Epa administrator, scott pruitt, testifying on his priorities at the epa, and youre watching live coverage here on cspan3. These issues we want to do all we can to eliminate those things so we dont have those kind of sites across the country, absolutely. Well, and youre your rush to eliminate regulations, thats exactly what youre doing, is creating opportunity for new superfund sites to be created. I wouldnt interpret it that way, congressman. The gentlemans time has expired. The chair will recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, mr. Hudson, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Administrator, for making the extra effort to come back and take all of our questions. And thank you for your strong leadership at the agency. I appreciate also that your efforts to make the epa focus on air and water and soil contamination. My state of North Carolina has been shaken by a discovery of a chemical called generation x. I know my state reports that gen x is no longer getting into the river and treated Drinking Water is within state health goals. The previous epa administrator had conditions in 2009. Can you say whether epa has discovered if gen x was used in an impermissible fashion . Im not aware, congressman. We can provide that information to you. I dont have any information on that today th, but we can get t to you. I appreciate it. I understand the epa is updating its Risk Assessment and performing independent analysis for water samples being collected now by the North Carolina deq, along the cape fear river, including wastewater, surface water, ground water and treated Drinking Water samples. Are there any findings you can discuss on that . Again on that, i would have to get the information from the office and provide that to you to make sure that its complete and comprehensive and up to date. Great. I appreciate that. One issue thats a real concern to folks in my part of North Carolina, whether its agriculture or just Property Owners in general is the usa regulation. Ive heard your critics say youve done the same thing as your predecessor in that youve decided the outcome of the rule or casting about for justifications. Sort of the claim we keep hearing. I would love to give you a chance to respond to that. Well, i think oftentimes, with respect to issues like cpd, its not deregulation. The rule that was adopted in 2015, the stated objective was to provide clarity. That was what the past administration said. If that were the state of the objective, they failed miserably. I agree. Across the country, on where the United States is, where federal jurisdiction begins and ends, and so theres a theres a process that were going through to deal with the deficiency. There is a court stay against this 2015 rule that youre aware. And so our obligation is to provide a definition. And that process has begun in earnest and we should have a proposed rule by april of next year time frame. And were taking significant comment on that, along with the withdrawal of the 2015 rule. So its not deregulation, its regulatory clarity so we know where federal jurisdiction begins and ends. Sounds good to me. One of the arguments in favor of the Obama Administration, it is essential to protecting Drinking Water and Public Health would be at risk. The safe Drinking Water act has provisions addressing both the protection of source water, sections 1453 and 1454, and underground sources of Drinking Water part c. Do you agree that the safe Drinking Water act has these provisions and provides protection to source waters . Absolutely. And let me say to the members of the committee, one of the things were focused on in 2018 is lead in our water supply, safe Drinking Water. And i think there are tremendous challenges we have across the country with respect to Service Lines, in particular communities. And the lead seeping into the water supply of our children, its one of the greatest environment althreats we face as a country and one of the things i hope i can work with this committee on as we go into 2018 is a strategy over a tenyear period to eradicate those concerns. And its going to be a very Ambitious Initiative at our agency and something we have various offices in the Agency Working upon. There are about 17 agencies working on this issue of lead, as well, and im sending a letter to my colleagues and other agencies to make this a point of emphasis as we go into 2018. Not only do i agree with what youre saying about the reach on these issues, but i think there are important matters that we can take on lead that will make a difference for our citizens across the country Going Forward. Thank you for your answers. And mr. Chairman, i think i can speak for folks on both sides of the aisle we look forward to that discussion. And with that, ill yield back. And if i may you may. I understand that thats a costly endeavor. You know, replacing lead Service Lines across the country, thats been estimated may cost as much as 30 billion or maybe upwards of 50 30 or 50 billion. But i will say to you if we can develop a tenyear strategy on how to address that state of michigan is an example right now. Considering lowering its levels from 15 parts per billion down to 10 parts per billion on the standard and also spending money to replace those lead lines, as i understand it. And thats good leadership with the governor of michigan and i think, frankly, we in washington need to have that kind of conversation with states across the country to focus on that issue. The president has talked about infrastructure. The importance of using some of the infrastructure discussion to address some of these things. And i look forward to that discussion with you. So if the gentleman would allow me to yield. We passed a safe Drinking Water act out of the full committee, which should be helpful in this. My friends on the other side wanted more money. So maybe in a supplemental and stuff, in this process, we have already started moving to try to do that legislatively. But executive branch focus would be helpful. Its not just Service Lines. Its Corrosion Control measures that need to be deployed. Obviously paint, as well. So there is a multifaceted approach we need to validaevalu how to declare a war on lead, if you will. But i want to let you know as a committee its something i desire to work with you Going Forward. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Carter, for five minutes. Thank you, very much, mr. Chair. Miss pruitt, appreciate the opportunity for us to, as i quote you, dialogue that begins today. I hope that future dialogue doesnt span ten months between these opportunities. Is your current office, place of work, washington, d. C. . Yes, sir. Okay. And prior to becoming the epa administrator, what city or state did you live in or tulsa, oklahoma. Okay. Mr. Pruitt, i would like to point out for the record you traveled to oklahoma for 43 out of 92 days this spring, according to the washington post. Thats almost half of every day in march, april and may of this year. Im extremely troubled by reports that your frequent travel to and from oklahoma occurred at the expense of the u. S. Taxpayer, and cost more than 15,000 just on those trips alone. And it appears im not the only one concerned. At the request of members of this congressional committee, epas office of Inspector General has begun an audit for waste, fraud and abuse associated with your frequent travel back to oklahoma at taxpayers expense. Also, your record of wasting taxpayer dollars does not end there. Later news reports uncovered that you along with other members of the Trump Administration have been using private jets and military aircraft at tremendous taxpayer expense. One of the most expensive examples was in early june, when you and several of your staff traveled on a military jet from cincinnati, ohio, to a john f. Kennedy airport in new york on your way to italy. The cost of that flight alone was reportedly over 36,000. In august, you chartered a private plane to fly from denver, colorado, to durango, colorado, in the same state, costing the u. S. Taxpayers over 5,000. You did so even though the governor of california had reportedly offered to fly you on a stateowned plane. Mr. Pruitt, the taxpayer bill for your travel on private jets and other noncommercial aircraft is a record total more than 58,000 since february this year alone. These costs are especially offensive, given the secure excuse me, the severe cuts you have proposed to essential and lifesaving epa programs. Take, for example, the office of Environmental Justice, which helps poor communities who are being disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution. This Administration Proposed to eliminate the office of Environmental Justice. So, mr. Pruitt, are the American People supposed to believe that we cannot afford 2 million to help our most vulnerable communities, but we can afford tens of thousands of dollars for you to fly on private jets . First i want to say to you, congressman, i do look forward to the dialogue. And i appreciate your comments Going Forward. And i think there is much work we can engage in together, and i look forward to that discussion. Environmental discuss tis is something that i met with actually internal members of our team yesterday. Talking about issues like chicago. Environmental justice is an important issue. Its something that we seek to translate to rural action on the ground. And we have. Since ive been serving, particularly emphasis on chicago the superfund situation there. On the travel, i would say to you, every trip ive taken to oklahoma with respect to taxpayer expenses has been businessrelated. When i was in oklahoma for a wellness meeting, we had three states converge in the panhandle of oklahoma that had kansas, oklahoma and texas come together. There were hundreds of individuals in attendance. Thats a very important effort. Berg creek had high levels. There was harm taking place with fish in that water and we needed to take action and i was there to address that. There are concerns that affect oklahoma in region 6. Every dollar expended with respect to those travel was businessrelated. When ive traveled back to the state for personal reasons, i paid for it. And that will bear out in the process. But let me say this to you finally. With respect to the travel, commercial travel, is what we fly almost exclusively. The situation is cincinnati i fly with the president for a meeting on infrastructure. We were going to the g7 in italy and could not make the flight in jfk unless we got a public transport. So thats why that decision was made. But its been only four instances during the entire time ive been serving as administrator. And it was always based upon circumstances. You mentioned going to colorado. The reason that occurred is because we were going to colorado to address the needs and concerns of the citizens there, and couldnt make it otherwise. And i would dispute the governors reference that you made earlier. Oh, really . Okay. Well, thank you very much for stating for the record. Because the Inspector General is looking into those details and i hope it all bears out and lets see what the outcome is. Well, i am going to be respectful for giving you an opportunity to antibiotics answer. So with the last five seconds, i would ask i be able to insert these two letters from the epas Inspector General agreeing to investigate this travel. Asking anonymous consent to enter them into the record. Without objection, so ordered. The chair recognizes the gentleman from north dakota, mr. Cramer, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Administrator, for your candor, for being here and for your strong leadership. And i just i might just say, you used a term in responding to mr. Mcnerney, which i think is a new term at the epa, and that was partnership. And i think that my friend from californias line of questioning bears out that you see states as stakeholders and partners, not as subordinates. Thank you for going to places like oklahoma and north dakota and other states in the middle of real america that are affected by what for the last eight years has simply been a dictatorship by the epa. Thank you for that and we appreciate your willingness to address this in our home states. I also want to congratulate you on your incredible work on meeting these deadlines. 27 years that gets done in a matter of weeks and months. I probably shouldnt seem like such a high standard. But by comparison. And doing all that with only one confirmed aa is really quite remarkable. So i look forward to when you have a full staff and a full team and we can really get to it. And i know cpp are big topics in north dakota, as you know. But i want to get to the heart of a couple of things youve emphasized. And like my friend from texas, mr. Olson, i appreciate your commitment to process and rule of law. I appreciate your commitment to cooperative federalism. And i know youre very familiar with a couple of north dakota cases. One in particular, of course, the hayes case, that was started in california and north dakota was blocked from intervening in, which is just kind of blows me away that states dont have as a matter of right, constitutional right standing in cases that affect them, especially with regard to regulations that they have primacy over regulating. The more recent is one that straddled your memo on sue and settle that i want to bring to your attention. And see if we cant work more closely together. You, me, our attorney general, on addressing it as we go forward. And that was a revision of rules that was proposed in 2016, a Consent Decree was declared between the epa and environmentalist groups. And north dakota was blocked from intervening. And this is related to oil and gas industry in our state, where our state has primacy, and we were blocked from intervening. Oral arguments in october of this year, about the same time as you were putting out your memo, occurred in the the d. C. Circuit court of appeals. And we were blocked again. The environmentalists and the epa prevailed. But what was most disturbing about that, and why i want to bring it to your attention, you have a really big task in front of you to meet not just the rule, but the culture. Change that we had hoped to achieve. And that is that it was department of justice that argued so effectively against the state of north dakota in the d. C. Circuit. So as we go forward, what i would love to do is be able to maybe have a meeting with my attorney general and you and me and plan the next phase of this, and use the state of north dakota as a partner, as opposed to, you know, a litigant on the other side. Yeah, as i indicated earlier in my opening comments, and i think in response to questions, from your perspective, you know, you have put into place a process by which were supposed to adopt rules. And when and rules are supposed to be, what, laws of general applicability. And so when you are involved in litigation and you change requirements under a statute, discretionary, nondiscretionary, time lines or otherwise, and then you apply it in a general fashion, thats something that i think is offensive with respect to the apa process and should be dealt with. And thats why the sue and settle practice is important as we go forward. We may consider codifying that loosely, with respect to rulemaking. But its important we implement these directives the directive ive sent to respect the apa as we make decisions. With regard then to states rights, because i feel like its not just its all of the acts under epa, several other agencies where it seems like the right for a state to have standing, somehow has to be based on a finding of harm or injury. And it seems to me that in a cooperative federalism, states should have that right, especially if its regulation that they have primacy over. Im wondering if we should be doing something, you know, to codify that, which it seems to me the constitution should be adequate for. But whether we should do it broadly or specifically. And i might add, and then you can answer and wrapup my time. Should you have some more independent litigation authority, independent say of the doj. I think on the first point, i do think that perhaps Congress Addressing the standing of states to address some of those most of those are state plans. Many deal with regional requirements under the Clean Air Act. And i do think its important that the voice of those states are heard. And thats the reason, as it relates to the directive i issued, we ask justice to take a accommodating posture with respect to state intervention on these issues. But there probably is more that can be done to make sure that happens Going Forward. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Time has expired. The chair now recognizes the young lady from michigan for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its good to see you here. And i was very glad to hear you talk about this war on lead. We need to have. I share, like every one of us ive met those children in flint. I live with some of those families. Its a very serious problem. And we all need to Work Together to make sure it never happens in another community again. Weve been meeting with my mayors for the last year, even in my own community, included the state. Its not just flint, either. No, its i have it in my district. I dont have flint in my district, but its a concern all over the country. But having said that, there are some things i think that are happening in epa that actually threaten that what youre talking about. So ive got a lot of stuff to talk about, epa matters in michigan. Cou