Transcripts For CSPAN3 EPA Administrator Testifies Before Energy Commerce Subcommittee - Part 2 20171211

Staff to get the senate doors closed, and other members can go on the staff . Someone . The subcommittee will come to order. When we recessed it was mr. Mckinleys turn to be recognized, so with that, i want to recognize the gentleman from West Virginia for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you, administrator, for coming and participating in this. Over the years, we had asked your predecessor [ inaudible ] mines up. Just come over here. Mines back up. Weve skdz asked your predecessors to come, particularly relating to section 321a. To see the impact some of the regulations were having in the coal fields, and they declined to do that. But i am particularly appreciative of the fact that a week ago or two weeks ago, the epa, you sent yourself, other folks came to West Virginia to get the impact of what these regulations are having, because its pretty clear in the statute that we have to abide by the economic impact, we have to take that into consideration when rules and regs are promulgated. They didnt do that. And i know you and i have had that conversation that you want to follow the law very clearly, and that i know that a federal judge has already ruled that the epa in the past consider them discretionary and not mandatory. I think your position, ive heard from you, is that you think they are mandatory, and you intend to abide by them. Am i correct on that . Yes, congressman, and we did, in fact, as you indicated, send representatives to West Virginia as part of the proposed with drawl, and i do think that its important that thats a rulemaking process. We talked a little bit this morning about the withdrawal of the Clean Power Plan, and as i indicated earlier, thats primarily jurisdictional as far as the basis for that withdrawal, but that is a rulemaking process. And so, that rulemaking process means that we go out and solicit and receive comment from across the country. Were not just going to be in West Virginia. Were going to be in gillette, wyoming, soon, were going to be in san francisco, kansas city. Theres going to be a cross current of viewpoints with respect to this issue, and its important we hear all voices, and that process is ongoing. I particularly appreciate the fact that you sent people to the coal fields to understand the impact of what those regulations were doing, when 86,000 coal miners lost their job during the Obama Administration and no one paid attention, no one came to those communities to find out what was going to be the impact of another regulation that was going to put them out of business. But part of the question is, have they been able to debrief you . What were some of the salient issues . What were the points that were raised at that meeting in charleston . Well, quite a few comments that were offered, it was multiple hours of information. And again, a cross current of information that were reviewing. And i think that, congressman, you hit on some very important matters, with respect to the cost of the Clean Power Plan that wasnt taken into consideration before, and thats something that came out in the process in West Virginia. I know youve made a commitment. You said youre going back to blocking and tackling the fundamentals of rulemaking. Is there something that we should be doing here in congress to make sure that we dont revert back to that old way of just following ideology rather than science . Well, i think there are some things that weve done recently that i think are important to the process that i talked about earlier. For many years, the apa, the administrator procedures act that governs how we do rulemaking, has not really been followed as closely as it should. Weve used guidance as forms of rules at times, which i think subverts the voices that need to be heard on substantive actions. Weve engaged in litigation, regulation through litigation. We talked about a sueandsettle practice at the agency that literally has impacted state implementation plans across the country with air quality. And so, theres much that we need to do to ensure that we respect the process and make sure that rulemaking is adhered to or excuse me, the apa is adhered to, as were engaged in rulemaking. In the time, is there something you would suggest . Because thats been on the books, that theyre supposed to do that, but we saw eight years where they did not follow that. Is there something that we should do to tighten up that . Well, i think that any time that an agency, its not just the epa, its any agency of the executive branch that engages in litigation to change substantive statutes, like making discretionary issues and making it nondiscretionary for example, should be dealt with by congress and speaking of that through codification would be very helpful. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back his time. Now the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Peters, for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Administrator, for being here. I wanted to ask you about the methane rule. The epa has an effort to control dangerous methane pollution from the oil and gas industry. The common sense rule asks operators to put our Natural Gas Resources to productive use rather than waistfully leaking them. I support it because it will boost supplies and reduce air pollutions, including smog, air toxins, Greenhouse Gases, and the benefit of capturing methane emissions from the gas and oil industry is 2 billion annually. Do you support this rule . And if not, without it, what would you do to reduce wasted natural gas . Congressman, i think historically, the way the agencys death with methane has been part of a voc approach, where volatile organic compounds, as weve regulated them, methane has been part of that bundle. What happened with that particular rule is the epa for the first time pulled methane out of the bundle and regulated it separately. We havent taken any action on that, as you know, as far as the substantive rule itself. There are compliance dates that are forthcoming that have been extended, and thats really been the focus up until now. But i think there is a meaningful debate and discussions that should occur about whether the rules should be focused on a bundle approach, a voc approach, or whether methane should be pulled out. As you know, methane is very valuable. Companies dont like to flair methane because it can be captured and used in other ways and its very marketable, if you will. And so, i think having a rule in place that incentivizes that and ensures that we approach it pursuant to the statute i think is something we should look at. Okay, so, youve said i think you and secretary perry have both made appearances on cnbc, and march 9th, you said that Carbon Dioxide is not a primary driver contributing to recent Climate Change and that, said differently that you said co2 is not the only contributor to Climate Change. Do you agree that methane, nitrous oxide and other Greenhouse Gases are air pollutants . Absolutely, absolutely. And are more potent, actually, than co2. Right. Methane is more potent in that regard. So i have to say, it seems to me i know youve emphasized the importance of process before, but if the object is to reduce methane, nitrous oxide and other Greenhouse Gases, what would be the strategy, whether as part of a bundle, as not part of a bundle, how do you think we should go about controlling and reduces those gases . I think that distinction matters, though, congressman. Okay. I think that as we look at the statutory framework and how methane should be regulated, the question whether it should be part of the bundle is a significant question. And so, thats what were evaluating. Again, the focus in the first ten months has been on those compliance dates. And as you know, the rules in effect presently, and thats been the primary focus. As we go forward the discussion and the focus will be on whether it needs to be a part of the bundle or not. So, i understand the procedural point you make about whether its part of the bundle, but whichever avenue we take, whether its part of the bundle or not, how would we go about reducing the emissions of methane gas . Well, you look at the well head. You speak to companies with respect to the flaring practices that have gone on historically. And there are best Management Practices and best practices that can be deployed by companies to ensure. Again, theres not an incentive for companies to waste methane. Its something that can be used and its very valuable. We need to recognize that and encourage and incentivize that. Right. I think one of the things weve noticed that has many benefits, the price of natural gas has gone down, so perhaps the incentive to lose that cheap gas isnt as great as it might be to actually force the control of it. But you mentioned looking at the well head and so forth. Substantively, do you think that whats in the methane rule is the right kind of approach to deal with that . I think, congressman, its probably best that, you know, in the rulemaking process, its important that i dont prejudge outcomes, and i think what will be important is taking comment on those issues as we go forward. Do you intend to start from zero, or do you intend to put out the methane rule for additional comment . How do you intend to land this plane . It has yet to be determined. All right. Well, i would say i think its weve made a lot of progress on it. I think theres a lot of understanding within the industry that natural gas can be a better burning fuel than some fuels we use, but you have to control methane to get the benefit out of it from a carbon, from a Climate Change standpoint, and thats kind of where we should be. Thanks, congressman. Thank you. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Olson, for five minutes. I thank the chair. And welcome, administrator pruitt. My congressional district, texas 22, may be the biggest one in america. Right now we have 850,000 people and growing quickly. The huge majority of these people wanted me to tell you thank you, thank you, thank you for making epa what it should have been, an agency in d. C. That works with local governments, local private sector to get cleaner air and cleaner water. Thank you for that. Theyre frustrated by the last eight years. The administration used an epa ha became a combatant. It actually kept us from getting cleaner air and cleaner water, and theyre thrilled to have you there. They got tired of things we cant achieve as human beings, technologys not available. Yet, its demanded. Theyre tired of lawsuits to sue and settle, and thats gone also, so thank you for that. There are many frustrations back home. One example, the rfs. As you know, sir, i have had long and serious concerns with the rfs. I hope this committee will act to take care of this matter quickly, but in the meantime, until we act, guess what, youre on point, and you have a lot of leeway Going Forward. My question is, how have the concerns about the ethanol bed wall or even rim prices figure in your decisions about the 2018 targets . Well, a couple things. Number one, i was very, very appreciative to the agency, the work that was done to meet the deadline. Historically, as you know, the november 30th deadline to publish those obligations has been missed, and it creates uncertainty. People dont know whats expected. It affects capital outlay, et cetera. And so it was very important to meet that november 30th deadline, and we did, in fact, do that. As weve looked at volume obligations with respect to conventional, sell yosic, biobased diesel, the advanced categories, we try to focus oush efforts on objective criteria, whether its levels or demand. As an example, the most we ever produced with celiosic is 180 to 190 million gallons domestically, yet volume obligations historically by the agencies have been set around 300 million or so. So when you set those levels artificially high, it creates other problems elsewhere. And so, i think its, in the administration that statutes very important upon our agency to be as objective as possible on setting those to reflect treasure obligation levels. Biodiesel, the capacity is 2. 6 billion. We imported 700,000 gallons from argentina last year to meet that level. So there are a lot of questions, obviously, around the administration and rfs. Please know we and i are committed to doing it pursuant to the statutory framework youve established, but at the same time, that statutory framework is very challenging because the levels seventh by the statute have never been met, so weve got a lot of challenge there. Barrasso asked epa to complete a long overdue study on the impact on the rfs, something thats required by the Clean Air Act. Any update on the progress of this study . Yes, actually, ive been briefed on that within the last couple weeks and we have begun the process to provide that study to congress. That is something thats statutory and something needs to be done. Thank you. And also talk about hurricane im sorry, say it again . Hurricane harvey, sir, hit my district hard, as you know, hit us twice, basically. Most expensive hurricane in american history. Talked with dr. Brian shaw. He heads up our Texas Council on environmental quality. He is pleased with the work during epa during that storm. You guys deployed all over the gulf coast, on the coast, inland, got acting pretty quickly. One concern is having money to go forward. One solution may be whats called the state revolving fund. Can that be used to address texas . Its under your control, and will you do that . Well, srfs have been used to address infrastructure challenges at the state level and i think its Something Congress ought to consider. Again, i want to highlight something with respect to Hurricane Harvey and hurricane irma, and then whats going on in puerto rico. We embedded officials from the epa with local towns and cities across texas, florida, as the storms approached, in order to have realtime decisions made on the threats that it posed to Drinking Water, superfund sites, chemical facilities and the rest, and it was truly an example of federalism in action between the state, local towns and cities, and the u. S. Government working to address those issues. So im very, very thankful for the leadership of region 6, which is in dallas, and then obviously, region 4, florida. It was good work by their folks, employees, but also the folks at the state level. Speaking for dr. Shaw, he would say great teamwork with the epa, thank you, thank you, thank you. The san jacinto waste pits, harvey knocked it loose. You stepped up and said well stop this forever, so thank you for that. I think its important, mr. Chairman. This is an example. Weve talked about the superfund initi initiative at the agency. San jacintos just off of i10. It has dioxin thats been embed for years and its near a harbor and barge traffic goes through. We have been working with the state level and responsible parties for several years and the solution has been to take a covering and put it over the site and pile rocks on top of the site, and its been that way for ten years. I was in houston in midseptember and looked at the site, and its totally unacceptable to have that type of temporary situation because of potential hurricanes coming through and displacing those rocks. So, we provided a permanent solution there, about 115 million of cost that responsible parties were going to bear to provide a permanent, and the citizens, a permanent solution. The citizens i think have been very pleased with the outcome. Gentlemans times expired. Let me go to mr. Jacinto, the other member from texas, mr. Green, for five minutes. Thank you for being here today, administrator. I have a district that used to have the san jacinto past pits for texas. They keep moving the lines. Now its in brian baabins, ted poe had part of it. So they keep changing the lines in texas, but i thank you for visiting right after harvey and seeing what was there, and i appreciate the epa continuing to make sure we have a permanent fix there, because that area is, like you said, barge traffic, people crab and fish in that area, and both the city, the county, and the state have signs up in spanish, english, in vietnamese, that expectant mothers or small children should not eat the crabs and the fish. But i dont know if that day you were there, but every time i go there, everybodys fishing. So, but thank you, and hopefully, we can move that as quick as possible because its an industrial area, but it also is a recreational area, because i water skied in that water back when i was young. But is there a contradiction of priorities at the epa between the cleanup of the superfund sites and the agencys commitment to the drastic cuts in the Superfund Program . I know the epas budget request was 30 cut in the Superfund Program. I know that may not affect san jacinto waste pits because we have a responsible party, but there are a lot of superfund sites around the country that dont have a responsible party. Well, its a concern, congressman. In fact, during the budgeting process, the appropriations process, i conveyed to our committee that if monies were necessary to address those orphan sites we have orphan sites that make up the superfund portfolio that i would come and advise congress and ask for those funds. I mean, its very important that as we go forward on superfund cleanup that money not be the problem on how we get those cleanups. We need accountability there. I will tell you that in my time evaluating the superfund portfolio, there is very few orphan sites, and most of it is just a lack of direction on how we should clean up. There are several examples, in east chicago. I think one of the members earlier today mentioned portland. San jacinto was one of those, where there simply wasnt much direction on getting accountability and cleanup with these responsible parties. So were trying to do both, but i commit to you that if there are issues, deficiencies on funding with respect to that superfund priority, we will advise you and ask for help we work through the appropriations process. Thank you, because in september, the epa Inspector General issued a report about the distribution of superfund fulltime ftes among the epa regions does not support the current regional workloads. As a result, some regions have to prioritize work and have slowed down, like you mentioned, or discontinued. Are you aware of that oigs report . Yeah, ive actually talked to the Inspector General about the superfund issues Going Forward, and weve looked at some management issues, how we bid projects. Sometimes theyre not competitively bid. We sometimes are getting bids that take, routinely i hear something will take 15 or 20 years, and ive pushed back saying that perhaps thats not how long it should take, and maybe the bid is just trying to prolong things as far as receiving funding for 15, 20 years from those contractors. So were trying to get reform, both in how we process and how we bid out and do remediation, but also making decisions early in the process to make sure that we get accountability on outcomes. Okay. Since i come from the houston area, the houston ship channel, where we have five refineries, my next question, the epa released its renewal fuel standard, setting 15,000 gallons for conventional ethanol. Many refiners in my district and along the gulf coast were disappointed with this final number. Would you commit to lowering future rfs trirmts avoid this blend wall that were having . And i know from oklahoma, you understand. Well, congressman, i cant commit to certain outcomes with respect to that process. Thats a rulemaking process, but what i can tell you is what i shared earlier with the question we will objectively determine each year what the production levels look like theyre going to be. Were tracking those numbers now. Biodiesels been as big of a challenge as the conventional. Weve routinely set that at 2. 1 or higher. 2. 1 was the last number before this year. And as i indicated, we imported 700 million gallons of biobased diesel from argentina to meet that 2. 1 billion gallon limit. We ought not be dependent upon the people of argentina to meet an obligation we are setting domestically. That is something we will look at, but we cant prejudge the outcomes. My refineies always talk about the problems they are in, and of course, the chair of the committee is a great fella from illinois, but we do have some differences on corn ethanol as compared to biofuel. Congressman, its a fair point, and i will say it is a real issue as far as r. I. M. Reform. We need accountability in that market. There is a lot of speculation that goes on with respect to rens. There are enforcement issues, fraud that occurs. In fact, we just prosecuted a committee, i think its 30 millionplus fraud that occurred in the red market. There is a lot of work to be done to get reform and accountability in that market. Glad to work with you. Chair recognizes mr. Johnson for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and mr. Administrator, thank you for being here with us today. Let me First Express my support for your comments on cooperative federalism. When issuing regulations like the Clean Power Plan, the Previous Administration is not take into account the people that would have been most truly affected by those regulatory changes, and those are the hardworking coal miners, the power plant workers, and others throughout the industry supply chain, all of which many of which live in eastern and southeastern ohio, where i live and represent. As you well know, the ohio epa, along with many other states, breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court issued a stay of this rule that would have had a devastating effect on not only ohios Electricity Generation and economy but other states as well. That, in my opinion, is not cooperative federalism. Now, epas recent public hearing in West Virginia on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan i think exemplifies the agencys willingness to listen to those that would have been most affected by the rule. No one cares more about the air we breathe nor the water we drink than those of us that live in regions where that kind of work goes on, places like eastern and southeastern ohio. Where some of the bestpaying energy and manufacturing opportunities for jobs reside. There is a Necessary Balance to Environmental Protection and our process to share that responsibility with states and local leaders, like you have suggested, is a crucial and muchneeded change to how these regulations have been approached in the past. So i applaud your work in that regard. Well, if i could say, congressman, to give you an example about how it shouldnt work. When i came into this position, there were 700, approximately, state implementation plans that many of your states had prepared on how to improve air quality, where resources have been devoted, expertise delegated at the state level, to improve air quality, present those state implementation plans. They were sitting on a shelf at our agency that we had not acting upon, and thats simply not a good way to do business. We as an agency need to respond up or down on those plans to give input and direction back to states. We need to encourage and want to encourage states to take those kind of steps. And i think it was very disheartening for that to take place. Were trying remedy that. I thank you for that collaborative approach. I want to move on to another subject, though, thats important in our state. The deadlines under which the brick mact, set under a 2017 epa rulemaking are soon approaching. These regulations affect brick and tile manufacturers among other small businesses, typically located in Rural Communities and in most cases are the primary source of jobs in those little small communities, especially in my district. The epa, your agency, recently announced its intentions to reconsider these regulations. Can you please elaborate on status and timing of the agencys reconsideration of the brigmack regulations . As far as the time, it would be difficult to provide that at this point. Congressman, i think we need to assess what that process will look like. Its not a rulemaking prosper is a, but it approaches that and thats something well have to evaluate. I apologize i dont have that answer. Can you get back to us . Sure. That will work. Let me just make some comments about that. You know, the last bricmac rule was in 2003. Hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the industries to comply, then later vacated by a federal court, but only after most brick manufacturers had already committed to facility modifications to comply, and the money had been spent. For all practical purposes, judicial review was meaningless in that case, in terms of the economy and the jobs. Do you agree we dont want to see a repeat of that kind of situation . Absolutely, and i think there are other examples, congressman, where thats happened, where there has not been a stay enforcement on a particular rule. Those that are required to meet the rules, obligations, take those steps. And by the time judicial review takes place, its somewhat hollow with respect to whether the rule was constitutional or lawful in the first instance. So, i think its very important that we work to get these things right so that that doesnt happen. I appreciate it, mr. Chairman. I yield back a five whole seconds and i thank you for your services. The chairman thanks him and the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from colorado for five minutes, ms. Degette. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Administrator pruitt, thank you for coming today. Im the ranking democrat on the oversight and investigations subcommittee of this committee, and i will tell you we all take our obligations very seriously. Effective oversight relies on receiving the information from the agencies that we oversee. And members of this committee have sent the epa over 34 written requests this year, including requests about the lack of transparency at the agency, removal of climate data from the website and other critically important topics. Now, to date, mr. Administrator, we have received no response to eight of these letters. Let me give you an example. And i can give you copies of all of these. On may 18th, members of this committee and the committee on science, space and technology, sent a letter requesting documents and Additional Information on epas premature removal of qualified experts from epas board of science counselors. Now, we still seven months later have not received a response. Mr. Pruitt, can you commit to giving us a timely response to this request . Are you referring to bosc, the board of counselors . That is correct. We will provide any information you need there. I would disagree its a premature removal. Im not arguing about the substance. I just need the information. Sure. And there are seven other letters we have not gotten responses. Can you commit to getting us responses if you inventory those, i ill give you copies of all of them. Now, theres 22 other letters, mr. Pruitt, that the minority, at least, feels have had incomplete response. For example, there was one on april 20th where Ranking Member pallone sent a letter requesting a briefing on the budget request, and they got a fivesentence letter back that basically said, were developing the president s budget based on the framework provided by the blueprint and gave no other information. Its hard for us what time frame was that . Im sorry, congresswoman. It was april 20th. Okay. So its hard for us to develop our oversight if we dont have this information. Im going to work with other members of this committee on those other 22 letters to drill down and see what Additional Information we feel we need from the agency. Can i get your commitment to please also respond to those . And i will give that all to you. Yes, maam. And i will tell you, weve get a group of individuals thank you very much. You know, i only have five minutes. Im so sorry. One of the things about the lack of information is the tosca bill. And i will tell you, my buddy, mr. Shimkus, and i and everybody on this committee, we worked really hard to resize tosca, and thats one of the crowning achievements, we think, of this committee. But since we did this on a bipartisan basis, the Obama Administration proposed banning methylene chloride from use as a paint stripper based on extensive evidence of unreasonable risk to human health. And so, we havent heard yet from the epa, whether theyre giving the public an indication about whether theyre finalizing the rule. I just have a couple questions around that. Have you personally met with dow chemical or the American Chemistry Council to discuss this rule while were waiting for the update . No, maam. Okay. And will you commit to finalizing this tosca rule for methylene chloride and doing so soon . I will commit to reviewing it and giving you an answer soon, yeah. That would be great. When do you think we can get an answer . I dont know, but well advise you soon after this meeting. That will be great, thanks. Well be on top of it. Dont worry. Now, one last thing. It was said you installed a 25,000 soundproof booth in your office at epa headquarters. Is that true . Its a secure phone line. Okay, so its a skiff, what we call a sensitive compartmental information facility, is that right . Yes. And did you do that because part of the epas mission involves classified information . Yes, maam, part of that, but also communications with the white house. There are secure conversations that need to take place at times and so you believe it is appropriate to use the scif to talk to the white house . I believe that there are secure conversations that need to take place that i didnt have access to. Okay. So, what percentage of your work would you say is conducted in this scif . Its hard to predict that. Well, is it 50 of your conversations . Is it 75 . Cabinetlevel officials need to have access to secure locations no, no, im talking about the one that you put into the epa headquarters. How often do you use that scif . Its hard to predict in the future. Is it 5 . 95 . Its hard to calculate so let me ask, you use that only for classified information or for communications with the president , is that your testimony . Its used for secure communications that need to take place at the office. And thats what you think is appropriate for a scif. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back her time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, i believe, mr. Flores, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you, administrator pruitt, for joining us today. I thank you for the epas timely rollout of the rfs standards, i think as first time nth history of the rfs that was done, so i appreciate that. There is a bipartisan group, mr. Shimkus, mr. Welch and myself that are working on solution to this. The challenges of the current rfs statute, also with respect to ren reform. So we may need data and input from you, so be expecting requests from us on that. Moving to ozone for a minute, one of the challenges with ozone regs is that the 2008 standards were rolled out, and then there were huge delays in the rollout methodology from the epa, and then the 2015 standards were levied out on top of that. Thats created substantial uncertainty in our communities in terms of trying to rogge out in terms of trying to comply with two standards, essentially at one time. And then when you add to that theres a growing recognition that let me before i get to that. Today, i think most people agree that most of the country, even based on some of the epas own modeling, show that most of the country will be in compliance in seven years with both standards. And then you add to that theres a growing recognition that International Pollution is causing several communities to not be able to meet the standards. Theres actually a recent analysis by the midwest ozone group, the epa said that but for international contributions, the United States east of the rockies would attain the 2008 and 2015 standards by 2023. So, a couple of questions in this regard. The first one is, does it make sense to force new compliance burdens on states before existing controls have been implemented . Well, speaking generally to those pollutants that we regulate, i think the fiveyear review process that we engage in should be a review and not necessarily just an automatic ratcheting down, because i think when you look at the 75 parts per billion versus the 70 parts per billion that was the focus of the ozone rule, there are issues that you describe air transport issues, background ozone, exceptional events, i think came up earlier today. There are issues that we need to calculate and understand as those standards are set. So Going Forward, i think the fiveyear review process shouldnt be interpreted as an automatic ratcheting down, but a review of whether the levels are protective of human health. Okay. Do you think it makes sense for states or communities to be punished for ozone thats beyond their control, that comes in from other areas or background ozone . No, and the designation process, congressman, we try to take that into consideration. I mean, there are areas in wisconsin, as an example, that are facing compliance issues because of air transport issues, and were trying to calculate that into the designation process as best we can. Good. In order to address the situations weve just talked about, supplementally, in order to comply with my time limit, id like you to tell me what you think congress can do to help with this and also what epa can do under its current Statutory Authority. I think that mentioning background ozone and background levels, i think there are certain parts of the country that really have theres no Economic Activity that could occur and they still would be violative of the standard thats been set. So i think congress assisting the epa in how to address background levels would be substantially important. I think also the exceptional events. Theres a lot of confusion, better put, lack of clarity on how to apply exceptional events in the designation process and otherwise, and so i think some clarity around that would be much appreciated. Okay, great. And were working on that. I want to take a second for my remaining time to ask for your help with an agricultural herb side, commonly known as roundup by the manufacturer. Last month, hhs released an Agricultural Health study that determined that this particular chemical does not cause cancer, again, does not cause cancer. And thats through a study, the outcome of a study that the epa made this past march. The challenge is that the state of california and the International Association for the research of cancer are claiming that it does, and that creates uncertainty among our Agricultural Community as well as the manufacturer of this particular herbicide, and of course, weve got to get this sorted out because you have one group of folks saying it does, two other Government Agencies saying it does not cause cancer. Can i have a commitment to have your team look at this to try to sort this out . Yes. And theres been another study i think in ih that was particular to the one you cited. So, there is some clarity that we need to provide in this Going Forward, and yes, we need to work with you and others in the committee that are concerned about that. Okay. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. Gentleman beeldz back his time. The chairman recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Mcnerney for five minutes. I thank the chair and thank the administrator for coming here today. You said the u. S. Should celebrate the progress thats been made in reducing air pollution. I agree. You also said that thats in large part due to technology and innovation. I agree completely. But do you think that the progress thats taken place would have been made without the ep regulations enforcements . These are regulations that you are now eliminating. I think the epa regulation framework has helped, absolutely, in contributing to those outcomes, but i think its been a partnership between results and the private sector, so i think its a combination of factors. Okay. Ozone pollution is one of the most widespread pollutions in the United States and science has been studying its effects on health for decades. Hundreds of Research Studies have confirmed that ozones harm people at levels currently found in the United States. The Clean Air Act requires that the apa looks at the late jest Science Evidence and sets standards to protect Public Health. These standards are what we rely on to know whether ozone is safe, what levels of ozone are safe. Administrator pruitt, do you agree that the ozone pollution is a problem that the apa should address . Yes. Its a criteria pollutant under the nax program that needs to be addressed. Good. Approximately 30 of the people in my district suffer from asthma, partly related to ozone, but your actions in my opinion do not demonstrate a commitment to addressing the problem. For example, on october 1st, 2017, marked the legal deadline for the epa to identify communities with levels of groundlevel ozone pollution above the epas 2015 ozone standard. These are also known as nonaat the same time areas. Administrator pruitt, you spoke a lot about the rule of law in your statement, that the epa announced attainment designations by the october 1st statutory deadline . Congressman, we designate all but 50 sites across the country, approximately, and have made tremendous progress since the time frame that youre talking about, so were very close to finishing that process. But you didnt make the october 1st deadline. Some of them, but not all. I think you sort of mentioned this already. About half of the counties that were not designated by october 1st comprise about half of the United States population. Some of that is based upon, congressman, upon information that has not been provided by the states. So sometimes theres insufficient information in which for us to make a determination. And so, theres a communication to those states to get that in to help us finish that process. Its not exclusively, you know, something we can do without that information. So its a combination of factors that we are working diligently to finish that process. The designations are occurring. And as i indicated, theres only approximately 50 sites across the country that need to be designated. Out of hundreds, by the way. Will the ep engage in a scientific and transparent process in setting designations im sorry . Will the epa engage in scientific and transparent process in designating those areas . It will be absolutely. It will be part of the record. Well, on your website, you state that the purpose of the epa is to ensure that all parts of society, communities, individuals, businesses, state and local and tribal governments have access to Accurate Information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks. Are you fulfilling the purpose of the epa, keeping information from americans about the ozone levels in their area . Im not sure in what ways, congressman. Maybe you can clarify your question. How were keeping it from those citizens. Well, you havent you didnt meet the october 1st deadline and you still havent fulfilled the entire requirement, so youre keeping information from communities that need to know what their attainment levels are. Its not information. Its a designation process, which is a legal process, congressman, that were going through to make those designations, which we need information to do that, and thats i think were making tremendous progress and it should be done very soon. Administrator pruitt, youve made it clear that youre committed to superfund cleanup, but what about preventing creation of new superfund sites . Whats your commitment in that regard . In what regard, congressman . Well, the epas job is to protect Public Health, so it should be the job to prevent companies or entities from creating superfund sites. Are you committed to that . Correct. I mean, thats something when you say creating superfund sites sometimes states actually ask for us to put superfund sites on a list, which i was trying to get clarity. Im not talking about designation. Im talking about creating pollution that could be designated as a superfund obviously, lead, uranium, these issues, we want to do all we can to eliminate those things so we dont have those sites across the country, absolutely. Well, in your rush to eliminate regulations, thats exactly what youre doing is creating opportunity for new superfund sites to be created. I wouldnt interpret it that way, congressman. The gentlemans times expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. Hudson, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Administrator, for making the extra effort to come back and take all of our questions, and thank you for your strong leadership at the agency. I appreciate also your efforts to make the epa focus on air and water and soil contamination. My state in north carolinas been shaken by the discovery of a chemical called generation x in the cape fear river. I know my state reports that its no longer getting into the river and the treated Drinking Water is within state health goals. The previous epa administrator permitted use of this kmemical without conditions in 2009. Can you say whether the epa discovered genx was used in this fashion . I dont have that information, but i can get it to you. I appreciate it. I understands the epa has upgraded its assessment of genx and has set up analysis for it and water samples are being collected right now along the cape fear river, including wastewater, surface water, groundwater and treated Drinking Water samples. Are there any findings you can discuss on that so far . Again on that, id have to get the information from the office and provide that to you to make sure its complete, comprehensive and up to date. Great. I appreciate that. One issue thats a real concern to folks in my part of north carolina, whether its agriculture or just Property Owners in general, is the waters of the usa regulation. And ive heard some of your critics say that youve done the same thing as your predecessor in that youve already decided the outcome of the rule or just casting about for justifications. Thats sort of the claim we keep hearing. Id love to give you a chance to respond to that. Well, i think oftentimes, with respect to issues like this, the waters rule that was adopted in 2015, the stated objective was to provide clarity. That was what the past administration said. If that were the stated objective, they failed miserably, because i agree. Confusion across the country about what it is, where federal jurisdiction begins and ends. And so, theres a process that were going through to deal with the deficiency. Theres a court stay against this 2015 rule that youre aware of, and so our obligation is to provide a definition. And that process has begun in earnest and we should have a proposed rule by april of next year time frame. And were taking significant comment on that along with the withdrawal of the 2015 rule. So its not deregulation in the true sense, its regulatory clarity Going Forward so we know where federal jurisdiction begins and ends. Sounds good to me. One of the main arguments in favor of the Obama Administrations waters rule is that it is essential to protecting Drinking Water, and that without this version of the rule, Public Health will be at risk. The safe Drinking Water act, however, has provisions addressing both the protection of source water, sections 14. 53 and 14. 54, and underground sources of Drinking Water, part c. Do you agree that the safe Drinking Water act has these provisions that provides protection to source waters . Absolutely. And let me say to members on the committee, one of the things that were focused upon as we head into 2018 is lead in our water supply, safe Drinking Water. And i think there are tremendous challenges we have across the country with respect to Service Lines, in particular communities. And the lead thats seeping into the water supply of our children, its one of the greatest environmental threats i think we face as a country. And one of the things that i hope i can work with this committee on as we go into 2018 is the strategy over a tenyear period to eradicate those concerns, and its going to be a very Ambitious Initiative at our agency, and its something that we have various offices in the Agency Working upon. There are about 17 agencies, actually, that are working on this issue of lead as well, and im sending a letter it my colleagues and other agencies to make this a point of emphasis as we go into 2018. So, not only do i agree with what youre saying about the reach on these issues, but i think theyre important matters that we can take on led that will make a difference for our citizens across the country Going Forward. I thank you for your answers. Mr. Chairman, i think i can speak for folks on both sides of the aisle that we look forward to that discussion. With that, ill yield back. And if i may you may. I understand that thats a costly endeavor, you know. Replacing lead Service Lines across the country, its been estimated may cost as much as 30 billion, maybe upwards of 50 billion. But i will say to you that if we can develop a tenyear strategy on how to address that across the country michigan is considering right now lowering levels from 15 parts per billion down to 10 on the standard, but theyre also spending a tremendous amount of money to replace those lead lines, as i understand it. And thats good leadership of the governor of michigan, and i think, frankly, we in washington need to have that conversation with states across the country to focus on that issue. The president s talked about infrastructure, the importance of using some of the infrastructure discussion to address some of these things, and i look forward to that discussion with you. If the gentleman would allow me to yield. So, we passed the safe Drinking Water act out of the full committee, which should be helpful in this. My friends on the other side wanted more money, so maybe in a supplemental and stuff, in this process, weve already started moving to try to do that legislatively, but executive branch focus would be helpful. Its not just look, its not just Service Lines. Corrosion control measures that need to be deployed, obviously, paint as well. So, theres a multifaceted approach that we need to evaluate on how to declare a war on lead, if you will. But i want to let you know, it is something i desire to work with you Going Forward in 2018. Youll have some interest. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair. Mr. Pruitt, i like, to quote you, the dialogue that begins today. I hope the dialogue doesnt span ten months between these opportunities. Is your current office, place of work, washington, d. C. . Yes, sir. Okay. And prior to becoming the epa administrator, what city or state did you live in . Tulsa, oklahoma. Tulsa, oklahoma, okay. Well, mr. Pruitt, i just would like to point out for the record that you traveled to oklahoma for 43 out of 92 days this spring, according to the washington post. Thats almost half of every day in march, april and may of this year. Im extremely troubled by reports that your frequent travel to and from oklahoma occurred at the expense of the u. S. Taxpayer and cost more than 15,000 just on those trips alone, and it appears im not the only one concerned. At the request of members of this congressional committee, epas office of Inspector General has becogun an audit on ways to prevent fraud, waste and abuse on the issue of your travel back to oklahoma at taxpayer expense. Also, it doesnt end there. Later news reports uncovered that you, along with other members of the Trump Administration, have been using private jets and military aircraft at tremendous taxpayer expense. One of the most expensive examples was in early june when you and several of your staff traveled on a military jet from cincinnati, ohio, to john f. Kennedy airport in new york on your way to italy. The cost of that flight alone was reportedly over 36,000. In august, you chartered a private plane to fly from denver, colorado, to durango, colorado, in the same state, costing the u. S. Taxpayers over 5,000. You did so even though the you did so even though the governor of california had reportedly offered to fly you on a stateowned plane. Mr. Pruitt, the taxpayer bill for your travel on private jets and other noncommercial aircraft is a record total more than 58,000 since february this year alone. These costs are especially offensive, given the secure excuse me, the severe cuts you have proposed to essential and lifesaving epa programs. Take, for example, the office of Environmental Justice, which helps poor communities who are being disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution. This Administration Proposed to eliminate the office of Environmental Justice. So, mr. Pruitt, are the American People supposed to believe that we cannot afford 2 million to help our most vulnerable communities, but we can afford tens of thousands of dollars for you to fly on private jets . First i want to say to you, congressman, i do look forward to the dialogue. And i appreciate your comments Going Forward. And i think there is much work we can engage in together, and i look forward to that discussion. Environmental justice is something that i met with actually internal members of our team yesterday. Talking about issues like chicago. Environmental justice is an important issue. Its something that we seek to translate to rural action on the ground. And we have. Since ive been serving, particularly emphasis on chicago the superfund situation there. On the travel that youve highlighted, i would just say to you, every trip ive taken to oklahoma with respect to taxpayer expenses has been business related. When i was in oklahoma for a wellness meeting, we had three states converge in the panhandle of oklahoma that had kansas, oklahoma and texas come together. There were hundreds of individuals in attendance. Thats a very important effort. Berg creek in osage county had high levels. They had not responded to those high levels. There was harm taking place with fish in that water. As such, we needed to take action, and i was there to address that. There are concerns that affect oklahoma in region 6. Just like every other state. Every dollar expended with respect to those travel was businessrelated. When ive traveled back to the state for personal reasons, i paid for it. And that will bear out in the process. But let me say this to you finally. With respect to the travel, commercial travel is what we fly almost exclusively. The situation is cincinnati i fly with the president for a meeting on infrastructure. We were going to the g7 in italy and could not make the flight in jfk unless we got a public transport. So thats why that decision was made. But its been only four instances during the entire time ive been serving as administrator. And it was always based upon circumstances. You mentioned going to colorado. The reason that occurred is because we were going to colorado to address the needs and concerns of the citizens there, and couldnt make it otherwise. And i would dispute the governors reference that you made earlier. Oh, really . Okay. Well, thank you very much for stating for the record. Because the Inspector General is looking into those details and i hope it all bears out and lets see what the outcome is. Well, i am going to be respectful for giving you an opportunity to answer. There goes all of my time. So with the last five seconds, i would ask i be able to insert these two letters from the epas Inspector General agreeing to investigate this travel. Ask unanimous consent to enter that into the record. Without objection, so ordered. The chair recognizes the gentleman from north dakota, mr. Cramer, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Administrator, for your candor, for being here and for your strong leadership. And i just i might just say, you used a term in responding to mr. Mcnerney, which i think is a new term at the epa, and that was partnership. And i think that my friend from californias line of questioning bears out that you see states as stakeholders and partners, not as subordinates. Thank you for going to places like oklahoma and north dakota and other states in the middle of real america that are affected by what for the last eight years has simply been a dictatorship by the epa. Thank you for that, and we appreciate your willingness to address this in our home states. I also want to congratulate you on your incredible work on meeting these deadlines. 27 years that gets done in a matter of weeks and months. I probably shouldnt seem like such a High Standard but by comparison. And doing all that with only one confirmed aa is really quite remarkable. So i look forward to when you have a full staff and a full team and we can really get to it. And i know cpp are big topics in north dakota, as you know. But i want to get to the heart of a couple of things youve emphasized. And like my friend from texas, mr. Olson, i appreciate your commitment to process and rule of law. I appreciate your commitment to cooperative federalism. And i know youre very familiar with a couple of north dakota cases. One in particular, of course, the hayes case, that was started in california and north dakota was blocked from intervening in, which just kind of blows me away that states dont have as a matter of right, constitutional right standing in cases that affect them, especially with regard to regulations that they have primacy over regulating. The more recent is one that straddled your memo on sue and settle that i want to bring to your attention and see if we cant work more closely together. You, me, our attorney general, on addressing it as we go forward. And that was a revision of rules that was proposed in 2016, a Consent Decree was declared between the epa and environmentalist groups. And north dakota was blocked from intervening. And this is related to oil and gas industry in our state, where our state has primacy, and we were blocked from intervening. Oral arguments in october of this year, about the same time as you were putting out your memo, occurred in the the d. C. Circuit court of appeals. And we were blocked again. The environmentalists and the epa prevailed. But what was most disturbing about that, and why i want to bring it to your attention, you have a really big task in front of you to meet not just the rule, but the culture. Change that we had hoped to achieve. And that is that it was department of justice attorneys that argued to effectively against north dakota in the d. C. Circuit. So as we go forward, what i would love to do is be able to maybe have a meeting with my attorney general and you and me and plan the next phase of this, and use the state of north dakota as a partner, as opposed to, you know, a litigant on the other side. Yeah, as i indicated earlier in my opening comments, and i think in response to questions, from your perspective, you know, you have put into place a process by which were supposed to adopt rules. And when and rules are supposed to be, what, laws of general applicability. And so when you are involved in litigation and you change requirements under a statute, discretionary, nondiscretionary, time lines or otherwise, and then you apply it in a general fashion, thats something that i think is offensive with respect to the apa process and should be dealt with. And thats why the sue and settle practice is important as we go forward. We may consider codifying that loosely said, with respect to rule making. But its important we implement these directives the directive ive sent to respect the epa as we make decisions. With regard then to states rights, because i feel like its not just its all of the acts under epa, several other agencies where it seems like the right for a state to have standing, somehow has to be based on a finding of harm or injury. And it seems to me that in a cooperative federalism, states should have that right, especially if its regulation that they have primacy over. Im wondering if we should be doing something, you know, to codify that, which it seems to me the constitution should be adequate for. But whether we should do it broadly or whether we should do it very specifically. And i might add, and then you can answer and wrapup my time. Should you have some more independent Litigation Authority . Independent, say, of the doj. On the first point, i do think Congress Addressing standing most of state plans. Many deal with regional requirements under the Clean Air Act. And i do think its important that the voice of those states are heard. And thats the reason, as it relates to the directive i issued, we ask justice to take a very accommodating posture with respect to state intervention on these issues. But there probably is more that can be done to make sure that happens Going Forward. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from michigan for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its good to see you here. And i was very glad to hear you talk about this war on led we need to have. Talk about this war on lead. We need to have. I share, like every one of us ive met those children in flint. I live with some of those families. Its a very serious problem. And we all need to Work Together to make sure it never happens in another community again. Weve been meeting with my mayors for the last year, even in my own community, included the state. Its not just flint, either. No, its i have it in my district. I dont have flint in my district, but its a concern all over the country. But having said that, there are some things i think that are happening in epa that actually threaten that what youre talking about. So ive got a lot of stuff to talk about, epa matters in michigan. Could i ask for some yes or no questions, just to this. For example, the epa budget for 2018 eliminated two programs that provide grants to straits and tribe grants to support their lead training and Certification Programs for lead paint removal contractors, and the lead Risk Reduction program. Is that correct . We welcomed congress restoring that and talked about that in the appropriations process. Okay. But you deal this would it would have represented a 90 reduction in funding. In addition to proposed cuts, we have seen delays on several key rule makings. You talked about one of them. Which isnt only in flint. Its in another plume ive got in mind, which is the agencys long overdue update for lead and copper rule for Drinking Water systems. It was supposed to be completed by june of this year, and now it appears to be delayed to next month. Will we see it next month . In the agency, congresswoman, has taken over a decade on that. 19 i nudged them too. 1991 was the last time we had a lead and copper rule. And but we need it. I will tell you, it is a major part of what we need to be about with respect to this war on lead. So when are we going to see it . Hopefully were working on it and its something im committed to. And the agency recently delayed implementation of a 2015 rule to require steam electric power plants to install pollution control for affluence to prevent lead from discharging to rivers. The rule, 30 years. Is that correct . Im not sure about the time line. I take that. But i dont know for sure if its been 30 years. All right. Can we Work Together to get these things done, because they matter to our communities. Now im going to quick im going im not trying to be i just care. You know, you made a comment to mdq that you should have made about the reducing the amount of staff that they had. And that they needed to have more people on their team addressing these flint issues. Mdeq . Michigan department of environmental quality. Do you know that . You recommended that mdeq hire more staff with Water Management expertise. I agree with that. But you have only got one person. Youre offering buyouts and cutting manpower in your agency, the one with oversight responsibility for all of these state programs, while advising michigan to do the opposite. So i would encourage you to look at that. And then ive got to do two more things. First, im going to go to my its all politics is local, but its not just local. It matters to this country. We have a epa lab in ann arbor that everybody thats doing critical work for every single state on automotive emissions and fuel economy. The budget would have eliminated that. The Auto Companies support it, the environmentalist Community Supports it, Everybody Knows what good work is done. Will you support keeping that lab open with all of the important work weve got coming down the road . I will. Thank you. You just made my day. But now having said that, the great lakes. Michigan is, you know its not just michigan. Its all of the states around the great lakes. They matter. They are more than 20 of the fresh water supply in the world. The epa, the president s budget, would have eliminated all the dollars for the great lakes restoration initiative. Or the republicans and democrats on this committee and in the house and senate worked to restore that. The epa had something to do with the eliminating that down to zero. Can you explain why, and can we work with you to make sure that never happens again . Well, i actually talked to your senator about this a couple nights ago. We care. And oh, i know. And not just michigan all of them. The Great Lakes Initiative is something thats been very successful. You have an issue with Invasive Species there. Serious one. And its something that we need to Pay Attention to. And i respect that congress and their restoration of those funds and appreciate that. And will continue to work with you in that regard. And not make an effort to cut them again . Thats a process well go through next year. Thats not something that is unilaterally our decision. As you know. Thats a combination of decisions. Well be back if you do. Yes. Thank you. The gentleladys time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. Believe it or not. Mr. Walberg for five minutes. Thank you. And michigan works together on these things. And so i want to thank my colleague for some of the questions there. But also, administrator pruitt, i want to thank you for being here. Thank you for your straight talk. I thank you the fact we dont have to watch you use a lot of notes. That says something about your understanding of the issues. You made a quote in this or statement in this great lakes restoration. The Initiative Report that had a lot of good things in it. Your inner Agency Task Force on the great lakes that you chair. You said the glri is protecting Public Health and the great lakes. More than any other coordinated interagency effort in u. S. History, and helping to ensure that our children and their children live in safe, healthier communities. I thank you for that statement. I agree with you on it. I would just follow up. My good friend and colleague from the other side of the aisle. My question is this. Can i count on you and your agency to work with my office, our michigan delegation, and the state to support programs to protect cleanup and preserve the great lakes . Yes, sir. I appreciate that. And whatever it takes, i would assume that that would be the case. I mean, its an example, congressman, of as was mentioned earlier, the Great Lakes Initiative is similar to the Chesapeake Bay tmdl, and how the states came together to address a concern there with something different. But this process is the Great Lakes Initiative is something that we should Work Together to make sure that its achieving good outcomes, and i think it has. And well continue that discussion as we head into 2018. Thank you. Another issue i feel very strongly about is the environmental threat to algae blooms posed to lake erie, which is in my district. This committee has worked over the years to address this issue and encourage cooperation between federal agencies and the states. I supported my colleague from ohio. Its tough for a michigander to support ohio at times, especially after the game two weeks ago. But i supported the legislation that would require the epa to develop and submit a plan for assessing and managing risks from the cyanotoxins. Could you please update me on the latest efforts by the agency to address the harmful algae blooms in the great lakes, and more specifically lake erie. Yeah, the algal blooms there, and other parts of the country have been a primary point of emphasis for the office of water, working with states on nondischarge, for a number of years, as you know, congressman. Its something we have a task force internally and a dedicated team of individuals looking at that to try to achieve better outcomes. And that is ongoing. I can provide other specifics to questions you have as it relates to lake erie. I would have to get that from the staff to get an update for you. But it is something that is absolutely a priority. And were taking a Broad Perspective agriculture has its problems. We know that. We also know in michigan the program has attempted to be a very effective in trying to address the concerns about excess nutrients, fertilizers, all sorts of things that come from agriculture. But there are other processes that go into this as well. And i would assume that you would be looking at the total. Well, look. I think we need to recognize that there are farmers and ranchers all over the country that have taken very important steps to address those issues. Ive said many times, those farmers and ranchers are first environmentalists. They care about these issues, as well. And we need to make sure their voices are heard to ensure that were working together to achieve those outcomes. I thank you for that. What cooperative efforts has epa undertaken with other federal agencies in this matter . Dealing with algae blooms . You know, congressman, im not entirely sure if the department of ag has been a part of our discussion. Im sure that they have historically. Sonny perdue and i have not addressed it, but its something we ought to do Going Forward and ensure there is Partnership Like with the department of ag, and there are probably others. But perhaps in interior with, certain aspects, i think department of ag would be an important partner in this process. Okay. Invasive species. Specifically asian carp. Whats the involvement with epa and looking at that . It is a huge, huge problem for the great lakes. The army corps of engineers, any involvement with them, any other federal agencies, as well as state and local governments. Whats the epa doing there . Point of emphasis, you mentioned corps. The corps has been very involved with that. Very slow in that, as well. Well, perhaps we could encourage them. I would appreciate that. Were working together with the corps on a multitude of issues, not the least of which is wotus. But the leadership there has been responsive. And so well take that information and make sure that we communicate that to our partners. Thank you. And i yield back. The gentlemans time has expired. The chair now will recognize the gentlelady from california, miss matsui, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you, mr. Pruitt, for being here today. Mr. Pruitt, i understand that you and President Trump have decided to reopen the midterm evaluation of the Greenhouse Gas emissions standards from year 2022 to 2025. Can you briefly list for us which groups and companies asked you to revisit the evaluation . You know, i wouldnt say reopen, congresswoman, necessarily. This is, as you know, the midterm evaluation was supposed to have taken place in april of 2018. Thats when it was supposed to occur. The past administration accelerated that. For it to happen in december of 16 into january of 17. And this was simply a restoration of process. Im sure the Midterm Review took place consistent with the original understanding. So this is a halfway step. Its not total evaluation. Thats correct. Okay. All right. Okay. So ill go along with you for that. I just want to suggest to you, though, that this half step evaluation, im somewhat concerned about this, because these standards to save consumers, particularly dollars at the pumps and reduce oil consumption, has been validated many times to reduce Greenhouse Gas emission that is contribute to Climate Change. And the standard is good for american drivers and good for the environment, and its really necessary. Particularly because the International Energy agency found that transportation sector is the only area in which the u. S. Has become less energy efficient. Now, i also believe that our country should be investing in clean transportation options. And many Auto Companies share my opinion. One major domestic auto manufacturer recently thousands cutting spending on internal combustion engines and instead investing billions of dollars in electric vehicle development, another Company Plans to release 20 all electric vehicles in the coming years. Can you please answer yes or no . Do you support efforts to strengthen American Innovation and manufacturing through electric vehicle r d and production. It definitely should be part of the mix, congresswoman. And i would say this to you, as well. The agency is not adequately considered with those standards. High octane being used, as well. There has been a lot of focus on the design of vehicles and access to electric vehicles as well but not as much on the fuel side. And i think that we need to incorporate that into the discussion as well. So you have a plan to support the electric Vehicle Market longterm . That would definitely be part of the evaluation as we head into april of 2018 and will continue years ahead, im sure. All right. Im pleased to hear that. Because epa is going to be a ev is going to be a specific portion of our vehicle mix in the future and we need to be positioned in the United States to benefit from their adoption. We want to ensure, if i may for a second. Yes. We want to ensure that as we set those standards, you dont want people staying in older model vehicles. I mean, the whole purpose here is to ensure that vehicles are manufactured, that they meet efficiency levels and outcomes that are important to the environment. And so i understand. So if you dont look at the crosssection of issues from highoctane fuel design and what you have raised, congresswoman, the very purposes are not achieved. And so were taking all those things into consideration. Certainly. Mr. Pruitt, im running out of time. Does california currently have a waiver to set its own lightduty vehicle emission standards through 2025 . Yeah, there is, as you know, statutory waiver for california that is evaluated as part of the Midterm Review. Is the epa involving the state of california of your review from 2022 through 2025 emissions standards . I missed the first part of the question. Im sorry. Are you involving the state of california in your review of the 2022 to 2025 as part of the Midterm Review, the california waiver is necessarily a part of that process. Okay, great. Thats encouraging. Because i believe that the communication involving stakeholders is very important. And mr. Pruitt, can you please answer yes or no. Do you believe that environmental laws envision cooperative relationship between states and the federal government . Yes. In the past, you said that the Previous Administration was, quote, aggressive about dictating to the states and displacing their authority, end quote. Is this correct . Yes, maam. Given your support for states rights under federal and environmental laws, do you support californias ability to seek a waiver to set its own Clean Air Act lightduty vehicle standards . Federal principles do not say one state can dictate the standard to the entire country. There are multitude of considerations, and those will be considered in due time. But we will definitely work with the states. We have already reached out to the government of california and are waiting for a response. Okay, great. So as i mentioned previously, certain auto manufacturers asked for changes to the emission standards. Some have specifically asked for flexibilities under the current program. Are you considering providing these types of flexibilities, or are you also looking at relaxing the standards entirely . As part of that Midterm Review, all things will be considered. Okay. The gentleladys time has expired. All right. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, mr. Duncan, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Administrator pruitt, thank you for being here today. This hearing has been extremely informative to me for learning the Trump Administration priorities within the epa, and i have to say, ive been extremely impressed and supportive with the epa thus far under the Trump Administration and your leadership. You all understand what the intended role of the agency is, and have effectively worked to roll back the bureaucratic overreach and power abuses under the Previous Administration. Through cooperative federalism, you prioritized what should be left up to the states when it comes to both energy and environmental matters. The state should be the ones to set their own limits in regards to the environment, and i thank you for understanding the crucial role the states and localities play in this process. Quick question about the february 28th president ial executive order on waters of the u. S. Could you inform me of the status of the eo . Yes. On february 28th, the president issued an executive order asking the agency to review that definition from 2015. We, in fact, are doing that. There is a twostep process presently ongoing. One is a proposed withdrawal of the wotus rule. And thats in the marketplace. There is comment being taken upon that. In fact, the Comment Period is closed. And we have a substitute definition of what it is that will come out sometime in april of next year. So there is a substantive replacement forthcoming and a withdrawal already in the marketplace that makes up the response to the february 28th executive order. All right, thank you. A lot of us were alarmed when we saw what was defined as a navigable water way under the Previous Administration. A lot of times these were ditches that didnt hold any water. No stream bed. Only had water during significant rain event. But yet they were regulated under the waters of the u. S. And that was the to the detriment of the developer, the landowner, the farmers and what not. So i thank you and the administration for doing that. I want to shift gears to ports. The South Carolina port regulated by the Ports Authority in South Carolina are charleston port is important. One in every 11 jobs in South Carolina is attributed to some sort of port activity. So could you explain how under the Trump Administration the permitting process for ports is carried out in a more timely and efficient manner to ensure that these ports continue to maintain b a and economic driver . Its not just a port issue, but i think the process has been inconsistent. I talked about this with respect to the ten regions and how individuals in region 8 or region 6 are being treated differently than in region 5 and region 10. And so we are trying to get processes in place to ensure that there are timely responses. You know, a permitting process shouldnt go on for years and years and years. And we have many examples at the agency where literally the decision on whether to deny or grant a permit has taken over a decade. Thats entirely unacceptable. And what we are doing is trying to set an outside time limit that a decision will be made, up or down, on whether a permit should issue. In fact, ive been told i mentioned the chief operating officer earlier today. Its our goal by the end of 2018 to have processes in place to ensure an answer up or down on permits within six months as we go forward. So thats something states are doing across the country. It is a major undertaking in our agency, but were trying to reform the processes internally to provide answers with more clarity and more certainty. I applaud you for that. And i wish this committee had jurisdiction over the corps of engineers, and we could encourage them to manage River Systems in this country on a regional basis instead of a onesizefitsall. Because i can tell you, eastern River Systems like the Savannah River system is different than western River Systems, and how the Savannah River basin is managed from a corps of engineers standpoint and possibly epa standpoint is different than how a Western River system should be managed. Thats important to my district that has corps lakes and downstream flows that affect mr. Carters district. So mr. Administrator, i appreciate you being here. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. I really appreciate the comment about regional variation. Because as we look at the waters of the United States rule as an example, i mentioned this earlier today, states have north dakota has something called prairie potholes. And as i spent time in north dakota, i had never seen a prairie pothole. But thats a unique aspect of that state that needs to be taken into consideration as we look at these issues. So i really appreciate your feedback. Thats the reason we are reaching out to governors and the deqs dnrs across the country to make sure were making informed decisions, not only on just permitting but substantive rules were talking about. Thats critical. I yield back. The gentleman fields back his time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. Carter, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Administrator. Appreciate you being here today. Very much. Thank you, members. Pardon me . My apology. Talking to another member here. No worries. Administrator pruitt, ive got a during the last administration, toward the end of the last administration, there was a rule that was titled Greenhouse Gas phase two rule for medium and heavyduty trucks. In my opinion, this had a lot of overreach in it, because it included regulating truck trailers as selfpropelled vehicles. And ive introduced legislation to deal with this, and i just wanted to ask you, you issued a statement on this rule back in november. And in that rule, you issued a statement on the review of glider kits, but you didnt include anything about tractortrailers. Do you intend to do that . Are you familiar with this at all . I appreciate actually appreciate you bringing that to my attention. I was aware of the latter that you mentioned, but not the former. So thats something i will definitely take a look at. Okay. I appreciate it. Because it is something thats very important to us, particularly to the tractortrailer industry, which is a big industry down in our area, as well. Also wanted to ask you, in my district, in the Coastal Region of georgia, the entire coast of georgia, i have the honor and privilege of representing that area. Weve got three significant superfund sites. And very briefly, can you just bring me up to date where were at with that . With the superfund sites and the status of the program and the improvements you may have made with this . Yeah, there were 42 recommendations that we would be happy to make available to the committee. But in the month of may june time frame, we commissioned this task force to evaluate how we can better manage the superfund portfolio. Those recommendations are being implemented as we speak. And the great progress is being made. And were trying to address, because there are other than areas in portland im sorry, i cant recall the member that brought it up this morning but the city of portland and harbor, there were substantial issues. It was a large area impacted. There was progress that could be made in certain parts of the superfund area and not others. And so we made a call to get started on those areas. Because whats happened historically is that we delayed taking any positive action until the entire area had been decided upon. So we are trying to make those kind of changes to provide clarity to the communities. Also ensuring that were hearing the voices of those cities and towns and citizens about those decisions. I think thats been neglected in the past. So there are many things were looking at that ultimately its to ensure we get outcomes and decisive outcomes and decisions are made and responsible parties are held responsible for the harm they have caused in those areas. Is there any kind of legislative actions that you feel like you need that we would be able to make that would help you in that area . You know, its a good question. Because in the brownfield program, as an example, this body has been very, very successful with respect to changes in the brownfield program. I think there are some reusability options with respect to superfund sites. Sites more marketable Going Forward. Ultimately our goal in the portfolio should be to remediate those sites, protect human health and see those sites redeemed Going Forward. So maybe thats something we can do together to adopt a brownfield sort of approach. Superfund areas within the portfolio. Good. As i mentioned before, i represent the entire coast of georgia, over 100 miles of coastline. So as you can imagine we have a lot of boaters in that area. And our office has been getting a lot of calls for tiers of specialization, particularly among boats, particularly among harbor pilots and bar pilots. They are having a lot of trouble with the flexibility in the framework. They have situation where weve heard requirements of them forcing people in the scenarios where the manufacturers dont necessarily make an appropriately tiered engine far boat type. And theyre having a lot of trouble with this and its causing problems with being able to order these boats. Are you familiar with this . Is this something youve been addressing at all . Its not something i have been privy to on the part of the discussions with the agency, but i would be happy to look into it. If its okay, i would like my office to send you the information so you can review it, because it is a serious problem down here. They want to comply and they want to do the right thing but they need some flexibility with it as well. Okay. Thank you, mr. Administrator. One last question, as i understand it, mr. Administrator, are you from oklahoma, is that correct . Yes. Can you say go dogs . Its hard. I think the gentleman is out of order. Boomer sooner comes out easier. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i yield back. I recognize the gentleman from mississippi mr. Harper for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman, and thanks so much for being here, administrator pruitt and congratulations on almost 10 months youve been in this role. While i was born in mississippi, my late father was born in altus, oklahoma and grew up there, so we have a great affinity for the state of oklahoma in my household. So appreciate you taking time to be here. Yesterday i was appointed chairman on the subcommittee on oversight and investigations here in energy and commerce. An important responsibility that ill now have and i certainly dont take that lightly. Many of the matters that we have reviewed and will review will concern the epa. While i cannot comment on the minorities interest in the agenda, but i pledge to my colleagues across the aisle that i will work with you when at all possible. In the weeks ahead, ill be reviewing information with the chairman of the full committee and Committee Staff to determine our oversight agenda to regard many agencies under the committees jurisdiction including epa. Ill also work closely with the chairman of the other committees to identify issues that we think deserve focus and attention. In addition, i want to emphasize that with all agencies in the committee jurisdictions, we do anticipate and expect that the epa will cooperate with our inquiries and i hope you administrator pruitt will respect our constitutional prerogatives and be fully responsive to our inquiries and requests for information. I assume we can count on that. Yes, congressman. Good to meet you, and im glad to hear about your connection to altus. Thank you so much. The Obama Administrations rule on wood heaters had two steps. Step one took effect in 2015 that reduced emissions up to 90 . Step two is supposed to take effect in to 20 and it will be a bit more. The 2015 step one has gone into effect. But the wood heater industry, many of them are having great difficulty developing models that meet the 2020 step two standards. So one of the things we have looked at is giving more time, in a matter that was actually marked up yesterday, to extend that by three years. Do you believe it makes sense to give this industry a little more time to meet the step two standards, rather than see Companies Going out of business and letting workers go . I think its always helpful, congressman, in answer to your question, for congress to provide those kinds defense direction to the agency. Im encouraged this body is looking at that to give usa path forward in that regard. As we go forward, we will make sure that we work with you to address the issue. Many of the customers for these wood heaters, many of whom will be in rural areas, many low income individuals or households. So it is a feeling i would assume that you would agree, that the epa needs to make sure that its rules dont drive up prices unnecessarily. All of those things have to be considered in the regulatory process, but i very much appreciate the congressional response as well on those deadlines. One last thing in the time we have. Last week the oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the Regulatory Reform task force. During the hearing the deputy administrator testified that retrospective review of regulation was nothing new to epa. What are some regulations that have been repealed and what are some others that have been proposed but not yet finalized . Goodness. Are you talking about Brittany Boland . Yes. I havent reviewed her testimony. But are there any particular areas that youre concerned about . Just if theres anything thats on your radar that we need to be aware of that youre looking at. Regulatory reform, pursuant to executive order and that task force is something thats going to be ongoing as we head into 2018, the agenda that we have spelled out there is very apparent, and i believe we have addressed those here today. If there are more concerns of you or the other committee members, but i cant think of any that havent been addressed already. We want to thank you for your time and your insight and look forward to working with you in the years ahead. Just an announcement and apologies to those who have been here for a long time. I would ask that members that go by seniority on the full committee. So i recognize mr. Rush for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and i want to thank you administrator pruitt for your attendance here. After your confirmation hearing in january you were submitted questions on the record asking you to define Environmental Justice and whether you consider it a serious issue. And in your response, you seemed to give the issue, in my opinion, short shrift and you were quoted as saying that you were, quote, familiar with the concept of Environmental Justice, end of quote. You then went on to say, in a vague way, and i hope you remember, the administrator plays an Important Role regarding Environmental Justice, end of quote. In this statement, you repeated 11 times in your written response. Then a few months later, asking you to open the agency, your former assistant associate administrator for Environmental Justice, mr. Stephen arlene, an individual who worked in my office on several occasions. Mr. Arlene resigned in march after 24 years of service, stating that he did not see any indication that you or the rest of the administration are interested in any way in helping vulnerable communities. I just want to say this is deeply disturbing to me because as you know, protecting these communities is an essential aspect of the epas mission. And its one that appears to have been, in my opinion, severely neglected. So mr. Administrator, how would you prioritize the epas responsibility to protect the nations most vulnerable populations from pollution . Is it a high, medium or low priority in your opinion in your how would you define it . Congressman, thank you for your comments. I will say its a priority. Is it a high, medium or low priority . Its a very high priority at the agency. Ill give you an example. East chicago, an area youre familiar with with respect to superfund sites there, there are threats to water supply. Theres a community in east chicago that has faced those threats for a number of years. I traveled to east chicago, met with members of the community there that make up the constituency group. Those who have not had a voice in these areas and met with them about an answer in this east chicago area. In fact we have sent staff there multiple times since i left to ensure progress. Its something i consider a high priority. I met with internal members of our team as late as yesterday. The group that meets internal to epa on Environmental Justice. And we talked about these very issues that making sure individuals who historically have not had voice, to Impact Outcomes with respect to superfund or other issues, that we take that seriously and take that into account Going Forward, so it something thats an important priority Going Forward. So its an important priority. All right. The record shows that let me ask you another question. The record shows that you have met either in person or by phone with the ati on at least three different occasions, on the 28th of june, the 29th and also on the 6th of november. My question to you as an individual who is a scientific advisor for the api, and her name is miss una blink, are you familiar with this individual . The name doesnt sound familiar, congressman. Have you had any occasion to discuss her position on hydraulic fracturing . She indicated that fracking is a Health Benefit to minority communities, to africanamerican communities specifically. And this is in contrast to a naacp study that many africanamerican communities face an elevated risk of cancer due to air toxin emissions and natural gas. Are you familiar with that naacp study . The person to whom you refer, im not familiar with that person, so im sorry. The gentlemans time has expired. Chair recognizes gentleman from virginia for five minutes. Thank you, administrator prewitt. I also want to thank you for meeting with me earlier this year to discuss issues in the 9th district of virginia. I hope youll continue working on those. One of the things i want to discuss today, epa regulation on medium and heavy duty vehicles. The problem i have is that the Prior Administration wanted to regulate both the tractor and the trailer. But the code says that the Motor Vehicle, which is the area where the Authority Comes from, the term Motor Vehicle means any selfpropelled vehicle designed for transporting persons on a street or highway and a trailer is not selfpropelled. It has to have the tractor component. We make both in my district. I have volvo, which makes the tractor. Then i have companies that make the trailers. About 2,000 employees making trailers in my district, so its a very important question. So i guess what i have to ask you is, with that reading of the law, and i have to applaud you for agreeing to reconsider those regulations overall, but at some point the epa needs to acknowledge theres no authority over the trailers or come and ask congress for that authority. Do you know how long it will take before you get to that point . Its one of those areas where the text or statute doesnt governs whether we have authority or not and we need to provide clarity on whether theres a deficiency. So i agree wholeheartedly with your position. Someone before said you had to have goods in the trailer to move anything, thats how they got authority. So i made the analogy at the time that gives the epa the authority to restrict the weight of the driver. You cant drive at least at this point, until we get to the driverless trucks, at this point you have still have to have a driver in the truck. If you want to get to weights and things that arent selfpropelled Motor Vehicles, you can do anything. All right. I do want to talk about some new source review issues. I am concerned that the epa has been using new source review programs inappropriately in the past as a weapon against coalfired power plants. Using enforcement to change the way it works and making it hard for these plants to do the type of maintenance projects to keep them running reliably and efficiently. I have introduced legislation to address this problem. A lot of us are hoping you will help. Can you give me a yes or not on these questions. One, have you taken action against coal fired power plants because they have taken steps to become more efficient. Are you aware of this . I am. Do you think that a power this is the way the program is supposed to work, being more efficient . I dont. Do you think a power plant should be allowed to go through a long and costly permitting process before it can do something to improve its efficiency, including less pollutants . I dont. And do you believe that such a regulation might actually discourage owners from doing things to make their plants for efficient . Its happened across the country. In fact we have a task force, i mentioned earlier today, recently confirmed a task force internal to the agency to address nsr steps Going Forward in 2018. Its a very important area. As youve indicated. There are Companies Across this country that seek to invest capital to improve emissions, and theyre concerned that if they do that it will trigger new permitting requirements, and its a disincentive. Thats not the way it should work. And were trying to address that and believe its a very important issue. I appreciate you working to improve that. Because i believe its a very important issue, and because i represent a coal district, i think its also important for those who are concerned about pollution, because were going to continue to need coal well into the future, at least at some percentage level to keep our grid reliable. And as we use that coal, we want to do it more cleanly, more efficiently and more efficiently. Discourage people taking on new technology that might put them out of business because its not a good idea. We should remember this is an issue that affects all Utility Companies that seek to invest money to prove. We should celebrate, encourage that we dont want disincentives in place to effect that adversely. Im going to switch gears on you a little bit. I know the technology has changed. I would like to allay some fears, every rock, every rock system is different. I know, that too. They have been fracking in my district for about 40, 45 years. So for those people afraid of it, if you have the right rock and take a look at the ingredients that are being put into that rock, i think it can be very safely. To your point, congressman, hydraulic fracking itself is not new technology. It has been around for decades. The uniqueness of the shale revelation gentlemans time has expired i now recognize the gentle lady gentlelady from michigan. I appreciate being allowed to be at this hearing today. Thank you secretary pruitt. I have a number of questions so im going to try and push through these. Last congress assistant secretary mccabe appeared to discuss epa and nitsa, Technical Assistance report. The Technical Analysis that supported the decision to retain epas Greenhouse Gas standards for the 2022 to 25 model year cars and light trucks. You reopened the Midterm Review after receiving a request from the Auto Industry in february, and i have a number of questions that may help me understand why you agreed to their request. So first, let me ask you this, is there a revised Technical Report that you used as a basis for reopening the Midterm Review of the epa fuel efficiency standards . The reopening, congresswoman, was to keep consistent with what was committed on the Midterm Review when it was supposed to happen initially. It was supposed to occur april of 2018. This was not a change of that date, it was just a commitment to keep the date that was agreed to at the beginning. And that date was not actually accelerated by the Previous Administration, december of 16, january of 17, so this was just restoring order to the froze make sure that the original date was upheld and enforced. It occurred in the time it was supposed to occur initially. Okay. So youre saying there was no change. That is already closed now again . The review is ongoing because the commitment was through 2018. This was a restoration process to say that it should occur by april of 2018 as we originally discussed. My understanding was that it was already approved in the last congress. So in answer to my question, is there a revised Technical Report that you used as a basis for reopening the agency accelerated the review process, inconsistent with the original understanding this the restoration of that process. Let me ask you this. I would like to know if you agree or disagree with the information you agency provided to us at that time, the last congress. What time frame would that be . That was in september of 2016. Do you have new agree or disagree with the information that your agency did provide, now your agency, provided to us at that time . I think my comment is what i said earlier, congresswoman, its consistent with the commitments that were made, that the Midterm Review would occur in april 2018. Im a bit confused because ms. Mccabe testified that the epa found that fuel Efficiency Technology development was moving faster than they had expected and is being implemented in the early years of the program. Has this finding changed . Im not aware, congresswoman. The epa found that to meet the proposed standards, automakers do not have to manufacture and sell large numbers of hybrids and electric vehicles. The Agency Projects that the 2022 through 25 standards can be met largely with more efficient gasoline powered cars. Has had finding changed . That will be part of the review that occurs in april 2018. All this are dependent on a review that was opened earlier than expected. In other words, you decided the agency concluded their process, congresswoman, inconsistent with the original time frame that was established. And we restored that process. So this review youre referring to will culminate in april of 2018. So were going to be interested in that. Transportation sector accounts for a third of the total Greenhouse Gas emissions in the United States, with light duty truck vehicles making up more than 60 of the epa standards in that sector. The epa found in that original review that these standards are a critical part of any program to reduce Greenhouse Gases. Would you agree and do you expect that that finding may change . The progress made in the mobile source category has been significant. And the Auto Industry has made significant progress over the years. Thats why the process matters. Were going to go through that, and it will culminate in april of 2018. The epa found that the average cost increase for a car by 12025, due to the standards, will be about 1200, and that cost would be offset by an estimated fuel cost savings of about 1900. Are you aware of that finding, that there would actually be a savings in the cost of a car . The vehicle emissions and efficiencies are dramatically more than people anticipated several years ago. Theres great progress as i indicated. The gentleladys time has expired. I now recognize the chairman from florida for five minutes. Thanks for letting me sit in on the subcommittee as well and i thank you for your testimony mr. Administrator, and your patience. Administrator pruitt, this subcommittee recently held a hearing regarding the status of the hurricane response texas, florida, puerto rico and the virgin islands. The key concern was how the epa addressed the superfund sites, both in advance of and in the wake of the hurricanes. This is a big priority for me because in my district i have the chemical superfund site. I want to thank you for having your staff be so responsive, again, during and leading up to the hurricanes as well. Appreciate that very much. Can you walk us through epas process to secure superfund sites before and after a hurricane and how this epa coordinates with state and local agencies . Thank you, congressman. There are assessments that are made in conjunction with governors, Governor Abbott in texas and governor the florida governor, Governor Scott. Thats going to be bad because hes going to call me a little bit later. Im new. Im from illinois. The governor of florida and governor of texas, we were in conversations with them leading up to the hurricanes in both instances to talk about how to secure those sites, so you have conversations ongoing with responsible parties, the governors in those states, dnr, state level. Theres a preassessment on whether proper steps are taken to secure those sites and constant evaluation during temperature storms. Then postscript, a determination whether theres been any relief. So its been a pre, during and post process with those states and members of our agency. Okay, thank you. Governor scott is a great governor. And Governor Scott, ill repeat it, Governor Scott is a great governor and did a great job. He is. I will say, he showed tremendous leadership and ill tell you with respect to the fuel waivers that occurred. Access to fuel is a key issue during those types of storms. And working with Governor Abbott in texas and Governor Scott in florida, we were able to address that in a proactive way to ensure better access to fuel during those storms. And Governor Scott was very tremendous leader in that regard. I commend his leadership, the state of florida, deq there and also the state of texas as well. Ditto. I agree. Okay. The current status of this superfund site that i referred to earlier is better than most of the sites on the National Priority list ain that the remey is in place. The review found the remedy was protective of people and the environment. I know that not all sites are on the National Priorities list are in such good shape. Of couple of questions for you about the superfund cleanup program, if i may. Number one, how does the epa plan to work through the sites on the National Priorities list . And how does the epa prioritize the sites that are on the National Priorities list . Weve had changes at the agency to address sites over 50 million. Historically regions have been a primary place where thats been decided and we have had inconsistency on large sites, based upon it being a region by region evaluation. So what we did was institute a change that on sites over 50 million that would actually be a decision made at headquarters, to ensure greater consistency, uniformity and urgency to address those sites. Thats ongoing based upon the Task Force Recommendations that came out in june of this year, as i previously refer to that. The other thing were looking at is to ensure that if we have sites, as i indicated earlier, that have the ability to be cleaned up partially, where its a large site and we can make progress, instead of waiting for a remedy or proposed remedy for the entire site were trying to address those hot spots, if you will, throughout the process to get some clarity and success, if you will, through the cleanup process, so those are just a couple of examples. But the Superfund Program overall, in my view, has lacked a sense of focus, a sense of leadership and management in making decisions. Its really unacceptable for an agency to take decades to make a decision on how you clean up sites. I would love to tell you thats an isolated situation at the agency. Its not been historically. Ive had individuals in the land Emergency Office that have been at epa for a number of years that really appreciate how we revitalized this area and are actually looking forward to making a difference as early as the time weve been in there. Referenced by congressman rush. He entered into the record. Without objection so ordered. Mr. Pruitt i appreciate the work that the epa professionals did before and after hurricane irma. Thank you for that. They worked very diligently. Clean water and clean air are vital to our economy in florida. I had to choke a little bit when you called our governor a great governor. One of the things he has done is deny the rising cost of the changing climate. Florida is probably one of the most impacted states. I hope the epa was not taking a page out of Governor Scotts voice. Governor scott prohibited our folks from environmental agencies from using the term Climate Change and scrubbed websites. And now youre laying down that same legacy and i think that is unfortunate as well. To do great things you have to work in the Public Interest and not in the private interest. I think the governor did exercise great leadership during the hurricane. And thats going to cost us dearly in the state of florida. Prior to becoming administrator of epa, you served as attorney general of oklahoma, in that role you sued epa repeatedly, in fact 14 different times, fighting clean air protections, fighting clean water protections, and interestingly, one private company, Murray Energy was a coplaintiff in eight of the 14 lawsuits. You also acted with other companies such as peabody, southern power company, and chemical manufacturers. Oklahoma gas and electric and others. How many of these groups have you met with during your tenmonth tenure at the epa. The claims that were made from that company were separate from the claims of the state. How many times have you met with those companies . I dont know. Please submit that for the record. These groups also reportedly contributed money to your Political Action committee. Bob murray was a top donor to your super pac. You have received over 345,000 in Campaign Contributions from these fossil fuel interests. You previously served two terms as chairman of the Republican Attorney general association, correct . Thats correct. And Murray Energy not only donated not only to your super pac, but also to the raga. In 2014, theres a quote, secret alliance between energy firms and attorneys general. According to this report, under your leadership at the raga that set up a separate entity called the rule of Law Defense Fund, which could accept unlimited anonymous donations from companies benefiting from your lawsuits. Under this arrangement, fundraising reportedly skyrocketed. The report also states that, quote, the work in mr. Pruitts office have sometimed seemed to blur the line between many of us are very concerned that you continue to blur the distinction between your official duties and your political ambitions. You pledged that while you are administrator, you would recuse yourself from any active cases where oklahoma is a party, petitioner or intervener, is that correct . I have, in fact. Given your extensive history of suing the agency that you now oversee, and the vast amounts of money you have raised from the fossil fuel industry offering to recuse yourself from only active cases and only cases where oklahoma itself is a party is grossly inadequate. So will you commit to recusing yourself from cases involving your past colitigants and donors to the rule of Law Defense Fund . Its not been inadequate according to the ethics official at the epa who is an employee. So you are saying you will not commit today . I will follow the advice of counsel. So youre saying you will not if i may so. Let the gentle lady ask the question. You will not do that, you will cement your legacy as one who serves a powerful special interest and not your Public Interest. Will you commit to recusing yourself from rule makings and other regulatory actions that were subjects of your past lawsuits . The gentle ladys time has expired. He needs to answer that question. The time has expired. No, you dont congressman. These issues have been addressed at the epa. The gentleman will suspend. The chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here mr. Pruitt and staying until the end. President trumps promised the American People he and his administration would drain the swamp in august, overturn, quote, decades of special interest dealing. Do you agree that your job is to protect Public Health and the environment by serving the Public Interest and not special interests . Theyre a key mission of the agency . Yes. Thats a yes answer . The Democracy Reform Task force which im privileged to chair has been monitoring the administrations progress with respect to draining the swamp. And as you might suspect from the title of our most recent report, its still swamped and it only getting deeper. We didnt want to do this report, but we felt compelled to do it when we looked at all the ethical lapses that exist within this administration. On march 30th, you met with crop life america, which is a trade association run by several large pesticide companies, including dow chemical, is that correct . If thats what the record reflects. A day after, you signed a ban of a widely used pesticide related to developmental delays in children. And that action was supported by dow chemical that i will mention donated a Million Dollars to President Trumps campaign. And had dinner with Alliance Resources partners, a major coal mining company, is that correct . If thats what the record reflects. Thats what the calendar shows. Since then the epa has announced the agency will consider rolling back rules that protect mining comments from toxic coal ash. Seton donated almost 2 million to elect the president. Im not mentioning this as a gotcha thing, but it really makes a lot of americans anxious when you consider the conflicts of interests this suggests. Let me turn now to a topic thats important to my home steady of maryland, the Chesapeake Bay program. In your confirmation hearing, you commended the state and federal partnership to restore the chesapeake day and you committed to enforcing the bay pollution diet or the tmdls is that correct . Me and senator card had wonderful conversations about it. Im going to get to that. Despite the fact that as Oklahoma Attorney general, you sued the epa, challenging the bay tmdls previously, you also pledged that you would support the federal governments role in Chesapeake Bay partnership through funding critically important programs and supporting the grant making role of the epa. Yes. And yet, if you look at the president s fy18 budget it eliminated the Chesapeake Bay program at epa. Weve pushed back against that, but thats hardly a followthrough on the pledge you made and the statements you made about the Chesapeake Bay program. Thats not standing up and enforcing the tmdls, and make making the grants that we need to support bay restoration. It appears rather that under your leadership, that commitment is being zeroed out. I think the comments i made during the appropriations process should also be referenced. I spoke to members of this body as well as members of the senate on the issue. What i guess im looking for is a followthrough on the original commitment that you made in the sense of fighting back inside the administration and saying programs like the Chesapeake Bay program are valuable, the funding needs to be there. Dont just rely on congress to restore these things, which by the way weve tried to do on a bipartisan basis demonstrating the commitment to the program here. Conversations have taken place in that respect. I appreciate you continuing to do that. Let me speak to executive order number 13770, which relates to ethics commitments by executive Branch Appointees which requires every executive agency appointed on or after january 20th, 2017, Agency Employee to be contractually committed to an ethics pledge, that is correct . Yes. That pledge stipulates that employees are prohibited that prohibited for two years on any party that is directly or substantially related to the former employer or former clients including regulations and contracts. Executive order 13770 states that appointees have a twoyear cooling off period in terms of handling matters in related to their previous lobbying. But im concerned that several of your personnel decisions deviate from those guidelines. Theres a growing list of appointees that epa that appear to have substantial conflict. So i hope you can bring some real attention to these conflicts as we move forward. And i yield back my time. And thank you for allowing us to participate off the committee. And id ask for unanimous consent to submit the without objections, ordered. The chair welcomes the gentleman from iowa for five minutes. I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today and administrator pruitt, im sorry i havent been able to meet you yet, even though i am from iowa and i know you were just there last week, thank you for coming to iowa. Im sure you heard a lot about our festival. Im sure you have learned a lot about it. We have bipartisan concerns in iowa about the rfs and making sure that the administration lives up to what the rfs demands and what the statute says we should be doing. I am a democrat, but i also held the Obama Administration accountable. The Renewable Fuels stray supports over 40,000 jobs in iowa. I think it works for iowa, i think it works for america. I think it works to make our economy grow, i think it works for our environment and theres no question it works for our energy security. Because when we are able to produce biofuels, i think that contributes to a reduction of our dependence on foreign oil and i think thats very important. Its a security issue as well as a economics issue, you said that you believed congress intended for the for congress to yet on november 30th, as you know, you finalized the 2018 rvo that lowers the amount of biofuels called for in the statute and flat lines biodiesel volumes. How can you explain these actions when its clear that these two industries have enormous potential for growth . The visit to iowa last week was very good, i enjoyed the conversation with your constituents, met with many farmers and ranchers on this issue along with others. And it was a very good dialogue. As you look at the volume obligations, as you know under the statute, theres a Waiver Authority that is given to the epa for production levels. The most we have ever produced is 190 million gallons, and the agency set those levels higher than that and i think it was 280 million gallons, so it is in excess of production that we have seen . You increased it 50 million over your previous proposal, but its down 23 million from last year, far short of what the statute calls for. The statute calls for billions of gallons and that waiver of authority is there for a reason, Congress Gave us to address real market issues and demand. And its been useful in that area. For biodiesels, we did keep it flat. We never breached the 2. 1 billion in production. In fact we imported about 700 million gallons last year from argentina. So thats one of the reasons those numbers flat lined. And a lot of us have issues with the logic of what youre saying, and i understand what youre saying and i have heard that from Jean Mccarthy and also from you, but a lot of us have real concerns about the logic of those statements. Ill move on. When it comes to the revapor issue, i know thats something that the epa is looking into. I have introduced bipartisan legislation. We have bipartisan support for the rfs to lift the restrictions on the sale of e15 in the summer months. Im a strong supporter of that, it will put more biofuel into the market. It will help stabilize the ren market. If we had more infrastructure out there, if we had more opportunities for 315. I know at least in iowa, folks would in fact buy the e15. I know youve talked about legislative effects achieving that goal. Members of this administration have said that the rvp can be done through the administrations process. Can you update us at this point in where you are on the analysis . I will say to you, i have been personally involved in the evaluation of the Statutory Authority for us to grant a National Waiver 12 months a year, and it is something we are evaluating but thats not been concluded yet. I hope youll move in that direction, that we wouldnt have to have a legislative fix, its clear that the demand is there for that. I think the action by the previous epa was a mistake. As i shared with folks there on friday, if the statutes allow us to do that, we will do it, otherwise we will have to go back to congress. I would like to thank our witness again for being here. We have a unanimous consent request, earlier today we entered into the record 2012 letter to administrator pruitt from mr. Mccarthy. This letter was also entered into the record last year. To ensure this hearing is just as complete, i ask for unanimous consent to ask for full information surrounding that letter. So ordered. I remind all members that they have 10 Business Days to submit additional questions for the record and ask the witnesses to submit within 10 days the answers to those questions. With those comments, this committee is adjourned. This afternoon, watch a discussion about u. S. Investments in the economies of developing countries. Coverage starts at 1 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan 2, online at cspan. Org and on the free cspan radio app. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979 cspan was created as a Public Service and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Fda commissioner Scott Gottlieb and Francis Collins testify about the latest medical innovations before the senate health, education, labor and pensions committee. This is almost two hours