▶ 0:10:36I'd like to welcome the 17th administrator of the epa, lee zeldin. Administrator zeldin, welcome back to the committee. We are here to discuss the fiscal year 2027 president's budget request for the environmental protection agency. This administration is focused on rightsizing the epa and returning the focus of the agency to its statutory requirements. The agency ballooned in size in recent years, in part due to 100 billion in supplemental funding from bills outside of the annual appropriations process.
▶ 0:11:04The amount of supplemental funding totaled more than ten times the discretionary budget of the entire epa. Some of this supplemental funding was fraught with waste and abuse, which is why republicans rescinded some of it through the one big, beautiful bill. We learned about this thanks to your oversight work, administrator. Looking ahead, we must responsibly evaluate the needs and missions of the agency this fiscal year 2027 budget request, similar to last year's proposes to cut the agency. We.
▶ 0:11:34We likely cannot accept the proposed steep cuts to the state and tribal assistance grants that our states, tribes and water utilities rely on for implementing federal statutes, statutes, and providing safe and reliable drinking water and wastewater. However, I look forward to hearing more about how the budget request right sizes the agency, and I'm ready for the necessary and tough deliberations about how to best how to best spend limited federal resources to ensure the agency is protecting air, land and water resources.
▶ 0:12:02Many of my constituents in idaho are also concerned about the intense regulatory overreach by prior administrations, and that have made it harder for industry to thrive or sometimes even survive, even though these very industries have made great strides in reducing their environmental footprint.
▶ 0:12:20I look forward to hearing more today about your efforts and the budgetary resources you need in order to reduce regulation, regulatory burdens, and provide certainty for our farmers and industries, whether that's through reconsidering rulemaking or reviewing pesticide and chemical applications in a more timely and effective manner. Right now, our focus should be on implementing common sense approaches that lower costs for everyday families and increase american competitiveness.
▶ 0:12:47I believe there is an appropriate balance that protects our environmental, our environment while promoting economic growth and job creation. And we need both in order for america to to thrive. Thank you, administrator zeldin, for being here today to have this discussion with us. Now, I'd like to yield to ranking member pingree for her opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Thank you, administrator zeldin. I appreciate you being here today.
▶ 0:13:12Over the last year, I've watched the administration try to turn the epa into an agency that prioritizes corporate polluters and fossil fuel interests over protecting the environment and public health. Epa's fiscal year 2027 budget makes this crystal clear. It proposes proposes massive cuts to clean air compliance and enforcement programs, and completely abandons the states. Since president trump took office, epa employees have been under attack.
▶ 0:13:40The office of research and development has been dismantled, and the agency has shed nearly 2800 positions, about one fifth of its workforce. In fact, staffing is so critically low that despite the administration proposing a 52% cut to the budget, overall staffing would stay relatively flat.
▶ 0:14:02Instead, staffing cuts zero in on specific programs the public depends on most specifically federal support for air quality management and enforcement. The federal support for air quality management program assists states, tribes, and local air pollution control agencies in the development, implementation and evaluation evaluation of their air quality programs.
▶ 0:14:25And yet, I shouldn't be surprised that this program is cut by 42%, because the budget also proposes to nearly eliminate funding to states for categorical grants. This is the funding that states use to run their environmental programs. I am very sorry to say that this has become the administration's playbook.
▶ 0:14:46Cause the damage, then tell the states to clean it up on their own, slash the federal commitment, dump the costs back on the states, and expect them to deal with the consequences alone. The hypocrisy could not be more glaring. Just this morning, I was at the supreme court listening to oral arguments for an appeal by the chemical giant bayer, formerly known as monsanto, on the manufacture of roundup.
▶ 0:15:09I'm sure you know all about it, though, because it was the trump administration that supported bayer's appeal over lawsuits that allege it failed to warn consumers about the product's dangers. As you are well aware, pesticides in the united states are regulated under a combination of federal, state and local laws. States and local municipalities have taken steps of their own to protect the health of their communities, adopting measures to restrict pesticide spraying near schools, homes and public spaces. Why?
▶ 0:15:39Because the science is clear children are particularly vulnerable to toxic exposure, with serious risks to brain development, reproduction and long term health. In maine, for example, we have more than 30 state and local regulations related to pesticide use and warning requirements.
▶ 0:15:58This administration supports policies that would shield chemical manufacturers from lawsuits and would preempt state and local warning label laws or usage regulations for potentially harmful products. This means states and local governments would be blocked from protecting their own citizens. State and local governments are often more nimble. Evaluating the best science and safety considerations.
▶ 0:16:24Pesticide reevaluations at the epa happen roughly every 15 years, but for glyphosate, the last reregistration was 1993. Meanwhile, your budget proposes to eliminate funding for state pesticides enforcement, claiming that it will advance cooperative federalism by returning the responsibility to state and local entities. So which is it? Are you only for cooperative federalism when it doesn't inconvenience the chemical companies?
▶ 0:16:54This administration should be protecting families, farmers and children not doing favors for chemical giants. I sought to remove the policy rider on this issue from the subcommittee's final 2026 bill, and I appreciate the cooperation. We were able to do that. I am now fighting to strip it from the farm bill, which we are expected to take up this week. My amendment to do this has strong bipartisan support because this is beyond politics and party lines.
▶ 0:17:21The way I see it, if you really want to make america healthy again, choosing the health of americans over corporate profits and immunity should be the easiest decision you make. I hope we can have a constructive conversation today, and I thank you very much for being here this afternoon, and I yield back. >> thank you, congressman pingree. We're fortunate to have the ranking member of the full appropriations committee with us today.
▶ 0:17:48Rosa delauro and would appeal to you for any opening statement you have. >> thank you very, very much, Mr. chairman and ranking member pingree, for convening the hearing today. I want to thank administrator zeldin for testifying before this committee and recalling the days on which we co-chair the long island sound caucus a different time, uh, different environment, uh, no pun intended here.
▶ 0:18:15So, uh, uh, during the 2024 presidential campaign, donald trump hosted a dozen of fossil fuel executives and lobbyists for an event at mar a lago. At the event, he told the room that they ought to contribute $1 billion to his election effort, and in exchange, he would slash environmental protections and make them much, much richer.
▶ 0:18:38He called it a, quote, deal for them that they would make back the 1 billion many times over if he were elected. Judging from the past year, this appears to be one of the only promises president trump has actually kept. He has decimated environmental protections, putting american families at greater risk of cancer, asthma, heart disease and other ailments at the behest of wealthy corporate polluters.
▶ 0:19:09Under your tenure, Mr. administrator, the epa has gone to great lengths to avoid enforcing environmental protections. At the beginning of this year, the epa determined that it would no longer factor in the value of human life when weighing the costs and benefits of environmental regulations. Instead, they will only consider the financial impact on corporate polluters. It is hard to put a finer point on it than that.
▶ 0:19:37The epa is quite literally placing the value of corporate profits above human life. The epa has rolled back dozens of protections against pollution from tailpipe emissions, soot from smokestacks, stacks, emissions of mercury. It also weakened requirements for coal companies to clean up the toxic messes they make, allowing them to pollute our communities even more. At every opportunity.
▶ 0:20:02The trump administration has chosen to put the interests of large corporations, led by wealthy executives who want to pad their profits by polluting even more above the interests of the american people, who have to live in an environment they are destroying. This is nothing short of an all out assault on the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land from which we grow our food.
▶ 0:20:28The trump administration's budget request for the epa would decimate the agency even further, preventing a future administration from undoing the damage being done to our environment. The budget request proposes cutting the epa budget by more than 50%. It's the lowest level since the reagan administration. It slashes funding for clean water and drinking water, state revolving funds by 74%.
▶ 0:20:54It proposes eliminating nearly all grant funding for states which will harm poorer rural areas the most. The budget proposes an 83% cut to tribal, uh, assistance, uh, the tribal state and tribal assistance grants for water infrastructure and other areas.
▶ 0:21:14The decades long campaign against the validity of climate change is one of the oldest examples of large corporations and rich executives deploying their immense wealth to achieve a political goal. They do not want to forfeit even a fraction of their profits to maintain a clean and livable environment, it is exhibit a in the case against corporate influence in our politics.
▶ 0:21:39Unfortunately, under the trump administration, these billionaires have gotten their money's worth, and it's the american families who will suffer for it. The government has a responsibility, has a responsibility to protect the collective welfare of the people that represents. And that means ensuring there is a clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe. This administration has abdicated that responsibility and instead put corporate profits over people's health.
▶ 0:22:09I will have questions for you, Mr. administrator, on how you can possibly justify abandoning the basic responsibility your agency is tasked with. I look forward to hearing your answers. I thank the chair and I yield back. >> thank you, ranking member delauro. Um, I'm those happy notes. Uh, administrator zeldin, you may proceed with your opening statement. Your official submitted testimony will be included in the record. >> well, thank you, chairman simpson.
▶ 0:22:35Ranking member pingree, uh, ranking member delauro, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the president's fiscal year 2027 budget request. The united states environmental protection agency at the epa. Under president trump, we strongly believe that we can both protect the environment and grow the economy. No longer is this a binary choice where we can only select one or the other.
▶ 0:23:00This past january, at the one year mark of president trump's term in office, I announced 500 top environmental wins during that first year. These actions advance our core mission of protecting human health and the environment. Included in this list is the signing of our historic agreement with the mexican government to end the decades long tijuana river sewage crisis.
▶ 0:23:23Highlights also include completing five year reviews for 26 superfund sites across new england, and announcing 3 billion in new funding for states to reduce lead exposure in drinking water. Additionally, less than 60 days into this administration, we launched the largest deregulatory agenda in us history 31 actions that apply common sense, unleash U.S. energy dominance and strengthen the american economy. President trump promised a government that actually works for the people.
▶ 0:23:52This administration is following through on that pledge. In my first year as administrator, I fulfilled a commitment I made during my confirmation to visit all 50 states, and I completed that effort in just nine and a half months. It was exciting to often witness in my travels groundbreaking after groundbreaking because of president trump's leadership, we've seen record breaking investments pouring into our country.
▶ 0:24:18The trump epa is cutting costs for american families by ending the green new scam and rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding, freeing the auto industry from obama and biden era rules that pushed costly electric vehicles without apology. The agency's ending years of regulatory whiplash, dismantling the unlawful crown jewel of climate activists and putting affordability ahead of alarmism.
▶ 0:24:46This is the single largest deregulatory action in american history, lessons the federal government's harmful grip over the economy, saving over $1 trillion in bringing down the cost of new vehicles a stark contrast with our predecessors. The trump administration is committed to building reliable baseload power, including coal, which is why we rescinded the biden epa's amendment in the 2024 mercury and air toxics rule.
▶ 0:25:12Having a reliable base load power is vital to energy affordability and our national security. Americans will see the expected $670 million in regulatory compliance cost savings in the form of lower costs of transportation, heating, utilities, farming and manufacturing, and more reliable energy.
▶ 0:25:31Epa has also been hard at work to create a durable and clear definition of waters of the united states, faithfully abiding by the supreme court's decision in sackett, epa has the responsibility to ensure federally jurisdictional water resources are protected, while setting clear and practical rules of the road that accelerate economic growth and advance cooperative federalism.
▶ 0:25:54Once finalized, this new definition will cut red tape and provide predictability, consistency, and clarity for permitting under the clean water act. Additionally, epa political and career leadership work to reorganize the agency workforce to best support epa's mission, fulfill our statutory obligations, protect human health and the environment, and empower the great american comeback.
▶ 0:26:16The establishment of the new office of applied science and environmental solutions allows the trump epa to bolster gold standard science across the agency. We are also working through the chemical backlog we inherited from the biden administration. Our team has made significant progress getting newer, safer chemicals reviewed and old chemicals off the market. Over the last year, we've approved many of the state implementation plans. The biden administration disapproved.
▶ 0:26:43We know the best solutions come from americans across the country who know their communities best. Epa is committed to working with our regional and state partners to protect national ambient air quality standards and move away from the so-called good neighbor plans. Epa also plays a pivotal role in making america healthy again.
▶ 0:27:04While we do everything in our power to ensure america's farmers have access to the resources and affordable equipment necessary to feed, clothe and fuel the world, the trump epa is building a foundation for future generations to thrive as the healthiest in our nation's history. That is why I recently announced alongside hhs secretary robert f kennedy jr, that epa is adding microplastics and pharmaceuticals to our contaminant candidate list.
▶ 0:27:31For the first time ever, the president's fiscal year 27 budget proposal captures significant efficiencies and a return focus on what congress has directed us to do, demonstrating our commitment to a leaner, more efficient and accountable epa focused on environmental work that directly benefits the american people. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. >> thank you, administrator zeldin, for both for being here and for your opening statement.
▶ 0:28:02I'll start with the questions. First, I want to talk just a little bit about the rural water technical assistance grants. I want to I have supported this program for many years because it works for idahoans and for rural communities all across the country. The epa funding goes directly to rural water technical assistance providers that are located in communities across the country to help rural water systems comply with federal statutes to ensure safe and clean water, to evaluate systems needs, and to access funding opportunities.
▶ 0:28:31Prior budget requests from both democratic and republican administrations have eliminated funding for this program. But. But congress constantly, consistently restores it. I've never understood why they eliminated the funding for it. A notice of funding availability for this program was announced on april 13th. Thank you for prioritizing getting this funding out the door. Can you confirm which fiscal year funding this notice these notices cover?
▶ 0:29:01>> a few things with regards to the technical assistance program. Last year, we had spent 99% of expired. >> last year we spent 99% of expiring funds with regards to rural drinking water. Just this past friday, we announced that we are investing 90 million to strengthen water infrastructure for tribes and rural communities. This will go to support small, rural and tribal communities across the country, including communities that you have championed.
▶ 0:29:30Uh, we look forward to partnering with you and other members of the committee. Um, the announcement was for fy 26, fy 26. >> fy 26. Thank you. We'll be following the 26 funding closely. And we and, uh, we provide congressional direction for the agency to award this funding on an annual basis.
▶ 0:29:50Uh, on that note, can you commit to continuing to follow the congressional direction as it's related to this program, including selecting awardees that are the most qualified and experienced and awarding funding on this annual basis? >> yes, chairman. >> thank you. Second question deals with community project funding.
▶ 0:30:14Among the top issues that my colleagues contact us about here on this interior subcommittee is the implementation of community project funding that they have secured for water and wastewater projects in the district. These projects have real impacts on communities across the country, with our aging infrastructure and much of it operating on borrowed time, this funding is a way for members to provide dollars that help address pressing water and wastewater needs. The epa initiates the process each year by publishing a guidance document for project recipients.
▶ 0:30:45It has been three months since the final fy 26 interior spending bill was signed into law. Can you give us a timeline on when the epa will publish its 26 community project funding implementation guideline guidelines. >> in the coming weeks in the month of may. >> I appreciate the work that epa does in delivering this community project funding to recipients across the country.
▶ 0:31:06The epa community communicates directly with project recipients, including with proactive outreach by hosting, training and webinars, and has a web page with additional resources and application materials. I appreciate and understand that this is time intensive. Intensive. For the past several years, the interior bill has provided dedicated funding for implementation of these projects. Unfortunately, we know that a backlog still remains in getting funding for these projects out of the door.
▶ 0:31:35Can you commit to communicating with project recipients throughout the process that can improve the success of these projects? >> absolutely, and this was my first experience being on the the opposite side of this spending and having the help of members of congress, when for some strange reason, we're not hearing from a recipient. That has been very helpful over the course of the last 15 months.
▶ 0:32:01Additionally, one of the other impediments that we've noticed is that at times, the congressionally directed spending is only a portion of the total project. So the recipient is waiting to secure the remainder of what's needed. Uh, that's been an aspect. And another aspect is sometimes when the request is made, it's based off, well, almost always it's based on what they expect the project to cost. But when costs go up, uh, that has been a dynamic just with shifting.
▶ 0:32:33Um, uh, situations of recipients as far as where they are financially, as well as what they estimate to be the cost of the project. >> well, I appreciate that. And I know it's, it's, uh, challenging. Uh, there are a lot of communities, these are oftentimes very small communities that have no idea how to work with the federal government. And they will sometimes call us and say, when are we going to get that check?
▶ 0:32:57They think we're going to just send them a check for whatever the earmark was for the or, I guess community finance project was for this water system and stuff. And there is a process that you go through. So educating them and having your, your, uh, agency educate them along with us is very helpful in that. So I appreciate you. I look forward to working with you on that pesticide review backlog. As you know, the office of pesticide programs regulates the safety and availability of pesticides in this country.
▶ 0:33:22The number of outstanding prea cases is the highest it's been in the last, uh, in at least five years under the most recent prea reauthorization, epa is required to complete a third party workforce assessment to evaluate the workforce needs to address the backlog in pesticide application decisions.
▶ 0:33:43I know that you have just completed several reorganizations at the agency, including bringing staff from the office of research and development directly to the program offices like the office of pesticide programs. Do you think the office of pesticide programs needs additional staff to address the backlog? In addition to the staff, you have moved from the office of research and development. >> well, first off, I appreciate you pointing out that the size of the backlog, when we came in, it was over 14,000, and the pesticide review, the new chemicals, was about 500.
▶ 0:34:13When we went through last year's reorganization, we actually increased the amount of scientists inside of the office of chemical safety. Um, the I also am glad you're referencing that, that analysis, that was a third party report, not an epa report that was completed a few months back. Um, for, for example, one of the, the areas where we were able to increase scientific expertise, um, inside the chemical program, we actually only had two senior scientists.
▶ 0:34:43Um, and we now have five. We have a new research division that's solely doing research, which directly supports our statutory obligations for chemicals and pesticides. Uh, the, the reorganization is also expanding our capabilities for advancing new approach methods, which has been key in order to reduce our reliance and eliminate animal testing at the, at the agency, uh, we have been able to reduce that backlog. As I mentioned, when we came in, it was over 14,000. We have knocked that down by several thousand.
▶ 0:35:13Uh, and we'll continue to make progress. We want to advance gold standard science. We want to be transparent with the public and includes with our web pages and other announcements coming out of the, the agency. And, um, we, uh, we will be sure to continue to work with all of you if you have any questions from any of your constituents as far as, uh, studies that are relied upon and past decisions that were made, future decisions, um, I
▶ 0:35:43Think members of congress serve an important role with that effort to be transparent with the public. >> I appreciate that very much. And also, we have the same sort of issue, as I stated earlier, that, uh, your administration has made many changes to the organization and the agency as part of your efforts to rightsize the agency and return the focus to its statutory requirements.
▶ 0:36:01The budget request states that states that the request reflects a realignment of resources and efforts to ensure chemical reviews are done in a timely manner, addressing the deficit in staff and funding that has negative consequences for small businesses and partners. I don't see any requested funding increase for any program area that supports the chemicals office. In your budget request, can you explain how you are addressing your stated deficit of resources?
▶ 0:36:29>> well, as I just mentioned, on the bandwidth front, we increased in our reorganization, uh, the amount of personnel, the amount of ftes inside of the office of chemical safety, uh, that included an increase in the amount of scientists and including an effort to bring the research closer to that program office.
▶ 0:36:50Uh, congress also included a $17 million investment in it in a march 2025 appropriation. That's been very helpful. Um, we, we experienced a situation at the agency before I had got there where, uh, inside the chemical safety office, the software would just go down for days. Uh, things would stop across the board.
▶ 0:37:16Uh, your investment that congress made in that $17 million has been used to update our it at the agency. And that's also proved to, to be very helpful. >> thank you. And you just answered my next question. There is one I want to ask, though, uh, the president's budget request included 1.7 million to stand up the good samaritan remediation of abandoned hard rock mines act, which was signed into law by 20 in 2024.
▶ 0:37:44The bill was led by one of our own subcommittee members, miss malloy, who wanted me to ask this because she couldn't be here today. I was a co-sponsor of the bill, and it had broad bipartisan support in both the house and the senate. The bill establishes a new epa led pilot program to issue permits to good samaritans who want to remediate abandoned hard rock mines, with the budget request proposing, uh, to issue 5 to 7 permits for fiscal year 2027.
▶ 0:38:13How is the epa going to prioritize sites for permitting, and how can states work proactively with epa? >> we are going to be starting some of these projects this year, and we plan to have all 15 out over the course of this term.
▶ 0:38:29Uh, the anticipated benefits of the good samaritan program include removing toxic mine tailings from streams to benefit native trout and other fish, restoring a valuable recreational resource, rerouting acid mine drainage away from mine tailings to prevent contamination of rivers, creeks and streams, which helps to preserve our resources.
▶ 0:38:48Epa will continue to work closely with the federal land management agencies and rely on stakeholder input to ensure a consistent and successful national program, and I would strongly encourage any interested good samaritans to reach out to our office of land and emergency management for pre-application discussions. >> thank you, administrator, miss pingree. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. >> thank you for the many important issues that you posed.
▶ 0:39:18Um, Mr. administrator, your epa has spent a lot of time trying to brand itself or to talk about make america healthy again, a slogan that I strongly support. But when I look at the actions your agency is doing, I see the opposite. It's generally prioritizing industry over public health. For instance, epa filed a motion in court to eliminate enforceable standards for certain pfas chemicals. You dismantled the office of research and development, which will weaken the scientific backbone of the agency.
▶ 0:39:48The president signed an executive order aiming to increase domestic production of glyphosate, the active ingredient in roundup, despite a court ordered ban for the 2025 growing season, epa reinstated the herbicide dicamba for over-the-top use of the chemical for genetically modified soybeans and cotton. Epa's general counsel joined the doj in backing bayer's pre pesticide preemption case today before the supreme court.
▶ 0:40:15And one thing that epa is not doing banning the use of paraquat, which has been linked to parkinson's disease, something former senior epa officials across several administrations called for just last week. At the same time, the epa is installing chemical industry insiders in key positions. The top political officer overseeing new chemicals came from the american chemistry council. Your new science advisory board includes representatives from dow chemical, corteva and exxonmobil.
▶ 0:40:44And of course, there's your well-documented support of bayer. As I talked about in my opening remarks, who you met last june. According to a foia memo, one of the discussion topics was bayer thanking you for updating the glyphosate web page and your work on maha. This suggests to me that the chemical companies are very involved in the work you do.
▶ 0:41:02So the maha benefits the some of the maha advocates that I've met with, some of whom may be here today, seem deeply concerned with this administration paying lip service to the movement while delivering win after win for the chemical industry. I share their concerns. As I said, I was at the rally this morning outside the supreme court. I listened to many speeches. Many people seem very angry.
▶ 0:41:26So I just want to ask you plainly, do you understand why maha advocates appear to be deeply concerned by the administration's claims to support making america healthy again in those policies? At the same time, the epa is weakening pfas protections, sidelining agency scientists, defending bayer, and elevating chemical industry leaders within your own agency.
▶ 0:41:52>> it's a really good, um, approach to put a premise of a question where there's like a whole bunch of inaccurate things and where do you want me to start? That's like a 14 part question. >> is inaccurate. >> feel free. I mean, obviously, I wouldn't expect you to go through like any of the list of our top 500 environmental accomplishments from the first year. You don't want to you don't want to talk about any of it, right? You just want to make believe that it just didn't happen. I get it. There's, you know, there's a midterm coming up.
▶ 0:42:22>> I was happy to hear you about you talking about your accomplishments, but I'm deeply concerned about the gutting the budget cuts. >> so do you want to talk so you bring up pfas. You want to go through all of our pfas accomplishments. We go through that. Next, we go through these environmental accomplishments you want to talk about and make america healthy again movement that you want to you want politically, you're looking to meddle in. Obviously, you didn't support president trump. The coalition did. Those are people working with us on microplastics, which we just added on to the. >> I'm going to. >> reclaim my time, okay? >> please reclaim my time.
▶ 0:42:51>> please ask your next 15 part question. >> I will make it quicker. Okay, I was interested. Uh, it's fine. I, I, I'm provoking you, I understand and I, uh, I understand why you didn't like my question. I was interested to read a letter signed by many of the maha advocates. And again, I didn't I didn't invent maha. I'm very proud to support the epa. It's the administration, trump administration who has been touting maha, promoting maha. And I've met with many advocates to see where we have areas on a bipartisan basis where we can work together.
▶ 0:43:19So you tell me they sent you a letter at the end of march, and they gave you a list of things that it's time for the epa to do. Immediately initiate emergency review of pesticides banned in peer nations. Closed toxic toxic pesticide loopholes, shut the revolving door between the epa and the chemical industry. Rebuild the office of research and development, restore the epa scientific corps. Do you have answers to any of those questions? Because those seem like very fair.
▶ 0:43:45And there are many others in here of things that the epa should be doing. >> well, listen, we. >> have from people who support the movement that you support, okay? >> we enjoy our working relationship with maha, and that's why we have partnered on a number of different efforts. Um, you, uh, I just referenced adding microplastics and pharmaceuticals, the contaminant candidate list.
▶ 0:44:07Um, we need to be able to, to do our review of glyphosate, which is being done in 2026. Uh, my message that I've communicated publicly on that is that I want our dedicated career scientists inside the office of chemical safety to, uh, to be able to do that without any political, um, interference.
▶ 0:44:33I want the, the gold standard signs, the best available signs to, to dictate the outcomes of that particular research. And I want to communicate that publicly. Um, I'm not going to prejudge the outcome of, of, I'm not allowed to prejudge the outcome of that ongoing review, but we want to empower dedicated career scientists. And inside that office are folks who have been there for ten, 20, 30 years and they're doing an amazing, fantastic job.
▶ 0:44:59What I have done often, uh, with the office of chemical safety is that I will have a meeting where I have the political appointees leave the room, and I have a candid discussion with those career staffers, and I ask them a lot of tough questions, uh, and ensure that I'm receiving information from the grassroots up. We talked about the reorg.
▶ 0:45:26Uh, you like to say decimated research, wouldn't expect you to talk about the hundreds of people inside the office of applied science and environmental solutions. I wouldn't expect you to reference the increased scientists inside of the office of chemical safety, because I get it. I mean, you have an agenda. I mean, I understand you'd like to have a gavel in your hand. >> uh, reclaiming my time. Uh, yeah, just. I'll just say a couple more things, and then I'll let you move on to the next questioner.
▶ 0:45:50Um, first off, we get very little communication from you about the reorganization or about what studies have been dropped or where scientists have been moved with the dismantling of the organization. So if you want to provide me and this committee with a higher level of information than we're used to getting, I would be thrilled to learn more about where those scientists are and how many scientific studies have been dropped or changed. So please give me all the information you want, and I may well find things in there that say, good job, glad you're reorganizing that.
▶ 0:46:16And yes, I'm thrilled that you are, um, taking action on microplastics. But, um, I just want to be clear. That's, uh, out for public comment. We may not get the information on it for a while. So there's nothing that has been actively done on that. And lastly, I'm very happy for you to be talking about scientific study and the reevaluation of glyphosate.
▶ 0:46:36I know that's a role of the epa and it's long overdue, but I do not understand why the agency would, at the same time support immunity for the for the chemical industry and preempt the states on making their own laws before that study has been done. So I yield back my time. Um, and I thank you for being here today. >> Mr. rossi. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you. Administrator. Miss hanson, you're not forgotten. I see you sitting over there. I know you're anxiously awaiting a question, but, uh, we're grateful you're both here.
▶ 0:47:03Um, fairly new to this subcommittee. And, uh, so you're my first administrator. Uh, actually, the second one. But I think you're doing a really good job, and I, uh, my mom lived in imperial beach, california, for the last 20 years of her life, and she had some lung difficulties.
▶ 0:47:25And, uh, the sewage issue down there from the tijuana river sewage issue has been, uh, in existence since 1933. So nearly 100 years. This problem has, uh, has been there. If you don't care about clean water, then why did you solve the problem? >> the, uh, the president made it a top priority.
▶ 0:47:50Uh, he's I I've been in meetings with the president that had nothing at all to do with the tijuana river sewage crisis. But he saw the footage. Uh, actually, what got to him the most, uh, was the footage that of the impacted navy seal training in coronado. Um, the the president has posted the videos that had come out and he demanded action. Um, I went there for the first time last april. We then launched a 90 day negotiation with mexico.
▶ 0:48:19At the end of july, we signed a memorandum of understanding, uh, that mexico agreed to do several things, adding a whole bunch of new mexico side projects that were needed in order to have a 100% solution to obligate money that they previously said that they would, but they hadn't yet, and to also stress test timelines, uh, in order to be able to bring down the project timelines wherever possible.
▶ 0:48:41Uh, there was then after that agreement was signed, us and mexico, uh, there was then a negotiation that was finalized in december, uh, for a new minute that was agreed to between the united states and mexico, a binding agreement, uh, projects that will be completed in 26, 27 and 1 in 28. Implementing that plan is the plan to have a permanent 100% solution to this decades long crisis. So the president made it a priority. He sent me out there.
▶ 0:49:10Uh, we engaged in negotiation that involved different agencies. Uh, we had a signature. Mexico, over the course of the last several months, has been doing what they had committed to us that they would do. Uh, and we continue to keep a close eye daily, uh, on this important priority for millions of people in southern california. >> it's a, it's an incredibly big deal. And I was working with some of our democrat colleagues from california to get this taken care of. You did it. And and I'm really grateful for that. It's going to take some time to clean up.
▶ 0:49:38But thank you for doing what you did. It affected my mom's health. It affect our our special operators health. And I'm just grateful for doing it. The tragic fires in los angeles just decimated that community. Your agency participated in the cleanup. How long did it take you to do that? >> um, when president trump was inaugurated, he gave us 30 days to complete our hazardous material removal.
▶ 0:50:05We got it done in 28, uh, so that the army corps could come in and complete their phase two debris removal, which they completed in 100 days. This was the largest, uh, wildfire cleanup in the history of the agency, and we completed it in record time.
▶ 0:50:20Uh, the agency then, uh, recently, over the course of the last couple of months, going above and beyond at the president's direction, uh, we've essentially been doing constituent services, uh, where we are calling, uh, all of the victims who have not yet gotten their permits. And we are helping them working directly with the city of los angeles, with the county in los angeles to help them get their permits done.
▶ 0:50:42Since we got involved in that, there's been over 2000 permits that have been completed, small business administration, uh, awarded over $3 billion in disaster loans. That was over half of their disaster loans for, uh, 2025. And the agency continues to stay involved, working closely with leaders at all levels of government to make sure that we're helping these victims. That's included. That's including, uh, meetings recently with the president.
▶ 0:51:09There was one that took place last week between the president and mayor bass and long island, and los angeles county supervisor kathryn barger. Uh, the president has been outspoken, uh, on the insurance companies that have been dragging their feet. He's been outspoken, uh, with regards to the banks, uh, that can be doing more as well. So this effort has been to go above and beyond. At first the focus was on our federal equities.
▶ 0:51:32Um, but over the course of the last few months, when the president saw that there wasn't enough getting done fast enough with nonfederal logjams is that he's deployed me and others to help break through those nonfederal. Logjams. And we're honored to do it. >> finally, uh, let's talk about pesticides. They've become the talk of the country with the maha movement. Uh, and we talk about a lot about the regulated ones in the united states.
▶ 0:51:59Tell me about illegal pesticides and what you've done to stop the those from coming from foreign countries and why. >> yeah, that's a that's been a top priority for us. And that was, um, a somewhat, uh, ramped up new effort for the office of enforcement and compliance, uh, to be able to tackle illegal pesticides. We have pesticides that come in from out of the country. Uh, we have pesticides that get dumped here from china.
▶ 0:52:25And I got to tell you, as I've traveled around this country, I mean, I remember visiting a farm in minnesota where I saw a whole lot of chinese letters all over their products, um, behind closed doors. And it was pretty eye opening for me to see just how much of a reliance, uh, is out there in these chinese products.
▶ 0:52:46However, uh, what's worse, it's one thing when there's a company that sells a product that has chinese lettering on it and has connections to chinese companies, and it goes through a registration process. It's another thing when you're illegally dumping, uh, chinese pesticides into our country, not just chinese pesticides, but other countries as well. Uh, so the, the import enforcement effort has been a top priority for the office of enforcement and compliance.
▶ 0:53:16Um, since january 2025, epa has prevented over 500 shipments of non-compliant products from illegally entering the country, blocked over 1.6 million pounds of illegal pesticides imports, and charged 65 criminal defendants for illegal smuggling and transnational organized criminal conduct. Uh, that were that was hurting americans and american businesses. Uh, an epa is prepared to deliver even more results in fiscal year 27. >> thank you. Administrator.
▶ 0:53:43I see those as, uh, real, tangible victories in keeping clean air, water and food. So thank you very much for what you're doing. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield. >> thank you, Mr. laura. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. I just want to make one point, because I'm a strong believer in science and research.
▶ 0:54:03But it's my understanding that, um, under the the trump administration, the agency has shed 20% of its staff either wiped out or deeply slashed several programs, including the office of research and development. I'm interested in the same way miss pingree is is about I'm quite frankly, you know, I thrive on research, biomedical research or any kind of research.
▶ 0:54:27I find it that this is not an administration that places a lot of, uh, eggs in that research basket and that they, they don't have a problem with, with cutting that back. And it would appear that that 20% cut in staff. That's what would be interesting to know about the, the scientists, uh, etc. And, and what direction they tell us we should be going in, uh, climate change, uh, real happening all around us.
▶ 0:54:54Uh, that is, that's a quote, by the way, climate change is real and happening all around us. That is directly from epa's website. Uh, I imagine my shock when I learned that it hasn't been scrubbed from the website, although I fully expect to check in about a week and maybe it will be taken down, I guess we'll see whether or not that's the case. I'm shocked because the science tells us that climate change is real and accelerating.
▶ 0:55:22Um, uh, and really the effects and the impact of climate change are real. I know you probably did see the report on antarctica and the glaciers and melting and all this was an extraordinary documentary. Um, over this past weekend. Um, this is an administration that is hell bent, in my view, on ignoring science.
▶ 0:55:47Just two weeks ago, you reportedly attended a climate deniers conference. And in your remarks you said, quote, for those who wanted to criticize my appearance here before this group, it really shows the desperation of just how many walls have collapsed of this last line of defense. End quote.
▶ 0:56:08Uh, in connecticut, we have seen increasing heat waves, extreme precipitation, devastating floods impacting everything, farming, school closures, damaging homes and businesses. Climate change is harming our health and our environment, but is also harming americans. Uh, financially.
▶ 0:56:26This administration, however, is running the playbook on making the problem worse, focusing on policies that are handouts to the fossil fuel companies, like reversing the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment, finding, rolling back fuel emission standards for motor vehicles, and reducing methane leak monitoring requirements. The budget proposal reads like a climate change deniers manifesto.
▶ 0:56:54When climate change is flooding our streets, poisoning our air, driving up health care and disaster costs, how can the epa justify abandoning that duty to protect americans, to appease polluters? Under the false flag of economic growth? >> following the law, section 202 of the clean air act? Where does it say anything about fighting global climate change? Loper supreme court case. You're familiar with it? >> no, I maybe others are. I'm not. But let me ask.
▶ 0:57:24>> but that's really important. As a member of congress, loper says that we as as an agency don't have the authority to get creative. If section 202 of the clean air act. >> no, no, but you don't have. Excuse me. You do not have the right to say climate change does not exist, that it's a hoax. And that's where this administration. >> you're upset that you don't know what it is. Do you know what the major policies doctrine. >> except I'm upset because. >> you know what the major policies doctrine is? You're a member of congress. You should know.
▶ 0:57:52>> well, you're you're you you have moved from someone who defended the environment to all of a sudden. >> very defensive about not knowing the two biggest landmark supreme court cases of the. >> last year. You are. >> very, to your. >> question, very defensive about changing your policy and your positions with regard to the environment. Now you just. >> tell you want me to tell you what the two biggest supreme court cases are of the last few years? >> this is what I want you. >> michigan versus epa. >> well. >> west virginia versus. >> epa, you know, you're here because you need money from us.
▶ 0:58:22So halt for the second and wait for the questions and answer the questions. >> I answered your question. No, you didn't like my answer because you don't know what it is, because you don't know what the major policies doctrine is. Because you're asking me. You're asking me about section 202 of the clean air act. And you don't you don't read it. You don't know what it says. >> listen. And what you want to do is to deny. You want. >> to know. I actually read the law. I do my homework. >> really? >> you're just somebody who likes to have the microphone on. You know what I have to do?
▶ 0:58:49I read the law, I read the supreme court. >> cases, and I would say. >> no, we should do for your constituents is actually read statutes. >> the budget is at real risk. Read your. Supreme court. This is the appropriations committee. You're going to hear. >> you care about science now. You're threatening to defund it. >> oh my god, no, you don't fund. >> because you don't know what right is, because you don't know what the major policies doctrine is. Your message to our our folks at the epa is that you wanted to. >> fund us. Listen to this bs. >> the bs.
▶ 0:59:17You think I made up these cases? >> yeah, I think you have made up. >> I made, I made up, I made up west virginia versus epa, I made up michigan versus epa. >> what was right? Uh, what what are you doing? Why? Wait, whoa! Polluters. >> we're not going to get any very far by talking on, uh, on top of each other so that no one can hear. If you ask a question, you have to give the witness an opportunity. >> you do not have to have a witness attack me. Not when you have to give. >> witness a chance.
▶ 0:59:48>> federal resources. >> to answer the question. >> I've asked a question. I don't have an answer. >> oh, so what, you want me to start over with the last question. What's your question? Do you have a new one? >> my question to you is, in what is going on in our streets today with regarding flooding, what's going on with our air quality? What is happening with, uh, in the antarctic? What is how do you abandon what the epa's, uh, duties are to protect americans?
▶ 1:00:17And because, in fact, given the way you have dealt with the, uh, with, with the budget, it is a sop to polluters. You are really, it would appear I just said what the president claimed at mar a lago is you give me $1 billion and I'll take make sure that you are made rich. I didn't say that. Your boss, the president of the united states, was was clear on that. I.
▶ 1:00:46And that's what this is that that's that's what what is going on here? >> okay. >> so you don't have an answer. >> no, no no, no, let me answer. Oh, please, let me answer your question. Can I answer. Oh thank you. Thank you chairman. So it's interesting you're saying that we're letting polluters off the hook. Yeah. Your position. Yeah. Okay.
▶ 1:01:04So, um, since january 20th, in the first year of the trump administration, uh, we sentenced more criminal defendants, 100 compared to the 91 of the last year of the biden administration. We obtained far more criminal fees and restitution the last year, the biden administration, the number is 57.7 million in the first year of the trump administration, it's 561.9 million. We also have obtained far more criminal forfeiture.
▶ 1:01:32So in the last year, the biden administration, they obtained get this point $1 million point $1 million. You know how much we did? Oh, $1.1 billion. >> tell us tell us how many of those projects. Billion dollars start for you. Okay, I don't go back to to biden. I'm going forward. >> pounds of illegal pesticide. No, you're actually making an accusation that we're letting the polluters off the hook. Pounds of illegal pesticides blocked from entering the us, 1.65 million pounds previously was 0.96 million pounds.
▶ 1:02:02This is another one. Cleanup of contaminated soil and water in the last year of the biden administration, 1.9 9,000,000yd in the first year of the trump administration, 59 point 3,000,000yd. More value of injunctive relief 6.02 billion more civil enforcement case conclusions.
▶ 1:02:25Okay, you could you you want to make the claim that we're just giving up, uh, on on the work of the enforcement and compliance office. >> I don't. >> is that your question? I'd say don't if if your cup was filled with glyphosate, I'm telling you, as the administrator of epa, don't drink it. >> thank you so much for agreeing to what we need. >> I don't know what the question was. You you're holding up a cup saying glyphosate. You know, don't drink it, don't inject it. >> maybe you should try doing that. Excuse me. Okay.
▶ 1:02:54I'm going to move on to a second question, Mr. chairman. >> I hope it's not as long as the first. >> well, it wouldn't have been prolonged, except that, you know, it's it's interesting. >> yeah. We come with facts. We have answers. >> go ahead. >> it really is. They're really so blank, arrogant. You know, when they're really.
▶ 1:03:21You're making a mockery of what the agencies are all about. 40 years clean water and drinking water. State revolving loan funds have provided low interest loans to eligible recipients for water infrastructure projects. Money is paid back into the revolving loan fund. The state makes new loans to other recipients for high priority water quality activities.
▶ 1:03:45This budget proposes $305 million in total for two revolving, uh, two revolving funds and $852 million, or 74% cut from the $1.2 billion um enacted in 2026. This is under the guise of, quote, encouraging states to take responsibility for local water infrastructure projects, end quote. Quite the encouragement.
▶ 1:04:12Overnight, states face massive cuts to their budget would be forced to make impossible choices to fill the gap. Connecticut would go from receiving an estimated $28.2 million in 2026 to only $3.2 million in 2027, an 89% cut.
▶ 1:04:32This approach was roundly rejected in the bipartisan, bicameral 2026 agreement for this bill, according to epa's own assessments, our drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems need at least $1.3 trillion in improvements over the next 20 years, funding that states use for critical purposes they repair or they upgrade wastewater treatment facilities well repairs emergency actions that are needed in the
▶ 1:05:02Aftermath of natural disasters to make sure residents do not lose access to safe, clean water. Town of wallingford, connecticut, used a revolving funds to upgrade their water pollution control facility to help remove phosphorus and put uv disinfection methods in place.
▶ 1:05:19Now easy one is it generally more cost effective to maintain water infrastructure in good standing, or wait until it breaks down, for example, a water main rupturing and flooding a community and then clean up the problem? >> it's a huge problem in this country that you have aging water infrastructure. We saw with the potomac interceptor. >> mhm. Given that states will not be able to plug the budget hole, I don't know if you've taken a look at the budgets of states. >> oh, we studied everything.
▶ 1:05:49>> in front of us. Well, I don't know if you've studied the state, the state of connecticut's budget. What is your plan for communities when they inevitably suffer failures in their water systems, which is going to happen. >> with all with with all due respect to all of the amazing initiatives that you call congressionally directed spending, uh, and we see firsthand that a lot of the projects that we're administering includes a lot of very, very good use as, as
▶ 1:06:20Members of congress set out in their desire to have this congressionally directed spending included in appropriations. We don't include that in our proposal. How much, uh, you might choose to raid the srf on congressionally directed spending is a decision that congress makes as you go through your deliberative process. I'm not saying that passing judgment on individual projects. No, actually I'm not.
▶ 1:06:49Um, I'm, but I'm saying I don't ask for your earmarks for you. That's a process that you all have. You're not going to see that in the president's fy 27 budget. We we are you're not going to see congressionally driven set asides. Uh, the srf fund would be flowing as a revolving fund if it wasn't continuously rated for earmarks and set asides. I see you're the ranking member of the appropriations committee. You should understand that.
▶ 1:07:20>> tell me about it. And I introduced community projects a number of years. >> right. And I could trash I could sit here trashing them, but I'm not. You have a process. >> because members would not. We we you know, they were designed for a purpose because let me just tell you that you got an 89% cut to the state revolving loan fund. You can't tell me that that. >> I'm helping you with your math. >> going to it's going to community. >> right. And I did not ask for your earmarks for you. >> hell no. God knows, you know. >> right, exactly.
▶ 1:07:49>> we we fund, we want, you know, I, I, ija had huge investments in water projects and water infrastructure. We don't raid the state revolving loan fund. >> yes you do. Absolutely. >> we do not 100%. >> that's your congressionally directed spending. You don't you don't you're not giving them out as as loans. You're just taking the money out of the srf and you're giving them to local, to, to local communities.
▶ 1:08:18By the way, I'm not I'm not passing judgment on what you choose to say has merit because you're, you're, you're making the ask on behalf of your constituents. But that's exactly what you're doing. You're taking money out of it and you're, and you're giving it to local communities. So it's no longer revolving. It's no longer a revolving fund. When you take money out for set asides and earmarks. >> you know, I tell you, we we were, I think on a bipartisan basis, we were able to deal with this before. It's. Well, in terms of the restoration.
▶ 1:08:49And it will be once again, what the what the appropriations committee does on a bipartisan, bicameral basis that will address this issue. And so, uh. I think you have a lot to answer for in terms of what you all are doing with regard to the environment, but that's a discussion for another day. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> thank you. Uh, Mr. laurel and I, if I get this straight, we take the.
▶ 1:09:18Uh, community finance projects. I forget that term out of the srf. Consequently, state epas would have more money if we didn't direct spending out of that 100%. That's true, isn't it? >> in a very, very large way. >> yeah.
▶ 1:09:39And, uh, I still support the srf because frankly, I know a lot about my communities, a lot moremunitiesn washington, dc does. And so that's why I support that effort. And, uh, but it, it is true that if we did no, uh, community. The world wouldn't change the money, just how it's directed. Mr. mccollum.
▶ 1:10:12>> thank you, Mr. chair. Um, I'm just going to read the epa's original mission statement when it was established in 1970, and I think we both agree on that, Mr. administrator, to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment, air, water, land by consolidating federal research, monitoring, standard setting and enforcements. And it's aimed to abate pollution through a coordinated attack.
▶ 1:10:44So I hear what you said about wanting wanting to do that. I did have another. I do have something I want to get to, but I just want the, um, conversation came up and it's something I've been following quite a bit and I appreciated. And I'm holding you to what you said about when you have the discussion with the scientists in the room that you ask the people that are part of the administration that have backgrounds, um, that, that they leave.
▶ 1:11:11In 2000, there was a study called the safety and evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide roundup and its active ingredients glycemic for humans. It was in 2025.
▶ 1:11:26It 25 years, tracked it. It found that monsanto, who has worked for monsanto, that's part of that discussion. Monsanto.
▶ 1:11:55Well, what it was doing at the time. And so I'm going to take you at your word that you're removing all of those folks. And I hope that you're not referring to that study at all in front of the supreme court. >> we are we are not going to rely on that retracted article whatsoever. >> thank you. Um, we've we've talked about the cuts, the 25% proposed reduction in the epa's budget. It's going to be devastating to the mission that I just described and to the health of our environment.
▶ 1:12:24There was a conscientious decision with doge going through and just eliminating jobs and eliminating tasks without any congressional input. Something that I strongly disagreed, disagreed with. Um, but going back to my constituents, the importance of clean air and water and environmental remediation is really important for them. Um, minnesota's been on the front lines of addressing pfas contamination.
▶ 1:12:48We've used the epa regulation and funding to address chemical contamination at abandoned warehouses to clean up industrial brownfields to high standards. And we have the right in minnesota to even make the water standards a little higher, which which we've done. But we work, we try. We want to work with the epa on this, especially when it comes to the mississippi river, which 20 million people down downstream and everything depend upon for water.
▶ 1:13:15So when the epa talks about cutting its budget in half, it concerns my constituents, and it concerns the state of minnesota and all the other states, arkansas, everybody up and down the mississippi river that we could be losing a potential partner. So when we see cuts to the epa threaten our ability to uphold. Also on another matter that this committee works with, as I'm sure you're aware of, is trust and treaty obligations.
▶ 1:13:42Tribes face a greater risk than average from pollution in their air and their water. In minnesota, we're seeing drastic limitations on on fish. We're watching manoomin, which is wild rice and at times not be edible. So there's industries like mining and oil and all the mercury that's coming in from from coal. So the tribes also need a robust epa to work with them to uphold their treaty rights. And the tribes are also funded within the epa.
▶ 1:14:10So I want to find out from you to provide to to me and to the committee exactly the tribal consultation you've had on some of these decisions that affect that affect the epa. I'd like you to provide that to. >> absolutely. And we reissued the the tribal policy. We we have an office. >> I've got limited time. I, I know you're going to get it to the committee, but I want to get to some other things.
▶ 1:14:36So now I want to go back to the office of research and development, especially the scientific arm of the epa. Now, the epa, you've lost a majority of your highly trained scientists. They were either fired or pushed out because they were sent home and told not to come back. And then some were told to come back. And people have found other jobs when when their offices were closed there, many of them are gone now. And they were essential researchers.
▶ 1:15:02Uh, and so, um, that also included the work they were doing on, on pfas. They developed methods to detect pfas. They researched what limits we should require for our water. And I'm just going to point out, Mr. ellzey and I serve on the on the defense appropriations committee. That's where the majority of the research money has been coming from and will continue to come from.
▶ 1:15:25And I'm happy to say that's we don't earmark in the bill, but I work on that because we have pfas all over the department of defense. It's affecting life, health and safety of our servicemen and women and their families. So on that research, we've we've delivered $500 million in pfas remediation to communities, and that's dual use. But I also need a partner in the epa. So I would like you to provide for this committee.
▶ 1:15:54How many scientists were lost in the dismantling of the research and development, what they were working on, what happened to their research, and then who in the epa is left to help others? Communities in minnesota, michigan, texas, wherever, if those state agencies have questions on working on this, where do they go now?
▶ 1:16:17Because it's clearly my understanding from talking to just not minnesota, but other states, that they're very concerned at a time when their budgets are being cut and what's happening in the economy. And you're cutting back on that, that we're I'm going to be polite here and say unintentionally causing a consequence that could lead to not doing what the shared mission of the epa in this committee wants to see work done. So can you get the committee? I want to know. I want to know lines.
▶ 1:16:46What's happening in. We don't have all of our justification books and everything else like that. So especially when it comes to pfas, exactly what got cut, how you're. If you're not going to replace it, who's going to fall on and what, what what do we need to do as a congress if we want to do something different, to tell the administration as being the appropriations committee, this is our priority. Work with us on it. >> yeah. On the pfas front, we're doing a lot of research at the agency.
▶ 1:17:15I was just at research triangle park in north carolina two weeks ago, visiting the labs where those scientists are working on it. As far as the request on numbers, are you looking for me to provide it now or in writing afterwards? >> no, I, I, I said you could get it to the committee. You can give it to the chairman. >> yeah, we have the numbers and we could do it in q, f, r or whatever's, whatever, whatever you want. >> thank you. >> okay. >> and sooner the better, because we're we're getting ready to do our markup. Thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:17:46>> thank you so much, Mr. chairman. And thank you, administrator, for being here. Um, I wanted to talk about mercury. Uh, you know that mercury is a very dangerous pollutant. Uh, it leads to cognitive challenges for kids their entire lives, the developmental delays that even a trace amount of mercury poisoning can lead to, uh, make kids slower to speak, slower to walk. Uh, it follows them forever.
▶ 1:18:13One of the decisions that the epa made under your leadership was to repeal higher mercury and air toxic standards. Uh, tell me a little bit about why you did that and specifically why you left out the health impacts in that analysis. >> so you're referring to the 2024 mercury and toxic standards we kept in place, the strict 2012 mercury toxic standards that were working.
▶ 1:18:38Uh, there was a targeted effort towards the end of the biden administration through a number of rules to try to tell coal miners that they should learn to code and, and to try to make coal plants across this country shut down steam, electric eog coal combustion, residual clean power plan 2.0. The 2024 mercury toxic standards. Collectively, there were coal plants all across the entire country that were targeted for extinction because of it.
▶ 1:19:05And now they're able to stay open, um, coal and natural gas, uh, they provide these power. >> plants to, to refocus. Specifically, why did your analysis of the impacts of this repeal not include the health impacts to the populations that are going to bear this increased mercury pollution? >> oh, we absolutely consider the health impacts of mercury. >> there was no quantified health impact in that analysis. Am I mistaken?
▶ 1:19:35>> we absolutely value the the impact. But the whole reason why we have mercury and air toxic standards in the first place is because of the health impacts of mercury and air toxic standards. So. >> but in the repeal, how much do you think it's actually going to. What are the health harms of this repeal? >> uh. >> it could be zero. >> you think doubling the amount of mercury pollution in the air is going to lead to zero health harms? >> where did you get those from?
▶ 1:20:04>> that's the impact of the richard neal from. >> the where did you get it from the. >> 2024 to the 20 2012 standards? You mentioned that you're going back to the 2020. >> where's your math from? Here we go. I'm not secretary kennedy. I watched your hearing with him last week. It is 71% higher. >> the standards from 2024 are 70% higher than the standards from 20 2012. >> so it is your position as I sit here today. We're about to do this because you're going to regret it. We're about to do this. We're. Your position is that we are doubling the amount of mercury. >> that you are allowing 70% higher mercury standards.
▶ 1:20:34>> yeah. No. So I'm allowing 70% now. I'm saying now you're saying 70. >> the standard that had 70% stricter standards, the 2024 standard than the 20 2012 standard. >> so the nationwide to. >> understand the math behind this, I'm confused. >> here we go. The nationwide. Tons of mercury emissions from coal plants. If the mat's 2024 was still in place from 2028 to to 2037 was 33.2. Nationwide, tons of mercury emissions from coal plants of mercury are toxic.
▶ 1:21:02Standards was repealed from 2028 to 2037 is 39.3 at most. That's assuming that no coal plant at all will voluntarily take any action whatsoever to install any control devices, so at most, the math ends up being 15.5 to 18.3%, which is significantly less than double. >> the estimates that I've seen are as much as 1500 additional pounds of mercury in the air. >> rip it up.
▶ 1:21:30Have your dog pee on it. It's just not accurate. >> Mr. chair. >> can you quantify the health impacts of the increased mercury pollution that are going to be allowed in the air because of this epa standard? >> do you understand that the the 2012 mercury and air toxics? >> I'm talking about the repeal, the 2024 standards. >> the 2012. >> is the health impacts of these standards because they were left out of the epa report. >> 2021.
▶ 1:21:56Mercury emissions from coal fired egus were 90% lower than pre match levels since 2010. Acid gas, hazardous air. >> I'm not asking about since 2010. >> been reduced. This is the last time that we that we have the number. >> okay. I'll give you the answer. I'll give you. >> it does not it does not exist. So after 20 2021 is the last year.
▶ 1:22:17>> in in your in your opening statement, in your opening statement, you cited, uh, an estimate for how much you think the compliance benefits, how much the savings of this are going to be. Yes. And I think it's quite interesting that your that your citation of the savings impacts, the compliance cost to the coal power plants is so precise, but the impacts of the harms to the kids that are going to actually bear this mercury pollution seems a little vague. Let me help you out.
▶ 1:22:42Uh, the this, this decision is going to lead to 1,500 pounds of increased mercury. >> that's not. >> in the air. Okay, 1,500 pounds of increased up to 1,500 pounds of increased mercury in the air.
▶ 1:22:56Now that's going to lead to about $1 million per pound of cost, about $1.5 billion impact on our health system, disproportionately faced by pregnant women and kids who are actually dealing with this mercury poisoning, far outweighing the compliance benefits that you cited. >> that your numbers just aren't accurate. >> tell me your numbers. I asked your numbers. >> I just did. >> what are the health impacts of this repeal?
▶ 1:23:24>> okay, the 2021 mercury and air toxic emissions, the last year that the agency has from coal fired egus were 90% lower than previous levels. Now is it when do you think. >> they were 90% lower? 2024 2012 standard. >> okay, the 2024 mercury toxic standards. When? When is what is your understanding of when that went into effect? >> my point. >> no, no no. When do you know it's the whole it's important to, to, for your question and your math, when did the 2024 mercury toxic standards go into effect? >> my point. >> no, this is really.
▶ 1:23:55>> important was successful. >> when did the 2024 standards go into effect? Did they go into effect yet? >> look, the point here is the. >> are you aware that the 2024 mercury toxic standards didn't even go into effect yet? >> you were being so combative because you don't have the information because you're not. >> I don't have I'm asking you a simple question. I even know that it didn't go into effect. >> yet, which is how many months are. >> you won't even tell me where you're getting your math from. >> I'm telling you, okay? >> you're telling me. Tell me, where'd you get your math from? 1500, you say is the increase.
▶ 1:24:26Where did you get it from? >> up to 1500. Increased. Yeah. >> where'd you get it from? Where's your source? My source comes from career staffers who are who have been working selflessly inside of the federal government. >> for 20 years, impacted by this increased pollution sources. I don't want to get in. I don't want to get into debate here. I just wanted to ask a simple question of who's going to be hurt. >> no. Last week you were calling. Secretary kennedy. You're saying that he was a coward because he didn't know the answer. Whoa, whoa is right. I felt the same way when he was talking to secretary kennedy like that. Yeah.
▶ 1:24:56So you don't know that it didn't go into effect yet. My making up a number of 1500. That's not accurate. I'm asking where your source is. My source is coming from career staffers. Yours is coming from some mysterious people in the community. >> the folks that are going to be harmed by your decision. I yield back, sir. I'm not these mysterious people here. >> yeah. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, Mr. administrator, um, the assertion has been made on several times that.
▶ 1:25:25That you're not interested in water or air and how it affects us on on daily. I didn't say you said that. I would never say that, betty. All I'm saying is it has been said so I'd like to bring up some another success. So I'm not in the habit of pointing fingers at anybody about successes or failures unless or failures, unless there's a success.
▶ 1:25:53And I want to point out that one of your victories is the higher water quality standards from the delaware river basin. And I think it's easy to forget as as we're in a tense time in this country of people wondering the direction we're going is everybody, what is the goal of every agency? Is it are they effective? And I wasn't looking for this, but I, I found it, uh, pretty easily.
▶ 1:26:25I see that the federal government is raising the required oxygen level in an urban stretch of the delaware river near philly to improve conditions for fish and humans. Um, but the move faces pushback from wastewater utilities that will have to pay millions of dollars for infrastructure upgrades to comply with the new rule. I would expect that to have been said during a democrat administration, but it's not. This article is dated october 7th of 2025.
▶ 1:26:50The new standards are dramatic improvement for the quality of the delaware river aquatic life and the. Many communities depend on healthy river, said maya van rossum, leader of the environmental group. We are pleased to see that the epa allowed their decision to be guided by science. Epa's criteria are more stringent than the previously applicable criteria.
▶ 1:27:15The rule also changes the designated use of the urban river to that of protection and propagation of fish populations. The drbc standard before was just maintenance of those populations to endangered species of sturgeon are among the fish found in the delaware river. The only reason I bring that up is because on this very bipartisan, uh, subcommittee, we do talk about water a lot.
▶ 1:27:41We talk about, um, sturgeon, we talk about, uh, salmon in his district and throughout the region. I just, I just want to point out, and you can address this as you like, but let's bring up the things that lee zeldin is doing. Well at epa. You had the opportunity to make sure that that was the cost to the utilities. The wastewater utilities is going to be expensive, and they're mad about it. And you could have killed that rule.
▶ 1:28:10Why didn't you? >> it's I could so I sat in a room filled with our office of water team. Uh, there are a lot of amazing men and women who have been at the agency for a long time. They they are experienced. They're dedicated. Uh, they provided, uh, their detailed research and information. They provided a thoughtful recommendation.
▶ 1:28:32They made their case as to why this of the options is the one that they were recommending that we proceed with a new rule that would increase water quality standards across over 30 miles of the delaware river basin, uh, going across multiple states. Uh, I was aware when this decision was being made that, uh, that there were some, uh, from the industrial side that didn't want us to do it, that it would result in added costs.
▶ 1:29:02Uh, and I chose to make the final decision at that point to increase water quality standards for many of the reasons that you just laid out. >> you did say that you did it, but I'm still asking. I'm still asking why? Because all evidence suggests to me that you do care about the water in the air. There are there are cuts being made that are that affect, um, waste within any organization.
▶ 1:29:30Um, you're hiring a number of experts in chemicals to work at epa to discuss chemicals. So there's got to be a why you, you wanted to be the administrator of the epa. It's not to destroy. Can you tell me why you care about clean air and water? >> our core mission is protecting human health and the environment, the agenda first pillar of power and the great american comeback is a pursuit of clean air, land and water for all americans.
▶ 1:29:56When the american public went to vote in november of 2024 and elected president trump and a republican congress, they were looking for an agency like epa to strike the balance of both protecting the environment and growing the economy. That's one of the big differences between us and our predecessors is that we choose both. We are able to deliver. On the one year anniversary of president trump's term in office, a list of 500 top environmental wins that we achieved over the course of that first year.
▶ 1:30:22It includes, as you pointed out, the $1.6 million million pounds of illegal pesticides that were stopped. It includes a new deal to stop end decades long tijuana river sewage crisis. It includes a record response to the los angeles wildfires, the largest response in agency history. And yes, it also includes increasing water quality standards for over 30 miles of the delaware river basin.
▶ 1:30:47There's over 500 of these environmental actions in it include decisions where we are prioritizing our core mission of protecting human health and the environment, and delivering on that first pillar of powering the great american comeback. We can both protect the environment and grow the economy. It's not a binary choice. >> I think that what you've done in delaware, what you've done in, in san diego, uh, and in, in other places, that's not just going to help californians and americans of all stripes. It's going to help the mexicans.
▶ 1:31:17And you've accomplished something that hasn't been accomplished for decades in one year. And I'm grateful, mister chairman, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. pingree. >> uh, thank you, Mr. chair. Uh, I'm going to ask another question related to glyphosate.
▶ 1:31:31And I don't usually focus on one topic as much in this committee, but it's been a topic of so much conversation in the case at the supreme court today, the use of the defense production act, the amendment we had in this committee, the amendment that's being proposed in the farm bill today, it's a very bipartisan concern. So just going to ask you a couple more questions. Um, as we know, it's the active ingredient in roundup and it's used by many farmers for drying crops right before harvest.
▶ 1:31:59This practice, which is known as pre-harvest desiccation, creates one of the most direct routes for glyphosate to end up in food and in our bodies. And people are increasingly alarmed about glyphosate and bred glyphosate concentration in people's bodies. I'm interested in your budget proposal to develop a $30 million prize challenge.
▶ 1:32:20Not a grant, but a prize challenge to spur the development of cost effective alternatives to pre-harvest desiccation uses of pesticides on crops. You say the challenge will lead to reduce use of pesticides while providing new, innovative tools for farmers to use. There are only two sentences about it in our entire 787 page budget, so I've got a few questions about it. You say this was developed to advance the maha initiative.
▶ 1:32:47So how did this idea come about and why do you think it's necessary? >> uh, so we're in the request for information phase. We want input from people who care about this issue. And there are many we've heard from many passionate activists with the make america healthy again movement. There's a strong interest in reducing reliance on pesticides to the maximum extent possible.
▶ 1:33:14Uh, there's a strong desire to pursue gold standard science. Uh, there is a passionate call for there to be a radical transparency. And, uh, and the pre-harvest desiccation, the precision agriculture, the regenerative farming. There are a number of topics that have been massively enhanced by the strong, passionate voices of activists. Uh, they, they're the ones who put it all over our radar.
▶ 1:33:42They did it time and time again. And, uh, that's why we included this item in the budget. We are still at a initial phase that I would encourage members of congress to participate in. I know that this is an issue that you're personally passionate about. You have a long history as a organic farmer and, you know, you genuinely are engaging on, uh, on this issue. And I, and I greatly respect that. I would encourage members of congress on both sides of the aisle who care about this.
▶ 1:34:14Uh, this idea, uh, to participate in developing as far as what the amount ends up being and, and how that money is put to best use. >> uh, thank you for that. And, and for the reasons that you said and for the broader concerns about public health. Um, I appreciate your showing an interest in how do we change our farming techniques and what role can the epa play in that? Um, so do you agree that glyphosate poses health risks?
▶ 1:34:42And that's one of the reasons why we should try to find ways to phase it out, especially as the use as a desiccant. >> uh, we, I am not able to pre-judge the review that's going on right now this year. Uh, I have committed, and I can recommit to this committee that that review will be completed this year.
▶ 1:34:59I also can say to this committee, and this is my first time addressing congress directly on this matter, uh, that it is my very strong desire that, uh, that our career staffers who have been there for 20, 30 years, they have reviewed thousands of studies on this particular topic. They're extraordinarily informed that they have a process where I don't want to tell them what to find.
▶ 1:35:23I don't want them watching this hearing to get clues on which way I want them to go with this review. I'm actually not allowed to do that. Uh, I want them to complete that review this year. And for us to be radically transparent with, uh, with congress and the public as to what those findings are and what to do next. >> um, since we're talking about ingested glyphosate, do you commit that the study will also will be investigating ingested glyphosate as well as the dermatological effects.
▶ 1:35:54>> I guess, uh, not to put a cart before the horse, but I, I, I stated a few minutes ago and I guess I'll forever stand by it, that you should not be ingesting glyphosate. You should not be ingesting glyphosate. Uh, and, uh, there certainly is an exposure level that once you reach a certain exposure level, it's not even up for any type of debate whatsoever. Um, but, uh, but as far as this, this assessment that's being done, that's getting far more into the weeds than that very high level point.
▶ 1:36:24Um, I, I'm on the record as saying, do not ingest glyphosate. >> that's true. We will be turning your coffee cup comments into a meme and, you know, it'll be watched forever in america. Let's do it. But just as an appropriator, I have a responsibility to ask, so what budget line does this $30 million come from that? >> that is a, uh, that is a process that first off, our cfo will pass me a note. If she has one in mind, she says the s and t.
▶ 1:36:51>> okay, so we'll be looking at the s and t, and while our states are getting massive cuts, we'll be looking at the $30 million going to that. Does the epa need some special authority to create a prize and use $30 million in this way? >> um, if congress appropriates the funding and tells me to spend it, uh, then we will spend it.
▶ 1:37:13>> since it's just a prize rather than a grant, meaning it won't need to follow normal grant marking process, how can we ensure that this isn't going to be just a giveaway to, you know, big chemical or other places where we might have concern that this is where the money went. >> aside from saying that it won't, uh, on top of that, I look forward to working with congress on it. There are passionate advocates inside of congress on both sides of the aisle who care about how this money gets spent. Let's talk at the beginning of the process. >> okay.
▶ 1:37:40Well, thank you for going down that little rabbit hole with me, and I will certainly follow that closely. And thank you for talking about some of the ingested concerns about this. Um, I'm just going to ask one more question about the state preemption of pesticides, because the epa and the justice department has supported bayer's concerns around, um, creating a state preemption on glyphosate. One of my concerns is will the epa also attempt to preempt state pfas preemptions?
▶ 1:38:08Um, you know, that's a big concern in my state. We've been a true leader far ahead of the usda or the epa in general, in our own state in terms of research, farm buyouts, a variety of other things, um, even preventing the spread, spreading of sewage sludge. So we consider ourselves ahead not because we chose to be, but because we did more testing and we're ahead of it. And our farmers were so deeply concerned.
▶ 1:38:33So do you anticipate that the epa, with the pfas chemical, is going to start preempting state protections? >> I'm not seeing that as a as a threat right now. The mcls that were set on pfoa and pfos were pretty strict. Uh, what we're hearing back from water systems, as well as members of congress on both sides of the aisle, is a desire to implement, uh, to that mcl. Uh, there's a strong interest in the new technologies that have been coming online to destruct pfas.
▶ 1:39:04A lot of water systems are, uh, not as good of a, in as good of a financial situation. They're not in a upper income community. They don't want to have to pass the costs off. Um, one of the pfas decisions that we made controversial, we decided to stick with the cercla, uh, line. We could have went to the rcra line. Cercla has more teeth. Pfas doesn't, uh, perfectly fit inside of either of them. It wasn't designed with pfas in mind.
▶ 1:39:33Um, something that I would encourage congress. I know that members of congress brought this up to me in the first place. I would encourage members of congress to continue to look at is to address the passive receiver status, to make sure that we have polluter pays, and we don't have a situation where ratepayers have to pay to clean up pfas from their own water. Um, on top of that, as these technologies are coming online, hopefully the cost to clean up these water systems continues to go down.
▶ 1:40:02Um, but to, to get to the very heart of your question, we are not seeing a threat where the strict levels that have been set on pfoa and pfos that states that care about pfas, and it's probably just about everybody that they we're not hearing from them that they want to go further than for. >> so I heartily support your idea that polluters should pay.
▶ 1:40:26And the more the epa can enforce that and look for ways to have that happen, it helps, certainly at our appropriator level, and it helps the states with that budget. Um, making sure that we fully fund the accounts that give the states the money that they need to upgrade their water systems as opposed to cutting. That would be one way to go a long way to help states in this particular situation.
▶ 1:40:46And I hope you will say, stay true to your word, that you're not going to start encouraging preempting state regulations around pfas in the way that the epa is now trying to preempt glyphosate regulations. >> I've been in the position for 15 or so months. That hasn't come up once. >> great. Well, I support that being a standard across the board on all pesticides, so I hope you will take that into consideration and listen to your own argument on that. Thank you, Mr. chair. I yield back. >> Mr. >> laura thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:41:18>> uh, just, um, I think it's just worth repeating of what actually we're dealing with with the budget here, I really do, I think I mean, there are facts here that, um, uh, the budget proposes cutting epa by $4.6 billion. That's 52%. It would cut research funding. It cuts science and technology account by $236 million.
▶ 1:41:42Uh, and this is research that has been the foundation for evidence based regulations and policies at the epa for decades. Um, and the cut comes on the heels of epa dismantling the office of research and development. Um, they're also, uh, proposals, a sweeping cuts of 83% to state and tribal assistance grants.
▶ 1:42:07Uh, that's both for water infrastructure and to run state environmental agencies. Um, we talked about the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds. It's slashed by 852 million, 74% reduction. Categorical grants are cut by more than $1 billion. That eliminates almost all grants for states. Diesel emissions reduction act, um, eliminated with a cut of $90 million, uh, repealed.
▶ 1:42:37There's been a repealing of the long standing rule, establish that greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment and cause global warming. They've been rolling back dozens of protections against pollution, including limits on tape, tailpipe emissions, soot from smokestacks, emissions of mercury, which my colleague congressman harter made reference to, all of which are proven to harm human health, eliminated the research arm of epa, employed over 1100
▶ 1:43:08Biologists, chemists, toxicologists and scientific experts whose job was to gather evidence of the environmental impact of various policies allowed coal companies to pollute even more, weakening the requirements that these companies clean up the toxic messes that they make. Um, these are the facts that are in the, uh, that, that are in the budget. And I would just say this to you, Mr.
▶ 1:43:34Chairman, I think that collectively both, um, you know, I'll just say this first, but you know, how democrats have successfully defeated this deep and harmful proposed cuts, which we did in 2026. Uh, and we're going to fight to do the same this year.
▶ 1:43:55But I also might add, I think that there is bipartisan support to fight back against some of these cuts because it doesn't only affect, um, my community or, you know, a blue state or so forth. These are cuts that really transcend and go across the country.
▶ 1:44:13So I look forward to working with members on the other side of the aisle here as we review, um, our, the consequences of the steep cuts and the rollback of regulations and standards, uh, that come forward in, in this bill and that what we are doing is to, um, looking at how we can reverse some of the policies, um, that ignore the
▶ 1:44:45Threat of climate change, um, act, you know, quite actively, uh, obliterating the mission of the epa. Um, and, uh, you know, I don't think we want to see the agency diminished, um, or destroyed in any way. And I am hopeful that with both sides of the aisle, we can fight back against these cuts. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back. >> thank you. Uh.
▶ 1:45:11As I said during one of my questions, you're not going to see the state and tribal grants cut by 83%. That was not democrats fighting back. That was republicans and democrats. Exactly. Uh, the technical rural water technical assistance program, presidents of both administrations, I mean, of republican and democratic administrations have said, let's eliminate that. And congress has always fought back on that. >> democrat or republican.
▶ 1:45:41>> that's we're going to we're going to, uh, the budget won't look the same, obviously, when congress gets done with it. But I want to tell you a quick story. First of all, thank you for, uh, and your water team for your work on wotus. Uh, that's been an issue forever. Every new administration comes in and rewrites the rule, and what my farmers and ranchers and other people want is some certainty.
▶ 1:46:06And I know you've written this new rule, and, uh, I appreciate that they like where you're headed. And, uh, uh, as soon as we can define what the wet season is in idaho, we don't have a wet season. Not anymore. Anyway, it seems like it's pretty dry, but, uh, I'll tell you one of the this story before I close the hearing is, uh, I think it was 2014.
▶ 1:46:28I was running for reelection against, uh, pretty, pretty, uh, a lot of the really conservative groups were out to get me and stuff. And so I debated him four times. First debate we had was in an auditorium and I was chairman. That's the first time I was chairman of the interior committee. And I was telling people in the audience, well, we got the epa that year.
▶ 1:46:55We happened to cut it 17%, said we cut the epa 17%, and the guy was running against stood up and said 17%. It's hell. Eliminate the epa. We don't need no damn epa telling us what to do and stuff. You know, standing ovation when he got up and I saw all of a sudden I find myself defending the epa and I said, uh, you know, I'm kind of glad that the cuyahoga river hasn't spontaneously started on fire for a number of years.
▶ 1:47:24And I'm kind of glad I can drive a car through los angeles without goggles on because of the air pollution and stuff. So the epa is necessary and they do do some good things. Our goal is to get some sideboards on it and get it back to its original mission, and I believe that's what you're trying to do, is to make sure that because it can get out there doing some things that we're wondering if they have the authority to do. But I think you're trying to get it back, as you said in your opening statement to its mission. And so I appreciate that.
▶ 1:47:54I appreciate the work that you've been doing. I know it's tough. Uh, judging from the hearing, you sometimes get, uh. Tough position. I appreciate it very much. And thanks for being here today. And with that, hearing's adjourned.