The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 Budget

Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)SPEAKER_01

Well, thank you, everybody, for coming, and I want to say welcome to Administrator Zeldin. It's good to see you again. I understand you've had several hearings over the past few days, so I know you've been busy. I believe you're doing an excellent job in implementing your vision to return the EPA to its core mission of protecting our country's air, our land, and water while eliminating wasteful spending. To start, I applaud your aggressive efforts to undo the previous administration's regulatory overreach. Your leadership will put us on a path to energy dominance that with sound environmental procedures. Your efforts, like rescinding the Biden Clean Power Plan 2.0 rule, which I just heard about this morning, that was part of a comprehensive strategy intended to shut down all fossil fuel electric generation, will unleash our economy and help onshore American jobs. President Trump and his team are also putting West Virginia first by announcing an agency-wide PFAS strategy and providing West Virginia with the authority to permit wells to sequester carbon dioxide. I appreciate the structural changes that you, Administrator Zeldin, are bringing to the EPA. Several weeks ago, the EPA announced that it would move more than 130 experts to assist with reviews of new chemicals and pesticides. In 2016, the Congress told the EPA to accelerate the new chemical approval process, but the agency has done little to comply with that direction. Reviews currently take months, if not years, stifling innovation and leaving companies reliant on outdated chemicals. Addressing the pace of this process is crucial to maintaining our competitiveness in a global market, expanding our key industries, and onshoring critical supply chains. I appreciate that you, Administrator Zeldin, have taken into account my previous calls to provide more resources to address this issue. This leads us to why we are here today: the EPA's budget. I first want to thank the administrator for acting on his pledge to prioritize being a good steward of taxpayer dollars. EPA has restored accountability to grant programs enacted through the partisan Inflation Reduction Act. For example, in February, the EPA canceled a $50 million grant made to the Climate Justice Alliance under the IRA's Environmental Justice grant program. The Climate Justice Alliance is a nonprofit organization that I investigated and found explicitly engaged in pro-Hamas, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-police, and anti-military activities. Some of these activities occurred while they were under consideration for an EPA grant awarded by the last administration. The EPA has taken immediate action to investigate and reclaim the $20 billion awarded under the so-called Green Bank program in the IRA. This money was rushed out the door before the end of the last administration under unprecedented and, I would say, suspicious terms. The EPA's proposed fiscal year 2026 budget shows deep reductions for the agency. Some of these cuts reflect the best interests of hardworking Americans. For example, the budget proposes to cut $100 million from environmental justice programs that were added under the Biden administration and have unnecessarily imposed requirements that are burdensome for small regulated entities or grant awardees. This is a welcome start, and it will reduce regulatory compliance burdens and allow taxpayers to beneficially impact and allow tax dollars to beneficially impact more entities. However, there are bipartisan programs that would be impacted if the proposed budget is enacted, programs that have done much to help continuously clean up the air, water, and lands, as well as provide safe drinking water. For example, the proposed budget would reduce funding for the Brownfields Program and includes an 89% cut to the clean water and drinking water State Revolving Funds. I and many of my colleagues have long been vocal about the importance of federal assistance for water infrastructure through the State Revolving Funds. In 2021, Congress made the largest bipartisan investment in the State Revolving Funds and water infrastructure in our nation's history, delivering more than $50 billion for drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater programs. State Revolving Funds have helped many West Virginians and many around the country get connected with the water access and resources that they need. I hope we can work together through the appropriations process, as well as through the committee's reauthorization efforts, to make sure that adequate resources remain available to support our water systems. I look forward to building to that future with you, Mr. Administrator, over the next several years, and I now recognize Ranking Member Whitehouse for his opening statement.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chairman. We are here this morning to discuss the proposed FY 2026 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Administrator Zeldin, thank you for being here today. You pledged during your confirmation process that you would respond substantively to congressional requests from both sides of the aisle. You said, and I quote, "I want every member of this committee to have the ability to contact me, to be able to share directly your concerns and your ideas. I want to be responsive to all the members of this committee," end quote. Last week, you told a Senate appropriations subcommittee that you thought you had responded to all the congressional letters you've received. That was not quite accurate. Since your confirmation, I've sent you 12 letters as ranking member, many signed by all the Democrats on the dais. Until this week, I had received responses to only two of those 12 letters and only vague non-response responses at that. On Monday of this week, I received another response that purported to answer three separate letters. As for the remaining seven letters, your seven responses came in yesterday, all between 4:53 p.m. and 7:01 p.m., with six of them arriving after the close of business. So, thank you, Chairman, for this hearing, which seems to have provoked some last-minute responsiveness. Of course, real responses would be challenging. EPA's actions have made families worse off, ignored science, and eroded America's trust in your agency, and all for the benefit of polluters. The ongoing destruction at EPA violates legal contracts, violates the Constitution, violates the rule of law, and flouts many court orders, again, all for the benefit of polluters. Thousands of EPA grantees at this point have received strikingly similar letters informing them that their work, and I quote, "no longer aligns with administration priorities." I don't recall you ever saying that administration priorities oppose clean drinking water, child health research, home renovations that reduce household energy bills, flood mitigation projects, safer school buses, or community centers where seniors and families can retreat during heat waves and dangerous storms. Yet that's what you tell grantees. One particularly flagrant action your agency has taken is freezing and attempting to terminate the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. I know you don't like it, but GGRF was created and appropriated by Congress to fund community clean energy and disaster resilience activities across the country. President Trump claims, falsely, that climate change is a hoax, so GGRF funds became a target. The president lacks the constitutional authority to cancel this already authorized and appropriated spending absent some showing of wrongdoing. So, you had to invent wrongdoing. How so? Well, enter Trump's corrupt Justice Department: Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove and Ed Martin, then-interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin had publicly criticized GGRF even before he came to the department. He and Bove pushed career staff at the U.S. Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation so they could assert that the ongoing investigation justified the freeze. Their problem: they couldn't find any evidence of any crime. The Criminal Division chief, a veteran career prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney's Office, pointed out that launching a criminal investigation without evidence of a crime—what prosecutors would call predication—is a violation of prosecutor ethics and Department of Justice policy. That warning from the career prosecutor was red flag one. Your colleague Martin responded by demanding her resignation, forcing her out. Red flag two. With the Criminal Division chief gone, Martin still couldn't find one staff prosecutor in his big office to pursue the matter, not one. Red flag three. Martin then proceeded in his own name. Red flag four. That extremely rarely happens with politically appointed U.S. attorneys, going forward with no career prosecutor on the pleading. No surprise, when Martin then presented his request to the federal magistrate judge, the judge denied the petition. Red flag five. And by the way, for prosecutors, a massive, flapping red flag. Federal prosecutors never want this to happen. They triple-check and backstop every application to ensure that they are ironclad. In my U.S. Attorney's Office, a federal judge shooting down one of our warrant applications would have set off internal reviews. That series of disasters didn't stop this scheme. Somebody started shopping the case to other U.S. Attorney's Offices, hoping that some other office would try again in a different district. Shopping a case around U.S. Attorney's Offices after the matter has been shot down in court: red flag six. It seems no other U.S. Attorney's Office has been willing to go before any court with this hot mess. But somehow, a federal prosecutor down in Florida seems to have ordered Washington-based FBI agents to question EPA employees about the grant program. We'll discover more about that. Separately, GGRF grantees sued EPA about your freeze, which you defended with the same pretext of fraud, even citing to that sham investigation. The federal judge asked EPA for evidence of fraud. The agency said

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

it didn't

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

produce any. It indicated in the pleadings that EPA had no evidence of fraud.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

now

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

officials who were left unfinished, elsewhere call the fault of federal judicial grant programs, all this deception, and a relentless focus on words like climate and an ongoing heresy hunt. Enough is enough. This institution demands faithful execution, and that fundamentally means to take direction in this committee to do things. But that can't happen as long as this administration continues to exercise Article I powers, Chairman.

Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)SPEAKER_01

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. So this morning, we are joined by the Honorable Lee Zeldin of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. On January 29th, Administrator Zeldin restored the agency to its core mission of safeguarding human health and the environment. In light of EPA's mission, I look forward to hearing from Administrator Zeldin on the agency's proposed mission. Before we move forward,

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

I will administer the oath, if you would please rise. Raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony that you're about to give to this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do. Thank you. Let the record show that the witness has answered in the affirmative, so we will now proceed. Administrator Zeldin, you are recognized and welcome for your opening statement. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2026 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Since day one, EPA has moved swiftly to advancing President Trump's directive to deliver clean air, land, and water for all Americans while restoring common sense, accountability, and

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

fulfilling our core mission of protecting human health and the environment, while powering the great American comeback and removing unnecessary barriers that have burdened American families and businesses for far too long. Since being sworn in as administrator, my team has hit the ground running. I have now traveled to 17 states across the country, engaging with our dedicated regional staff and scientists, visiting Superfund sites and brownfields, and listening to farmers, business owners, and community residents who have had fantastic ideas on how the EPA can better work on their behalf. Immediately upon President Trump's inauguration, EPA completed the largest wildfire cleanup in agency history in less than 30 days after the catastrophic Los Angeles wildfires. We have taken bold steps to combat PFAS contamination and have advanced redevelopment at 21 Superfund sites across 13 states, delisting all or parts of four sites from the National Priorities List. We've also completed 25 state implementation plans, 16 of which were backlogged from the prior administration. With this renewed focus and commitment, the EPA is working for the American people. We are revising the definition of waters of the United States to align with the Supreme Court decision in Sackett and have issued immediate action items for Mexico to permanently and urgently end the Tijuana River sewage crisis that has plagued Southern California for decades. Following my trip to St. Louis, we cut nearly two years from the cleanup timeline at the West Lake Superfund site, which has been contaminated by nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project. In fact, to mark the 100th day of the Trump presidency, the EPA released a list of 100 environmental actions we took during those first 100 days, a pace that motivates us to keep up each and every day. Together, these actions reflect the administration's commitment to environmental stewardship, cooperative federalism, and delivering results that make a real difference in people's lives. In lockstep with the president's agenda, EPA is also helping to unleash American energy, pursue permitting reform, make America the AI capital of the world, and bring back American auto jobs. We've eliminated waste and abuse in areas like the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, reversed unlawful overreach like the so-called Good Neighbor Rule, and begun reconsidering many overreaching rules, including power plant and EV-related regulation that threaten grid reliability, energy affordability, and consumer choice. I am proud of the monumental steps we took earlier this year towards energy dominance and expanding cooperative federalism. We're giving West Virginia and Arizona the primacy authority that they have sought to protect groundwater and regulate themselves, as other states have had for years. It's no secret the best, innovative solutions are most often found by working with those most familiar with the challenges faced. These historic actions will reduce regulatory costs, which act as invisible taxes on Americans, making it more affordable to own a car, heat homes, operate a business, and bring manufacturing back to local communities. By reducing EPA's budget by billions of dollars, the president's FY 2026 budget demands maximum efficiency from the EPA while we continue to fulfill all of our statutory obligations. Also included in the president's proposal is an additional $9 million above FY 2025 enacted levels to equip EPA with funds to respond to drinking water disasters. There's also a $27 million increase in funding for tribes to address drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on their lands. At the Trump EPA, we will not view the status quo as some sacred cow that is untouchable. We will not consider the Biden-era regulations we inherited to be etched in stone, and we absolutely refuse to waste even a penny of tax dollars. With President Trump's leadership and the partnership of Congress, we will deliver measurable and real results, greater accountability, and a stronger environmental return on investment per dollar spent. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Thank you very much. My first question is—I alluded to it in my opening statement—on the state revolving funds. The dramatic cut that is proposed in the budget would mean that, for instance, in my state of West Virginia, a decrease from $36 million to $4 million. You know, being from New York and having rural areas, too, there's still a lot of places in rural America that are either unserved or underserved in terms of health healthy and clean water availabilities. Water systems are facing enormous pressures. Will you commit to working with the water sector and Congress to ensure that the SRFs remain a reliable source of investment? And what is the reasoning behind the dramatic cut there?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

To answer the first part of your question, yes, Chairman, absolutely. Look forward to working with you and other members of this committee on that. I think this moment presents an opportunity to talk about just how revolving it's been. There have been good congressionally directed grants that have pulled money out of this source of funding towards House and Senate districts across the country. But those particular grants end up depleting funds from the account. I think that there's an opportunity here to have a conversation about that, which can strengthen the SRF as we talk about FY26 and beyond.

Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)SPEAKER_01

Well, I would say as an appropriator myself and somebody who's done congressional direct expended into that account, I understand the pushback that states have when they don't want a specific project that then is counted against their revolving fund. But it still doesn't answer how are we going to, you know, even if we have the dramatic cut that's been proposed, not only will there be no money for this congressional-directed spend, there's not going to be enough money to sustain these projects into the future. So I hope we can work together on that one. I am concerned about it. Let me ask you about the new chemical approval process, because this has been— we've had hearings in the committee over the past 4 years. About the inertia of the agency to be able to license new chemicals. A lot of times these new chemicals, I wouldn't say every time, but many times the new chemicals are coming forward because they're safer, they're greener, they have new technologies, and they're probably less wasteful, less potential for contaminations because they are more advanced in the technology. Yet the past administration could never get these through. You made a pretty decisive move early on. Could you talk about that and what you think the results are going to be in terms of reviewing these new chemicals and making sure we get those cleaner, safer chemicals on the market and the old ones off the market?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Chairman, when I was confirmed, I inherited a number of backlogs: new chemicals into the many hundreds, the pesticide review about 14,000, state implementation plans, small refinery exemptions. The list goes on of all sorts of backlogs. As it relates to new chemicals, the feedback that I got from the career staff in the Office of Chemicals is that they would be able to reduce the backlog if they had two things: one, they were able to bring more scientists into their office to boost the amount of bandwidth that they have, which we have done, that's part of our reorg announcement from a couple weeks ago; and secondly, to bring their technology up to date, because it was very outdated. Systems would crash, and they would be locked out for days at a time. So we've been pursuing both. We have, with the pesticide review, been able to get through over 2,300 of reducing that backlog. And with the new chemicals review, we're looking forward to being able to eliminate that backlog as well. So it was primarily one, increasing bandwidth, which we're doing, and two, improving technology, which we are also doing.

Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)SPEAKER_01

At the same time, did you—you folded the Office of Science and Tech, is that correct? You folded an office into that new chemicals office.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

We're moving science The scientists are able to compete no matter what programmatic, from all sorts of different program offices inside of EPA. The same goes with changes made inside of the Office of Air and Radiation, inside of the Office of Water, and elsewhere. We're creating a new Office of State-Air Partnerships inside the Office of Air and Radiation to advance cooperative federalism and to get rid of one of the other backlogs with the state implementation plans. We're creating an Office of Applied Sciences and Environmental Solutions. We are boosting that science and research mission inside of these program offices to better fulfill our statutory obligations.

Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)SPEAKER_01

All right. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Thanks very much. Administrator Zeldin, on April 23rd, Daniel Coogan for the EPA filed a sworn statement in court that said, and I quote here, "EPA leadership conducted an individualized grant-by-grant review to determine which grants should continue." He made that statement under oath. And on the following page of his declaration, he said that there were approximately 377 grantees that had received cancellation notices and another 404 grantees who would receive notices within the next two weeks, for a total, by my math, of 781 total grantees. Do you dispute his testimony that there were 781 individual grants at issue?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

The exact number I don't have offhand, but— but

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

you don't dispute it. So let's say that it's 781

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

or thereabouts. I did those myself.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

His testimony under oath was that that took place. Then, and I'd ask unanimous consent that that declaration of Daniel Coogan be made an exhibit. Then on May 6th, Travis Voyles of EPA made the following statement, also under oath, also in a court filing. He said, On February 25th, 2025, I conducted an individualized review of EPA grant programs. That day, I decided that certain grant programs should be terminated for policy reasons. So there are three things about that Voyles statement that are noteworthy. First, the date. He said that he did this all on February 25th, which is interesting, because if he put in a 10-hour day, that's 600 minutes of time for 781 grant applications, which means he would have had to conclude his review of each of them in 45 seconds without even a bathroom break. The second thing about the statement is that he said, I conducted, not you conducted, Administrator Zeldin, not leadership conducted. He said he conducted, and he said that under oath. The third thing that was interesting is that he dropped in a weasel word: programs. He didn't say individualized review of grants. He said individualized review of grant programs. Mr. Zeldin, is there a difference between a grant and a grant program?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Well, you have individual grants inside of a grant program,

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

and you could have dozens or even hundreds of individual grants inside of a grant program.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

correct. For a fact that Travis— Correct. —individually reviewed every single grant individually. And I know that I've reviewed every single grant individually, and I also know that that is

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

not what this sworn testimony indicates. Let me reclaim my time here.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

But the fact is, on May 16th, both individually reviewed all of the grants. And I know that he was working on it every single day, not just on one day.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Well, that's not what his sworn testimony was. And on May 16th, DOJ career lawyers, who are under an obligation of candor to the tribunal upon which their right to practice law depends, filed a pleading in federal court that conceded that you had not done individualized grant-by-grant reviews. They were not contesting that EPA failed to do an individualized review. In court, they admitted— in fact, their language is, Defendants do not contest judgment on the merits of plaintiffs' APA claims. I'd ask that the reply be put into the record, that the Voyles declaration be put into the record, and that an Inside EPA news report that discusses that court proceeding be put into the record

Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE)SPEAKER_07

without objection.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

And then yesterday, you stated during your House E&C hearing that you personally reviewed all these grants. Here's what you said: I was the one who made the decision, and I made the decision after doing individual review. I personally reviewed every single grant that I canceled. Now, you guys are going to have to start getting your stories straight, because there are three completely different statements and they cannot all be true. It cannot be that Voyles personally himself conducted the review of 781

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

He did.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

And that Coogan who can saw to it that it was individually done.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Others did. It's a crazy concept, Senator, but maybe more than one person was individually reviewing these grants. Maybe they were working on it for more than one day, Senator. Will

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

you

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

show that concept?

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Will you?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

What about the fact that their

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

testimony is that they did it all on one day? No,

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I do not. Every single time.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

I do not agree with that, Administrator.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Senator,

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

he swore in court that he did it on one day. So you

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

can't now come in and say that that's false on a day after you worked on it. He didn't say for a while to get all of your ducks lined up.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

That's to

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

do all the research, to ask questions to make sure you're making responsible decisions.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

None of that is what you

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

said. Worried that there's going to be some ranking member? None of that is what he said. Who doesn't care about the facts?

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

None of that is what he said. I'm using the facts as your employees

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

stated them. Individual review of everything. And that concept doesn't work for

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

you. When, when did you conduct that individualized review of 781

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

grants? We have a zero tolerance policy. Will

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

you show me your schedule?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

We inherit something. We don't care about wasting money.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Will you show me your

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

care about wasting money, but the Trump administration does, Senator. Will you

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

me your schedule?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Our schedule is publicly released. We don't put on the schedule every single moment. Will you

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

show me your schedule to prove your assertion

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

that you did

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

individualized review of 781?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I'm under oath telling you that I was reviewing this stuff and working on it almost every single day.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

And the

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Why? Because when I was before this committee, I was asked by Senator Ricketts, if confirmed, would I immediately make this a top priority to go through all the grant funding going through EPA, to make sure that we're cracking down on every waste, every aspect of abuse, because I have to come back here in front of Senator Ricketts today. And even though you don't care about wasting tax dollars, Senator Ricketts does.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

And the problem—

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I'm going to do my job because the American public

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

and the problem

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

about us not wasting tax dollars.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

And the problem with your assertion here today is that it is belied by your own employees' sworn statements in court and by the decision of the Department of

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

are not grasping to

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

admit that what you say is

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

true. The fact that we would have multiple employees looking at these grants, that concept just escapes you, like that's even a possibility.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

The only thing about that is that that's

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

not true. 99% of this story,

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

that's not true according to your own employees' testimony.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I, I don't, I don't know what to say to you. You're insisting on the fact—

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

I'm insisting on the facts. That's exactly what I'm insisting on. I'm insisting on the facts. And I now have 3 different versions of the facts

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

that Travis

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Spoils and

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

others are working on this. Every single one of them were

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

honest. What you're saying now is

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

not true. We're not going to waste dollars just because you insist on EPA lighting taxpayer dollars on fire. The American taxpayers, they put President Trump in office because of people like you. They have Republicans in charge of the House and Senate because of people like you, because you don't care about 99% of this story. You don't want me to go through the list of all the evidence of waste and abuse. No.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

What I want you to do—

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

and conflicts of interest. What

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

I want

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

you to do— qualified recipients. You don't care about— what I want you to do

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

is explain why the Department of Justice lawyers representing EPA in court under a duty of candor have said that everything you've just said isn't true. That's what I want. Get me that answer.

Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE)SPEAKER_07

I'm here before this committee.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

I've exceeded my time. I'll let the chairman take back. The gavel.

Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE)SPEAKER_07

Thank you. All right. Well, we seem to have a little bit of a disagreement. Perhaps we can work on this in the future about the difference between the discrepancy here. Does that sound fair?

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Absolutely. I think getting to the basis and the bottom of this dispute is very important, and the facts actually matter here.

Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE)SPEAKER_07

All right, with that we will move on. Administrator Zeldin, thank you for being here today. In your 112 days since your confirmation, you have taken steps to address Biden's unconstitutional Waters of the United States rule. So, thank you very much. That was something that the state of Nebraska we fought going back for years. You've issued waivers to allow the summertime sale of E15 nationwide. You've empowered states to play an active role in federal programming. And before we start our questioning, my questioning today, I want to thank you for that order, Administrator. I appreciate it. Thank you for supporting rural America and Nebraska farmers. Thank you for providing regulatory certainty. And thank you for taking steps to clean up the mess that you inherited. On that vein, I'm encouraged by the EPA's transmission of the Renewable Fuel Standard rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget. I know that everybody here knows that I love this committee because we get to talk about biofuels, and so that's what we're going to do for a little bit here. Earlier conversations, Administrator, renewable fuel obligations drive the markets. We've had this conversation in real ways that benefit Nebraskans and specifically Nebraska row-crop producers. A strong RVO creates strong markets that producers are in desperate need of right now in today's farm economy. Last week, and just to give you an example of how this works, last week, based on rumors of D4 RVOs being set at roughly 4.625 billion gallons, soybean basis dropped almost $0.30, so it has a big impact on the market. I'm hopeful to see a biomass-based diesel target set at 5.25 billion gallons and ethanol targets set at no lower than 15 billion gallons. Nebraska's farmers and biofuel stakeholders are relying on it. The Biden administration failed these constituents time and time again with late, under-projected RVOs, and you have the opportunity to correct that. In your efforts to bring the EPA back into RFS compliance, what is your anticipated timeline for the final RVO rulemaking?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

The draft proposed rule is currently at OMB. We expect the proposed rule to be finalized and released very soon. We'll go through rulemaking that includes the public comment period. We'll finalize this as quickly as we possibly can. Senator Ricketts, your advocacy is very well noted at EPA. You've been a passionate, tireless advocate for your constituents on this topic. We know how important it is to you, so we will get this done as fast as humanly possible.

Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE)SPEAKER_07

So when you say soon, are you thinking the summer? Are you thinking the fall? What are you thinking?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Much, much faster.

Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE)SPEAKER_07

Okay, great. Supporting biofuels is consistent also with President Trump's mandate to unleash American energy. Year-round, nationwide E15 sales are a no-brainer, in my humble opinion. It's affordable, drives farm profit, and lessens reliance on adversaries for energy. Thank you for your administrative action earlier this year to allow E15 summertime sales, but producers and industries rely on certainty throughout the year and actually need a permanent legislative fix. Once more, again, for the record, do you think enacting the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act is the best way to get E15 permanently authorized year-round?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Senator, if Congress was to do this statutorily, it would be the fastest, easiest, most durable solution.

Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE)SPEAKER_07

Great. And then we've also visited about the importance of crop protection tools. I noticed that the chairman was talking about that a little bit earlier. Last month, I sent you a letter with 79 bicameral signatures calling for the use of sound science and risk-based analysis as the executive branch considers options to address chronic illness. I'd like to submit this letter for the record. And since I'm the chairman, I will do it without objection. I'm encouraged by your commitment in my office before your confirmation and at your hearing and in the follow-up conversations to implement these principles. As radical environmentalists try to push their anti-agriculture agenda, these commitments becomes increasingly important and consequential. Once again, do I have your commitment to ensure that the executive action relating to the safe critical crop protection tools and food-grade ingredients that you take as part of this review will be based on sound science and risk-based analysis?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Yes, Senator.

Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE)SPEAKER_07

Great. Thank you very much. I urge you to use the resources provided by the EPA— to the EPA by Congress in ways that are consistent with our intent. Again, thank you for the work that you've already done. The EPA protects human health and environment by maximizing every dollar to provide clean and safe drinking water, minimizing exposure to forever chemicals, providing regulatory certainty to Nebraska agricultural producers and industry, complying with the statutory mandates. And I look forward to working with you and other members of this committee and the appropriators to ensure that you have robust funding to be able to do this. Thank you, Administrator, for your work and for being here today. And with that, I will go to Senator Alsobrooks.

Senator Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD)SPEAKER_04

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Secretary. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law designated a total of $238 million to be distributed over five years for the Chesapeake Bay Program. This funding, as you might imagine, is really critical to supporting the program's mission of coordinating federal, state, and local efforts to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay. And the last time you were here, I know that you stated, quote, "It is up to Congress to decide on funding levels," and that it would be your, quote, "obligation to make sure that money will be spent to Congress's intent." And in spite of that, I understand now that some Bay Program funds have recently been halted. In fact, to date, I've not seen confirmation that the full FY25 allocation will be delivered to the program. And so I'd like for you, Mr. Secretary, to please provide some clarity on the administration's plans for the FY25-26 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding allocations for the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Yeah. First off, Senator, I'm I'm not aware of any funds as part of this program being frozen. I've had the opportunity since confirmation to visit the Chesapeake Bay for the first time as the administrator, which is, for any other member of Congress elsewhere, especially the newer members, they should know that this is a beautiful, amazing bay. This program, this geographic program is important. The work that EPA does there is critical. Senator, you've been a strong champion for the Chesapeake Bay Program, and it's a partnership between you, your constituents, and the EPA to make sure that it's fully funded going forward and continuing to achieve great progress.

Senator Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD)SPEAKER_04

Okay. And so, Mr. Secretary, and I know we had an opportunity to discuss the bay during our meeting prior to your confirmation, I know that we agreed that it was a—it's not only a national treasure, a treasure for Maryland, but it's a national treasure. So then will you then commit to looking into this particular issue? I know you said you're unaware of the fact that the funds have been halted. And can you commit then to looking into that, and then we can reach back so that we can ensure that those congressionally appropriated funds get to where they should be?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Absolutely. I will triple check as soon as the hearing is over. I might even have a note passed off to me while we're, while we're here. But my understanding is that not a dollar is frozen to that.

Senator Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD)SPEAKER_04

Okay. Similarly, the administration has recently announced the elimination of the Office of Research and Development. Of course, this is also of concern to us. It plays an essential role in advancing science-based policy and protecting communities from toxic exposures, including carcinogens, PFAS, lead, and air pollutants. So it really is— it provides vital expertise in areas such as natural disaster response, drinking water protection, wastewater treatment improvements, and ecosystem protection. So the idea that this particular program is laying off scientists from the office, of course, is deeply troubling. And I know that you said that you are interested in increasing productivity, efficiency, accountability, and transparency. And so I'm just wondering, can you just share the criteria and decision-making process that was used to shut down the Office of Research and Development? And just tell us, was it based on performance data, or was it just driven by an external directive from DOGE?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Well, all decisions are made by me at the agency. We don't have—it is—that's an important part of going through this process. There has not been a reduction in force for that office decided and announced. We're going We've gone through a process, as you're asking, where I and our team was soliciting feedback from staff that's been at the agency for a long time across all the program offices. That is why the reorg that was announced a couple weeks ago includes the Office of Air and Radiation, the Office of Water, the Office of Chemical Safety, and more. And that's why we're creating a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions. That's why we're adding scientists to the office of chemicals. We're going to lean more into PFAS research inside the Office of Water. All of the best ideas came directly from the feedback that we received from career staff.

Senator Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD)SPEAKER_04

So there, there have been about 1,500 staff members who had important public health responsibilities who were terminated. And so was that a part of, like, in terms of how that decision was made, was it based on performance?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I have not terminated 1,500, Senator. There's discussions of if we were to move forward with a reduction in force, depending on how that reorg is structured. But what we're doing right now is we're allowing across the agency many of employees—you don't have to just be in Office of Research and Development—there is an active process where they are applying for these positions inside the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution, inside of Office of Water, inside the Office of Air and Radiation, and elsewhere, and we are boosting the the research and science inside of those offices.

Senator Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD)SPEAKER_04

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE)SPEAKER_07

All right. Senator Curtis, are you ready to go or should I go to Senator Husted?

Senator John Curtis (R-UT)SPEAKER_13

Oh, we are ready to go. Okay. Mr. Zeldin, Administrator, thank you for being here today. It's great to be with you. Utahns are already in tune with your approach of smart and practical. Let's be clean. Let's do it right, but be thoughtful as well. So thank you for that. Thank you for your visit to Utah. I'd be remiss if I didn't highlight Utah's kind of unique ozone situation and your team's grasp of our unique geography. Thank you for that and for understanding that. And I'd highlight too that Utahns are very committed to cleaner air and cleaner water and have spent no small amount of effort to do so, but we're trapped in by some of these geographic things. So thank you for that. I'd also like to recognize the critical uses with your work on PFAS and your recent announcement concerning a comprehensive approach to managing PFAS. Thank you for that. Last April, the Biden EPA finalized the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for certain PFAS chemistries. These rules set standards at a level for PFAS that will be extremely challenging for compliance. I've also been told that the science used to develop these standards, known as maximum containment level, has been scrutinized. Can you give me and my water utilities back in Utah a sense for the best way to work with you to be clean, to do what people expect us to do, but also comply with the best science?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I will say that over the course of these last few months, there's been a lot of outreach to EPA from individuals and companies that are very heavily leaning into trying to innovate and find more efficient ways to be able to treat contamination from PFAS, which will allow drinking water systems hopefully to be able to remediate these concerns more efficiently than projections were in the past. That's going to be a big deal for them. For PFOA and PFOS, those are two chemical forms of PFAS where the research and data seem to be most advanced. That's where the the MCL was set at four parts per trillion. It's going to stay that way. We've heard from drinking water systems, actually primarily from members of this committee, as I was going through the confirmation process, where drinking water systems were concerned about their ability to be able to come up with the funds to come into compliance by the date set by that regulation. We want to work with them to be able to hit those those target goals, and hopefully these new innovations that are continuing to come in line will allow them to do that at less cost.

Senator John Curtis (R-UT)SPEAKER_13

Thank you. I know that a lot of my colleagues have and probably will continue to talk about the pace at which EPA approves new chemicals. Your predecessor really struggled with that. It's a problem because many of these new chemicals could replace these chemicals that we know to be poor, and yet we can't get them approved. So thanks for your continued work on that as well. I want to touch on TSCA improvements. Ensuring a well-functioning TSCA program is not only important for protecting human health and the environment, but also for other pillars, including energy dominance and manufacturing and AI. Chemical regulations must be based on sound science. They must also recognize the critical uses for these chemicals so we don't disrupt key supply chains and hurt Americans. What can we do to ensure that the TSCA risk evaluations are truly risk-based and based on assumptions that how chemicals are used in the real world and not theoretical?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

It's very important to consider the science, to use best available science, to have the bandwidth inside the office to get through the backlog, which we have been improving, to improve the technology with inside of that office, which we have been able to do. Congress added an anomaly to a recent congressional funding bill that gave $17 million towards speeding up this effort to allow us to get through this backlog, which is a massive backlog with both new chemicals and in the pesticide review.

Senator John Curtis (R-UT)SPEAKER_13

Yeah, as you know, I've been vocal about the role of natural gas in ensuring America has access to affordable, reliable, and clean energy. The Clean Power Plant Rule has hurt building out new energy generation to meet the incredible growth demand. Can you speak to how the Biden-era rule harms this goal and how we have to keep focused on affordable, reliable, clean?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

We announced on March 12th a lot of different regulations that we are reconsidering. I'm not going to prejudge the outcome of the rulemakings. There will be public comment periods involved. We'll follow our obligations under the law. We'll follow the Administrative Procedure Act, and we will make sure that we're heeding calls from from you, Senator, which have been important in your efforts to fight for Utah. It was great to be on the ground in Utah a few weeks back and to be part of meetings that you led, bringing key officials and community leaders together. I look forward to doing it again.

Senator John Curtis (R-UT)SPEAKER_13

Thank you. I'm out of time, but I'd be remiss if I didn't thank you on behalf of them for that visit and for that cooperation. Thank you. Appreciate your time today.

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

Senator Blunt Rochester.

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)SPEAKER_05

is recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the ranking member. Welcome back, Administrator Zeldin. Your attendance here is truly crucial. I want to start off by talking about three letters. A letter I sent with questions regarding the decision to close the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. Number two, your response to the letter. And then a letter of response from EPA Region 3 regarding an air monitoring grant in Delaware. I ask unanimous consent to submit all three letters into the record.

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

So ordered.

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)SPEAKER_05

Thank you. I want to start again by talking about just a basic question, which I think I know the answer. But do you believe people have a right to live in an environment free from harmful pollutants?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Yes, Senator.

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)SPEAKER_05

Thank you. This brings me to my first letter on the closure of the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. Do you recall reading that letter?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I've, I've read every single letter that every member of Congress has sent me, Senator.

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)SPEAKER_05

And it brings me to the second letter, which was the agency response, which states that terminating this office was necessary. This is the quote: necessary to align EPA's workforce with the agency's current and future needs. This office oversaw a grant that helped constituents in my home state of Delaware monitor and assess air toxics from a nearby industrial facility. This New Castle County community relies on this data to let them know when they need to possibly shut their doors or windows to protect themselves and to protect their health, which brings me to the third letter. Apparently, this grant was terminated because it's no longer consistent with the agency's funding priorities or priorities in general. The EPA's mission, as you've stated, is to protect human health and the environment. Does giving people access to accurate air toxic measurement protect human health, in your opinion?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Senator, first off, this applies to all grants that are canceled. There was something inside of each grant, and that doesn't mean that there, there was some grant— there was some aspect of the grant that was an issue. And that doesn't mean that for every grant, the entire grant was an issue. We're in the middle of a fiscal year having the conversation. So on any grant inside of your home state that was canceled, I welcome the opportunity to be able to, to sit with you. I will go through each grant. I'll tell you exactly what the issue was. And as we go through the rest of the fiscal year, we can see what we are able to get out the door with the money that's appropriated by Congress. But I know for a fact that every single grant that we canceled, there was something in it that caused that grant to get canceled?

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)SPEAKER_05

I would welcome the opportunity to sit down and specifically go through these grants. When we met, I expressed concern that there were communities that for decades maybe lived on a highway corridor or maybe next to a facility that they didn't even know the impact on their health. And so a program that actually helps people measure and monitor and be able to protect themselves, we need to be doing more of that, not less of it. And so I think it makes sense. I think it's shortsighted because ultimately we're going to pay with sicker people. We're going to end up paying more money. And so I'm looking forward to following up with you on on that grant. I also understand that you've been sharing and sort of touting your first 100 days and the 100 environmental accomplishments. I'd like to discuss a couple of those items from the list. Item 48: blocked illegal pesticide imports totaling over 200,000 pounds across multiple regions. Item 71: worked with U.S. Customs to stop illegal pesticide imports at multiple ports. Item 72: blocked over 56,000 pounds of unregistered pesticide products from entering through Region 4 ports. These kind of all sound like the same thing, but I'd like to give you an opportunity to share how these accomplishments differ, especially since this is one of the things that you've been really vocal about and sharing.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

So the way that the the list was compiled was from feedback inside of headquarters as well as each of the regions. So all 10 regions submitted a list of their environmental wins inside of their region. So there might be a win inside of—that was submitted from Region 4 that might be similar to what another region had did that was an important win for their region. And the challenge for our team was that we wanted to release 100, and the person who was running point had 1,500 to work through. Part of that included the same win referenced more than once, and and we worked on getting it down to a a top 100 list. But that's the process of how we got to this list.

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)SPEAKER_05

Okay, so that's the process. And so it's maybe more like 98 wins in 100 days.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I can actually give you another 100 on top of it if you want.

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)SPEAKER_05

Could you do this? Um, I'm gonna ask you as a follow-up to submit for the record how many of these accomplishments were initiated or substantially underway during the previous administration. We— I would appreciate that. And that's—

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I'll give you I'll give you the first example that comes to mind is the LA wildfires happened a week before Inauguration Day. President Trump came in, he signed an executive order, that was before I was even confirmed, saying that we need to complete hazardous one Phase 1 material within 30 days before Army Corps came in to do their Phase 2 debris removal. The wildfire response started a few days before Inauguration Day, and we took great efforts to make sure that was done within 30 days, which it was.

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)SPEAKER_05

Thank you. I am out of time, but if I could request the 100, we can kind of— you can share with us those same examples. And in addition to the other— what

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

was the first

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)SPEAKER_05

number? 96. Senator,

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

what was the first number? The first reference that you said,

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)SPEAKER_05

uh, in terms of the—

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

when you referenced 3,

Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)SPEAKER_05

item 48, 71, 72. Um, but again, as a follow-up, if you could just submit for the record how many of the 100 accomplishments were initiated or substantially underway in the prior administration. Thank you so much, and I yield back, Madam Chair.

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

Mr. Husted is recognized.

Senator Jon Husted (R-OH)SPEAKER_06

Thank you, Madam Chair. And since we're talking about the first 100 days' accomplishments, I guess I would ask unanimous consent that those 100 accomplishments be submitted for the record.

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

Without objection, so ordered.

Senator Jon Husted (R-OH)SPEAKER_06

Thank you, Administrator Zeldin, for joining us today. I appreciate the fact that your very first trip as administrator was to East Palestine, Ohio, along with the Vice President and Senator Moreno and myself and many other people from the state. It was very important to that community, because as many of you know, or if you recall, they experienced a devastating train derailment and chemical fire in the days several years ago, and that derailment was devastating for the community. And many of those individuals in the community felt like they were not getting proper attention over time. And so, the fact that you made your first trip as administrator to East Palestine—your first trip was to East Palestine—meant a lot to those folks as they continue to recover and show the resiliency that they—that that community certainly has. I'm also a proud representative of Ohio and a Great Lakes state. I recognize that I'm the only member of this committee who actually represents a Great Lakes state, and since it is 20% of the world's usable fresh water, I'm going to take pride in that and spend a little time on that today, even though I could talk to you about how some of the environmental rules that we have in this country are actually harming the environment rather than benefiting it, and I would love to update those things. I'm going to spend a little time, though, on the Great Lakes, if I could, particularly as it relates to—because we have a lot of issues. We have dredging issues. We have algae blooms. But we have invasive species that threaten the quality of those Great Lakes. It's been an issue for many, many years, and the Asian carp is one of those threats that I know many people in those great fisheries are concerned about. And President Trump issued an executive order directing several agencies, including the EPA, to address the spread of the Asian carp in our waterways. And given the economic cost of this to the Great Lakes, and particularly Lake Erie, which is on the northern border of Ohio, I want to just ask you to talk about how the EPA will use the GLRI dollars to mitigate this issue, and just give us a little insight to that, because I know it matters to all of the Great Lakes states.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Yes, Senator. And this is something that's been a point that the president has personally reached out to me on on multiple occasions. I think that having a vice president now who has previously and still takes great pride in Great Lakes will make sure that it stays on the top of the agenda for the entirety of the administration. The Great Lakes program is one that EPA takes great pride in, has done important work, and that work needs to continue. Working with Congress, hopefully that is fully funded to continue that work, to be able to to address this issue. Grateful for your advocacy. As soon as I was sworn in, the vice president called immediately saying we're going right away to East Palestine, Ohio, where you were on the ground, and that it was the the first visit with urgency from the vice president. So, I am sure and I'm confident, without risking speaking for you, I'm sure that you're also confident that this vice president and this team will make sure that you have that voice, that we're that we're meeting with you as much as you want, we're hearing from you as much as you want on behalf of your constituents to address this.

Senator Jon Husted (R-OH)SPEAKER_06

Great. And I know we have more work to do there, but on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, I just want your assurance that you're going to be transparent about how those dollars are spent. People will be able to track them, and we will be able to come up with one of those great lists of all the things that we did with the Great Lakes funding.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Senator, I, I want to be transparent on every dollar spent by the agency.

Senator Jon Husted (R-OH)SPEAKER_06

Great, thank you. And then finally, I will give you a chance to—the EPA learned a lot. What takeaways do you have from the East Palestine situation with—we had rail corridors, chemical fires, things like that? I know that there's still work to do there. What lessons learned have been communicated to you from the team that was working on that?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

We have to do more, faster. We have to ensure that we're present on the ground instantly. And when I say we, I'm talking about any agency that has any jurisdiction whenever disaster strikes. Delays of just a few days when disaster strikes could end up being critical lost time that that ends up compounding the amount of cost it's going to take. Evidence can get lost, and a community's voice might feel like it's not being heard. Then-junior Senator JD Vance was on the ground instantly, and the residents of Ohio are highly confident that they haven't missed a beat being able to see you now fill that position. We look forward to working with you on it. As far as lessons learned, it's a lesson in leadership, in making sure that whenever disaster strikes anywhere in the country, that all agencies with any equities are instantly present on the ground and and and acting, not just reacting, but ensuring that we're heeding those calls instantly.

Senator Jon Husted (R-OH)SPEAKER_06

Yeah, I will share one last point on that because we were on the ground. Governor DeWine had to make decisions about how to respond to that derailment, and I can tell you he did not get access to timely information to make the very difficult decisions that he needed to make. And I just encourage you to work with your agency to make sure that, in the case that something like that happens again, governors of whatever state that might happen in won't have to fly blind because the EPA was not there to give them the information when they needed it.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Yeah. And Senator, I would just also add that an important lesson learned, which is still a work in progress, is that there are many others around East Palestine who used to go to East Palestine. And the message needs to go out to them of just how much East Palestine has rebounded under your leadership, and it's time to help reinvigorate that local economy inside of East Palestine. Communication not just to the residents inside of that community, but to the residents around that community: It's time to go back to East Palestine and help them recover.

Senator Jon Husted (R-OH)SPEAKER_06

I look forward to the time that we can get you back and we can tie this one up and help East Palestine recover to even higher, better status than it was before. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, is recognized.

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)SPEAKER_09

Thank you, Madam Chair. Administrator Zeldin, you've only been at the EPA for a few months, but in that time you've done more to dismantle this agency than probably all of your predecessors put together. That may be a source of pride for you, but it is not for the American people. You've unlawfully terminated grants without justification. You've fired and pushed out some of the best scientists who inform EPA's decision-making. You refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated to the EPA by law. And you've launched a pro-polluter effort to delete dozens of environmental protections. On top of all this, you've launched an effort to overturn California's Clean Air Act waivers that improve the quality of air breathed by 40 million Californians and by millions more in other states who have adopted California's high standards. That effort, for which my colleagues have decided to eliminate the filibuster to achieve, is not exactly what anyone would call cooperative federalism. But it's your budget that's the ultimate proof of your priorities. You propose cutting America's environmental agency by 50 5%,. meaning that, in your view and that of President Trump, more than half of the environmental efforts of the EPA, more than half of the efforts to make sure Americans have clean air and clean water, are just a waste. They're just a waste. Meaning that Californians and people all over the country, when they when they breathe the air, thanks to your good work, it'll mean there's more diesel and more other particulate matter in the air. When they drink a glass of water, they may not be able to see it, but this water that Americans drink is going to have more chemicals like PFAS, forever chemicals, in their water. This will be your good work. I want to be very specific about the legacy you're going to leave if you're successful in eliminating half of our efforts to clean our water and our air. Your legacy will be more lung cancer. It'll be more bladder cancer. It'll be more head and neck cancer. It'll be more breast cancer. It'll be more leukemia and pancreatic cancer, more liver cancer, more skin cancer, more kidney cancer, more testicular cancer, more colorectal cancer, more rare cancers of innumerable varieties. That will be your legacy. I don't know that that's a legacy that anyone should want to have. My kids are going to be breathing that air just like yours. My family is going to be drinking the water just like yours. We may not be able to pinpoint just who gets cancer because you've done away with half the budget of those looking out for our clean water and clean air, but it's going to be somebody's kids. It's going to be somebody's family. To put this in more specific terms, there are 22 grants frozen by the EPA focused on improving health and reducing pollution, many of which directly impact children. For example, one project in Santa Ana, California, provided funding to help detect and prevent lead poisoning in children. According to the census, about 10% of the population in Santa Ana are under the age of 9. With a population of about 310,000 people, that means that 31,000 children are at risk of lead poisoning in Santa Ana without this funding. What is it about this grant that you and EPA believe is problematic enough to freeze this funding and put potentially 31,000 children at risk?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Senator, which, uh, who is the grant applicant?

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)SPEAKER_09

This is to the city of Santa Ana.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

You have the biggest—

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)SPEAKER_09

and are

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

you the biggest state? So are you going to go through every single, uh, list of the grant?

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)SPEAKER_09

Well,

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

by the way, with, with that wind-up, by the way, I, I understand that you were an aspiring fiction writer. I see why.

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)SPEAKER_09

Oh, yeah. Well, I understand your view that you can cut half of the agency and it won't affect people's health, or their water, their air. That to me is a big fiction, Mr. Zeldin.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

You, you've forgotten about the fact of cleaning up our water like

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)SPEAKER_09

Ronald Reagan was president

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

when I was a senior

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)SPEAKER_09

year. If your children were drinking

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

If your children

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)SPEAKER_09

were drinking water in Santa Ana, Mr. Zeldin, maybe you wouldn't be so cavalier about whether there was lead in their water. Maybe you would give a damn instead of coming in here and suggesting that any grant that takes lead out of the water must be waste, fraud, or abuse because because

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

you need— because

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)SPEAKER_09

you need the money for a tax cut for rich people. Because you're totally beholden to the oil industry. You

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

could give— you could give—

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)SPEAKER_09

you could give a rat's ass about how much cancer your agency

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

causes.

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

The gentleman's time has expired. The chair recognizes herself. Mr. Zeldin, welcome. I take a very different view of your conduct in office since you took this office from the previous member of the Senate. Our nation is in a dire financial mess. Our debt has once again been downgraded. We are $37 trillion in debt with no end in sight. Every EPA budget I've seen in the 13 years I have been here, all of which prior to this president were under Democrat presidents, proposed massive increases in new employees at EPA, thousands of dollars of increases, thousands of employees. The most recent budget I saw proposed under the previous president was for 3,000 new employees at EPA. These are people we can't afford. Every state has its own Department of Environmental Quality, and that's where cooperative federalism begins. You're making tough decisions. I applaud you for your proposed reductions in the budget. The laws will still be responsibly administered under your leadership. Broadly on the policy front, I'm pleased with your leadership on the endangerment finding, on rolling back the egregious power plant rule. Lots of rural electric co-ops have told me how devastating that would be. Thank you for rolling that back. I myself belong to three rural electrics in Wyoming, so I hear from them all the time. You've redirected resources to the core EPA mission of protecting human health and environment. So, you're delivering on our promises to Americans. EPA does have an outsized influence on lives and livelihoods in Wyoming. And despite Congress's clear statutory direction to EPA requiring a decision in less than 180 days, Wyoming and North Dakota, as well as other states, have been held hostage by the previous administration's more than two years of inaction on state permit program approvals for coal combustion residuals, or CCRs. On April 8th, your office announced that EPA would take swift action to advance cooperative federalism and encourage states to pursue oversight and permitting of coal ash within their borders, and propose a determination for Wyoming and North Dakota's state permit program approved for coal, CCR, and the coal ash permit program. Now, it was refreshing to learn that a month later, under your leadership and direction, EPA proposed approval of North Dakota's CCR permit program. Well done. Well done. Thanks to President Trump and your leadership at EPA, North Dakota received a response, an answer. Wyoming is the nation's top coal producer. Expediting EPA action on Wyoming's CCR program would help ensure Wyoming coal is available to help meet our nation's growing energy demand and the new uses of coal we've found. We're making asphalt out of coal. It's called coalphalt. We're making bricks out of coal. These new uses will extend the important life of this resource source so it doesn't become a stranded asset. Do I have your commitment that working through cooperative federalism, you will expedite action on Wyoming's coal program?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Senator, I know how important it is to you and to your state. We will work to get it done as fast as humanly possible. And, and we hear you. You have— you, as I was going through the confirmation process, you had a long list of priorities that you wanted EPA to focus on. And we're not going to pace ourselves. We're not going to do it one at a time. You had a great list and we want to work through all of it at once.

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

Well, those of us from research-producing states found that we were getting stonewalled under the last administration. So I appreciate your responsiveness to administering the laws, which is what you committed to when you stood before us and, and we considered your nomination by the president for this job. And to my way of thinking, you have delivered ever since you got in office. So I want to applaud you and thank you for your hard work. And we will continue to work together to have a strong economy and a strong environment. I am out of time, but appreciate you very much being here today and appreciate the budget you have proposed.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

Senator Markey, you are recognized.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just want to get to this crocodile tear concern which the Trump administration has, the oil and gas boys have, about the greenhouse gas program, the Green Bank and the Solar Bank. They're both programs that are very effective, but being stopped by this administration. I just wanted to point out the $170 billion of fossil fuel giveaways that are already in the pipeline for the Trump administration for the fossil fuel industry. Meanwhile, we had the Green Bank and the Solar Bank, which is a grand total of $27 billion, which McKinsey says is going to unleash $250 billion worth of private sector investment. Meanwhile, the richest industries in the world are getting $170 billion worth of giveaways, royalty relief, tax breaks over the very same period of time. I don't hear anybody saying that we should be taking those breaks away from the oil and gas and coal industry. They just want to kill the competition: wind, solar, all-electric vehicles, anything that would be reducing the need for oil and gas in our country. So that's, unfortunately, the state of affairs that we have with this administration at this point in time. They're terminating the very programs meant to face the challenges that are being presented on a nightly basis on every television station in America of these tornadoes, these violent storms that are intensifying. So let me let me just move to the bank and what the administration has been saying and doing. In a recent study, we can see that it's going to save a lot of money, a lot of funding for families across our country if we move in that direction. You have decided, Mr. Administrator, to carry out a baseless witch hunt against the Green Bank and against the Solar Bank. These funds have been frozen now for months, and we already know what you're going to say, that there was, quote, "rampant waste, fraud, and abuse and conflicts of interest." When the district court judge asked if EPA could offer any evidence of a violation of a federal criminal law, your lawyer responded, I cannot do so, Your Honor. Are you willing to admit here today, Mr. Administrator, that you don't have any evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I'm happy to go through the list. Would you like me to, Senator?

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

Why was that evidence not presented in court if you

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

have it? Oh, it was. I'll do it right now. You ready, Senator?

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

No, I'm asking. No,

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

you want me to? I could go through the entire list right now. Would you like me to?

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

Why was it not presented?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

You want it? I'm going to do it. I'll start. Let's see how far down the list you'll let me go before you cut me off.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

It was asked yesterday. It was, it was asked. Cut

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

me off before the first example of evidence.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

It was asked in court yesterday. Want

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

to know the evidence, Senator, or not?

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

When your lawyer was asked to present it before a federal

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

EPA official says, Now it's our job to get the money out as fast as possible before the Trump administration comes in. It's like we're on the Titanic, and we're throwing gold bars off of the edge. Yeah i'll give you another example.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

I'm going to— I'm going to give you

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Appalachian Community Capital. I'm

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

going to reclaim my time.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I can't go

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

through the evidence. Reclaim my time.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Believe that.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

Madam Chair, please bring this court— please bring this hearing to order.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Out of court.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

Okay. Yeah. You have said that you

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

want to declare there's no evidence, but you don't want me to go through the list.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

You've said that there are grants that are unqualified recipients. You have said the EPA hunt for shady deals and gold bars. And yesterday, yesterday in federal district court, your lawyer defending a lawsuit by groups that want access to their own funds, which this Congress appropriated, said repeatedly that the EPA was not claiming there has been any violation by any of these groups. That's your lawyer yesterday in court. And I

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

quote, right in front of you. You have the EPA Administrator right here offering to go through a list of evidence, and you're saying you don't want me to go through

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

it. Your lawyer was in court yesterday, and your

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

lawyer said—

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

your lawyer said—

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

no, this nonprofit coalition—

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

here's what your lawyer said to

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

a judge yesterday that was selected to receive $2 billion.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

Your lawyer yesterday, Mr. Roth, said, "I am not accusing anyone of

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

fraud. You

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

can filibuster this, Mr. Zeldin, but you can't run from the truth. Your lawyer yesterday said in court, I am not accusing anyone of fraud, but you

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

time

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)SPEAKER_02

has expired. You keep using this inflammatory language without any evidence being presented in court in order to defend these public accusations you

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

make. Wasted your entire 5 minutes. Before a court of law where there would be

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)SPEAKER_00

gentleman's time has expired. The chair recognizes Mr. Sullivan Sullivan .

Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK)SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

And,

Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK)SPEAKER_03

Administrator Zeldin, good to see you. Really looking forward to you coming up to Alaska in a couple weeks, and want to work with your team on your schedule. I want to put up a chart here, Senator Markey, Senator Schiff. It's a chart that I like to trot out a lot because it's really important. It gets to the key of so many issues in my state. Senator Schiff was talking about legacy. This is the ultimate legacy. This is a study from the American Medical Association on life expectancy in America. Red, yellow, orange, that's people declining life expectancy. Light blue, blue, purple is life expectancy going up. My state, the North Slope, Aleutian Island chain, Northwest Arctic Borough actually increased the most of any state in the country. 13 years my constituents were living longer. So you want to talk about legacy? I ask my constituents, what's more important in terms of a policy outcome than are your constituents living longer? I don't think there's an answer. That's the key. That's a legacy. Why did that happen in Alaska? Why? I'll tell you why. These are almost all Alaska Native communities. First, they started at a very low life expectancy, and then responsible resource development happened. Yes, oil and gas and mining in these communities, fisheries in these communities. That's what happened. And my colleagues, unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle, and Joe Biden, and Barack Obama, and every left-wing radical environmental group would do everything in their power to stop responsible resource development from happening. So, in my state, this is a matter of life and death, which is why I'm excited that you're coming up with the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Energy because you're coming to these places in America where people are living longer because of responsible resource development. So, I want to thank you, because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not supportive of this. And when they go to shut down all the North Slope, where the responsible resource development, where people have lived 13 years longer, and they're starting to block it, trying to block it, that's all they do is block it. It's a matter of life and death. So when people talk about legacy, when people talk about these issues, I know what the legacy is. The people I represent are actually living longer, and there's nothing more important. And you're going to be part of that team when you come up to Alaska, so I appreciate it. Let me get to one of these issues. They're living longer because they have things like gymnasiums and health centers and hospitals, and yes, clean drinking water, which most Americans take for granted. So, one issue I want to talk to you about is in your confirmation hearing you committed to me to work with me on clean water, drinking water, sanitation, flush toilets, running water. I have thousands of my constituents, almost all Alaska Native, who don't have those things that most Americans take for granted. By the way, you're a veteran, I'm a veteran. You'll see when you come to Alaska, these are some of the most patriotic people in the country. Alaska Natives serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country. They bled for their country. So as you know, I care a lot about this issue, and I was glad to see that in your budget, you increased your budget on drinking water and water infrastructure programs, which is great. So thank you on that. I do want to ask about the Community Change Grants. I understand why you've looked at these grants in a problematic way. A lot of it is problematic. Some of you, though, some of those grants, as you know, have gone to clean water, drinking, sanitation. Huslia, Alaska, the village of Huslia is one. Can I get your commitment, Mr. Zeldin, to continue to work with me on these issues with communities like Huslia, who—look, they were just applying for grants to get more sanitation so people can live longer. Can I get your commitment on that?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

want to— enthusiastically, yes.

Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK)SPEAKER_03

And are you going to make sure that programs in terms of these critical investments will have an opportunity, if they were canceled during the Community Change Grants Program, can reapply or get directed funding? Again, $20 million for the village of Huslia and others for these sanitation issues, which are very important.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Senator, and you've previously reached out and you fight hard for the people of Alaska, including outreach on these grants. I would look forward to an opportunity to be able to work with you on each of them. As we're having this conversation in the middle of the fiscal year, money is going to continue to get out the door over the course of the rest of the, rest of the fiscal year. And I believe that there will be many opportunities here for us to be able to, to work on these causes that you're advocating for.

Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK)SPEAKER_03

And just to just to make that 100% clear, on the issue of clean water, flush toilets, which, in some of my communities—Senator Kelly deals with this on some of his Native reservations—that that continues to be a priority of yours, as you mentioned to me during your confirmation process, and you'll continue to work with me on those issues in Alaska, and you'll see some of it when you're up there.

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)SPEAKER_12

Yes, Senator.

Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Senator Kelly.

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Madam Chair. Administrator Zeldin, good to see you again, and thank you for taking the time to come out to Arizona a few weeks ago, or maybe a couple months ago now, and appreciate the partnership with your team, and just thank you for working to improve Arizona's air quality and support our continued economic growth. As you heard during your visit, we need EPA to work with Maricopa County to provide new ways to generate emissions reduction credits. Later today, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is expected to vote to submit to EPA the final version of Rule 205 for final approval. We talked about these two rules, Rule 205, and I'll get to 204 in a second. And while I know that you can't prejudge a regulatory decision, will you commit to having Region 9 process this application as quickly as possible? Yes, Senator. Thank you. And we've heard that it could take as long as 6 months for the regional office to conduct this review. You think there's any way to do this faster than 6 months?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

We will do it as fast as we possibly can.

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)SPEAKER_12

And the second rule, Rule 204, should be completed and submitted for final approval by the county sometime this summer. And once Rule 205 is completed, could I get a commitment to quickly work on Rule 204 as well?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Absolutely, Senator.

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)SPEAKER_12

Okay, thank you. Now, another item we discussed during your visit was the need to understand the root cause of the ozone pollution that forms in the Phoenix area. As we discussed, emissions have gone down and ozone has gone up. And specifically, nitrogen oxides and the volatile organic compounds—ozone rising with the increasing VOCs and NOx. So that means that we need scientific tools and models to help us understand what's going on here. We haven't figured it out, and we need help with this. And we've developed a partnership between the state, between Maricopa County, ASU, University of Arizona, and EPA called the Ground Level Ozone Research Project. But the EPA researchers who support this work are within EPA's Office of Research and Development. ORD is a congressionally mandated entity established to operate independently and without political bias. To maintain its objectivity, it remains separate from the agency's regional offices and other components. The president's budget proposes a 56% cut to ORD. From what we can figure, that will likely slash 75% of its staff. Remaining employees would reportedly be reassigned to offices they were meant to stay independent from, exposing its scientists to undue political and institutional pressure. So, Mr. Zeldin, I can only imagine that ORD facilitates dozens of similar partnerships like ours. Tell me, how can the EPA produce unbiased science and data, including data that we desperately need in Arizona, if you fire most of the scientists at the EPA's Office of Research and Development?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Senator, the reorg that was announced a couple of weeks ago increases the science and research effort inside of numerous program offices at EPA. I want the scientists to be able to do the science, and there not be any change from what the natural conclusions are of their good work. We have—

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)SPEAKER_12

So, does that mean that ORD is not going to lose any scientists?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Well, Senator, the reorganization creates—we have scientists inside of the Office of Research and Development applying for all sorts of positions inside of the agency. We just—we're creating a new Office of State-Air Partnerships, but inside of the Office of Air and Radiation, as a product of having communications with states to advance cooperative federalism. We inherited a big backlog on state implementation plans, and to help a state like Arizona to be able to come into compliance. So scientists who might be in the Office of Research and Development might be in the State Office of Air Partnerships in the Office of Air and Radiation. I want them to be doing amazing work that you and your constituents are entirely proud of. I would—and we're also creating an Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, which will include a lot of scientists who are currently inside the Office of Research. Do you

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)SPEAKER_12

have concern about their independence and their ability to do unbiased science if they're commingled with people that are working on policies?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

No, not at all. I do not want there to be any biased science anywhere inside of this agency ever, leaning one way or the other. We just want the scientists to be able to do the to do the science, to get good research, good data, to fulfill all statutory obligations, and allow us to do a great responsive job for your constituents. So, when you, Senator Kelly, gave us a very long list of to-do items if confirmed, we've been very proud to be able to work with your office and your constituents to get through that list as quickly as possible. And

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)SPEAKER_12

I appreciate that.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

And getting rid of the 179B guidance with the international ozone, that was one of the asks. And working to get the permit done on TSMC. You had a long list.

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)SPEAKER_12

Yeah.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

And I appreciate the fact that you have a long list, and I want you to get us the next list.

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)SPEAKER_12

Okay,

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I want you to tell us what are 20 things the EPA can do to help Arizona. I want to do all of it.

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)SPEAKER_12

Well, as somebody who's always been driven by science and data, I get concerned when I see 75% cuts in an organization that has a lot of scientists. What you're telling me is these scientists are probably going to some other group within EPA to continue to do this important work, and I look forward to seeing the results, especially on our issue with rising ozone when emissions have actually been going down. Thank you. Yes, Senator.

Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Senator Kelly. Senator Whitehouse and I are each going to do one other round, and then I think we'll bring it down. We are on a vote, and I appreciate your time and attention. And I apologize for not being in the room for—although I heard it was quite lively—that I was not in the room for the whole proceedings. So I don't know, I don't know if PFAS was a major focus for somebody, because, as you know, you and I have talked about this, this is a major focus for me. And you, as a former member of the House, were very active in this arena with PFAS because of incidences in your home district that you you had talked about. So you you put out a PFAS plan,. which I really commend you with, a strategy early. At least we can see where we're going. And I would like to ask, the question is a little bit nuanced for me. I want to know where do you think in the plan that you have put forward we're actually going to see action so that, that would be different than what we would have seen over the last 4 years? I mean, you know, we kept, we kept pushing for minimum drinking levels and things of that nature. Now we have things like passive receivers and water systems, and once you catch it, how do you destroy it? There's so much we could be really in the— in your tenure, we can solve this problem. So how do you see us proceeding from there? And I hope you intend to be as aggressive as possible.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Yes, Chairman, with regards to the April 28th announcement, this was the first release that we sent out. We've sent out others since. I would point you to—and there are a lot of different aspects of this announcement—one part says develop effluent limitation guidelines for PFAS manufacturers and metal finishers and evaluate other ELGs necessary for reduction of PFAS discharges. That's significant, and I would encourage the public to read the April 28th release that went out. The release that went out last week tackles—I understand this reality as administrator of the EPA, that every single decision I make, whether I say yes or no, someone's going to sue me. It's just the reality with regards to every decision that's in front of us. Well, we also inherited some active litigation, and some of that litigation was in the PFAS space that's currently going through the courts. There are—the announcement that we made last week involving six chemicals, we are retaining the 4 parts per trillion MCL on PFOA and PFOS. These are the two chemicals of PFAS where the research and data has been the furthest along. There is a lot of research with regards to the other four chemicals at play. The procedural error that created a litigation issue was that with those four other chemicals, they combined the preliminary regulatory determination with the proposed rule, which means that the EPA skipped a traditional step in the rulemaking process by issuing the proposed drinking water standard at the same time it proposed the formal decision to regulate PFAS, rather than doing the step the steps separately. The Safe Drinking Water Act does allow for certain steps to be combined, but what they did is not allowed under the act. And I would point out that as we go through that process with those four, at the end of the process, you might end up with a lower MCL. So, for those who want to take last week's announcement as if that means that you're going to end up with a weaker MCL, that's just not accurate. And as I pointed out earlier, there was one line of of Q&A with one of your colleagues, there's been a lot of outreach to EPA over these last few months of individuals and companies that are really leaning into investment in trying to come up with innovation for PFAS treatment. So what we're hoping for is that the cost to be able to come into compliance with these MCLs are going to go down as we go through the months and the years that are ahead. The innovations are clearly out there. The passive receiver concern I heard from members of this committee when I was going through the confirmation process. It is against the principle of polluter pays to make a consumer pay to clean up the contamination of their water supply. And that is something that that we agree with, and we want to address.

Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)SPEAKER_01

Thank you. I would encourage this. And one of the other things that I think is very confusing to the general public, we had a chemical spill in my home system. It wasn't PFAS, but and there were conflicting advice as to whether you can drink the water, bathe in the water, cook with the water. Initially, it was said, oh, it's safe. Well, it had an odor with it, so you really didn't want to drink it. But then the next day, there's a letter issued by the CDC after they said it was safe. They issued another letter and says, but if you're pregnant or expecting or elderly or have a health issue, maybe you shouldn't drink it. There's nothing worse that an agency or an administration can do than to give conflicting health advice. I think we learned that during COVID, because that was all over the place. But for something as fundamental as drinking water that our children and my grandchildren are drinking, what a terrible legacy for us to leave. And so we need to be really strong here. And I'm going to support you every step of the way. So conflicting conflicting levels, there was a safety level, and then there's a drinking level. What does that tell the American? How do you interpret that if you're a mom deciding what to do? It's impossible. So I thank you for your attention to this. I really want to work with you on this, and I appreciate the I appreciate the speed with with you came out with this, whether anybody agrees with the advice or some of the advice or or all of the advice that was given in this. At least you're prioritizing this early on because you have to get through the process that takes years. And we're going to work hard to make sure that happens. Thank you.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Thank you.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Mr. Zeldin.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Hello again.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Hello again. I hope you'll answer my questions. I'd appreciate it. The first is, on February 17th, the FBI told Citibank to freeze the GGRF funds. Did you have anything to do with that?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

No.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Um, were you aware of that?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I was made aware of that

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

shortly after.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I think I got my update on that after Citibank instituted a freeze.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Okay. Do you know who the FBI was reporting to when it took that action?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

That I don't— I, I— all of the stuff that you went through a lot earlier that, I mean, we're not, as you know, at the Judiciary Committee hearing. There are questions that I just don't have the answers. Yeah, that's fine. As far as the definition,

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

you don't know, that's fine. Were you aware that on February 18th, the criminal chief of the DC US attorney's office resigned over this effort to get this freeze?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I learned about that reading about it in the newspaper.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Okay. So shortly after February 18th, when that became news,

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

whenever it broke in the news,

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Did you find out at some point that Mr. Martin had failed to get his order from the magistrate judge?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

What would— ask the question again. Did I learn what?

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

U.S. Attorney Martin,

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

right,

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

went to the magistrate judge seeking an order that would allow for the freeze of the Citibank-held assets.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I was aware of that.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Okay.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

After the fact.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

When it— do you know when the order was denied?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I don't have that date.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Okay. The reason I am asking this is because on February 23rd, 2025, you said about the GGRF that the entire scheme, in my opinion, is criminal, which is a pretty strong word to use. And I'm trying to figure out what you knew when you said it was criminal. So, you knew by then, at least, that the criminal chief had resigned over this issue. It's not clear whether you knew at that time that Martin's order had been rejected by the magistrate judge. Could you find that out for me? What was the timing of when you knew that Martin's order had been rejected by the judge, in comparison to your statement that this was criminal?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Yeah. And would you like me to tell you everything that I knew when I made that statement?

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Sure.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Okay. So the first thing was that Biden EPA official—

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Well, not right now. You can— we can do this in a QFR because I'd like to get through some other questions. Later on, on March 6th, you also said that this was either a kickback, a theft, or graft, or all of the above, on Fox News. And if you could also put into the timeline of what you knew and when you knew it, that March 6th statement, I would be grateful to that about that. Now, somewhere between March 9th and 10th, there was a series of emails between EPA and DOJ in which the top career EPA attorney, a gentleman named Jim Payne, warned that there were significant legal vulnerabilities with the Citibank freeze. Do you know what those significant legal vulnerabilities were that he was referring to?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I could speculate that if you're going through a what is claimed to be a breach of contract, and the Court of Federal Claims, which is the court that would actually have jurisdiction over it, not a district court, inside there, they would determine, one, if there was a breach of contract, and then two, they would decide on damages.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

So it could be not on the merits, but just on the venue, on the appropriate court. Well,

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I'm just saying the way that process would, would go, Uh, so those $20 billion went to 8 pass-through entities. A little over $3 billion of that actually was dispersed. The rest has been frozen. All the grants have been terminated. There's— let

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Me ask you about that, because my time is getting a little bit short here. I'm sorry to to cut you off, but the New York Times has reported that one of the grantees has been told it no longer needs to comply with a February 20 subpoena, suggesting that the investigation is closing. Is the investigation closing?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

Again, you should ask that question. Any question that you have as far as Justice Department as an agency should be directed to the Justice Department. It would be

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

not— you were not involved in all of that?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

No, I'm focused on the EPA.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Okay.

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

And, uh, and so

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

Focusing on the EPA in my last seconds, DOJ lawyers representing EPA admitted in the circuit court of appeals that they are not accusing anybody of fraud. That's their quote, not accusing anybody of fraud. And EPA in that courtroom specifically reiterated several times that no grantee had engaged in any fraud, waste, or abuse. Do you stand by the statements of your lawyers in that courtroom?

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

I would love to be able to go through the list of all of the waste and abuse that I'm aware of. But it seems like you and your colleagues want anything other than for me to go through the list of evidence.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

You're more than welcome to submit a list of all the evidence. But when I only have 5 minutes, I don't want you to—

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

You don't want me to go through the list of evidence. You just want to say that we don't have any.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

You don't? No,

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

no, no. Let me stop you. Hold on,

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

hold on, hold on. Let me stop you right there. It's not me saying that you don't have any. It's your lawyers. In a court proceeding saying you don't have

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

it. Allow me to talk through it.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)SPEAKER_11

So I'll take it as a question for the record because our time is up. But please give me your list. I'd be more than happy to review

Hon. Lee ZeldinSPEAKER_08

it. I sent you over a lot of it, but I guess you haven't read it.

Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)SPEAKER_01

All right, here we go. With no further questions, I would like to thank you, Administrator Zeldin, and all of my colleagues for the participation in today's hearing. It's been a really busy day, morning on Capitol Hill, so we have a lot of in and out. Senators who wish to submit written questions for the record have until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4th, to do so. The witness's response to these questions are due back to the committee no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June the 18th, and will be submitted for the record. With that, the hearing is adjourned. But before that, I would like to make an announcement at the request of the Capitol Police. I will ask the audience to stay in their seats at the conclusion of the hearing, just while Capitol Police clear the room. Thank you very much.