Test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test. You mentioned invasive species. We want to make sure the states affected, the commerce thats a part of is preserved. We address that Going Forward in this budget. I think whats important is to recognize the priority of the initiatives that have been historically prioritized by this body. Were going to work with you to ensure those priorities are addressed in whatever form it takes. Under the great lakes legacy act, will the cleanup continue in. I think from a state perspective, we have talked to many of the governors that are impacted by these issues. Were engaged in discussions with them on how we can have a shared approach, a more vibrant shared approach. But as far as the funding that has been proposed to be reduced and or eliminated under this budget, i will echo what i shared with you. We recognize the importance of the great lakes. We recognize the importance to the citizens in that region. We will work with congress to ensure those objectives are obtained. I appreciate your agency has provided leadership in what i think the way government should work. Agencies working together in a common goal, sharing information and getting to an end result. The money that we have there, it was needed for over a period of years. Last year in the water bill we managed to pass 300 million for five years so agencies wont have to worry about the stop start approach to having to not know what money is coming in this year. That moves us backwards from the 70s to where we are at, the great lakes has made difference. Your agencys leadership in that is tantamount to making it happen. You said it well in your summary in your comments. The money but its also the facilitation, its the coordination that the agency provided historically to each of the parties, the stakeholders, both private as well as state. Thats important we recognize that and continue it. Simply put, the mulvaney budget appears to 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 the funding and appropriati appropriations. As an example, the chesapeake bay. Thats an example of states coming together. The agency provided leadership in that area. I think thats sim larilarly tro the great lakes. I think the leadership role is important. Thats going to continue. Lake erie, we are proud, but the great lakes, i dont view it as just a lake or series of lakes. I view it as a national treasurer, obviously. Given the national significance, is it fair to expect states and local communities to shoulder the burden . We view those states as partners and stakeholders and will continue as we go forward. Its important we show leadership but work with the stakeholders to get a good outcome. I appreciate you moving me up in line. I know i have exceeded my time. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, atd minudministrator. Its my first time to get to know you. You have heard a lot of us on the committee have concerns with the president s budget. I hope we can coerce you into making changes in this budget as we move along. I need to say like some of my colleagues have before me, we disagree with the stand on the paris accord. I come from the state of maine where people have a lot of concerns about Climate Change. It has an affect on our lives every day. I want to mention i was with a group of Bipartisan Group if germany when the announcement was made. A lot of our 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 i think we put these Environmental Issues and talk about them as environmental extremist against businesses. Someone who comes from maine and understands the importance of the environment and the economy working together, and how much i hear about it from my constituents, Climate Change is very real. Its not an environmental platitu platitude. I live in a lobster fishing area. I would say probably the highest lobster landings in the world are in my where i live. I see lots of fishermen every day. They look at me with this fear in their eyes of saying, what are we going do . The ocean is warming around us. Were watching the migration of lobsters into the coast. Once they get to canada, theyre going to belong to them, not us. We dont get them back. We have seen the disappearance in the shrimping industry. As my colleague said, between fishing and tourism, these are important to our identity, theyre important economically. I cant go home and say to people, this isnt happening. I cant go home and say to people, it doesnt exist. Dont worry. Its going to go away. We may disagree on this committee about the causes of Climate Change, but doing something about it is critical. We cant back out of these 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 we see 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 Living in coastal communities, these are the people i deal with every day. Theyre looking at this with fear and concern. Theyre saying to me im saying to myself, what am i going to tell my grandchildren if we dont do something about it . Thats my first concern. The second one i feel a little like mr. Kilmer, i could go on, but theres the economic question for tourism states, fishing states, Natural Resource states and maybe you say one size doesnt fit all and its not the same in oklahoma. I understand its different when the fossil fuel industry is in the backyard. I represent a state in the tailpipe of the fossil fuel industry. I want to talk about clean air. We have concerns about the cuts in this budget and your approach to this. Im looking for any way i can to work with you. But people in my area have concerns. Your attorney general that sued the Environmental Protection agency, disagreed with the ideas, head of the Republican AttorneyGenerals Association that got money from the fossil fuel association. We get criticized for who supports the work we do. I want to take you at your word. I want you to hear in many state, this doesnt work so well. Were the most dependent Oil Dependent state in the nation. We know how hard it is to get over our fossil fuel dependence. Were concerned about cuts potentially to energy independence. If we cant have more solar and more wind, we cant have the healthy balance. Were deeply concerned about the rollback of clean air rules and the cuts in this administration. We have one of highest rates of childhood asthma. Thats a tragedy, the fact so many people have to deal with the impact of being at the end of the tailpipe about coalfired power plants and dirl dirty ai coming to our state. What you think its like to see the highest rate of emergency room admissions or ozone alerts. We cant say dont visit because the oil the air is going to be dirty right now. You talk about uncertainty in the marketplace. This creates a lot of uncertainty. You have heard a lot of our concerns. You said we should celebrate. The downturn in co2 levels. Those are because we had higher fuel efficiency standards and we have invested in clean energy. Your budget does the opposite. It cuts your commitment to our state. We cant leave States Holding the bag. About 100 employees at our development of environment at protection are funded through that. We dont get it back if you take it away. I have piled on you with a million concerns. Its only a few. But i think i represent what im hearing every day. I dont see how more cooperation or more efficiency replaces those 4,000 employees you are 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 criteria pollutants that we regulate there are several, six. But two of them impact asthma, particular matter and ozone. We as the pm 2. 5 standard is better than any that are in europe. We are making, i believe, tremendous progress toward achieving good health outcomes. I believe that we can do more. When i say celebrate progress, i think we have to recognize that we have prioritized it as a country. That we should recognize the success we have achieved. It doesnt mean we stop. It means that we work with the states to get better data. Monitored data. Real time data. Then focus on compliance and assistance with the states to achieve Better Outcomes and maintain 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 with my counterparts. We started bilateral discussions. I started bilateral discussions with them with respect to our continued leadership with are respect to co2 reduction. Thats another area we need to recognize progress made. You mentioned the progress made through government regulations predominantly in the mobile source area. But innovation and technology has brought about a tremendous amount of co2 reduction, particularly fracturing and horizontal drilling. Conversion to natural gas that powers our grid. What we should focus on as a nation as we generate electricity, using various forms of energy from coal to natural gas to hydro to renewable, we need to use the latest technology that reduces emissions in a meaningful way and focus on leading in exporting that technology. This is not disengagement. The president made that clear. Its a sign of say were going to approach it of demonstrating action for reducing co2 through the use through implementation of what we have done in the past several years. I appreciate your thoughts. I hope it is not a sign of disengagement. That we are in a continue to be focused on co2. Im not clear how we do that if we reduce funding for these areas. I hope you can continue talking to me about that. If i may, in this regard, its very important that Congress Really has congress did not address this from a stationary source perspective. We have tremendous regulation in the mobile source category. The auto sector has done taken significant chances to reduce emissions and has done an extraordinary job. As far as stationary sources, when you look at the clean act i dont know how many of you were here in 1990 when it was amended. If you ask those members, including congressman dingle, he described regulation of co2 under the Clean Air Act as being a glorious mess if thats how the framework is used. We have to ask the question to the epa thats the reason i mentioned this in my opening comments. We cant make up our authority. We cant make up processes to address whatever objectives that have been identified. We have to receive authority and direction and process from this body. As we evaluate steps were going to take at the agency, it will be focused upon what the tools we have and if theres a deficiency of those tools, we will let you know and advise you. I think its very important we recognize that. I just hope that we can discuss the Clean Power Plan again. That was about stationary clean air. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you. Since we brought up clean air, im going to real briefly say that the Clean Air Act is obviously very important to me and certainly to my state. Certainly my area. In fact, as you know, administrator, that cam cliforn 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, theres a history of bipartisan cooperation, actually jerry lewis, who was a congressman here. Certainly, theres a lot of concern about clean air thats shared with my governor reagan back 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. We have had these waivers over 50 years. So i want to ask a question, do you plan to continue the Clean Air Act preemption waiver . Currently, its not under review. This is something that has been granted going back to the beginning of the Clean Air Act. Because of the leadership that california demonstrated, it was prodeserved preserved. Its important we recognize the role of the states in achieving good air quality standards. Thats something we are committed to in the agency. The waiver is not being reviewed by the epa. Thank you. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Im going to start with a point of personal privilege, if i may. I think i probably have known the administrator longer than anybody on this panel, well over 20 years. I was the secretary of state when he was elected to the senate in 1996, if i remember correctly. 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 nobody filed against him for reelection as either republican or democrat. I can just assure my colleagues on the panel, you may have disagreements over budgets or policy 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 above board and ethical manner. He has pretty good people around him. I see his chief of staff back there. I have floknown ryan for a lot years. He will do a tremendous job. Its a privilege to see you in this position, my friend. Im not actually Everybody Knows i will show you how unkind i can be. I want to begin by also congratulating you on the paris accord. We had secretary zinke in here testifying about his budget. He made a point i thought very 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. That was his choice. When he had a successor with different views, that evaporated rap rapidly. I want to commend the president for making it Crystal Clear that he is ready to engage, ready to sit down. But were going to have to have a deal better for the United States, the American People than the one we had. I know you caught a lot of flak for it. You played a big role in it. Im proud of the role you played and the advice you gave the president and how able you defended that decision when i have seen you on television and in print. You clearly know your stuff. As you always did as a legislator and as attorney general in our home state. Very, very proud of you. Thats enough praise. I actually want to congratulate you on one other thing. I can assure you, you will be the first epa administrator thats come before this committee in eight years that gets more money than they ask for. That doesnt mean you will get as much as you had. You will do better than you have 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. A decision was made to plus up defense and a decision was made to take out of that out of nondefense. 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. I actually think defense has the priority. 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 you are doing. You work for the president of the United States. I would expect you to defend the budget of the United States. I suspect your private counsel may have been different. I know some of your colleagues in the cabinet. They didnt agree with every decision. When a decision is made, your job to go defend it. The final decision rests here. It does rest the constitution is clear. I would never advise you about the constitution of the United States. You know it better than i do. In the end, we have the spending authority. We will look at this. Its important that we have the president s priorities. But at the end of the day, congress will make the decision. I think you are going to do better than you thought than you asked for. That might be a good thing. I will tell you, i am concerned i will give you three areas. My colleagues, we all have our particular areas of concern. You will find one of the great common themes on this s subcommittee is native american affairs. When i see the indian Assistance Program cut by 2. 5 million and see state and tribal assistance grants cut and i see a 69 million cut in the pollution control Grant Program or the clean water act, which has a section on tribal guide, that worries me. It worries me. I want to ask in a serious way. 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 localiti