Transcripts For CSPAN3 EPA Administrator Pruitt Testifies On FY 2018 Budget 20170615

Visitors to the hill. We have a few of them here today with us. Thank you for all the work that you do. We thank you. Now turning our attention to the hearing, we are joined by the 14th administrator of the epa scott pruitt. Congratulations on your confirmation. You have joined a distinguished group. We look forward to hearing your vision and working with you to provide the resources necessary to lead an agency. We are also joined by holly greaves. I believe this is your first time testifying before the subcommittee as well. Welcome to both of you. Before we dive into the specifics, administrator pruitt, you have a tough job here today. 54 billion for nondefense spending to defense side of the ledger. Those are tough lines to meet. And many tough choices were necessary in order to meet those targets. Earlier this morning i along with Ranking Member, miss mccollum and other members discussed the Defense Budget at the hearing with secretary mattis that conversation further underscored the need to look at u. S. Readiness. I support that goal. However, enacting 54 billion in cuts in one fiscal year is an untenab untenable position. I suspect that you will hear from congress throughout the budget process. Thats why its necessary i hope at some point that the administration, senate, and house come together and come up with a budget agreement for we can have a common goal to work with. Nonetheless we appreciate you being here today to reduce the agencys funding by 2. 4 billion. The budget proposes to significantly reduce or terminate programs that are vitally important to each member on this subcommittee. For example, the grants are essential to improving air quality in my home state of california. So too are the target air shed grants. But the budget fails to support the targeted air shed grants. And dare grants are to receive an 83 reduction. The Superfund Program while considered an infrastructure priority for the president is reduced by 31 . These are all proposals we are unlikely to entertain. Further the budget looks to reduce other state grants while asking states to serve as principal leads with environmental programs. Finally most geographic programs are proposed for termination. This is perhaps not how you personally would craft epas budget, but its a budget you have to defend here today. Im pleased with budget supporting healthy infrastructure, a priority of the subcommittee. The budget maintains funding for the clean water and Drinking Water revolving funds. At current levels and continues to fund the new program. These are both programs that create construction jobs in every state and every congressional district. As you know, i strongly support the wifia program. It could be a game changer to stem growing backlog of needs for improved Water Quality and a nice complement to the srs. Turning to policy. We all want clean air and clean water. And a strong robust economy. My constituents in california demand both a healthy environment and job creation. Its not an either or proposition. In Southern California weve made tremendous improvements in our air quality over the past number of decades. Its important we look for ways to clean our air. I supported epas decision last week to recalibrate the implementation of the ozone standards. I remain as committed as ever to providing resources to support proven programs that actually reduce particulate matter and ozone and in doing so improve Health Outcomes in the impacted areas. At last years epa budget hearings, the subcommittee raised concerns that statutory obligations were given insufficient attention. While new regulations were prioritized. I think its fair to say that you bring a refreshing new perspective to that position. We look forward to hearing that perspective today. Its my hope that moving forward we can Work Together in coordination with our state, local, and tribal partners to find sound solutions to tackle the challenges before us. I know all members are eager to discuss various issues with you, so i will save additional remarks for the period following your testimony. I am pleased now to yield to my friend and distinguished Ranking Member ms. Mccollum. Thank you. And good morning administrator pruitt. The Environmental Protection agency is responsible for protecting the health and ensuring clean water and air for people. Would endanger the health of millions of americans, jeopardize the quality of our air and water, and wreak havoc on our economy. The Trump Administrations budget abandons by proposing a 2. 4 billion cut. A 30 cut. The last time epa appropriations was this low was 1990. The administration set the agency back 30 years considering the challenges we face today. Mr. Trump campaigned last year on an agenda that included allowing companies to pollute our water and land and air. He ridiculed science and promised to surrender americas Global Leadership on Climate Change. Now he is President Trump and he is putting his antienvironment agenda into action. Executive orders have directed the government to ignore significant costs of pollution and Climate Change to our economy. The republican passed legislation that was signed into law that stops a epa rule to keep coal mining waste out of our water. And that waste is toxic. The most recent and most reck less action in my opinion was the withdrawal from the paris climate agreement which has made the United States a rogue environmental nation. When it comes to the planets climate challenge. This budget is the latest expression of the administrations willful denying of the climate science. The earth is currently getting warmer because people are adding heattrapping Greenhouse Gases to the atmosphere. Thats the end of the quote. Yet this budget ignores that science and cuts Climate Change programs 91 . This budget cut also includes cuts so deep that 47 programs are eliminated. Many are relied upon by industry. One example is energy star. Which has saved customers an estimated 430 billion on their utility bills since 1992. Realtors, manufacturers, builders, retailers. They all want the epa to continue this program. The budget also promotes eliminating enormously successful geographic programs like the great lakes, puget sound, chesapeake bay. For every 1 invested in great lakes restoration, there is 2 returned in benefits. These programs give the american taxpayer a great deal in return. And they also protect their resources while creating jobs and promoting growth. The Trump Administration has shown its contempt for science both through this budget and policy decisions. The budget proposes to cut the epas office of research and development by 237 million or 46 . This office provides the foundation for credible science to safeguard human health from environmental pollutions. Administrator pruitt, when you canceled a ban on a harmful pesticide. I have a letter from the American Academy of pediatrics which they asked the epa to protect as a resuvulnerable chi pregnant women from this. Now this budget would stifle the very office that provides the scientific analysis within the epa. The budget also cuts state agencies funding. Proposing that the grants be cut 44 . These cuts will cripple states ability to implement core programs that protect Public Health. I would be remiss if i did not call attention to the agencys workforce. This budget proposes to cut nearly 3,800 employees. These are front line scientists, experts, and enforcement officers who protect the American People from toxins, carcinogens, lead in water, and other dangerous chemicals. We tend to forget we owe them a debt of dprgratitude when we tu on the tap water and it is safe. As we know, mr. Chairman, President Trump can propose this destructive budget and administrator pruitt can come here and defend or promote it, but it is congress and this committee who will determine the epas funding. On may 5th, President Trump signed into law fiscal year 2017 appropriations bills. 178 democrats and 131 republicans voted together to fund the epa at a level which sustains the agency, supports a skilled federal workforce, and protects Public Health. Mr. Chairman, i want to thank you for working with democrats to achieve that very positive outcome for our nation. And as we move forward, i know we will once again rely on each other to have a positive working relationship and i know that i can count on you. However, i want to be clear i will not support what funds the epa below the current level. Let me close with this example of why i feel so passionately. Radon is responsible for 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among nonspokers. Mr. Pruitt, this budget proposes to limit funding for the Radon Program which educates americans and saves lives. And this committee both democrats and republicans has always worked together to support radon. So as members of congress, i believe we cannot allow the harm done to American People that this budget would inflict. And i thank the chairman for the time and i yield back. Thank you. Meantime, im going to recognize ms. Loy. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member mccollum for holding this hearing. And welcome administrator pruitt. I have been eagerly awaiting your testimony before this subcommittee. Ill get straight to it. The fiscal year 2018 budget request for epa is a disaster. You requested 5. 655 billion, a staggering 2. 4 billion below the 2016 enacted level. A cut of more than 30 . White you claim most of these cuts will be part of a substantial reduction in workforce, would surely impact epas ability to fulfill its Critical Mission of protecting the air we breathe and water we drink. Between your disturbingly close ties to the oil and gas industries, your past work to directly undermine the epa, and skepticism that human activity plays a role in Climate Change, i suppose its surprising you didnt propose to eliminate the agency all together. Lets be clear. Members of congress from both sides of the aisle, scientists, business leaders, and the vast majority of americans agree manmade Climate Change is real and it poses a threat to our planet that must be confronted quickly and seriously. Here are the facts. Facts. Carbon emissions are creating holes in our ozone layer and contributing to changing and often dangerous weather patterns around the world. Climate change has manifested as catastrophic events that threaten our National Security and the livelihoods of american families. Yet this administration is burying its head in the sand and according to a new poll conducted by Washington Post abc news, 59 oppose President Trumps decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Which has ensured a unified Global Response to combat Rising Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere. A substantial 55 of people surveyed feel this decision has hurt u. S. Leadership in the world. Your budget request further demonstrates the threat that Climate Change poses. Among the most egregious reductions are a reduction of over 300 million for the Hazardous Substance superfund. The elimination of over a dozen regional programs including the Long Island Sound geographic program. And a nearly 50 reduction in Scientific Research and development. We have a moral responsibility to safeguard our planet and ensure that our children and grandchildren have a healthy future. This budget would call short of this obligation. I do hope that congress will reject in a bipartisan way this dangerous budget and instead adopt spending bills that would invest in combatting Climate Change, keeping our air and our water clean, and creating jobs, creating jobs for the 21st century economy. Especially green jobs of the future. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Okay. Mr. Pruitt, administrator pruitt, thanks for being here today. Please, youre recognized for your opening remarks. Well, good morning chairman. Its good to be here with you this morning. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the epas proposed budget. Im joined at the table as you indicated mr. Chairman by holly greaves. I do want to join you, mr. Chairman, in expressing my prayers for your leagues with respect to what occurred yesterday. I pray for their recovery and protection as we go forward. I want to their with you and members of the committee. Thank you. We tith with the budget bein the focus today, i thought it important to bring it back to its core mission. Specifically as part of our back to basics agenda. Improving air quality, clean water, and fixing our outdated infrastructure, cleaning up contaminated land, and carrying out the important updates that this Congress Passed last year. Getting rid of the chemical backlog which existed which you are familiar. When i began at the agency, i set three Core Principles by which we were going to work with. First was the rule of law. An approach one can reimagine authority under statutes passed by this body. I firmly believe that federal agencies exist to work with congress. It is congresss ability to pass statutes and give direction on the environmental objectives we seek. Granted by congress by definition cannot be consistent with the agencys mission. We are focused on process. Over the last several years, the agencies engage in rule making to settle practices, guidance documents. Regulation through litigation is something we will not continue at the epa. We will make sure that process is respected and implemented so people across the country can have voice, due process, and affect in a positive way. Respecting the role of the states. As you know very, very well, a one size fits all strategy to achieve environmental outcomes doesnt work. It may work in arizona. May not work in tennessee. I recognize states have unique environmental needs. I will engage in meaningful discussion with you about how shared environmental goals related to these outcomes can be achieved. With respect to the budget and these principles and priorities that ive outlined, i believe we can fulfill the mission of our agency with a trimmed budget. With proper leadership and management. We will work with congress, mr. Chairman, to help focus on National Priorities with respect to the resources that you provide. And we will continue to focus on our core missions. Responsibilities. Working cooperatively with states to improve air, water, and land. As ive indicated, clear air goes to the heart of human health. We are focused on compliance enforcement. Weve made tremendous progress as a country. Through regulations and industry and citizens across this country working together. In fact, since 1980, total emissions of the six pollutants we regulate have dropped by almost 65 . And ozone levels as you know have dropped 33 . We should celebrate this progress. But we should also recognize theres work to do. In this country about 40 of our citizens live in nonattainment with respect to ozone. So we do have much work to do. And should be the focus of the epa to find ways to help increase the number of People Living and working in those areas. The president has made it clear that maintaining infrastructure is critical to this country. At epa that means ensuring to make investments. We will continue to partner we the states to address Drinking Water contamination. These are integral Water Treatment and avoiding unnecessary cost. Like President Trump, i believe we need to work with states to understand what they think is best on how to achieve these outcomes. And what actions theyre already taking to do so. The epa should only intervene when states didnt demonstrate a willingness to comply with the law. With regard to contaminated land, were going to punish bad actors. Those who violate the law. Epas efforts have resulted in billions of pounds of pollution being prevented in those activities. As states are the implementers of the programs, we will work with them on enforcement goals and direct responsibilities. When we dont stay within the law creating consistency and certainty, regulatory certainty is key to economic growth. We need to outline what is expected across this country. When we do our job well, we create Good Environmental outcomes. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member mccollum, members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to share beliefly these priorities. And i look forward to working with you as we move through this process to protect human health. I look forward to your questions. Thank you. And thank you for your Opening Statement. Before we move to questions, id like to remind Committee Members we have a full Committee Markup of the nocon bill scheduled for 2 00 p. M. This afternoon. In order to finish hearings by 1 00 for allowing a break between now and the markup, i encourage members to abide by the fiveminute rule for questions and answers today. So with that, i know that mr. Simpson needs to leave by noon to go to our friends funeral. So if its okay with Committee Members, id like to recognize mr. Simpson for he can ask his questions. I think thats very appropriate, mr. Chairm. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you administrator pruitt for being here today. Ive got a couple of specific questions. One is the epa has jurisdiction over a pesticide review processes through the office of pesticide programs. Last year Congress Passed the pesticide registration improvement act. In recent years, weve seen lower levels of funding leading toen erosi an erosion while on Positive Side wasnt cut as much in this budget as other programs within the epa. The president s budget proposes to cut well below the mandated minimum. With a Strong Office of pesticide programs, job creators in my district, and others in this country would not have the access to Crop Protection tools. How can we ensure that o. Rks p can run effectively and within the pria timeline under your current proposal . Well, thank you, congressman. Youre right the budget does not increase any new pesticide fees. It expands the scope of tv activities that can be funded. But the reauthorization is very important as we head into this budget discussion. I mentioned in my opening comments that the update last year, there are three new rules that were obligated to release this year. Theyre on track to let you know. And the backlog of kchemicals that existed when i came into this position. Were going to have the backlog of chemicals entirely addressed by the end of july. That was a priority that i set when i came into the position. We reassigned ftes to focus on that. I want to commend their efforts to produce this backlog. Your question is important with respect to these fees that are necessary for us to carry out these important functions. And agree with your assessment there. One other program that theyve been proposed to be eliminated in the budget. The previous administration, the Obama Administration proposed to eliminate it too and weve kept it funded at a level of about 12. 7 million. Thats the rural water Technical Assistance programs. You know coming from oklahoma, there are many Rural Communities that dont have the access to Technical Assistance for their water and so forth. Its important to the communities for being able to get that assistance. They wouldnt be able to afford otherwise. When you look at Water Infrastructure across the country, its clear in Rural Communities that the partnership that has existed historically between the epa, the u. S. Government, and the communities are very important to ensure safe Drinking Water perspectively. And thats something as we go through this process, id look forward to issue. Many western states stas federal regulations including the proposed rule, the proposed v insurance rule for hard rock mining. Ae arsenic standards which are below background levels in many states. And standards implemented on the Clean Air Act. Im pleased the administration has taken steps to provide relief from the financial assurance rule. Its very much appreciated in my part of the country for regional western states. Had a heart tiard time to get t implementation plans. Instead epa would overrule them and impose a federal implementation plan. How do you view the epa is working with states on these important issues . What can we expect and what is your perspective on the arsenic standard . This is an important question when we look at the statutes congress has enacted. Clean water act, Clean Air Act. What you put into statute has been disregarded for the last several years. Its not particular to one administration. I think its just evolved in that direction. You have given specific authority to states to partner with the epa, to achieve good air quality and good Water Quality. And were committed to making sure that those are properly reviewed and their answers provided in a mean lful time frame. We have a lack dog of over 700 stated implementation plans that have not been responded to at all. That is unacceptable. On what theyve submitted in every category of the Clean Air Act or otherwise and provide answers in that regard. We will act diligently to achieve that. Thank you. I appreciate that. We look forward to working with you. Thank you. Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much. Administrator pruitt, the budget proposes to eliminate the endocrine disrupters program. Are you aware of it . Yes, maam. I just didnt hear you well. I apologize. No problem. Im happy to discuss it. Through this program epa screens pesticides, chemicals, environmental contaminants to determine their potential effect on human hormone systems. Altered reproductive function in males and females, abnormal growth patterns and neurodevelopmental delays in children increases incidents of Breast Cancer and changes to immune function. I knew thea coleburn. I wouldnt be surprised if she comes back up to talk to us. Her work truly changed the way we consider chemical safety. Because of endocrine disrupter research, bpa is banned in baby bottles and dredged out of the hudson river in new york. This is the perfect example of senseless cuts that will cost us more in the long run with threats to Public Health and safety that are costlier in treasure and possibly in lives. We have so much more to learn about what chemicals in the environment are doing to us. How do you justify eliminate funding for this program . Arent you alarmed by the link between exposure to chemicals in the environment and Consumer Products and changes to hormones, health, and development of people and animals . What should epas role be . Congresswoman, i do share your concerns. In fact, as weve studied this particular proposal, our hope is that we can absorb the remaining functions. The edsp and within the office of the existing chemical safety and pollution officer we have. Use. Ing currently available testing. Battery systems and models to achieve that. But you raise an important question. Its something that the program has established. As we study the proposal and talk with congress, its this is our approach presently. But look forward to your input on how maybe this could be restored and or addressed in a different way. Thats great news. I wont even ask my next question. I want to thank you for your consideration. This is such an important program. And i do hope that you will address all of our concerns today so that we can continue to have so we can continue to have an epa that protects us. I want to tell you as a mother, grandmother of eight, i really worry about issues like this. And it would be so irresponsible if we dont continue to move forward. So thank you so much if i could. That office as i indicated, updates that congress provided last year. The work thats been going on in our Chemical Office has been extraordinary since having come into this position. There was the backlog that i mentioned to you on the new chemicals, but they worked diligently to address. Its quite something that that back load is addressed. That sends a good message, i think, to citizens across the country from. It also provides the flow of commerce. That the epa will provide confidence that we can get those things done in an efficient way. Im delighted to hear about your focus on efficiency. But why would you recommend cutting the endocrine disrupters program that saves lives . Well, as ive indicated. Our objective and goal is to address it in a way ive shared. Look forward to working with you in that regard. I hope we can Work Together and make some changes in these recommendations. Thank you. Thank the gentle lady. Next mr. Freelenhouse. Mr. Secretary, we havent made acquaintance, but its a pleasure to meet you. I want to thank mr. Calvert for the time. Im here just to remind everybody the power of the purse is here on capitol hill. So we obviously respect the proposal to the department but ultimately it would be this committee and our Senate Counterparts that will determine the final outcome. May i say i share at times some of the animus thats aimed at your agency by a variety of different groups. Because of a huge bureaucracy. But i also come from i think the nations most densely populated state, new jersey. We are home to a historical background. That actually highlights our history. I visit sites in my district. I work closely with the new Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and you have a team that comes out of region three. I know theres been a proposal here to reduce substantial funding for this program. I think youre aware 70 of the program, money for the Program Comes from the polluters. The polluters pay. I would just like to say that i think its good to sort of before you take too many dramatic steps. This area of superfund is absolutely a priority for this administration. I think theres a significant amount of opportunity that we can achieve for the benefit of citizens in cleaning up contaminated sites. I think as ive gotten into the agency and evaluated the entire portfolio, when you look at the roughly 1330 superfund sites across the country, there are many that have been on those that National Priority list for decades. Languishing for direction, leadership answers. In some instances about how were going to remediate sites. One example ive highlighted extensively is a site just outside of st. Louis. The west lake facility that was listed on the National Priority list in 1990. The site is very unique in the sense it has 8,000 pounds of uranium commingled with about 38,000 tons, im sorry, 8,000 tons of solid waste. And its over a large geographical area. Here we are 27 years later and theres not been a decision on whether to cap the site or excavate the site and remove the uranium. Thats just poor leadership. Thats not serving the citizens in the st. Louis area at all or this country. And so what were doing with respect is renewing our focus to provide clear direction on how were going to remediate and achieve Good Environmental outcomes. So funding could be an issue. Its something that i look forward to talking to congress about. But youve indicated that the circle of statute is actually the objective is to hold potentially responsible parties accountable to make sure they fund the remediation effort. And so our goal is going to be to get accountability from those prps, to provide certainty on the type of cleanup, and make sure those timelines are met as we try to get sites cleaned up across the country. If funding ever becomes an issue with respect to orphan sites as an example, because we have orphan sites. We will address those with you and make you aware of those concerns. We look forward to working with you. Its important we have a lot of people on a narrow space were committed to clean air and water. This is one of the issues thats important to our entire delegation. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Mccollum. Thank you. Mr. Pruitt, i take you i take your sincerity in answering ms. Loweys question about wanting to look into answering her question about how the endocrine disrupters are going to be funded in research in the future. But im quite baffled about how youre going to have any tools in the tool box to do that. Once again, the epa, its reduced by 2. 4 billion. 30 below 2017. Endocrine disrupters, zeroed out. Radon zeroed out. Superfund, slashed. Brownfield, slashed. So you can have a conversation with us and say where youre going to look and youre going to make sure these things will happen. But i dont see how it can happen when were cutting the epas budget about 2. 4 billion. For example, the pesticide ban which i mentioned in my Opening Statement with but its important that we do learn how to say it right. Because this chemical is very dangerous. In december 2014, epa completed a human revised Health Risk Assessment and it was very highly sophisticated. It was thoroughly reviewed. I know you said one of your views is rule of law. I think when science is looking at what to do about pesticide and toxic toxins in our chemical they do no harm as their first goal. The epa determined there is serious concern for longterm health and neurodevelopment effects of prenatal and possibly early life exposure. The agency could not come up with any level that was safe on this toxin. And they do come up with some toxins that they do find safe levels with. On this one they couldnt find anything. So im curious to know, you know, you were there a month and then this was reviewed. How did you come to find yourself disavowing going backwards. Not looking at any of the scientific review on this pesticide. And then with all the other cuts and cuts in research, how am i going to have confidence that the best science was used, that we do no harm to women who are pregnant. We do no harm to children who are born with, you know, possibly having all these toxins lingering in their systems . You know, you mentioned several programs that you were concerned about. Superfund and others. I think there are some of those programs from a management perspective will be easier for us to address the proposed cuts than others. With the Superfund Program as we were just talking, 70 of that portfolio approximately is privately funded. And, you know, weve collected over billions of dollars since the inception of the program to address cleanup. My estimation at this point on that kind of program, Ranking Member mccollum, is its more about decision making, leadership, and management than it is about money. Thats that particular program. There are others that youve cited it may be more funding than management and leadership. With respect to the decision on clor ra par foes, the usda had a completely different perspective. And in fact had made the epa aware of that. As the process was ongoing. And we based that decision like we base every decision. It was based on meaningful data, meaningful science. It was a decision we felt was based on that. Could you provide this committee with the pure science from the other agency as well as the science from this agency . The usda well provide that, yes. I want the comparable scientists not someones opinion. Okay. Can you go back, though, and with the cuts that i mentioned and with the questions that youre being asked to, you know, will you stand up and make sure Peer Reviewed science is happening. With the cuts to over 3,000 employees, how does that happen . I mean, i can wish for a lot of things, but in reality i have to figure out how i make those things happen with real dollars, real employees. So you told me rule of law was your first and foremost concern. I have to tell you rule of law is very important, im a person who obeys the law. But the epas mission is to protect Public Health first and foremost, in my opinion. Do you disagree with that . Not at all. I think with respect to the science, its important that we prioritize the mission of those respective offices in so far as how were going to use the science. The science should be in support of rule making. The primary function of the epa is to carry out statutory requirements and mandates that congress has required. From the clean water act, the Clean Air Act, and across the board. And engage in rule making and statutes. So does this go to the change thats happened on the epas website . Before january 30th, 2018, standards were science based, Peer Reviewed science, safe levels of pollutants. That language has disappeared from the missions statement. And now it states what is economically and Technology Available standards. So thats a significant change for me. Is that what youre talking about . No. What we have a responsibility to do in rule making is build a record, make decisions on science to those across the country that engage in the apa process on how rules will impact them. And thats going to continue. And each of our respective Program Offices from clean water to clean air, the air office, across the board. Science is going to be key to what we do. Its going to be key to informed rule making. Each actually have scientists embedded in those Program Offices as well. So the proposed cuts, we are going to be able to carry out our core mission of supporting rule making thats based on sound science and Peer Reviewed and based upon real data that is not monitored but actually collected. Excuse me, is monitored and collected. Thank you, mr. Chair. I know others have questions. I have two other questions i need to get to later, but at this point i will yield back my time. I thank the gentlelady. Up next, mr. Rogers. Thank you. Welcome to the hearing. Most people dont know that the director, the administrator is a native kentuckian. Native of danville, kentucky, and a graduate of Georgetown College in georgetown, kentucky. Then ran off to oklahoma. Where he was educated at in tulsa in law school. But welcome. And were proud of you, mr. Pruitt. Thank you. I want to talk to you about the overreach in that agency. Overreaching the legal authority. Engaging in activities that are not authorized by the United States congress. And that became a practice that repeated itself time and again. But it had devastating impacts on certain parts of the country including mine. In the coal fields where the war on coal led by the epa resulted in some 10,000 or 12,000 miners losing their jobs and their home. In my region alone. So we dont take kindly to that type of thing. What will you be doing to change the culture of overreach in that agency . Where the employees both career and political engaged in overstepping their Authority Time and time again. What can we expect . Well, the Ranking Member made reference to this as well. And i think that when i mention rule of law, its not intended to be something thats academic at all. It has real when you disrespect rule of law and what that fundamentally means, when you take statutes enacted by congress, it creates sun tend uncertainty. We can go from Clean Power Plan to others. Subject to stays by the u. S. Supreme court in the six circuit respectively. That creates in the marketplace is uncertainty to know whats expected to achieve outcomes. Its not intended to be actic. Its intended to be practical. Because when the agency carries out its functions consistent with the authority you provided, those types of lawsuits go away and you can actually provide the kind of certainty to citizens and working together to achieve Good Environmental outcomes. So when i mention that, were going to stay within our lane. Were going to stay with authorities and if youve not given authority to the agency, were not going to reimagine it. Were not going to create it. Were going to let you know when those deficiencies arise. If there are concerns that we have as far as being able to carry out responsibilities on the Superfund Program, and we think theres a legislative response necessary, we will advise you. And because we need the help of congress to achieve these environmental outcomes as well. And what about your staffing size . A in your budget request you indicate quite clearly about the reduction in personnel. Can you elaborate on that . Well, i think with respect to the proposed cuts on personnel, that is something that we planned to achieve through attrition, continuation of the hiring freeze, and the initiation of buyouts. About 20 of the agency is eligible for retirement today. Thats going to increase over the next several years. As you know, we talked about in this budget of having 25,000 per employee that seeks to retire. Thats how were going to address the proposed cuts to personnel. About half our employees are in the regions across the country, half the employees approximately are in washington, d. C. The regional concept is very important. Because you want to offices dispersed across the country partnering with states and those across the country to ensure that were working together in a partnership format. So this regional concept, as far as the personnel reductions, those are the steps to reduce the proposed budget. Thank you. Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, chairman. And thanks for being with us. Good morning. I appreciate the chairmans comments and the Ranking Members comments at the opening of this hearing raising concerns about some of these proposals and how it affects your agencys mission of protecting the environment and human health. I could spend five minutes going through some of the concerns i have on that regard. And i have five. But my hope and my expectation is that this committee will do better. And well do that in a bipartisan way. Im not going to ask you to defend what i look to be indefensible. My cloeg colleagues on this committee have in my region, we actually want the epa to be engaged on an economic issue and environmental issue. We cant afford the epa to check out on puget sound recovery. Our region has 3,200 people whose livelihoods are tied to shellfish growing. Those are jobs that generate over 180 million in revenue in our state. They depend on clean water. They depend on puget sound. You talked about going back to basics and part of that is a focus on clean water. They depend on that and this budget jeopardizes that for them. Our marine industry supports the seafood processers and fleets billions of dollars of revenue. Over 57,000 direct jobs in our region. You know, tourism and recreation dollars. People come to our area to fish. They come to see orcas. They depend on clean water and a healthy puget sound. So money and i also add, money spent on puget sound recovery, has a direct impact on jobs and the economy in my state. Democrats and republicans, business leaders, the conservation leaders all agree on that. Every dollar the epa invests on sound leverages 24 in state and tribal and local funding to try to clean up this challenge. If the administrations committed to growing the economy and bolstering jobs in rural areas, i would say thats not reflected in this budget. Have you said this is a back to bakes approach intended to return responsibility to the states. I want to remind you of the obligations of the federal government in in regard. There are 19 tribes with treaty rights, treaty reserve rights to fish in puget sound. Do you acknowledge that obligation . Yes. There are multiple federally protected species including orcas and chinook salman that call the sound their home. Do you acknowledge the presence of those species in the sound. Yes. There was an application for a no discharge zone for the entire puget sound. Im very somethingic and sensitive to that application because of the things youre describing. So the epa has also mandated obligations under the clean water act and the federal Water Pollution crow act and multiple other obligations. Do you acknowledge those are statutory obligations of your agency . Absolutely. So listen, im all for partnership with the states and i agree with the fact that there isnt one size fits all, but my question is this. Why should states and Rural Communities be Stuck Holding the bag for the federal government . They shouldnt. And thats something as weve seen over the last several years, this cooperative model. This goes o goes back decades to achieve Good Environmental outcomes. We need to rely upon the expertise it, information, res of those at the state level to partner with the epa. The epa has an Important Role. There are Water Quality issues that cross state line. There are responsibilities that youve identified that are statutory. Were going to carry out those responsibilities along with the states and ensure theres a parnship. My first weekend after having been sworn in, we had 18 to 20 governors in my office on a sunday and talked about from super fund to remediation, how do we achieve those things together and from democrats and republicans they said to me, thank you for listening so we can have a voice in the process. It hasnt happened for a number of years. We can learn but shouldnt advocate responsibility to your point and we wont abdicate responsibility. But the budget produced zeros out funding to support this effort. More specifically which effort. Puget sound recovery. As i indicated, the puget sound application for no discharge is something im very interested and concerned about but also the Grant Program is similar to others. The Great Lakes Initiative, the Long Island Initiative that was mentioned earlier. Those are important. Those are important partnerships that have existed for a number of years. As we go through the process together, i want to work with you to achieve good outcomes in each of those areas. I would just emphasize, it is important that the federal government not leave States Holding the bag. You look at state agencies. You know, between a quarter and a third of state Agency Environmental Agency Budgets depend on federal support. And i dont know how we can expect states to take on more of your agencys obligations with less money. Let me say too, we need to also recognize that with respect to sipps, we were talking about this earlier, a backlog of over 700 where states have done their job and actually submitted to the agency a plan to achieve better air quality and the agency simply has not responded. We can do better in many areas to improve that partnership. It you mentioned some but thats important, as well. I yield back. Mr. Joyce. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome again, mr. Pruitt and miss scree have i. Im a little bit concerned also about the impact of the mulvaney budget on the efforts to clean up the great lakes and leverage them as an economic asset for our region. I say that in jest for mr. Mulvaney having been a former member. For example, in my home state of ohio, 3 Million People receive Drinking Water from lake erie and tourism generates more than 14 billion in spending annually and nearly 25,000 jobs. 40 million tons of cargo are shipped through the authorized ports on lake erie. We see these types of benefits in other states that border the great lakes. Our delegation has greatly supported the initiative. This program is facilitating collaboration among our states, federal government as making Real Progress in solving some of the most serious problems. It is helping communities revitalize gee draded waterfront areas creating jobs and new economic development. In my district, creating up sediments allowed for the return of normal shipping and sustained the economic viability of the citys port. For us, cleaning up the lakes isnt about correcting mistakes from the past but creating new opportunities and a Brighter Future for our shoreline communities. The president s budget, i misspoke there. The mull rainny budget would cripple our collective efforts, halt the progress were making and undermine investments we have made to date. Funding has been instrumental in implementing costly cleanup pronls such as the ashtabula river. Had work wouldnt happen without federal support. For example, more than 40 of the cost of the capitaled sediment cleanups has been provided by nonfederal money. This money will be left on table and many projects will not foof forward if the glra is eliminated. Millions of pounds of phosphorus will contribute to harmful algae bloops. It is Clear Funding is critical to restore the great lakes. Equally important is tepas rol a coordinator program. Coordinating work among multiple federal, state and tribal agencies, providing technical support, establishing science based goals and mentioning efforts with canada. Epa has been key to the success of the glra. Explain to us how these functions will be maintained if the glra is lpted . Youve said it well. Thank you for your comments and your summary. Had body for a number of years recognized the importance of the initiative. We at the agency have recognized that, as well. As we start this process and continue the process, we look forward to working with you to address the objectives, the Water Quality objectives and you mentioned invasive species, as well. We want to make sure that the states affected, the commerce thats a part of the great lakes is preserved and we address that Going Forward in this budget. The Great Lakes Interagency Task force and great lakes advisory board, will it be maintained . I think, congressman, as we go through this i think whats important is to recognize the priority of the initiatives that have been historically prioritized by this body. We are going to work with you to ensure those priorities are addressed. In whatever form it takes. Will the cost share approach to cleaning up contaminated sediments under the great lakes legacy act continue . I think from a state perspective, weve talked to many of the governors that are impacted by these issues and we are engaged in discussions with them how we can have a more vibrant shared approach. But as far as the funding that has been proposed to be reduced and or eliminated under this budget, ill echo what ive already shared with you. We recognize the importance of the great lakes, is oo the importance to the citizens in that region and were going to work with congress to assure those objectives are obtained. I can appreciate the fact your agency has provided the leadership in what i think is the way government should work. Agencies all working together on a common go, sharing information and getting to an end result. The money that weve got there, it was needed for over a period of years. Last year, in the bill, we managed to pass 300 million for five years so the agencies wont have to worry about the stop similarity start approach of having to know what money is coming in next year so why start the research. From the 70s to now, the great lakes has made a tremendous difference and your agencys leadership in that tantamount to making it happen. You said it well in your summary and comments. Its the money but also the facilitation. Its the coordination that the agencies provided historically to each of those interested parties and stakeholders both private as well as states. Thats important we recognize that and continue it. Simply put, the mulvaney budget appears to largely remove the federal government as a partner in all our work to resolve and manage the great lakes. Is that fair . I think there are functions that the agency can perform outside of again the funding and or appropriations weve cited some of those. As an example, the chesapeake tmbl is an example of states coming together to address nonpoint source and the agency provided leadership and management in that area. I think thats similarly true to the great lakes area, as well. Obviously, money is important. I think this leadership role is important, as well. Thats going to continue. Its not just lake erie of which were proud, congresswoman capture will follow up on questions regarding this. I dont view the great lakes as a series of lakes. It is a national treasure. Given the national savings, is it fair to expect states and local communities to shoulder the burden of caring are for them . We view those states as partners and stakeholders and will continue to view them in that fashion as we go forward. Its important we show leadership but work with each of the stakeholders to achieve the good outcomes. I appreciate your moving up in line. I have exceeded my time. Thank you very much for your time here. Thank you. Next, miss pingree. Thank you, administrator pruitt for being with us today. I hope we can find ways to Work Together although youve heard a lot of us on the committee have deep concerns with the president s budget. I hope we can coerce you into making some changes in this budget as we move along. I need to say like some of my colleagues before me, we certainly disagree with the administrations stand on the paris accord. I come from the state of maine where people have a lot of concerns bps Climate Change and it has an effect on our lives every day. I want to just mention, i was with a group of Bipartisan Group of colleagues in germany a couple weeks ago when the announcement was made. A lot of colleagues in the government over there were so shocked that we would make this decision and also worried that they couldnt trust the United States anymore to keep with an agreement. I want to echo those sentiments. I want to get into more specifics. Sometimes we put these Vice President ial issues and talk about them as the idea of its environmental extremists against businesses. As someone who understands the importance of the havent and economy working to the and how much i hear about it from my constituents Climate Change to us is very real. Its not an environmental platitude. I live in a lobster fishing area. I would say probably that the highest lobster landings in the world are in my in the Penobscot Bay where i will. I see the fishermen every day. They look at me with this fear in their eyes of saying what are we going to do . The ocean is warming around us. Were watching the migration of lobsters up into the coast and once they get to canada, theyre going to belong to them, not us. We dont get them back. Weve seen the disappearance in the shrimping industry. As mr. Kilmer said, between the fishing industry and tourism, these are important to our identity, important economically and i cant go home and say to people this isnt really happening. I cannot cant go to home to say to people in the shellfish industry ocean add chrisfication doesnt exist. We may sometimes disagree about the causes of Climate Change but doing something about it is critical. We cant back out of agreements. I also represent a huge coastline. With sea level rising we may not see it every day the way they do in miami beach but when people try to get a mortgage or sell their home or get insurance. These are economic issues. When you talk about uncertainty in the marketplace whether its fishermen or farmers or people in coastal communities, these are the people i deal with every day and theyre looking at this with fear and concern and saying to me, what am i going to tell my grandchildren if we dont do something about it. Thats my first concern. The second one and i feel a little bit like mr. Kilmer. I could go on for 500 minutes. I feel confident the chair wont let me do that. Theres the economic question for Natural Resources states and maybe you say one size doesnt fit all. I understand its different when the fossil fuel industry is in your backyard. I represent a state in the tail pipe of the industry. I want to talk about clean air. We have deep concerns about the cuts in this budget and your approach to this. And im looking for any way i can to work with you, but people in my area have deep concerns. Your attorney general sued the Environmental Protection agency, that was the head of the Republican Attorney Generals Association that got a lot of money from the fossil fuel association. We all get criticized for who supports the work we do. I want you to hear in my state, weve been the 80th were the most Oil Dependent state in the nation. We know how hard it is to get over our fos till fuel dependence. And were deeply concerned about cuts potentially to Energy Independence because if we cant have more solar and more wind, we cant have that healthy balance. And were deeply concerned about the role back of clean air rules and the cuts in this administration. We have one of the highest rates of childhood asthma. Thats just a tragedy, the fact that so many people in our state have to deal with impacts of being at the end of the tail pipe about the dirty air coming to our state. What do you think its like to see the highest rate of emergency room admissions because of asthma or to have ozone alerts in the middle of tourism season . We cant say dont come visit our state because the air is going to be dirty right now you. Said uncertainty in the marketplace. This creates a lot of uncertainty. So youve heard a lot of our concerns. You said we should celebrate the downturn in co2 levels. Those are because weve had higher fuel efficiency standards and because weve invested more in clean energy. But your budget does all the opposite. It also cuts your commitment to our states and we cant leave States Holding the bag. About 100 employees at our department of Environmental Protection are funded through the federal government. We dont get that money back if you take it all away. So obviously, i piled on you with a million concerns. Its only a few. I think i represent what im hearing every day. And i dont see how moore cooperation or more efficiency replaces those 4,000 employees youre about to cut or puts money back into the programs we care about. Let me say first that i look forward to us as you indicated working together. I appreciate you saying that. Its something that i endeavor to do, as well with respect to attainment issues, it actually is a priority of our administration to focus on achieving better attainment outcomes. As you know when you look at asthma, you mentioned asthma, the two the criteria pollutants we regulate under the program, there are several, six, but two of them predominantly impact asthma, particulate matter and ozone. The 2. 5 standard is better than any in europe. We are making i believe tremendous progress toward achieving good Health Outcomes for our citizens but congresswoman, i believe we can do more. When i say celebrate progress, i think we have to recognize we have prioritized as a country, that we should recognize the success weve achieved but it doesnt mean we stop. It means we work with the states to get better data. Not model data but monitored data. Realtime data. And then focus on compliance and assistance with those states to achieve Better Outcomes in the program. With respect to co2, i want to say to you, the president when he announced withdrawal from the paris accord said something else, as well. He said that he wanted to continue engagement on this issue. I just left the g7. I spent four days in bo lowia with my counterparts. We started bilateral discussions. I started discussions with them with respect to our continued leadership with rerespect to co2 production. You mentioned the progress weve made through government regulations, predominantly in the mobile source area. But innovation and technology has brought about a tremendous amount of co2 reductions particularly pra fracturing and drilling. The what we should be focused upon as a nation using var forms of energy from coal to hydroto renewables, we need to focus on using the latest technology that reduces emissions in a meaningful way and focusing on leading International Discussions that kind of innovation technology. The president made this is not a sign of disengagement. Were going to approach it from a way of producing real action through the implementation of what weve done the past several years. I appreciate your thoughts. And i hope it is not a sign of disengagement. And that we are in going to be continued on co2. Im not clear how we do that if we reduce funding for all these areas. I hope you can continue talking to me about that. If i may, in this regard, its very important that Congress Congress does not address this from a stationary source perspective. We have tremendous regulation in the mobile source category. The auto sector has taken significant steps to reduce emissions and done an extraordinary job. As far as the stationary sources when you look at the Clean Air Act, i dont know how many of you were here in 1990 when the act was amended. If you ask members that amended that act in 1990 including congressman dingell, he described regulation of co2 under the clean air anticipates as being a glorious mess. Thats how that framework is used. We have to ask the question at the epa, we cant just make up our authority. We cant just make up processes to address whatever objectives that have been identified. We have to receive authority and direction and process from this body. So as we evaluate steps that were going to take at the agency, it will be focused upon what are the tools in the toolbox we have . If there is a deficiency of the tools well let you know and advise you accordingly. Its very important we recognize that. I just hope that we can discuss the kleen power plant again because that was about stationary clean air. Thank the gentle lady. Im going to recognize mr. Cole. Im going to real briefly say that the Clean Air Act is obviously very important to me and certainly to my state. And certainly my area. In fact, as you know, administrator, that california was probably it was the first state to start cleaning up its own air. Before 1963, before the Clean Air Act was even envisioned, california had already started stepping forward to clean up its air and to step up with pollution rules. As a matter of fact, you know, theres a history of bipartisan cooperation. It was jerry lewis who was a congressman here who helped create the south coast air quality basin. So certainly, theres a lot of concerns about clean air. Thats shared with my governor reagan when he was governor in 1966. And provisions in california to deal with that. In fact, one thing thats important to california is our waiver. Weve had these waivers for over 50 years. And so i want to ask the question, do you plan to copy the Clean Air Act preemption waiver that hc granted to california . Currently currently, the waiver is not under review. Youre right, this has been something that has been granted. Going back to the beginning of the Clean Air Act, because of the leadership that california demonstrated it was preserved as you know in the original writing of the Clean Air Act. Its important we recognize the role of states in achieving good air quality standards. Thats something were committed to in the agency. The waiver is not currently being reviewed by the epa. Thank you. Mr. Cole . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. And im going to start with a point of personal privilege if i may because i think i have probably known the administrator longer than anybody on this panel. I was the secretary of state when he was elected to the state senate in 1996 if i remember correctly. And then frankly was one of many people that urged him to run for attorney general in oklahoma in 2009. He did that and he won that campaign. And he did the job so well, that nobodified against him for reelection as either republican or democrat. So i just assure my colleagues on the panel you may have disagreements over budgets or policies or what have you, but you will find that the administrator is unfailingly professional, is unfailingly courteous, will look for ways to work with you. Not against you. And will handle himself in an absolutely bob board and ethical manner. And hes got pretty good people around him. I see his chief of staff. Ive known ryan for a lot of years, too. Hes got a good team. He will do a tremendous job. Its a privilege to see new this position, my friend. Everybody on this table knows im not unkind. But i want to begin by also grating you on the paris accord. We had secretary zinke in here testifying about his budget and he made the point i thought succinctly. It was a bad deal for the United States. It just simply was with all due respect to my friends that have a different opinion. If it was a good deal, they would have put it in front of the United States senate and turned it into law rather than run the risk of having it overturned which again president obama chose to do that. And that was his choice but when we had a successor with different views that evaporated rapidly. I want to commend the president for making it Crystal Clear as you did in your testimony that hes ready to engage, ready to sit down. We have to have a deal better for the United States and the American People than the one we had. Youve caught a lot of flack for it. Im proud of the role you played and the advice you gave the president and frankly very proud of how ably you defended that decision when ive seen you on television and in print. You clearly know your stuff as you always did as a legislator and attorney general in our home state. Very, very proud of you. Now, thats enough praise for a minute. I want to congratulate you on one other thing. I can assure you youre going to be the first epa administrator thats come before this committee in eight years that actually gets more money than they asked for. You know, and that doesnt mean youll get as much as youve had, but youll do better than youve asked for. Look, my friend, mr. Joyce, alluded to it and my friend the chairman and i were upstairs a minute ago talking to secretary mattis about the Defense Budget. We understand budget wars and budget games. And decision was made appropriate in my view to plus up defense and a decision was made to take all of that out of nondefense. I think that was an inappropriate decision. President obama used to have a linkage of spending one to one. Any increase in defense we had to increase domestic. Thats a false narrative. You know, i actually think defense has the priority. But theres no such relationship. Its just as false to do a one, every one we do, were going to cut one. You look at each individual function and you try to make the right decision. Your job is to do exactly what youre doing. You work for the president. I would expect you to defend the budget of the president of the United States. I suspect your private counsel to the office of management and budget may have been a little bit different. I know some of your colleagues in the cabinet and they didnt agree with every decision. When the decision is made, your job to go defend it. The final decision rests here. It does rest. The constitute is pretty clear. I would never you know advise you about the constitution of the United States. You know better than i do. But the in end, we have the spending authority. We will look at this. Its important we have the president s priorities but at the end of the day, congress will make the decision. I think youre going to do better than you asked for. So that might be a good thing. I will tell you, i am concerned and ill give you three areas. My colleagues we all have our particular areas of concern. Youll find one of the great common themes on this subcommittee is bipartisan cooperation on native american affairs. When i see the indian environmental general an activitience program cut by 257 billion and see state and tribal assistant grants cut by 678 million and i see 69 million cut in the pollution crow Grant Program of the clean water act which has a section on tribal guidance, that worries me and i want to ask you this in a serious way because we talked about burden sharing. Thats fine. I think thats appropriate, frankly. And i know that you will approach that seriously because i know who you are. But theres a big difference between states and localities that have taxing powers and Indian Tribes that dont. You know, they may or may not have revenue. But they cannot tax. We do not give them that power. So when you make these cuts, how will they make up those monies particularly given the biggest recipients tend to be the poorest tribes and the most isolated land masses and areas with the most limited economic tools available and with citizens by any measure in terms of Economic Opportunities or educational opportunities, their employment prospects are at the very bottom of the heap as we measure those sorts of things . First, thank you for your kind comments. And i have known the congressman for a number of years. Is he a friend. Is he someone i parned with on many endeavors and he too is serving the state of oklahoma and his country in a very, very wonderful fashion. I appreciate your leadership. And with respect to the issues that youve raised, i think the its particularly important with respect to Rural Communities across the country in addition to tribal communities. The he the tribal nations that we recognize the Important Role that the epa plays in Water Infrastructure, air attainment, facilitation around those and Technical Assistance. As we go through the budgeting process, i look forward to working with you and the chairman to address those concerns. We will. Again, i know youll be open to that. Weve worked on native american issues before in our home state. I remind you that as one of my colleagues referred, these are treaty obligations. Theyre not generous grants. Weve made certain commitments. Maintaining those commitments and advancing them as this committee has is something were serious about. One last question because ive taken a lot of time. Its not a question i know a great deal about it. Its something brought up to me by constituents actually in light of this hearing but its my understanding youre currently doing a review of gly foe say the which i understand is a pesticide, herbicide sold as something called roundup. In the past, its been i think had a label that it might have carcinogens in it, but i understand theres a new study that has not yet been released called the Agricultural Health study over at health and human services. But for some reason its been held to two years. It comes to a different conclusion. As you do your review, could you look into that and see if that study is there and just make sure that your people as they make their determination have access to that data . I will. And i will say that ive had interagency discussions with secretary perdue an the department of agriculture, secretary price at hhs. Its important we collaborate and Work Together around these issues. And we will do that and report back. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Look forward to working with you. Mr. Stewart. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And sir, we look forward to working with you. I know the people who know you have tremendous respect for you and we think were lucky to have you in the position you are. I have to mimic what will mr. Cole said if i could. That was in regards to the Paris Agreement and it was exactly the right decision. I say if someone is serious about client change, if they really feel that its the threat that faces our threat, you cant defend the paris ingredient because it wasnt a serious effort. It wasnt a serious document. No cop appliance. It costs trillion of every country competitive for china p china. As im going to get to in a minute, the negative impacts had impacts on us here in the u. S. Which ill show you in a moment. I did an interview earlier in the day and said i felt like the epa had their boot on the throat of america. Please at least just be on our chest. Thats all were hoping for here is relief from what we believe is a sense of regulatory overreach. One more premise if i could. I think many times people start a conversation with me and say youre republican. Therefore, you dont care about the environment. Thats just a nutty premise. Theres a reason i live out west because i love to rock climb and ski and sit in my backyard and look at the mountains. I dont want to look through ozone or haze. I think all of us are committed to protect the beautiful place that god has given us. The question is how to do this and at what cost. You know while the country has made significant progress in reducing pollution especially ozone levels, those of us in the west are hose the by this whole thing i represent downtown stalt lake city and very rural parts of utah. Zion national park, Yellowstone National park, for example. These are very remote places and yet out of compliance with ozone. And theres not a thing in the world they can do about it. Its not like theres a factors spewing or cars driving through there and creating pollution and particulate matter. Its naturally occurring. Coming back to the paris ingredient if i could, princeton and noaa have said that 65 of the particulate matter is coming from overseas which is why it was nuts to allow china top continue to spew till 2030 while we pay the price for that. Here we are. We have Rural Communities not in compliance with ozone and cant get compliant. Theres not a thing we can do. The native americans living there 500 years ago would have been not in compliance with the rules proposed by the previous administration. Will you work with us on that . You cant punish us for something we cant control. Its a very important question because when you look at background ozone lebs as an example, our built to measure with precision background ozone is very important because what we ought to be focused upon with respect to our nax program, around ozone as an example, is the margin bob the background. As youve indicated there are certain communities across the country if you took out all economic activity, it still would be noncompliance under the Clean Air Act. That is something were reviewing administratively. I will say to you that we may need the help of congress to address that. And well advise you accordingly on the ability to baseline ozone or background ozone and focus on areas above that that i think are important to address attainment issues. And one other thing. The cross state air pollution rule and the ability to make sure that states are sharing, you dont want one state contributing to the nontainment of another state. You want to make sure that there is accountability and that steps are being taken in one state to address it downwind. So that is a very important objective and rule we have as an agency. The agencies endeavor to do that in the past. That cross state air pollution rule was electricen by the court. Were trying to make sure that doesnt happen again. Its a very important priority and it is. We dont want the process of one state contributing to the nonattainment of another. We want a shared responsibility there. Ill conclude by saying a, we dont want one state contributing to another nor one nation contributing to another which is clearly happening. If you say you may need the help of congress, all hope is lost then because we im pessimistic about being able to be convince some of my colleagues that you know, because the narrative will be republicans want to weaken clear air standards. Thats not true. Were trying to reflect the reality theres nothing these communities can do. Its not just air. You mentioned transboundary with other nations. Its also mercury in our fish. There are many issues around our Environmental Standards we need more cooperation and partnership from our neighbors to the south and north. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank the gentleman. Miss kaptur. Thank you, mr. Chair and also madam Ranking Member. I apologize for being late. We had a concurrent hearing which i had to be at. Administrator pruitt, welcome. My first question i want to follow on Congress Woman joyces excellentra, and say would you accept an invitation to travel east of the miss river to the great lakes and join congressman joyce and myself with a Bipartisan Group of elected officials to discuss the compromised health of lake erie . It would be a pleasure. I spent some time in region 5 already around other issues, the super fund issue there in east chicago. We talked about Great Lakes Initiative and the importance that have while i was in region five and look forward to copied discuss with you and others on the committee. Well make it convenient and make it easy. We will not serve you asian carp. We will serve you perch or pickerel. Wall eye is better. America really cant afford to shortchange our environment and human health. I would assume you share that belief. The budget submission, however, that is before us is simply unacceptable. And it cuts Environmental Protection by if one adjusts for inflation, by over a third. And its the lowest budget request weve had in 40 years. And our part of the country is experiencing threats to the great lakes, the largest body of fresh water on earth. Lake erie is the shallowest. Its experiencing it first. It drains the largest watershed in the great lakes. And we have increasing population in our country now. Were at 326 million. The world is 7. 5 billion. Theyre not making any more fresh water. But we understand what environmental stress is all about and why the Environmental Protection agency is so important. So important to the future of this country. We thank you for your service. In your confirmation, you committed to support the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. So the following questions you can answer yes or no. We make it easy. Can you please clarify, when you said epas of budget submission to the white house, did your budget leave epa with the 300 million in funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative whole or zeroed out . That process congresswoman, as far as the submission to the agency and the passback, thats something that its been a little while since we those numbers i looked at those numbers. In our discussions we talked about the importance of the Great Lakes Initiative. I had a hunch. Okay. Your budget submission recommends also taking out 50 million of the glris current fiscal year funding for 2017 we just passed and giving that back to treasury. 50 million. Does that mean you will not be able to complete work and you probably cant answer this, to complete the cleanup of the area of concern at an lorraine, ohio, on the black river . Because im quite concerned if the administration is going to zero out glri and then take 50 million away from this years budget, that really could stop work on an ajoining river that flows into the great lakes that was terribly damaged. Yes, well look at the ongoing work with the particular focus on that area, congresswoman, and get information to you. But the rescission that youre referring to i think is around 369 million which includes the 50 million. That carryover typically is there. And thats not intended to be punitive toward the great lakes. Just an overall pass back, rescission of the entire amount. We will look at that the particular area that youve identified and make sure the ongoing work as far as contracts that have been let that will continue during the pendency of the budget discussions. Thank you. We were guaranteed that would happen. That scared us. Weve heard it is your intention toer. Thely shut down the Great Lakes Region five office in chicago and move it out of the great lakes to west of the Mississippi River to kansas. Could you confirm for me whether epa intends to do that . Thats pure legend. As far as the discussion about moving or theres no consideration presently with respect to any regional offices about moving them one location or another. That is something that weve not im not sure where that came from. I was visiting region five. The east chicago Super Fund Site. As i went into to region five, there was media reports that somehow region five was going to be moved. Thats not been something we had discussed up till that point. And its not something thats currently under discussion presently. Thank you. Eps second Largest Research lab is located in cincinnati, ohio and employs 1,700 scientists. Subs youre proposing a 33 cut in your science budget, does this mean you will pink slip over 500epa scientists locked in cincinnati, ohio. We will not. As i indicated earlier, the proposed cuts to personnel in this budget will be achieved through attrition. Through voluntary buyouts. And through the hiring freeze that currently is in place. We have as i indicated, 20 of our workforce retirement age today. That number increases substantially over the next three to five years. Thank you. I want to ask your help in a very specific situation. Two years ago, and there is why we want you to come to ohio, toledos fresh water supply was shut down over a weekend due to toxic algae blooms from lake erie that crept into the Water Treatment facility. The amount of money to fix this environmental threat is enormous. And the responsibility for purifying the water should not simply rest with the city of toledo of a community of 250,000 that sits inside the greatest watershed of the great lakes of over 2 Million People and 11 million animals. Further, michigan declared lake erie is impaired but ohio has not declared that lake erie is impaired. Indiana has said nothing and canada sit on the other side of the lake. Epa has income prehencebly accepted both of the state level determinations ohio saying nothing, michigan saying lake erie is impaired, and indiana saying nothing. Within your federalist of epas role, isnt a tristate by national and disputed body of water precisely where epa is statute to you ril mandated to take action. Its my understanding the ohio e pennsylvania a has not aesd the waters of lake erie just yet. This is an area we are committed to working with all states in that region to ensure Water Quality standards are advanced and protected. With respect to algae blooms, the epa currently serves as cochair of the harmful algae bloom and hypoxia and control act. We understand the importance of nonpoint source discharge into our waters. States have the primary responsibility with respect to nonpoint source regulation. Its important we provide facilitation and Technical Assistance as we work with them but its very important that we Work Together in that regard. I will tell you this and end with this, mr. Chairman. The cuts that you have recommended to glri whether its omb or some of your advisers there, on top of the 35 cut to the section 106 clean water act state implementation grants means that is ohio will have a 30 cut to its budget from that 106 cut. And with the cuts in glri and so forth and the lack of clarity on what we can do to handle this massive water threat. This is why we want you to come to ohio. I look forward to visiting with you. Thank you. Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Administrator pruitt, thank you for being here. Thank you for your new role. A lot of very nice things have been said about the leadership from you and this administration from paris to right sizing the agency. I want to associate myself with those accolades and compliments. A couple of quick things. I think have you heard very clearly around this table and i know you feel it, as well, we all appreciate, we want, we love clean air and clean water. In West Virginia, our mountains and forests are second to none. But we are an energy state in West Virginia. We have coal, natural gas, oil. But were also a Human Resource state with the hardest working people i would put up against anybody in this country. And your predecessor, candidly and the Prior Administration did everything it could to put West Virginia out of business. And put West Virginians out of work. I respect my colleague from across the aisle from washington worrying about his 3200 employees from puget sound at risk of losing their jobs. In West Virginia, as a result of the Prior Administration, we did lose over 10,000 direct jobs of coal mining, good jobs. We put so many people on the unemployment line because of the actions of the Prior Administration and the prior epa administrator. So as chairman frelinghuysen mentioned a minute ago, the power of the purse. I know i have been working here in this committee to try to use the power of the purse to influence. The direction and the work of the epa and the policies and i simply want to say thank you for creating signs of hope and opportunity for the hard working people of West Virginia. We do have coal mines that are opening up. We have got people going back to work to create a sense of hope and opportunity in their lives. So i want to thank you for that. A couple of questions. Number one, i just want to make sure its clear for all to hear and see and listen. Does this administration make it a priority of having an all of the above Energy Policy . Yes, congressman. I think thats important as you look at how we generate electricity in this country, we need to have truly fuel diversity because as we have 1 growth in our gdp, theres not as much concern about Grid Stability and Grid Security but as we see 3 to 4 growth, its important that Utility Companies across this country actually have diversity portfolios in which to generate electricity. That includes coal. You can store and this is important with respect to energy security. You can store solid hydrocarbons on site. Theres only so much natural gas you can get through a pipe. If theres an attack opt transportation system, it puts your ability to generate electricity at risk if you have a heavy reliance on any particular fuel source in generating electricity. Like a business, having one client or two clients and if you lose that client, your business goes away. Its important that the american citizens know that our price per kilowatt compared to europe compared to other nations is very, very competitive, in fact, it provides us the ability to grow a Manufacturing Base and the stability of our grid is important. So our focus should be on using innovation and technology as decisions are made whether its hydroor nuclear or coal or natural gas or oil in the generation oftrist eighth we use innovation and technology to achieve the lowest emission standards possible in each of the areas we regulate under our program or otherwise. So this administration and you in the leadership role of the epa do see a future for coal. I believe its essential that again, we have a very robust fuel diversity and how we generate electricity in this country and we already see the optimism across the country. You cite that. It is absolutely an all above strategy. Clean power plan, wotus, 2015 ozone, in this subcommittee, thanks to the leadership of the subcommittee on cpp, we put riders in the funding bills to make sure cpp did not pursue further implementation under the Prior Administration. Under wotus, we helped halt funding for implementation of wotus using that power of the purse. I proudly sponsored an amendment under the 2015 ozone and the funding mechanisms through this process to bar the epa from moving the goal post. Is the work we have done in this committee resonate and moving forward with this administration and the work of the epa understanding that we are matching up in priorities on those issues and others . Yes, and let me say because theres been a couple of questions and discussion points about kleen power plants specifically. I think its important to recognize that with respect to wotus and cpp that the u. S. Supreme court and the former excuse me, in the latter issued a stay against the actual implementation of the rule and you dont get a stay, as you know, from the u. S. Supreme court or any court unless theres a likelihood of success on merits. The uncertainty that was created with respect to the steps taken by the epa to regulate under the Clean Power Plan and also under wotus, the environmental objectives were not achieved. Were in the process of withdrawing both the 2015 wotus rule in addition to the cpp that was issued, as well and we will take steps on wotus, well have a final rule that will provide a definition for waters in the United States bity Fourth Quarter of this year, no later than the First Quarter of next year because thats the job of the agency. Congressman, i would say to you that goes to the heart of my comments in my Opening Statement. When an agency acts in excess or inconsistent with the statutory framework, lawsuits occur. It creates uncertainty in the mark place and the environmental objectives that are focused upon are not achieved. One very brief new source review. We have a number of coalfired power plants across the country that would like to invest for improved efficiency, keep that base load available, that Grid Security. Im working with congressman griffith to develop legislation to bring some predictability for those power plants that continue to operate that we can improve efficiency. I welcome the opportunity to work with you and your office. Do you have any thoughts about reforming new source review to encourage investment to give the predictability our Power Generators need to make investments today knowing that the rules wont be changed on them in the fume . Its a very important area because you have businesses and industry across the country that literally want to investment in some instances hundreds of millions of dollars in existing facilities to produce Better Outcomes on emissions but as they do so, it triggers new source performance standard requirements that disincentivizes that. We should Work Together to provide dlirt encourage that kind of investment because its good for the environment. And its good to provide that certainty to those that want to invest to achieve those outcomes. Look forward to working with you on that legislation were draft. Thank you. Mr. Amodei. Its good to see you again. I hadnt planned on this but i want to straighten something up that my colleague from the Buckeye State had talked about. Actually, region five isnt going to move to kansas. Its going to move to winimucken, nev. But the water from lake erie when its drained is going to be treated in kansas before its delivered to nevada to facilitate the lake bed of lake erie. We havent had this discussion. I think thats yucca mountain. Its all good into thank you very much. Mr. Administrator, i want to echo the comments of my colleague from the sooner state in terms of theres been a lot of discussion about the budget and as a history guy, i think its important to note that the congress has cut the agency quite a bit before you got there. And quite a bit recently in relative terms. And so speaking only for myself, i would expect to take those cuts into account and echo my colleagues sentiments about you may be the first person to get more than you asked for because, quite frankly, as many people have made the point, nobody is standing on the rooftops begging for dirty water and dirty air and dirty soil and those sorts of things. I hate to do this publicly, but referring to the budget by the name of the director of omb i think is beautiful and appropriate and if anything kind compared to what he probably deserves. So i think i like that in terms of giving you a pass on that. Beyond that, i will tell you this. Ive got some issues that i want to talk. But weve had some success dealing with your agency through your lee and son folks and with the pokes out in region 9 actually. And so well look forward to getting on the calendar of the appropriate folks in the agency. And dealing with those specifically in the coming days. So thank you very much. I appreciate the fact that on several occasions youve made the point youre a process person and so when these things go forward, whether its the paris accords or a rule that that due process thats supposed to go through there and the public opportunity is important stuff and when that is gone through, things tend to take care of them selves. Thank you very much. I appreciate your help working with us on water from ohio and well talk with you offline. If i might, i really appreciate the reference to process and theres a reason why this body, why congress has said that the administrative procedures act sets forth very strict guidelines on how we do rule making that we introduce a rule, propose a rule, we take comment from citizens and states and industry across the country. And our job as an agency is to take those comments and respond to them on the record and make an informed decision as we finalize the rule. The reason that process matters is thats how you reach consensus. Thats how you reach an informed decision that actually takes into consideration all the various regions across the country, the impact of a rule economically, the impact of the rule on the environment. When that process is not respected, it actually contributes to bad outcomes. So i mentioned that to you in my opening comment because it matters to i think the success of working together. And were going to do that. And refocus our attention there. We shouldnt regulate the litigation. One of the things that was a very, very it still remains a very difficult challenge is we inherited a host of consent decrees. And those consent decrees sometimes change the very statutes that you have passed. Time lines that youve established, substantive obligations youve but the in the statute. That the shouldnt be. You shouldnt have a Court Process litigation yield to a change in statute that congress has passed. So this process focus is something that i think will yield good outcops along with the partnership that ive mentioned with the states but also that really key focus on what is our authority in meeting the timelines that congress has set. Thats the reason the to cas update that you passed last year is so important that we meet those deadlines, rules being out, put out. The rfs issue. The rvos supposed to much could out every november that provide certainty to the mark place. That has not been met in many years. Well meet that deadline in november. I appreciate your comments about the process component and something that we take seriously. Thank you. Mr. Mccollum. I want to restate something touched on by several members here that the budget cut to the categorical grants to states and tribes by 40 is just going to be a nonstarter here. States rely heavily on these grants. So do tribes. Even a report from the Environmental Council of states federal funds account on average 27 of state environmental budgets. Thats over a quarter of state budgets. And i think its really important to remember that states have the ability to return this responsibility back to the epa so we have to keep this Partnership Moving Forward you mentioned in closing up here as were coming to the end about working together. So one of the things that i asked secretary zinke because sometimes there are things out there happening and people are talking about you know, no ones responding back to my letter. So if you could please tell me, is there a policy or a guidance you could share with the chairman and i on what we can expect for timely responses to both the chairman and i and other members of congress when we submit letters . Were hearing that some committees are only going to respond to chairman. Some are not going to respond to rank and file members. Do you have such a policy and if so, could you share it with us . I appreciate the question because as i went through the confirmation process, i met with roughly 40 to 45 senators both democrat and republican. Many of whom were not on the actual Epw Committee because i wanted to spend time with them and hear their concerns. Since being sworn in, ive been on capitol hill meeting with both democrat and republican members. It is my belief that its my job to respond and be all members of congress. And i look forward to doing so. I mentioned i actually was in east chicago as i indicated earlier. With senator donnelly on that very important Super Fund Site that needs to be new leadership. That is something theres not a policy that recognizes majority versus nonmajority. Ill call you if i dont think im getting a timely response. Another thing just in the news and im sure im not sure. I know you saw it. That there were reports that you failed to disclose an email account you had while you were attorney general, the one thats esp oklahoma and ag. Gov. And its kind of distressing because at your hearing you said you only had two email addresses and now this third one came forward. So you werent completely accurate at the time. And senator whitehouse said that youve had several opportunities to correct the record on your emails. In fact, he has a letter that goes on to say its been through Public Disclosure of yourits z disclosure of emails that Congress Learned of the relationship with Energy Companies that regulate the epa. I want to for the record and you can get back to you, ask you what youre using for email addresses as epa administrator, what other forms of electronic communication youre using because i want to build a level of trust between all of us. If i may, both in my oral testimony as well as theres a letter actually that i submitted to the Epw Committee in may that recognized multiple state email accounts so theres been a consistency there. The representations that you are citing are not accurate so we have informed the committee. That was consistent with my oral testimony. Well provide you information about current activities, as well. Great. One of the thing that iss come forward and that ive been following is, you know, when you were attorney general you had a different job than you have now. And you had a lot of correspondence with devon energy who was aggressively challenging rules proposed by the epa. Youve sent a letter to the ep as ag in oklahoma the epa overestimated pollution from natural gas wells and you the letter very closely reflected what lawyers from devon energy and this is also something thats been in the public. Just last month the New York Times has now reported that devon energy reevaluating the settlement posture for illegally admitting 80 tons of kem kags a year like ben zeen. The company from reports is backing away from an agreement to install a system to detect leaks of dangerous gas and the company after agreeing and admitting that it had violated the law is backing away from a proposed settlement which has a six figure penalty claim to back back to the taxpayers down to 25,000. Based on your relationship with deron energy when you were attorney general, how do you plan on handling this issue . Are you going to recuse yourself . Because now youre the epa. Someone else going to be looking at it . Because as you said, we want to Work Together. And so i bring these articles up not to play gotcha politics but to create an honest and open dialogue about how the epas going to be conducted so that we can Work Together. I appreciate you not making presumption, Ranking Member mccollum. I would say to you as far as enforcement is concerned, i talked about that in my opening comments. Enforcement matters to me. You mentioned my time as attorney general. We had a grand jury i led, significant enforcement activities. I understand there are bad actors in the marketplace. There are individuals and companies that discharge toxics and poll lu about thes into the water than need to be prosecuted. They engage in fraud with the rent system. Violate permits with air attainment. What im trying to respond to the question. I know you are but same time youre painting one side of it. You filed multiple lawsuits against the epa. The lawsuits are topic of discussion. We won those lawsuits because the agency not acting within the authority of this body. The reason lawsuits were filed, 31 states, filed a lawsuit against the epa for the rule is because they acted outside of their authority. The reason 27 states sued the epa under the Clean Power Plan is the same thing. This body ought to be very jealous of any agency of the executive branch flaunting the frame work that you have established under any statute. Thank the gentle lady. Real quick, only person to ask a question so one thing i wanted to bring up and i mentioned this up in my Opening Statement, the deer program. The agency noted that 10. 3 million legacy diesel fleet engines are still in use. Also want to report the epa estimated over 1 million of the oldest and dirtiest diesel engines remain in use until 2030. The inland empire in california where i live is part of the south coast air quality district which i talked about before which is a nonattainment for ozone about as long as the federal regulation for ozone existed. Not for a lack of trying. We have been regulated air quality longer than any other area on the planet. And implementing some of most stringent air control measures. We have done all we can do pretty much. Our issue is amount of cars and trucks and you mentioned mobile sources. Thats the problem. And we also have two of the largest port facilities in the United States. Port of l. A. And port of long beach which is responsible for 40 of all u. S. Container cargo in the United States. These containers loaded on to truck and travel through my district, the rest of the country and mobile sources contribute to about 80 of the air quality in the south coast region. Of course, you know that part of california. I think theres about 20 some, 26 million, 27 Million People who live in the los angeles basin. We have made significant progress in improving air control. However, largely due to the topography, transportation in and around the inland empire. We need Additional Resources to continue to make the improvements. Thats why we fund the targeted air shed Grant Program provide Additional Resources to areas across the nation that need help to meet air control standards. The same is true for dera grants. As i mentioned in the Opening Statement, i appreciated the flexibility of the implementation because communities are just starting to work to meet the 2008 standards. The fiscal year 2017 omnibus directed epa to send a report to Congress Regarding administrative options for regulatory relief, states and communities attempt to comply with both the 2008 and 2015 standards. In response, epa has convened a task force as you mentioned to examine what options may be available. So my question real quickly is, in your opinion, how can we accelerate the process for some of these communities to reach their attainment goals . Well, i do want to address dera for a second. I think its a very important program. The gao has found a duplication with across federal agencies and the mission is right. And we believe it should be funded and i think this committee should get direction on how it should be funded. We are committed to the dera program and believe its important however you choose to achieve that. With respect to how do we improve attainment . I think a lot of it, mr. Chairman, is restoring that joint cooperation through compliance and assistance, equipping those at the local level to achieve a better outcome but i think some of it may be legislative. I do believe that addressing the issues of earlier with ozone is something that this body ought to consider and air attainment work is some of the best work for Health Outcomes and should be a priority of our Agency Working with congress to achieve those outcomes. Thank you. As i mentioned when we started the meeting, we were trying to finish this by 1 00 because we have a meeting for the full committee i have to attend so if any real quick comments or were going to wrap this up. See none. I appreciate you being here, administrator, pruett. Quickly . Very quickly, mr. Kilmer. Thanks. I appreciate it, chairman. Ill keep it quick. My colleague from oklahoma and i are last hearing made i think a very thoughtful comment about the generational burden of debt. Theres a lot of moms in this room concerned about the generational burden of Climate Change on the next generation. And the inability of our government to do something about it. I appreciate your i understand that theres going to be a difference on the paris climate accords. What i dont get is complete elimination of some of the programs that are not even mandatory. Things like the energy star program. You know . Theres a whole list of them in your budget. The Natural Gas Star Program which is a voluntary program to reduce methane leaks. Things like the combined heat and Power Partnership to promote use of wasted heat, saving both energy and water and reducing pollution. If you can just take a quick minute to help explain why im going to work with you to make sure that we address those issues. I suspect he has to defend his budget. But im going to work with you to make sure that we work with this. Thanks, chairman. Any other comments . Without im sorry. I have to get to a meeting. I appreciate your attendance. We are adjourned. Thank you