[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







      THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-104




    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy 
                        energycommerce.house.gov 
                        
                        
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
52-378 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2024 
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California            Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10

                          Witnesses Statement

Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 
  Agency.........................................................    12
    Prepared statement \1\
    Answers to submitted questions \2\

                           Submitted Material

Letter of February 5, 2020, to Mr. Kim, Illinois Environmental 
  Protection Agency, by Andrew R. Wheeler, EPA, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko..........................................................    63
Letter of February 5, 2020, to Ms. McCabe, New Jersey Department 
  of Environmental Protection, by Andrew R. Wheeler, EPA, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................    81
Letter of February 5, 2020, to Mr. Seggos, New York Department of 
  Environmental Conservation, by Andrew R. Wheeler, EPA, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................    99
Letter of February 5, 2020, to Mr. Whitman, Director, Oregon 
  Department of Environmental Quality, by Andrew R. Wheeler, EPA, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   117
Statement of December 17, 2019, by David Schultz, Environment and 
  Energy Report, submitted by Mr. Tonko..........................   135
Report ``2019 Year in Review'', EPA, submitted by Mr. Tonko \3\
Letter of February 2020, EPA PFAS Action Plan: Program Update, by 
  Mr. Wheeler, submitted by Mr. Tonko............................   139
Letter of February 27, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, by 
  William E. Spearman III, President and Mr. Scott D. Grayson, 
  Chief Executive Officer, submitted by Mr. Tonko................   158

----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200227/110595/HHRG-116-IF18-Wstate-WheelerA-20200227.pdf.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200227/110595/HHRG-116-IF18-Wstate-WheelerA-20200227-
  SD020.pdf.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200227/110595/HHRG-116-IF18-20200227-SD011.pdf.

 
      THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2020

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Paul Tonko (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters, 
Barragan, Blunt Rochester, Soto, DeGette, Schakowsky, Matsui, 
McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus 
(subcommittee ranking member), McMorris Rodgers, McKinley, 
Johnson, Long, Flores, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Sarbanes, Loebsack, Kennedy, 
and O'Halleran.
    Staff present: Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; 
Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Jean Fruci, Energy and 
Environment Policy Advisor; Anthony Gutierrez, Professional 
Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff Member; Rick 
Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Directory, Energy and 
Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Dustin 
Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel; Nikki Roy, Policy 
Coordinator; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, 
Environment and Climate Change; Peter Kielty, Minority General 
Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, 
Consumer Protection and Commerce; Tim Kurth, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Mary Martin, 
Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and Climate 
Change; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; 
Kate O'Connor, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and 
Technology; Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst; Zach Roday, 
Minority Communications Director; and Peter Spencer, Minority 
Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment and Climate 
Change.
    Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change will now come to order.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    This morning we welcome EPA Administrator Wheeler. Welcome, 
Administrator. We welcome you back to the subcommittee to 
examine the President's budget request for fiscal year 2021.
    This year should be familiar to members of the 
subcommittee. Once again, the President has proposed 
significant cuts, this time 26 percent below last year's 
enacted levels. If enacted, I fear this funding level will 
jeopardize the Agency's ability to fulfill its mission of 
protecting Americans' health and our environment, and I am 
certain that the House will reject this request.
    Even in areas that the administration has singled out as 
priorities, there are drastic cuts. The Drinking Water SRF, for 
example, was proposed to be reduced by over $260 million 
despite the Agency's most recent needs assessment finding that 
the amount of needed capital investment only continues to grow. 
By contrast, the majority's infrastructure plan recognizes this 
need and proposes significantly increased funding for our 
nation's drinking water systems.
    For the Superfund, another one of administration's 
priorities, was reduced by more than $110 million despite EPA 
facing the biggest backlog of unfunded projects in 15 years. I 
am also concerned that the request includes a proposed 11 
percent reduction to EPA's staff which is already operating at 
low levels. There are significant numbers of experienced and 
dedicated employees leaving or retiring, taking their 
institutional knowledge along with them and they are not being 
replaced at the same rate.
    In addition to the budget, members of the subcommittee will 
be interested in receiving updates on EPA's regulatory agenda. 
I believe many of us are concerned that EPA is not acting 
urgently or comprehensively enough to address serious risks to 
Americans' drinking water. Last year, EPA issued its long-term 
revision of the Lead and Copper Rule which, in my opinion, 
falls short of what is necessary to reduce the threat of lead 
in our drinking water.
    And last week, EPA made a proposed regulatory determination 
for PFOA and PFOS. We are still months away from a final 
regulatory determination. And if experience with perchlorate 
has taught us anything, we may be waiting a long time before we 
see any finalized standard, let alone a standard that is 
protective of our vulnerable populations.
    Finally, I am extremely concerned by the political 
leadership's continued treatment of scientific expertise within 
the Agency and outside advisors. I want to highlight a story in 
the Washington Post from December, entitled ``EPA's scientific 
advisers warned its regulatory rollbacks clash with established 
science.'' EPA's Science Advisory Board, which includes many 
appointees by this administration, has raised concerns and 
objections that several of the most significant proposed 
rollbacks of environmental protections are at odds with the 
scientific record, and proposed process changes may have long-
term, detrimental impacts on the Agency.
    For example, the Board's draft review of the science 
transparency rule stated that if, and I quote, ``it could 
easily undercut the integrity of environmental laws as it will 
allow systematic bias to be introduced with no easy remedy.'' A 
memo from the administration to Board members this week raises 
further concerns about the administration's efforts to sideline 
independent scientific review of its work. It is critical that 
our public health protections be grounded in robust science 
and, sadly, I believe the administration continues to dismiss 
science and expertise whenever it conflicts with its 
deregulatory agenda.
    Mr. Wheeler, I thank you again for joining us this morning 
and I look forward to today's discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    This morning we welcome EPA Administrator Wheeler back to 
the Subcommittee to examine the President's Budget Request for 
Fiscal Year 2021.
    Mr. Wheeler, thank you for being here. This year's budget 
should be familiar to members of the Subcommittee.
    Once again, the President has proposed significant cuts; 
this time 26% below last year's enacted levels.
    If enacted, I fear this funding level will jeopardize the 
Agency's ability to fulfill its mission of protecting 
Americans' health and our environment, and I am certain that 
the House will reject this request.
    Even in areas that the Administration has singled out as 
priorities, there are drastic cuts.
    The Drinking Water SRF, for example, was proposed to be 
reduced by over $260 million despite the Agency's most recent 
Needs Assessment finding that the amount of needed capital 
investment continues to grow.
    By contrast, the Majority's infrastructure plan recognizes 
this need and proposes significantly increased funding for our 
nation's drinking water systems.
    Superfund, another one of the Administration's priorities, 
was reduced by more than $110 million despite EPA facing the 
biggest backlog of unfunded projects in 15 years.
    I am also concerned that the request includes a proposed 
11% reduction to EPA staff, which is already operating at low 
levels.
    There are significant numbers of experienced and dedicated 
employees leaving or retiring--taking their institutional 
knowledge along with them--and they are not being replaced at 
the same rate.
    In addition to the budget, members of the Subcommittee will 
be interested in receiving updates on EPA's regulatory agenda.
    I believe many of us are concerned that EPA is not acting 
urgently or comprehensively enough to address serious risks to 
Americans' drinking water.
    Last year, EPA issued its long-term revision of the Lead 
and Copper Rule, which in my opinion falls short of what is 
necessary to reduce the threat of lead in drinking water.
    And last week, EPA made a proposed regulatory determination 
for PFOA and PFOS.
    We are still months away from a final regulatory 
determination.
    And if experience with perchlorate (``per-chlor-ate'') has 
taught us anything, we may be waiting a long time before we see 
any finalized standard, let alone a standard that is protective 
of vulnerable populations.
    Finally, I am extremely concerned by the political 
leadership's continued treatment of scientific expertise within 
the agency and outside advisors.
    I want to highlight a story in the Washington Post from 
December entitled, ``EPA's scientific advisers warn its 
regulatory rollbacks clash with established science.''
    EPA's Science Advisory Board, which includes many 
appointees by this Administration, has raised concerns and 
objections that several of the most significant proposed 
rollbacks of environmental protections are at odds with the 
scientific record, and proposed process changes may have long-
term, detrimental impacts at the Agency.
    For example, the Board's draft review of the ``Science 
Transparency'' rule, stated that it ``could easily undercut the 
integrity of environmental laws, as it will allow systematic 
bias to be introduced with no easy remedy.''
    A memo from the Administrator to Board members this week 
raises further concerns about the Administration's efforts to 
sideline independent scientific review of its work.
    It is critical that our public health protections be 
grounded in robust science, and sadly, I believe the 
Administration continues to dismiss science and expertise 
whenever it conflicts with its deregulatory agenda.
    Mr. Wheeler, I thank you again for joining us. I look 
forward to today's discussion.

    With that, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Shimkus, ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, 
for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start, I 
have a present for you, something that you have asked for, for 
many years. Here is your personal copy of a Shimkus for 
Congress T-shirt.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Mr. Shimkus. And your personal copy of a Shimkus for 
Congress bumper sticker.
    Mr. Tonko. I have to tell you, one of the Chambers of 
Commerce in my district is headed by a Mr. Shimkus, same exact 
spelling, and I will make certain he sees these. I tell him 
they are probably brothers somehow or cousins, but much 
appreciated, Mr. Shimkus.
    Mr. Shimkus. You are welcome. Lithuanian heritage, so those 
who want to know where the ethnicity comes from.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me for an opening 
statement about today's subcommittee hearing on the President's 
proposed budget for the Environmental Protection Agency in 
fiscal year 2021. I want to join you in welcoming Administrator 
Wheeler back to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It is 
good to have the Agency here to answer for itself on policy 
calls and budget recommendations made in the President's 
budget.
    Let's remember though that this proposed budget, actually 
any President's budget, is not binding on anything Congress 
ultimately decides to do. In my over two decades here, I have 
yet to see a Congress copy a President's budget and pass it as 
it was sent to us. During my first EPA budget hearing as 
ranking member of the subcommittee back in 2007, the run-up to 
the hearing was littered with press statements about how the 
Bush EPA didn't care about the environment because it didn't 
propose a level of funding its political opponents desired.
    I noted then and I note now that the Beatles had it 
correctly, money can't buy you love, and it is not certainly a 
guarantee of an improving environment. There are lots of worthy 
ideas and programs that EPA could address, but does it make the 
most sense to have an EPA be the one to do it every time? We 
should not advocate for more funding if all it is buying is 
bureaucracy, regulatory confusion with other agencies, or 
programs that don't really improve public health or the 
environment but take funding from ones that do.
    I have said it before, but I believe it bears repeating, we 
need to not only know how American tax dollars are being spent, 
but are Americans getting a better quality of life for the 
return on their investment? At a macro level, the indicators 
are that our environment is in a much better shape than it was 
when the Agency first opened its doors for business.
    Trends in air, water, and soil pollution are positive. For 
example, before 1970, EPA reported 40 percent of our nation's 
drinking water systems failed to meet basic health standards. 
Today, EPA says 92 percent of Americans receive potable water 
from water utilities that meet all health-based standards. In 
terms of air quality, between 1970 and 2018, the combined 
emissions of six common pollutants including particulate 
matter, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide dropped by 74 
percent in the United States. The air we are breathing today is 
cleaner than when the Agency opened its doors five decades ago. 
At a micro level, between newer and more powerful detection 
equipment, emerging questions about toxicity, and an aging 
workforce at EPA, nagging questions and new challenges pit 
resources and long-term priorities against each other.
    As the Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of 
celebrating its 50th year of operation, serious questions need 
important thought to help transition from an EPA geared for 
previous generations to one prepared to meet future ones. I am 
pleased this administration has deployed objective metrics to 
better access deliverables. I hope to explore this area during 
my questions, and I hope the answers demonstrate an Agency 
geared towards following the law and delivering results.
    Before I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman, I do want to 
congratulate Administrator Wheeler for some of his recent 
actions to provide Americans safe drinking water, the issuance 
of a proposed update to the Lead and Copper Rule and 
preliminary determinations to regulate PFOA and PFOS. These are 
significant developments that have been anticipated for quite 
some time. I applaud you for recognizing that access to safe 
drinking water is an important environmental threat and being 
the one to stand up and act.
    Again, welcome, Administrator Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, and I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me for an opening 
statement about today's subcommittee hearing on the President's 
proposed budget for the Environmental Protection Agency in 
fiscal year 2021.
    I want to join you in welcoming the Administrator, Andrew 
Wheeler, back to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    It is good to have the Agency here to answer for itself on 
policy calls and budget recommendations made in the President's 
budget. Let's remember, though, that this proposed budget--
actually any President's budget--is not binding on anything 
Congress ultimately decides to do. In my over two decades here, 
I have yet to see a Congress copy a President's budget and pass 
it as it was sent up to us.
    During my first EPA budget hearing as a Ranking Member of 
this Subcommittee--back in 2007--the run up to the hearing was 
littered with press statements about how the Bush EPA didn't 
care about the environment because it didn't propose the level 
of funding its political opponents desired. I noted then and I 
note now that the Beatles had it correctly: money cannot buy 
you love--and it's certainly no determinant of an improving 
environment.
    There are lots of worthy ideas and programs that EPA could 
address, but does it make the most sense to have EPA be the one 
to do it every time? We should not advocate for more funding if 
all it is buying us is bureaucracy,regulatory confusion with 
other agencies, or programs that don't really improve public 
health or the environment but take funding from ones that do.
    I have said it before, but I believe it bears repeating we 
need to not only know how Americans' tax dollars are being 
spent, but are Americans' getting a better quality of life for 
their return on investment.
    At a macro level, the indicators are that our environment 
is in much better shape than when the Agency first opened its 
doors for business --trends in air, water, and soil pollution 
show downward trends.
    For example, before 1970, EPA reported 40 percent of our 
nation's drinking water systems failed to meet basic health 
standards. Today, EPA says 92 percent of Americans receive 
potable water from water utilities that meet ALL health-based 
standards.
    In terms of air quality, between 1970 and 2018, the 
combined emissions of six common pollutants--including 
particulate matter, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide--dropped 
by 74 percent in the United States. The air we are breathing 
today is cleaner than when the Agency opened its doors five 
decades ago.
    At a micro level, between newer and more powerful detection 
equipment, emerging questions about toxicity, and an aging 
workforce at EPA; nagging questions and new challenges pit 
resources and long-term priorities against each other.
    As the Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of 
celebrating its 50th year of operation, serious questions need 
important thought to help transition from an EPA geared for 
previous generations to one prepared for future ones.
    I am pleased this Administration has deployed objective 
metrics to better access its ``deliverables.'' I hope to 
explore this area during my questions and hope the answers 
demonstrate an Agency geared towards following the law and 
delivering results.
    Before I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman, I do want to 
congratulate Administrator Wheeler for some of his recent 
actions to provide American's safe drinking water--the issuance 
of a proposed update to the Lead and Copper Rule and 
preliminary determinations to regulate PFOA and PFOS. These are 
significant developments that have been anticipated for quite 
some time. I applaud you for recognizing that access to safe 
drinking water is an important environmental threat and being 
the one to stand up and act.
    Again, welcome, Administrator Wheeler.
    I thank the Chairman for yielding me this time and for 
holding this important hearing.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Pallone, chair of the full committee, 
for 5 minutes for his opening statement, please.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    I thank Administrator Wheeler for being here today, but I 
am not happy with what the EPA is doing. Last year, four former 
EPA administrators testified before our committee, criticizing 
this EPA for failing to meet its essential lifesaving mission. 
Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican former administrator and 
New Jersey Governor testified, and I quote that ``the EPA, 
currently, on the track that it is on, is endangering public 
health and the health of the environment.'' And I agree with 
Governor Whitman's assessment. Instead of protecting public 
health and the environment, this EPA is putting them at greater 
risk. And former Administrator Gina McCarthy said at the 
hearing that EPA's political leadership needs to, and I quote, 
``step up and do their jobs.''
    Unfortunately, it is clear with this budget request that 
EPA's political leadership is continuing on this dangerous 
track. We are at a critical time for environmental protection. 
The impacts of climate change are already here affecting 
communities across the nation and the world. PFAS and other 
emerging contaminants are showing up in our drinking water, 
air, and soil. Our water infrastructure is crumbling and too 
many communities are struggling with lead contamination. And we 
can't afford to ignore these threats, but that is exactly what 
the Trump EPA's budget request does.
    At a time when the backlog for Superfund cleanups is the 
longest it has ever been, we can't afford to cut Superfund 
funding. Yet, this budget would cut it by $112 million. When 
communities are struggling to get lead out of their drinking 
water, we can't afford to cut assistance for the Drinking Water 
State Revolving Funds, but this budget would cut that funding 
by $262 million.
    When sea level rise and toxic red tides threaten coastal 
communities, we can't afford to cut beach grants, but this 
budget would eliminate them entirely. And when PFAS 
contamination is being discovered in more and more communities 
all the time, we can't afford to gut the research funding or 
EPA staff working to develop solutions, but nevertheless this 
budget would slash science and technology funding, toxic risks 
reviews, and drinking water programs.
    These cuts like so much of what we have seen from this EPA 
would harm public health and the environment just as the former 
administrators predicted. But, fortunately, Congress holds the 
power to decide how much funding these important programs will 
actually receive and will work to protect these programs and 
the communities they serve. I think a budget speaks to the 
priorities of the administration proposing it. This Trump 
administration is clearly shouting that it doesn't care about 
safe drinking water. It has no interest in protecting people 
from toxic chemicals in their products or their water. It feels 
no urgency to keep PFAS out of our air, land, water, or bodies, 
and it has no intention of dealing with the climate crisis.
    And this budget proposal simply does not allow the EPA to 
fulfill its mission to the American people and therefore it is 
a proposal that we have to reject. We simply cannot follow the 
dangerous course this administration is trying to take us down. 
Instead, House Democrats are taking action to protect public 
health for vulnerable populations, for environmental justice 
communities, and for future generations.
    With the CLEAN Future Act, my colleagues and I have 
outlined aggressive action to address climate change and other 
pollution. With the LIFT America Act and the Moving Forward 
Framework, we have offered infrastructure solutions that invest 
in protecting public health while also strengthening our 
economy and creating good paying jobs. And with the PFAS Action 
Act, we have set a course to eliminate the threat of PFAS 
chemicals.
    Instead of weakening coal ash regulations, we would 
strengthen them. Instead of weakening vehicle emission 
standards, we would strengthen those. And instead of leaving 
lead service lines in the ground, we would speed replacements. 
Instead of wasting time on unnecessary red tape before setting 
a drinking water standard for PFAS, we would require a 
protective standard quickly. And I think this is a better path 
forward to combating climate change and protecting public 
health and the environment.
    So, in closing, I return to the testimony of former 
Republican Administrator Whitman who stated last year that she 
was, and I quote, ``deeply concerned that five decades of 
environmental progress are at risk because of the attitude and 
approach of the current administration.'' And I just share that 
concern. Like so much of what we have seen from the Trump 
administration, this budget would put the climate, our air, our 
drinking water, our land, our communities, and our planet at 
greater risk, and this is not a path that we can afford to go 
down, Mr. Chairman.
    So again, I thank the Administrator for being here, look 
forward to the testimony and questions and thank you, Chairman 
Tonko. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Last year, four former EPA Administrators testified before 
our Committee, criticizing this EPA for failing to meet its 
essential, life saving mission. Christine Todd Whitman, a 
Republican former Administrator and New Jersey Governor 
testified that--and I QUOTE--``the EPA currently, on the track 
that it's on, is endangering public health and the health of 
the environment.''
    I agree with that grave assessment. Instead of protecting 
public health and the environment, this EPA is putting them at 
greater risk.
    As former Administrator Gina McCarthy said at that hearing, 
EPA's political leadership needs to QUOTE ``step up and do 
their jobs.''
    Unfortunately, it is clear with this budget request that 
EPA's political leadership is continuing on this dangerous 
track.
    We are at a critical time for environmental protection. The 
impacts of climate change are already here, affecting 
communities across the nation and the world. PFAS and other 
emerging contaminants are showing up in our drinking water, 
air, and soil. Our water infrastructure is crumbling, and too 
many communities are struggling with lead contamination.
    We cannot afford to ignore these threats, but that is 
exactly what the Trump EPA's budget request does.
    At a time when the backlog for Superfund cleanups is the 
longest it's ever been, we can't afford to cut Superfund 
funding. Yet, this budget would cut it by $112 million.
    When communities are struggling to get lead out of their 
drinking water, we can't afford to cut assistance for the 
drinking water State Revolving Funds. But this budget would cut 
that funding by $262 million.
    When sea level rise and toxic red tides threaten coastal 
communities, we cannot afford to cut BEACH grants. But, this 
budget would eliminate them entirely.
    When PFAS contamination is being discovered in more and 
more communities all the time, we can't afford to gut the 
research funding or EPA staff working to develop solutions. 
Nevertheless, this budget would slash science and technology 
funding, toxics risk reviews, and drinking water programs.
    These cuts, like so much of what we have seen from this 
EPA, would harm public health and the environment, just as the 
former Administrators predicted. Fortunately, Congress holds 
the power to decide how much funding these important programs 
will actually receive and we will work to protect these 
programs and the communities they serve.
    A budget speaks to the priorities of the Administration 
proposing it. This Administration is clearly shouting that it 
doesn't care about safe drinking water. It has no interest in 
protecting people from toxic chemicals in their products or 
their water. It feels no urgency to keep PFAS out of our air, 
land, water or bodies. And it has no intention of dealing with 
the climate crisis.
    This budget proposal simply does not allow the EPA to 
fulfill its mission to the American people, and therefore it is 
a proposal that we must reject. We simply cannot follow the 
dangerous course this Administration is trying to take us down. 
Instead, House Democrats are taking action to protect public 
health for vulnerable populations, for environmental justice 
communities, and for future generations.
    With the CLEAN Future Act, my colleagues and I have 
outlined aggressive action to address climate change and other 
pollution. With the LIFT America Act and the Moving Forward 
Framework, we have offered infrastructure solutions that invest 
in protecting public health while also strengthening our 
economy and creating good paying jobs. With the PFAS Action 
Act, we have set a course to eliminate the threat of PFAS 
chemicals.
    Instead of weakening coal ash regulations, we would 
strengthen them. Instead of weakening vehicle emissions 
standards, we would strengthen them. Instead of leaving lead 
service lines in the ground, we would speed replacements.
    Instead of wasting time on unnecessary red tape before 
setting a drinking water standard for PFAS, we would require a 
protective standard quickly.
    This is a better path forward to combating climate change 
and protecting public health and the environment.
    In closing, I return to the testimony of Former Republican 
Administrator Whitman, who stated last year that she was QUOTE 
``deeply concerned that five decades of environmental progress 
are at risk because of the attitude and approach of the current 
administration.''
    I share that concern. Like so much of what we have seen 
from this administration, this budget would put the climate, 
our air, our drinking water, our land, our communities, and our 
planet at greater risk. This is not a path we can afford to go 
down.
    Thank you, I yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Walden, ranking member of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement, please.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. Good morning.
    Mr. Walden. Good morning. And, Mr. Administrator, Mr. 
Wheeler, thank you for being here. Thank you for the work you 
are doing. You know, I have to just say, I mean listening to my 
friend on the other side of the aisle, at least the 
administration has put forward a budget each year. That is 
better than this majority has done that didn't even do a budget 
last year.
    But anyway, we are here to hear about your budget, your 
proposals, and your accomplishments. We are here to listen to 
you talk about how you follow the law at the EPA and the 
mandates of Congress. And we share a concern about cleaning up 
our water and making sure we have clean air, but we also want 
those decisions based on science and scientific evidence and 
fact. And I know, especially when it comes to PFAS, PFOA, these 
issues you are dealing with, you are following the law and 
trying to get to the science, and we appreciate that.
    EPA has developed a strong record of success over the 50 
years it has been in operation, an Agency, I believe, was 
created under Richard Nixon, a Republican as I might note. 
According to EPA's most recent numbers from 2016 to 2018, all 
criteria air pollutants continue to decrease. Adding to long-
term positive trends, the air is substantially cleaner and 
clearer. Similar improvements have been accomplished in the 
nation's drinking water systems. In this committee we have 
worked together in a bipartisan way in the last Congress to 
deal with some of these issues, to clean up and modernize 
brownfields in the Brownfields Program, to work on Safe 
Drinking Act and grants to our communities.
    We examined at a hearing just two weeks ago, the Agency is 
actively working to strengthen and accelerate removal of lead 
lines from the water systems, and today fully 93 percent of the 
nation's drinking water systems meet all health-based standards 
all the time. Now that is up from 60 percent of the systems 50 
years ago. But we know more work needs to be done and we look 
forward to hearing about EPA's progress in this area.
    We will talk today about progress to return polluted land 
to beneficial use, one of the priorities of this committee over 
the last two Congresses. I understand, for example, that the 
Agency has made substantial strides cleaning up Superfund sites 
so that more communities can work to produce economic 
opportunity and jobs on those sites. On this point, I am 
pleased to see the Administrator is continuing to emphasize the 
Portland Harbor cleanup. You and your predecessor did what the 
last administration was not doing, which is moving forward 
rapidly to get the Willamette River and the harbor cleaned up 
in an economic way and in an effective way for the environment. 
That is something all Oregonians applaud.
    And concerning the Brownfields Program and other committee 
priority, it is encouraging to learn the EPA has been 
surpassing its goals for returning land to good economic use, 
making some 1,770 sites ready for anticipated use over the past 
two years. Now while there continue to be many environmental 
risks and regulatory challenges to address, we will also talk 
today about those and we recognize the environmental economic 
improvements are continuing against the backdrop of the current 
administration's broader economic policy.
    Economic data show how the administration's pro-worker 
policies have contributed to healthy economic growth, increased 
household incomes, record low unemployment especially among the 
middle and lower-income classes, and a reinvigorated 
manufacturing and industry. Much of this economic good news has 
occurred because of sound tax policy, the tremendous benefits 
of our energy revolution, removal of regulatory, unnecessary 
barriers to economic initiative, and a focus on what is in the 
best interest of the American consumer. It should be clear that 
environmental progress should not be an impediment to economic 
growth. It doesn't have to be. They can go hand in hand.
    Indeed, the example of improving environmental metrics and 
the EPA's priorities to reuse formerly contaminated sites to 
create Opportunity Zones for underserved communities 
underscores how environmental improvements can create new 
economic opportunities. However, we should not fall for 
deceptive arguments that a history of economic growth justifies 
more environmental regulation. This ignores the lost economic 
opportunities of regulatory costs and delay which do not show 
up in GDP reports.
    Instead, as this administration has been doing, we should 
recognize the economic potential and additional environmental 
benefits of updated, more streamlined regulations and more 
efficient EPA permitting and environmental guidance. This lends 
more certainty to development decisions and more effective 
decisions by states and localities.
    So, for years I have heard from farmers and ranchers across 
Oregon about the last administration's overreaching definitions 
on Waters of the U.S. and I applaud this administration for 
getting it right with the rule, and I appreciate the work that 
is being done to modernize NEPA as well. And so, with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I am going to yield back so we can hear from our 
distinguished witness and get to our questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Welcome back to the committee, Administrator Wheeler.
    We and are our staff interact frequently with you, your 
offices, and your staff throughout the year, but this annual 
appearance to discuss the President's proposed budget for the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers a good opportunity 
for the committee and the public to take a full look at your 
priorities, and the agency's performance.
    By any measure, EPA serves a critical role to inform and 
advance policies to protect public health and the environment--
from its standard setting, to its regulatory science and risk 
assessments, to its technical and financial assistance for 
states, tribal communities, and localities.
    And, by any measure, EPA has developed a strong record of 
success over its fifty-year history, as well as in recent 
years. According to EPA's most recent numbers, from 2016 
through 2018 all criteria air pollutants continue to decrease, 
adding to long term positive trends; the air is substantially 
cleaner and clearer.
    Similar improvements have been accomplished in the nation's 
drinking water systems. And, as we examined in a hearing just 
two weeks ago, the agency is actively working to strengthen and 
accelerate removal of lead lines from these systems.
    Today, fully 93% of the nation's drinking water systems 
meet all health-based standards, all the time-up from 60% of 
systems fifty years ago, when EPA was first organized.
    We will talk today about progress to return polluted land 
to beneficial use, one of the priorities of this committee over 
the past two Congresses.
    I understand, for example, that the agency has made 
substantial strides cleaning up Superfund sites so that more 
communities can work to produce economic opportunity and jobs 
at those sites. On this point, I am pleased to see the 
Administrator is continuing to emphasize Portland Harbor for 
cleanup, which is important for Oregon.
    And concerning the Brownfields Program, another committee 
priority: it is encouraging to learn that EPA has been 
surpassing its goals for returning land to good economic use--
making some 1,770 sites ready for anticipated use over the past 
two years.
    While there continues to be many environmental risks and 
regulatory challenges to address, as we will also talk about 
today, we should recognize that environmental and economic 
improvements are continuing against the backdrop of the current 
Administration's broader economic policies.
    Economic data shows how the Administration's pro-worker 
policies have contributed to healthy economic growth, 
increasing household incomes, record low unemployment 
especially among the middle-and lower-income classes, and 
reinvigorated manufacturing and industry.
    Much of this economic good news has occurred because of 
sound tax policy, the tremendous benefits of our energy 
revolution, removal of regulatory barriers to economic 
initiative, and a focus on what is in the best interest of the 
American consumer.
    It should be clear that environmental progress is not an 
impediment to economic growth. Indeed, the example of improving 
environmental metrics and the EPA's priorities to reuse 
formerly contaminated sites, to create opportunity zones for 
underserved communities underscores how environmental 
improvement creates economic opportunity.
    However, we should not fall for deceptive arguments that a 
history of economic growth justifies more environmental 
regulation; this ignores the lost economic opportunities of 
regulatory costs and delay, which do not show up in GDP 
reports.
    Instead, as this Administration has been doing, we should 
recognize the economic potential and additional environmental 
benefits of updated, more streamlined regulations, and more 
efficient EPA permitting and environmental guidance. This lends 
more certainty to development decisions and more effective 
decisions by the states and localities.
    For years I heard from farmers and ranchers across Oregon 
that the Obama administration's overreaching definitions would 
subject intermittent streams and irrigation ditches to heavy 
handed federal regulation. I applaud this administration for 
hearing their concerns and acting to replace that flawed rule 
with one that appropriately redefines Waters of the United 
States.
    During our hearings on the wildfire and forest management 
crisis, witnesses have demonstrated how NEPA regulations lead 
to cost and delay, increasing risks for devasting fire. During 
the last Congress, we learned how uncertainty over EPA 
permitting and New Source Review led to facilities choosing not 
to make environmental improvements. When so called ``regulatory 
rollbacks'' result in more efficient, cleaner operations, and 
more economic opportunity, those actions should be encouraged, 
not demonized.
    For this reason, Administrator Wheeler's focus on returning 
to core missions, on cooperative work with the states, on 
ensuring sound science and regulatory process, and on reducing 
unnecessary regulatory burdens represent the ingredients for 
continued environmental progress.
    I look forward to exploring with the Administrator why 
these priorities will work states and communities this morning.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and we thank you. The 
Chair would like to remind members that pursuant to committee 
rules, all members' written opening statements shall be made 
part of the record.
    I now will introduce the witness for today's hearing, that 
being the honorable Andrew Wheeler, Administrator of our United 
States Environmental Protection Agency. Before we begin, I 
would like to explain the lighting system. In front of you are 
a series of lights. The light will initially be green. The 
light, Administrator, will turn yellow when you have 1-minute 
remaining. Please begin to wrap up your testimony at that 
point, and the light will turn red when your time has, indeed, 
expired.
    I now recognize Administrator Wheeler for 5 minutes to 
provide an opening statement, please.

                 STATEMENT OF ANDREW R. WHEELER

    Mr. Wheeler. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, 
Ranking Member Shimkus, Ranking Member Walden, Chairman 
Pallone, and members of the subcommittee. Joining me today to 
discuss EPA's proposed 2021 budget request are David Bloom, 
EPA's Acting Chief Financial Officer, and Brittany Bolen, 
Associate Administrator of EPA's Office of Policy.
    The year 2020 marks the 50th anniversary of the creation of 
EPA, and I think we can all agree on how far we have come over 
that time. Today, the U.S. is a global leader with respect to 
clean air and access to clean drinking water and we are 
currently cleaning up contaminated lands at the fastest pace in 
over a decade. Recently, we released the 2019 Year in Review, 
highlighting Agency accomplishments and environmental progress 
under President Trump. I encourage everyone to read the full 
report and I would like to ask that this report be entered into 
the record. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. So approved, I believe. Yes.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Wheeler. The Trump administration is proving that 
environmental protection and historic economic growth can go 
hand in hand. Because we know that environmental issues 
disproportionately impact children and low income and minority 
communities, we are taking strong actions to protect these 
populations. Through the Federal Lead Action Plan and new 
cross-cutting Lead and Healthy Schools initiatives, EPA will 
continue coordinating with our partners to reduce childhood 
lead exposure and protect the most vulnerable among us.
    For the first time in nearly 20 years, EPA issued new, 
tighter standards for lead dust in homes and child care 
facilities across the country. And for the first time in nearly 
three decades, EPA proposed a revision to the Lead and Copper 
Rule. This rule would ensure water systems have plans in place 
to rapidly respond to reduce elevated levels of lead in 
drinking water and will focus work on the most impacted areas 
of the country.
    The budget request also includes additional resources to 
implement the PFAS Action Plan to address these emerging 
chemicals of concern. Last week, EPA determined regulatory 
determinations for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water and also 
proposed to close the loophole that allows new uses of products 
that include PFAS chemicals to be imported into our country. 
These, along with previous EPA actions, mark key milestones in 
EPA's extensive efforts to implement the PFAS Action Plan.
    To assist states in rebuilding aging water infrastructure, 
the budget request includes two billion dollars to continue to 
utilize the two State Revolving Funds. For every federal dollar 
contributed to date, communities have received over three 
dollars of water infrastructure investments in return. 
Additionally, the 25 million for our WIFIA program is expected 
to deliver more than two billion in direct credit assistance, 
spurring over four billion in total infrastructure investments.
    To safeguard the Americans' water supply, today we are 
releasing our national Water Reuse Action Plan, the first 
initiative of this magnitude coordinated across our water 
sector to accelerate and improve water recycling and security. 
Eighty percent of states anticipate some fresh water shortages 
within the next decade and this plan will help all levels of 
government ensure Americans have access to clean, safe water 
for generations to come.
    When it comes to reducing air pollution, the Agency is both 
improving the State Implementation Plan process and reducing 
the SIP backlog. EPA has redesignated 36 areas around the 
country into attainment, lifting major regulatory burdens off 
local communities and ensuring clean air for those communities. 
In 2019, EPA acted on over 360 SIPs, 165 of which were 
backlogged. And just last week, Florida's final nonattainment 
area reached attainment, putting the entire state into 
compliance with the Clean Air Act. These achievements not only 
improve public health, but also support greater economic 
growth, both of which are priorities for President Trump.
    When it comes to enforcing the nation's environmental laws, 
EPA is significantly increasing compliance. In 2019, we 
received voluntary disclosures at over 1,900 facilities, more 
than double the number in 2016. And the Agency is also 
deterring noncompliance by stepping up criminal cases, which 
have increased in all tract categories for the first time since 
2011. Administrative, civil, and criminal fines were among the 
highest in the last decade, totaling over 470 million.
    Finally, EPA is cleaning up some of the nation's largest, 
most complex, contaminated sites, returning them to productive 
use. In 2019 we deleted 27 Superfund sites from the National 
Priorities List, the most number deleted since 2001. Our budget 
request also provides nearly 130 million for brownfields work 
including 18 million specifically for Opportunity Zones which 
will spur greater investment in economically distressed areas. 
Last year, EPA selected 149 communities to receive Brownfields 
grants, 108 of those were in Opportunity Zones in both inner 
cities and rural communities. As EPA celebrates its 50th 
anniversary, we can proudly say that Americans today have 
significantly cleaner air, land, and water and we are 
continuing this progress in ensuring all Americans, no matter 
where they live, can share in it. Thank you, and I look forward 
to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler appears at the 
conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Administrator, for your opening 
statement. We now will move to member questions. I will start 
by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Administrator, you mentioned the 50-year history of 
EPA. There is no question there has been a lot of progress in 
environmental protection during this time, but today you will 
hear from members that there are a lot of old challenges 
remaining like Superfund cleanups and new ones emerging like 
PFAS. I know you recognize this because you were once an 
employee, but I believe continued progress will demand years of 
work on major actions and the expertise of long-tenured staff.
    So my question to you is, do you believe this budget 
prepares our nation to deal with the environmental and public 
health threats that we can expect during the next 50 years?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I do. And we are returning to the basics 
of the Agency, focusing on air, land, and water. On the 
Superfund program, we cleaned up more sites last year than any 
year since 2001, and we are also increasing enforcement actions 
against responsible parties. We increased the number of funds 
recovered last year to reimburse EPA for cleanup.
    So it is not just the amount of money we receive through 
the appropriations process that cleans up Superfund sites, but 
it is the money we go after responsible parties and that number 
increased last year over the previous year as well.
    Mr. Tonko. But in the bigger picture, I really believe that 
we, as an Agency EPA needs time, it needs quality staff, 
qualified staff, and science, and hollowing out the Agency will 
have long-term ramifications.
    Mr. Wheeler. We, you know, right now as of today, 40 
percent of our workforce is eligible to retire. It is why I 
hired a new human resources director last year. I actually 
interviewed the candidate for the human resources position 
which is three or four levels below me. I was told that 
administrators never interview human resource directors. I want 
to make sure we have the hiring right for the EPA of the 
future. Last year we hired a thousand new employees. We are 
stepping up our hiring of professionals. We are stepping up our 
hiring of scientists. But it is difficult to attract qualified 
people to get through the entire opening process.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, Mr. Administrator, I would like to move on.
    Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
    Mr. Tonko. Is it fair to say that the Agency's role in 
addressing climate change is not a priority in this budget?
    Mr. Wheeler. No, we are moving forward on climate change as 
well. That is why we finalized our ACE rule last summer which 
will show a thirty-four percent reduction in CO2 
from 2005 levels from the utility sector. We are moving forward 
with our CAE standards which continue to show CO2 
reduction from cars, why we are working on methane, even why we 
are working on food waste reduction.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, we went through your testimony as well as 
the 124 pages of EPA's budget and brief. There is essentially 
zero mentions of the words ``climate change'' or ``carbon 
dioxide.'' The only references we could find were in the 
section about eliminated programs which include the Atmospheric 
Protection program and the Global Change Research program, 
otherwise there is just a single mention of methane as a potent 
greenhouse gas in the context of reducing food waste in 
landfills, which is far from the level of leadership necessary 
from EPA to reduce climate pollution.
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, I think our actions speak louder than 
the words in the budget, and we are reducing CO2 
through ACE, through CAFE, through our methane regulations, and 
also our food waste program.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, is it doing that at the pace that the 
scientific community says is necessary, or even less ambitious 
than that at the pace to achieve the United States' commitments 
under the Paris Agreement?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, President Trump has withdrawn from the 
Paris Climate Agreement, and we are utilizing the laws that 
Congress has passed and our regulations follow the laws that 
Congress has passed unlike the Clean Power Plan of the Obama 
administration which was stayed by the Supreme Court.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, excluding climate from the budget, 
eliminating research and voluntary industry partnership 
programs and weakening modest, existing rules, which has 
happened, does not give me any indication that the Agency is 
taking this environmental threat seriously.
    Mr. Administrator, in your written testimony you said, and 
I quote, ``It is more important than ever we send a message to 
the public that when they encounter environmental threats, we 
will address them head-on. And we want the world to know that 
when they encounter environmental threats, we are ready to 
help.'' Do you think the public is receiving the message that 
the EPA is addressing greenhouse gas pollution head-on?
    Mr. Wheeler. I do. As when we wrote out our ACE rule last 
summer, we readdressed climate change through the ACE rule. We 
are also addressing it through the other regulations I have 
already mentioned. But again, we are using the laws of 
congresses past. Congress has not passed any new additional 
laws to address climate change.
    Mr. Tonko. Do you think the world believes----
    Mr. Wheeler. We are working within the boundaries of the 
law that Congress has given us to implement regulations, follow 
the four corners of the law.
    Mr. Tonko. Do you think the world believes the United 
States is prepared to do its part in a global response to 
climate change?
    Mr. Wheeler. We take climate change seriously and we are 
implementing the laws that Congress gave us. The U.S. is a 
global leader in clean air progress including the traditional 
criteria pollutants like particulate matter and ground level 
ozone.
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Administrator.
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. With all due respect, I don't understand how you 
could possibly make a statement like that after the 
administration's complete abandonment of any semblance of 
federal climate action. Americans are watching, the world is 
watching, and I don't think anyone is reassured. That is why 
this committee is taking our nation's climate response 
seriously and we have proposed many policies to reduce 
pollution, including directing EPA to take meaningful actions 
under its existing authorities.
    And with that I will now recognize Representative Shimkus, 
ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would like to 
welcome everyone in our audience. I always like to recognize 
the students that are here observing the hearing. Thank you for 
being here. And also, I will start that we had a Wounded 
Warrior in our office. He probably would be mad if I called him 
out, but I am not going to mention his name, but he did get 
hired at Region 5. A Wounded Warrior is one, a program that we 
have here to help transition those soldiers, and we were very 
pleased that he is now working for Region 5 up in the 
Chicagoland. So, we want to thank you for that.
    Last December, the Bloomberg Environmental ran a story by 
David Schultz on the proposed Lead and Copper Rule, calling it 
``sneakily strong,'' and pushing back on national environmental 
advocacy groups suggesting that it is weak, and I have the 
story here. Could you speak to some of the elements of that 
rule that you consider especially strong, particularly the 
public disclosure requirements?
    Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. And that is one of the strengths, 
one of the many strengths in our proposal. Requiring the 
disclosure of where the lead service lines are is extremely 
important. I think everybody should know whether or not the 
water lines that serve their houses contain lead. We set a 
three percent replacement rate, but what we did was we got rid 
of all the off-ramps and all the exemptions that water 
companies have been able to use in the past for replacing lead 
service lines.
    In the past you would get credit for partial replacement. 
We don't allow that anymore under our proposal. We also require 
that if a homeowner replaces their lead service lines that the 
water utility must replace the line servicing the home as well. 
So we are going to see a lot more increased lead service lines 
replacements. We are also requiring in our proposal the testing 
of water in all schools and daycare centers. The population 
that is most impacted by lead in drinking water are small 
children, so this has never been required before and we will be 
requiring the testing of water in all schools and daycare 
centers, which will help reassure parents everywhere that their 
children are not exposed to lead in their drinking water.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Administrator.
    Many of the same people who derided the proposed Lead and 
Copper Rule also suggested the Agency cannot be trusted to, 
``thing'' when it comes to PFAS. They argue for statutory 
mandates on every action EPA takes on this class of chemicals. 
Can you tell me about the progress EPA has made under the PFAS 
Action Plan?
    Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. We have made a lot of progress. We 
proposed an MCL just last week for the two PFAS substances. We 
issued our groundwater guidance in December. We added 172 of 
the PFAS chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory. We also 
just last week published the SNUR, the Significant New Use 
Rule, to stop the importation of products that may contain 
PFAS. We finalized, well, we proposed draft toxicity 
assessments last year. We will finalize them this year and we 
are increasing our research in this area.
    We increased our research request for PFAS for general 
research and we also funded, well, proposed funding, five 
million, in research grants for agriculture communities. And 
just this week, we issued our EPA PFAS Action Plan Program 
update, and I would like to submit this for the record as well, 
which outlines everything that I just covered and a lot more. 
We have every program office in the Agency working on PFAS. So 
I would like to request this be made part of the record.
    Mr. Tonko. Without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
    Mr. Shimkus. What can we expect to see from the Agency in 
the next six months on this issue of PFAS?
    Mr. Wheeler. In the next 6six months we will be finalizing 
the toxicity assessments that we released this past fall. We 
will be making progress on the TRI side as well. We are taking 
the next steps on the MCL. And our research, we are focusing on 
four different areas of research.
    First of all, the analytical methods to identify the 
presence of PFAS, there are over 600 different PFAS chemicals 
currently in commerce. We have had over 1,200 PFAS chemicals in 
commerce over the last 12 years and the EU and the OECD have 
identified over 5,000 PFAS chemicals. You can't use the same 
technologies to identify all the chemicals in the drinking 
water. You can't use the same cleanup technologies to clean up 
all of them. You have long chain, short chain forms of PFAS and 
it takes a lot of different scientific research and analytical 
methods to identify the substances, clean them up, identify 
which ones have the greatest environmental and human health 
impacts, as well as understanding how they transport and the 
exposure of the chemicals.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Yvette Clarke who is vice chair of 
the full committee, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member 
Shimkus, for convening this hearing on the President's budget 
proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency. And thank 
you, Administrator Wheeler and your colleagues, for being here 
to offer testimony.
    Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
    Ms. Clarke. Just this past December, the House and the 
Senate came together in a bipartisan fashion to approve fiscal 
year 2020 appropriations for the EPA, which restored our 
nation's critical environmental funding that Donald Trump had 
attempted to cut the last time we all went through this 
process. And yet, we find ourselves right back here again for 
the 4th year in a row faced with another budget request from 
the White House that slashes our nation's environmental 
safeguards and programs.
    So, Administrator Wheeler, I just have a number of yes or 
no questions for you starting with the area of air pollution, 
and I wanted to know whether you acknowledge that more than 140 
million Americans now live in counties with unhealthy air 
quality in terms of ozone pollution and particulate pollution.
    Mr. Wheeler. I am not sure of the number, but I know that 
we have moved more areas of the country from nonattainment to 
attainment during the last three years than the previous eight 
years.
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, so I just wanted to drill down and let you 
know it is 140 million Americans. Were you aware of that, yes 
or no?
    Mr. Wheeler. I am not sure of the source of your data. I 
know that there are some environmental groups that have put out 
numbers.
    Ms. Clarke. OK, all right.
    Mr. Wheeler. We use the EPA numbers for that.
    Ms. Clarke. Enough said. Are you aware of the fact that 
climate change is leading to rising surface air temperatures 
that trigger greater levels of ozone pollution in cities and 
particulate pollution from events such as wildfires?
    Mr. Wheeler. I know that wildfires are----
    Ms. Clarke. Yes or no.
    Mr. Wheeler. Some people believe----
    Ms. Clarke. So are you aware that----
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. That it is causing wildfires, but 
there is also, I think----
    Ms. Clarke. You are aware that there is a greater level 
of----
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. Greater causes of wildfires, 
including forestry practices.
    Ms. Clarke. You are aware that there is a greater level of 
ozone pollution in cities based on such as what--based on----
    Mr. Wheeler. I am not sure that there is a direct 
correlation between----
    Ms. Clarke. OK, no problem.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. Climate change and ozone pollution 
or not.
    Ms. Clarke. Mr. Wheeler, do you acknowledge that pollution 
from fossil fuel-burning vehicles and power plants directly 
contribute to high levels of asthma as well as other 
respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, particularly among 
low-income families and communities of color?
    Mr. Wheeler. I don't believe the science has settled that 
because air pollution----
    Ms. Clarke. OK, so I am assuming----
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. Has been reduced and the asthma 
cases----
    Ms. Clarke. I am assuming that is a no.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. Have gone up.
    Ms. Clarke. I am assuming that is a no.
    Mr. Wheeler. That is a no.
    Ms. Clarke. OK, perfect. I ask these questions, Mr. 
Wheeler, because these facts are critically important to 
understanding the big picture of how your budget and policy 
decisions directly impact the health and well-being of 
communities in my district in Brooklyn and in districts like 
mine across the country. Whether or not you choose to 
acknowledge it now, these are the facts that we face as a 
nation.
    Given that the EPA's fundamental priorities include 
protecting human health and clean air, I am trying to 
understand why and how this budget request justifies chopping 
almost 50 percent of the current funding that goes to our 
national programs to improve air quality. How do you explain 
this?
    Mr. Wheeler. I don't think that is accurate and I just want 
to clarify for the record that all six criteria air pollutants 
have gone down----
    Ms. Clarke. You don't----
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. Under President Trump's watch.
    Ms. Clarke. You don't acknowledge that there has been a 
fifty percent cut?
    Mr. Wheeler. Our air is cleaner than it was three years 
ago.
    Ms. Clarke. So you are saying there is not a fifty percent 
cut?
    Mr. Wheeler. I don't believe it is a fifty percent cut, no.
    Ms. Clarke. It is.
    Mr. Wheeler. But again, our air pollution has gone down 
over the last three years. Our air is cleaner than it ever has 
been. Seventy-four percent reduction in the six criteria air 
pollutants since 1970 and all six have gone down over the last 
three years.
    Ms. Clarke. One of the clean air cuts in this budget----
    Mr. Wheeler. We are on a great trend here.
    Ms. Clarke [contuine]. Proposal is the Diesel Emissions 
Reduction Act, otherwise known as DERA, which has been among 
the most cost effective federal environmental programs, 
reducing harmful emissions and improving air quality especially 
throughout low-income communities and communities of color. In 
fact, DERA has been so successful that I used the program as a 
model for my recently introduced FREEZER Trucks Act which 
establishes a grant program under EPA to electrify diesel-
powered refrigeration units on refrigerated delivery trucks.
    Administrator, in the recent DERA Fourth Report to 
Congress, EPA described this program as cost effective, 
targeted disproportionately affected communities, and supported 
by the American industry. Do you agree with this assessment?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes. We are very supportive of DERA and we are 
continuing to use DERA grants to reduce diesel emissions. 
Priority is being given to projects in areas of poor air 
quality and also areas of highly concentrated diesel 
pollution----
    Ms. Clarke. Very well.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. Such as ports and distribution 
centers.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. Very well. Then why does your budget 
propose to gut this vital program by asking for only ten 
percent of the funds Congress has previously authorized?
    Mr. Wheeler. We had to make a lot of hard decisions to try 
to get a balanced budget and I think it is important, when 
budgets are balanced----
    Ms. Clarke. Got you.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. There are more funds available----
    Ms. Clarke. Understood.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. For all programs.
    Ms. Clarke. Understood. I simply don't understand the 
reasoning. At a time when our country is looking for ways to 
create jobs, protect the health of our communities, address 
climate change, DERA stands out for me as a prime example of 
what works.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. I will now recognize 
the next member, but before so doing let me just make a point 
of clarification. Administrator, you indicated or stated that 
you proposed an MCL last week for PFAS. You proposed, we 
believe, a regulatory determination.
    Mr. Wheeler. Right, regulatory determination. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. But are still potentially years away from your 
proposing an MCL.
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. With that----
    Mr. Wheeler. In shorthand, but yes, you are correct.
    Mr. Tonko. With that clarification----
    Mr. Wheeler. We proposed a regulatory determination for 
both substances.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. With that clarification we will now 
recognize Representative McKinley for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for appearing one more time before us. It is 
always a delight to interact with you on it. I want to also 
thank you for your prompt response to my inquiries over the 
last few weeks about the Paden City water problem they are 
having down there with trichloroethylene gotten into their 
water system. My question to you, and I think we are working 
together to try to get some temporary equipment moved in there 
for air strippers to do that and we want to continue to do 
that.
    But I still have the question is that if you bathe in water 
that is contaminated with TCE, can it be absorbed into your 
skin? Do you have a problem with that over the next 120 days 
before the equipment is, the final installation of the 
treatment facility? Could you get back to me on that? I don't 
expect you to have that answer offhand.
    Mr. Wheeler. I would not want to give a scientific answer 
like that offhand either.
    Mr. McKinley. If you could----
    Mr. Wheeler. We will get back to you.
    Mr. McKinley [continue]. I would appreciate that.
    Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
    Mr. McKinley. I want to make sure that bathing and washing 
and dishwasher that it is safe. The second question, I want to 
follow up on Shimkus's question that was rather interesting 
that the lead in the pipelines, you have been very active. The 
EPA has been trying to force communities to remove the lead in 
the service lines, but we still have a problem with lead in our 
residential because up until 1986, you were still allowed to 
use lead pipes in residentials and apartments.
    I am curious to see whether or not, and maybe again you 
would get back to me, which is, do we have a registry or an 
estimate, maybe just an estimate of the number of homes and 
apartments that could still contain lead? Could you get back to 
me on that?
    Mr. Wheeler. I don't believe we do. We do not regulate the 
pipes inside the house.
    Mr. McKinley. I know you don't regulate it. But there ought 
to be someplace.
    Mr. Wheeler. We wouldn't collect that information.
    Mr. McKinley. If you don't have it, then maybe that is a 
role for Congress that we need to have this to get a sense, 
because the children are spending more time in their home than 
they are in our schools and our daycare centers.
    Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
    Mr. McKinley. So I would like to understand a little bit 
about the dynamics of what that is, so if you could get back to 
me on that I would appreciate it.
    Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. And one of the aspects of our 
proposed Lead and Copper Rule is if the homeowner replaces the 
lead pipes in their home, the water system is required to also 
replace them, which is why we are going to get even more----
    Mr. McKinley. Let me move on, because I have two other 
quick questions that I'm trying to get to. We have a refinery 
in our district, Ergon. It is the last and only remaining 
refinery we have in West Virginia. It is a small refinery, only 
23,000 barrels a year that they create. And the Fourth Circuit, 
the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of them retaining an 
exemption to be treated as a boutique refinery, but it was 
remanded back to the EPA and you all denied that. You again 
turned them down with it. Now they are appealing, they want to 
appeal that. But I want to put this in perspective because, Mr. 
Wheeler, we have six hospitals that have closed or are 
threatening to close. Three have already closed, three more are 
in bankruptcies. We have had seven coal companies go into 
bankruptcies.
    Rural America is still hurting and here we have now the 
last refinery which creates jobs in West Virginia and if we 
don't get that exemption, I don't know that they have a long-
term future. So I am concerned, if especially since the Tenth 
Circuit has now ruled that if you don't have an exemption you 
will never get an exemption and they don't have the exemption 
right now.
    So is it fair, and that is the operative, is it fair, do 
you think, from the EPA that if you take that nationally, that 
ruling, Ergon will never be able to be treated as a boutique 
small refinery, keeping in mind they have 23,000 barrels versus 
Marathon is one of the--at 300,000. This one-size-fits-all that 
you are coming up with, I have a real problem with that. I am 
hoping that somehow you don't, but let me hear from you. Are 
you open to considering giving them an exemption?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, I believe their issue in the past on 
receiving the exemption was the review by the Department of 
Energy that they didn't meet the financial disparity test. That 
they didn't----
    Mr. McKinley. But the Fourth Circuit agreed with them. You 
all didn't agree with them. So I am just asking because I am 
running out time that you will rethink that again.
    Mr. Wheeler. I would be happy to----
    Mr. McKinley. Because this is critical to the economic 
vibrancy of our area. When the hospitals and mines are closing 
down, don't shut down our refinery.
    The last question that I can just keep it open real 
quickly, is there anything in this budget to help us maintain 
our aging coal fleet, coal-fired power plant? We know the 
average age is in the 45, close to 50 years old. Is there 
something in there where we can address New Source Review, 
something that might be able to sustain that so that we can 
maintain about a twenty-five percent mix?
    Mr. Wheeler. It is not necessarily in the budget, but we 
are continuing to work on reforming the New Source Review 
program. And I think in retrospect, looking back, I think you 
can safely say that the NSR program is used, was weaponized to 
go after certain industries, and I think that is a misuse of 
that provision, because I think that any--that we should always 
encourage any facility to add new pollution control equipment 
and that disincentivized adding new equipment to those plants.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Blunt Rochester for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wheeler, I want to thank you for being here today to 
talk about these critically important EPA programs. I would 
like to first focus on the Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI, 
something that your budget documents refer to as ``the Agency's 
premier source of data on toxic chemicals release and 
management.'' I couldn't agree more that the TRI database is an 
essential tool especially for communities' right to know when 
there is a chemical release. Because of this I am concerned 
that you have proposed cutting the budget for TRI by a third.
    Mr. Wheeler, why have you proposed to drastically cut the 
funding for this important program?
    Mr. Wheeler. First of all, I fully support the TRI program. 
When I graduated from law school I started as a career employee 
at the EPA in 1991 working on the TRI program. And so we made 
some tough decisions, but we believe the amount of resources we 
requested for the TRI program will continue the program as it 
is today. I am a big supporter of the right to know concept and 
the TRI program overall. Again, I worked in that program for 
four years as a career employee back in the early '90s, so I 
fully support the program.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. So you fully support it, but cut it by 
a third and you are saying on the record that you believe you 
have the resources----
    Mr. Wheeler. If you look historically at the number of 
resources that program has taken, we have gotten more efficient 
and more effective on running the program. We used to have a 
much larger staff in the '90s when it was a new program, but as 
things have gotten more with the use of computer reporting, the 
use of other groups using the data, we have gotten down.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. I just need to move on. I am working 
on legislation to strengthen the TRI program by requiring an 
annual public meeting to be held by covered facilities and 
following any significant toxic releases. In Delaware we have 
some serious situations where we had toxic chemicals released 
and the surrounding communities felt in the dark about the 
incident and its impact on their health. To me this is 
unacceptable.
    Mr. Wheeler, what is the EPA doing now to require TRI-
covered facilities to inform the communities on their fence 
line when a release occurs?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, the TRI program doesn't require the 
reporting to the local communities, but by reporting the 
information publicly local community people have access to that 
information and data. That was the first original right to know 
legislation. It was passed in the mid-'80s. So people have 
access, through the TRI program the neighboring communities 
have access to that data and they can access that on the EPA 
website and a number of other organizations.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. So basically you are not doing 
anything. They have to go out and find it, is that----
    Mr. Wheeler. No, we are putting that information out to 
them, to the public. We are making it publicly available.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. So I am especially concerned about the 
cuts because Congress just expanded the mandate of the TRI 
programs by requiring reporting of releases of PFAS chemicals. 
What is your plan to implement these new reporting requirements 
and can you explain why you are not asking for additional 
resources? I know you mentioned, on the one hand you mentioned 
the issue of efficiencies, but you also mentioned you had a 
thousand vacancies as well for your organization. I am just 
trying to----
    Mr. Wheeler. We hired a thousand people over the last year.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Right.
    Mr. Wheeler. But we are also losing people. We lost around 
900 people last year and we brought on about a thousand people. 
And we are having that problem. We spent a lot of time and 
resources two years ago trying to hire new risk assessors in 
our Toxics program and we hired 30 new risk assessors in that 
program. At the same time that year, we lost 30 risk assessors.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. So you, and you do have a plan to 
implement these new reporting requirements?
    Mr. Wheeler. We do. We are now looking to hire risk 
assessors in our Research Triangle Park facility. Because of 
the universities that are located in that area, we believe we 
can get recent college graduates who want to stay in that area.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. I have 1-minute.
    Mr. Wheeler. So we have advertised for hiring people there.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And in this 1-minute I am just very 
quickly going to turn to another related requirement that was 
enacted the end of last year, which is the Research and 
Coordination Plan for Enhanced Response on Emerging 
Contaminants. I was the House sponsor of that piece of 
legislation which requires the Administrator to establish a 
working group to coordinate research and response on emerging 
contaminants. Can you tell us the status of the efforts to 
implement those requirements?
    Mr. Wheeler. If I could, I want to be mindful of the time, 
I would like to get back to you with written response on that 
if you don't mind.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. That would be great. As you know, 
these requirements are important and I look forward to working 
with you on this----
    Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester [continue]. To ensure that they are 
met. Thank you, Mr. Administrator, and I yield back.
    Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Johnson for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 
for hosting this hearing. And, Mr. Wheeler, thank you for 
taking the time out to be with us here today to talk about your 
budget. Very important stuff. I know that my colleagues are 
planning on discussing a number of issues with you today, but I 
wanted to focus on something a little more specific that 
matters a great deal to the folks I represent along the Ohio 
River, and it is an issue that we have been working on on this 
Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce for quite a while to find 
the most responsible way forward.
    In your testimony, Mr. Wheeler, you mentioned the EPA's 
PFAS Action Plan. It has been unfortunate to see many of my 
colleagues in the last several months pushing a one-size-fits-
all forced legislative mandate process to address this, when it 
is important, in my view, that the EPA should be afforded the 
flexibility to use the latest scientific advancements to create 
rules regarding PFAS and other environmental issues. So a few 
quick questions.
    Mr. Wheeler, your testimony mentions that the PFAS Action 
Plan is the first multimedia, multi program, national research 
management and risk communication plan to address this large 
class of chemicals. So for those that don't deal with this 
vernacular every day, can you--what does this mean?
    Mr. Wheeler. Not just those chemicals, but any chemicals. 
This is the first time the EPA has used all of our statutes and 
all of our program offices to work on one emerging chemical 
class like this. You go back in the history of the Agency, when 
there was a problem, asbestos and back in the '90s and the 
'80s, our Toxics Office worked on that. What we are doing here 
is taking a look, and I sat down with the heads of all of my 
program offices in developing this action plan and then the 
work of the action plan was developed by the career staff of 
the Agency. And I said, let's be creative, let's take a look at 
all of our statutes. What can we do to address this, what are 
the statutes? And that is why we are moving forward on seven or 
eight different statutes under the authority of the EPA to 
address this. We consider it a very important issue.
    But, you know, just to follow on something Mr. McKinley 
asked me about on TCE and his water for this water district, if 
we jump too far on PFAS, on the MCL for example, we are taking 
resources away from potentially other contaminants that local 
systems need to deal with. So we need to make sure that we are 
focusing on where the problems are on PFAS so that we don't 
just tell everybody only focus on PFAS and we end up having 
chemicals that are far worse for human exposure, environment 
that go unaddressed.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, I am going to get to that in just a 
second, so I will let you expand on that. But is this, is what 
you just described, is this a unique collaboration between 
EPA's offices?
    Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. And other countries are looking at 
what we are doing because we are doing groundbreaking work here 
on PFAS. We have the foremost scientists in the world working 
on this at EPA.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. What prompted the EPA to move away from 
traditional approaches to this kind of approach to address 
PFAS?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, I have believed that for quite some time 
that we need to--EPA historically has been siloed. We have had 
our air program, our water program, our waste program, our 
research program, and we have not done a good job over the 
years, over the last 50 years of talking between the programs. 
What I am trying to do is tear down the walls between the 
different silos and have a much more multimedia approach. We 
have a PFAS action team at the Agency with senior people that 
participate and I have somebody in my immediate office who 
chairs those meetings to make sure, and I believe they are on a 
weekly basis. They sit down and go over everything that 
happened over the last week and what everybody is working on so 
we can make sure that everybody stays on track and that we get 
these things done.
    Mr. Johnson. And now back to what you said a little bit 
about what is being done to ensure that this all hands on deck 
effort on PFAS isn't distracting from important work on other 
environmental hazards?
    Mr. Wheeler. That is, you know, on the regulatory 
determination for the two for the MCL under the Safe Drinking 
Water, we need to make sure that the science and the data is 
there before we move forward with the MCL. That is what 
Congress mandated in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water amendments. I 
actually worked on that legislation when I was a staffer in the 
Senate. And we are following the protocols and the procedures 
laid out in the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments from 1996 to 
ensure that the information is there, both the scientific data 
as well as occurrence data.
    Does it make sense to regulate a contaminant if it only 
appears in two percent of the water systems in the country? 
Congress required us to use a cost-benefit analysis in the '96 
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act because they wanted 
us to make sure that we were regulating the chemicals and 
requiring the monitoring if the chemicals were widely occurring 
in the water systems. So we are doing that research, we are 
doing that work, and we are getting that data from the water 
systems around the country.
    Mr. Johnson. Super. So thank you for your answers, and I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Soto for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to first 
start by correcting the record. We did pass a 2020 budget. Most 
people here voted for it. Not sure why there were statements 
made to the contrary.
    I do want to, for my constituents at home, go back to 2017 
to figure out why and how we got here. We saw a massive tax cut 
for the top one percent that led to a trillion-dollar deficit, 
and yet gross domestic product hasn't even cracked three 
percent over the last three years. So this is where we find 
ourselves, with a twenty-six percent cut to EPA. I do want to 
start with thank you, Administrator Wheeler, for the $40 
million WIFIA loan to Lake Toho. I know we did a joint press 
release on that, so we appreciate that. But I am concerned 
about the $35 million cut to the program, so hopefully we will 
be able to work that out.
    In my district in St. Cloud, Florida, we had a water 
pollution issue that we have started working with your team 
about ten days ago, and I have asked that EPA come in to test 
the water. There is a resin buildup in that area that has led 
to brown water in that area, so can we count on EPA to come in 
to test the water in St. Cloud, Florida, in District 4, since 
discussions have been ongoing for about ten days now?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes, and I will follow up with my Region 4 
regional administrator in Atlanta that oversees Florida and 
make sure that gets done.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, really appreciate it. You know, my 
test is if I wouldn't have my family drink the water, I 
wouldn't expect our constituents. I am sure you feel the same 
way.
    I did want to also talk about a recent article that came 
out in the Miami Herald where because sea rise is going to be 
more than three feet by 2080, the Army Corps of Engineers had 
to brief the Miami-Dade Commission on a ten to thirteen-foot 
sea wall that will span from Miami-Dade County to Broward 
County and beyond by 2080, even in Palm Beach. So climate 
change is a really big deal for our state.
    Administrator Wheeler, can we count on you to support the 
CLEAN Future Act that we are working on diligently in this 
committee to get to carbon neutral by 2050? And if not, what is 
your plan to help us get there to save my state from going 
under water?
    Mr. Wheeler. I can't commit to supporting any legislation 
without going through the normal process with working through 
OMB. I will be happy to take a look at the legislation, provide 
some technical assistance and some comments on it, but I can't 
commit to supporting any particular legislative effort.
    Mr. Soto. And what can you commit to today as far as 
tackling climate change?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, as I mentioned in my opening statement 
and the exchange with Chairman Tonko, we finalized our ACE rule 
last summer which would lead to a thirty-five percent reduction 
in CO2 from the electric power sector. We are moving 
forward on CAFE standards which will further reduce 
CO2 efforts. Methane regulations, our food waste 
will also reduce methane from landfills. So we are working on a 
number of different fronts, following the laws that Congress 
has passed to address climate change and reduce CO2 
and other greenhouse gases.
    Mr. Soto. But what about with other sectors? Because for a 
while the United States has been working on transportation and 
utilities, but there is everything from manufacturing to 
agriculture and other areas of the economy where we need an 
economy-wide solution. What about in some of those other areas 
working with your colleagues?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, again, we are implementing the 
legislation that Congress has passed, the statutes that we 
have, and I think what you are referring to and the bill that 
you mentioned a few minutes ago that addresses some of these 
issues is not law and we don't have the authority to do those 
things that you are mentioning right now.
    But I will point out and I have pointed this out when I go 
to the G7 Environment Ministers Meetings, we are reducing our 
CO2 greater than the other G7 members. Our 
CO2 emissions have fallen fourteen percent since 
2005 in this country. We are on a good track in reducing our 
greenhouse gases compared to other industrialized countries.
    Mr. Soto. And as you can----
    Mr. Wheeler. Oh, you mentioned the tax bill. I will also 
point out though that the Opportunity Zones that is included in 
that tax bill have led to increased investment in those 
communities around the country. On the Brownfields Program, 108 
of our Brownfields grants last year went to our Opportunity 
Zones and that is hopefully going to spur further economic 
development in inner cities and rural communities around the 
country.
    Mr. Soto. And we appreciate that. But do you think that a 
trillion-dollar deficit is putting pressure to have these kind 
of proposed twenty-six percent cuts?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, again, we are focusing on the core 
mission of the Agency, making sure that we continue to clean up 
the land, the air, and water, and we believe we can do that 
with the budget that we have requested.
    Mr. Soto. OK. Well, we will be working in a bipartisan 
fashion to continue to crack the 2021 budget and we appreciate 
your comments today.
    Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the now returned ranker of the full committee, 
Representative Walden, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we have a hearing as 
you know going on upstairs on first responder issues and 
emergency communications, so some of us are bouncing back and 
forth.
    Mr. Administrator, thanks again for being here and the work 
that your professional team does at the EPA day in and day out. 
I know I have been frustrated in a district the size of mine, a 
lot of rural towns trying to comply with the regulations, and 
it seems like they get slapped down pretty hard if they have, 
let's say, an accidental leak.
    I had a community years ago that--very small, I mean we are 
talking a few hundred people, and they had a problem over a 
weekend and had a little sewage discharge. And the Department 
of Environmental Quality, the Oregon enforcer, just hammered 
them. It was really frustrating to them because meanwhile, at 
that time, Portland, the big city in Oregon, was dumping raw 
sewage into the Willamette River at multiple locations whenever 
it rained hard, and they had some agreement to do that 
apparently, and so it really creates this frustration.
    Do you see that around the country? Talk to me about big 
urban cities. Are they cleaning up this problem? I know 
Washington, DC used to discharge into the Potomac when it would 
rain here. Tell me what is going on in these big cities that 
are dumping sewage and other pollutants into bays and estuaries 
and rivers.
    Mr. Wheeler. We certainly do have a problem there and we 
are taking a harder look at that in communities around the 
country. In particular, San Francisco has been putting 1.5 
billion gallons of raw sewage into the Pacific Ocean.
    Mr. Walden. What? How much?
    Mr. Wheeler. 1.5 billion gallons. They have been----
    Mr. Walden. A year?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes. They have----
    Mr. Walden. Raw sewage?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes. They have been violating their permits 
and we are taking enforcement action there to try to get them 
into compliance.
    Mr. Walden. How long have they been doing that?
    Mr. Wheeler. They have been in violation of their permits, 
I believe, since the 1970s, so we are taking action. There in 
New York is, we are looking at that to see the----
    Mr. Walden. New York City?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes, the early stages there. But we are 
looking at the larger cities around the country to take a look 
at what their permits allow and whether or not they are 
violating their permits.
    Mr. Walden. So my little towns get threatened with, 
literally, the mayor of this little town in Eastern Oregon told 
the Department of Environmental Quality, here, just take the 
keys, I mean based on what they were going to do to them. We 
got it worked out, but it is like, you know, you have a couple 
hundred people and they are going to shut them down and 
bankrupt them, and San Francisco is dumping a billion gallons 
of raw sewage into the Bay?
    Mr. Wheeler. 1.5 billion gallons.
    Mr. Walden. Sorry, a billion and a half gallons of raw 
sewage--what----
    Mr. Wheeler. Into the ocean.
    Mr. Walden. Well, yes. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes. And we are--and I would say the State of 
California is helping us with this effort. We are trying to 
impose a new permit on the City and the City has objected and 
appealed the new permit to our Environmental Appeals Board. So 
right now, they are still allowed to dump the sewage that they 
are dumping----
    Mr. Walden. Who lets them dump it?
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. While the new permit goes through 
the appeals process.
    Mr. Walden. Can they delay that process and game the 
system?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes, and they are delaying that process.
    Mr. Walden. How do they do that?
    Mr. Wheeler. They have appealed it to our Environmental 
Appeals Board, so that process has to work through before we 
can impose tighter limits on their----
    Mr. Walden. What kind of timeline can that be?
    Mr. Wheeler. We are trying to speed that up. We actually 
have a proposal out that we are taking comments on reforming 
our Environmental Appeals Board, but sometimes those cases can 
take months to a year or two.
    Mr. Walden. Wow. Yes. On your--Brownfields was a big issue 
in this committee in the last Congress. In fact, Mr. Tonko and 
I worked together on modernizing the Brownfields Program and 
getting more grants out to communities. You may have talked 
about this while I was up at the other hearing, but what kind 
of success are you achieving and your team at EPA on 
brownfields cleanup?
    Mr. Wheeler. We are achieving, I believe, a lot of success 
there. As I mentioned earlier, out of our 165 Brownfields 
grants last year, 108 went to Opportunity Zones. And what I did 
last year was actually ask all of my regional administrators to 
go out and hold press conferences in the communities that 
receive the grants instead of just putting out a press release 
announcing all the grants. Because when we highlight the fact 
that we are investing in these communities that will hopefully 
encourage other people to take a second look at these 
communities.
    Mr. Walden. Right.
    Mr. Wheeler. And invest in those communities as well. So, 
for example, when I personally went up to Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania last year to announce a Brownfields grant there, 
we had three TV stations, local TV stations there covering it.
    Mr. Walden. Right.
    Mr. Wheeler. And I am hopeful that the local people in that 
community are going to look at that location and say, if the 
EPA is investing money to clean up this facility maybe we 
should take a look at that same neighborhood. So I think the 
Opportunity Zones has been an incredible success and hopefully 
will spur a lot more private sector investments in forgotten 
communities around the country.
    Mr. Walden. Right. I will tell you one of the biggest 
examples in my district is the Old Mill District in Bend, 
Oregon that was an old lumber mill. It was a brownfields site. 
They cleaned it up and now it is a thriving retail, recreation, 
incredible place right around the Deschutes River. Love to have 
you come out and see it sometime and we will get you out to 
Oregon.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Representative 
DeGette, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wheeler, in November, the EPA's Acting Inspector 
General wrote to Congress detailing, ``open defiance'' by your 
outgoing Chief of Staff with respect to an audit and an 
investigation. This committee, together with the Oversight and 
Reform and Science Committees, requested that you instruct the 
EPA staff to cooperate with the Inspector General. And so, what 
I would like to ask you today is if you can confirm that you 
expect all EPA staff including leadership and political 
appointees to cooperate with the Inspector General, including 
being available for interviews, and that you in particular in 
EPA's leadership will not obstruct these important 
investigations, yes or no?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Wheeler. And we did not obstruct that investigation.
    Ms. DeGette. OK, great. I am glad----
    Mr. Wheeler. My chief of staff met with the Inspector 
General over 30 times.
    Ms. DeGette. Excuse me, sir. I am glad you have that 
expectation. Now, I and other members of this committee have 
requested information about your proposal to overhaul the 
Environmental Appeals Board which reviews the EPA's permitting 
decisions. The EPA has provided some information and a briefing 
with political appointees, but still we have not received all 
of the information that we requested.
    And so what I want to ask you is, do you commit to making 
judges and career staff from the Environmental Appeals Board 
available to brief the committee staff and to providing us with 
any input received from outside stakeholders on the proposal 
before it was announced publicly?
    Mr. Wheeler. I will certainly make the people in our Office 
of General Counsel available to brief the committee's staff.
    Ms. DeGette. So that is a yes? Yes? That is, answer is yes 
with respect to the General Counsel?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler. For the General Counsel's Office, yes.
    Ms. DeGette. What about the judges and career staff?
    Mr. Wheeler. I am not sure that is appropriate at this 
point.
    Ms. DeGette. Why not?
    Mr. Wheeler. They are not part of the review of the Board 
itself, but.
    Ms. DeGette. Wait. Wait. But if they are the ones that have 
the information, why wouldn't you make them available?
    Mr. Wheeler. We would be happy to take a look at the 
information you are requesting.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. But if you have career staff that have 
information that is relevant, would you make them available?
    Mr. Wheeler. If the information is relevant, we would make 
the information available, yes.
    Ms. DeGette. And you would make the staff available? It is 
not a trick question. If you have a career staffer that has 
information that is relevant to a request that we have made, 
would you make them available?
    Mr. Wheeler. If it is relevant, yes. I don't like----
    Ms. DeGette. OK, but--OK.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. To commit career staff to have to 
come before Congress for briefings or hearings without making 
sure that they are comfortable doing so.
    Ms. DeGette. OK, so if someone has----
    Mr. Wheeler. But the people in the General Counsel's 
Office----
    Ms. DeGette. Wait, wait, wait.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. Who have written the proposal, yes.
    Ms. DeGette. Wait. Hi, I have the questioning.
    Mr. Wheeler. All right.
    Ms. DeGette. If someone has information, is there a 
distinction in your mind as to whether they are a political 
appointee or a career staff? I mean why would you make one 
person available and not someone else?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, I am not sure that they have the 
relevant information that you are looking for.
    Ms. DeGette. OK, but if they do.
    Mr. Wheeler. If it is relevant, yes, we will make it 
available.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much. Now Mr. Shimkus and I 
actually worked together with a bunch of the members of this 
subcommittee on reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 
but, unfortunately, the EPA doesn't appear to be carrying out 
several of its critical responsibilities under TSCA.
    And so, I want to ask you if there is any documentation 
associated with any of the following EPA responsibilities, and 
if you can answer yes or no that would help. And after today's 
hearing where formal policy procedure or other documentation 
does exist, we would like to have it. And if it doesn't exist, 
if you could let us know in writing why it doesn't. So here is 
the first question.
    Mr. Wheeler, the EPA recently allowed new chemicals for 
which it had identified risk to workers to enter into the 
market without restrictions. Does the EPA have a document that 
provides the basis for the Agency's belief that this comports 
with the law, yes or no?
    Mr. Wheeler. I would have to know which chemical you are 
referring to.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. If we get you that information will you 
supplement your answer?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you. EPA is mandated to consider all 
known exposures to a chemical in its reviews of existing 
chemicals, but it has asserted discretion to ignore some 
exposures. Does EPA have a procedure for deciding how to 
exercise the purported discretion?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes. We do have a procedure----
    Ms. DeGette. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler [ continue]. That we are following.
    Ms. DeGette. Good. Can we get a copy of that from you in 
your supplement?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now I understand the EPA has not 
required any testing of chemicals to inform the reviews of 
potential risk. Is there a policy at EPA for determining when 
to require such testing?
    Mr. Wheeler. I will have to get back to you on the answer 
for that question.
    Ms. DeGette. OK, thank you. I have some other questions but 
I am out of time, and so if you will work with me, we are going 
to submit those to you in writing and if you could answer them 
I would appreciate it.
    Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Washington State, Representative 
Rodgers, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want 
to thank Administrator Wheeler for joining us today. I 
appreciate your focus on getting results.
    Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. We must have clean air and clean 
water for the citizens of this country, and it seems to me that 
you are really focused on how we are going to get results. You 
have been particularly helpful in working with me on issues 
that have a direct impact on Eastern Washington, and to that 
end I am pleased to see the biomass carbon neutrality rule that 
was sent to OMB this week. This is long overdue and I just am 
pleased to see you pressing forward on finalizing it.
    We have also discussed the erroneous water quality 
standards that the Obama EPA imposed on Washington State that 
are not even attainable, are not measurable. They were imposed 
at the tail end of the Obama administration after the Inslee 
administration at the state level had spent years putting 
together water quality standards for the people of Washington 
State, bringing stakeholders together and hammering out some of 
the strictest standards in the country for Washington State, 
and yet the Obama administration said no and imposed their own 
standards right at the tail end.
    For me, representing Eastern Washington, Spokane, the City 
of Spokane spent hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up 
the Spokane River. Local businesses spent billions on state-of-
the-art technology to eliminate their footprint on local rivers 
and lakes. The former mayor of Spokane, David Condon, was even 
brought to the White House by President Obama to praise him on 
this water storage system, the innovation, and the state-of-
the-art technology that we were putting in place in the city of 
Spokane.
    Yet, despite this investment and praise, these efforts 
still do not meet the unattainable and immeasurable standards 
imposed by the Obama EPA. We cannot get the permits that we 
need. I find it odd that the Inslee administration now, 
Governor Inslee, is now defending the stringent federal 
standard it previously opposed and is now opposing their own 
standard that they had negotiated.
    He is also devoting state resources to a study meant to 
advocate for removing the four lower Snake River dams to save 
the salmon. His Department of Ecology has a heavy hand on 
Eastern Washington, enforcing these unattainable water quality 
standards and threatening our dams, while at the same time, 
seemingly ignoring the City of Seattle and King County dumping 
millions of gallons of raw sewage into Puget Sound.
    This certainly doesn't meet any test of the water that I 
would want my children to be drinking. In addition, there is 
now fentanyl and heroin in the water, needles in Puget Sound. 
For too long, Governor Inslee and others have turned a blind 
eye to the issues in their own backyard and instead pointed the 
finger to Eastern Washington as the source of all their 
problems and how we save salmon.
    In fact, in 2017, after a spill that resulted in 250 
million gallons of raw sewage spilling into the Sound, the 
Seattle Times noted ``not a single person from an environmental 
group or the public turned out to testify or demand action or 
even take notice of one of the largest local public 
infrastructure failures in decades.'' And this has been going 
on for decades, ladies and gentlemen. But yet, nearly every 
week we have to defend our dams from those who refuse to look 
at the science and look at the facts.
    The Governor's focus on these unattainable water quality 
standards and efforts to tear out the Snake River dams are a 
distraction from solutions that will actually make a 
difference. Solutions like cleaning up Puget Sound. We could 
save the salmon, save the orcas, and save the four lower Snake 
River dams if we cleaned up Puget Sound. The number one salmon 
for the orcas are in Puget Sound.
    So, Administrator Wheeler, I appreciate the current EPA's 
effort under your leadership to revise these standards. I heard 
from my colleague from Oregon about the City of San Francisco, 
1.5 billion gallons of raw sewage--City of New York. I would 
like to ask, have you looked at the City of Seattle? Have you 
looked at Puget Sound? What tools do you have to hold the City 
of Seattle and King County accountable?
    Mr. Wheeler. First of all, Congresswoman, I have to agree 
with you. It is hard to keep track of your Governor's positions 
on these issues, but we will be happy to look into the City of 
Seattle and Puget Sound. We have approved the State's criteria 
that the Governor originally accepted and we have approved that 
and we think it is based on sound, scientific judgment. But we 
would be happy to take a closer look at the Puget Sound and any 
pollution going into that body.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. I would greatly appreciate it, and 
my time has expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the chair of the full committee, Representative 
Frank Pallone, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator Wheeler, I wanted to focus on the Superfund 
program. About half of New Jerseyans live within three miles of 
a Superfund site and any delay in cleaning up those sites has 
real consequences in terms of toxic exposure, health effects, 
economic concerns, et cetera. Now I have reintroduced the 
Superfund Polluter Pays Act to reinstate the Superfund tax and 
ensure resources are available for lifesaving cleanups, and 
reinstatement of this tax was supported in previous EPA budgets 
under the last administration.
    Let me just start out, would your budget reinstate the 
Superfund tax to provide resources for cleanup, and I would 
just ask yes or no.
    Mr. Wheeler. No, it does not.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. I have also authored legislation with my 
colleague, Mr. Tonko, here, to use the Superfund program to 
incentivize climate adaptation and avoid the creation of new 
Superfund sites with every hurricane or flood or whatever, and 
that legislation, which is part of the CLEAN Future Act, builds 
on existing authority in the Superfund law to require financial 
assurances from polluting industries.
    So, Mr. Wheeler, your administration has now decided not to 
require financial assurances for the hard rock mining industry, 
the electric power industry, the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry, and the chemical manufacturing 
industry. That is my understanding. Is that correct that you 
don't?
    Mr. Wheeler. That is. But when we work on the Superfund 
sites we work to make sure that they can withstand stronger 
storms and we have a very good track record there.
    Mr. Pallone. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler. When you look at the last few hurricanes, we 
make sure that the Superfund sites are buttoned up before the 
hurricane hits and we go back to test those sites.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, I mean I appreciate that.
    Mr. Wheeler. And we have a very good track record there.
    Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that, but I do think you should 
be requiring the financial assurances, because these are the 
four most polluting industries that are responsible for the 
greatest risk and the greatest cost of the Superfund program. 
And I just think the Superfund program is at a critical 
juncture. According to the AP, only six Superfund cleanups were 
completed last year, the fewest in more than 30 years. Would 
that be accurate?
    Mr. Wheeler. That is not accurate at all.
    Mr. Palloine. Well, tell me what it is though, quickly.
    Mr. Wheeler. Sure. We cleaned up 27, delisted 27 sites from 
the Superfund National Priority List last year. The author of 
that article does not understand the Superfund program. That 
is, the 6 number is referring to construction completions. And 
a perfect example is when we install a pump and treat equipment 
at a Superfund site that counts as a construction complete. We 
then have to pump and treat for years.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. But I mean, I think that part of 
the problem here----
    Mr. Wheeler. And so the important number is the 27 that 
would delist it. We delisted more sites last year than any year 
since 2001. The author of the article did not understand----
    Mr. Pallone. Well, I think part of the problem though is, 
and I want to move on because I only have 2 minutes left.
    Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
    Mr. Pallone. But I think part of the discrepancy here is 
that for these ones beyond the six, a lot of that work was done 
or completed under previous administrations.
    Mr. Wheeler. We have speeded up cleanup at all the sites.
    Mr. Pallone. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler. We have cleaned up more Superfund sites in the 
last three years than the Obama administration did in their 
first term.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, I guess my concern is, I think there is 
a real risk that you are declaring some of these sites ready 
for reuse by lowering the cleanup standards and relying----
    Mr. Wheeler. We are not. We have not lowered any of the 
cleanup standards. We are using the RODs that were put in place 
by previous administrations.
    Mr. Pallone. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler. What we are doing is refocusing resources and 
getting the private sector to step up more to get the sites 
cleaned up at a faster rate.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Well, let me issue--I mean you 
wouldn't disagree that you have the largest backlog of unfunded 
cleanup projects, right?
    Mr. Wheeler. We have 34 sites currently on the backlog 
list. None of those are posing current public health risk.
    Mr. Pallone. But I mean there are currently 35----
    Mr. Wheeler. We are doing important investigative work at 
all 34 sites. What we are doing is taking some of the funds and 
putting them on sites where there is a human health risk. A 
perfect example is the Colorado Smelter site----
    Mr. Pallone. All right, but I have to--I only have a minute 
left. I mean, my understanding, there are currently 35 cleanup 
projects at 34 sites that are shovel ready and are waiting for 
funding. I mean you wouldn't deny that we have a lot of these 
where we need more funding to proceed, right?
    Mr. Wheeler. What the agency used to do is put a little bit 
of money at all the sites to say that they are doing work 
without accomplishing anything at those sites. What we are 
doing is prioritizing our funding at the sites that pose a 
human risk.
    Mr. Pallone. But why are you proposing a cut of----
    Mr. Wheeler. We are getting those sites cleaned up.
    Mr. Pallone. Why are you proposing a cut of $112 million? I 
mean you could clearly use more money and instead you are 
cutting back?
    Mr. Wheeler. We are also increasing our Superfund 
enforcement and we are getting more dollars from the----
    Mr. Pallone. No, but I mean let me just finish with this 
because we are almost out of time.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. Private sector to clean up these 
sites.
    Mr. Pallone. Why are you proposing a cut of more than $112 
million when you seem to imply that we could use more money? 
Why?
    Mr. Wheeler. We are getting more money for the Superfund 
program through our enforcement actions. The Superfund program 
today is in the best shape it has been in----
    Mr. Pallone. So you are saying because you are getting more 
money from the private sector----
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. A decade.
    Mr. Pallone. [continue]. You don't need the general funds?
    Mr. Wheeler. What I am saying is we are getting the work 
done at the sites that need the work done.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, I appreciate that. But it just doesn't 
make sense to cut back on the money that we could spend to 
clean up these sites, I mean.
    Mr. Wheeler. Again, a perfect example is the Colorado 
Smelter. It was going to take 12 to 14 years to get that site 
cleaned up.
    Mr.Pallone. I understand. But I just feel that it is a 
mistake.
    Mr. Wheeler. We are prioritizing to get it cleaned up in 2 
to 4 years and this is a site where children play in dirt----
    Mr. Pallone. Well, I am not even getting an answer. I am 
just trying to find out----
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. Laced with lead.
    Mr. Pallone. It seems like you are saying the reason that 
you have cut back on the funding is because you are getting 
more from the private sector. But we still have a lot of sites 
that need to be cleaned up, so that doesn't make any sense. But 
in any case----
    Mr. Wheeler. And we are getting those sites cleaned up. We 
have gotten more sites cleaned up again under this 
administration----
    Mr. Pallone. Well, I don't agree.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. Than under the previous 
administration.
    Mr. Pallone. I don't agree, Mr. Chairman, but whatever. My 
time----
    Mr. Wheeler. The numbers are there. The facts are there, 
sir.
    The Pallone. All right, well, my time is up.
    Mr. Wheeler. They are indisputable.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Flores for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Flores. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Administrator Wheeler, thank you for being here today 
and I appreciate the hard work that you and your team are doing 
to help clean up our environment at an accelerated rate. I also 
want to thank you and your team for getting back to us so 
quickly on the impact of revised EPA arsenic standards on rural 
water systems in Central Texas.
    Moving on to my questions, as you know states often 
implement multiple national air quality standards with multiple 
deadlines and overlapping requirements. This consumes 
considerable staff resources. Over the past two Congresses, we 
have built hearing records of testimony into evidence 
highlighting the uncoordinated state burdens when examining the 
Clean Air Act. Would you agree that it is beneficial to bring 
more order to the process of national air quality standards 
reporting especially given the recent success in reducing air 
emissions through record low levels in most areas of the 
country?
    Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. And we have moved 35 nonattainment 
areas to attainment over the last three years, so we are 
working with communities all around the country that have 
impaired air quality in making sure that the air quality is 
improved.
    Mr. Flores. OK, thank you. And in the last hearing that we 
had with EPA, you had committed to being creative in our 
approach to the Renewable Fuel Standard after 2022. As you 
know, Republican Leader Shimkus and I worked on legislation in 
the last Congress called the 21st Century Transportation Fuels 
Act to pursue a high-octane standard for liquid fuel passenger 
vehicles that would create a system that maximizes fuel 
efficiency and reduces emissions.
    Has the EPA started looking at the Renewable Fuel Standard 
post 2022?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, with the recent court decisions, we are 
kind of busy trying to implement the recent decisions that we 
have in the current program. But we, of course, are looking, 
you know, forward as far as out to what the RFS program will 
look like post 2022, but we are just in the very beginning 
stages of that.
    Mr. Flores. OK. If the Agency didn't take any action, what 
do you think the demand would be for biofuels? Would it be 
higher or lower or the same, or is it possible to tell at this 
point?
    Mr. Wheeler. I think it would be approximately the same. I 
think you would end up having, because of the need for ethanol 
for octane, I think you would end up with probably around eight 
and a half to nine percent ethanol being used for octane 
purposes.
    Mr. Flores. That would be roughly 15 billion gallons or so 
annually?
    Mr. Wheeler. It depends, because we are using less and less 
fuel as the cars get more fuel efficient.
    Mr. Flores. Oh, true. Good point.
    Continuing the discussion about the RFS, while you noted in 
our last hearing that you don't think the EPA has statutory 
authority to implement a nationwide octane standard like the 
one that Representative Shimkus and I are proposing, I do 
believe that you have enough flexibility to improve some of the 
RFS design flaws. One of these are improvements being made to, 
or one of these is small refinery exemptions.
    While SREs don't directly solve the problems with the RFS, 
they still provide small refineries with a buffer from overly 
burdensome cost. I have read in recent reports, however, that 
the EPA may be planning to reduce the amount of exemptions that 
they will issue for small refineries. In light of this news, 
REN prices spiked unexpectedly. Can you comment on these 
reports and if there are any plans to reduce the amount of SREs 
that are issued?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, I am always fearful of making very many 
comments and causing fluctuations in the REN price market, but 
we have the Tenth Circuit decision and we are currently 
reviewing that along with attorneys from the Department of 
Justice on how to best implement that decision and that, of 
course, goes to the heart of the small refinery exemption 
program.
    Mr. Flores. Sure.
    Mr. Wheeler. So we have no announcements at this point, but 
we are closely looking at that decision as well as the other 
court decisions that we have received. This has been a very 
litigated area of the RFS and the Clean Air program and we want 
to make sure that we comply with the Tenth Circuit opinion.
    Mr. Flores. OK. In that regard, given all the difficulty 
that the EPA has had implementing the 2007 law or the changes 
made in 2007 and all the court cases, wouldn't it be 
appropriate for Congress to take statutory action to fix this 
once and for all? To fix the RFS once and for all.
    Mr. Wheeler. I am not at liberty to ask for legislation on 
behalf of the administration.
    Mr. Flores. I am just asking your personal opinion, I am 
not asking you to ask.
    Mr. Wheeler. I will be happy to give my personal opinion 
after I have left office.
    Mr. Flores. OK. That is cool enough. If REN prices continue 
to rise, what is the effect on jobs and energy infrastructure 
in Texas?
    Mr. Wheeler. The REN prices are very complicated. There are 
some economists who believe that the REN prices are passed on 
to the consumer. It depends a lot on the company itself whether 
or not they are fully integrated, whether or not they just 
produce and sell refined products into the marketplace. So the 
REN prices themselves have a very different impact based on the 
corporate structure of the refineries where the obligation 
currently is for the RENs, so it is really varies greatly from 
company to company on the impact of the REN prices.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you for your testimony. I yield back 
the balance of my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the Representative from California, Representative 
Matsui, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, 
Administrator Wheeler.
    Administrator Wheeler, last year before this committee you 
admitted that you had already decided to revoke California's 
Clean Air Act waiver while the SAFE vehicles rulemaking was 
ongoing. Now here we are ONE year later and we have seen you do 
exactly that in a so-called One National Program Rule finalized 
last September. So I think we all know that whatever the Part 2 
rule will look like, when and if it is finalized, the fix is in 
and it is against public health, against a safe climate, 
against consumers, and for big oil companies and their profits.
    Mr. Wheeler, I have a series of questions for you about 
Part 2 of the rule that is pending before the Office of 
Management and Budget. All I need is a yes or no. Is it true 
that the draft final rule at EPA weakens the stringency of the 
standards to require a 1.5 percent improvement per year, yes or 
no?
    Mr. Wheeler. I am sorry. Can you repeat that?
    Ms. Matsui. The final draft rule, is it true that the final 
draft rule at EPA weakens the stringency of the standards to 
require a 1.5 percent improvement per year?
    Mr. Wheeler. First of all, I cannot answer as to what is in 
the final rulemaking when we are in the middle of the 
rulemaking process.
    Ms. Matsui. So you don't know right now. Is it true that 
the draft final rule at OMB has approximately 111 sections 
marked ``text forthcoming?''
    Mr. Wheeler. I am not sure how many. I know that we have 
submitted our text to OMB and I believe NHTSA has submitted 
most of theirs. I am not sure what is outstanding.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. So is it true that the cost-benefit 
analysis at OMB shows that the rule would have a net cost to 
consumers?
    Mr. Wheeler. I don't believe that is the case, no.
    Ms. Matsui. You don't believe that is the case. In fact, 
isn't it true that the draft final rule at OMB is projected to 
have a net negative benefit of 41.3 billion for EPA's 
greenhouse gas standards? A net negative benefit.
    Mr. Wheeler. The rule is currently under interagency review 
and it is subject to change, so I can't comment on what the 
final rule is going to look like.
    Ms. Matsui. OK, so it is ongoing. OK. Is it true that the 
analysis in the draft final rule demonstrates that the rule 
would measurably contribute to more premature deaths from lung 
and respiratory illnesses?
    Mr. Wheeler. Again, it is under interagency review so any 
final----
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Major rulemaking such as this one must 
include a regulatory impact analysis which analyzes the legal, 
scientific, health, and economic impacts of a major rule. Is it 
true that no draft final regulatory impact analysis has been 
submitted to OMB?
    Mr. Wheeler. I am not sure if it has been submitted yet or 
not, but again this is under interagency review.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Is it true that no draft final 
environmental impact statement has been submitted to OMB?
    Mr. Wheeler. Again, I can't comment on what is currently in 
interagency review.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. As you know, fourteen states have adopted 
advanced clean car standards and rely on them to meet the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Have you consulted with 
each of these states as part of this rulemaking? Yes or no?
    Mr. Wheeler. We have solicited comments from all the 
states.
    Ms. Matsui. All the states?
    Mr. Wheeler. And we have received comments, I believe, from 
all fourteen of those states.
    Ms. Matsui. All of them, hmm. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler. I believe so. We have certainly received 
comments from a lot of states on this.
    Ms. Matsui. So you consulted with each of these states 
before unilaterally ending negotiations over the standards?
    Mr. Wheeler. Before----
    Ms. Matsui. Before unilaterally ending negotiations over 
the standards.
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, we are trying to negotiate with the 
State of California and they did not counter.
    Ms. Matsui. There is a difference of opinion there.
    Mr. Wheeler. I know there is, but--there is a difference of 
opinion, but there can't be a difference of the facts. And they 
did not submit.
    Ms. Matsui. Well. Well, they have been pretty factual in 
what they have been doing, so.
    Mr. Wheeler. As have we.
    Ms. Matsui. So, but will you commit to submit all records 
of EPA's and NHTSA's meetings and consultations with states on 
development of this rulemaking?
    Mr. Wheeler. I believe all those meetings are a part of the 
docket.
    Ms. Matsui. They are.
    Mr. Wheeler. Public docket.
    Ms. Matsui. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler. If they occurred during the notice and comment 
section of the rulemaking, yes.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. I want to bring up another topic still 
related to air quality, an essential component of EPA's mission 
to protect human health and the environment.
    Mr. Wheeler, last fall you sent a letter to the California 
Air Resources Board, CARB, concerning the backlog of state 
implementation plans for maintaining compliance with the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, pending at 
EPA. Your letter, rather than striking a productive tone, 
threatened the harshest of penalties, that is sanctioning 
Federal Highway dollars that our state counts on, if California 
as you put it ``failed to comply.''
    However, the letter failed to acknowledge the years of 
collaboration between CARB and the EPA, nor did it give any 
indication as to whether this noncompliance had been addressed 
at the regional level before being elevated to warrant a letter 
directly from the administrator. I want to know, and all I want 
is a yes or no, did EPA headquarters work with Region 9 staff 
to understand the full range of facts about California's 
backlog SIPs before sending this letter?
    Mr. Wheeler. We conferred with some people in Region 9, but 
the important thing is that since we sent the letter, the State 
of California has withdrawn 43 of the SIPs that were 
outstanding. The problem that we had was the SIPs that 
California had submitted to EPA could not be approved.
    Ms. Matsui. Why not?
    Mr. Wheeler. Because they did not show attainment. You have 
to show attainment in order to have them approved.
    Ms. Matsui. No, I think the complication is what you did.
    Mr. Wheeler. And so, when we pointed out to California, we 
got exactly the results we needed from that letter. California 
has now withdrawn 43 of the State Implementation Plans that did 
not show attainment and they are now working to submit plans 
that do.
    Ms. Matsui. Well, it seems to me that----
    Mr. Wheeler. And it is important that we treat California 
the same as we treated the other 49 states.
    Ms. Matsui [continue]. There was--well, exactly right, and 
I don't believe you have in many cases. So I really feel that 
there has to be more conversation regarding this, because there 
was a sense of as we were looking at it to do this harsh 
penalty, so therefore forcing California to do what you wanted 
it to do.
    Mr. Wheeler. Some of their outdated SIPs dated back to 
1990.
    Ms. Matsui. Well.
    Mr. Wheeler. And they did not show attainment. We also sent 
letters to twenty-five other states.
    Ms. Matsui. Did they attain? Did they respond 
appropriately?
    Mr. Wheeler. The other states?
    Ms. Matsui. Yes.
    Mr. Wheeler. We have had a dialogue with the other states 
and they, I believe, have removed some of their SIPs that 
didn't show attainment.
    Ms. Matsui. Well, OK. Well.
    Mr. Wheeler. But we had a backlog of 300 SIPs, half of 
which were from the State of California.
    Ms. Matsui. Well, we have had more of a discussion with you 
than anyone else. Anyway, my time has expired. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan. 
Representative Duncan, you have 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Wheeler, 
thanks for being here. Under the Trump administration and your 
leadership at EPA, the United States has become the number one 
oil and gas producer in the world while simultaneously 
improving air quality and water quality.
    I want to thank you and the EPA for the EPA's proposed rule 
regarding Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. As you are aware, 
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act gives states the 
responsibility to assess potential environmental impacts from 
infrastructure projects that affect navigable waters within 
their borders. States are responsible for certifying projects 
being permitted by the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, or 
FERC. Under the law, these projects must also be approved or 
denied by state regulators within 1 year.
    Recently, states have weaponized the certification process 
to deny permits for pipelines, hydropower projects, and export 
terminals for ideological and political reasons that have 
nothing to do with water quality. In my view, these states like 
New York are abusing their responsibilities under the Clean 
Water Act and it is time for EPA to step up to rein them in. 
Further, litigating every permit and blocking pipelines and 
clean energy projects like hydropower is having an adverse 
environmental impact as harming consumers.
    Instead of capitalizing on the American energy renaissance 
and clean burning natural gas from places like the Bakken or 
the Marcellus Shale regions, without the necessary 
transportation infrastructure they are forced to import LNG 
from our adversaries. New England just had a Russian LNG tanker 
provide LNG to New England states. That is just hard for me to 
believe when we have so much natural gas there that states are 
bringing it natural gas from Russia.
    Thanks to natural gas, the United States is leading the 
world in emissions reduction, but consumers in some parts of 
the country don't have access because they can't get a pipeline 
built. Ironically, New York is the number one consumer of 
heating oil which is dirtier and more expensive than natural 
gas, but yet they are blocking natural gas pipelines because of 
climate change politics. We don't give enough credit to the 
environmental progress the United States has made as a result 
of the American energy renaissance. Despite the efforts by 
activists to block any fossil fuel related infrastructure 
project, the net environmental, economic, and geopolitical 
benefits are undisputed.
    So, Administrator Wheeler, can you update us on the status 
of the EPA's Section 401 rulemaking?
    Mr. Wheeler. Certainly. We intend to finalize the 401 
rulemaking by this summer. And I would point out, I completely 
agree with you, I think the decision by the Governor of New 
York to veto the pipeline to take LNG, natural gas from the 
shale play from Pennsylvania and Ohio up to New England was the 
worst environmental decision by an elected official in the last 
two years. It is subjecting New England to imports of LNG from 
Russia.
    You are right. There is a Russian LNG tanker in the Boston 
Harbor. It was a year and a half ago. If you just--his reason 
for vetoing that pipeline was because of climate change. If you 
take a look at the carbon footprint of transporting the natural 
gas from the United States' Pennsylvania, Ohio up to New 
England is far less than the carbon footprint of transporting 
natural gas from Russia across the ocean in tankers. It was a 
horrible environmental decision and it is was done under the 
guise of using 401 under the Clean Water Act when there is no 
impact on clean water and it was done because of climate 
change.
    Mr. Duncan. Yes, exactly. Congress has many reasons to 
support domestic energy production and the necessary 
infrastructure. Why is it so important to get the 
interpretation of the rule back to Congress' original intent 
and provide much needed clarity so it is not weaponized to 
block projects? So how does this rulemaking simultaneously 
promote environmental stewardships while also providing the 
legal certainty to energy infrastructure projects?
    Mr. Wheeler. What we do is we require, and under the Clean 
Water Act and this provision actually predates the EPA, states 
are supposed to only use the 401 veto for clean water reasons 
and they are supposed to do it in a timely fashion. So we are 
putting a timeline where you have to, a governor would have to 
veto a project within a year or less depending on the project 
and it has to be because of water quality issues, not because 
of climate change or unrelated water issues.
    Mr. Duncan. Well, I appreciate you being here.
    Congressman Flores talked about renewable fuel standards 
and I appreciate him doing that. I have long been an advocate 
of reforming RFS and I think we need to dramatically increase 
our domestic production. Get on my soapbox for just a second, 
we see the environmental left stop these type of pipeline 
projects that we talked about earlier. There is one being 
stopped right now, the Atlantic Coast pipeline, because it 
crosses under the Appalachian Trail, even though there is 50-
something other pipelines crossing under that trail, because 
they don't like natural gas because it is fossil fuel. Well, 
let me tell you, natural gas has helped reduce the carbon 
footprint; good stewardship starts right there in this country. 
Well, thank you for the work you are doing, and with that Mr. 
Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Representative 
Dingell, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. Thanks for having 
this hearing. And, Mr. Wheeler, it is great to have you here. I 
know how much you love these hearings. But I have got to, one, 
express concern that you are rolling back, have either weakened 
or rolled back 95 important environmental regulations, some of 
the ones that are very close to my heart like NEPA, Clean 
Water, Endangered Species, and I just have to state that 
worries me.
    But I am going to ask you questions about two of my 
favorite subjects. I can't decide which to go with first. Maybe 
I will start with CAFE since my colleague, Ms. Matsui, already 
brought it up. I am worried. The autos are focused on deploying 
new technologies, in fact, more new technologies in the next 
ten years versus the prior 100 years, including 
electrification, connected car and autonomous vehicles, 
requiring billions of dollars in new investments. We need those 
new investments to be made here in the United States and to do 
that we need certainty around these standards that support 
these new technologies and recognize that customers are 
demanding better and better fuel economy and more electric 
vehicle choices.
    It is unfortunate that it is taking--that the 
administration has decided to choose a very uncertain path on 
fuel economy that is going to take years of litigation as you 
well know. This year-long process has resulted in nothing more 
so far than litigation. It is reportedly, you say you can't 
comment on it, a half-baked at best, supposed final rule at 
OMB, and the real thing we have no fuel economy standards in 
place for 2022.
    The last time you testified you agreed with me that chaos 
would ensue if we ended up having two different standards for 
the entire country. So, Ambassador Wheeler, is this still your 
position, yes or no?
    Mr. Wheeler. I think it is still better to have one 
national standard nationwide, and I hope that when California 
sees our final regulation when it comes out that they will 
agree that it is the best approach for the entire country and 
they drop their separate approach.
    Mrs. Dingell. Well.
    Mr. Wheeler. That would be my preferred option.
    Mrs. Dingell. Well, I hope that EPA sees the wisdom and we 
can come to compromise with California because you are not that 
far off. And I have sat with both sides and someone from the 
other department was very surprised at how much I understood 
and how close the two of you were. So it is not bad for you to 
compromise either.
    Do you think that you are going to be able to meet the 
legal deadline by the end of March to be able to promulgate the 
'22 standards?
    Mr. Wheeler. That is certainly our goal.
    Mrs. Dingell. OK. I am now going to go to my other favorite 
subject, PFAS.
    Mr. Wheeler. Hmm.
    Mrs. Dingell. We have talked a little about what you did 
last Friday, which quite frankly isn't a lot. It is a small 
step. It is a very small step. It is not getting us to----
    Mr. Wheeler. A very important step in setting an MCL.
    Mrs. Dingell. Well, with a great deal of respect, I have 
been promised since I got to Congress that that standard was 
coming any second. When do you think that we are really going 
to get a final drinking water standard for PFOA and PFAS to 
protect the American people and our environment?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, first of all, I want to ensure the 
American people that we are protecting them today. We have the 
health advisory of 70 parts per trillion.
    Mrs. Dingell. It is a guideline. It isn't a requirement and 
Governor Snyder's environmental task force, when he, a 
Republican governor, said it is probably not stringent enough. 
So people don't--we don't have a drinking standard.
    Mr. Wheeler. We have taken twelve enforcement actions 
around the country and we have assisted state and local 
governments with over two dozen enforcement actions. We are 
doing the foremost science on this and the states that are 
making comments like that are using our science.
    Mrs. Dingell. Well, if they are using that science----
    Mr. Wheeler. We are protecting the American--I don't want 
the American public to be concerned that their drinking water 
is not safe. We are also doing innovative----
    Mrs. Dingell. Well, the American people should be in some 
communities. Michigan is testing. We have more sites than any 
other states because after Flint we test. How many communities 
aren't testing because they don't know the danger is there?
     Mr. Wheeler. And we are doing innovative GIS mapping 
looking at the facilities that produce the chemicals, also the 
facilities where the chemicals were used. We are laying that on 
top of the water tables and then we are proactively reaching 
out to communities to say you might need to test because of the 
circumstances in your community. We are doing that, but we have 
the 70 parts per trillion health advisory and that informs us 
on the enforcement action.
    Mrs. Dingell. It is a health advisory. It is not a standard 
and not stringent enough. And I am just going to--well, I am 
out of time already. But I am going to make one point.
    Mr. Wheeler. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss 
this issue.
    Mrs. Dingell. I would love to. But I will give you one 
more. You talk about how you are giving people warnings and 
whatever, we can't eat fish in the Huron River. That fish was 
caught a year before it was tested. Once it was tested, we had 
to put out a do not fish advisory a year later. I mean we have 
a crisis in this country. Water is polluted, is poison in many 
communities that don't know it. We need a drinking water 
standard. Thank you.
    But I do think--never mind.
    Mr. Wheeler. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss 
this further. I understand your passion.
    Mr. McNerney. [presiding.] The gentlelady yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think the 
gentlelady is right. There is a lot of polluted water in the 
United States where people don't know it. But if they are 
dumping a billion and a half gallons of raw sewage in the 
Pacific Ocean in San Francisco, do the people from San 
Francisco not know that?
    Mr. Wheeler. They didn't. And, in fact, there was 
inspections in 2015 and 2016, and I am still trying to find out 
why that information was not made public. It should have been 
put on our public database at the time and it was not. And we 
are taking efforts to make sure that whenever there is 
violations like that that the public is informed. But there 
were inspections completed by the EPA in both 2015 and 2016 
that saw that there was a problem and for whatever reason that 
information was not made public at that time.
    Mr. Long. And how much sewage is going in the Pacific Ocean 
annually in San Francisco, raw sewage?
    Mr. Wheeler. I believe it is 1.5 billion gallons of raw 
sewage.
    Mr. Long. I knew that. I just wanted to hear it again. 
Puget Sound, Seattle, do people know how much raw sewage is 
being dumped into Puget Sound and what is being done about 
that?
    Mr. Wheeler. That has just been brought to my attention. We 
are going to look into that. I don't have the numbers for that.
    Mr. Long. So if you are not aware of it, I wonder if the 
people in that area are aware of it.
    Mr. Wheeler. I don't know.
    Mr. Long. I can see how some small towns, small areas and 
things might not know if their local lake is polluted or raises 
above a certain level, but it is just mind boggling to me to 
think that one and a half billion gallons of raw sewage has 
been dumped from San Francisco into the Pacific Ocean. And when 
you find out on Puget Sound, the numbers, I would like to have 
that too.
    Mr. Wheeler. I will be happy to share that with you once we 
have that.
    Mr. Long. You highlight in your testimony the Trump 
administration's commitment to reworking the Waters of the 
United States rule, and the rule finalized last month in 
conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers. Meeting with 
constituents in my district, a significant concern under the 
previous administration was the Waters of the U.S. rule and how 
it made their lives more difficult, particularly in rural areas 
with lakes and ponds and everything was declared a navigable 
river like the water running off your roof.
    Can you explain to those constituents of mine in my 
district how the new rule provides clarity on who has 
jurisdiction over what water sources?
    Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. We define both what is and what is 
not a navigable water under our new rule, and that should help 
clear up a lot of the information and a lot of the 
misinformation and confusion over the previous standards. And 
what we did was we follow the Supreme Court cases and the Clean 
Water Act to finalize the regulation that should allow 
homeowners, property owners to be able to stand on their 
property and be able to tell what the definition means for 
themselves.
    Mr. Long. And still be able to thrive.
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Mr. Long. Switching gears here, recently the Agency 
released a proposal to update the Lead and Copper Rule for the 
first time in almost 30 years. In fact, if you did it after 
many commenters have lowered their--commenters lowered their 
expectations for action after the Obama administration failed 
to propose any sort of revision, what did you succeed, or why 
did you succeed where others failed?
    Mr. Wheeler. We focused a lot of time and resources at 
trying to come up with a Lead and Copper Rule that moves the 
ball forward and gets the lead/copper pipe problem solved for 
the Americans. We put a lot of time and resources on it. We 
were very creative in our approach. The require of the mapping 
of all the lead surface lines is going to help inform people 
all over the country whether or not they have a problem.
    If private citizens replace their lead pipes, the 
requirement is then that the waterworks facilities have to do 
so as well to the pipes leading up to their houses. It makes no 
sense if somebody replaces their lead pipes if they are still 
getting lead water from their city water supply. And the fact 
that we will require for the first time ever testing of the 
water systems in schools and daycare centers. Children have the 
most health impacts from lead in drinking water. There is a 
direct correlation between lead and IQ points in development of 
particularly young children, toddlers. So it is very important 
that we test schools and daycare centers. That has never been 
proposed before by the federal government.
    Mr. Long. Now how are they going to afford to pay--I mean 
there are some very small water systems with a few hundred 
people or less on a water system. How in the world are they 
going to be able to comply, which they need to comply, everyone 
agrees with.
    Mr. Wheeler. Sure. We also are trying to make available 
grants and opportunities for school districts and water 
companies around the country. We are trying to use all of our 
resources. We have, in addition to the WIFIA loan program and 
the State Revolving Loan Funds, we also have new programs under 
the AWIA and the WIIN Acts that provide additional funding for 
disadvantaged communities. And we are trying to access all of 
those different funding opportunities to help people comply 
with this. Of course, it is not final yet. Hopefully it will be 
finalized later this summer. And we will also do a lot of 
education to water systems as far as what their resources are 
to help them with these new requirements.
    Mr. Long. And can you tell me how many gallons of raw 
sewage is being dumped by San Francisco into the Pacific Ocean 
every year?
    Mr. Wheeler. 1.5 billion gallons.
    Mr. Long. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. McNerney. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questioning.
    Administrator Wheeler, this budget for the fourth year in a 
row you have attempted to eliminate funding for the San 
Francisco Bay Delta geographic program. You have also attempted 
to zero the Puget Sound program. The Bay Delta program was 
funded for fiscal year 2020 for $5.9 million, provides 
oversight for projects aimed at protecting and restoring water 
quality and ecological health throughout the Bay Delta 
watershed, including the approval of state policies and 
established water quality stamp.
    This program has been successful, federal-state partnership 
focusing on solving complex issues facing the Bay Delta. In 
your budget proposal, you noted that the EPA will encourage the 
State of California and local entities to continue making 
progress in restoring the San Francisco Bay from within core 
water programs. Can you please describe how you expect us to 
make substantive progress in restoring and protecting the San 
Francisco Bay Delta when our federal partner decides they no 
longer feel obliged to participate in the process?
    Mr. Wheeler. First of all, we will fully implement all the 
funding given to us by Congress for all the programs. We did 
have to make some hard decisions on some of these voluntary 
programs, particularly the voluntary geographic programs, but 
we have other resources at the Agency's disposal. We have the 
State Revolving Loan Funds which currently has $80 billion 
circulating through the system.
    Mr. McNerney. So you might say that the budget is not that 
meaningful.
    Mr. Wheeler. I am sorry. The budget is not what?
    Mr. McNerney. The budget proposal is not that meaningful.
    Mr. Wheeler. No, it is very meaningful, because what we are 
focusing----
    Mr. McNerney. It is meaningful in what your feelings about 
protecting the environment are.
    Mr. Wheeler. We have other tools to address the issues that 
you are raising. We have other tools at EPA, other water 
programs. We have the WIFIA program for--we have given some 
WIFIA loans to several different communities in California as 
well as Washington State. We also have the State Revolving Loan 
Fund program----
    Mr. McNerney. OK, thanks. Moving on.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. The AWIA programs, the WIIN grant 
programs. So we have a lot of other resources that we can use--
--
    Mr. McNerney. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. To address the same issues.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, that isn't really what my question was.
    Mr. Wheeler. We don't have to----
    Mr. McNerney. And thank you for that comment though.
    Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
    Mr. McNerney. Heavy-duty diesel trucks are associated with 
a number of significant adverse health effects such as 
respiratory and cardiovascular damage. That is why I have been 
pleased to see efforts to address this issue take center stage 
with this committee whether it be brought through the CLEAN 
Future Act or standalone bills like Ms. Matsui's that would 
reauthorize the DERA.
    Given the serious public health implications associated 
with the truck traffic in my district, we are right in the 
middle of I-5 and Highway 99, I was heartened by a report 
issued by the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association at 
the beginning of the month, MECA, includes that the emission of 
nitrogen oxides and greenhouse gases can be simultaneously 
reduced, including bringing NOx emissions down to 
0.02 grams per brake horsepower hour. To quote from the report, 
``it has now been widely demonstrated that the traditional 
trade-offs between CO2 and NOx emissions 
at the tailpipe has been overcome and reductions of both 
pollutants can be achieved simultaneously through the use of 
commercially available technology and, critically, MECA 
demonstrates that it is economically feasible to do so.''
    Are you familiar with this report?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes. And we are working on our Cleaner Trucks 
Initiative to reduce NOx from the heavy-duty diesel 
trucks. This is an effort that is not required under law. It is 
not required under a consent order. We are moving forward on 
that and we will be--we put out an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking like two months ago, January.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thanks though. And what you are saying 
is that you will give serious----
    Mr. Wheeler. We are moving forward on this, yes.
    Mr. McNerney. Are you committed to giving serious 
consideration to settling health protective standards that 
drive the cost effective technologies that can reduce both 
NOx and CO2?
    Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. I announced that a year and a half 
ago and we put out an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. By 
2025, heavy-duty trucks will be the largest single source of 
NOx from the mobile sources. And so we want to make 
sure that we are providing tools to make sure that communities 
that are in nonattainment can get to attainment, because it 
will be a huge problem in a number of locations by the middle 
of the next decade, or actually this decade.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. When you before the committee last year, 
you told me, quote, that you believe that ``resources we have 
requested through the budget will allow us to return the Agency 
to its core mission of protecting public health and the 
environment, and we have a number of different tools that we 
can help the state and local governments to meet that 
standard.'' That was your quote.
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Mr. McNerney. I would like to think that I have a good 
understanding of these numbers, but I cannot make what this 
budget adds up. Can you explain to me how cutting the EPA's 
budget by a staggering 26 percent can actually help you in 
achieving your mission as opposed to endangering public health 
and safety?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, I think our actions speak louder than 
the numbers. We have accomplished a lot just over the last 
year. We have deleted 27 Superfund sites from the National 
Priority List, all six criteria air pollutants are down, water 
protection is up. So we are on the street, our Enforcement 
Office. We have taken more, all of our criminal enforcement 
numbers have increased for the first time since 2011. So, we 
have the environmental cop on the beat; we are reducing air 
pollution; we are improving water quality; we are cleaning up 
Superfund sites; we are accomplishing it.
    Mr. McNerney. Administrator, I appreciate your answer. I 
don't necessarily agree with your numbers. Thank you and I 
yield back.
    Now the chairman recognizes Mr. Carter, the gentleman from 
Georgia, for 5 minutes for questioning.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
this opportunity. Thank you, Administrator Wheeler, for being 
here and thank you and your staff. You have been very helpful 
to our district and to me personally in a number of different 
issues and I want to thank you publicly for that.
    I wanted to start with an issue that we have in the state 
of Georgia, ethylene oxide. Ethylene oxide as you know is used 
for the sterilization of medical devices and we have had some 
problems. We have had two facilities in the state of Georgia in 
the Atlanta area that have been impacted by this. One of them I 
know has closed down. The other one may have closed down as 
well, I am not sure. But I know one of them has.
    I just wanted to ask you, first of all, can you explain to 
me what is going on there, because there has been a lot of 
hysteria, if you will, particularly from those members of the 
community next to those plants about what is going on.
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes. And it is a very complicated situation. 
There is concern over ethylene oxide. The concern though, and I 
just need to constantly remind people, it is a cancer risk over 
70 years. So if you are inhaling it for 24/7, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, the cancer risk is over 70 years. So I don't 
want--there has been some news articles and some press trying 
to make it a much more hysterical issue than it is, but it is a 
very serious issue which is why we are moving forward on two 
separate rulemakings to try to address it and try to reduce the 
emissions from these facilities.
    We have the miscellaneous organic----
    Mr. Carter. Can you tell me where you are at with those 
two?
    Mr. Wheeler. I am sorry?
    Mr. Carter. Can you tell me where you are at with that 
rulemaking?
    Mr. Wheeler. Sure. So we proposed the first rulemaking on 
December 19th for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturers 
and that was proposed this past December and we did advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking for sterilizers. These are 
companies that use these chemicals. That was an advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking we issued on December 5th. We went with 
advance notice because we don't have enough data yet to do a 
proposed rule, but we are moving forward on two separate 
rulemaking efforts to try to address the emissions from these 
facilities.
    But it is also important to note that ethylene oxide is a 
very important sterilizer for hospital equipment. The FDA has 
told us that if we quit producing ethylene oxide, people will 
die in operating rooms within weeks.
    Mr. Carter. OK, two things real quick, okay, because I have 
a lot here.
    Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
    Mr. Carter. The first thing is, are you doing anything to 
work with the communities, communicate to them that, you know, 
that there is not an immediate risk here?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes, we are. And we have done monitoring. We 
have done air quality monitoring at several of the facilities. 
We are looking at their data. We have a problem with not just 
the actual emissions, but also fugitive emissions. We have 
required several of the facilities to install new pollution 
control equipment to reduce their emissions.
    Mr. Carter. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler. We are trying to make sure that the 
communities who live around these facilities are protected.
    Mr. Carter. All right. To the other point that you just 
made about perhaps a shortage of medical devices, of sterilized 
medical devices, are you addressing that as well?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, the FDA is involved in that. But we need 
to make sure that the ethylene oxide where the chemical is 
being used does not create unsafe conditions for the people 
surrounding the facilities or the workers in the facilities. We 
want to make sure both. But we are also told by FDA that it is 
required in order to sterilize equipment. That there are no 
alternatives to ethylene oxide for some of the sterilization 
for medical devices and surgical equipment.
    Mr. Carter. OK. All right, real quick, let's go over a 
couple of other things. Tier 4 engines, thank you for your 
help, particularly for the bar pilots, particularly for the 
lobstermen. That has been a tremendous help to us. We need help 
with it in our ag community, and I know you and I spoke about 
this last week and you indicated that there was more 
information that you needed from the ag community. Are we 
getting that to you? Tell me what you need because this is a 
big problem in the ag community as well.
    Mr. Wheeler. Sure. We are reaching out to the ag community 
to request information. Part of the problem is that the users 
of the equipment don't necessarily have the data, it is the 
manufacturers, so we are trying to reach out to the 
manufacturers to get more data from them on the engines 
themselves.
    Mr. Carter. OK. All right, real quick, Superfund cleanups. 
You are familiar with the sites that we have in the first 
congressional district and you are also familiar with Terry 
Creek in Glynn County and Brunswick, which we did not agree 
with the ruling of EPA in that because you have suggested that 
it be enclosed and not removed. We would rather see it removed. 
Therefore, I am working on some legislation, the Community 
Cleanup Act, and I would like to request technical assistance 
with the legislation from you and your staff to help me with 
that because this is very important.
    Now keep in mind, this is a prime retail, or a prime area 
in this community that could be used for a number of different 
purposes, but the community is simply concerned about using it, 
for instance, to build a school on when you are only enclosing 
it and not removing the material.
    Mr. Wheeler. We would be happy to discuss that site. I 
would be happy to discuss further with you that site and we 
would be happy to provide technical assistance on your 
legislation.
    Mr. Carter. OK, one last thing and that is I thank you. I 
know that the biomass review is at OMB now. Thank you for your 
work in that. I hope that you will continue to push that so 
that we can get that done. And I know again that it is at OMB 
now that you have gotten it to that point, but we need to 
continue on with it as well, so thank you for your assistance 
and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Representative 
Schakowsky, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 
Administrator.
    It can never be said too many times that our environment is 
in crisis and communities across the country are feeling the 
effect. This budget, it seems, ignores that reality and will 
not provide the help that our communities need. I am a proud 
supporter, by the way, of the EPA Workers' Bill of Rights and 
everything in this budget seems to fly in the face of it. I 
have worked with them many times in the city of Chicago where 
we have all kinds of issues including the high lake level. For 
example, when Congress passed the Lautenberg Act to reform the 
Toxic Substance Control Act, or TSCA, there was the hope that a 
strong regulatory program could restore consumer confidence and 
help the public trust that the products that we buy are safe. 
Clearly, that has not happened. It has been almost four years 
since the bill was enacted, but we have not seen, really, any 
action on dangerous chemicals.
    Your budget proposal would cut funding from the toxic risk 
review and prevention by more than 20 percent, including 
completely eliminating the Endocrine Disruptor program, the 
Pollution Prevention program, and the Lead Risk Reduction 
program. So, Mr. Wheeler, how can you justify those cuts?
    Mr. Wheeler. First of all, we are still requesting money, 
in fact, increased funding on lead reduction programs. And on 
endocrine disruptors, our Research Office still does research 
on endocrine disruptors. So while we are phasing out one part 
of what we do on endocrine disruptors, we are still doing 
research.
    Ms. Schakowsky. What part are you getting rid of and why?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, the important part that we are still 
continuing is our research in our Office of Research and 
Development. On the TSCA side----
    Ms. Schakowsky. I really would like an answer. What are you 
cutting from when you eliminate the Endocrine Disruptor 
program?
    Mr. Wheeler. I will have to get back to you on that part.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler. I was focused on the research that we are 
doing which is very important.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I hear you.
    Mr. Wheeler. As far as TSCA is concerned, we are in line on 
the Existing Chemicals program. We have released seven of the 
ten risk assessments for public comment. The other three will 
be forthcoming and we intend to meet our deadline of this 
summer for the first ten chemicals, and we proposed the second 
twenty chemicals under the law and we have met every deadline 
that the new TSCA law has put out for us.
    On the New Chemicals that is taking a little bit longer to 
try to transition the New Chemicals program before to current, 
but our backlog is down significantly. In fact, on the New 
Chemicals side, last year we had a backlog of a hundred and 
thirty-one that we had for more than 90 days, now we are down 
to thirty-two more than 90 days. So we have significantly 
addressed our backlog in the New Chemicals program, but we are 
in line to meet all the deadlines on the Existing Chemicals 
program.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Wheeler, I was part of the Consumer 
Product Protection Enhancement--Improvement Act which dealt 
with the issue of phthalates, which were made to soften baby 
toys and because babies will put it in their mouths and it was 
concerned a risk. It sounds like you are rethinking that. Where 
is that? Anyway, the issues of phthalates, which we were so 
happy to get out of baby toys, it was part of the Consumer 
Products Safety Commission, but it looks like you are re-
looking at the issue of phthalates and why is that? There is a 
re-review going on.
    Mr. Wheeler. I am afraid I will have to get back to you for 
the record on that, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. And when it comes to lead, I heard you 
saying to Congresswoman Dingell, there are literally millions 
of people, more than a million people who are not able to drink 
the water. It seems to me that is a crisis wherever it occurs, 
and why is it that we are not focusing and in fact why you are 
reducing, if not eliminating, is that true, the Lead Risk 
Reduction Program?
    Mr. Wheeler. We have asked for more funding for the lead 
exposure reduction through the White House Lead Exposure 
Reduction Initiative which includes ten million for lead 
grants, reducing lead in drinking water of twenty million, lead 
research by ten million, lead testing in schools by five 
million, and school drinking fountain replacements by five 
million. So no, we are increasing our resources on the lead.
    In fact, for fiscal year 2021, the lead-based paint program 
primarily will focus on supporting firm and individual 
certifications and further the Agency's efforts outlined in the 
Lead Action Plan. And we have provided ten million increase for 
the budget on lead categorical grants program to support the 
state level action in addressing lead exposure.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I am out of time and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. Next, the Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Representative Ruiz, 
for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Administrator Wheeler, for being here 
today. I would like to start with an easy question.
    Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
    Mr. Ruiz. Would you agree that the presence of arsenic in 
drinking water is bad?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Mr. Ruiz. Would you agree that water treatment systems that 
remove naturally occurring arsenic should be continuously 
monitored?
    Mr. Wheeler. I am not sure about continuously monitored, 
but we certainly need to reduce arsenic in drinking water and 
we need to make sure that that is occurring, yes.
    Mr. Ruiz. Do you believe it should be monitored?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Mr. Ruiz. Would you agree that civil and criminal 
enforcement is a key tool for the EPA to protect the public's 
health?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes, and that is why enforcement numbers are 
up.
    Mr. Ruiz. Good. I am glad that you agree. This past fall in 
my district, the operator of a water treatment system for a 
mobile home park on tribal land failed to properly maintain it, 
resulting in residents being exposed to drinking water 
contaminated with arsenic nine times higher than the maximum 
contaminant level. Do you know who caught this violation?
    Mr. Wheeler. No, I don't. But the Drinking Water Program is 
delegated to the State of California so they have primacy----
    Mr. Ruiz. Well, let me tell you. Let me tell you who caught 
this--let me tell you.
    Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
    Mr. Ruiz. EPA Region 9 staff. EPA Region 9 staff identified 
it and were immediately onsite to issue an emergency order to 
the owner and begin an investigation. Shortly after, when smoke 
from a mulch fire at an illegal recycling center, also on 
tribal land, sickened students at a nearby school, senior EPA 
staff were in my office the following week discussing what 
tools were available to protect the public's health.
    Your compliance and enforcement staff under regional 
Administrator Stoker have been responsive, thoughtful, and 
diligent in protecting the health and well-being of my 
constituents and this is why I am concerned about this 
administration's budget. Administrator Wheeler, do you know 
what this administration's funding request was for the Public 
Water System Supervision Program that helps monitor water 
systems for pollutants like arsenic is?
    Mr. Wheeler. I don't have the number off the top of my 
head.
    Mr. Ruiz. I will tell you. The Trump administration's 
budget slashes the Drinking Water System Supervision Program by 
$38 million, a forty percent cut from last year. That is 
correct. That is a forty percent cut. Also, the civil and 
criminal enforcement division for environmental programs like 
clean water and clean air, take a $15 million cut. Compliance 
monitoring is cut by six million dollars. EPA's enforcement of 
waste and recycling regulations are cut by $23 million.
    Under this budget, the chances of my constituents drinking 
arsenic laden water and breathing hazardous air increases 
drastically. So how does cutting programs like enforcement and 
monitoring improve the ability of EPA to protect my 
constituents' health? How does it help?
    Mr. Wheeler. First of all, as I started with my first 
answer to your first question, the drinking water program is 
delegated to the State of California. They do far more 
inspections than we do. We oversee the California inspections.
    Mr. Ruiz. Yes, but there is funding for that. There is 
funding for that.
    Mr. Wheeler. To make sure the states are enforcing the 
laws, but under our enforcement program.
    Mr. Ruiz. So let me ask you a different thing because we 
are running out of time and you are not getting to the point of 
it because that funding empowers that state and your regional 
offices to do the work.
    The fiscal year 2021 Trump administration budget cuts the 
Tribal General Assistance Program and the Tribal Air Quality 
programs by more than thirty percent. These are important 
programs used by tribes in my district to improve their air 
quality and establish environmental protections on their land 
that have benefits not only for their members, but for the 
surrounding community.
    But because this program is already underfunded, these cuts 
will make it even harder for tribes to access this funding. I 
am currently in the process of working with the tribes in my 
district to partner with agencies like the EPA, your agency, to 
develop robust environmental programs to prevent, mitigate, and 
respond to airborne hazards. How can the EPA support tribes and 
tribal consortia who are aiming to establish environmental 
programs on their land?
    Mr. Wheeler. First of all, we provide assistance, technical 
assistance to tribes and states and local communities all 
across the country. When we delegate a program to a state, they 
are responsible for taking over the inspection and assistance 
to the local communities within the state. But, you know, a 
perfect example is our Research Office over the last two years 
provided 35,000 hours of technical support to states, local 
governments, and tribes.
    Mr. Ruiz. So let's talk more about that. I am genuinely 
interested. And will you commit to working to honor the 
government's trust responsibility to ensure the tribes are 
fully supported in their efforts to establish and grow tribal 
environmental programs with me?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I will be happy to work with you on that.
    Mr. Ruiz. Great. Let's have a conversation after this. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Representative 
Peters, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 
Wheeler, for being here. I will just share with you, I also was 
an EPA employee when I first came out of college, so I am not 
sure there is many of us who started out there, but I am proud 
of my service there.
    Mr. Wheeler. We both did.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you. As I am sure you know, the Tijuana 
River is routinely, experiences millions of gallons of sewage 
dumped across the U.S.-Mexico border. Last year, the previous 
administrator for Region 9, Mike Stoker, came to Coronado, a 
beach community I represent in my district, told a roomful of 
citizens and elected officials from the County of San Diego, 
the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, the City of 
San Diego, Customs and Border Protection, and others that ``we 
are a hundred percent committed to doing everything we can to 
resolve this issue.'' And I can tell you, as are we locally 
committed.
    And since that meeting, I am proud to say that Congress in 
working with President Trump has secured $325 million for 
construction of high priority wastewater facilities along the 
border and Congress will be watching to ensure that all 
relevant agencies are working together towards a comprehensive 
regional solution. Now, 25 million of that was zeroed out in 
the budget, which I don't understand, but let me talk a little 
bit more about some of the substance around this.
    It is Congress's expectation that the EPA will lead and 
coordinate efforts to address the transboundary of sewage flows 
in the Tijuana River Valley watershed. How does EPA view its 
role?
    Mr. Wheeler. We are taking the role very seriously. There 
is new money available to us through the USMCA.
    Mr. Peters. Right.
    Mr. Wheeler. And we are actually, I believe the letter is 
going out either today or tomorrow inviting the local mayors, 
although most of them have already been notified ahead of time 
of a meeting on March 9th----
    Mr. Peters. Right.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. With our new Region 9 regional 
administrator, the assistant administrator for water, and the 
assistant administrator for international affairs to talk about 
how we are going to fund the projects to clean up the water in 
the Tijuana River basin.
    Mr. Peters. While at the same time we get the $300 
million----
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Mr. Peters [continue]. The proposed budget defunds $25 
million. Was there a reason for that that----
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, we have the new money through the USMCA 
and we believe that that money available along with there is a 
regional bank that we sit on the board of----
    Mr. Peters. NAD Bank, right?
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. To supply funding for projects 
along the border. We believe that those two funding streams 
this year will be able to take care of the problems on the 
border.
    Mr. Peters. We were very encouraged by Mr. Stoker's 
interest in working with the locals in identifying priority 
projects, so that now we have this money we will know where the 
first dollar should be spent to make the greatest impact and we 
will be able to get planning on the ones that will take longer. 
Have you given direction to the new administrator to continue 
that cooperation with locals?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes, absolutely. And he has already reached to 
a number of the mayors and the local community leaders. He is 
only on the job two weeks.
    Mr. Peters. I know that you would not talk about personnel 
matters, but I will just let you know that one of the rumors 
going around about why Mr. Stoker was relieved is that he was 
speaking too highly of the locals or was too nice to the 
locals. We would hate to think that there was any truth to 
that.
    Mr. Wheeler. There is no truth to that at all.
    Mr. Peters. Great, OK. And can you tell me what 
conversations you have had with our new administrator--I think 
his name is John Busterud?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
    Mr. Peters. On this topic so far?
    Mr. Wheeler. When I interviewed him for this job, I told 
him that that had to be one of the highest priorities as 
regional administrator was to try to address this problem.
    Mr. Peters. OK. Well, I can tell you, it is our highest 
priority too and we obviously have worked very hard. We 
appreciate the cooperation of the administration. It is more 
than just a recreational, a tourism issue, although those are 
very important to us and tourism is a big part of our economy. 
It is also, it is a national security issue in that the Navy 
can't train, the Navy SEALs can't train in water that is 
contaminated, and the Border Patrol can't patrol a border that 
is loaded with sewage.
    So, I appreciate your committing to work with us, 
committing to the new administrator of Region 9 being as 
cooperative with locals as the previous one was, and look 
forward to continuing a partnership with you to solve this very 
important problem. I can't think of anything right now in the 
hemisphere that is probably as big of a contamination issue as 
this multibillion-dollar sewage issue that we have.
    Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congressman. I am told that he will 
be here in D.C., the new regional administrator, in three 
weeks. I would be happy to set up a meeting with you and him.
    Mr. Peters. I will look forward to that. Thank you very 
much and I yield back.
    Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Representative 
Barragan, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wheeler, last time you were here I raised an issue 
about brown water in Compton. Instead of working with my office 
on the issue, reaching out to us on working on the issue, you 
used that as your explanation about why you came after 
California and started to investigate California. It is pretty 
sad that you would use an exchange with a member of Congress to 
then go on and attack a state.
    Today you repeated those allegations about San Francisco, 
which is what you indicated our exchange prompted this 
investigation. I just, you know, I need it on the record, put 
on, the State Senator Scott Wiener, who represents San 
Francisco, has indicated that those allegations that you have 
made and you have repeated here today about billions of gallons 
of raw sewage going into the oceans is misleading and 
fraudulent. Those are his words and I am quoting that.
    The mayor of San Francisco has also gone on to characterize 
the allegations that you have repeated here today before our 
committee in the same way, and has even gone on to say that the 
EPA recently awarded San Francisco the largest merit-based 
award it has under its competitive loan program for water 
infrastructure. And those are quotes that I am reading in 
response.
    And so, it is a sad day when the Administrator comes into 
this committee and then uses an exchange with me to come after 
California and uses that, although not shocking for this 
administration, but sad to see you do that.
    Mr. Wheeler. Congresswoman, last year you were not able to 
answer----
    Ms. Barragan. Sir, I am not asking for a comment. You have 
already given your comment to the media and this was my 
opportunity to respond about how outrageous it is that you----
    Mr. Wheeler. And you didn't let me talk last year either, 
which is why we didn't have a conversation.
    Ms. Barragan [continue]. Would use this exchange. You did 
not reach out to my office and you did not work with me.
    Mr. Wheeler. You only allowed me to answer yes or no 
questions last year.
    Ms. Barragan. The budget that is proposed is just a 
furtherance of what this administration and what your Agency is 
doing, the hypocrisy on them trying to do something, yet here 
they are proposing a cut, twenty-three percent, in Drinking 
Water State Revolving Fund, which is what communities rely upon 
to help make sure that the water is clean, not just in my 
district but across the country.
    Since you showed an interest in air pollution in 
California, in my own district in South Los Angeles it is a 
nonattainment for particulate matter and ground level ozone. 
Both of these are very damaging to the respiratory system of 
community members. Our asthma rates are twice the national 
average in communities that are ninety percent black and 
Latino. Is that acceptable to you?
    Mr. Wheeler. First of all, you didn't allow me to answer 
questions last year except for yes or no or I would have 
explained to you that the State of California has delegated 
water----
    Ms. Barragan. Sir, I am going to reclaim my time. I am 
moving on to this question. I want to know if you think it is 
OK that asthma rates are twice the national average in 
communities that are ninety percent black and Latino.
    Mr. Wheeler. Perhaps next year you will allow me to answer 
last year's question then.
    Ms. Barragan. Are you going to answer the question, sir? 
OK, I am going to assume that you think it is okay that in 
black and Latino communities that there is a much higher rate 
of asthma.
    Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Well, I am glad to hear you say that.
    Mr. Wheeler. And our programs are working to get 
nonattainment areas to attainment.
    Ms. Barragan. The EPA has Targeted Airshed Grants programs. 
I am assuming that you are familiar with these programs. It 
supports local clean air projects in areas facing the highest 
levels of ground level ozone and fine particulate matter; is 
that right?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, California has the highest number of 
outdated or non-approvable SIPs than any other state.
    Ms. Barragan. Sir, I am asking about the EPA's Targeted 
Airshed Grant Programs from the EPA.
    Mr. Wheeler. We are working with----
    Ms. Barragan. Are they there to do that or not?
    Mr. Wheeler. We are working with communities under a number 
of different programs to get from nonattainment to attainment.
    Ms. Barragan. Are you familiar with the EPA's Targeted 
Airshed?We have gotten more programs, more cities to attainment 
than the previous two administrations.
    Ms. Barragan. OK, Mr. Wheeler, I am going to assume you 
don't know about your own EPA's Targeted Airshed grants. Let me 
read you from the EPA website what it is designed to do, since 
you don't know as the Administrator. ``This program will assist 
local, state and/or tribal air pollution control agencies to 
develop plans and conduct projects to reduce air pollution in 
nonattainment areas that EPA determines are the top five most 
polluted areas relative to ozone annual average fine 
particulate matter or 24-hour PMs 2.5 National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards.'' I am reading directly from the EPA's 
website.
    So, sir, now that I have educated you on what your programs 
are, looking at a PowerPoint slide from the EPA website as 
well, which I will hold up right here--maybe somebody on your 
team has it over there--you are proposing in this budget to 
cut, basically eliminate these Targeted Airshed Grants program 
that the EPA website uses to reduce pollution; is that right?
    Mr. Wheeler. Are you interested in the facts or are you 
interested in just making a speech? We have other multipurpose 
grants--
    Ms. Barragan. Sir, I am asking you yes or no questions. It 
is clear to me----
    Mr. Wheeler. Just as you did last year and you didn't get 
the information you wanted.
    Ms. Barragan. --you are eliminating programs that are going 
to air pollution.
    Mr. Wheeler. That is what you did last year and you didn't 
get the information you wanted.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, it is clear you didn't know the 
answers, sir.
    Mr. Wheeler. I thought you were going to follow up with 
written questions for the record so that I could explain to you 
what is going on in California last year and you didn't even do 
that. So apparently, you are more concerned about making a 
public press statement than you are about getting information.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, it is unfortunate you don't know about 
your own program. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Representative Loebsack, 
for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Loebsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to 
waive on to this subcommittee today. And thank you, 
Administrator Wheeler, for being here as well.
    And you might imagine what I am going to ask you about 
since I am from Iowa, Mr. Wheeler. As you are well aware, the 
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that EPA had 
exceeded its statutory authority in issuing small refinery 
waivers to companies who had not received waivers in the prior 
year. The court concluded that the Agency may only extend, and 
that is their word, existing exemptions and cannot grant a new 
waiver to a company that had not consistently held on.
    Under this administration we have seen a dramatic increase 
in the number of waivers granted each year, leading to the loss 
as you know of over four billion gallons of biofuel demand and 
forcing multiple facilities to idle production or shut down 
operations entirely, not to mention the effects on the farmers 
themselves as well. The industry is hopeful that this ruling 
will restore the ability of the RFS to drive demand and expand 
markets for renewable fuels, providing a badly needed economic 
boost for rural America. And we know there are a lot of reasons 
why rural America is suffering right now.
    Administrator Wheeler, Bloomberg News reported yesterday 
that the administration has decided to limit small refinery 
exemptions consistent with the Tenth Circuit Court's decision. 
Can you confirm that for me?
    Mr. Wheeler. I cannot. We are still in discussions with the 
Department of Justice trying to analyze the Tenth Circuit 
opinion and we have no announcements at this point. I am not 
sure the source of the Bloomberg story.
    Mr. Loebsack. Can you confirm that the EPA will be applying 
this decision nationally and not just to the refineries under 
Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction?
    Mr. Wheeler. We are still looking at the Tenth Circuit and 
we have not made any final determinations. But I will say that 
President Trump is fully committed to the RFS program. He is 
committed to 15 billion gallons, meaning 15 billion gallons, 
which is why we have proposed 15.8----
    Mr. Loebsack. Right.
    Mr. Wheeler [continue]. In order to net out at 15 billion 
gallons, which is what was required under the law.
    Mr. Loebsack. And I have a few more questions. EPA issued 
exemptions to small refineries in 2013 and 2014 and seven 
exemptions in 2015. Does the Agency intend to consider only 
those seven refineries that received a waiver in 2015 to be 
eligible for a continued extension?
    Mr. Wheeler. Again, sir, we are still analyzing the court 
decision and trying to figure out what it means for the overall 
program and what----
    Mr. Loebsack. I am not a lawyer, but I have to tell you it 
is pretty obvious to me what they meant in that decision but--
--
    Mr. Wheeler. Good.
    Mr. Loebsack [continue]. I will take that as your answer at 
this point.
    Mr. Wheeler. I am a lawyer, but I still have to defer to 
the Department of Justice and my own General Counsel before we 
make a decision.
    Mr. Loebsack. So does the Agency intend to provide new 
guidance based on the court decision and, if so, when can we 
expect that?
    Mr. Wheeler. We will, and hopefully very shortly.
    Mr. Loebsack. OK, thank you. Another significant issue is, 
of course, the lack of transparency that we have regarding the 
Small Refinery Waiver Program. And while I understand that not 
all the information submitted by a refiner should be publicly 
released, the name of the refinery I think should be. How does 
EPA intend to make its decision on these waiver petitions more 
transparent going forward, and specifically would EPA support 
making the names and locations of refineries seeking an 
exemption publicly available?
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, it depends on what the company's claim 
as far as confidential business information. Sometimes the name 
of the company is legitimately considered confidential business 
information. What we have done is put all the information that 
we do receive on a rolling basis on our website to try to 
provide more transparency to the program.
     Mr. Loebsack. Well, I am a little concerned. That sounds 
like you are going to leave it up to the company to make that 
decision then.
    Mr. Wheeler. Companies--there was a Supreme Court decision 
on CBI data that just came out a year and a half ago 
instructing federal agencies to take CBI claims seriously and 
to honor those claims.
    Mr. Loebsack. OK.
    Mr. Wheeler. So we have multiple court decisions that we 
are trying to implement here.
    Mr. Loebsack. Well, and as you know, the excessive use of 
the small refinery waiver over the past three years has been 
incredibly harmful to Iowa farmers, farmers across the country 
especially corn growers, especially soybean producers as well. 
Biofuel producers, the rural communities more generally, the 
trade issues, of course, have complicated things as well. 
Farmers really don't want bailouts. They really want markets 
and they want to be able to produce biofuels and sell those 
here domestically.
    I am pleased with the findings of the Tenth Circuit Court 
which upheld the integrity of the RFS and I strongly encourage 
you folks to make sure that you accept that decision and that 
you will apply it nationally going forward. You won't be--folks 
here won't be seeing me after the next 9 or 10 months, I am 
retiring, but I can guarantee that whoever takes my place is 
going to be at least as much of a bulldog on this as I am. We 
will see who the next President is, what the next 
administration says, but in the end, I think the people of 
Iowa, the people of the Midwest, these corn growers and soybean 
producers on a bipartisan basis are going to continue to press 
as hard as we can on this issue. We won't be letting up. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Wheeler. A lot of people and things change through 
politics, but I think one thing that is absolutely steady is 
the Iowa delegation supporting ethanol.
    Mr. Loebsack. On a bipartisan basis.
    Mr. Wheeler. On a bipartisan basis.
    Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Thank you, Mr. 
Chair, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the very patient representative from Massachusetts, 
Representative Kennedy, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 
for convening this hearing. Mr. Wheeler, thank you for being 
here. Thank you for your patience as well and thank you for 
letting me waive on.
    Mr. Wheeler, earlier this week I sent you a letter 
regarding a planned EPA project to bury thousands of barrels of 
toxic and radioactive waste less than a mile from one of the 
world's richest fishing grounds in Boston Harbor. I don't 
expect you to be intimately familiar with this project and we 
just sent you the letter a little while ago, but there is 
concern back home in Massachusetts about what could come with 
the burying of these materials that are already there and now 
covering it with tons, millions of tons of additional sediment.
    And the worst-case scenario involves that toxic hazardous 
waste leaking into the water under the weight of, as I said, 
millions of tons of rock-filled sediment, immediately 
jeopardizing the survival of nearby fishing stock and a number 
of endangered species that are right up against, the site is 
actually up against the marine sanctuary. So all I am asking 
you at least for this part is, will you commit to working with 
our office and the regional EPA office to put in place a plan 
to mitigate what could become a worst-case scenario?
    Mr. Wheeler. Yes. It is my understanding that my Region 1 
staff is already engaged with your office.
    Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
    Mr. Wheeler. And that we will be, we have a meeting 
scheduled soon between our staff and your office and that would 
be happy to work with you on that and we are working with the 
Army Corps on this site as well.
    Mr. Kennedy. You are and they have responded. I appreciate 
that. It is again, given the nature of the conditions there----
    Mr. Wheeler. Certainly.
    Mr. Kennedy [continue]. A concern, and again for the record 
that waste was there long before, for a long time.
    Mr. Shimkus. Before you were born.
    Mr. Kennedy. Maybe. Thank you. Maybe. But maybe, but for a 
long time.
    Mr. Wheeler. I want to--before I was born too.
    Mr. Kennedy. OK.
    So second, another local concern. There is, I think, 
unambiguous evidence from epidemiology and environmental 
literature that ultra-fine particles, also known as UFPs, are a 
very component of air pollution. They do remain unregulated 
because they are too small to be captured in the mass base PM 
2.5 standards. The Clean Air Act mandates setting health-based 
standards with no requirement that technology exists for either 
the monitoring or regulation of the pollutant, so wondering why 
the EPA hasn't moved toward establishing air quality standards 
for UFPs to protect the health of tens of millions of Americans 
that live in high UFP areas like right next to roadways and 
airports.
    Mr. Wheeler. We are updating the PM NAAQS this year. It 
will be finalized by the end of this year and that is certainly 
a research question that we have. We have a lot more questions 
than answers on that. But the way the NAAQS process works, we 
update each one every 5 years and after we are finished 
updating the PM standards for this year, we will start the next 
5-year review the very next day.
    But we are taking a look at that science as it comes in, 
but there is still a lot more unanswered questions on not only 
the impact, but also how you would control it, how you would 
measure it. As you mentioned, the monitors don't pick that up. 
You know, we are getting to the point in our environmental 
protection particularly on the clean air side where detection 
or public health impacts on people are getting us closer and 
closer to what is naturally found at background levels, the 
science has expanded so much over the last 30 years.
    Mr. Kennedy. I am sorry. I appreciate that. One of the 
challenges that we confront and have been working with 
researchers, have some researchers in East Boston that are 
looking at UFPs as the pollutant coming in from landings at 
Logan Airport. I appreciate there is research. I also 
appreciate that, understand that from your answer there could 
be years and years before this is done.
    Mr. Wheeler. Hopefully not years and years, but we don't 
have the science yet for that.
    Mr. Kennedy. And I would also couple that with some of the 
communities here are environmental justice communities. There 
is a seventy-one percent proposed cut to that office under EPA, 
which I would hope----
    Mr. Wheeler. Well, actually, our administration, we moved 
the environmental justice Office out of our enforcement office 
and put it in the administrator's office to try to bring more 
prominence to environmental justice across the Agency and we 
are putting environmental justice in all of our programs. And a 
perfect example is Our Brownfields Program where we are 
focusing in particular on Opportunity Zones which goes to the 
heart of environmental justice. In this way, 108 of our 
brownfields grants last year went to Opportunity Zones both 
inner cities and rural communities.5
    Mr. Kennedy. Oh, OK. Well, I look forward to working with 
your office and the implementation of that because I have a bit 
more concern about how that is being defined and Opportunity 
Zones are, I think we have seen the impact of those 
economically, actually vary quite a bit depending on the 
project. There is communities like Revere, Everett, Chelsea in 
Boston that are begging for the attention that is necessary to 
lay off some of the contamination that has been put in place 
now for an awfully long time. And we will be looking for some 
assistance to make sure that those voices are heard. My time is 
up and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. I believe that 
concludes the list of colleagues who, members who wanted to 
question our witness. Let me now move to requesting unanimous 
consent to enter the following into the record.
    We have a letter from the American Public Works 
Association; a letter from EPA to John Kim, director of the 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; a letter from EPA to 
Catherine McCabe, a commissioner of the New Jersey Department 
of Environmental Protection; a letter from EPA to Basil Seggos, 
commissioner of the New York Department of Environmental 
Conservation; a letter from EPA to Richard Whitman, director of 
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; an article 
published in Bloomberg Environment entitled, ``EPA lead 
proposal derided as weak, may be sneakily strong;'' EPA's PFAS 
Action Plan Program update; and finally, EPA's 2019 Year in 
Review.
    I ask for unanimous consent to enter these into the record.
    Mr. Shimkus. Without objection.
    Mr. Tonko. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Tonko. And again, my thanks to Administrator Wheeler, 
the thanks of the subcommittee to him for joining us for 
today's hearing.
    I remind members that pursuant to committee rules, they 
have ten business days by which to submit additional questions 
for the record to be answered by our witness.
    Administrator Wheeler, I ask that you respond promptly, 
please, to any such questions that you may receive, and at this 
time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]  
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    


                                 [all]