
the close of business. We would like to hear back from you.
That will go through February 13th.
I want to thank you for your time and your testimony.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]