Epa administrator, scott pruitt, testified before the House Energy Commerce environmental subcommittee recently on the mission of his agency. He said his three goals are restoring power to the states and adhering to the rule of law and refocusing on the core mission of protecting human health and the environment. This is just over three hours. G statement i want to make a general announcement to member about the process today. After months of trying to find the date f before i begin my Opening Statement i want to make an announcement. After months of trying to get a mutual date for a hearing, we got an agreement with the administrator to joining us. But then we learned mr. Pruitt was being summoned to meet with his boss for 90 minutes around lunch. Rather than agreeing to start the whole process over or hearing earlier, we and to have a defined end time or push the entire hearing to a Late Afternoon start time or try to find another mutually acceptable date we have come to an agreement we understand is not ideal but gives members maximum flexibility to personally question the administrator about the agencys missions. Therefore we will proceed with Opening Statements and the administrators testimony and members questions until 11 00 a. M. We will recess at that time and reconvene at 2 00 p. M. In 2322, which is upstairs. We expect the administrator will stay with us until Committee Members who are present or want to ask questions have been given their turn to ask questions. I will also note theres going to be a Voting Period in this last block and were going to try, with the help of my colleagues to keep the hearing going through that vote series. Ive done it before years ago. Its a juggling but were going to try to get that done. Administrator pruitt, i want to thank you for joining us today an discussing issues. The environment subcommittee has jurisdiction over, notably the Clean Air Act, the super fund act, solid Waste Disposal act, Safe Drinking Water act and Toxic Substances Control Act 1 this committee is proud of passing in the last congress. A few years ago we began an effort to tackle and updating and reauthorizing a number of these laws and waiting for an opportunity for you or someone from your agency to be here to discuss the administrations position on these important changes to the laws and how epa implements them. We are also tasked with the oversight of these epa programs and look forward to conducting oversight hearings soon. Today, we would like to start dialogue with you about your vision and priorities for the epa. You noted at the outset of your tenure that your goal was to focus the epa on its intended mission and return power to the states and create an environment where jobs can grow and your agenda focused on three es, protecting the environment, economy, sensible regulations that allow Economic Growth and engagement, engaging with state and local partners. You stated epa would work with statutes Congress Passes and not reimagining authority to pick winners and losers. That sounds like youre headed in the right direction. We support analyzing regulatory barriers to see whether they create unnecessary burdens or impede job creation and we want to work with you to make sure the epa permits regulations while protecting the environment and creating growth and jobs. You said it best when you kicked off your back to the basics agenda earlier this year. We can will achieve clean air and water and have job and Economic Growth at the same time. We have specific areas of focus we could like to discuss today and continue to work with you and your staff as we go forward. The first is Super Fund Cleanup. You indicated it is a priority tov the agency and several cleanup efforts have been i quote restored to the rightful place at the sender of the core mission. And you intend to figure out ways to cut through bureaucratic red tape that slows the clean unup Super Fund Sites and areas the epa can aggressively address. We want to work with you on these efforts and address what congress can do to make super clean efforts more efficient. The next issues are Toxic Substances Control Act and Safe Drinking Water act. We are interested inappropriate and timely implementation of rules that are the outgrowth of the new law. We look forward to work with the new agency as we have reauthorized funding and make improvements in the law to make compliance with the Safe Drinking Water act. Last but not least the Clean Air Act. Our members are actively engaged on several air issues like the clean power plan, epas ozone standard which created new obstacles to Structure Development and manufacturing. We want to look to addressing challenges to obtaining air permits required for new construction and expansion of existing facilities under epas new program. The long and shore of it we heavy an agenda packed with oversight and legislative activities and we need the epa engaged as we go forward and make sure you send us witnesses for legislative and oversight hearings and in turn we will work to see where Congress Needs to act to accomplish your missions. The goals to provide regulatory certainty and balancing economic benefits and restoring confidence to regulated entities across the country. Thank you for coming here and we look forward to continuing this conversation in the new year. With that, i will yield back my time and turn to my friend from new york for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair and thank you, administrator pruitt. Thank you for being here this morning. However, i fully expected that you, mr. Administrator, as a proud oklahoman, would have been here sooner. All right. In all seriousness, in all seriousness, mr. Administrator, i hope this is the first of many appearances, regular appearances before our energy and commerce committee. Your predecessors came before this committee frequently. I can tell you it wasnt because they liked being berated every other five minutes for a few hours. It was because they understood that they had a responsibility to be accountable to congress. I expect moving forward you will provide administration witnesses, responses to letters and Technical Assistance quickly when we asked. I know many members have serious concerns about the direction of the epa in the past year, which is why there is so much interest in todays hearing. Members will raise questions about how you have chosen to be a steward of taxpayer funds and who has had access to you and the growing influence at the agency. Members will question the role back of a number of safeguards put into place to protect human health. In july the New York Times published an article i quote counseled by industry, not staff, the epa is off to a blazing start reported more than 30 environmental rules being delayed or undone. Often these Public Health safeguards are being undone with no legal or safic justification. It is worth noting historically the majority of epa rules have withstood challenges including you as oklahomas attorney general. Epas decisions should be guided by sound science and not corporate interest. These concerns touch every office under your charge. Clean water, air quality, contaminated land, chemical safety, pesticides to name a few. From my view, rules across the agency are being undone capriciously with little regard to the human impacts or science developing them. Many states were partners in the process when these rules were developed. Frankly, i believe epa has all the signs of an industry captured by industry. You shouldnt need to be traded on the New York Stock Exchange or need an invite to a private steak dinner at a trump hotel in order to get an audience with the epa administrator. Im particularly concerned about Agency Actions on climate change. The Fourth National climate assessments, Climate Science special report, a thorough comprehensive report by the federal government reaffirmed what the Scientific Community has long known. Climate change is real, primarily caused by human activity and serious threat to our people and our economy. Despite this Scientific Consensus, epa has begun to roll back rules at the request of special interests developed and backed by scientists and impacted by studies. This is one in a trend of dismissing the science of the epa. It must be protected. Instead we have witnessed the proposed elimination of Research Funding and eroding of scientific capacity. The dismissal of qualified members of the Scientific Advisory board and removal of information from the epas website and sensory of scientists participating in events are incredibly troubling. Finally, i want to take a minute to recognize the work done by epas career employees. I know these dedicated Public Servants joined the agency to protect human health and the environment and to be commended for hard work in this environment. As the work is reduced and experts advice ignored and morale at the agency increases i know there will be an effort to pursue other opportunities. We cannot afford to lose the knowledge at an agency as important as the epa or fail to attract the next generation of qualified dedicated Public Servants. I want to thank epas employees and know your work is greatly appreciated by officials here and members across our great country. Back to basics does not mean starving the agency of its resources and personnel it needs to do its job. It does not mean giving lib service to protecting clear air and water while rolling back dozens of essential rules. Epas success has been about making steady progress over time and has proven to be a Resilient Agency in the past. This year we have witnessed an Alarming Number of decisions and i hope we get answers to some decisions today, mr. Administrator and we welcome you before this committee. Thank you so much and i yield back, mr. Chair. The gentleman now yields back its chair. The chair now recognizes mr. Walden for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman and mr. Administrator were delight to have you here. I think this is your first oversight hearing on the hill and were delight we could have you here to tell us whats going on at the epa and take our questions and hear what we have to say. Im obviously disappointed the president called you out in between and i appreciate the fact you will be here this morning and come back this afternoon and continue to participate in this process. With this i will yield briefly to my friend from oklahoma who would like to formally introduce you to the committee and with that ill yield 30 seconds. Thank you, chairman and others. I had the opportunity to serve with the administrator. I want to thank mr. Pruitt for making himself available for todays hearing. He and his staff have worked hard to bring the epa back to our environment with common sense ways with government and tribe business to collaborate an approach which is a breath of februa fresh air. Nobody wants to take care of our back yards more than us and our states. Thats why i want to thank mr. Pruitt by doing whats right by having input of those with interests. Thank you for coming here today and making the whole state proud. I appreciate you and yield back to chairman walden. Thank the gentleman for his introduction today. The committee youre appearing before is charged by the House Committee and legislative responsibilities for the bulk of the statutes the epa implements. We may not right the check for the epa, appropriators do that. We are your authorizing agency. It has been almost 10 months you were sworn in as administrator, agency that turned 37 this past thursday and hope we will talk about what i hope is continuing discussion about the agency and challenges you face. Im particularly intrigued by your back to basics concepts and stated intent to return epa from its free wheeling administrative pursuits to mission of protecting air, soil and water and according to explicit dictates of congress. I hope this view of governing will guide the epa rather than end running on the courthouse steps. And i want to discuss the establishments of the programs and metrics you intend to use for progress and particularly, if you have a plan to address staffing issues identified by the Inspector General over the last two decades. This is a 20yearold problem youre inheriting but one we both take seriously. We appreciate your commitment to budget and transparency as we want to make sure the public knows how each law is implemented and money being spent. Back to basics is not an abdication, whether cleaning up Super Fund Sites insuring Safe Drinking Water is being piped into peoples homes and keeping air safe to breathe. This is the primary mission of the epa. These jobs may sound mundane but like any football plan, like the essential blocking and tackling techniques. I also want to thank you and your team to attention of the Super Fund Cleanup in the portland harbor. While it is in not in my district it is in my state. What happens there has an impact on all m oregons. You have proven this administration wants to clean up this environmental mess and do the work in a common sense manner in close working partnership with local stakeholders. To paraphrase an old song, if you can do it there you can do it anywhere. I thank you for being here and your collaborative work on the portland Super Fund Cleanup. We know we have more work to achieve there. Everybody not everybody, but most people affected by it including the port and city and everybody else saying thank you and now we believe we have a chance to get this done right. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair now recognizes the full committee, mr. Pallone, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive served in Congress Alongside democratic and republican administrations. In my experience the lack of transparency and cooperation from this administration is completely unprecedented. The Environmental Protection agency under administrator pruitt has consistently failed to respond to congressional oversight requests. In a few instances we received responses, they are perfunctory at best and epa refused to testify at legislative and oversight hearings and refused to respond to requests on basic assistance for legislation moved or moving its way through this committee. Even today after finally agreeing to appear before his authorizing committee, some 10 months into his term, administrator pruitt is planning to leave after only one hour. This is not the way any agency is supposed to interact with its authorizing committee. I would hope this frustration is not only felt by Committee Democrats and i would hope to see a change from the epa and the overall trump administration. This lack of transparency applies not just to congress but the prus, the public and even epas career staff. The stories coming from the agency paint a pretty bleak picture. While we know the administration has wasted more than 58,000 of taxpayer money on private jets to noncommercial flights, mr. Pruitts schedule has been largely kept secret. This week a major newspaper had to sue the agency for access to this important public record. Meanwhile, epa career staff have been excluded from meetings. When they do participate theyre apparently blocked from bringing phones and even pen and paper with them. Moreover, administrator pruitt reportedly used 25,000 of public funds to build a secret phone booth in his office. Why all of the secrecy . He has also launched an unprecedented assault on independent science, purging with no conflicts from Science Board and replacing them with industry employees. At the same time hes ignored advice and conclusions of his own scientific staff on numerous occasions. Todays hearing is supposedly about the mission of the epa. According to the epa itself, the Agency Mission is to protect human health and the environment. No one cares more about that mission than epas career staff. Ignoring the staff, undermining the staff and letting the staff out of decisions amounts to ignoring and undermining the mission in my opinion. Administrative pruitt was on a press tour lately proclaiming his vision of what the epas mission means and what it means ton an environmentallist. His words ring hollow because hess actions have systematically undermined protection for human health and the environment. I have only five minutes, mr. Chairman, so i cant list all of the actions the administration has taken, the administrator has taken that undermines protection for Public Health and specifically for vulnerable workers including workers, natives and children and tribes. First, pulling out of the paris agreement. Second, pulling back the clean power plan. Third, rolling back protections from toxic air pollute ants including mercury, methane and smog. Then handing implementation of the toxic chemicals reformula just signed into law last year over to industry lobbyists. Reversing decision to ban toxic pesticide. Delaying and junlds undermining the requirements and putting more of the burden on taxpayers and less on polluters. With accomplishments like this it is no wonder that the administration or administrator is working so hard to hide his actions. The American People need transparency and they deserve honesty from both the epa and the white house, and perhaps todays hearing will be the beginning of a new, more transparent era. To his credit, administrator pruitt reached out to me in advance of this hearing and requested a meeting which we did have, but if the administrator wants to improve his relationship with the members of this committee the steps he needs to take are clear. He needs to provide the documents weve requested and will request in the future. Answers to our oversight questions, and he needs to make himself and other epa staff available as witnesses routinely. If the administrator wants to earn the trust of the American People, he needs to stop the secrecy and his war on science and reverse the systematic rollback of Public Health protections. It is the mission of the epa to protect the Public Health and the environment and not attack it. I yield back, mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time. Now we turn to our guest. We would like to welcome can and thank our distinguished witness, u. S. Epa admin straighter scott pruitt for being here today. You will have an opportunity to give an Opening Statement followed by a round of questions from members. We appreciate you being here and youre recognized for five minutes. Well, chairman shimkus, Ranking Member pallone and other members i have not had the chance to meet, i look forward to the discussion today. It was a year ago today the president announced my nomination to the Environmental Protection agency. Thus began the process of the confirmation process which culminated in midfebruary, and i began serving in that time frame as well. It has been a very, very consequential and i think exciting ten months as i have been at the epa. We have focused our efforts on three Core Principles as were seeking to make decisions. As i said during the Senate Confirmation process, rule of law would again take center as we make decisions around the responsibilities that i have as administrator. Fundamentally my job as administrator of epa is to administer statutes you passed as congress, to advance objectives in those statutes, from the clear air act to the clean water act. Rule of law matters, because as we act and adopt regulation, if we act untethered to a statute it creates uncertainty in the marketplace. Those that have expectations placed upon them dont know how to conduct themselves. So rule of law is not something thats academic. It is not something thats just legal. It truly impacts how we do our job at the agency. Secondly, ive tried to emphasize process. Process matters as well. It is this body that is required federal agencies, executive agencies to go through the epa to adopt rule making, rules that are consistent with comment and informed discussions that take place over a period of time where a proposed rule is it takes place, comment occurs, we respond to that comment on the record, and then finalize our decisions based upon the comments provided. Just one example. During the waters of the United States rule of 2015 over a million comments were submitted to the agency as that definition was adopt he. The agency took the important step of responding to each to make a decision. The same needs to take place today. We have incorporated changes at the agency to respect process, to make sure that citizens concerns across the country are heard, and that we respond on the record to those concerns. Thirdly, and some mentioned this in your opening comments as well, is a commitment to federalism. That is something that, again, is not something that is a legal or academic process. It is something you have put into many statutes. You have prescribed authority to states across the country, because when we Work Together with states to achieve Better Outcomes with air and Water Quality, it serves the citizens of your respective states. I will say to you, two days after being sworn in as epa administrator i had 18 to 20 governors in my office on a sunday, democrats and republicans. The governor of minnesota to the governor of utah and we talked about a host of issues on air quality, Water Quality and superfund. We began a journey in february, and i have visited to advance the issues of the respective states. The reason is that the issues in utah are different than the water issues in minnesota. So we must work with our partners at the state level to achieve Better Outcomes and thats been a focus along with issues of process and rule of law. I want you to know, this dialogue that begins today is important to me. I have met with some of you individually. I have met with many of your colleagues across the rotunda in the senate, both democrats and republicans on issues that impact their states. I know theyre difficult issues that we handle at the agency. I seek to engage in civil discourse with you. I seek to have a thoughtful discussion about how we can advance the objectives of what you have passed in these statutes, and i appreciate the opportunity. I do hope, representative pallone, we can begin a good discussion Going Forward in 2018 on the issues. I look forward to the questions. Thank you. Gentleman yields back his time. I want to note the full statement of the administrator is in place in the record. I failed to say it earlier. I would like to recognize myself for five minutes to start the round of questioning. Again, thank you for being here. At a recent oversight subcommittee epas office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability office testified that epa cannot ensure it has the right people in the right places with the right skills and competencies to accomplish its mission. According to tin expector general, if epa offices would probably achieve better results if they knew more precisely what the requirements were and what kind of people it needs to address them. In addition, epa has not conducted a workload analysis in over 20 years. It seems to me that a backtobasics agenda for your agency must include this type of anal sills to ma analysis to make sure the agency is operating optimally. Can you assure me you intend to perform this workforce analysis . Yes. We are actually engaged in that process now. Theres a gentleman by the name of henry darwin that is the ceo at the agency. He worked for the governor in the state of arizona. We are actually partnering with toyota to begin a lean process at the agency. The agency for many years has not measured outcomes consistently. We are creating a dashboard of monitoring and air quality and Water Quality super fund remediation across the full spectrum of our responsibilities to measure problem in each of those areas on a weekly and monthly basis, and thats been import incorporated in the offices across the epa. Thats one thing that has been challenging. We have ten regions across the country as you know, from San Francisco to atlanta, chicago, boston, and there is a great deal of inconsistency with respect to permitting, compliance and assistance, enforcement, and these issues with respect to how we administer the statutes. We need i think a more coordinated, collaborative process to ensure we dont have different approaches in region 8 in denver versus, you know, region 3 in philadelphia. So that process is ongoing, mr. Chairman. It is a very important process. And i think a performancebased, metricbased approach to these Program Offices that were engaged this is so, so important because it enlivens and i think empowers employees. You have commenced, Ranking Member pallone, the career stach at the agency i will say to you as we engaged in super fund focus i had career employees come up and say, thank you for awakening areas that have been dorm ant for a little while. Theyre thankful for what we have placed on Core Missions and the measurements we are incorporating Going Forward. It is a part of what you reference, mr. Dhm. Thats important to me. One of the reasons i care about the workforce issue is the substance control act. In particular when it comes to new chemicals, since the laws enactment the agency needed to reassign staff from other offices to address the sizable backlog in the new chemical application. Your team helped clear out substantially the backlog, but i fear as soon as the boroughed e, pa workers go back to the regular jobs backlogs will be normal. What assurance can you give me that it will stay on schedule for the future . I want to commend congress for the work done in updating tosca. It was a decade in the making, and for you to do that was a very important thing for our office. There were deadlines you put in that statute, for example rules that were supposed to come can out by june of this year. I made a commitment during the confirmation process to meet those deadlines and we, in fact, did. Those rules under tosca. The other area that you cite, mr. Chairman, was the backlog. As you know, the changes you made in the tosca statute required that before chemicals enter the flow of commerce our agency had to affirm or approve those chemicals. There was a backlog of roughly 700 of those chemicals that were at the office before we arrived and we actually cleared that backlog out by july by dedicating resources there. It is a commitment Going Forward we do it timely. We are adopting rules now to ensure that the process is defined so that folks know what is expected to meet the deadlines Going Forward. Let me cut down my last question to just a simple question on what is the we talked about west lake. This is parochial west lake in the st. Louis metropolitan area. Are you on track to issue the record or decision and can you give us a sense of timing . Yes, we are. We should be able to announce a decision in the month of january. Theres proposals that im looking at this month to make a decision on west lake. It has been a longtime coming, specifically 27 years. It is an important issue to the people much st. Lou ills. For those who dont know on the committee, 8,000 tons of uranium commingled with 38,000 tons of solid waste dispersed over a large geographical area, buried about 80 feet deep. It has taken the agency 27 years to make a decision on whether to excavate or cap the site. Thats unacceptable and the decision is coming in the month of january. Thank you very much. Let me turn to mr. Tomko. Welcome can, mr. Administrator. Thank you. You said that you, and i quote, have no firsthand knowledge, close quote, of the epas scientific policy, however you committed to reviewing the policy and following guidance regarding scientific integrity. Now that you have had time at the agency, have you reviewed the epas scientific integrity policy . Yes, we have reviewed and implement it at the agency. Have you reaffirmed the scientific integrity policy . It is a matter of priority to make sure we have scientific review of rules at the agency that are objective, transparent and Peer Reviewed and thats a commitment we are enforcing at the agency, mr. Ranking member. Thank you. A potential of scientific integrity is strong safe guards against conflicts of interest. Have you required recusals among your staff including yourself when serious conflicts occur . Absolutely. Thats one of the areas mischaracterized with respect to the Advisory Boards i only have five minutes so if i could move along. I have been concerned by changes to epas science Advisory Boards. These concerns are shared by the Scientific Community. Mr. Chair, i would like to enter this letter sign by over 1,000 scientists into the record as well as the letter from the american geo physical union which represents more than 60,000 scientists. Yeah, im sure we will. Let me make sure my staff sees it. Thank you, mr. Chair. Administrator pruitt, do you believe scientists are a special Interest Group . Im sure i dont understand the question, Ranking Member tonko. Well, are they a fundamental contribution to the agency or seen as a special interest . When we engage in rulemaking at the agency we build a record. Scientists at the agency, whether it is in the chemical shop, the air program office, it is important that we hear from our scientists internal to the agency thank you. But also the Advisory Committees in building the record. Thats a point of emphasis, absolutely. Thank you. Do you believe scientists that receive epa grant money are less qualified to give Technical Advice to epa than states or industry which may have a financial relationship with the agency . I believe that these Advisory Committees as you know them are independent Advisory Committees to the agency, to equip us in making informed decisions about the efficacy of rules that we adopt. These Advisory Committees, Ranking Member tonko its may i finish . Yes, if you could just answer the question though, too. I am. Okay. These Advisory Committees had scientists serving in an independent capacity, 20 of them made up three of the committees that received 77 million from the agency in grants. That causes a perception or an appearance of a lack of independence in advising the agency on a host of issues. We went to those scientists and advised them they could continue serving on these Advisory Committees or receive the grants but they could not do both to ensure the independence of the counsel they were providing to us in the rulemaking process. Administrator, can you provide specific examples of a time when an epa grant recipient on an Advisory Committee provided conflicting advice . I can say to you as a grantee, we the grantor, Ranking Member, and we have an ongoing obligation to oversee those grants. That creates an appearance of a lack of independence, and that was addressed with the policy we instituted. We can provide you examples, many examples of scientists who receive grants poe recei receive grants over a period of time that were substantial and it appearwas looked at. We simply said to the individuals that they could continue receiving the grants and advising the agency in the counseling role or receive the grants and continue providing that authority we granted them to provide substance to the agency Going Forward. I would just hope that they would be seen as a very reliable source. Epas actions over the past year have led many people, myself included, to conclude epas current Political Leadership has been dismissing the role of science in its decisionmaking. It appears that independent and Agency Scientists recommendations are being ignored for the benefit of industry. It happens with chloropyrophous and it appears to be happening in tosca. In many cases Scientific Data is being removed from epas website. This is concerning. Will you commit to making scientific information, including information about climate change, prominently available on epas website . Science is essential to the review of the pollutants, it is essential as we make decisions on superfund sites and as we review pesticides. It will remain central and core to what we do, and is in fact central and core to what we are doing presently. The gentlemans time is expired. Administrator pruitt, thank you for being here and thank you for coming back later this afternoon when the president concludes his meeting with you. To the important superfund site, as you know it was cleared in 2000, 17 years later they finally have a record of decision. One of the concerns i have heard from folks involved in that is that there isnt the personnel in the portland area im sorry, i didnt hear chairman. There isnt the personnel in the portland area to fully take it to fully implement the program. You got a lot of people up in seattle. I just draw it to your attention, theyre concerned about that and urge that you dedicate adequate resources to the portland site so they can get going on that. I know you are very committed to that whole cleanup operation. One of the other issues that has come up is the Clean Air Act as the exceptional events exception process. Weve had all of these wildfires. My gosh, they had horrible wildfires again in california. We had them in the northwest. Its been subject of some of our hearings here about how that process works today, the amount of time, money it takes to go through it to get an exception. What can you do to ensure more timely costeffective epa process on exceptional event determinations . Theres actually quite a bit of work, mr. Chairman, with respect to ozone and exceptional events going on. Bill waram is our only confirmed aa at this point for air. Bill is leading a task force review of both nsr but also these issues around background ozone, but in addition exceptional events. We need to provide clarity in that area so that we know how these rules will be enforced and applied Going Forward. That clarity is not there presently and thats a focus of the agency presently as we go into 2018. Excellent. We would like to work with you on that. It is important to a number of members on the committee. By the way, you say he is confirmed. How many confirmations are you still waiting for for staff . How many do you have, confirmed people in place, and how many are you waiting for, do you know . We have one. One what . One confirmed. Besides you . Thats correct. And how many would be pending . Well, we have deputy general counsel, all of the Program Offices, we have cfo, we have several that need to be confirmed, and hopefully that will occur soon. Wow. Epa air emissions data show how air pollutants have been steadily decreasing in the United States over time. Since 1990 Carbon Monoxide concentrations are down 77 , lead down 99 , nitrogen dioxide 54 , ozone down 22 , course particulate matter down 39 , fine particulate matter down 37, sulfur dioxide down 81 . What role have hydraulic fracturing played in decreasing the nations air emissions . I think substantial. You know, many dont know we are pre1994 levels today with respect to our co 2 footprint. We reduced the levels from 2000 to 2014 by almost 40 , largely through innovation and technology. We achieved a lot through mobile forces under the Clean Air Act for reduction of co 2. With respect to other forms, it has been primarily through innovation and technology. You highlight something i want to say. We didnt celebrate the progress we have made as a country with respect to our air quality. Weve reduced those pollutants we regulate under the Clean Air Act by over 65 . That is a good thing and we need to celebrate that. Thats been because of the actions youve taken here and thats also been because of the actions we have taken at the epa, but also has been by actions taken by the private sector in states across the country. It is a collaborative process that achieved good outcome also with respect to air quality. We have much work to be done. 40 of the country live in areas that dont meet air quality standards, about 120 million people. We need to focus upon that, and it is an important metric we are measuring at the agency, but we need to celebrate the progress we have made and it has been through innovation and technology in a very, very important way. Thank you, sir. In addition, you know, our committee has submitted i think at least five letters to your Agency Seeking records and documents and information. In the past administration was very difficult to get responses to many of our requests. We appreciate the fact that we have received more than 1,000 pages of document also on Grant Management issues. I also want to say we appreciate the numerous bipartisan briefings you and your team have provided, especially in light of the hurricanes that took place. We do appreciate that. So know that when we send a letter, we want a response. We want to hear it from both sides, that we expect all of the agencies to respond to our requests so we can can do our oversight work. With that, mr. Chairman, i would yield back the balance much my time. Gentleman yields back his time. The minoritys request for the letters to be accepted into the letter without objection will be permitted. With that, chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full committee, mr. Pallone, from new jersey for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I wanted to talk to you, mr. Administrator, about tosca because unfortunately under your leadership i think epa is retreating from the important task of tosca in regulating toxic chemicals. The framework rules published in june are not consistent with the law and very dangerous and worrisome ways in my opinion. I think this is because nancy beck, a former lobbyist for the chemical industry, was allowed to completely rewrite the rules in fragrant violation of ethics rules. I have written to you twice regarding nancy becks involvement in these rule makings but i have not gotten a response. Let me ask you a few questions, and i would like you to answer yes or no. Did you ask nancy beck to recuse herself from the framework rule makings . Nancy beck, like every employee at the agency just yes or no. Ranking member pallone, i need to be able to answer your question. Can you say yes or no before you proceed with the answer . Nancy beck went through ethics review by the ethics official so you did not recuse her. Let me ask you mr. Pallone. You didnt recuse her. That is something that we had career lets be respectful and let people answer, but lets answer shortly and concisely. We have career employees at the epa. Look, mr. Chairman, he refuses to answer the question. He obviously has not recused her. So i want to move on. I asked you for copies of all of nancy becks ethics agreements and waivers. Will you provide those to the committee . Absolutely. Thank you. The framework rules had already been completed and sent to various internal epa offices for concurrence before dr. Beck started at the agency. We understand that they were completely rewritten after she started at epa by her. Now, i asked you for a document tracking the changes she made to the rules. Will you provide that to the committee, yes or no . We will provide the information thats requested. Thank you. Thats fine. And is available. I would like to quickly focus on one specific chemical undergoing review right now under the tosca. Im sorry. I didnt hear. I would like to quickly focus on one specific chemical undergoing review right now under tosca and thats asbestos. Unfortunately, your epas work on asbestos in my opinion clearly illustrates the problems in how youre implementing the act. Tosca requires epa to look at the intended conditions of use for a chemical, to find as the conditions under which a chemical is manufactured, processed, distributed, used and disposed of. But in the scoping document for the asbestos Risk Assessment, your epa has announced you will look only at manufacturing, processing and distribution, and you will not include the use you will completely ignore asbestos that is being used and disposed of in this country. Let me just explain. The use and disposal of asbestos is the main source of risk from asbestos. If you ignore those things you will produce a Risk Assessment that fails to capture the risk to workers and ordinary americans, and in my opinion will not be scientifically valid and will not be protective of Public Health. My question is in. Do you think you can just ignore certain things that are inconvenient for the industry . In other words youre saying, well look at the manufacturing process, distribution, but we wont be looking at how it is used and disposed of in this country. Do you understand what im asking . Absolutely. I think you raise a very valid concern can. In fact, i had a conversation last week about this very issue with the chemical office. I think you raise a very, very meaningful concern. All right. So hopefully, you know, we will see action on looking at the use and disposal. Is that correct . It is a very important factor we need to consider, and thats something i have already raised with the office of thats overseeing this. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you, mr. Pruitt. The other concern i have is that now that brazil has banned asbestos mining, all of the asbestos thats going to continue to flow into the United States will come from russia because brazil has banned it. So, again, my concern is that the epas basically protecting russian mining at the expense i think of American Workers by not by saying that, you know, asbestos is going to continue to flow into the country, but it cant come any more from brazil. So would you just respond to that, the fact that right now russian mining is the only source for it . We continue to allow it. Well, i think as you have indicated, this factor that hasnt been considered up until this point, thats something were going to do Going Forward and i think it is very important. Im not really familiar with the import issue you have raised. If theres an impact we can have on that, i look forward to the discussion on that, how we can better influence that. I dont know what role we play in that regard but look forward to the discussion. I appreciate again your willingness to look at that. I think the primary issue is what you raised earlier, which is the disposal issue i think is very valid and something we need to look at Going Forward. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can i ask unanimous consent to put into the record a letter from linda reinstein, executive director of the asbestos disease organization. Without objection it is ordered. The chairman recognizes mr. Parton for five minutes. Thank you, chairman shimkus. I want to give Ranking Member tonko aplus for his comment. It was very good. Excellent. Mr. Administrator, at the very beginning of the Obama Administration there had been a Supreme Court case, massachusetts versus epa, that said the Clean Air Act amendments didnt specifically say that co2 was or was not a pollu pollutant, therefore it might be found to be a pollutant. As soon as president obama came into office he asked the epa for a findings document. This finding document was rushed through very quickly, within about i want to say 60 days, and, surprise, surprise, said that they found that co2 was a pollutant. There was a career analyst at epa that took exception to that and wrote a scathing report that ripped it apart. That analyst was discouraged from bringing his report forward and ultimately forced to retire. Are you aware of that finding document . And if so, do you have any plans to revisit it . Well, i am aware of the mass epa decision that occurred in 2007. There was work being done in 2008 by the Bush Administration that was left to the Obama Administration, and you are correct, congressman, that the work done in 2009 was accelerated by the agency. In fact, there wasni something done in 2009 that in my estimation has never been done since and not done before that event where they took work from the u. N. Ipcc and transported it to the agency and adopted that as the core of the finding. So there was a breach of process that occurred in 2009 that many believe was not handled the proper way, but the mass epa decision and the processes that followed involved both the bush and Obama Administration, and that process was i think in 2009 short shrifted. I would encourage you to revisit the finding document and get the report that this career analyst put forward. If you cant find it, let me know because i have it and it is fairly not fairly. It is very damning on what they found. My second question, i have been told that you plan at some point in time to set up a Red Team Blue team review of pending regulations where you have scientists basically engage in an internal debate pro the regulation, con the regulation so that you really get a balanced Scientific Understanding of the pending regulation. Do you plan to use a Red Team Blue team approach, and if so when might we expect thats an ongoing review internally, congressman. It is something i hope to be able to do and announce sometime the beginning part of next year at the latest. That is something we have been working on for the last several months and trying to put that together. That would be a process that would be focused upon an objective, transparent, realtime review of questions and answers around this issue of co2. I think one of the most important things we can do for the American People is provide that type of discussion, because it hasnt happened at the agency. As i indicated, the agency borrowed the work product of a third party, and we need to ensure that that discussion occurs and that it occurness a w way that the American People know that objective transparent review is taking place. That Red Team Blue team that is something that is necessary for evaluation and we may be able to get there as early as next year. I would commend you on that. I think you know under the Obama Administration epa became more than an enforcement agency. It more and more began to intervene in the policy arena, in many cases going further than at least those of us on the republican side felt that they should go. Do you believe that before you set a standard you absolutely ought to check with the department of energy and the federal Energy Regulatory commission so that you really get a balanced analysis of whats going on, and do you feel that as we take a look at the reauthorization of your agency and the department of energy that it might be necessary to try to rebalance that that equation between the Energy Policy arena and the environment allen forceme Environmental Enforcement arena . As i indicated in opening comments, it is important that as we do our work at the agency we only do what Congress Permits and authorizes us to do. It was mention in some of the opening years it was mentiabout power plant. It was unprecedented for the Supreme Court to issue a stay or the clean power plant. So there was an understanding that the steps taken by the previous administration, Building Blocks one, two, three and four, there was a reimagined authority that took place under the Clean Air Act that caused a lot of confusion on what was authorized and what wasnt. Thats not the proper way to approach these issues and were addressing that at the agency and ensuring that we heed to rule of law in these processes to make sure theres confidence in the rules of law Going Forward. My time has expired. I thank you for your answers. Announcement for my colleagues. We are going to congressman reefls. He will have the last five minute block of questions before we allow the administrator to get downtown. Then i will make an announcement about getting back promptly at 2 00 for us to follow up. Administrator pruitt, welcome to the committee. Im dr. Ruiz and it is a pleasure to meet you. Fine particle pollution can be deadly to humans. It is it has been found that micro scopic particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs and enter the bloodstream. It is associated with premature death, asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, decreased lung function and respiratory disease. As an emergency medicine physician from the inland empire in california which has some of the highest levels of particle pollution, i have seen the dangerous effects of the fine particle pollution. I can tell you it is not nice or pleasant to treat kids that come in because of asthma because of bad air particle pollution today. The Scientific Consensus long recognized by the epa during bo both republican and democratic administration, meaning there is no fine level pollution exposure below which no harm occurs including premature death. Administrator pruitt, do you agree that fine particle pollution is a pollution . Yes, i would say as you know we cant engage in the cost analysis there. It is all about health and it is an Important Role we play in that program. Thank you. Administrator pruitt, were you aware that the Bush Administration used the Health Benefits associated with reducing this nonthreshold pollutant to justify the 2003 clear skies legislation, cosponsored by senator inhoff . Im familiar with the legislation. They did. I am not familiar with the cosponsor. They did. And that the Bush Administration relied on the same Health Benefits for Economic Analysis for 2004 tier 4 to control emissions from nonroad diesel engines . Yes, congressman. They relied on it. Isnt it true bush epa agreed there are no safe thresholds for fine particle pollution in the Clean Air Act . I think you stated it well. They did. Recently confirmed assistant administrator, mr. William wayrum, played a key role in developing the rules in the Bush Administration, and andrew wheeler, the deputy administrator, handled the clear skies bill when he worked for senator inhoff. Were they wrong about fine particle pollution having no safe level . Wrong about what . Theres no safe level for particle pollution. I dont think they were wrong. I dont think i stated that they were wrong. Great. So you agree. Im not entirely sure what your question is. Bill warem is doing a fine job and is focused on these issues and is his deputy. I agree it is a pollutant we need to regulate. Wonderful. Despite this wellestablished reality, your proposed repeal of the clean power plant epa assumes for the first time there are safe levels of deadly fine particle pollution. Thats a concern of mine. Well, that did you rely on any new pierreviewed scientific studies to support reversing the epas position on fine particle pollution . As you know, we did not base that. Our withdrawal of the clean power plant is based upon the jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act. All i have to have is a reasoned basis to withdraw a rule, a u. S. Supreme court state of the power plant thats obviously a point of difference in we did not base our withdrawal of the clean power plant upon the issues that you have cited. Okay. So i do think that the mission of the epa is was charged by the people to protect the health and the environment of the American People so that everybody, regardless of socioeconomic status, can enjoy a healthy environment and therefore live their life to the full health potential. And the this clean power plant was part of that mission to make sure that we protect the environment, so therefore we can protect the peoples health. And there is no reliance on any scientific studies, whether they were Peer Reviewed or nonPeer Reviewed as you admitted in redrawing this. This was your interpretation of the jurisdiction matter of the epa which we have we beg to differ, of course, because were here to protect the American Peoples health. Do you believe, therefore, that it was appropriate to reverse the epas positions on the deadliness of fine particle pollution, because there is there is the assumption here that now we the epa is saying that theres a threshold for that to happen. We did not reverse it, congressman. Moreover, we are going to be introducing a replacement rule 2 in place of the before my time is expired. Your time just expired but be quick. Let me submit in unanimous consent to place the 2012 letter from epa from chairman can upton into the record, please. Again, we will look at it and im sure we will do it. Thank you. And the gentlemans time is expired. I want to remind all my members that pursuant to my announcement at the start of the hearing, we are recessing now so mr. Pruitt can attend a meeting with the president at the white house. Mr. Pruitt will be returning to the committee to answer member questions. We will reconvene in 2322 rayburn house building, for people that dont know the operations here, for our guests, at 2 00 p. M. Sharp and stay as long as it takes for every member present to be given a turn to ask can questions. For guests in the gallery, your seat here does not guarantee your seat when we resume the hearing. Seats will be allocated on a first come can, first served basis starting at 1 45. Should you wish to join the proceedings in 2322, and it is a smaller hearing room, you will need to be in line outside of 2322. I apologize for the inconvenience, and the committee stands in recess. I want to thank my colleagues for coming back as quickly as we could, and ask the staff to get the center doors closed and other members can go in the staff . Someone . The subcommittee will come to order. When we recessed it was mr. Mckinleys turn to be recognized. I want to recognize the gentleman from West Virginia for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, administrator, for coming, participating in this. Over the yea