Transcripts For CSPAN3 EPA Administrator Pruitt Testifies At Oversight Hearing 20180201

Cspan. Org slash landmarkcases. Scott pruitt testified earlier this week before the Committee Wyoming senator John Barrasso chair the committee. Good morning. I call this hearing to order, we have a full skmous i welcome the audience. This is a formal Senate Hearing to allow the committee to conduct business. If theres disorder or demonstration by a member of the audience that person will be escorted from the room by the capitol police. First, id like to welcome the administrator of the Environmental Agency scott pruitt for your testimony today. With respect to todays hearings were going to abide by the committees five minute rule for length of mitsubishis questions in the first round. Time permitting well have a two minute second round of questions until 12 30 when pruitt has to leave the building. Will have the able to submit written questions to stray tor pruitt for the record. Kmning epa record after the first year of the administration. Has been doing the hard work of protebting the air we breathe, the water we drink and the communities where our families live. He lead the agency fair skpli balanced the need to prioritize Environmental Protection with the desires of americans to have thriving and economically sustainable communities. It is vastly difference than the last two. Ournd the observe o under the Obama Administration the agency lost its way. During the last administration, e epa administrators, created these regulations have done great damage to the livelihood of our nations hardest working citizens, the regulatory rampage violated a fundamental principle to do no harm. This failed environmental leadership contributed to two of the worst government created environmental disasters in decades, the mine spill and flint, michigan water crisis, those hurt people. Under administrator pruitts leadership, the epa took bold steps to protect the environment while not harming local economies. A key leader of the president s ending the war on coal. Scott pruitts policy, likely protected more jobs and promoted more job growth than other epa administrator in history. Has done so by making environmental progress. 2. 4 jobs since President Trump elect. This happened in manufacturing and mining in Critical Industries is. When the department of commerce asked manufactures in the beginning of 2017 which federal government regular lags generated the greatest burden, the answer was clear. The epa the top nine regulations that impact manufacturing are all epa regulations. At the top of the list were the waters of the u. S. Rule and the Clean Air Act rule. Administrator pruitt working to address these and other rules his commitment to revisit misguiding policies is growing our economy across the board. Two prime examples of proposals to repeal the Clean Power Plant and the waters rule. The Prior Administration wanted to pull coal out of business, 27 states challenged it because they saw what the epa was doing. On the right track and getting that rule off the books. As he undoes that rule i appreciate the administrators desire to hear from those who would be hurt the most. He already had a listening session in West Virginia and i welcome them in wyoming in march. Another key way that pruitt put environmental policy on the right track is the with drawl of the waters of the u. S. Rule. The Obama Administration, would have given boundless authority to regulation what americans can do on their property. Impacting farmers, ranchers, landowners and businesses. The epa can and must redefine waters in the u. S. In a way that makes common sense. And respects the limits of the epas authority. This issue is a priority for my home state of wyoming and many others. The regulatory approach is working. The White House Council and economic advisers reports that the Unemployment Rate for manufacturing workers is low. The lowest rate ever recorded. The facts also show that according to the last Energy Information agency quarterly report, in the west 19. 7 higher than the Second Quarter of 2016. In addition, the stock market is reaching record all time highs. Pruitt made progress in protecting the environment and writing the wrongs of the past administration. Made a priority to clean up contaminated sites. Held po lieu ters accountable. Even if it was his own agency. The Obamas Administration response caused river spill wrong and allowed victims of the spill to refile claims that had been denied by the Previous Administration. He allowed the city of flint, michigan to have their loan forgiven so money can be better used to protect the health and saflt of the citizens. Forgiving the citys debt ensures that flint will not need to resume papers on the loan. Administrator pruitt, the reward of good work is more work and i dont need to tell you that we have a lot more work to do. We look forward to supporting your committee and your continued efforts, i would like to ask Ranking Member carper for his owning statement. Thank you. Thank you for getting this hearing on the books. Oversight is a critical part of our work and regardless of the party in power, im glad we have a chance to hear from mr. Pruitt, today welcome. Its been a while since youve been with us. Thank you for postponing your planned trip to israel, for the first time in more than a year, i have a friend i ask how he is doing he says compared to what or whom, compare it to gene mccarthy. Appeared here six times in two years and 16 times in six years, 16 times in six years, you can do better on this front and its important that you do. Today were not only going to whatter from you about how things are going at epa and tonight from President Trump about the current state of our union. So it seems like an appropriate time to take a look at the state of our environment. Inlsz that epa has been high riding posters around the agency and in fact, we have a copy of one ofrt posters there. Where is it . There it is. Lets take a closer look at achievements. First epa moved to repeal the Clean Power Plan with no real replacement to fulfill the agencies legal obligation to protect americans. Similarly, epa moved to repeal the clean water rule with no new plan to protect the Drinking Water sources in 117 million americans depend. The agency work on contaminated Super Fund Sites by taking credit for clean up under president Obama Administration and cutting the program by 30 . It is part of the task and reforms that congress passed, in 2016 we gave epa more authority so that chemicals sold on the market are safe. Families can have confidence in the products they use. Under your leadership epa did not use that authority so American Consumers dont have the confidence they deserve and that we intended and, moving to repeal and reconsider or delay 25 environmental and Public Health protection in the last year alone. Which certainly does not create certainties what you regulate and what we represent. Those are not achievements. Those are the exact opposite. Clear failure to act. The state of our environment is fundamentally linked to the state of our skplient what do we see in 2017 alone . Second hottest year on record. Multiple category five hurricanes resulting in more than 200 billion in damages and counting. Catastrophic fires in the west followed by deadly mudslides, severe droughts wraeking havoc on krops. Coastal communities and frequent flooding. From alaska to delaware, from maine to my amy. The greatest environmental challenge of our lifetime, this epa under your leadership is a war on climate science. The cpa the websites of nonpartisan Data Collected over decades, the cpa replaced science advisers that worked on climate issues for years with individuals backed by industry. Doing nothing would be bad enough, but the fact that this administration seems to be working to discredit and hide the clear science is a height of irresponsibility. Now, for the past year we heard you give responses to questions and members of other congressional committees and cable news asked you and many of the so called, they are not really answers. So let me run through some of your responses now so we can get to real answers today. Mr. Pruitt, you say these are your words, the rule of law matters. Well, congress was descriptive when writing the Clean Air Act, setting time lines that epa moous use to see your epa chosen to continuously ignore and delay that very specific mandate from congress which leaves downward states like mine and other vulnerable communities at risk indefinitely. You say over and over again that process matters. Do you really think that verbally directing career staff and delete the benefits of a clean water rule is good rule making process . Do you . Do you think that ignoring the advice of epa helps us clean up the nations water . Do you . You insist that you are committed to federalism and i quote you, needs to Work Together with the states to better achieve outcomes. Yet, this administration sought funding for critical state programs like those to clean up the great lakes and the Chesapeake Bay and your epa refuses to Work Together for harmful pollutants like ozone. Your quote, actually at pre1994 levels with the respect to co 2 footprint thanks to inknow skprags technology. Bipartisan regulations put in place in the last four decades. It didnt happen by accident. Reducing Carbon Emissions is a result of smart vehicle emission clean air and investments and clean energy. Renewables. Most of which your epa is trying to weaken or repeal. You often remind people that you are a former attorney general and you say that your quote, know what it means to prosecutor folks under your leadership epa slowed actions against po lieu tors, saying epa et cetera clinical manifestationsed billions of dollars in penalties during your time at the agency uconn conveniently forgot to mention that more than 90 of the penalties are from cases prosecuted by the Obama Administration. You say that your getting the agency back to basics but actions like the one you took last week to reverse critical prosecutions against hazardous pollutants. Moving us backwards to the early 1970s when they were able to put out the most dangerous toxins in the water we drink. We heard you give, i quote, president obama said we had to choose between jobs and growth at the expense of the the environment or choose the environment at the expense of jobs thats a false choice. Mr. Port, ive been saying choosing between the economy and the environment is a false choice, my colleagues here will testify to that because i know in our country history proven it to be true. I said that hundreds of times. U. N. Who else said that same thing hundreds maybe even thousands of times, barack obama. And time and time again, there will be people saying we have to choose between clean air and clean water and a growing economy between doing right by our environment and putting people back to work. That is a false choice. Whos words are those . Barack obama he said it hundreds of times. He wasnt just watching under the Obama Administration, our country rebounded from the worst economic recession since the great depression. We went onto add on 16 million new jobs, implementing landmark and environment protection. I dont say this lightly mr. Port, but you are misrepresenting the truth regarding president obama record. We can disagree about policies, thats normal, but to take the very same words, the same words that president obama used on countless occasion and use them as your own and claim president obama said the opposite is frankly galling. Stop doing it. Ill end with this. Mr. Port, when you were sworn in as epa administrator, you took the same oath of office every member have take skpn some of us taken many times. You swore that you would faithly discharge duties on which you are about to enter. One of those duties is to be responsible to the branch of government showing up here more than once a year to answer questions. Today mr. Pruitt, please spare us the kind of things you use. Now that you are here, i want some real answers. My colleagues want real answers. I think the American People deserve them. We look forward to the answers, thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you senator. Well hear from scott pruitt. Your full written testimony will be made part of the official hearing today i look forward to it welcome to the committee. Members of committee, senators good to see you this morning. Its been too long as was mentioned and im looking forward to the exchange and discussion today. As u. N. I w you know i was confirmed last year and i took the opportunity to spend time with the entire agency and i did in fact, mention three priorities which we would govern and lead the agency, first is rule of law and it does matter. Rule of law is something that people take for granted and we administer laws at the agency, the only pow we possess is the power you give us. We execute responsibility and rule making what you stay in storm watch as we do our work. It provides certainty to the American People and secondly, you indicated, process, process is often overlooked. Process matters in rule making because of the decisions we make involving stake holders across the country. And so, the apa, the proposed rules that we adopt, the comments we receive and responding to them on the record and finalizing decisions in a an informed way is important. One action i took as administrator, is to do away with the sue and settle practice. Across executive branch agency. Someone sues the agency and a decision will be made in the courtroom and the rule making process is bypassed entirely. So process is something we emphasized in the last several months and something that is working providing clarity and confidence to the American People and this is very important, is federalism principals. Statutes you passed, in this body, i think more so than others, cooperative federalism is at the heart. I visited almost 30 states this past several months and as we visited with stake holder, we talk about the super fund and the rule in minnesota and utah across the country hearing how the rule impacts them. We have taken seriously the principles of rule of law and process and federalism. Theres some opportunities that we have in 2018 to Work Together on important issues. The first ill mention is lead. One of the things i think is troubing is the lead in our Drinking Water. As we consider infrastructure if the First Quarter of this year, investing in infrastructure changes to eradicate lead within our Drinking Water should be a goal of this body and the administration. It is something i menged to the president and he is supportive of that and we look forward to work on that with you. We want a war on lead. Abandoned mines across the country is a huge issue. We have hundreds and thousands. Private citizens and companies that have the expertise and resources to clean them up but there are liability issue that is need to be addressed. We should Work Together to advance an initiative to make sure we do what we can to clean them up. Super funds. I think one of the most tangible things we can do with respect to Environmental Protection is reliability. Just in the last several months, portland, and soon west lake and saint louis, sites that struggled for years, we want answers and clean up the sites, its about leadership and money and i look forward to working with you in that regard. I would say to you as i close, i think one of the greatest challenges we have as a country is the attitude that Environmental Protection is prohibition. And i i dont believe that. I dont believe it is putting up fences. I think we have been blessed as a country with Natural Resource that is we can use to feed and empower the world and we should as a count tri choose to do that with principles in mind for future generations. We can do both and it is something wemgs embrace. I look forward to your questions today and thank you mr. Chairman for the opportunity to open with an with my time, let me ask one question, reserve the balance of my time to interject as needed during the discussion. I would say to our republican members, in order to assist senator mccain, senator inhofe is going to be chairing the Senate Armed Services committee today. I know a number of you are members of that committee. If its okay with my colleague, counterpart, he be allowed to go out of order so he can quickly return to the Armed Services committee. Thank you very much. Administrator pruitt, i want to thank you again for implementing a new vision at the epa that takes state input seriously. Were certainly feeling that at home in wyoming. Wyoming has a very experienced department of Environmental Quality. Wyoming strives to use the best representative air quality Data Available to make sound regulatory decisions on issues like ozone protection, regional haze and permits for Industrial Facilities. I think its very critical to have good data. So as a result, wyoming spends a lot of time and resources to review data and determine when socalled exceptional events occur. As they do. An exceptional event may be a wildfire, causing air pollution levels to seem high. Under the Clean Air Act, states and epa are supposed to exclude Data Collected during these exceptional events because they dont represent everyday circumstances. So from 2011 to 2014, my state identified many exceptional events. We asked the epa to recognize these events and exclude the data from these time periods from regulatory decisions. Well, in 2016, the epa refused to act and there were 46 of these wyomingidentified exceptional events between 2011 and 2014. You know, but because this Previous Administration failed to act, my home state faces real consequences. So the failure to act is going to make it seem like there are violations of air quality that have occurred, creating the perception that there are air quality problems when there really are not. This could lead epa to base future decisions on bad data and it could interfere with permitting and put some restrictions on wyomings economy. So i sent a recent letter to you explaining the situation that the epa had not yet acted on our filing, and i just asked if you had a timeline for when the epa will be acting on wyomings 46 exceptional event filings and any thoughts on that . Mr. Chairman, i think a couple of things i would say. Youre speaking with particular emphasis on ozone. As you know, were in the process of designating attainment and nonattainment with respect to ozone now. Thats been the priority. We will finish that in april. There are around 50 or so areas that have not been designated yet that we endeavor to finish by april of this year. Think whats important when you think about ozone, there has been a lot of focus on whether 75 parts before billion reducing it to 70 parts per billion was a wise decision. Thats not been our focus. Our focus has has been more on the issues and implementation that you mentioned. Background levels in addition to International Global transport. We have some tremendous challenges with International Transport on ozone that we also need to somehow consider as we engage in the designation process. So we are earnestly looking at those implementation issues, mr. Chairman, in addition to finishing that designation process by midapril and your exceptional events question is very, very importantly as we engage in implement going forward. Thank you very much. Ill reserve the remainder of my time. Senator carper . Thanks, mr. Chairman. Again, welcome, mr. Pruitt. You have repeatedly stated that you want to follow the rule of law and work with states to protect our environment. Sadly, you failed at both when it comes to clean air. Clean air act requires epa to partner with the states to address cross state air pollution. These protections are critical for downwind states like delaware and our neighbors. Are critical for downwind states not just like delaware but others up and down the east coast. We are located at what i call the end of americas tailpipe. Instead of working with states to address this issue, your actions are making things worse. For example, you rejected a request afrom the northeastern states to coordinate with the upwind states to rereduce ozone pollution. Youve also failed to answer at least six state pollutions, several of which are from delaware, that ask epa to require upwind power plants to install or consistently operate already installed pollution controls. Last week, you issued a memorandum to like arsenic, like mercury, like lead, impacting the health of millions and people and further burdening states dealing with cross state pollution. Later on, well get to some questions that are not yes or no questions. I have a limited of time. Im going to start off with yes or no questions. Answer them yes or no, if you will, please. Later youll have a chance to exspanned. So to start off yes or no, mr. Pruitt, did epa do an analysis of the Health Effects of last weeks decisions, including an analysis of the potential increased cancer risk . Did you . Are you refer to the policy decision from last week, senator . Yep. Yes, that was a policy decision that we have the authority to make and interpret the statute. Yes or no. To my question. As i indicated senator, thats a policy decision that we made. As far as the ones in always status of determining whether someone qualifies as certain levels under the statute. That was a decision made outside of the Program Office of air. It was a policy office decision. I find it ill ask another question. Yes or no, did epa do an analysis that shows exactly what facilities are likely to increase their toxic air pollution due to the action taken last week . Senator that decision was a decision that took major emitters, as you know, there are major emitters im sorry. I am asking for the yes or no. I dont have a lot of time. Im asking for the yes or no. Those are not yes or no answers, senator. I have to explain what we were doing with that decision. Okay. I just i find to incredible that epa did this seemingly without knowing or caring about potential Health Effects of its action. Again, yes or no, will you revoke this memorandum until the analysis is actually completed and the public has had a chance to comment on it . Will you . If you may, senator, i can explain our decision from last week, if you want me to continue. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Pruitt, i wasnt too happy with the obama epa asked for a sixmonth delay to answer delawares cross state pollution petitions. However, your administration seems to be ignoring those petitions altogether. The law requires an answer from the epa in 60 days and you and your team have had over a year to answer. Again, this is a simple yes or no. Will you commit to answering the overdue petitions submitted to the epa by delaware and other states to request epas help on cross state air pollution with the next 30 days . I commit to you well get you an answer very, very expeditiously. Can you do that within 30 days . Is that asking too much . Were able to respond within that timeframe. Thank you. Mr. Pruitt, both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administrations epa concluded that Global Warming pollution from cars and suvs was dangerous. This is known as the endangerment finding. A federal Appeals Court also upheld this finding after you and others tried to overturn it. When you appeared before us in our confirmation hearing a year ago, you agreed that the endangerment finding was, quote, the law of the land, closed quote and that rule of law matters, closed quote. In fact, you have made similar statements to congress no fewer than a dozen times. But it seems that since your confirmation hearing you are have changed your tune. For example, last year, you told reuters there might be a legal basis to overturn the epas decision. You also stated in september and october of last year that the process epa used to make the decision was flawed. Mr. Pruitt, the White House Trump white house said it wants the epa and the Transportation Department to negotiate what i would describe as a winwin on cafe and tailpipe standards with with california. That means that the policy of the Trump Administration must be to leave the endangerment finding a alone, because that what gives the epa and california the authority to write the rules in the first place. Another yes or no, mr. Pruitt. For as long as you are administrator, do you commit not to take any steps to are repeal or replace the socalled endangerment finding . Do you . Senator, as i indicated my time is just about expired. Please, yes or no. Senator, the standards that you referred to yes or no. You plan to take any steps to repeal and replace . No decision or determination on that. All right. One last question. Mr. Pruitt. Ill stop there. My times expired. Well have a second round. Thank you so much. Thank you, senator carper. Senator fisher . Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you administrator for being here today. The epa is back to the basics agenda has result ed in economi viability across the nation while still ensuring the epas mission of protecting the environment is upheld, and i thank you you for that. In 2017, nebraska hit a jobs milestone with an Unemployment Rate of 2. 7 , which was reported last december, and, mr. Chairman, i would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an article from the Lincoln Journal star highlighting nebraskas unemployment standing as the fourth lowest in the nation. Thank you. Administrator, this is a director correlation to your efforts at the epa to streamline the regulatory process that has for many years negatively impacted job creators ability to hire workers because they were forced to allocate resources to comply with many cumbersome regulations. This past year has been a welcomed change for nebraskas public power utilities, our farmers and ranchers, manufacturers and Small Business owners. Im encouraged by the epas decision to revisit the 2017 regional haze rule, which was issued in the final days of the Obama Administration. If implemented, that rule would take authority away from the states and impose a one size fits all federal Implementation Plan that simply doesnt make sense. Many rural utilities have been aversely affected by past regional haze actions. During the Prior Administration, epa repeatedly second guessed states plans, including nebraskas 2012 plan, and instead imposed federal plans that forced the installation of unnecessary and costly controls that went well beyond what the states had demonstrated what was needed. As you know, nebraska is the only 100 public power state in the country, and that means that any costs that are incur bid the utility from regulations, its passed on to every single one of our citizens. Its very important to me that you get this rule right. So can you describe what additional efforts epa is taking to improve the next phase of the Regional Haze Program and the timeline for those actions and how will the epa respect states and also make sure that electricity is not made more costly through these unnecessary regulations . Senator, thank you for the question. I would say to you that one of the interesting pieces of information that i discovered upon arriving at the agency was a collection of about 700 or so state Implementation Plans that had been prepared by states all over the country where resources, expertise had been deployed to improve air quality across a whole spectrum of programs. Regional haze across the spectrum. There was a backlog with no response. We put an emphasis on that and that backlog is being addressed. To the question about regional haze, regional haze is a portion of our statute that i think provides more privacy to the states. As you know, the only requirement is to reach natural visibility by the year 2064. So long as states are taking steps to reach that point, they have tremendous latitude in how they achieve it. Were revisiting all of those steps, making sure that states are submitting plans that will reach those objectives by that timeframe, as youve indicated in the statute. I thank you for your commitment to that and always taking into consideration the time and the expertise that states put forward on those plans. I would now like to turn to a topic that you are well aware of, and that is the 2015 wotus rule. And pride the American People a clear definition of wotus that doesnt go beyond federal authority. Can you share us what the next steps are in the epas process for repealing this rule . Yes, senator. This goes to some things you mentioned, senator carper, in your opening statement. This is not deregulation when you are talking about wotus or the cleanb power plan. Were not deregulating, were providing there are steps being taken to provide a substitute or replacement to the cpp that were in the midst of presently. We have a withdrawal proposal out in the marketplace that will deal with that 2015 rule to provide certainty. Then we have a step two process that is ongoing to replace a substitute definition with what the statute and case law says is the waters of the United States. We are working through the process, and i anticipate that p proposal, senator, to come out in sometime in april, may of this year, and hopefully finally having that by the end of 2018. Thank you, administrator. I look forward to reviewing that. Thank you, senator fisher. Senator cardin . Thank you for being here. Let me just preface my comments with regards to your statements in lead and Drinking Water. There is strong bipartisan support to help eliminate lead in Drinking Water and we hope we can have an actionable agenda to accomplish that in a bipartisan way. Im going to use my time to follow up on our confirmation hearings to talk about the Chesapeake Bay. Youre not going to be surprised to know that. We have a new addition to my committee, my colleague Chris Van Hollen from maryland is on the committee. Your going to get more than just one senator, and i also want to thank senator carper for his interest in the bay as one of the bay states and senator capito and senator gillibrand. So we have synergy here on our committee as it relates to the bay and weve made progress. The bay is better as a result of the bay program. The recreational values, economic values, land values, Public Health have all been improved. I hope ill have a chance to ask you three questions. If i dont have enough time, ill do the rest for the record dealing with the Chesapeake Bay Program Budget as submitted by the administration. The Chesapeake Bay office, epas naufs indianapolis and the support for the the bay journal. First, in regards to the appropriation level, the committee, fy 17 budget passed by congress was 73 million. Our appropriation committees are working up numbers for fy 18 that are comparable. This committee on a bipartisan basis passed an authorization bill after the president s budget submission at 90 million. We need your help as an advocate i remember the conversation as the chairman talked about programs that are state up, local government to the federal government asking for the federal governments participation. Thats the bay program. This is a local program in which the Chesapeake Bay office is the glue that keeps it together so we have an independent observer and endorser to do what we say were going to do. Can we help from you and omb to get money in the president s budget . Im seen as persuasive, but sometimes im not as persuasive as i endeavor to be. As i mentioned to senator van hollen, ill say the same thing to you, it is important. I believe there has been tremendous success achieved through the program. I really appreciate Congress Respond during the budgeting process and ill continue to work with you through that to ensure that we address those issues that youve raised. Thank you. I want to talk about the Chesapeake Bay office, epas office which is located in annapolis today. It is colocated with noaa and u usga and the Chesapeake Bay. There is a synergy in this office. As i understand it, there is some concern by gsa particularly its located in the flood plains. There may very well be a need to relocate. We fully understand that. I would ask that you get engaged on this. Keeping the synergies with the other federal agencys is important and having a location near the Chesapeake Bay is symbolic and important. The location the epa was looking at to move the epa office alone to ft. Meade. Which is federal facilities. The problem is that its not near the bay. Secondly, its behind the fence line, which for d. O. D. Has a significant cost. Because every person who visits the epa office has to go through the security network, which is already overtaxed because of budget concerns and the number of tenants that are located at ft. Meade. Would you work with us to get a more reasonable answer to epas location with other agencies so that we can accomplish the purpose of the federal partnership with the other absolutely, senator. I was actually briefed on this in anticipation of our hearing. As we talked about it, if there were issues there at the current facility, we need to try to work through those issues to keep the facility there as best we can. Absolutely, you can count on my participation and cooperation with you and the other agency. Understand that d. O. D. Does not want epa behind the fence line. There is a cost issue there. So i just hope theyll be sensitive to that, even though it may not come directly out of the epa budget. I will. I appreciate it. The last thing on the bay journal we talk about this being a publicprivate partnership. It is. We have tremendous support for the bay programs in the jurisdictions here. The significant cost sharing is shouldered by the private sector. Public information about the bay is very, very important. The leading source is the bay journal who receives onethird of its funding through the epa and currently in the sixyear grant from the epa and i think it is year two. As i understand, a decision was made to cut off the funding as early as february 1st and i would just urge you to give us time to make sure that this Program Continues because it is an important part of our publicprivate partnership. It is unreconsideration, senator, even in anticipation of this hearing. I learned of that decision after the fact and i think it was probably a decision that should not have been made in the way that it was. Its under reconsideration already. Thank you mr. Chairman. Senator moran . Chairman, thank you for having this meeting. Administrator pruitt, thank for your attendance. Ive sponsored legislation in the past to submit a. G. Emissions and i support the committee moving forward to ag producers. But in addition to the uncertainty and unnecessary burden threat of citizen lawsuits that requirements would add to our farmers and ranchers, im also concerned about privacy. Privacy of farmers and ranchers. Most producers live on their farm or ranch so any Public Disclosure about this, the data and its private information is problematic. I secured report language in an interior appropriations bill directing epa to safeguard the privacy information and i would ask you, mr. Administrator, if the epa is required by the court to collect emission reports before congress acts, what assurances can you give kansas farmers and ranchers that any Sensitive Information required on those reports, including their farm location, would be protected from the public . Senator, thank you. Its a very important area that you indicate. There is more latitude that we have under one statute than the other, but were looking at all options under us to provide clarity, but also i think opportunity for farmers and ranchers to know as information is collected, if, in fact, it is that privacy concerns will be addressed. Its a very important issue and something i think Congress Needs to look at very, very expeditiously. I think our team has been visiting with members of the senate to that end and im hopeful we can address to legislatively. Until that occurs, we are taking all available steps to us to address these issues. Thank you. If there are issues youd like to raise with me, id be happy to have further conversation. Let me turn to another topic. Thank you for your efforts to approve an rfs pathway for the production of advanced biofuels from oil. That will result in the production of 20,000 gallons of advanced biofuels. The Comment Period for that closed on friday. I appreciate the progress being made but want to continue to urge you to act quickly. You and i have talked about the pathway on the phone on two occasions. We want to make sure kansas farmers and ethanol producers can provide on that pathway. Can you provide me with a timeline . The period disclosed this past week and im not aware of the number of comments that came in, senator, so its very difficult to say how long the process is, but i understand the urgency and its something we are focused upon from a Program Office perspective. Would you ask your team to get back with me . I will. I will. Thank you. Finally, just a more general question, the voices of farmers and ranchers it seems to me are often left out of the decisionmaking process at epa. I appreciate youve developed a much stronger working relationship with agriculture community. If the future we have different administrations in charge of epa, we may revert back to the old ways in which farmers and ranchers are once again left out of a seat at the table. Can you talk to me about the changes youve instituted that epa that you believe will be car can can carried forward beyond your tenure . Whats the longterm effects to make sure that agriculture is considered . As you know, i have an agricultural adviser that interfaces with those stakeholders on an ongoing basis. That position will continue post my time at the epa. We also have something called the smart sector strategy. It is an effort on our part to work with various things that we regulate to deal with issues protectively and proactively as opposed to responding to rules. The ag sector is in that smart sector strategy. Hopefully that will live on as well but thats something that weve instituted. Thank you very much. Senator booker . Thank you very much. Thank you very much for being here, mr. Pruitt. I echo to conce echo the concer would be helpful if you were here more often. First and foremost, just talking about superfunds, i was alarmed, i know this is a budget regulation about the 30 cut. This is an area that needs a lot more attention and in the last congress, i asked for information about superfunds, are we driving them down . But actually theyre increasing, the number of the contaminated sites are increasing in our country. You know this im sure, but 11 million people, including about 3 million children live within a mile of the superfund states. A lot of data coming out of princeton shows children living around superfund sites, children born have significantly higher rates of birth defects and significantly higher rates of autism, but the superfund siteses dont just contaminate the ground and the water. We know that these birth defects and the Serious Problems could come from a lot of other contaminants in the air and the like. There is an urgent risk from a study that i know youre familiar with about a recent analysis that showed 327 superfund sites are at risk of flooding due to some of the impact s th impacts that we are seeing with the climate changing. 35 of those floodprone superfund sites are located in new jersey. And its a big concern in my state. Last week, one of the epas top career superfund staffers told the House Energy Committee customers excuse me, house energy and Commerce Committee that i quote, we have to respond to this climate challenge. That hs just part of our mission set. We need to design remedies that account for that. We dont get to pick where superfund sites are. We deal with the waste where it is. With this increased flooding were seeing, we really have the urgency, the threat of these superfund size growing. And so do you agree that we must design remedies for these superfund sites, the 327 that right now are an eminent risk of flooding . Well, absolutely. In fact, we had a decision recently, senator, down in houston called the san jacinto site that had toxins that was in a har a bor earea, and they are remedied was simply covering the rock s on top of it. We came in and provided a more permanent solution to the tune of 150 million. Im sorry to interrupt you and im interested to hear about houston thats an example. If you could get in in writing some of what youre trying to do to remediate these 328 sites and a silence of a timeline and the resources, and if there needs to be congressional action. Yes. Thank you very much. Have you directed your staff to do some kind of analysis on these sites . We have taken the superfund portfolio and as a priority not just to identify the 327, but of all the sites what poses immediate risk to health. Im very id love to get for a qfr understanding your approach to this imminent health crisis. The next issue, weve talked about this, environmental justice. Its an issue ive been doing a lot more traveling on and seeing unconscionable realities in places like alabama and North Carolina and other states. Im not sure what im really concerned about is how much you are taking into account the environmental burdens that are disproportionately impacting communities of color and indigenous communities and lowincome communities. One example is on december 19th, the pea initiated a rule making process to revise protections provided to Agricultural Workers protection standard. The Worker Protection standard is a primary set of federal standers to protect over 2 million farm workers, including half a million children the has from the hazards of working with pesticides and now what i am seeing is the epa is now considering lowering the men mum age requirement that prohibits children from hand haling dangerous pesticides if they are under 18 years of old. The protection was put in place because pesticides can increase the risk of cancer for children whose brains are still developing and more. I dont know if you believe this personally, but do you think that children handling dangerous pesticides is a good idea . This rule seems to be in place for a reason. You know probably about executive order 12898, which requires the epa to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human Health Effects that activates that disproportionately affects minorities. An executive order that looks at minorities and low income communities being disproportionately impact. Its one of the executive orders around the issue of environmental justice. Again, these are communities disproportionately harmed. As my time is expiring, and ill ask this. And for the qfr, and also for the populations that are not english fluent, having that designated representative is the best chance of an advocate. I am worrying about the weakening of the rules. You cite President Trumps executive order on deregulation, but there is nothing in here about expressing concerns about the disproportionate impact of the folks in low are income and minorities. And mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me, how you can provide in the record how you are considering the disproportionate effect on minorities and vulnerable populations that are going to be disproportionately hurt and the children that are handling the chemicals or the advocacy that might exist for some of the more vulnerable populations which is farm wor e workers. We are taking that proposal and many of othose issues will be unpacked. Well, consider this my comment, sir. And with resfoekt the department of juses tis, i have been in example, to chicago to the Super Fund Site there and we have talked about it in the k confirmation process that we have to make sure that as we are making decisions on the key issues of chicago and the key are superfund sites that i spent time in making decisions oneonone, and so it is a very important aspect and to get information on the other. And were you there for the oversight . Yes. And mr. Ernst. Thank you, and min stray or the administrator pruitt for being here to answer our questions. Americans expect Good Governance and accessibility, participation, responsiveness and accountability and since taking the reins at epa, you have shown that you are not afraid to engage with the American People by going out to look at those superfunds. You are show nag you are willing to know firsthand the concerns of those americans that are giving those affected an opportunity to engage in the decisionmaking process. So thank you for that. In addition to the superfund issue that you just addressed, in august of last year, you traveled to des moines, iowa, and you have met with over 50 stakeholders from across the ag industry at the farm bureau and we left that round table really encouraged by what we heard and what we were able to engage in knowing that we do now have a partner in epa. Under your leadership epa has taken necessary actions to walk back and repeal destructive obamaera rules, like wotus and the Clean Power Plan. Those are all things that have harmed our farmers and ranchers, and our constituents at large in iowa. Most importantly, you followed the rule of law and fulfilled the administrations promise, protecting high quality american jobs by providing key commitments to maintain the letter and the spirit of the renewable fuel standard. And today i want to thank you again on behalf of iowas farmers and Rural Communities. All of these actions have created certainty. Theyve kick started Economic Growth, and generated countless jobs across the country. Your back to basics approach has helped iowas Unemployment Rate dip below 3 for the First Time Since the year 2000. So thank you for that. During a more recent trip to iowa on december 1st, you noted that epa was actively exploring whether it possessed the Legal Authority to issue a nationwide rvp or read vapor pressure waiver. And three months ago you sent a letter to a group of senators, myself included, stating you would look at ways epa could fix the restriction preventing e15 from being sold during our summer months. Can you give me an update on where this stands . Do you, today, have clarification on whether or not the agency can extend the rvp waiver to insure that our consumers have year round access. So, senator, thank you for your comments. With respect to the rvp issue, its not really a policy issue, it is a determination about the Legal Authority on whether it can be granted nationally or not. Its my understanding that senator fischer actually has proposed legislation on that particular issue. She does. And weve talked about that. But the process internally to determine the Legal Authority continues. Im hopeful well have a conclusion on that soon. I made a second trip to iowa in the fall of Fourth Quarter of last year, and shared that with stakeholders there. Its very important. And we are working to get an answer as soon as we can. Do you have a projected time frame . I dont. We can get that to you. Ill get a followup from this meeting and provide it to you. That will be important to us as we move through a lot of discussions, between the consumers, between those that are producing e15, and of course those in the administration. So we look forward to having that answer. Yes, senator. Very soon. Last august, while you were in des moines, you also touched on the potential benefit of moving federal agencies or various departments out of washington, d. C. And into the countryside, and across the country where an agencys decisions are actually felt. This could be a relatively simple way to shift Economic Activity to hard pressed communities, and prevent harmful rules and regulations from even being considered. With a more decentralized epa, do you feel misguided policies such as wotus could have been prevented, and do you support relocating government functions outside of the washington, d. C. Metro area . Well, senator, and mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member carper and others, this is a very important question with respect to how we do business and how we deliver services as an agency. Half of our employees are located in those ten regions across the country, and half are here in washington, d. C. And one of the things that we ought to engage in as far as a collaborative discussion is whether it makes sense to locate operational units in each of the state capitols across this country to ensure theres a focus on issues that are specific to that state, whether its superfund, air issues, water issues, the rest. I believe this is a discussion, and weve just begun the discussion internally. I would welcome the input of members of this committee as well as congress on what makes sense there as relates to delivering Better Services across the states and the country. And i appreciate that so much, administrator. And i do believe having that easier access, the access closest to the people is the best way our federal government can work. Thank you very much. Thank you, senator. Senator duckworth. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Well, i hope, administrator pruitt, that you would then continue to reconsider the shutdown of the epa office in chicago region 5, which i believe there was a memo stating that you wanted to shut potentially shut down that office and move it to kansas, leaving no epa offices in the entire midwest region. Thats not accurate, senator. Well, i hope it stays inaccurate then that you dont shut down that office. Not sure where that memo came from. It came from a memo from the epa. Last month before the house, energy and Commerce Committee you said regard lead in our Drinking Water that it is a great threat in our country. You have referenced your war on lead and said you wanted to eradicate lead poisoning in the next ten years. Which was music to my ears. During your nomination hearing, i asked you if you knew what was safe lead level was in children, you stated at the time you were not familiar with the latest science on lead exposure. Given your comments on your war on lead, i take it you have since familiarized yourself with the safe blood lead exposure for children. Can you state for the record what that level is . The epa has a level of 15 parts per billion. There are states considering lowing that. From my perspective, there is no safe level. We need to eradicate it from our Drinking Water. The right answer is 0. Zero accord ing to the scientific literature. Unfortunately are through your ret are rick, doesnt match your actions over the last several months. The administration as taken several steps that would make it harder, not easier to limit lead exposure. For example, the epa planned to update the lead and copper rule in 2017, and finalize it in 2018 under the Obama Administration. Since taking over as administrator you have instead decided to kick the can down the road for at least two years. Now, during your war on lead we can expect updates to the rule not in 2018, but 2020. This doesnt sound much like a war on lead. Yes or no, will you direct the epa to finalize this rule in 2018, instead of waiting two whole years . Yes, senator, as you know its a 1991 lead and copper rule. Its been in existence no, no, no, yes or no. Secondly yes or no. The yes or no. Mr. Chairman . May i ask a question . I would be happy for you to elaborate in writing for the record. Is that all right . Mr. Chairman, if he will elaborate in writing for the record. It is. The agencys been working to update the rule, senator, and i can tell you its a priority for this administration to update a twoyear delay is not acceptable. Because every day i have children who are exposed to lead, and they dont have 700 days to wait. The president s fy18 Budget Proposal which outlines the administrations tenyear policy priorities called for the elimination of epas lead Risk Reduction program that trains contractors and educates the public about safely removing lead paint from homes. The budget cuts millions of dollars in grant money from states and tribes to address lead risk. This does not sound like a war on lead. Again, given your war on lead, your words, yes or no, will you commit to prioritizing this program, and make sure its fully funded . We are working to update the lead and copper rule, expeditiously. We are also working with this body, hopefully, to engage in an infrastructure what about the epas lead Risk Reduction program that the president attempts to caught in fy18 budget actually eliminates. It is a point of emphasis for us to update the rules and take an aggressive posture to eradicate lead so you will not fight to keep the epas lead Risk Reduction program, is that what youre saying . I didnt say that, senator. You will fight to keep the program as opposed to the president s budget which seeks to eliminate it . We will continue the discussions with this body to proper fund it, as you decide. Will you speak with the president and say, dont cut this program . His budget eliminates it. As you know, your marked up version of the budget is 7. 9 billion. Thats not in the marked up budget. So youre not going to fight for the epas lead Risk Reduction program, for something thats a priority for you. We will continue to work with you to properly fund that, yes. Im also alarmed to see that the trump budget slashes ground and Drinking Water, responsible for implementing the lead in Drinking Water program. How about this priority . Will you prioritize this program to ensure its fully funded, the ground and Drinking Water program, the office of ground and drinking better, and surely the office of ground and Drinking Water is consistent with your back to basics version, vision for epa. Very important, and we will continue the dialogue with congress for that issue. What about the white house . I will continue to work with this body. Im going to have to take that as a no. Youre not answering my question. Im out of time. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator. Senator inhofe. Thank you. I get the impression you dont like you. At least one. Well, anyway, youve been doing a great job. I do have something for the record i wanted to put in, mr. Chairman. Its an article out of oklahoma that talks about the all the improvements in the economy that are coming with getting rid of some of these very punitive regulations weve been going through. I want to ask consent this be made part of the record. Without objection. I ask for consent to insert for the record a report from moodys which suggests something different, thank you. Without objection. Okay, i walked in just at the tail end of somebody elses, whos not here now, inquisitions of you, and talking about the regulations. You know, i remember it so well because i was all during the Obama Administration i was either the chairman or the Ranking Member of this committee. And i think i sat right behind you, and i used to look at what was happening to our economy. Which is in the process of being reversed right now. But he was implying that some of the poorest, the most Vulnerable People are the ones who are being that were trying somehow, or youre trying somehow to punish. And i want to just remind you that we had a guy, i remember it so well, harry alfred, the president of the National Black chamber of commerce. He provided some of the most powerful testimony that i have ever heard when it comes to the effects of the Clean Power Plan, and some of the other regulations. He was referring specifically to that, would have on the black and hispanic poverty, including job losses and increased energy costs when it comes to regulations that youve been quoted as saying, and who benefits . The elites. The folks who can least afford those kind of decisions pay the most. So id ask you, how is the epa working to ensure that the most vulnerable communities are being considered, and that the agencies cost benefit calculations are accurately portraying realities on the ground . Well, senator, good morning to you. And i think your question goes to the heart of cost of electricity, largely, and our power grid, and there are issues around that that obviously go to costs. We cant consider cost in our program, but we can these other provisions that impact the cost of electricity. We endeavor to make sure our cost benefit analysis considers those things and to make sure were making informed decisions as we finalize our rules. He was very emphatic as to who is paying the price on these. I think sometimes that Previous Administration forgot that those individuals, there are people out there, paying all they can pay just to try to keep, try to eat and keep their house warm. That was one of the things that we have observed. I was happy to see that you ended the practice of sue and settle. Oklahomas been on the wrong end of this tactic used by the Obama Administration, which was nothing more than a way to create regulations behind closed doors without public input, or even input from affected parties. Can you explain more about how you see this being a positive environmental outcome . Yeah. The sue and settle practice, i mentioned in my opening comment, senator, with respect to regulation through litigation. Its something thats not unique to the epa. Its something thats happened at other federal agencies, justice is also involved in a reform effort there. But i think whats important to note, that as we engage in regulation, regulation is intended to be theres intended to be laws of general applicability. When you go into a litigation and you negotiate a consent degree with one party that affects others, thats not transparency and also not fundamental to the epa and open process to rule making. That was the motivation in addressing the sue and settle, the regulation through litigation. Weve stopped that at the agency. That doesnt mean we wont ever enter into Consent Decrees or settle cases. It means as we do it well publish those settlements up to 30 days for people to provide comment, and interested parties who want to be aware of that can be if necessary. I wasnt here during your opening statements. So i missed thats a very good explanation. Let me in an interview with the National Review last month you stated that we still have a lot of work to do on clean air. But that was for the last decade. The epa was so focused on co 2 that weve let a lot of other things slide, from my view as chairman and Ranking Member of this committee, for the Obama Administration. I agree with you that his singular focus on regulating a naturally occurring gas as a pollutant came at a heavy cost. Now that youve been an administrator for nearly a year, what areas were neglected by the Previous Administration. The attainment issue. 40 of our country that live in areas in a dont meet air quality standards. I think as i look at the investment. Counties, making lists, collecting data, were using model data as opposed to monitored data. As we talk about the budget through this process, its important to look at ways we can help states and counties put more monitors in place to get Realtime Data to ensure that were making realtime decisions on air quality. Thats something i would love to work with congress to achieve. Yeah, yeah. Well, right now im chairing the Senate Armed Services committee. I have to get back to that. But i appreciate the fact that youre here. But why in the world did you agree to two and a half hours . Thats an end point. We possibly will be done before that, senator inhofe. You have a chance to come back. Senator, you used to blame ryan jackson for a few things. Ill do the same. Senator whitehouse. I hope you get further than i did. Okay. [ laughter ] thank you, chairman. Mr. Pruitt, welcome to the committee. Let me start by asking unanimous consent to put three documents in the record. One is a report entitled abandoning science advice by the center for science and democracy, and with it are two internal documents from the epa that chronicle how political are stacking the Scientific Advisory committees with industry representatives. In this case, the clean air Scientific Advisory committee. Without objection. Thank you. Mr. Pruitt, you were confirmed about a year ago in february. And about a year before that, in february of 2016, you went on a radio talk show at a Radio Station called kfaq in tulsa. The shows host is a man named pat campbell. I dont know if you remember that. I appeared on that program a few times. So i dont remember the particular program youre referencing. Well, the reason that i mention it is that we have a transcript of the interview that you provided. And i dont know if this is what you had in mind when you said you were interested in reaching common ground. But i can assure you that there are a great Many Americans who share the concerns that you expressed in that interview. The first one is this one. You told mr. Campbell, i believe that donald trump in the white house would be more abusive to the constitution than barack obama. And thats saying a lot. Do you recall saying that . I dont, senator. Would you and i dont echo that today at all. I guess not. Given your comments about im afraid ive lost it. We have im having technical difficulties. So anyway, that was one statement. Then the interview continued, and mr. Campbell said the following. Everything that we loathe and detest about barack obama and the abuses of power, donald trump is the same thing, except hes our bully. Your answer to that, thats right. As the interview continued, mr. Campbell talked about his dad who i recall from the interview was a veteran and now elderly and had served our country. And mr. Campbell said i had a conversation with my dad not long ago. And he went on to say he summed up donald trump in one word. He said this is mr. Campbell referring to his dad, he said, hes dangerous. And you said, you know, your dad is very astute. gore ing goring to be hear ing from the president tonight. He is going to be speaking to a country in which millions of people share your concerns of february 4th, 2016. 2016 about a president who you believed then would be abusive to the constitution, a bully, and dangerous. In my minute remaining id like to ask you about your schedule. Because you have an unusual propensity for not releasing whats going on on your schedule. I direct you to friday, may 5th. When you spent the day in tulsa, oklahoma. That night you were scheduled to give a keynote address at a fundraiser for the Oklahoma Republican party. Because of the hatch act, you cancelled that event. Youre not allowed to go and do fund raising for parties in the position that you are in. That was the original reason for your trip to tulsa that day. The only thing that shows on your schedule for that day is lunch with a guy named sam wade. It seems to me, like its an awful long way to go at taxpayer expense to tulsa for lunch with one guy. Could you please let us know what all else you did that day, specifically did you go to the Oklahoma Republican Party Fundraiser . And because my time is up, that can be a question for the record. Thank you, senator whitehouse. Senator boozman. Thank you, mr. Chairman, mr. Chairman, i have a letter that the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality sent me yesterday in support of epas recent decision to approve arkansass revised regional hay state Implementation Plan. Quote the letter arkansas applauds the epas recent improvements in regard fostering increased cooperation with the states in order to achieve environmental goals in a sensible and practical manner. Id like unanimous consent to enter the without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Administrator, i was very happy to see the epa approved arkansass revisions to the regional hay state Implementation Plan. Many in arkansas are thrilled that we now have an epa whos willing to listen to the states, and are excited to proceed towards the goal of improving air quality. In the past weve had a situation where the epa wanted to hear input as long as the state agreed with them. If not then they got themselves in trouble. Can you explain your approach to cooperative federalism, and the change that were seeing in that regard . You know, i think, senator, with respect to the regional hays program, i appreciate your comments, and arkansas has worked diligently to submit a plan that is approvable under the statute. I think that would be something i would highlight for you is that the agency needs to take a more proactive approach at working with states in the submission of plans to actually recognize their expertise and resources at the local level to achieve those outcomes, and help provide clarity in the timing as far as getting that done. I think in the past we had an effort of displacing state authority there and issuing federal Implementation Plans at the expense of those state plans. I think the opposite should be true. We should work with those states, let them adopt the plans thats particular to the issues they face, and provide the type of support that helps them achieve that. Good. So youre working well with the states in that regard. What else, since your confirmation, have you done to reached out to other stakeholders . One of the things thats so different, dnr is across the countries, departments of Natural Resources vary by state. But their interaction with the governors is different. So we have worked very diligently with governors, both democrat and republican governors to ensure that issues that the state faces, they are aware of those issues. That from our perspective, and were learning from them, and making sure that their respective executive Branch Agencies are working with us to achieve that too. Its an effort to work with the governors in addition to those Agency Partners that weve worked with for a number of years. Very good. Folks on the left spent a lot of resources selling a narrative that youve locked career employees out of meetings, dont heed their input when considering the direction of the epa. Are these allegations accurate . And theyre inaccurate, theyre in accurate. Im very encouraging to people taking notes during meetings. We want to keep track of where were headed on issues. Im not sure where those things came from. They are, in fact, inaccurate. These false claims, what does that do to morale in the office . Look, i think we have a lot of work to do, a lot of opportunities to do good things and we try to stay focused on that, i try to stay focused myself. Working with career employees. One day we had a conference that i attended, i talked about the importance of establishing goals and metrics, keeping track of those and celebrating successes. For too long the agency has not been willing to state goals, what are we going to be five years from now, working to achieve that. I think thats something both in the water space across all the Program Offices we need to do better at. Very good. Id like to just reenforce senator inhofes words, discussion about sue and settle, how important that is. And can you again tell us how thats actually helping the environment versus hurting the environment in getting rid of that . Well, primarily when you, again, enter into a negotiation through litigation, and a Consent Decree comes out of that that doesnt involve voices from across the country, its short shifted. There have been examples where states have endeavored to intervene in those discussions and have been denied. An agreement is reached and then its forced upon those states. Its kind of subverted the voice of those stakeholders at the state level, among others, and thats not a good way of doing business. Good, thank you very much. Senator markey. Thank you, mr. Chairman, very much. Earlier you did not answer senator carper on whether epa performed an analysis of Health Impacts of your decision last week to allow significantly more amounts of extremely dangerous pollutants to be put into our air. Your decision means that Industrial Facilities like power plants, our chemical factories, our Hazardous Waste incinerators will no longer be required to use state of the art technology, the Gold Standard to reduce these harmful emissions. This should be a very simple answer. There are 187 dangerous pollutants covered by this policy that you have rolled back. Lets just go through a few of these. Arsenic. Do you believe that more arsenic pollution is harmful to the lets just go through these. Do you believe more arsenic plus is harmful to the public . Yes. Do you believe that more mercury pollution is harmful to the public . I do. Do you believe that more lead pollution is harmful to the Public Health . Yes, senator. Do you believe that more benzene pollution is harmful to the Public Health . Yes, sir. Well, your decision allows more of these pollutants, more of these toxics to go into the atmosphere, to go into the air, to go into the water, to go into the environment. Children will be exposed to these pollutants. Seniors will be exposed to these pollutants. We should have a Gold Standard of pollution control in this country. That is what the epa should ensure is on the books, but youre going to replace the Gold Standard with a lead standard and that will want be good for the health of the children in our country. The president has a slogan of maga, but here its going to mean make arsenic great again. So this is not good for our country and it is not where we should be heading and that decision is an historically bad one last week and i urge you to reconsider it immediately. On the question of fuel economy standards, and you say that you are reviewing them right now in response to senator copper. The head of epas air office recently said that he has no interest whatsoever in withdrawing californias ability to regulate from a good, solid policy standpoint to the very best outcome for all of us is one National Program. Do you agree with that . One National Program is essential. One National Program is essential, and do you support once again, the maintenance and the retention of the california waiver which massachusetts uses and many other states also use. Do you support california, there are ongoing discussions with card in california, the agency that oversees these matters and it is our hope that we can come to a resolution as we visit about the standards in april of this year. Senator, federalism doesnt mean that one state can convict the rest of the country, but we recognize californias special status in the statute and were looking for them to find consensus on these issues. Massachusetts is part of that waiver as are the states of many of the members of this committee and we want to retain that ability to have the highest standards possible. Yes, we do want there to be harmonization and it happened under the trump and under the obama, pa and the department of transportation, but we are increasingly fearful that there will be a rollback of the fuel economy center, and theres one thing to keep in mind, we still import 3 Million Barrels of oil a day from saudi arabia, libya, kuwait, iraq, qatar. We should not be importing oil from these countries if we can increase our fuel economy standards. Frackiing is reducing our dependence and so isnt fuel economy standards and we cant have no retreat because were sending young men and women in uniform over to the middle east to continue to protect that oil coming in from the middle east, and we have a moral responsibility to put the fuel economy standards at the highest possible level, and i just want the epa and the Trump Administration to understand that these young men and women are over there, not exclusively, but in part in order to protect that supply of oil. We will never be energy independent. We will never produce all of the oil that we need in the country. At 10 Million Barrels a day, 13 Million Barrels a day, we are still consuming 19 or 20 Million Barrels a day. Fuel economy standards will back up 2. 5 Million Barrels a day. We should honor that commitment and you should honor what massachusetts and california and the other states want to accomplish. If i may, senator, i think the issue that you raise side important, but also the harmonization with the d. O. T. As you know, there are joint equities there between d. O. T. And epa and we are working diligently with them to harmonize these efforts to provide clarity on these issues. Its federalism and also interagency at the federal level. The most important equities are those young men and women that we send over. We should ensure that as strong as possible. If i could, just following senator markeys comments to submit for the record, if i could, mr. Chairman, the regional record the bush Regional Office had concerns related to air toxic rollback. Thank you. Thank you, senator carper and i would like to use my time to interject and response to the epa once and always in policy because in 2017 the state of connecticut supported the epas decision to withdraw the policies. As a matter of fact, the state of connecticut said, quote, such a policy discourages Pollution Prevention efforts and often forces Business Owners with very small, actual hazardous pollutant emissions to expend significant resources not consistent with air admission and Health Benefits achieved. State and federal regulatory agencies in the state of connecticut going on and state and regulatory agencies also must expend significant resources for these facilities with small, actual emissions often gaining little in air quality improvement. So i ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be included in the record. If i can just say it would be interesting to know that if the Current Governor of connecticut shares those same view, well have to find out. Thank you. Senator rounds. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Administrator pruit, senator markey and i served together for the last two years on the sub commit sdpe with oversight of the epa and one that we both agree on coming from different political approaches was still the idea that sound science was going to be critical in our discussions. Id like to go back to just a little bit. Weave had senator markey make his statements and express his concerns versus the existing as he identifies it a Gold Standard, but i didnt hear the opportunity for you to respond and to share your thoughts on this. Id like to give you an opportunity to share your thoughts and perhaps analysis on the decision that youve made and the reasoning behind it. The chairman, i think, thank you, senator and the chairman made reference with his comments. The once and always decision was really about incentivizing, by a company to achieve Better Outcomes of the environment and the entities call major emitters and all this policy says they make investment and achieved the outcome with whatever the objective is they meet the standards and be rewarded if theyre no longer in that category. If youre a company and youve invested hundreds of millions to improve outcomes and you were considered a major emitter before you might be considered a minor emitter once you make of the investments. This achieves a better outcome. My response to you with respect to the pollutants is absolutely what i believe, but i believe we can achieve Better Outcomes through this kind of policy by rewarding investment and Encouraging Companies to do that. Id like to take another step down that same line and that is with regard to sound science. We had a lot of discussion about the need to return back and many of us feel that in some cases, on either side of the aisle we either win or we lose when the information is interjected. I think we take our chances and we look at the best sound science available to us. Would you explain the steps that youve taken to make sure that the Agency Decision making is based on the most current, best available science and can you, lab rate on how the new guidance of the Scientific Advisory boards and conflict of interests will enhance the use of sound science at the agency . As you are aware, senator and members of the committee are aware, we have 22 advisory committees that are at the agency. The Science Advisory Board and the case ak, and the board of scientific counselors or three of those 22 and members of those committees historically have been able to serve while receiving grants and providing independent counsel under the statute to the agencies as far as rule making. That is something from my perspective that is not consistent with providing independence if theyre receiving a grant and theres oversight responsibility with the members that serve on those advisory committees at the same time that theyre rendering counsel on the others and we established a policy if you continue to receiving the grant on that side of the ledger you can continue or you can continue serving as a member of the committee, but you cant do both because that goes to the independence of the review with respect to the integrity of that process. So that was the heart of the policy initiative that we adopted. Thank you. Theres been a lot of discussion with biofuels and all sorts of items. Im curious, i focused on and in particular with south dakota ask corn ethanol is a critical part of our Economic Activity. We also think we have a longterm opportunity to add corn ethanol as a very valuable octane enhancer with regard to liquid fuels. Im just curious, i think its an item that i suspect youve spent . Time on with regard to all of those issues. Id just like your thoughts. Are we reasonable in a discussion, longterm about the viability and the need for octane enhancements with regard to fuel standards and so forth coming of age . I think this goes a little bit to the question that the senator just raised on fuel efficiency standards and cafe review. The agency long has not been considered the fuel side of the ledger as far as how to achieve Better Outcomes. High octane is one of those. Europe has that, and we have not. Its been one of the design element of the vehicles which obviously is important and the fuel side is equally important. So as we go through the cathay process we are looking at those kinds of issues. Okay. That includes the ability and the most efficient ways of delivering octane from anyone of a number of different sources including ethanol in the future. Were agnostic about the source and its a high octane approach generally. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator. Senat senator merkley. Thank you, mr. Chairman. During the time youve been director its taken 15 actions related to air quality and 15 of those diminished air quality and zero of them improve air quality and yet i heard from you quite a bit today about your interest in quality and my question is how many of those 15 actions were supported by the American Lung association which has made air quality a significant part of the advocacy effort . Imf on not sure, senator. Well, its zero. As you would expect since 15 actions have diminished air quality and how many have been supported by the American Academy of pediatrics . Im not sure. Well, you want to take a guess . Im sure youll advise me. I would say run the agency to improve air quality rather to diminish it in areas such as o zone and smog and methane and mercury and the list goes on and on. On those issue, senator, is an example on o zone. We are implementing the 2015 standard as we speak, on methane, ive indicated ill have you submit your extensive answer for the record because i know youre very good at filibustering, but wed like to cover as much material for the public as possible. I will denote on o zone. Youre delayed and defending and complying with the o zone rule on april 7, 2017, but lets turn to as bests on. To my colleague you answered that there were a number of items that you thought didnt contribute to health when you increased the amount of pollution. How about asbestos . Have you increased the amount of asbestos pollution . Does it contribute to Americans Health . No. Its something that we ought to see to do what we can to eradicate. Thank you. That really is supported by the scientist. The center for Disease Control reports that mag ilnant mesothelioma is a neoplass am associated with inhalation exposure to asbestos and patients have survival of survival of one year diagnosis. The president has been very clear about this position which is the opposite of your position so i want to be absolutely clear that you disagree with the president when he says that asbestos is 100 safe. Disposal issues are the im not asking about disposal. Imf on asking if you agree or disagree when he saidas bests on is 100 safe. Its what were reviewing. Thank you, and in that regard there is a group that is the major importer of asbestos into our country, 95 is imported and it is seeking an exemption from the asbestos standard, whatever that might be that eventually comes out of the epa. Are you inclined to grant an exemption to for the group that imports 95 of asbestos into the United States . Senator, im not. Thats something i would have to look into and the status of that petition and im not familiar with the status at this time. That would prejudge the outcome. If 95 of the imports of asbestos is exempted by the standard. I would have to check on the status and report back to you. I would encourage you to look at canada and to look at brazil which have reached the logical conclusion where we started from that asbestos is hazardous and they have banned it, and also there is an emphasis at the epa now to only look at the production of new items that have asbestos in them while ignoring the vast amount of asbestos that is already in the environment and causing a significant problem because it frays and it therefore causes contamination. Containment is not complete. Will you commit to taking on asbestos both with the new asbestos thats being put into products and also in terms of the existing asbestos . Its one of those priority chemicals that were reviewing, senator, and i can tell you that the issues that you make reference to is very important and thats why i mentioned disposal earlier. A recent report noted that although it is one of the priority chemicals that it and nine other of the priority chemicals are being slow walked in the agency, are you slow walking the priority pollutants for americans . No, senator. As you know under the taska law we had obligations last year to adopt three rules consistent with implementation and we achieved those and we added resources in the office to attract a backlog of review and its been an absolute priority during the first year. Theyre finding the opposite so i do hope that well get details from you showing that in fact, youre working hard. This is a singular bipartisan accomplishment of the committee was get being the taska act passed and it would be nice to implement it aggressively. Thank you. Senator van holland. Thank you, mr. Chairman pruit, and what you had on the Chesapeake Bay. Im still hoping that you will prevail upon the administration to put the 73 million or more in for the bay program. You would agree, would you not that it is important that epas decisions be based on the facts and be faced on merit and be faced on the law and not on politics, would you agree with that . Absolutely, senator, as you know we have to build a record. And i dont mean just that. In your procurement and contract, wouldnt you agree it would be based on the law and the merits and not on politics. I believe so, generally. Generally . Because it disturbed me to find this report back in december. It was headlined epa contractor has spent past year scouring the agency for antitrump officials in exchange with one of my colleagues on the republican side who asked you about epa employees and morale, you said you didnt think there was any reason for bad morale. Are you familiar with the article in the New York Times piece . I am not. You should be because senator white house and senator harris have written you a letter about it that you havent responded to and what the article stated was that the epa contract that on a nobid basis with an entity called definers, Public Affairs and are you familiar with that entity . I am familiar with that entity. So this is a clipping for the cofounders and the clipping service both wellknown republican operatives and they got a nobid contract. Can you commit to the committee that youll be responding to the letters from senators on this Committee Regarding what happened in this case . Yes. Yes. Its my understanding that the contract was 87,000 yes than the year before. Is it appropriate that this entity was doing searches on epa employees to determine whether or not they were, quote, part of the resistance . Im not familiar with that happening. I will say this to you. The contract has been terminated today, but we will provide Additional Information to you. The reason it really caught my eye was in connection to something that senator cardon raised and i appreciate you mentioning the decision to end the contract for the Chesapeake Bay journal and there is the bay journal is being reconsidered. It should not have gotten to this point and it worries me as a window on what the epa has captured as well because what happened in that case is that it was shortly after the bay journal published an article and there are articles and Opinion Pieces shortly after they published an article questioning and criticizing the administrations position on some Environmental Issues especially Climate Change and the impact that could have on the Chesapeake Bay and i encourage you to go to the Naval Academy because there they talk about the risks of rising sea level in annapolis on their operations there and around the world, but the bay journal wrote a piece there and it was shortly after that that its contract was terminated despite a good Performance Review from epa in april and the retired head of the bay program just earlier this month in an interview to energy and environment daily said that it was politics that killed the funding for the bay journal. Have you looked into this at all . It is under reconsideration and i am familiar and i am taking steps to address it. We wrote to you back in october and we would appreciate a written response, as well, but it in an exchange that the folks that the bay journal had with the epa and folks making the decisions, and specifically, john conkas with the phone with them is your assistant and the administrator of Public Affairs, he reportedly said the following, and this is john kofr conkas and he saw no reason for us to fund the bay journal, unquote. Is that a position that epa takes regarding its review of contracts like this . I think ive indicated that do you understand this is now under litigation in and my concern is a broader issue, right . We should never have gotten to this point. We should not get to the point where epa is making politicallydriven decisions on contracts where e. A is ever on political rounds and this is where they found them to be in full performance, so i just hope that you will work with us to get all of the documents regarding this position. It is a small contract. Its meaningful to the bay journal which assembles this information and i am most worried about it also in combination with other stories about political decisions in contracting coming out of the epa. So mr. Chairman, i hope we agree on a bipartisan basis that no agency should be basing this decision on politics, and i appreciate your review of this decision, but we really need to get to the bottom of how it happened so that theres integrity in the process. Senator sullivan . Thank you, mr. Chairman, and administrator pruit. Good to see you. Glad youre here, and i hear its been going great. It is good to see you here on a regular basis and i appreciate meeting you and senator white house and i had recently and im not sure if you mentioned it im actually serious, a very good meeting in the office, and great to see senator van holland here on a committee that gets stuff done so we welcome him i do want to mention the issue on Marine Debris that senator white house and i talked about we do want to look at opportunities at the epa in addition to noaa and federal agencies to play an Important Role on that. It is a very strong there is a lot of strong bipartisan support on this issue which is a huge environmental issue and it impacts my state and it impacts rhode island and it impacts every state not just states with coastlines and every state in the country, so i know we had a lot of followup from our meeting and i appreciate you working with me and senator white house with that. I also appreciate at the outset and the chairman mentioned some of the things that you have done. Your focus, as you said during your confirmation hearing on the rule of law process which is important, certainly important in my state and you made some decisions recently with regard to pebble mine and others that i think youre focused a lot on that process and on the lotus rule. Some of the complaints here on this side, the vast majority of the states in america, democrat and republicanled states would oppose it, there are 30 states that sued the federal government. There was no process. That was a huge federal overreach and i appreciate you drawing that back. You had the support of the vast majority of the states and american citizens on that one and i just want to thank you on that. I do want to mention one thats very important to me and i am very glad that you highlighted it, too, actually in your opening testimony. You mentioned lead with regard to water, infrastructure, water and sewer, and i think thats important and i think you can get a lot of bipartisan support on that, and i do want to remind you though, and we talked about it a lot after the flint, michigan, scandal really occurred a lot of people were talking about how we need to address aging infrastructure. My own view, though is we ned to address communities that have no infrastructure first, over 30 communities in alaska that dont have water and sewer systems, that dont have clean water and still use what are called honey bucket which is dont smell good. They dont smell like honey. Its actually american citizens removing their own human waste from their house because they dont have sewer systems and putting them in a lagoon. American citizens. Its a disgrace. We passed a bill, a bipartisan bill in this committee that significantly advances funding for that, for communities that dont have water and sewer, in america. In america. Thousands of my constituentis and want your suspect out on that. Can you comment on that . Id like you to get to that before we get to the lead issue. Its a disgrace, no american citizens should live in a community where essentially its like a thirdworld country. Think, senator, this goes to part of the president s infrastructure proposal. As i think youre aware, 25 of the monies that are a part of the infrastructure package will go to Rural Communities across the country and i think Water Infrastructure is terribly important, and the infrastructure that we have is we go through the First Quarter and Second Quarter of this year and hopefully well address the issues in that package. I do think with respect to lead it is an aging infrastructure and those Rural Communities that have it also need upgrades and Corrosion Control measures and the rest. So there are opportunities across the spectrum with respect to these matters. Right. Let me just touch on another one, and id like to be able to work with you and your team, an issue that you raised here on abandoned mines and with regard to abandoned mines, its actually not just abandoned mines in america. We have a significant challenge with our Good Neighbors to the north, wanot really to my north to my states east, canada, where there are transboundary lines that impact the waters and fishing and tourism of southeast alaska. These are mines that are in canada some of which have been abandoned and some of which have had huge spills. Im actually going to be heading to canada this weekend to meet with senior officials there with my Lieutenant Governor to talk about this transboundary mine issue and others, but having the full weight of the federal government and the state department and the epa helping us on this where to be perfectly honest, canada has not been a Good Neighbor on this. Theyre ignoring our concerns and they have very legitimate concerns. So if i can get your commitment to help me and my state with regard to not just abandoned mines which i think is a great topic to focus on, but transboundary mining in canada which negatively impacts certainly as a potential negative impacts clean water in america. Can i get your commitment to work with us and the state department on that issue . Yes. We should work with ambassador kraft as well on those issues. Bee have similar problems on the southern border, but with respect to mines and tijuana and california and we do have boundary issues that are very, very important, air and water that we need work with our neighbors to improve outcomes. Great. I look forward to working with you for that. Heading out of the second round of questioning for a twominute round of questioning and senator carper would be fourth if you want to relinquish your time and call on senator white house. Thank you. Two minutes is short so i will try to be as quick as i can. Just, i mentioned the may 5th day that you were going down to speak with the republican fundraiser in oklahoma. Doul off the top of your head whether you went to that in. We did, in fact, receive an ethics review of that and i was authorized to go and when the event was publicized they did it incorrectly. Can you tell us what you actually im sorry . Would you tell us what you did that day . Well provide the unredacted. Thats something that well coordinate with this body. Okay. Because i dont see why youd block out the rest of your schedule and all we have is the lunch. Again, senator. A long way to go. The day could have been rescheduled entirely as far as activities. But youd never know it because its all redacted and blacked out. We dont see that. Well see how productive we were that day. I would appreciate it. The second thing is that i had a request in to you regarding the epa scientists who were instrucked not to speak and you may recall that because it kicked kicked up a quick fuss in my area and it picked up quite a national fuss, as well because it was a case of scientists not to speak of what was going on for years. Your response was this will not happen again. And im delighted that this will not happen again and i think it should not happen again, but we have not been given is any explanation of how it happened. Who told whom what . Could you please, i dont know why this is so hard to get an answer and looking back at why this happened, who told who what, what were the email chains and whatever the story was, lets get it out there. Im advised by staff that they did communicate to your office that i did not attend that event that you ask about. So now the question boils down to blocking unblocking your schedule for that day. Well work on those issues. Ill take that as a soft yes. In your testimony, administrator, you have highlighted you on epa is committed to undoing regulation thats strangling Economic Growth and job creation, and i travel all 99 counties in iowa and i hear this from manufacturers who are experiencing this as a direct result from undoing some of those burdensome regulations. How will the epa continue to chart a path forward by returning power to the states and maintaining this Economic Growth trend . Thats the reason i mentioned in my opening comments the importance of the three principles from rule of law, and its not obligatory to say that. Its essential to business. When we adopt rules untethered to statutes and that means theres uncertainty and most of the folks that are regulated that its grounded in the statutes that youve passed and that they can allocate resources to achieve those outcomes. So those are very important principles, fundamental principles to achieve clarity, certainty, confidence in the American People that what were doing is well grounded and both science and the law and that they can take confidence in our interactions. In the remaining 45 seconds i would allow you the time to answer questions that maybe you didnt have enough time to answer. There are passionate issues on both sides and thats why i talk about civility and this approach of doing business that trying to find a projobs and pro environment combination and we dont have to choose between the two and we as a country have always done that well and we dont celebrate our progress and success enough. We reduced those pollutants under the Clean Air Act and the air Quality Program by over 65 . Weve made wonderful progress there. We, in fact, have reduced our co2 as a country by over 14 from the years 2000 and 2014. It is largely through innovation, senator carper, and it is a partnership and an approach that we as a country are setting the pace and its protectioning our environment and i appreciate that very much. Thank you for your partnership. Thank you, senator ernst. Senator merkley . Senator duckworth, sorry. I apologize. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Pruit, i am holding in my hands a memorandum from the epa dated march 21st which was after you were confirmed as its head. Id like this memorandum submitted for record. Without objection. Thank you. It is titled the fy2018s president s budget major policy and final resource decisions. It communicates final resource levels and policy guidance to support the environmental production budget submission. In it, it list, elimination of the great lakes restoration program. It numerous programs that we talked about including my previous mentioning of the statement about shutting down epa Office Region five, as a cost avoidance as a cost avoidance measure, listing region 1, region 5 and region 9 and you might make yourself available for this memorandum as it was submitted for the record. . In addition to your Domestic Travel schedule, you have taken at least four foreign trips to include a recent trip to morocco at a cost to taxpayers of 40,000 where according to the Washington Post you spent four days promoting the sale of natural gas. While your state of oklahoma is the Third Largest producer of natural gas in the country, i dont understand what the sale of natural gas has to do with the epas mission. This is inconsistent with your claim to bring back the basics vision of epa. Natural gas, if youre unaware, is under the jurisdiction of the u. S. Department of energy and its the kind of thing that the secretary of energy would do or perhaps someone running for governor of oklahoma or some other elected office there, but not consistent with what the head of the epa should be doing. So will you provide this committee, yes or no, with a detailed schedule of the meetings and receipts of International Travel youve taken since being confirmed . I will do so because it will show ive attended two country, not four. The last two were canceled, japan and israel during the shutdown. We will provide that to the committee. Wonderful. Thank you. Can i assume that all decent americans you did not morocco a north african nation to be a shithole when you visited . The senators time has expired. Senator gillibrand . Thank you, mr. Chairman. As you discussed previously, i am concerned about the levels of the toxic pfoa and pfos that has been found through new york state, to newberg on long island. Just over a year and a half ago Congress Granted epa the authority to regulate the safety of chemicals when it revised the Toxic Substance Control Act, taska. In that law, congress instructed the epa to consider the risks from all of the uses of a chemical that are, quote, intended, known or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed and used of or disposed of. Your agency recently finalized the taska limitation rules, despite the very clear direction those rules ignored the publics exposure to the past uses of chemicals called legacy uses. However, legacy uses posed risks to Public Health because the past manufacturing disposal of those chemicals can still contaminate groundwater as is currently the case with pfoa. This means that epa will not likely study the remedy of the moving pcbs from the hudson sorry, page 2. Oh, its in the back. Sorry. Get back to my question. This means that epa will likely not study the health risks from widespread exposure to chemicals like pfoa under the taska law. You have said that, quote, any action by the epa that exceeds the authority granted to it by congress by definition cannot be consistent with the agencys mission and the epas decision to ignore the content is not consistent with the agencys mission. Would you please provide the taska implementation rules to comply with the direction that all uses of a chemical including legacy uses are studied . We are, in fact, going to see at foreseeable usees as youve indicated and i am very concerned that pfoas have not been manufactured since early 2000, and all of it that we have is legacy. We are very much going to focus upon that. Okay. On the hudson river, specifically, i would like to begin by saying that i was very glad to see yesterdays announcement that i was broadening the scope of the announcement to look at sediment samples and the flood plain and assess the impacts on the lower hudson. As you know, the epa is currently in the process of finalizing the fiveyear review that examines the effectiveness of dredging god sorry. Im so awkward today of dredging for removing pcbs from the hudson river. I am very concerned that in the draft review report epa determined that while the remedy is not currently protective of human health and the environment, no additional pcb removal is needed even though restriction of the consumption of fish from the river are instructed to remain for 50, 50, years. Both Natural Resource trustees for the hudson river strongly disagree with epas analysis. Will you incorporate the new sampling data in the fiveyear review analysis. We are reviewing those samples as we speak. Senator, theres been no final determination on that and i am as concerned as you are. There have been pcbs found in the flood plain, in the 40 miles that have been dredged and theres much work left to be done before we get clarity on that issue. Will you personally review the final report and ensured that the trustees in the public are fully addressed . Yes, i will. Third topic. In december, epa releaseded a list of 21 super fun sites that need immediate intense action and not a single one of the sites are in new york state despite the fact that there are 86 Super Fund Sites in the state. Epa has offered no details explanation of how it arrived at this list and a dushlly, it is my understanding that the freedom of information act request was filed asking for documents with the Super Fund Task force, the response was that not a single document from this 107member task force existed other than the final public memo so that is not true. Will you commit to producing all documents related to how epa developed the 42 spike recommendations on how to improve the Super Fund Program and the immediate intense action list of Super Fund Sites within 15 Business Days . Well deliver them to you by the end of the week. Great. Given your focus and interest in Super Fund Sites, do you believe its wise to cut the budget for the epa Super Fund Program. As i indicated, senator, with respect to the budgeting process, i have made it clear to this body and the house to continue to make sure that theyre funded. I am concerned about sites across country and the super fund portfolio. I think there are greater challenges beyond money, but thats out not our responsibili and we will continue the conversation with you. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Inhofe, was there a fullpage article in the Washington Post, friday, january 26, 2018, about going through the work that the administrators doing with regard to the super fund with the maps of the before and after and how basically talking about the exceptionally good job that is being done by the administrator of the epa and i dont know if youve seen that article, but i would recommend. If i may just for a second, and that regard and the sites that we highlighted in the end of last year, theyre not meant to be exclusive. Those are sites that we see that an Immediate Progress can be made within a timeframe and so that list will continue to be populated with new sites. So its not a exclusionary list. It was a matter of providing focus to our land Emergency Management office on getting achievement in each of those respective areas. Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent to submit to the record super Fund Materials that including several news articles about epas super Fund Activities including an article that found the majority of the super fund cleanups counted by mr. Pruitt was the work of the Obama Administration. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Without objection. Without objection, ill submit this article, as well. Senator inhofe. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Actually, there were two questions i was going to ask and ill go ahead since i didnt get a chance to before, and were the subject matter that you didnt have time to respond to and youve been vocal about the differences of the epa being stewardship versus prohibition. Weve been through a period of prohibition. What is the difference and how are you moving epa from a approximately see of prohibition to stewardship . I think its something that the American People and i think this body and as we do our work, we need to wrestle with what is true environmentalism and thats a very important question because i think as we ask and answer that question, to your question, senator inhofe many look at that as a prohibition and even though weve been blessed with Natural Resources and prevent those development of those resources and weve never done that as a country. Weve always implemented technology and innovation and the American People, i think expect us to to use the Natural Resources and focus stewardship and not let prohibition be our aim and that is something that we intend on talking about as an attitude as we go through 2018 and getting back to the basics in these core fundamental areas as far as showing outcomes. What are some of the enforcement and the response efforts that you believe show that you take your role as a steward of the environment under the law that you take it seriously . You know, its interesting. Senator carper made an entry in the record as far as the super fund saying thats the work of the Previous Administration. Look, i mean, we take cases that come to us when the administration began and i am very proud of the work that weve done over the last year getting accountability in respect to the super fund. As an example, in houston, texas, was there a responsible party that for years has put rocks on the top that has the oxygen. I went to houston in region 6 and we came out with a conclusion of 115 million were enforcing it and the company has been very much objecting to that and were getting accountability with respect to cleanup. Senator carper, i think we as a team are very, very proud of the career employees as well as the appointees working together to achieve Better Outcomes in the super fund area and thats one example of those. Thank you, senator inhofe. Could i just say in a very brief response to be a part of my time, to that point, as i understand over 300 Super Fund Sites are yet to be cleaned up and over 300 have yet to be cleaned up and we have an administration thats asking for want more money to clean them up, but actually less money. Thats all. I yield back. I still have a little time. There are 1340plus sites around the country that are yet to be remediated and most of the sites have a responsible party, a company that polluted, thats responsible and has the money to do it. We have to have processes in place to hold them accountable and get those cleanups occurring and thats our focus along with advising congress on needs that we have on funding. Senator, well head to senator markly next. Thank you. Mr. Pruit, you had talked quite a bit previously about having a red team and blue Team Exercise to examine the issue of Climate Change and Global Warming. Is that still part of your plan . Its under consideration, senator and the discussion is not whether and there were questions that we know the answer to, there are questions we dont know the answer to. First, for example, what is the ideal surface temperature in the year 2100 . Is something that many folks have different perspective on. So that red teamblue Team Exercise is an exercise to provide the opportunity to the American People to consume information from scientists that have different perspectives on key issues and frankly can be used to build con sense us in this body. As you know, the Clean Air Act from 1990, many who were involved in that process recognize that co2 is not part of the process under section 111. We have much work to do legally and procedurally, but this is still under consideration. It is my understanding that the white house has asked the agency not to go forward with the Red Team Blue team . Thats not true. So the republican reports were incorrect . In this instance, yes. Thank you. I will say this the perception of the Red Team Blue team was that your entire intention was to on behalf of the koch brother cartel to mislead the American People and casting down on established science contrary to your contention that you like to listen to scientists. Is it, in fact, your sense that the scientific world is split down the middle and causing significant damage in many ways to Rural America to our farming and to our fishing and to our forests. This idea of the red team, blue Team Exercise didnt originate with me from nyu called steve cunan who worked for the Obama Administration and the department of energy. This is something that were considering on based upon the wall street journal. Youre a year in and we havent seen any evidence in a way that sheds Additional Information and important issues as you suggested or its just another effort to confuse the public over wellestablished scientific information. Senator, thank you. Senator markey. Markly, markey, it took me years to get it out of my life and now we have your time expired. As youre figuring out your identity situation, i would sit to the record that the super fund has been a priority under administrator pruitt. Last year the epa announced a cleanup agreement for the largest Super Fund Site and the montana standard is reporting and administrator pruitt put butte and anaconda put it on the emphasis list and both sides are getting pruitts quote with immediate and intense attention and without objection with the article of the montana standard, january 26, 2018. Senator . Thank you, mr. Chairman, i par appreciate it. It is my understanding that the epa has finalized its conclusion that formaldehyde causes leukemia and other cancers and that completed, new assessment is ready to be released for a public review, but it is still being held up. Can you give us a status update as to the epas handling of the formaldehyde issue than it, in fact, does cause leukemias and other cancers . My understanding is similar to yours, but i would confirm that and provide the information to you from the Program Office. Will you commit to releasing that report which is already completed in a in a in a short period of time once you have reviewed it if it, in fact, meets the standards which your epa staff has already established in terms of assessing that it does cause senator, i commit to you that i will commit to that any make sure your office is aware of what we have and when we can release it. Can you get me an answer within tern dayn days . Yes. I have sent you a letter seeking information about several different policies and processes about that have been put in place in the epa and i have not received any response to those letters. I would ask that you also look at those letters and to provide a response in the shortest possible time. My very, very handy staff provides answers, so if there are additional questions beyond the 100 that youve already submitted wed be happy to get that to you. Thank you. Thank you. Administrator pruitt last month i sent you a letter to withdraw its proposed rule with uranium recovery and isr. Sorry, i didnt hear you, mr. Chairman. Last month i sent you a letter, the epa a letter asking the epa to withdraw its proposed rule on uranium recovery and the isr, and the thing thats interesting about this rule is this is a rule that the Obama Administration proposed on january 19, 2017, one day before president obama left office. Since then the Nuclear Regulatory commission has come out and our nations principle level that stated theres no help or safety justification for this rule making by the epa that came out one day before president obama left office. The Nuclear Regulatory commission went on to say in almost 40 years of operational experience, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff is aware of no documented instance of isr and uranium recovery while being the source of contamination of an adjacent and nearby aquifer, an documented instance. While uranium production is vital to our energy and National Security and when can we expect the epa to decide whether or not to scrap this unnecessary regulation . I will get information on that, mr. Chairman, very quickly and get it back to your office. Im not sure of the timing press notally. Senator carper, you have a final round of questions and then i have a final question. I would have unanimous consent since no one will come to have five minutes to ask these questions. Reserving right to object. . Since no one else will arrive, i would ask that i have five minutes to ask my last round of questions, and if senator inhofe would have another three minutes or so thats fine by me, whatever time the chairman wants. Since ive been at the other committee hearing. Have you had your second round or are you taking the record round . I have not. You want to turn that into a five minute . I object. Why, thank you. We have something called the golden rule. Yeah. Go ahead. For swent secon20 second, an checked with my staff and have been no answer to my questions which i posed to you, mr. Administrator, so i would ask again to respond in a timely fashion. Yeah. Theres something called the golden rule that almost every thursday when we gather in senator inhofes office i meet with the chaplain and he reminds us to treat people in a way we would like to be treated and its not only appropriate, when considering pollution put up in the air in states to the west of downwind states including all of us who live on the east coast. To this extent that this epa and this administration believes that the golden rule is a good idea i would ask you to consider applying the golden rule when it comes to crossborder pollution. When i was governor in delaware i could literally shut down my states economy, and all of the cars, trucks and vans off the road and we would have still been out of compliance of clean air because of the stuff put out into the air in all states. I dont like that, and im not sure i like to be denied the opportunity to go from two minutes to five minutes when there is plenty of time. Mr. Chairman, since my name has been referred to let me just respond and say that there are four Committee Hearings at the same time today. We are trying to balance and if you continue going one the ones who suffer and the ones you are punishing is not the ones able to get their first round of questions in the other committees. In sense of fairness, theres got to be an end to this some time. Mr. Chairman, i want to ask unanimous consent to submit to the record the history of the obamas epas yearslong process to address the waters of the u. S. Ruhle and one in delaware involving epa, army corps of engineers and farmers and builders and the i think over there were over a million Public Comments that were received during the course of the years long activity and i am told that those were actually responded to. The last two without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman. One more question i want to ask and this gives following the law implementing taska. Mr. Pruitt you asked on numerous occasions and the only authority any agency has in the executive branch is the Authority Given to it by congress, closed quote. When congress was negotiating the Toxic Substance Control Act, epa came to congress that allowed the agency to move forward with three highly toxic chemicals and congress agreed and that language was included in the final law. One of those chemicals, a paint stripper called methylene chloride has killed dozens of people even when wearing protective gear. Epa proposed the rules banning these chemicals more than a year ago, and more recent reports indicated that the epa may delay action for several more years which almost certainly will mean more people will get sick and probably some of them will die. Yes or no, mr. Pruitt. To wrap it up would you give the epa by congress and the Toxic Substance Control Act and finalize these bans within the next 30 days. Will you . Its my understanding its actually on the priority list as far as the chemicals that were reviewing and tce and others and thats something they will confirm and clarify with the agency and that was my understanding. I hope that means yes. Mr. Chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent describing mr. Pruitts record at the epa. Thank you. Without objection. And my final question was, could you just share a little bit, maybe some of your goals and metrics that you will set up for wrourz and this is something that you and your team work on . Yes, in fact, senator, at the end of last year we had solicited and surveyed each of the Program Offices in the agency to submit fiveyear goals in air and water across the full spectrum of our regulation and in that dialogue, we had a very collaborative discussion to set Ambitious Goals on attainment issues and other matters and the metrics are if you dont set a name and its been said if you dont know where youre going any road will tack you there and were setting aims and objectives in the each Priority Areas from water, air, chemical to super fund across the spectrum so we can track day in and day out how were making progress toward those objectives and we did not know how long it took to do a a permit under the clean water act. We collected that data, surveyed that and takes years for us to do that. States do it within six months to a year. Were trying to find out how good or not were at at certain things. Measure that daily to achieve outcomes. Dwlunk vethank you very much administrator pruitt. I appreciate you being here. You can submit questions by the close of business. That will go through february 13th. I want to thank you for your time and your fetestimony. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Adjourned. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Tonight on our can your netwo companion network cspan2, ruth bader ginsburg. Shell sit down for a discussion of the editor of forward magazine. It gets under way at 7 00 p. M. Eastern. Youll be able to see it on our companion network cspan2. At 8 00 p. M. Eastern, President Trump speaks to the Republican National committee at his hotel in washington. That will be live on our companion network, cspan. This weekend on American History tv on cspan3, saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on lectures in history, university of North Carolina at chapel hill professor Molly Worthen on 20th century fundamentalism and origins and growth of pentecostalism. Fundamentals are conservative protesants that proposed new ideas about the bible, science, and society. At 10 00 p. M. Eastern on real america, the 1989 documentary, island of hope, island of tears. Over 12 million men, women and children pass this way. Passed through rooms haunted wil stillness that remains only in places once noisy with human life. Bought tickets for 1,000 places at america. Here they traded their liras and their ruples for dollars, sang their First American songs, experienced their First American christmas and hanukkah. Here they waited to be given permission to pass over to the new land. Sunday at 10 00 a. M. Eastern, an interview with the west point center for oral history with catherine westmoreland, wife of William Westmoreland who commanded u. S. Forces in vietnam. My main work was red cross and i did i worked almost every day. I worked in the vietnamese hospital and the our hospi l hospital. Then i went to natrong once a week to do red cross work. Watch American History tv every weekend on cspan3. The house