[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 
                             PROTECTION AGENCY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 10, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-121

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
56-322 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                
                            
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                                 ------                                
                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                     Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel
                      David Ehmen, Senior Counsel
            Kim Waskowsky, Senior Professional Staff Member
        Ellie McGowan, Staff Assistant and Administrative Clerk
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                                 ------ 
                                 
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on July 10, 2024....................................     1

                                WITNESS

                              ----------                              

The Honorable Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. Environmental 
  Protection Agency
Oral Statement...................................................     5

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witness 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Statement, PJM, on Greenhouse Gas and Related Regulations; 
  submitted by Rep. Perry.

  * Article, Wall Street Journal, ``EPA and Its Biden Admin 
  Critics''; submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Report, Climate Change and Children's Health and Well-Being 
  in the US; submitted by Rep. Frost.

  * H.J. Res. 161, May 28, 2024; submitted by Rep. Higgins.

  * Article, Politico, ``Coal dust concerns''; submitted by Rep. 
  Mfume.

  * Letter to Administrator Regan, June 21, 2024; submitted by 
  Rep. Mfume.

  * Petition for Rulemaking, NPDES, Coal Train; submitted by Rep. 
  Mfume.

  * Letter, ABC to Committee, July 10, 2024; submitted by 
  Chairman Comer.

  * Letter, NAM Coalition to Congressional Leadership, April 29, 
  2024; submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Report Page, NAM, Map of NAM and EPA; submitted by Chairman 
  Comer.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Regan; submitted by Chairman 
  Comer.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Regan; submitted by Rep. 
  Gosar.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Regan; submitted by Rep. 
  Fry.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Regan; submitted by Rep. 
  Higgins.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Regan; submitted by Rep. 
  Fallon.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Regan; submitted by Rep. 
  Donalds.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Regan; submitted by Rep. 
  Burchett.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Regan; submitted by Rep. 
  McClain.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Regan; submitted by Rep. 
  Langworthy.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Regan; submitted by Rep. 
  Connolly.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Regan; submitted by Rep. 
  Crockett.

The documents listed are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
         OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, July 10, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer [Chairman 
of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Gosar, Foxx, Grothman, 
Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, Fallon, Donalds, Perry, 
Timmons, Burchett, Greene, McClain, Boebert, Fry, Langworthy, 
Burlison, Raskin, Norton, Lynch, Krishnamoorthi, Mfume, Ocasio-
Cortez, Bush, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, Lee, Crockett, 
Goldman, Tlaib, and Pressley.
    Chairman Comer. The hearing of the Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability will come to order.
    I want to welcome everyone here today.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Today, we are conducting oversight of the Biden 
Administration's Environmental Protection Agency.
    EPA Administrator Michael Regan leads EPA as it implements 
President Biden's environmental agenda.
    Not only did President Biden have a disastrous debate 
performance, but his entire Presidency has also been disastrous 
for the American people. President Biden's radical agenda has 
pushed out massive, costly regulations.
    From the moment he stepped into office, President Biden, or 
at least those around him, pushed out sweeping executive orders 
and regulations aimed at transforming critical sectors of our 
economy. From transportation to power generation, this 
Administration has enacted a whole-of-government approach to 
change how these sectors operate, in service to the left's 
radical climate agenda.
    And no cost is spared. But folks at home around this 
country will be left footing the bill for the price of these 
massive rulemakings. The EPA's largest regulations, such as the 
tailpipe emissions rules for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty 
vehicles, have been estimated to cost nearly $900 billion to 
implement.
    Those rules require automakers to completely redesign their 
operations to produce more electric vehicles, regardless of 
what consumers are demanding in the actual marketplace. Instead 
of letting consumers and the market decide what products fit 
their lifestyle needs, the Biden Administration wants to force 
them into these decisions, no matter what the cost is.
    EPA is also implementing costly regulations designed to 
force coal-fired power plants out of the power-generation 
sector. Coal produced over 16 percent of the total electricity 
generation in the United States in 2023, according to the U.S. 
Energy Information Administration. In my home state of 
Kentucky, over two-thirds of our electricity is generated by 
coal-fired plants.
    But EPA's rules will force the premature retirement of 
reliable sources of electricity like coal plants at a time when 
electricity demand continues to rise. Removing reliable power-
generation capabilities undermines the stability of our 
electric grid and puts consumers at risk of rolling blackouts 
and forced rationing of electricity. As these rules go into 
effect, Americans will be left literally powerless.
    How can the Administration push to electrify the U.S. 
vehicle fleet on the one hand, while it undermines the 
reliability of the electric grid on the other?
    During the 118th Congress, this Committee has investigated 
numerous regulations of various sizes and scopes, but one thing 
keeps reappearing: higher costs of regulation leads to higher 
costs for consumers.
    The Biden Administration has either ignored or refused to 
learn this basic economic lesson. It is very simple. When the 
Federal Government imposes new massive regulations, the costs 
of compliance just do not magically vanish into the air. Those 
costs are passed on to consumers, who will be faced with higher 
prices and fewer choices in the market.
    And the numbers are staggering. By their own estimates, the 
Biden Administration, in just 3 1/2 years on the job, has 
imposed over $1.6 trillion in estimated new Federal regulatory 
costs. And $1.3 trillion of those costs, over 80 percent of the 
total, are from you, EPA regulations.
    Americans are already starting to see higher prices and 
fewer choices because of regulation, and we can expect it will 
only get worse as these rules really kick into high gear. Gas 
prices have skyrocketed, utility bills continue to increase, 
and inflation has eaten into every household's spending power.
    Administrator Regan, you committed at your confirmation 
hearing to build consensus around pragmatic solutions and to 
work in partnership with Congress. Well, sir, the sheer cost of 
the regulations coming out of the Biden Administration does not 
strike me or many Americans as pragmatic solutions at all. $1.3 
trillion just from the EPA is setting us down a dangerous path 
of over-regulation.
    I hope that we can impress upon the Administration today 
how much it needs to start putting the interests of the 
American people first and not simply look to appease these 
well-organized left-wing special-interest groups and climate 
scaremongers. Americans cannot afford the bill they will 
ultimately be left paying by this Administration.
    I want to thank you.
    And I now yield to the Ranking Member for his opening 
remarks.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to Administrator Regan for joining us here 
today.
    It is another brutal summer in Washington, but, as we say 
on Capitol Hill, it is not the heat, it is the stupidity.
    And Americans today face the accelerating ravages of the 
climate crisis, including extreme heat waves. Last year was the 
hottest year on record in more than 100,000 years. And the 
hottest year before that was the prior year. And the hottest 
year before that was the year before that.
    So, we are talking about record extreme heat, record 
violent flooding, record wildfires destroying millions of acres 
of land in the West, record-velocity hurricanes and tornadoes.
    And yet, a lot of our colleagues are still in denial. In 
fact, their ``Project 2025'' plan for America would ban the use 
of the word ``climate change.'' They want to delete the 
possibility of even talking about climate change, much less 
taking any action on it.
    Millions of Americans are suffering the health effects of 
legacy pollution, dangerous air quality, and other kinds of 
toxic contamination. The work of the EPA has never been more 
urgent.
    Under the Presidential Administration of Joe Biden and 
Kamala Harris, the EPA has taken decisive action to put the 
health of the people before the profits of polluters and to 
confront climate change and toxic contamination of our 
communities.
    This includes new rules limiting pollution from coal and 
natural gas power plants. It includes a new rule limiting 
pollution from chemical plants that will reduce cancer risks 
for vulnerable communities; new rules for cars and trucks that 
will cut pollutants and reduce premature deaths, heart attacks, 
asthma, and fuel costs for Americans; and sweeping efforts to 
protect our population from lead and carcinogens in the 
drinking water.
    Our colleagues who support a twice-impeached convicted 
felon for President would have us believe that EPA's agenda is 
a radical one. The agenda we should be concerned about is 
Donald Trump's radical, anti-science, corporate polluter agenda 
which he would give away to Big Gas and Big Coal and Big Oil 
for a billion dollars in campaign contributions.
    The week before last, the Supreme Court gutted the Chevron 
doctrine, which will invite the Justices now to impose their 
policy preferences over the agencies that are working to 
implement congressional will.
    And with last week's Corner Post decision, the Court's 
extremists rejected decades of precedent to open Federal 
agencies up to what Supreme Court Justice Jackson described as 
a ``tsunami of lawsuits that threaten to devastate the 
functioning of the Federal Government.''
    These cases were backed by dark-money, corporate-power 
interests, including the Koch network and the Chamber of 
Commerce, both who come to lobby against environmental rules 
that are being adopted by the EPA.
    These are just the latest GOP attacks on the environmental 
protections that Americans want and need. According to a recent 
Gallup poll, a sweeping majority of Americans believe climate 
change is real and that we need to act on pollution of our air 
and our water and destabilization of the climate.
    Yet, just 2 months ago, Trump met with Big Oil executives 
and lobbyists to sell out U.S. energy policy. At a steak 
dinner, Trump told Big Oil and Big Gas CEOs that, in exchange 
for a billion-dollar contribution to his campaign, he would 
roll back environmental rules that protect us from unchecked 
pollution by the fossil-fuel industry.
    We sent a letter to these CEOs in order to get more 
information about what happened at that dinner, and I am still 
hoping and waiting for our colleagues to join us in getting to 
the bottom of that.
    The extremist Republican anti-environment agenda is laid 
out clearly in the infamous ``Project 2025'' playbook, which 
would pick up where the Trump Administration left off by 
gutting clean-energy programs, repealing environmental rules, 
and eviscerating the EPA's budget and staff and their ability 
to act against pollution.
    To anybody who doubts the role that environmental rules and 
the EPA has played, I suggest looking at the Cuyahoga River 
near Cleveland, Ohio.
    In 1969, this river was one of the most polluted waterways 
in the country, and it actually caught on fire. A river caught 
on fire. That catastrophe and its health consequences led to 
the creation of the EPA and enactment of the Clean Water Act 
that our colleagues now want to undermine and destroy.
    Here is what the Cuyahoga River looked like before the EPA 
existed. And this is the America that some politicians want us 
to go back to, a time when the rivers were so polluted that 
prolonged exposure to the water would result in an emergency 
room visit.
    Now, on the other hand, after decades of work with local 
and state governments and communities, here is what the 
Cuyahoga River looks like today. We can literally see the 
physical difference made by the work of the EPA.
    This is what we have been able to do with the Clean Water 
Act and the Clean Air Act and the muscular enforcement that 
both the right-wing MAGA Court and the right-wing MAGA Congress 
want to destroy and reverse.
    While extreme Republicans continue to prioritize Big Oil 
and corporate polluters over the health and safety of our 
people, and as our health and environmental protections are 
dismantled before our eyes by the Supreme Court, it is 
essential that we back the EPA and we sound the alarm about 
this attack on essential environmental regulations. The 
American people need to know the truth about what is at stake 
and what it means for our future.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Ranking Member yields back.
    Today, we are on joined by the Honorable Michael S. Regan, 
who was sworn into office on March 11, 2021, as the 
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    Prior to his nomination as EPA Administrator, Mr. Regan 
served as the secretary of the North Carolina Department of 
Environmental Quality.
    Pursuant to Committee rule 9(g), the witness will please 
stand and raise his right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Regan. I do.
    Chairman Comer. Let the record show that the witness 
answered in the affirmative.
    And I thank you. And you may take a seat.
    We certainly appreciate you being here today and look 
forward to your testimony.
    Let me remind the witness that we have read your written 
statement and it will appear in full in the hearing record. 
Please limit your oral statement to around 5 minutes. You are a 
very important witness, so if you need to go over a little bit, 
that is certainly fine.
    As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in 
front of you so that it is on and the members can hear you. 
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn 
green. After 4 minutes, it will turn yellow. And when the red 
light comes on, we ask that you please wrap it up.
    But, again, we know that you have a lot of important stuff 
to talk about today, and we certainly appreciate you being 
here.
    I now recognize Mr. Regan for his opening statement.

              STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL S. REGAN

                             ADMINISTRATOR

                  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you, Chairman Comer and Ranking 
Member Raskin and members of the Committee.
    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to 
share the U.S. EPA's work to advance a cleaner and healthier 
Nation while ensuring that all people have clean air to 
breathe, clean water to drink, and that we remain globally 
competitive.
    Our partnership and our open and transparent dialog with 
Congress is key to ensuring that my agency can carry out its 
mission of protecting public health and the environment.
    And over the last year, EPA has been hard at work doing 
just that.
    We are cleaning up our water. I am proud to say that we 
finalized historic protections that address PFAS contamination 
and will bring more than 100 million people cleaner drinking 
water. This will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of 
thousands of serious illnesses across the country.
    We are protecting people from toxic chemicals. We recently 
banned chrysotile asbestos, the last remaining kind of asbestos 
used in our country, which has been linked to more than 40,000 
deaths in the United States each year.
    Additionally, EPA's Toxic Substance Control Act program 
demonstrates how effective our work is when we receive adequate 
resources from Congress. With the increased resources we 
received in 2022 and 2023, EPA more than doubled the number of 
chemical reviews each month and cleared out more than half of 
the older backlog cases.
    And we are also cleaning up our air. In March, EPA 
announced the final national pollution standards for passenger 
cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles for model 
years 2027 through 2032. These standards will avoid more than 7 
billion tons of carbon emissions and provide nearly $100 
billion of annual net benefits.
    EPA's greatest and most fundamental responsibility is 
protecting public health and the environment, and every single 
day we are upholding our commitment to the American people. EPA 
follows the science, we follow the law, and we remain committed 
to openness and transparency.
    I am proud to say that, in April, my agency announced four 
final rules under separate authorities to reduce climate, air, 
water, and land pollution from fossil-fuel-fired power plants. 
Finalizing these standards on the same day helps ensure that 
the power sector can confidently prepare for the future by 
enabling strategic long-term investments and establishing an 
informed multiyear planning process.
    Folks, I understand just how important our role is in the 
power sector and our Nation's economic growth and 
competitiveness. And I also understand that protecting public 
health has never come at the expense of a strong and durable 
economy. EPA's action reflects this understanding.
    Transparency is key, and engagement is vitally important. I 
want to be clear. Through all of our rulemakings, we engage 
with and receive input from the regulators, the institutions, 
the stakeholders--all of the individuals who will help shape 
the future of our country.
    Furthermore, President Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law and Inflation Reduction Act provide a historic, once-in-a-
generation opportunity to invest in America's future--a future 
that will change people's lives for the better.
    The historic funding Congress has provided my agency is 
creating millions of jobs, modernizing our Nation's 
infrastructure, combating climate change, and putting us on a 
path to win the 21st century and beyond. And EPA is doing the 
job Congress has asked us to do, by putting these funds to work 
to fulfill our critical mission.
    As an agency, EPA is dedicated to open communication, 
fairness, and transparent engagement with Congress and with the 
American people. EPA recognizes and respects the importance of 
Congress's interest in obtaining information necessary to 
perform its legitimate oversight.
    With respect to the Oversight Committee, we have responded 
in good faith to Committee requests by providing approximately 
23,000 pages of documents, a response to every letter from the 
Committee, 8 briefings, testimony at a Subcommittee hearing, 
and numerous staff-level calls.
    And we are fully committed to continuing to cooperate with 
you as well as the Office of Inspector General and the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office.
    I am confident and proud of the hard work at EPA, and I am 
proud of the work that we have undertaken to protect public 
health and the environment while responsibly stewarding 
taxpayer resources. Under President Biden's leadership, 
Americans in every state and every town will lead healthier 
lives, breathing cleaner air, drinking cleaner water, and 
seeing a brighter economic future.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to submit 
the testimony for the record, and I look forward to our 
continued partnership and answering all questions.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you very much.
    We will now begin our 5 minutes of questions. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Palmer from Alabama for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. I thank the Chairman.
    Mr. Regan, you and my Democratic colleague mentioned the 
great work of the EPA. And I just wanted to point out that the 
photograph that he showed and the subsequent cleanup of the 
Cuyahoga River is indicative of all of our commitment to 
cleaning up our environment.
    And we have made remarkable progress. Since 1980, our 
economy has grown by 791 percent, vehicle miles traveled has 
gone up 113 percent, population's increased by 47 percent--and 
that is probably not counting the illegals that have crossed 
our border--energy consumption's up 29 percent, but the six 
criteria gases that the EPA tracks have all gone down 60 
percent. And that is your data.
    One of the things that concerns me is about how you have 
gone about things, in basically taking the lawmaking authority 
away from Congress. I am very encouraged by the overturning of 
the Chevron deference that the Supreme Court did last week, 
because it restores the responsibility for lawmaking and the 
accountability for law-making to Congress, where it belongs.
    But there is another thing that the EPA has been engaged in 
that concerns me, and that is basically sue and settle.
    In March of this year, the inspector general issued a 
report that found the EPA does not properly store its 
procurement data, paving the way for fraudulent, collusive 
behavior with vendors receiving contracts and subcontracts. 
This prevents the inspector general from adequately conducting 
oversight.
    Are you doing anything to correct this? That is----
    Mr. Regan. We have.
    Mr. Palmer [continuing]. A ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Regan. We have. Yes.
    Mr. Palmer. OK. Good. I would like to know, if you would 
report to the Committee in writing, what you have done to 
correct this.
    Because it is not the first time these questions have been 
raised about the EPA's potential collusion with friendly 
outside parties, especially with environmental groups during 
litigation. As I said, it is sometimes referred to as sue-and-
settle litigation.
    So, when was the last time the government audited the EPA's 
litigation? Have you had an audit?
    Mr. Regan. I am not quite sure of which specific audit you 
are referring to, but we----
    Mr. Palmer. Your litigation.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. We welcome all audits.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, I would like to know, in a report to the 
Committee, whether or not you have had an audit of EPA 
involvement in litigation.
    The Biden Administration revoked the Trump Administration 
policies to publish and notice settlement details and pre-
litigation announcements. And I want to know what efforts the 
EPA has made to reduce the settlement costs using taxpayer 
dollars.
    Can you report that to the Committee as well?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, we can report to the progress we have made 
to evolve that document to provide more transparency, which is 
what those changes----
    Mr. Palmer. But I want to know how much you have spent of 
taxpayer dollars in these settlement cases.
    And if the government auditors cannot access data to 
adequately track management of contracts or litigation costs, 
then what resources are available to the Congress and the 
public to track the taxpayer expenses for these activities?
    Do you have any response to that, in terms of your 
oversight? Because you should be reporting to Congress with 
full transparency about your litigation efforts in these sue-
and-settle cases.
    Mr. Regan. I do believe that we are reporting responsibly 
to Congress. I meet frequently with my Inspector General. We 
have taken just about all of the recommendations----
    Mr. Palmer. Well, your Inspector General, as I said, 
reported that you do not properly store your procurement data, 
which paves the way for fraudulent, collusive behavior. And 
that is one of my big concerns, is that there has been 
collusive behavior and involvement with these outside groups.
    I want to move to something else that concerns me too, is, 
the House of Representatives sent two letters to the EPA--one 
was in December of last year; one was April of this year--
signed by 22 Members respectively, including 10 members of the 
House Energy and Commerce Committee. Both letters raised 
serious questions about whether the EPA's proposed $2 billion 
regulation on the lime industry is necessary, given that the 
EPA's own scientists have determined that the emissions from 
lime plants are already acceptable with an ample margin of 
safety.
    And in September of last year, the House Science Committee 
held an oversight hearing, and you testified that you think--
and you said this: ``I think what we want to do is to ensure 
that we are meeting the letter of the law with as much 
flexibility as possible. I think we have to be reasonable, and 
I think we want to do--what we want to do is protect public 
health and ensure that these industries can be productive.''
    How in the world is finalizing a $2 billion regulation 
providing as much flexibility as possible and being reasonable?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think if you look at that finalized 
action, we took into consideration many of the recommendations 
that industry asked us to----
    Mr. Palmer. Do you know what lime is used for?
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. To also protect health and----
    Mr. Palmer. Administrator Regan, do you know what lime is 
used for?
    Mr. Regan. I absolutely do.
    Mr. Palmer. What is it used for?
    Mr. Regan. Well, it can be used for a lot of things, 
especially----
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, but what is it primarily used for in the 
construction?
    Mr. Regan. You can use lime for agriculture. You can use 
lime for construction. I mean, there are a lot of uses for 
lime.
    Mr. Palmer. You cannot make--it is a key ingredient in 
concrete, cement.
    Mr. Regan. It is a key ingredient in a lot of things; it is 
not just cement.
    Mr. Palmer. And you just imposed a $2 billion regulation on 
it. Then all that cost is going to be passed on to consumers 
and increase food prices, increase----
    Mr. Regan. We put protective standards in place so that 
workers and people who are exposed to lime are not----
    Mr. Palmer. But your own----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Unduly----
    Mr. Palmer [continuing]. You own Administration says that 
you have determined it is acceptable with an ample margin of 
safety. That is not reasonable.
    Mr. Regan. Acceptable in certain instances. I think that 
is----
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, well----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. A narrative or a context that--I 
would love to have this conversation. Maybe we could look at 
the full breadth of the statement that the scientists are 
making.
    Mr. Palmer. Your----
    Mr. Regan. I am very aware of the statements that our 
scientists are making, and so I think that may be out of 
context.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, I am very encouraged by the Chevron 
deference being overturned, because it will restore to Congress 
our lawmaking authority and remove it from these agencies.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. And the gentleman's time's expired.
    We went a minute over, so the Democrats can have that extra 
minute at some point.
    The Chair recognizes Ranking Member Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regan, let me just follow-up on that, because I do 
think that there is a significant philosophical difference that 
was just surfaced in the colloquy between Mr. Palmer and 
yourself.
    There is no doubt that there is industry that wants more of 
a freedom to pollute without having environmental rules imposed 
against them.
    But your purpose is to defend the freedom to breathe clean 
air and drink clean water and have a safe working place.
    And I wonder if you would describe what the mission of the 
EPA is.
    Mr. Regan. Well, the mission of the EPA is to protect 
public health and the environment, look at cost-effective 
technologies to do so, and ensure that this country can remain 
globally competitive.
    And I do that in concert with state regulators in blue and 
red states, but also actively engaging industry to come up with 
the right solutions.
    Mr. Raskin. And that is a mission that has been, for a lot 
of American history, a bipartisan one. It was under President 
Nixon that the EPA was first created, right?
    Mr. Regan. Correct.
    Mr. Raskin. And so, there is nothing that should be 
partisan about the pursuit of clean air, clean water, clean 
working conditions. Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Regan. I agree with that.
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    I wonder, what is your perspective on what would happen if 
the proposals in the ``Project 2025'' blueprint for a MAGA 
takeover of government were implemented? What would happen if 
all of the rules that they want to repeal at the EPA were 
repealed?
    Mr. Regan. Well, listen, I think when you look at the 
massive cuts that are being suggested, we will not get new 
pesticides, new registrants on the market. We will 
significantly hurt our agriculture industry, reducing the 
herbicides that we can get on the market. We will not clear all 
of the litigation that has tied our hands to get chemicals on 
the market that we rely on every day.
    Listen, we would have significant impacts to our water 
quality. Emerging contaminants like PFAS would run amok. We 
would continue to have lead-poisoned water all across the 
country.
    We would not be able to look at how to clean up brownfield 
sites and benefit not just from a health standpoint but from 
the economic vitality and opportunity of cleaning up these 
blighted sites.
    The list just goes on and on. America needs a strong EPA.
    Mr. Raskin. I remember when Donald Trump took out his 
sharpie and purported to change the direction of a hurricane. I 
think it was Hurricane Dorian back in 2019. But he basically 
said it was not going to hit the Florida coast, it was going to 
hit Alabama.
    And he did this without any consultation with the National 
Weather Service or NOAA, where the National Weather Service is 
located. And then it created huge confusion and consternation.
    I mean, what would happen if we replaced professional, 
scientific, civil-service management of agencies, like the 
Weather Service or NOAA or the EPA, with political flunkies, 
basically, people who are just willing to say whatever the 
President wants to say? What would that do to our ability to 
have effective public policy, if science is something that 
could just be made up by a President?
    Mr. Regan. If we do not follow the science and have 
qualified people in these positions, Americans will die.
    We have a role to play, and we need to be able to predict 
the weather. We need to be able to respond to the weather. We 
need to be able to alert the public if danger is coming their 
way.
    And once many of these communities are hit, whether it is a 
wildfire or a flood or a hurricane, we need to be able to go in 
and be activated to help bring those communities back to life. 
Whether it is Maui, Hawaii, or whether it is East Palestine, 
Ohio, or Jackson, Mississippi, when a city is hit, we need 
experts to come in and ensure that there is clean air and clean 
water.
    Mr. Raskin. So, how have you regarded the war on science 
and the war on public health that we saw during COVID-19, we 
saw on this Committee when Dr. Fauci came the other day? We had 
members of this Committee accusing Dr. Fauci of having created 
COVID-19 and profiting from it.
    How do you experience that attack on science in terms of 
your ability to get your work done?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, it is threatening reality and 
the facts. And what we have done under this Administration is 
restore scientific integrity, which, by the way, industry, 
businesses, all of our economic partners applaud us for doing 
this.
    We are saving lives, and we are putting pragmatic, 
practical regulations in place so that we can provide many of 
our industries regulatory certainty. They need to have 
regulatory certainty so that they can make the proper 
investments.
    Mr. Raskin. So, would you say that the success of the EPA 
depends on the integrity of the science that goes into it, and 
you are threatened by the political science of the MAGA people 
who say, we want to dictate a political agenda to people who 
work for EPA or the Weather Service or NOAA?
    Mr. Regan. Politics of no party has any role in scientific 
integrity. And if we do not remain in a place where we are 
transparent and bolstering our scientific integrity, we will 
lose the trust of the public.
    Scientific integrity is the core--is at the core of EPA's 
mission to protect all people.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your hard work.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
    Chairman Comer. All right.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Higgins from Louisiana for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator Regan, you said you do not want to lose the 
trust of the American people. Too late. It has already 
happened.
    Economic prosperity is the cornerstone of societal 
advancement worldwide. And the cornerstone of economic 
prosperity is affordable, abundant, transportable energy 
product.
    Ladies and gentlemen and you young Americans across the 
country, please join me in loving your planet and living your 
life in a manner that you intend to protect your planet for 
future generations by recognizing that economic prosperity 
worldwide is the number-one driver of clean air and clean water 
and reduced pollution worldwide.
    So, the energy product that the world consumes, including 
the fuel that you used to get here, the petrochemical products 
produced by the fossil-fuel industry that Mr. Regan is wearing 
upon his back, the clothes that you are wearing, the carpet 
upon which you are standing, the finish on the chair where you 
are sitting, the petrochemical products that make up 100 
percent of the phone or the computer that you are typing on, is 
consumed worldwide.
    Our world being one, if you are concerned about the 
ecological impact of mankind upon your planet and you recognize 
that mankind is going to consume petrochemical products, then 
you would want it produced in the region of the Earth where it 
is produced the cleanest, under the most stringent regulations 
and the most industry-driven technological advancements to 
deliver clean, affordable product. That is the United States of 
America.
    Men like Mr. Regan have carried a torch that is 100 percent 
driven by an agenda to smash the American energy industry. He 
is the one that is agenda-driven, not me.
    The American energy industry and the American petrochemical 
industry is, with no debate, the cleanest producer of 
affordable energy product and affordable petrochemical product 
in the world. And every one of you consume it. Own that, 
because that is where we are.
    In the future, I have no doubt that there will be a gradual 
transition to things unknown. This is the nature of life. It is 
the way things roll. But to have it--have an agenda-driven 
Green New Deal, anti-American, anti-American-energy, anti-
American-petrochemical agenda shoved down our throat by an 
Administration that claims it is doing so on behalf of 
protecting the world's ecological stability by forcing the 
production of these products into regions of the world that 
have far less concern about their ecological impact, that is 
hypocrisy at its worst.
    And I, for one, am going to use every authority that 
Congress allows me to legally wield to push back against it.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the 
record the Joint Resolution 161, a joint resolution calling for 
the reversal of the EPA rule submitted by this gentleman and 
his department. I ask for unanimous consent.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Regan, do you have plans for next year, 
sir? Do you have plans for next year?
    Mr. Regan. I have plans for every year.
    Mr. Higgins. What are your plans for next year?
    Mr. Regan. Well, my plans are personal, and I do not----
    Mr. Higgins. Well, I am asking you professionally.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. I do not know you. Well, I----
    Mr. Higgins. Do you have plans to continue----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Am not obligated----
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Your battle----
    Mr. Regan. I am not----
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. That you are carrying that torch 
for?
    Mr. Regan. With you just assaulting me and saying I am un-
American, now you want to know----
    Mr. Higgins. You think this is an assault?
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Now you want to know what my 
plans----
    Mr. Higgins. We are definitely living in two different 
worlds.
    Mr. Regan. Oh, yes, we are in two different worlds.
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. I appreciate----
    Mr. Mfume [continuing]. I have an inquiry.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. This hearing being convened.
    Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I have an inquiry.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mfume.
    Mr. Mfume. I have an----
    Mr. Higgins. I am going to reclaim my time.
    Chairman Comer. And you have--you have time left, Mr. 
Higgins.
    Mr. Mfume. I have an inquiry of the Chair.
    Mr. Chairman, we disagree on a lot of issues in this 
Committee a lot of times, but we always ought to look and put a 
stop sign in front of ourselves when we start assailing, by 
name, the personal integrity of any witness. I mentioned this a 
few weeks ago with Mr. Fauci. It continues to happen.
    I want to make sure I am on the record so that members of 
the Committee on both sides of the aisle will at least respect 
the personal integrity of a witness before this Committee.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins for his 
final few seconds.
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, this is the Oversight Committee. 
This is where government is forced to sit in front of Congress 
and be held accountable for their actions.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman,----
    Mr. Higgins. If that is----
    Mr. Raskin. The gentleman's time, is it not----
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. His personal integrity, that is 
not my problem.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Mfume. But it is not the McCarthy era.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Mfume. It is not the McCarthy committee.
    Chairman Comer. Order.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton from Washington, DC.
    Ms. Norton. Administrator Regan, thank you for being here 
today.
    Climate change and pollution are among the most urgent 
crises of our time. Addressing them requires real action and 
innovative solutions.
    The Biden-Harris Administration and Democrats in Congress 
took real action and delivered innovative solutions when we 
passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    As a result, we are making historic investments in our 
communities to fight climate change and protect our environment 
and public health, including more than $50 billion for EPA to 
strengthen our Nation's water infrastructure after decades of 
underinvestment.
    The District of Columbia is benefiting from billions of 
dollars in funding, much of which will go toward replacing 
toxic lead pipes. Removing these dangerous pipes will make our 
drinking water safer, prevent health crises, and protect 
children from lead poisoning that can lead to lifelong harm.
    Administrator Regan, why is investing in our water 
infrastructure an urgent priority for the Administration?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, 
Congresswoman.
    And it is vital for public health and for our economy. Our 
Nation's water infrastructure is crumbling, which will have an 
impact on our global competitiveness.
    But, more importantly, I have met with so many mothers 
whose children are lead-poisoned, and we are seeing lead-
poisoned children all over this country. And that is why the 
President and Vice President have prioritized removing 100 
percent of our lead pipes.
    I am happy to say that D.C. will receive more than $28 
million to reduce--or replace their lead pipes in our most 
recent funding announcement this May.
    But it is vitally important that every single person in 
this country has access to clean drinking water--clean, 
affordable drinking water.
    Ms. Norton. Administrator Regan, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law also provided D.C. with much-needed funding 
to help with ongoing brownfields cleanup projects and to 
replace antiquated, diesel-fueled buses with modern, battery-
electric buses.
    D.C. is also using Pollution Prevention Grants which were 
robustly funded under the law to support a range of projects, 
including those aimed at improving public health and the 
environment in D.C.'s disadvantaged communities.
    The Inflation Reduction Act, meanwhile, has provided D.C. 
with millions in grant funding focused on pollution reduction 
and creating a carbon neutrality plan for D.C.
    We are seeing important projects like these not only in the 
District of Columbia but throughout the country.
    Administrator Regan, what are some other success stories of 
the Administration's historic investments in protecting our 
environment?
    Mr. Regan. Well, we have quite a few. And I would say, when 
we think about Washington, DC, and we look at the success of 
our brownfields program, we are revitalizing blighted 
communities and turning these communities into economic centers 
but also reducing the pollution to many communities, which 
increases the tax base, increases the healthiness of 
communities.
    You mentioned electric school buses. We have issued 
electric school buses in Washington, DC. We have also issued 
about $62.5 million to expand the benefits of solar energy to 
lower-income communities in the District as well.
    We are looking at a combination of infusing new 
technologies that will make the city more competitive while 
cleaning up pollution and making citizens healthier. I call 
that a huge success, and we are seeing that all over the 
country.
    Ms. Norton. Well, I do too.
    Looking at all these important environmental projects, who 
would be left behind--who would be left behind if we choose 
nothing? What would the consequences be of inaction?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, who would be left behind are the 
least amongst us, our low-income communities. 
Disproportionately hit would be our Black and Brown and Tribal 
communities. Most of these communities are not the communities 
that have generated the pollution or used the energy but are on 
the receiving end of the brunt of the storms or the pollution.
    And so, it is imperative that we take a look at ensuring 
that every single person in this country has clean air to 
breathe, clean water to drink, and that we engage with our 
communities to invest in solutions that they have had for 
decades. We cannot afford, as a country, to leave anyone 
behind.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gosar from 
Arizona.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much.
    Administrator Regan, there has been a big push in this 
Congress to expand the RECA, the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act, in areas that are far away--very far away 
from the original testing sites, which were in Nevada. In fact, 
there was 1,054 detonations in Nevada, which compromises--which 
composes almost 95 percent of all those exposures. And yet, 
when we had RECA, there was an administrative error in which 
southeastern Nevada, northwestern Arizona were excluded from 
this aspect.
    Now, we started investigating this. And I have been doing 
this bill for forever, since 2010, because--before it was even 
cool to talk about.
    One of the things that it seems we can argue about should 
we expand RECA is to St. Louis, Missouri. Very important here. 
However, I take an acute interest in the existing Superfunds on 
the EPA's National Priorities List that cover radiation in this 
area. Let us look at these.
    One Superfund site, the St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood Interim 
Storage/Futura Coatings Company site, was listed in October 
1989 and consists of three areas used for the storing of 
radioactive waste from uranium processing in St. Louis.
    Another, the Westlake Landfill site, was listed in August 
1990 and covers a site where 43 tons of uranium ore processing 
residues in soil were disposed of in 1973.
    Here are my questions. These Superfunds are supposed to 
contain and deal with the effects of this radiation, right? Do 
you believe your agency is effectively addressing the issue of 
radiation exposure in the St. Louis area?
    Mr. Regan. I do. I do believe that it is--as you have 
mentioned, a tough topic and hard to get your arms wrapped 
around. I think that we are. And I think that the combinations 
of cleanups and closures that we are offering do provide 
adequate protection for surrounding communities.
    Mr. Gosar. OK.
    So, then, why is there a reason to expand RECA to this 
area? It does not make any sense to me, because RECA was 
developed for the exposure of above-ground bombing that the 
Federal Government took acknowledgment from.
    So, why do we have to expand RECA? I know these people need 
some help, but why would Superfunds not follow that up?
    Mr. Regan. Well, this is a specific issue that maybe we 
should discuss, because I know that, when these sites or 
expansions occur, that typically means more Federal dollars 
come in to help with the cleanup if there is a different use 
for the sites----
    Mr. Gosar. So, I agree with you. But my point is, is, we 
spent a ton of money on these Super sites. Why are they not 
addressing these exposures to radiation from this point 
forward, instead of RECA?
    I mean, I have got people who have waited now--their 
exposure has now been almost 70 years, and they have been 
excluded because of an administrative error from what Congress 
intended to the bill writing. It had nothing to do with us 
being here.
    And I have been pushed off, pushed off. We tried to do this 
in the NDAA, we tried to do this all the way around. I have 
been told by bureaucrats, ``You know what? Tough luck. You have 
to have more money. We have to get it included.''
    And now all of a sudden, I find that these poor people, 
these Native Americans in northwestern Arizona, these 
southeastern Nevada folks, do not have any compensation 
possibilities. I have got some problems with that.
    You know, I want this money to be appropriate----
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Gosar [continuing]. Because you can talk all about the 
Administration and rules and regulations, but the other part of 
wasting money is, is it the contractor who is not doing their 
job? Is it the supervision of the Army Corps of Engineers is 
not adequate? I do not know. But we have to have some answers 
here. Because we have got one more chance at this. The rest of 
these people are not going to be around.
    And it is meager, folks. You have to show--prove that you 
lived in this area for an amount of time just to be able to get 
$35,000. I find this a radical injustice, in that regard.
    And so, I would like--I have got a lot of other things, the 
PM10's and all that stuff, but this is very poignant to me.
    Mr. Regan. OK.
    Mr. Gosar. So, I would love to have your full force pushing 
this right away. Because we have not renewed the RECA 
standards, and we need to, but I need to understand why all of 
a sudden we are getting this big push from Missouri from these 
Superfund aspects to be included in that. I want people to get 
their due----
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Gosar [continuing]. Due diligence. But why does RECA 
have to be this part? Why can the Superfunds not take that? 
Could I get that answer from you?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. You have my personal commitment that we 
will work on this and see what we can do.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you.
    My last little question was: You know, we have all these 
pharmaceuticals in our water supply. The gentlelady from D.C. 
talked about it. What--and I know you do not really have the 
jurisdiction; the FDA really does.
    But how clean is our water with regards to the disposal of 
these pharmaceuticals, most of them going down into our water 
supply? Could you address that real quickly?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. At--presently, in my conversations with FDA 
and other health agencies, our water is clean. Our water is 
clean and drinkable.
    And when it is not, we advise citizens to follow boil-water 
advisories or any other advisories that a local entity might--
--
    Mr. Gosar. Can I interrupt you right there?
    But steroidal manufacturing of the pharmaceuticals bypasses 
our normal-type prospectus , if I understand this right. I am a 
dentist by profession--or was. So, how can you assure me that 
those compounds are not still in the water?
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired, but 
please answer the----
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. Very important question.
    Mr. Regan. I think what we do is we match our expertise 
with the expertise of FDA and, from a regulatory standpoint, 
try to ensure that a wastewater treatment facility, a drinking 
water facility, has the best technology. And that is where we 
run those tests.
    I think, to your point, this is more of an FDA-EPA-combined 
answer, and we can get our staffs together to work on getting a 
better answer for you.
    Mr. Gosar. If you would, please. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lynch from 
Massachusetts.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking 
Member.
    First of all, I want to say thank you, Administrator Regan.
    We have been working in my district--I represent a coastal 
area that goes from the North End neighborhood of Boston all 
the way down to Hingham. So, we are right on the coast. And we 
have been working with your regional people in my area on 
seawalls because of the--even just during my lifetime, we have 
seen incredible sea-level rise along that coast in 
Massachusetts. And I am sure there are other communities that 
have benefited from your good work as well.
    And also, we had tremendous PFAS issues. We have got an 
older area, formerly heavily industrial. So, the EPA in our 
region has been extremely helpful in helping us put in 
filtration systems that now allow people to turn on their taps 
and get clean water instead of having to have the town 
administration provide free bottled water, which was happening 
for quite a while.
    I want to talk to you about the Chevron case, the Chevron 
decision.
    So, just to be clear, up until last week, when Congress 
passed legislation that might have been general in nature and 
had some ambiguity to it--which is basically every single bill 
that we pass, because we cannot address every eventuality--in 
the past, the courts were required to defer to agency expertise 
as long as the agency interpretation was reasonable.
    In other words, you know, it is not just the EPA. On 
pharmaceutical development, you know, the FDA interpretations 
of statutes that they are directed by held sway as long as it 
was reasonable.
    Same thing with labor laws. You know, the labor laws are 
meant to protect workers. And as long as the Department of 
Labor made interpretations that were consistent with that 
mission, it was accepted by the court, and they afforded the 
deference.
    The SEC, the mission was to protect investors. And as long 
as the SEC was making interpretations of ambiguous sections of 
the law that was consistent with and reasonable within the 
contours of the four corners of that law, that deference was 
afforded to the agency.
    Now, that is over. That is over.
    And so, I am just wondering--I mean, I am sure you have had 
a chance to look at this with counsel. What do you think the 
impacts are going to be for the EPA and your responsibility, 
your mission, to make sure that we have clean air, clean water, 
and the sundry other missions that you must follow?
    Mr. Regan. Well, as you can imagine, I and we are deeply 
disappointed. This hits EPA extremely hard.
    We have world-class experts who for decades have been 
honing their skills to work on behalf of the American people 
and render judgment on policies and regulations that would be 
most protective of everyone in this country.
    And so, we will gather ourselves and continue to leverage 
that expertise in every way we can, because, again, our charge 
is to ensure that every single person in this country, all of 
our children, have access to clean drinking water and clean air 
and healthy lands.
    Mr. Lynch. Well, thank you.
    I also want to just thank you again. We, in this Congress, 
have passed legislation to provide for zero-emission vehicles, 
not only private vehicles but--and a framework that would allow 
people to, you know, charge those vehicles--but also we have 
looked at the United States Postal Service and the 237,000 
vehicles that they use each and every day, and we are in the 
process of converting many of our older vehicles to electric 
vehicles. And I just want to thank you and the EPA for your 
cooperation on that measure. And it cannot happen soon enough.
    Mr. Chairman, the previous Republican member consumed an 
additional minute, and I would ask to have access to that extra 
60 seconds, if I might.
    Chairman Comer. We have been going back and forth. I have 
been keeping up with it. I thought we were about even because 
Mr. Raskin went over a minute. But if you need a--if you have a 
good question to ask----
    Mr. Lynch. Well, I would like to yield the last minute to 
the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    I will find some other time to get in, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. OK.
    Mr. Raskin. I will yield back. And thank you.
    And I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Sessions from 
Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Administrator, welcome.
    There is already, this morning, some disagreement about the 
questions that we are asking you. I have heard you very clearly 
talk about the EPA under your leadership as ``cost-effective 
solutions,'' ``pragmatic,'' ``America needs a strong EPA,'' 
``scientific-based answers,'' ``fairness.''
    So, I would like to engage in a dialog with you, if I can, 
as opposed to a longwinded opportunity here.
    Please tell me, as we talk about formaldehyde, are you 
aware that the European Union occupational exposure limit was 
just codified at 300 parts per billion?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Sessions. You were. Thank you.
    Are you aware that the air outside this building and the 
air in this room is naturally occurring with formaldehyde?
    Mr. Regan. I cannot speak to the----
    Mr. Sessions. Well, you are the head of the EPA. If you do 
not know that formaldehyde is everywhere, as we breathe it not 
only in this building but outside--so I will tell you, that 
answer is ``yes.''
    Let it be noted, the head of the EPA did not understand 
that formaldehyde is a naturally occurring substance.
    Are you aware that the Human Studies Review Board, known as 
HSRB, within EPA opposed and had problems with the 
recommendation of 11 parts per billion that is now being 
codified into your rules and regulations? Were you aware that 
they had problems with 11 parts per billion?
    Mr. Regan. I was not aware.
    Mr. Sessions. Were not aware.
    Are you, the gentleman, aware that the permissible parts 
per billion is 750 parts per billion under OSHA for exposure 
limit for formaldehyde?
    Mr. Regan. Congressman Sessions, for the types of questions 
you are asking, we have----
    Mr. Sessions. They are very direct.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Experts that have----
    Mr. Sessions. You are the head of this organization, and 
you have proposed taking to 11 parts per billion.
    You showed up here and you talk about ``fairness,'' ``cost-
effective solutions,'' ``pragmatic,'' ``scientific-based,'' and 
yet your own--within your own boards that provide you with data 
and information, they have said 11 parts per billion is well 
out of line and cannot even be measured.
    And yet our friends--your friends that are up here on this 
Committee, as we are, are asking you what are not tough 
questions; they are really pragmatic, they are science-based, 
they are cost-effective things--ways to look at things.
    And you are standing behind changing some 20 of these 
different chemicals and putting them to standards that would 
be, once again, Europe has, their occupational exposure limit 
is 300 parts per billion. America's, at this time, under OSHA, 
is 750 parts per billion. You did not know that it is regularly 
occurring all around, in every room, outside. And yet your own 
committee within your department, the Human Studies Review 
Board, said, please do not do this, we have problems. And yet 
you have put your stamp on 11 parts per billion that is not 
even able to be calculated.
    And yet, if you look at 11 to 300 to 750, you chose to show 
up here and to say to this Committee and to plead with us you 
have to save every single life, and yet it cannot even be 
measured.
    You talk about fairness, you talk about cost-effectiveness, 
you talk about being pragmatic, you talk about science-based 
answers. And the head of EPA showed up today and said he did 
not even know that formaldehyde was regularly naturally 
occurring, at levels well above 11 parts per billion.
    Mr. Chairman, this is why we seemingly have problems and 
why my side--yes, we are Republicans, and we are not these 
crazy-eyed people that you have heard about today. We are 
saying, we want you to be pragmatic, we want you to be fair. 
But you cannot even justify 11 parts per billion, because it 
cannot even be measured. There are no scientific measures to 
measure that on a regularly reoccurring basis. And you have put 
an onus on industry.
    Formaldehyde is used in plastics. It is used in cars. It is 
used in national security. It is used all over the United 
States, what we would call the free-enterprise system, but it 
is capitalism.
    Ms. Mace. [Presiding.] Thank you.
    Mr. Sessions. And it is a cost-effective----
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Sessions.
    Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Way to look at things.
    Ms. Mace. You are out of time. Thank you.
    Mr. Sessions. I yield back my time.
    Sir, we do want to talk with you----
    Ms. Mace. All right.
    I would now like to recognize Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam 
Chairwoman.
    We have heard a lot today. I would like to bring this 
conversation a little bit down to Earth, about--and make it 
more about the people that we are here to serve.
    I am the Congresswoman for the Bronx and Queens. I 
represent a community that has some of the highest childhood 
asthma rates in the United States.
    And when we hear this conversation about how regulations 
threaten economic prosperity and--I jotted it down earlier 
because I could not even believe that I heard it--that economic 
prosperity, quote, ``is the number-one driver of clean air and 
clean water,'' as though our rivers were somehow--I mean, our 
rivers and forests were clean and unpolluted before a single 
factory was constructed in this country. That is the state of 
nature. I want us to be clear about that.
    Now, when we hear people use this term ``economic 
prosperity,'' I want folks to know at home, what that is a 
shadow screen for is a term otherwise known as ``profit''--Wall 
Street profit, very often.
    And, Administrator Regan, you have been accused of 
sabotaging, here, the economic prosperity of this country for 
enforcing and introducing regulations about chemicals that this 
Committee itself has investigated, such as PFAS.
    I would like for us to dig into that a little bit.
    PFAS is a chemical byproduct of--and it is a chemical that 
is in almost everything--Teflon pans, workout gear, fire 
extinguisher foam.
    What are some of the health consequences that we have seen 
as a result of elevated levels of PFAS in everyday--for 
everyday Americans?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, they range from various types of 
cancers, death.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Regan. These carcinogenic elements are wreaking havoc 
on communities all across the country.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. We have had people from PFAS-affected--
especially PFAS-affected communities that have had fertility 
issues. Is that correct?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Testicular cancer? Is----
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez [continuing]. That correct?
    Developmental delays in children? Is that consistent with 
what you have seen?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thyroid issues? Increased risk of 
cancer? Correct?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And that--those people, those kids, 
those parents who are struggling to conceive now--that is who 
we respond to. That is who we answer to.
    Correct, Administrator Regan?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The American people.
    Now, I want to name something. This is not just economic 
prosperity. There are people and organizations and companies 
responsible for this.
    DuPont and 3M are two of the largest corporations that were 
responsible for PFAS dumping in the United States. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Did they know that these chemicals were 
potentially toxic? Is that correct?
    Mr. Regan. We believe they did.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And yet there are members here of this 
Committee that want to defend the quote/unquote, ``economic 
right'' for a company to poison its people--the American 
people.
    Now, when we talk about economic prosperity, if you are a 
kid in the South Bronx, if you are a mom in rural Pennsylvania 
near a PFAS dumping site, who comes ahead when you get cancer 
and have a medical bill to pay? Who comes out ahead from that 
PFAS dumping? The CEO of DuPont or that mom?
    So, when we talk about the bills and the prosperity that 
gets made from here and who has to pay that, we need to 
understand a very simple economic concept called 
``externalities.'' Externalities. The costs of pollution, the 
costs of poisoning that are not factored into the profit margin 
of a corporation that is actually wreaking havoc on this 
planet.
    And when we talk about issues like climate change, it is, 
at its core, an issue of externalities. Because ExxonMobil and 
all of these oil companies can afford to burn this planet to a 
crisp, because it makes them a pile of money.
    Now, Administrator Regan, I want to--I want to thank you, 
because in the character attacks that you have experienced in 
this hearing, I know that you have spent your entire time and 
your entire Federal service----
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. Your time is up--I----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez [continuing]. Protecting families----
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. Appreciate it--this morning.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez [continuing]. From being poisoned.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez [continuing]. And I want to thank you for 
that.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Ms. Mace. All right.
    I would now like to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Regan, as part of the so-called Inflation Reduction 
Act, the EPA established the Office of Environmental Justice 
and External Civil Rights, which now manages $3 billion for 
environmental and climate justice to fund community-based NGOs.
    As part of the allocation, $600 million is devoted to the 
Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program, 
which has shown serious signs of waste, fraud, and abuse. More 
alarmingly, some of this money has been designated for groups 
opposed to the interests of the United States and her allies.
    So, my questions today, Mr. Regan, are ``yes'' or ``no,'' 
very simply ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Administrator Regan, environmental justice grantees have 
partners and affiliates who also receive funds from the EPA. 
Are any of these groups or affiliates who receive this money 
anti-American, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. Not that I am aware of.
    Ms. Mace. Are any of these groups who receive this money 
anti-Semitic, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. Not that I am aware of.
    Ms. Mace. Are any of these groups explicitly anti-Israel?
    Mr. Regan. You are talking about that have received money?
    Ms. Mace. That are on the list to receive money, correct. 
Yes or no, are any of these groups----
    Mr. Regan. None of these----
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. Explicitly anti-Israel? Do they hate 
Jews?
    Mr. Regan. None of these groups have----
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    Are any of these groups opposed to police and law 
enforcement, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. I think we have to establish the point that none 
of these----
    Ms. Mace. The question is ``yes'' or ``no.'' Are any of 
these groups opposed to police and law enforcement, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. None of the groups have received money.
    Ms. Mace. That is not the question. Are any of these groups 
who are allotted to get money from this fund anti-police, yes 
or no?
    Mr. Regan. I am not quite sure----
    Ms. Mace. You know exactly what I am talking about.
    Are you familiar with the group called Climate Justice 
Alliance, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. OK. I was surprised to learn that $50 million has 
been designated for Climate Justice Alliance, a group which 
explicitly publishes a ``Free Palestine'' section on its 
website.
    On the website, there are dozens of anti-Semitic and 
alarming images designed to be printed and used in the violent 
pro-Hamas protests we have seen across the country. Here are a 
few of them this morning.
    This first image includes a slogan that is widely 
recognized as a call to eradicate the state of Israel.
    Is this the official position of the Biden EPA, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. Is it the what?
    Ms. Mace. Official position of Biden's EPA. Yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. That is not our product.
    Ms. Mace. Does this sign protect the environment, yes or 
no?
    Mr. Regan. That is not our product.
    Ms. Mace. This group, where this image came from, is 
designated to receive $50 million.
    Mr. Regan. Has that group received any money?
    Ms. Mace. So, this sign says, ``Freedom for Palestine.'' 
What does it say at the bottom? ``From the river to the sea, 
Palestine will be free.''
    Should taxpayers pay for this kind of thing, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think you are misrepresenting the facts.
    Ms. Mace. We are not misrepresenting.
    My second image that I am going to show you today----
    Mr. Regan. You are misrepresenting the facts.
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. This image calls--I am speaking, and 
I am going to reclaim my time.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. You are misrepresenting the facts.
    Ms. Mace. This image calls to defund the police and accuses 
the United States of violence.
    Is this the official position of Biden's EPA, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. No. That is a product----
    Ms. Mace. OK. Does----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Of a third party.
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. This sign protect the environment, 
yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. I do not know what that sign----
    Ms. Mace. The group that produces this sign is allotted 
to--is allotted to get $50 million from U.S. taxpayers.
    The next image----
    Mr. Regan. What is your definition of ``allotted''?
    Ms. Mace. The next image I am going to show you, I would 
like you to read this poster from your seat. Can you tell me 
what this says?
    Mr. Regan. I think you can read it for yourself.
    Ms. Mace. I am asking you to read the poster. What does it 
say?
    Mr. Regan. I think you can read it for yourself. I abhor 
bigotry----
    Ms. Mace. What does it say? This image says----
    Mr. Regan. I abhor bigotry, and I will not repeat----
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. ``Abolish prisons everywhere.'' This 
image says, ``Free Palestine.'' This image says, ``Stop Cop 
City.''
    This group that produced this poster is allotted to receive 
$50 million from U.S. taxpayers.
    Mr. Regan. That group----
    Ms. Mace. This is disgusting.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Has not received one dime from EPA.
    Ms. Mace. This image, this next image, adds an anti-Semitic 
message, and it calls for defunding the police. This is 
particularly special.
    Is this the position, the official position, of Biden's 
EPA, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. That is not--they have not received one dime 
from the EPA.
    Ms. Mace. Does this sign protect the environment?
    They are slated to receive $50 million----
    Mr. Regan. They have not----
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. From taxpayers.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Received one dime from EPA.
    Ms. Mace. So, you are saying--on this next image--this is 
probably the left's favorite. The quote on this image is from a 
convicted murderer of a police officer that is still at large 
and wanted by the FBI.
    Does the Biden EPA support this position, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. These hypotheticals----
    Ms. Mace. So, today----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Have nothing to do with EPA.
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. Our witness cannot even answer the 
questions.
    $50 million was going to go to this organization vis-`-vis 
U.S. taxpayers.
    So, you are going to tell me today--are you promising that 
this group will not receive a single dime, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. None of these groups that you have paraded up 
here have received one dime from EPA.
    Ms. Mace. Will you promise to ensure that they will not 
receive a single taxpayer dollar? This particular group is 
slated to get $50 million. Will----
    Mr. Regan. Listen, first of all----
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. You promise me today that they will 
get zero, yes or no?
    Mr. Regan. First of all, half the things you have put up 
there are offensive, right?
    Ms. Mace. They are offensive. And----
    Mr. Regan. OK.
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. Like I said----
    Mr. Regan. And second of all----
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. It is a fact this group is going to 
get--is slated to get $50 million from U.S. taxpayers.
    Mr. Regan. None of these groups----
    Ms. Mace. So, our witness today----
    Mr. Raskin. Madam Chair----
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. Let it show, cannot even answer the 
questions.
    Mr. Raskin. Madam Chair, will you just allow him to answer 
you? I think it would be fair to allow him to answer you.
    Mr. Regan. None of these----
    Ms. Mace. He has not answered a single question.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Groups have gotten one dime from 
EPA, for the record.
    Ms. Mace. Will you promise today that they will receive 
zero dollars?
    Mr. Regan. None of these groups have gotten one dime from 
EPA.
    Ms. Tlaib. [Inaudible.]
    Ms. Mace. I am sitting in the chair. You are not.
    Ms. Tlaib. [Inaudible.]
    Ms. Mace. So, thank you.
    And I yield back.
    All right. I will now yield to Ms. Brown from Ohio.
    Ms. Brown. Mr. Regan, I would like to yield to you as much 
time as you would like to consume to respond to the allegations 
that were hurled upon you.
    Mr. Regan. Well, I appreciate that, because I think it is a 
``gotcha'' game, to put posters and statements that many of us 
may not agree with, see for the first time, and then accuse the 
agency of supporting something that is not true.
    None of the groups that were presented there have received 
one dime from EPA. People have applied for resources. We are 
going through a very thorough evaluation, and we have a process 
to determine who should and should not receive Federal funding.
    Those are the facts.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you very much.
    Welcome to Oversight. And it is great to see you again.
    Mr. Regan. Good to see you too.
    Ms. Brown. I want to begin by thanking you for the 
Environmental Protection Agency's diligent work in my district, 
northeast Ohio, where, as the Ranking Member pointed out, is 
just one example of how the Cuyahoga River was historically 
polluted--one of the most polluted bodies of water due to the 
amount of industrial waste dumped into it. As you know, 
Cuyahoga could not sustain any life at one point; caught fire 
more than a dozen times. But thanks to the hard work of the EPA 
and the Cleveland community, this is no longer reality.
    I am proud to have cast one of my very first votes in 
Congress in support of President Biden's and Vice President 
Harris's and Democrats-led Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 
continue to clean up our precious water resources which are 
critical to Cleveland, northeast Ohio, and the country.
    EPA's commitment to restoring the Cuyahoga River area 
economically and environmentally shows how this Administration 
is prioritizing environmental justice.
    So, Administrator Regan, can you explain what more needs to 
be done to clean up and support the Cuyahoga River and 
surrounding areas both environmentally and for the people who 
live there?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question. And, also, 
thank you for hosting me and Secretary Fudge in Cleveland a 
while back.
    Listen, I think since the Great Lakes Initiative started in 
2010, significant progress has been made. But under your 
leadership and the leadership of your colleagues partnering 
with President Biden, we anticipate investing approximately 
$100 million of EPA bill funds to support and continue the 
great work that you all are leading.
    Construction resulting from this funding will start at the 
end of this year--or this year, and it will remove the largest 
impediment to water quality remaining in the Cuyahoga River. 
So, that will drive regional economic development, it will 
restore important ecosystems, and it will turn this precious 
body of water back to the natural state that it should be.
    So, thank you for your advocacy there.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much.
    On a related point, my district has long faced challenges 
in accessing healthy and safe drinking water. According to 
Cleveland Clinic, lead-poisoning rates in the city of Cleveland 
are four times--four times--the national average. This is 
preventable, and we must overcome such a significant disparity.
    That is why the Infrastructure Law's investments have been 
critical in addressing this public health emergency. These 
funds are used to remove lead pipes leading to homes--to our 
homes and improve the access to safe drinking water.
    This May, the Biden-Harris Administration announced an 
additional $184 million in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds 
to support safe drinking water and replace existing lead 
service lines in Ohio.
    So, Administrator Regan, can you share the impact of these 
investments on improving access to clean drinking water, in 
particular for low-income families and in the Black community?
    Mr. Regan. You know, these investments are transformational 
and life-changing. I have met, you have met, we have met with 
mothers whose children are lead-poisoned, whose families have 
been poisoned by lead or have not had a--a lack of access to 
clean drinking water.
    These investments will: (1) Create jobs for those who are 
pulling these lead pipes out; (2) Drinking fresh clean water, 
for these children, that is not lead-poisoned, will give them a 
competitive edge as they pursue their education; (3) The 
economic vitality and opportunities for these communities that 
are now lead-free are endless.
    Black and Brown communities are disproportionately impacted 
by these pollutants, have a lack of economic investment. So, we 
are doing--this is a win-win. We are infusing capital, we are 
creating jobs, we are creating economic opportunities, and, 
most importantly, our children and our families and our 
grandparents will be drinking clean, affordable, safe drinking 
water.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you.
    Under the Biden-Harris Administration, the restored EPA----
    Ms. Mace. Time is up. Five minutes is up. I apologize.
    Ms. Brown. Requesting equal time. You went over your time, 
Madam Chair. Just requesting equal time, please, and thank you.
    Ms. Mace. We are at 20 seconds over. I did not----
    Ms. Brown. The attempts on----
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. Go that far over.
    Ms. Brown [continuing]. The other side of the aisle----
    Ms. Mace. You have 10 seconds.
    Ms. Brown [continuing]. To undercut, defund, and dismantle 
the EPA are deeply dangerous. Our environment and our health 
depend----
    Ms. Mace. Order. I am going to call----
    Ms. Brown [continuing]. On a fully funded, functional----
    [Crosstalk.]
    Ms. Brown [continuing]. EPA.
    Ms. Mace. I would like to call on----
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Just out of curiosity, since one of my colleagues from the 
other side of the aisle brought it up, I do wonder if the then-
senior-Senator from Delaware, now the President of the United 
States, ever challenged DuPont's production and prolific 
distribution of PFAS and PFOA. Just curious.
    But I need to talk to you, Administrator--welcome--about 
Pennsylvania.
    My bosses, the people that I represent, complain to me 
nearly daily about their electricity prices. And I am sure you 
know that grid operators around the country are sounding the 
alarm about the potential disruptions--blackouts, brownouts--
due to regulations, particularly the ``Clean Power Plan 2.0'' 
rule.
    As a matter of fact, the PJM Interconnect, the largest 
multi-state grid operator, which includes the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, stated that in the very years when we are 
projecting significant increases in the demand for electricity, 
the final rule will work to drive premature retirement of 
traditional units that provide essential reliable services and 
dissuade new gas resources from coming online.
    I am just curious, how does the EPA factor in the cost to 
the people that I represent that cannot afford their 
electricity bills or the grid operators who are saying, do not 
do this, we cannot sustain this? How does the EPA factor that 
into the decision to just move forward and say, kind of, damn 
the torpedoes?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think there is a process and maybe a 
difference in some of these statements.
    When the rule was proposed, we engaged in a lengthy round 
of conversations. I even--Congressman Bill Johnson, who was our 
Subcommittee Chair at the time, hosted a number of meetings 
with me and industry and the like, and grid operators. And so, 
we have had robust conversations.
    I think PJM has made a statement that acknowledges that 
numerous adjustments were made in between the proposal and the 
final that really began to help address some of their concerns 
about reliability.
    Mr. Perry. So, are their claims about the reliability and 
the inability to provide power and the fact that it will result 
in blackouts and brownouts--is that--is that not true? Are 
they----
    Mr. Regan. We believe that we have resolved all anxiety 
about----
    Mr. Perry. But they are still making the statement.
    And what about ratepayers? What about people paying the 
bill? Pennsylvania, it is hot right now in the summertime.
    Mr. Regan. Sure.
    Mr. Perry. It is cold in the wintertime.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. They cannot afford their bills now. The bills 
are going to go up, right? It is essentially supply and demand. 
There is going to be a great demand but less supply.
    Where does their need factor into your decision-making?
    Mr. Regan. It factors in heavily.
    And as I have conversed with numerous utility executives 
and those that manage, they are going to be looking at a suite 
of technology to provide electricity. So, our estimates are a 
less than 1-percent increase in price over the next 10 to 15 
years because of----
    Mr. Perry. OK. So, your estimates are less than a 1-percent 
increase in price over 10 to 15 years.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. Can you attest to that and promise that it will 
not go up more than 1 percent in the next 15 years?
    Mr. Regan. What we can do is we can provide you all the 
data----
    Mr. Perry. No, no, no, no. Sir, you are moving with the 
rule. It is being fought in the courts.
    Mr. Regan. Sure.
    Mr. Perry. But the people that I work for, my bosses that 
cannot afford their groceries, cannot afford gasoline, cannot 
afford their daycare, cannot afford electricity, you are saying 
that you have gotten their input and this is not going to 
impact them, essentially, more than 1 percent over the next 15 
years.
    I want you to promise me right now, because I have got to 
go face them. I have to face them.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. I think you can tell----
    Mr. Perry. That----
    Mr. Regan. I think you can assure them that the EPA 
Administrator said that his experts, the experts at FERC, DOE, 
and EPA, all agree on the assessments that have been made on 
reliability and cost.
    Mr. Perry. OK.
    Mr. Regan. Three agencies.
    Mr. Perry. So, it is not going to go up more than one 
percent. And if it does, then what? Then what do you do? What 
do I--do you quit your job? Do you pay them the difference? 
What happens then?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, the way these rules are 
designed, they are designed and each state has a state 
implementation plan. So, it is not like----
    Mr. Perry. So, we are going to pass the buck, it is not 
your problem----
    Mr. Regan. No--no----
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. And somehow it was the states that 
did it to them.
    Mr. Regan. States have flexibilities in terms of how they--
they are delegated programs. So, we give the states the 
autonomy. They design special state implementation programs. 
And they are ensuring that the individuality of that state is 
met with that planning. The planning for North Carolina is 
different from the plan in Nevada.
    Mr. Perry. And I appreciate that. And God bless the people 
from North Carolina; I do not want them to have to pay any more 
either. But I do not represent them. I have got to face the 
people of south-central Pennsylvania that cannot afford their 
bills right now.
    And you are telling me it is not going to go up more than 1 
percent over the next 15 years, but if it does, somehow, it is 
the state's fault----
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Perry.
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. And it is not yours.
    Mr. Regan. The states have flexibilities to address----
    Ms. Mace. Our time is up. Five minutes is up.
    Mr. Perry. I yield.
    Ms. Mace. I would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Garcia 
from California.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
    Thank you, Administrator, for being here. I appreciate your 
service. You are obviously helping to implement the biggest 
climate bill in history, which we passed under President Biden.
    My district includes the Port of Long Beach. I am the 
former mayor of Long Beach. We know that the port itself--you 
were just in the Port of Los Angeles, I think, our neighbor--
huge economic engine for the country.
    We are fighting to electrify the Port of Long Beach right 
now under the $3-billion EPA Clean Ports Program. I wrote to 
you last week; you responded. We are very grateful to your 
response and the team. And so, we are excited about that 
opportunity.
    But I want to turn also--on this issue, broader issue, of 
environmental justice, I want to just quickly highlight a case 
where polluters are getting a pass and residents in my 
community, the northern part of my district, are feeling the 
impact.
    In Vernon, California, a small city in southeast Los 
Angeles, Exide Technologies spent decades recycling batteries 
and dumping lead and toxins into the air. This includes soil 
and water, which has now seeped through. Now, the company 
poisoned surrounding communities in southeast L.A., where 
people suffer from cancer, asthma, learning disabilities, and 
dangerous levels of lead in their blood.
    Now, the Obama Administration forced Exide to make 
commitments to fix and fund the cleanup. But, in 2020, Trump's 
EPA and Department of Justice abandoned those responsibilities 
and approved a bankruptcy plan that let Exide essentially walk 
away from the cleanup.
    This is not acceptable to me and certainly not to the 
communities that I represent.
    Now, Administrator, one of my first acts when I came to 
Congress was to lead the call for a Federal Superfund 
designation, along with Senator Padilla. This will secure, of 
course, Federal funds to clean the site that is desperately 
needed to provide this community true justice.
    I have been glad this process has moved forward, and, in 
fact, just recently, we passed a major milestone. Last week, 
the EPA site inspection report showed the site is eligible for 
a Superfund listing based on the levels of groundwater 
contamination.
    So, I want to thank your team for partnering with us there. 
And I just want to formally ask you to, once again, just 
continue to commit to really push for this issue as we move 
forward to that Superfund designation.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. You have my commitment on that.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
    Now, as we are talking about environmental justice, I want 
to just highlight that your agency is working every day to 
implement the biggest climate bill in history. And we are in a 
climate crisis; I think we all understand that.
    But I also want to look at an alternative plan for your 
agency. Now, this is ``Project 2025,'' which is Donald Trump's 
anti-environmental agenda. And I want to just note some of the 
main features of ``Project 2025.''
    It includes shredding pollution regulations; gutting clean-
energy programs; repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, 
President Biden's climate law, which we know is landmark; and, 
of course, empowering corporate polluters.
    Now, we know that Donald Trump's ``Project 2025'' destroys 
the EPA. He will let corporations dump more toxins into our air 
and water like he did the last time he was President. We know 
that he will empower corporate polluters and fill the EPA with 
hand-picked extremists rather than actual climate experts, and 
he will destroy the progress that President Biden has fought 
for.
    Now, he is promising to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. 
And let us be clear: Repealing the bill does not just mean 
reversing the historic progress that we have made; it means 
threatening jobs and businesses all over the country. Over a 
thousand projects already are underway deploying hydrogen, 
hydropower, wind, batteries, solar energy, which will all make 
us more green and independent and really leading us to a 
greener future. That is also hundreds of thousands of jobs.
    And we know why he is pushing this dangerous agenda. Donald 
Trump met with Big Oil executives to promise to carry out their 
policy agenda in exchange for $1 billion in campaign 
contributions, which Oversight Democrats are actually 
investigating.
    And if that was not enough, he promised he would pay back 
his Big Oil donors with tax cuts for the rich.
    And, as we know, worst of all, his agenda will be enabled 
by an extremist Supreme Court that Donald Trump himself 
appointed.
    Now, Administrator, I know you cannot address a candidate's 
policy platform. I know that is not why you are here. So, 
instead, I want you to just please explain how important it is 
that the agency continues to implement the Inflation Reduction 
Act and the climate gains that we have already achieved.
    Mr. Regan. Well, listen, I will say this. One program in 
the Inflation Reduction Act is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction 
Fund. Congress allotted us $27 billion. We designed a program 
in consultation with the financial sector, every aspect of the 
financial sector. We believe that we can pull hundreds of 
billions of dollars off the sidelines to make homes more 
energy-efficient, to build manufacturing capacity in this 
country, to create jobs.
    It is important for me to say that these are not just 
happening in blue states; they are happening in red states. 
They are happening in Alabama, in Georgia, North Carolina, 
South Carolina.
    And so, this really does prove that clean energy has a role 
in the new economy, and it is creating hundreds of thousands of 
jobs all across this country. But, more important, it is making 
us secure, because we are bringing the manufacturing back 
domestically.
    Rolling back these types of provisions, eliminating career 
scientists at EPA, you know, it is just going to ruin the 
economy and it is going to ruin the progress that we are 
making.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Administrator, for being here.
    Administrator Regan, the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard Rule sets a standard based on airborne particulate 
matter. What are some of the sources of particulate matter?
    Mr. Regan. Many stationary sources, as well as mobile 
sources.
    Mr. Biggs. Right. And the stationary sources include energy 
production, industrial processes, agriculture activities, et 
cetera, right? And mobile, diesel-and gasoline-powered 
vehicles.
    But you just mentioned anthropogenic, or manmade, 
particulate production. But there is also natural sources as 
well. And does EPA have a breakdown of emissions generated by 
source sector between--I am talking specifically between 
manmade versus naturally occurring?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. And let us go over that. Here is what they break 
it down to: Energy production, industrial processes, mobile 
sources account for only 21 percent of total PM emissions. Ag 
accounts for 14 percent, dust for 16 percent, and fires account 
for 43 percent.
    Does that sound right? I am reading from the National 
Emissions Inventory of May 2022. Does that sound right to you?
    Mr. Regan. I do not have that document in front of me, but 
it sounds in the ballpark.
    Mr. Biggs. OK.
    So, the question is, as you are no doubt aware--I am from 
Arizona, so many areas in Arizona, including those in my 
district, are in desert ecosystems featuring new natural 
sources of emissions. The May 2022 EPA policy assessment 
actually--for Phoenix actually cites a 2011 dust storm as 
affecting particulates in Phoenix. We also have a drought that 
has been going on for 26 years. That contributes to wildfire 
risk. We have wildfires out there.
    And so, my question for you ultimately becomes this. How do 
you propose that Arizona non-attainment areas, areas with 
significant naturally occurring background particulate matter, 
comply with the new standards that EPA has proposed?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I am proud to say that, because of 
consultation with Members like you and others----
    Mr. Biggs. By the way, just to clarify, not to interrupt--I 
am interrupting, but I do not mean to be rude about it.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. You and I did not ever consult. But go ahead.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. But we have consulted with Members in 
Arizona and Nevada and places that you described. And this is 
why we have a very strong exceptional-events policy.
    You know, monitoring technology is advanced enough to 
determine where the pollution comes from. And so, we do not 
want to penalize states where we see an exacerbation of PM 2.5 
that comes from a wildfire or a dust storm or something that is 
not manmade, so we have procedures in place.
    Ninety-nine percent of counties in this country are 
projected to meet the standard by 2032, and the reason that is, 
is because we do not count some of the things that you just 
laid out.
    Mr. Biggs. Well, I will just tell you that I would invite 
you to come out and live in Arizona for about 6 months in the 
Phoenix metro area, and the number-one particulate, it is not 
pollution caused by man; it is caused by dust storms and dust 
coming up.
    And we have been counseled, ``Go ahead and wet it down. Use 
that, if you are going to stir up dust.'' Now, that is absurd.
    I want to get to another question, another area, real 
quick. And that is on May 8, 2024, EPA formally awarded less 
than $2 billion of its $42 billion in IRA-related funding.
    Is that accurate? I mean, that was just about 2 months ago. 
Is that accurate, that you have only awarded $2 billion of the 
42 out of IRA?
    Mr. Regan. I would have to get back to you. I do not have 
that number in front of me.
    Mr. Biggs. The reason I ask is because that is supposed to 
expire on September 30, and that's $27 billion in EPA funding 
under the IRA which will not have been disseminated.
    And the reason that that is important is because I want to 
know if you have any in the pipeline that you are going to 
grant before the end of September 30, this fiscal year, or is 
that $2 billion in total, is that going to be it?
    Can you find that out for me, if you do not know that 
today?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. I mean, I am making the assumption, which I 
believe is true, is that it is going to be in the pipeline and 
pushed out before. But let me--let me be specific and get back 
to my staff on that.
    Mr. Biggs. All right. I would like that. I appreciate that 
very much.
    Last question, last area, is we have had three recent 
cases--one a little older, and that is the West Virginia case; 
you have also had the Ohio v. EPA case, which is the EPA's 
Clean Air Act FIP, which is being stayed until the duration of 
that litigation; you have Loper, which set aside and overruled 
Chevron.
    I want to know what your agency is doing to respond to 
that, to those particular cases. Because it looks like West 
Virginia was ignored by EPA, because you actually--well, let us 
just, because I am out of time, I wanted you to answer that, if 
you would, please.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. I can absolutely say that EPA did not run 
afoul of the West Virginia Supreme Court issue. So, we would 
have to talk a little bit more about that. I am not quite sure 
what you are referring to there.
    On the other court cases, a lot of these court cases are 
recent. For the Good Neighbor Rule, yes, the Supreme Court 
stayed it. I feel pretty good about our case and how we are 
going to pursue that in a lower court.
    In terms of Chevron, listen, when I signed up for this job, 
I pledged to follow the law and follow the science. And the 
Supreme Court has spoken, and so we have to figure out how we 
get our work done under this new ruling.
    Mr. Biggs. All right.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you.
    The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you, Administrator Regan, for sharing your time 
with us today.
    Environmental rules and regulations are not just important 
for tackling the climate crisis. They are essential for 
addressing the toxic legacy of environmental racism and 
injustice.
    Growing up in the Mon Valley of western Pennsylvania, I saw 
firsthand the devastating effects of unchecked pollution. Back 
then, when I was growing up, I did not quite have the language 
or the expertise to explain the science of pollution, but I had 
my years of experience living in an environment where the air 
we breathed was harmful. I knew that, wherever you were, if you 
were Black or you were Brown or you were poor, you were likely 
breathing toxic air too.
    Our county ranks in the top one percent nationwide for 
cancer risk from air pollution. In my hometown of North 
Braddock, cancer rates are more than double the rest of the 
country. Approximately 90 percent of residents are at risk of 
exposure to particulate matter. Our childhood asthma rates are 
nearly three times the national average.
    These statistics are not just numbers. They represent very 
real people, and very real families, and very real communities 
overburdened by industrial pollution.
    Administrator Regan, under your leadership, addressing 
environmental racism and injustice has become a core component 
of the EPA's work, including through the rulemaking process.
    Can you speak to how the EPA's recently finalized rules 
such as the Soot Rule and the carbon pollution standards will 
specifically improve conditions for individuals in overburdened 
and underserved communities?
    Mr. Regan. Well, absolutely. And thank you for sharing your 
personal testimony there. There are so many of us that have 
grown up and lived in areas where we are hit by unchecked 
pollution.
    And the way to do this is the way we have done it, which is 
create a separate office, a national program Office of 
Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, that spends 
time with our national programs that look at air and water 
issues to be sure that, as we are designing our regulations, we 
are not leaving any communities behind.
    And what we have done a great job of is really ensuring 
that the statistics that you just laid out, the statistics in 
communities all across the country, are infused into the 
ultimate result of these regulations.
    We--our regulations are not only better for the United 
States; they are absolutely better for those who have been 
disproportionately dumped on for decades. Our children now are 
breathing cleaner air. They are not drinking lead-poisoned 
water. And they are doing better in school. And they are 
happier. And they are healthier.
    And so, that is what we have been doing the last 3 1/2ars, 
and we are going to keep doing that.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    While developing strong environmental regulations is 
crucial, we know that it is just half of the battle. These 
regulations are only as effective as they are backed by 
rigorous enforcement.
    Across the country, many Black, Brown, and poor communities 
continue to bear the brunt of environmental hazards as their 
corporate polluters just flout the rules with little 
consequences.
    For decades, industry has promoted this myth that pollution 
is merely an unavoidable price to pay for economic growth. Yet 
we know that this narrative is just a false choice that 
primarily serves to shield big polluters from accountability 
for their chronic environmental harms, ultimately harming both 
those frontline--fenceline--communities and the workers.
    In just the past 2 years alone, one facility in my district 
has been fined as much as $14 million for hundreds of 
violations. And, unfortunately, we know this company is not an 
outlier. For corporate polluters all across the country, it is 
clear that these fines are just a fraction of their massive 
earnings and they do not actually serve as a deterrent. It is 
just a cost of doing business.
    So, Administrator Regan, how is the EPA working to ensure 
that chronic corporate polluters face real consequences when 
they consistently dump toxins into our communities?
    Mr. Regan. Well, (1) we have to continue to be vigilant 
with our enforcement capabilities and not let any of the 
polluters off the hook. We believe, I believe that the 
polluters should pay.
    But second, as we take a look at these facilities, there is 
communication with the arms of our office that design 
regulations that show many of these companies cannot only meet 
these standards, they can go below.
    So, when we design a new regulation, then there are stiffer 
penalties associated with those newer regulations. So, as we 
ramp down pollution through a regulatory approach, we also give 
our enforcement teams more authority to hit them a little bit 
harder.
    Ms. Lee. So, what additional enforcement authorities does 
the EPA need from Congress to address this--the chronic 
polluters effectively?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think--listen, we have a very strong 
enforcement team. I think the only limitations we have is, does 
the fine match the action, which you have laid out.
    And I think we have some statutory constraints in terms of 
just how much we can fine a facility. Some of these facilities 
have very egregious behavior, as you have laid out, but the 
statutory authority only allows for us to fine them a certain 
amount.
    And so, if those amounts are raised and are proportionate 
to the crime, we will do our job and we will hold those 
polluters accountable.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Administrator, for your time.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Grothman. I represent Wisconsin. I think a lot of 
people do not know it, but Wisconsin has the highest percentage 
of manufacturing jobs in the country.
    Did you know that, Administrator Regan?
    Mr. Regan. I did.
    Mr. Grothman. Man, that is my type of guy. That is great.
    OK. So, you know we have a little bit of a problem, though, 
with our Wisconsin manufacturing along Lake Michigan--you know, 
Milwaukee County, the counties to the north of there, Ozaukee, 
Sheboygan County--in that it is real non-attainment because of 
high ozone levels.
    Now, those ozone levels only occur on certain days along 
Lake Michigan, and it is something to do about the interaction 
of the sun and the lake and that sort of thing. And even 
insofar as there is pollution on Lake Michigan, most of that 
pollution comes up from Chicago or even further south. In other 
words, even if there are no factories in Milwaukee or the 
counties north of there, we might be in non-attainment.
    And because we are in non-attainment, it results in having 
to do things like having special tests on your car. Maybe, if 
you are somebody who cannot afford a new car, you are really 
getting harmed, because you might have to spend $1,000 to get 
your car up to snuff, when, you know, the amount of pollution 
is minimal anyway.
    So, I always feel this thing really disproportionately 
affects a poor person, who--you know, if I have a new car for 5 
years, I will pass that thing no problem.
    Mr. Regan. Right.
    Mr. Grothman. But if I have an old car, like I said, it may 
be, pay $800 or pay $8,000, or get yourself a new car.
    Are you guys working toward or do you have a plan toward 
getting places like Milwaukee and the surrounding area back in 
attainment so our factories do not have to be at a competitive 
disadvantage, not only with the rest of the--rest of the 
country but the rest of the world?
    Mr. Regan. We do.
    And I am very sympathetic to what you just laid out. I 
witness that time and time again in North Carolina.
    The plan that we had in place to begin to help places like 
Milwaukee, the Supreme Court just shut it down.
    I believe that when air pollution comes from another state 
and impacts a state, that state should not be penalized. And 
so, our Good Neighbor Rule was designed to stop pollution from 
coming across borders and being an economic disrupter or health 
disrupter for other states.
    We will continue to work with our state agencies to be sure 
that, when we look at high-ozone-action days or ozone 
pollution, that we can properly assess where it is coming from 
so that we are not penalizing the wrong people.
    Mr. Grothman. I would be happy to work with you.
    And, like I said, my heart goes out to the people who 
cannot afford a new car. They buy, you know, a 7-or 8-year-old 
car with 200,000 miles on it, they flunk the test, and the 
government comes down and, you know, nails them, and they have 
got to pay 2,500, 3,000 bucks. So----
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Grothman [continuing]. I hope you do something about 
that.
    Mr. Regan. OK.
    Mr. Grothman. Now, in October of last year, a group of 
trade associations representing at least 70,000 small firms 
engaged in the production of formaldehyde sent you a letter 
asking you to establish a small-business advisory panel. And I 
think that is because, whenever new regulations come out, they 
disproportionately affect small business.
    You have not acted yet to establish such a council. Is that 
something you would consider doing to look out for the little 
guy or at least get their viewpoint as the rules are being 
promulgated?
    Mr. Regan. Let me check back with my staff so I can take a 
look at that letter and also to see if our top political in 
that office has also given it any thought, and we will circle 
back with you.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    I am glad you are here today, by the way.
    Previously, the Environmental Protection Agency told 
Congress it would ``consider all credible and readily available 
assessments''--and this is with regard to the TSCA risk 
evaluation of formaldehyde based on IRIS value.
    Despite this promise, why has the EPA decided to rely on 
the IRIS value for ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, and other 
chemistries and ignore other regulation?
    Mr. Regan. So, if I believe I understand your question 
correctly, IRIS is just one of the tools that we use in the 
regulatory process.
    Now, IRIS is very valid and is used and respected by states 
and Federal agencies and international bodies.
    So, that IRIS value and the work that goes into that is 
widely accepted, but it is one tool in our toolbox as we make 
determinations on chemicals.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    At least I am told you have a value from ethylene oxide 
that is 19,000 times lower than naturally occurring levels of 
ethylene oxide in the human body. In other words, you are 
looking for a tolerance that is just tiny, you know? I mean, we 
would be more worried about what is naturally occurring in my 
body.
    Could you--I guess, could you look at that stuff again, see 
if you feel you guys are going a little bit overboard, and then 
look and see what they're doing in other countries?
    Because it is very frustrating when I have the businesses 
in my office explaining, ``These are the standards in Europe, 
these are the standards in Asia. Why is it so much more, almost 
impossible standards, that our businesses in America have to 
live under?''
    Mr. Regan. Yes. Let me--let me get our staffs together, and 
we can--we can go through that.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes, I will give you a call.
    And, again, thanks for coming over here. Really appreciate 
it.
    Mr. Regan. Looking forward to your call.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time's expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mfume from Maryland.
    Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.
    I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Regan, to have an 
opportunity to talk with you and to welcome you to this 
Committee. I do not know what to say except that the 
gentlewoman who was here earlier said, ``Welcome to 
Oversight.'' It is challenging sometimes. But this issue before 
us is very, very important.
    I want to commend you, Mr. Administrator, for the critical 
role that you have played in our fight against climate change 
and reducing the public exposure to air pollution and toxins.
    My district in Baltimore has reaped the benefits of the 
Biden Administration's commitment to environmental justice 
firsthand. And, more specifically, you may be familiar with the 
Baltimore-based Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, which was 
selected to serve as 1 of 11 regional grantmakers under EPA's 
Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program. 
It was created by the Inflation Reduction Act. It is working 
well in Baltimore, and my assumption is that it is working well 
in other cities that are just not here to talk about it today.
    On a personal level, like many of my colleagues, I am 
concerned about our Nation's carbon footprint; I am concerned 
about deforestation and what it is doing; about lead poisoning 
and water pollution; about climate change, which has not been 
referenced here enough, I think, today; and about all the 
respiratory diseases that people are faced with, particularly 
people in communities where they cannot move, they do not have 
the mobility to get away from toxic sites and dumping and all 
the things that go with it.
    And so, if I can speak at all today, I want to speak on 
behalf of those people. Because our job, at the end of the day, 
is to preserve and protect the environment and to protect the 
people who cannot get away from the environment they are in.
    I want to, if I might, just raise one community's 
attention--or, to your attention, and that is the community of 
Curtis Bay in Baltimore.
    And I would like to have, Mr. Chair, unanimous consent to 
enter into the record a Politico article that says, ``Coal Dust 
Concerns Mount After Baltimore Bridge Collapse.''
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Mfume. I would also like to enter into the record a 
letter that I sent to Administrator Regan outlining the perils 
of that community and seeking help.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Mfume. And I would also like to enter into the record 
the petition for rulemaking that many of the communities in 
that area have fought long to get.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Mfume. And, if I might, I want to commend people who 
are kind of nameless and faceless in one of those communities, 
like Mr. David Jones in Curtis Bay; Greg Salwell--Sawtell, 
excuse me, President of the Curtis Bay Community Association; 
Mike Middleton; Dr. Meleny Thomas; Angela Smothers; Johns 
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; and Coal Free Curtis 
Bay, all of which are working together, and have been for a 
long time, to underscore the problem that I want to take a 
moment to talk about, and that is the moment that I have before 
me.
    There are problems in that community, Mr. Administrator, 
with coal dust. When the bridge collapsed, the mounds of coal 
continued to increase. We have tried to have discussions with 
CSX and others who are around and responsible in many respects 
for the mounds of coal. Those discussions have gone nowhere at 
all. They have been cute and courteous, but we have not seen a 
change from them.
    And then I hear today this whole notion of profit, which 
was dressed up by using two other adjectives that did not make 
sense that all mean the same thing: that you cannot take away 
profit margins from companies, but you can allow people to 
suffer.
    In Baltimore, we have the second-highest rate of asthma in 
the whole country. Thirty-three percent of all schoolchildren 
in Baltimore City have asthma. And national studies show that 
unmanaged asthma contributes to missed schooldays and, 
obviously, to disparate educational outcomes.
    Poor White, poor Black, poor Latino kids are living there 
right now, breathing that air, growing and developing, and 
increasing the numbers of asthma and other related respiratory 
diseases. To me, that is much more important than the profit 
margin of some of these companies.
    So, I have sent the letter. Your staff has acknowledged 
receipt of it. I would appreciate, to whatever extent you can, 
if you could get back to us right away.
    And if we at some point can get you to that community----
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Mfume [continuing]. To meet those people and their 
children, who are crying out even at this moment for help.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Timmons from South Carolina.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    For over 100 years, my district in upstate South Carolina 
led the country and arguably the world in textile 
manufacturing.
    Starting in the 1970's, not coincidentally when the EPA was 
created, unsustainable increases in regulation and bad trade 
deals from Washington resulted in manufacturing jobs moving to 
China. This devastated our community, with tens of thousands of 
people losing their jobs.
    We all agree that environmental standards matter, but our 
policies must balance interests and seek to mitigate the 
unintended consequences of new standards. Washington must 
always remember that it is a global economy and our policies 
cannot disadvantage the competitiveness of U.S. businesses.
    Luckily, my district has rebounded and is again a hotbed of 
manufacturing. We are home to the largest BMW production 
facility in the world, and we manufacture clothing for our men 
and women in uniform, among countless other innovative and 
essential products.
    But continued innovation is central to the success of these 
industries and manufacturers, and, frankly, the EPA is standing 
in the way of that continued growth.
    Recent delays in approvals for new innovative chemicals are 
hindering American innovation and yet again driving production 
offshore. A vehicle contains about $4,400 worth of different 
chemicals. This amount has grown drastically, over 30 percent, 
in the last decade as automakers push for lightweight and more 
efficient vehicles. Milliken, a large employer in South 
Carolina known for leading the way in chemical innovation, has 
not received a single approval from the EPA faster than 9 
months.
    And important to note that many of the chemicals are 
required precursors to chip manufacturing, something that your 
Administration allegedly emphasizes. It takes almost 500 
different chemicals to produce 1 semiconductor. American 
businesses on the cutting edge of alleged Biden Administration 
priorities are suffering the consequence of a mismanaged 
system.
    So, it seems history is again repeating itself. It goes 
something like this: Washington intervenes, regulation 
increases, companies relocate overseas, and American workers 
suffer.
    As you know, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the 
EPA is statutorily mandated to make a determination within 90 
days of a manufacturer submitting an application. Despite this 
requirement, the EPA is not making timely reviews. Recent data 
shows 88 percent of the 408 pending pre-manufacture notices are 
beyond 90 days. Even worse, 243 new chemicals have been in the 
system for over 365 days, an entire year.
    How can we expect American companies to be on the cutting 
edge of innovation when large chunks of our government cannot 
even follow its own mandates? This backlog is just wholly 
unacceptable. This has been a consistent problem in the last 3 
1/2 years.
    So, my question is this, Administrator Regan: What is the 
EPA doing to reduce delays and improve performance?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. Well, let me start, Mr. Timmons, by saying 
I agree with you. And we petitioned Congress, and in 2022 and 
2023 Congress gave us small increases. We more than doubled the 
number of new chemical reviews per month, and we cleared out 
more than half of the backlog that we inherited from the 
previous Administration.
    Now, this time, that budget was cut. So, we could----
    Mr. Timmons. OK. I appreciate that answer.
    Let me show you really quick--so I do not think that that 
is accurate. It is not a funding issue. And you are not doing 
more with less; you are actually doing less with more.
    As you can see from this chart--look right here. We were 
processing almost double the number of applications relative to 
4 years ago, and your funding has gone up $20 million. So, I 
just do not think that that is accurate.
    Again, in Fiscal Year 2017, the Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics received $62 million and completed 469 
new chemical reviews. In Fiscal Year 2023, the same office 
received $95.3 million and only completed 142 requests.
    So, I mean, I just do not think that you are being 
effective with your money. You have received more, and your 
outcome is worse.
    In your opening testimony, you stated that the goal of your 
organization is to ensure that American innovation leads us 
into the future. Yet the EPA has clearly reduced its 
efficiency. And what is worse is that you have increased 
application costs. You have received 50 percent more funds 
compared to 4 years ago, reduced the application process by 
over 60 percent compared to 4 years ago, and you have the 
audacity to implement an exorbitant price increase for PMN 
applications, from $19,000 to $37,000?
    Manufacturers are paying more and getting more delays and 
more uncertainty. I do not know where this money is going if it 
is not being used to complete more reviews, because it is not 
helping American businesses.
    I will close with this. There have to be procedural steps 
that you can take to improve efficiency and timeliness. I would 
suggest maybe you ask the EPA Administrator under the previous 
Administration.
    We have $35 trillion in debt, and we are adding a trillion 
dollars to our debt every 100 days. We have to do more with 
less, not, as your agency over the last 3 years has done, less 
with more.
    I hope you can take a look at this issue and respond in 
writing with what steps the EPA can take to address this 
problem.
    And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Frost from Florida for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Administrator Regan, for being here. I 
appreciate the great work that you do.
    And I hope a lot of members that are bringing up concerns 
with the office will actually follow-up with you all and create 
a good relationship with you instead of just taking 5 minutes 
to get a clip for YouTube or whatever to post online.
    Many Floridians acutely recognize that their future is at 
stake in discussions about climate policy. We are a frontline 
community; we are a frontline state.
    Not long ago, I met with Orange County Utilities, the water 
provider for communities like the area of Bithlo, which is in 
my district. Most of Bithlo does not have access to municipal 
water and wastewater, only using wells and septic systems.
    Thanks to ARPA, the American Rescue Plan, Orange County is 
able to invest $12.6 million in the rural community of Bithlo. 
Future phases will require further investment. And the 
implementation has begun on Phase 1 of the transformational 
rural water infrastructure project in a portion of the 
community of Bithlo.
    We are also looking forward to having the Region Four 
Administrator visit Bithlo to provide technical assistance 
resources.
    I also want to uplift the historic town of Eatonville, 
which is also in my district. Eatonville is the country's first 
and oldest Black municipality. They are finalizing awards from 
the EPA's SRF program through the clean water projects and 
drinking water initiatives. And so, we are excited about that 
and appreciate the EPA for your work.
    For those who do not know, last year the EPA established 
the National Environmental Youth Advisory Council. The council 
met earlier this year for 2 days, on February 28 and 29. And, 
of course, I was honored to be at the launch of this council 
last year.
    Administrator Regan, during the 2-day inaugural session of 
the National Environmental Youth Advisory Council, what 
recommendations or points of focus stood out to you the most? 
And how do you plan to incorporate them in your vision for the 
agency?
    Mr. Regan. Well, first of all, thank you for joining us 
last November. I think the young people were more excited to 
see you than see me, so you gave us some street cred there.
    Yes, we pulled together 16 of some of the smartest young 
people from across the country, ages 16 to 29. And they spoke 
very passionately about: (1) Our ineffective ability to 
communicate and connect with young people, you know, bringing 
the bureaucratic conversations down a notch. And so, we have 
looked at our educational outreach, our social media 
strategies, to be sure that our information is getting to 
folks; (2) They have made a number of suggestions on how young 
people can be more involved in our regulation-making, our 
regulatory opportunities. They have given us a number of 
recommendations that we are still combing through; and (3) You 
know, when they have looked at EPA's agenda for the next 2 to 3 
years, there have been some things on our agenda that they have 
asked us to prioritize and move up a little bit higher.
    So, I just want you to know that we are listening to our 
young people. They absolutely have a permanent seat at the 
table. And, quite frankly, from what I am seeing, they are 
going to make the agency and our products better.
    Mr. Frost. That is amazing. Thank you so much.
    Last April, the EPA put out a national-scale report showing 
how climate change and the climate crisis is disproportionately 
harming our Nation's children.
    I ask unanimous consent to submit that report to the 
record.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Frost. Some of the key findings highlighted how climate 
change is expected to increase the incidence of asthma in 
children, increase asthma-related emergency department visits, 
increase climate-driven temperature increases that are 
projected to result in four-to-seven-percent reductions in 
annual academic achievement per child. And, also, if no 
additional adaptations are taken, 1 to 2 million children are 
estimated to experience temporary home displacement or complete 
home loss due to the climate crisis.
    With at least half of the National Youth Advisory Council 
members coming from or working primarily in disadvantaged 
communities, how is the EPA ensuring that these voices are not 
only heard but their concerns are acted upon in a meaningful 
way?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. As we push these reports out, we, 
you know, in between sessions, ensure that they have this level 
of information.
    Each session--this is a FACA, this is a formal group. So, 
each session they have with me and my leadership team, they 
come prepared with recommendations that they adopt, or we 
adopt, procedurally. And so, it is my hope, at the next 
meeting, they will come fully prepared to discuss this report, 
along with the series of reports that we are pushing to this 
group.
    Mr. Frost. Well, I thank you so much for bringing young 
people to the table to be a part of the great work the EPA is 
doing. As we know, young people are disproportionately impacted 
by the climate crisis.
    And I think we all know the cost of not doing anything is 
far greater, or the cost of not doing anything is far greater 
than the cost of waiting. We have to ensure that we defeat the 
climate crisis and do everything we can.
    Thank you so much.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burlison from Missouri for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Administrator Regan, on March 28 of 2022, you 
revoked a policy that was put in place by the Trump 
Administration that was designed to protect taxpayer dollars by 
curbing some of the impact of these special interest groups 
that use sue and settlement agreements.
    Reports indicate that the Biden Administration has already 
spent more taxpayer dollars on these settlement agreements than 
any other recent President.
    Are you aware of how much money that the EPA is spending on 
these attorney fees and other litigation?
    Mr. Regan. I do not have that specific number in front of 
me. We can get you that specific number.
    Mr. Burlison. OK. I would appreciate that. Also, are you--
do you have an account for how many times--how many events are 
occurring, how many lawsuits are occurring?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, I think you and I know that sue 
and settle has been a tool that has been used for lots of 
administrations. And I can say that we have successfully picked 
up one that the previous Administration was using on a mega 
suit.
    The sue and settle procedure or policy a lot of times gets 
us out from under the court's jurisdiction so that we can 
retain the flexibility and autonomy we need, like when we are 
digging out of the Endangered Species Act or looking at all of 
the litigation we are facing for pesticides and herbicides.
    And so, you know, we use this tool strategically to make 
sure that it is in the best interest of the taxpayer and the 
Agency and the industry.
    Mr. Burlison. But it does cost the taxpayers in litigation 
costs, correct, in increased litigation costs?
    Mr. Regan. Not necessarily. I think we try--we have to 
balance, right, taxpayer dollars.
    Mr. Burlison. Has there been an audit done recently?
    Mr. Regan. An audit done?
    Mr. Burlison. Right. When was the last time that an audit 
was done in relation to using taxpayer dollars for these sue 
and settlement agreements?
    Mr. Regan. I am not sure when that last audit was done.
    Mr. Burlison. My staff note that the last time they could 
find, it was 2011, which is not at all recent.
    In a briefing that you provided----
    Mr. Regan. 2011?
    Mr. Burlison. Yes, 2011. Might be time for another one.
    Mr. Regan. We should check that. We will check that fact.
    Mr. Burlison. And I wanted to kind of, with the limited 
time that I have, jump to an issue that is kind of--that is 
important to the Midwest, and that is, you know--and I thought 
the Biden Administration noted that this was an important 
problem when they recognized that meat packers--I think it is 
even on the White House's website--that they have a plan to try 
to bring more competition, try to bring more resiliency to the 
meat processing industry.
    And yet one of the sue and settlement agreements and rules 
has caused a new rule to be proposed by the EPA that will have, 
according to meat processors, particularly small meat 
processors, very, very detrimental if not devastating impact.
    Are you aware of the inconsistency--or the impact that that 
might have on small meat processors?
    Mr. Regan. I have to circle. Tom Vilsack and I have been 
working hand-in-hand on looking at the Administration's 
position on meat packing. And I would venture to say that our 
regulation is in concert with the direction of USDA.
    I would need for you and your staff maybe to provide to me 
the specific rule or the specific meat packer so that we can 
address your question directly, because I am not quite sure. If 
you have the name of the meat packer or the rule, maybe we 
could have some more conversation.
    Mr. Burlison. I really greatly appreciate that. From what 
I--my understanding is that it is requiring them to have the 
most advanced technology to process phosphorus and nitrogen so 
that they do not end up in the water system. And that there is 
debate about, you know, obviously, there is an amount that can 
be, you know, detrimental, but our environment also needs 
nitrogen and needs phosphorus. So, this is a--these are natural 
products.
    This is particularly of concern to the small producers who 
would have little impact on the environment, and that is--those 
small businesses are what make up America.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. Let us talk. Let us get our staffs together 
and talk about these specific instances so that we can look at 
where the producers are, how much nitrogen and phosphorus are 
they producing, and whose regulations they may be running afoul 
of. This could be a USDA or EPA issue, so I would like to make 
sure we know.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman has 6 seconds left. I assume 
you will yield.
    Mr. Burlison. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Just wanted to touch up on that point. That 
is a huge issue in my district as well with the wastewater, new 
wastewater regulations from EPA. I have five poultry processors 
in my congressional district and hundreds and hundreds of 
poultry farmers in my district, most of whom are young farmers. 
So, they are all extremely concerned by this ruling, and that 
is something that we would hope to expect to hear from you soon 
on that.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Stansbury from New Mexico.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, Administrator Regan. First of all, I just want to 
say I think you are doing a truly exceptional job. I think you 
have put together an extraordinary team at EPA. I want to just 
take a moment to recognize our regional administrator, Ms. 
Earthea Jones--I mean, sorry, Nance, who is just doing a really 
exceptional job, and we really, really love her. Yes, she is.
    And I also want to just say thank you to all of the civil 
servants who are here sitting behind you and out there serving 
in the EPA, because I am going to be honest, it has been a 
rough, rough 7 1/2 years since we have crawled out of the Trump 
days.
    And I am a former environmental science professional. I am 
a former fed. I used to work for OMB, not in the evil parts. 
No, I am just kidding.
    But, you know, it is really hard on our Federal workforce 
when you have an administration like the Trump Administration 
that came in and systematically gutted the Federal workforce, 
they dismantled the policies that had been in place for years, 
and that really tried to undo all of the progress that our 
country has experienced over the last 50 years since we have 
been trying to clean up our environment.
    And so, I want to just take a few moments, because I think, 
you know, right now in this moment, our country is having a 
little bit of collective amnesia about how bad it really was, 
because I remember. I was here on the Hill, actually, when the 
Administrator under Trump took over, and I remember what it was 
like, and I remember the hundreds of people that were leaving 
EPA, and I remember all the rollbacks of all the policies.
    And so, I want to ask you, after 4 years of Trump--you came 
in early in the Biden Administration--what was it like at EPA? 
What was going on with the workforce? What was going on with 
the office's morale and the policies that were happening there, 
and what did you have to do to clean it up?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. I appreciate that question. I worked at 
EPA, started as an intern, worked there for 10 years before I 
left and came back. And it was not the EPA that I had left. It 
was a completely different place.
    And in my conversations with old colleagues and new 
colleagues, talking to me through tears, they talked about 
feeling disrespected. Science was ignored. They were asked to 
leave meetings. So, the culture was not the best. We lost, as 
you said, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of scientists, and 
with that we lost decades of experience.
    So, you know, the President came in with a very bold 
agenda, and we had to ensure that the EPA staff would be a part 
of that new vision. So, we created new policies to make our 
interactions more transparent. We started to reengage with the 
press and outside world to say that EPA is open for business. 
But, more importantly, we improved our scientific integrity, 
and we started to bring the career staff back into the big 
meetings. And we listened to the science, we listened to the 
data, and we have taken a lot of their recommendations.
    We were at record lows in terms of staff. Thanks to your 
partnership with the President and Members of Congress, we have 
hired about 5,000 people under BIL and the IRA resources. Some 
of those are term limited.
    But the short of the story is that there has been an 
infusion of enthusiasm and excitement, and a lot of our 
employees are making up for lost time and working 5, 6, 7 days 
a week. So, EPA is as strong as it has ever been today.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you. And, you know, I think it is 
evident--I do not know if you have had a moment to kind of take 
a breath this morning and look behind you, but we have a packed 
audience this morning, and it is full of young people. And so, 
I think, in addition to restoring our Nation's Environmental 
Protection Agency and the laws that are protecting our air, 
water, and climate, you are inspiring the next generation of 
leaders. And it is really cool.
    Mr. Regan. It is.
    Ms. Stansbury. I do want to just use my remaining time to 
say, you know, we have talked and some of my colleagues have 
covered the terrifying ground of Project 2025.
    I think it is worth noting that Trump's Chief of Staff, who 
served in the EPA, this lady here, wrote Project 2025's EPA 
chapter. And so, when President--former President Donald Trump 
says he has no idea what Project 2025 is, well, his politicals 
from EPA who planned the dismantling of EPA under his 
Administration are now planning for him to do it again.
    And, you know, there is not time here to talk about all of 
the terrifying things that are going on inside this policy 
proposal, but for anyone out there that hasn't read it and the 
chapter of what they plan to do to dismantle our climate 
programs, our environmental programs, to do away with Tribal 
and public health programs, and to literally move and close 
down offices and fire people, you all should wake up and be 
terrified.
    So, you know, I appreciate your service. We got a lot of 
work ahead of us, and we are going to keep on fighting. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Foxx from 
North Carolina.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the 
Administrator for being here.
    Mr. Regan, the Biden-era EPA has managed to add $1.3 
trillion in cost on Americans. In contrast, in 8 years, the 
Obama EPA added only--only--about $300 billion in cost.
    Can you help me understand how the Biden EPA under your 
watch has found so many new ways to impose cost on the American 
people?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I am not quite sure if I agree with that 
level of cost, but what we have attempted to do is to balance 
cost-benefit analysis, cost-effective technologies, providing 
the market some certainty while also protecting the environment 
and public health.
    We think that we are walking and chewing gum at the same 
time and doing it in a way where we are not sacrificing the 
economy.
    Ms. Foxx. The Clean Air Act amendments are well over 50 
years old. That means the EPA has had more than half a century 
to develop regulations that touch nearly every facet of life in 
industry in this country.
    How is it that in the last 3 1/2 years the EPA found so 
many new costly and creative ways to regulate Americans?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I would not necessarily say that they are 
costly. I would say that, when I took office, the power 
industry asked me to not look at regulations in a series but 
think about how they could be bundled so that they could 
leverage their investments. And so, what we have tried to do is 
listen to industry, fulfill our statutory obligations, but do 
it in a way where we get thoughts from them, whether it is 
regulating methane or looking at coal plants and new natural 
gas.
    We have tried to really use the latest and greatest 
technologies to help propel us into the future and remain 
globally competitive.
    Ms. Foxx. If these new regulations from the Biden EPA are 
so important, how could the EPA under previous administrations, 
which possessed the very same authorities the EPA wields today, 
have missed such great opportunities to fundamentally reshape 
American industry, transportation, and nearly every aspect of 
our life?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I would say that the difference and the 
opportunity is coming from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
and the Inflation Reduction Act, which is providing tax credits 
and monetary infusion into the market and into companies that 
complements our regulations, which is helping us to move faster 
and further than we ever have before.
    So, I would not necessarily say that it is EPA being more 
aggressive from a regulatory standpoint. This is the first time 
in history that we have had hundreds of billions of dollars to 
develop grant programs or infuse capital into the private 
market to help us begin to look at efficiency and lowering 
pollution.
    Ms. Foxx. We need to stop adding to the regulatory burden 
that threatens to choke off innovation and economic growth in 
this country. That is why I introduced H.R. 3230, the Unfunded 
Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act, or UMATA. This 
bipartisan bill will strengthen Congress' ability to stop 
Federal regulators from loading up the private sector and state 
and local governments with costly new unfunded mandates.
    UMATA requires Federal agencies to accurately consider the 
cost of their regulations, consult with stakeholders, publish 
their assessments, and ensure that any new regulations produce 
the most benefits for the least cost.
    In your confirmation hearing in 2021, you said that you 
would ``work in partnership with Congress,'' ``build consensus 
around programmatic solutions,'' and strengthen relations with 
the private sector.
    Will you support a commonsense solution like UMATA since it 
does exactly what you claimed you would do in your confirmation 
hearings?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, the appropriate answer for me is 
to say I would love to provide technical assistance to that 
legislation or bill. That is the proper role of an agency. And 
so, we would love to have some staff look at that and see how 
we could provide technical assistance to that.
    Ms. Foxx. I thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I think that we have an EPA that is basically 
out of control and imposing horrible regulations and costs on 
the American people, and there are things we need to do to 
contain it. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Absolutely.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bush from Missouri.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And it is great to see you again, Administrator Regan.
    St. Louis and I are here today in support of essential 
regulations to ensure clean air, clean land, and clean water in 
every community. As we continue to suffer from the record heat, 
drought, floods, and wildfires, the Environmental Protection 
Agency is an essential force at the front lines of addressing 
the climate crisis and toxic pollution in neighborhoods like 
ours in St. Louis.
    Under your leadership, Administrator Regan, the Agency has 
taken bold steps to limit pollution and contamination from 
fossil fuel, power plants, chemical facilities, vehicles, and 
forever chemicals like PFAS. You have continued the critical 
work of cleaning up toxic sites around the country and 
advancing President Biden's critical Justice40 Initiative, 
including through my Environmental Justice Mapping and Data 
Collection Act.
    You have achieved so much, all while weathering an 
extremist assault on the basic functioning of the Agency by 
far-right Members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices who 
are hellbent on catering to industry profits above basic needs 
of regular people. The Republican Party is pro-pollution, pro-
big oil, pro-disaster, and pro-disease.
    The EPA's work is saving lives in states like Missouri and 
communities like St. Louis. Last year, the Agency began 
investigating toxic fumes and odors in south St. Louis after I 
heard from constituents and requested action from the EPA. And 
over the last few years, my team and I have worked closely with 
the EPA to minimize the impact of historical legacy pollution 
in our community.
    The essential role of the EPA is underscored by the harms 
my constituents continue to face from environmental 
contamination and nuclear waste dating back to World War II. 
For over 80 years, St. Louis has grappled with the consequences 
of radioactive waste left over from the Manhattan Project that 
has contaminated Coldwater Creek, which is a core waterway in 
our community, and the West Lake Landfill, where radioactive 
waste is buried next to an underground chemical fire.
    For decades, the Federal Government both hid and downplayed 
the risk of these--of this radioactive waste in our district. 
People in my district who were unknowingly exposed to this 
radiation are now living with serious chronic health 
conditions, including several types of rare cancers.
    As this toxic waste exposure continues to devastate my 
community, neither the Federal Government nor the private 
sector contractors who reaped profits from it have provided 
financial compensation to the victims of the Manhattan Project 
in my district, and we know who this exposure 
disproportionately impacts.
    When we look at Black children in the city of St. Louis, 
they account for more than 70 percent of children suffering 
from lead poisoning. Our Black and Brown children in our 
community are also 10 times more likely than White children to 
go to the emergency room for asthma.
    That is why these issues are personal to me. It is why I 
worked with Ranking Member Raskin to secure a GAO report on how 
to improve remediation efforts at nuclear contamination sites. 
That is why I have successfully pushed to include my 
Environmental Justice Mapping and Data Collection Act in this 
Inflation Reduction Act.
    That is why the House, under a Democratic majority, passed 
several of my amendments relating to toxic exposure. That is 
why I have worked closely with Secretary Granholm and the 
Department of Energy to ensure the EPA has the resources 
necessary to clean up West Lake Landfill.
    And that is why I am pushing hard for Congress to 
reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which 
provides health screenings and compensation for people sickened 
by U.S. testing of nuclear weapons, as well as expanded to 
communities like St. Louis and other areas that have been 
historically excluded.
    In March, the Senate passed bipartisan legislation to do 
just that, but Speaker Johnson refused to take action to help 
the people who need it most and their families. And RECA 
expired over a month ago. That is appalling. It is an appalling 
failure of governance by the Speaker. And disproportionately 
Black and Brown communities like mine continue to bear the 
brunt of our government's failure to tackle the crisis of toxic 
waste and climate change.
    That is what we mean when we talk about environmental 
justice and the Green New Deal and investments in clean energy. 
We are talking about doing everything we can to ensure every 
single person has access to clean air, clean water, no matter 
where they live, no matter their skin color or how much money 
they have.
    So, Administrator Regan, which communities are 
disproportionately affected by environmental contamination, and 
what are the tangible benefits when contamination is 
successfully remediated?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I like to say that first of all, thank you 
for your leadership on this topic. And as I have traveled the 
country, whether you are poor in Appalachia or Lawrence County, 
Alabama, or St. Louis, the disproportionate impact on children 
and on people is unacceptable.
    And the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation 
Reduction Act has offered lots of opportunities to begin to 
correct these wrongs, whether it is looking at brownfields and 
Superfund sites and partner with DOE to clean up that radiation 
and that pollution, or whether it is ripping out these lead-
laced lines that are feeding water, drinking water to our 
children. We have seen a profound effect across this country 
for low-income, Black, Brown, Tribal community, thanks to the 
partnership between Congress and the President and both BIL and 
IRA, and we will continue to see that.
    And let me just say that, whether you are in the South or 
the North, when you see pipes protruding from homes and the 
waste going into the very yards that the children are playing 
in because there is not a wastewater treatment facility in 
place, your heart really goes out.
    And so, thank you for inviting me to your district to look 
at improving that wastewater treatment facility, and we are 
trying to do that all over the country.
    Ms. Bush. Absolutely. Thank you.
    And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mrs. McClain from 
Michigan.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Mr. Regan, for being here today. I 
appreciate it.
    I want to shift our focus a little bit to our dependency on 
China. Simply put, I have a concern that the EV mandates make 
us more dependent on China, and that is what I would like to 
talk about today is the dependency that we have on China.
    So, I need to start with, do you believe that the EV 
mandates make us more dependent on China?
    Mr. Regan. You know, we do not have an EV mandate. We have 
a rule that offers----
    Mrs. McClain. Are you familiar with the Biden 
Administration's mandate that 70 percent of all vehicles 
produced by 2030 need to be EV?
    Mr. Regan. When you look at the reg----
    Mrs. McClain. Are you familiar with that or am I mistaken, 
that is not----
    Mr. Regan. It is not 70 percent. When you look at----
    Mrs. McClain. What is it then?
    Mr. Regan. When you look at the----
    Mrs. McClain. What is it then?
    Mr. Regan. When you look at the----
    Mrs. McClain. What is it then?
    Mr. Regan. When you look at----
    Mrs. McClain. What is it?
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlelady allow him to 
answer?
    Mrs. McClain. Yes, if he will answer the question I would 
ask, I would love an answer to the question.
    Mr. Raskin. He is trying to answer it.
    Chairman Comer. It is Mrs. McClain's time.
    Mrs. McClain. It is----
    Mr. Regan. Very quickly, there are a combination of 
technologies that can meet an environmental standard, and the 
regulation suggests that up to 60 percent could be met with 
EVs, but that rule could also be met with plug-in hybrids, 
hybrids----
    Mrs. McClain. OK. So, we are--there is not a mandate----
    Mr. Regan. No, there is not.
    Mrs. McClain [continuing]. That 70 percent of vehicles need 
to be----
    Mr. Regan. No.
    Mrs. McClain [continuing]. EV mandated by 2030.
    Mr. Regan. No.
    Mrs. McClain. OK. All right. That is great. I am really 
going to be excited to go back and talk to our people in the 
great state of Michigan talking about the EV mandates that 
there really are no EV mandates.
    So, we really--the auto industry does not need that. We 
should not be giving incentives then because there is no 
mandate.
    Mr. Regan. Well, I do not think the auto industry or the 
UAW would have stood with me when we announced the rule if it 
was a mandate. So, I clearly----
    Mrs. McClain. So, there is--I am excited to hear about 
this, because from everything that I have heard from the UAW, 
from the auto workers, is that we need to give a lot of 
incentives. I mean, I think we give $7,500 of incentives for 
people to buy EVs that do not work, by the way, that there are 
no mandates.
    So, just to make sure that I am clear--and I want to make 
sure that I am clear--there are no mandates by the EPA as it 
pertains to combustion engines by the year 2030?
    Mr. Regan. No.
    Mrs. McClain. Wonderful.
    Mr. Regan. There are no mandates.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you. Thank you. That is fantastic.
    With that, I am going to yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Would you mind yielding the remainder of 
your time?
    Mrs. McClain. I yield the remainder of my time.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you.
    Mr. Regan, I am curious. When was the last time you met 
with President Biden face-to-face?
    Mr. Regan. I was with the President maybe less than 2 
months ago.
    Chairman Comer. Can you describe that meeting and who was 
in attendance?
    Mr. Regan. We flew from D.C. to Charlotte, North Carolina, 
to meet with some law enforcement officers who had been gunned 
down while they were trying to serve a search warrant. He met 
with the individual families, spent time with them, talked to 
them about his personal loss and how to move forward, and his 
belief in God and Christ.
    And he then left there, and we went to an event in 
Wilmington, North Carolina, where we did an engagement on lead 
pipes. And he gave a speech and met with hundreds of people in 
North Carolina, if not thousands, to talk about the importance 
of lead exposure.
    Chairman Comer. I was just curious.
    Back to what Mr. Burlison said about the wastewater 
treatment issues and the poultry and meat packing industry, is 
there ever any thought by the EPA when a rule is administered, 
an executive order, whatever you want to call it, is 
administered, as to what the cost will be not only to the 
industry or the private business but to the consumer?
    Because in my district, one poultry processing plant in 
west Kentucky makes all--you know, all their chicken goes to 
Chick-fil-A. Another goes to McDonald's for Chicken McNuggets.
    The cost of these everyday food supplies for working-class 
Americans, these food sources, has significantly increased in 
the last 3 years. And one reason they have increased is because 
of excessive regulations. One reason is because of inflation, 
which I think is a result of excessive regulations.
    So, just out of curiosity, does the EPA ever take into 
consideration when they make a drastic rule change how that 
will impact middle-class Americans?
    Mr. Regan. We do. And in this situation, Chairman Comer, we 
were petitioned to take a look at and begin to develop a 
regulation for this specific industry. And that is the process 
that we are going through.
    We did not raise our hand and voluntarily say, let us go do 
this. We were petitioned. By law, we have to respond to these 
petitions. And now we are looking at the wastewater discharge 
from some of these facilities.
    I want to let you know that I have instructed my team to 
engage with the industry, to engage with everyone who is 
familiar with this industry, because if we do anything we want 
to do it correctly.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. Hopefully, you will take into 
account what the impact will be to average middle-class 
Americans who are struggling to pay their bills, struggling to 
pay their food bills to put food on the tables for their 
families.
    Mr. Regan. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Tlaib from 
Michigan.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman.
    Thank you so much, Administrator Regan, for being here.
    You have been to Detroit. You have been to Michigan several 
times. I do not think I did get you to come out to meet some of 
our residents living on Beniteau Street yet, but Beniteau 
Street on the east side of Detroit is a predominantly Black, 
very working class, low income, poor community, and they have a 
massive Stellantis auto plant complex in their backyard. It has 
been making them sick and ruining their quality of life for 
years. Some cannot even have outings outside with their 
families--barbecues, birthday parties. The odor is unbearable. 
I have experienced it myself, Administrator.
    And state regulators in Michigan had issued Stellantis air 
permits. And they had the public meetings, they did the whole 
process, but they failed to ensure that they complied with the 
permit conditions. They were required, Stellantis was required 
to install pollution controls, and they failed to install them 
correctly.
    I think they withheld that information for months. I do not 
know if it was 6 months, 7 months. It was months, even though 
the residents were saying, something is wrong here, the odor, 
something is wrong here, there is something wrong. And, again, 
they did not fix it for months.
    This is--you know, our residents, one, they did not feel 
believed by the state for a long time, but they also believe 
like, wait, why are they always routinely, the state, approving 
pollution permits that they know are poisoning predominantly 
Black, Brown, immigrant, low-income communities across 
Michigan?
    So, they worked with a nonprofit organization called the 
Great Lakes Environmental Law Center. And in November, I 
believe--or, sorry, in 2021, they filed a Title VI civil rights 
case, a complaint.
    Are you familiar at all, with that at all?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Oh, good. OK. So, Administrator Shore and some 
of the members of the team at Region 5 talked to me about this. 
You know this. I mean, the EPA was pursuing an informal 
resolution agreement for more than a year with community 
members at the table, Administrator, and, again, trying to get 
toward a resolution with the state.
    And all of a sudden, the state is like, nah, we do not want 
to talk to them anymore. And EPA was like, OK. Do you know why?
    Mr. Regan. Given that this is an active Title VI case, I 
cannot----
    Chairman Comer. Microphone. Make sure your microphone is 
on.
    Mr. Regan. Given that it is an active Title VI case, it is 
improper for me to comment on or speculate.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes, but it sounds like you guys are letting 
them off the hook.
    The leverage that we have as--and I want you to know I want 
them to feel like their lives are important under an 
administration that says they care about clean air and water, 
right?
    And it is hard for me. And no matter who is the President, 
Administrator, I am going to be very much always about holding 
them accountable.
    So, as I understand, the law is clear. When there is--an 
informal resolution agreement cannot be reached, EPA must 
investigate and issue findings that determine whether or not 
discrimination occurred.
    Why are we not doing that? Why are we not doing that?
    Mr. Regan. Let me take this concern back to our Title VI 
lawyers and team that is working on this.
    Ms. Tlaib. Please.
    Mr. Regan. And we will keep you apprised as much as we can.
    Ms. Tlaib. And, Administrator Regan, this is out of love 
and respect. I grew up in a neighborhood, honestly, I would 
come into my house as a little child, Chairman, smelling like 
rotten eggs. All my friends had asthma. I mean, it is awful. 
So, I am asking the EPA to take this complaint seriously.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Set a precedent that you care and watch. No 
matter who is the Governor, no matter who is in charge, it is 
important that we are consistent.
    And, Mr. Regan, you know this, Administrator Regan, please 
fight for them like you live on Beniteau. Fight for them like 
you live there, because they have nobody else but us.
    And I am--we are blessed that we have a nonprofit that took 
the case, but we cannot allow, again, politics and all these 
kinds of aspects come into play. We have to be consistent.
    Again, no one told them to look away when months and months 
and months with them not complying with their own air permits. 
You know that. Companies put it in there. They sign it. They 
should comply with their own air permits, right?
    And, again, I say this on behalf of many of my residents. 
We are doing good work in progress, but many of the young 
people, I know them--I have an 18-year-old at home--we are not 
moving with the urgency still that I think is needed.
    And implementation matters, you know that. And a lot of 
folks are not seeing the change they need immediately. So, 
again, I am here as a partner.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Ms. Tlaib. And I am here to bring those folks and those 
residents at the table with you.
    Thank you so much. I yield.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. And I might add, we have gone on our side 
over about a minute and 45 seconds, and I have agreed to yield 
that much time to the ranking member to get caught up, and then 
we will proceed with the majority.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman.
    And I wanted to pose one question to Ms. Tlaib and then one 
to the Administrator.
    You just made a very eloquent and passionate brief on 
behalf of the significance of enforcement, aggressive Agency 
enforcement of the rules that we have under Federal 
legislation.
    The Project 2025 plan that everybody is talking about, and 
our friend and colleague from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, talked 
about the importance of deregulation, that is, loosening up 
regulation. And I wonder what you would say about that in 
general.
    And then also, specifically about deregulation of 
corporations at a time that we are also hearing from our 
friends about the importance of regulating women's bodies and 
women's choices, with one-third of American women not being 
able to get access to an abortion in America and also further 
crack down on birth control and IVF and so on.
    Ms. Tlaib. No, Ranking Member Raskin, it is bizarre. Even 
today, you know, thinking about the fact that they consistently 
want to regulate the bodies of women, but also even the fact 
that our bodies are more regulated than even around the gun 
crisis.
    Around the fact that, right now, many of our constituents 
and our families continue to say to me, we have a right to 
breathe clean air, right? We have a right to access clean 
water, right? Rashida, why is--why are we not working toward 
that?
    To allow corporations to have a free will of going ahead--
because let me tell you, I do not care if you are a red or blue 
state, they will poison your residents if you let them. They 
will. And so, you know, shame on those that continue to promote 
this Project 2025. And, again, the sense that corporations have 
all this free will, and they do not care about our public 
health. They care about the bottom line. They care about 
profiting off of the pollution they spew out to residents, 
especially ones that are currently struggling to even access 
healthcare right now.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
    I will have to question you later, Mr. Administrator.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, who I 
have read is on the short list to be potentially the next Vice 
President of the United States, Mr. Donalds, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ambassador Regan, thank you for being here.
    Earlier this year, the D.C. circuits--the D.C. District 
Court here actually invalidated EPA's designation that allowed 
the state of Florida to process Clean Water Act permit 
applications, a process that has been in place for the last 3 
years.
    Our concern, obviously, in the Sunshine State is that EPA 
agreed to essentially give us primacy in going through that 
permit process as opposed to having to go through the Army 
Corps of Engineers.
    In short, does the EPA still stand beside the decision to 
give the state of Florida primacy with respect to proceeding 
with 404 permits for the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species 
Act?
    Mr. Regan. I believe that is the case, but let me circle 
back before I give you a definitive answer on where we are with 
that process.
    Mr. Donalds. You believe you are still with us or you are 
not? I want to make sure I get it clear.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. I believe we are still following what the 
court has told us we should do, which I know there was a court 
ruling and I know there was some consternation there. So, let 
me circle back with you to see exactly where we are on that 
case.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. The reason why I bring it up, and it is 
important for our state, since we have taken over that process 
from the Army Corps, permit applications have--in terms of 
time, have decreased from roughly around 2 years to 6 months.
    Obviously, the Sunshine State is, if not the fastest 
growing state in the country, one of the fastest growing states 
in the country for a myriad of reasons.
    So, our ability to process these permits where, yes, we do 
have a lot of waterways that are critical to the ecosystem of 
Florida--we take that very seriously in my state--but I think 
it is important that, whether it is Florida or any other state 
that has that flexibility, that you do have state 
administrators and state personnel with respect to 
environmental protection who do take this incredibly seriously 
and being able to partner with EPA in order to be able to still 
process these applications that are important for our economy 
as well as our environment.
    That is something critical for us going forward. I hope 
that the EPA agrees with that.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. And as a former state regulator, I 
definitely understand the importance of the delegated 
authority. And I believe how we got to this situation where 
there were some concerns about the administration of the 
program, and I do not know if we resolved those or not, but I 
think the court has spoken on that. And so, I will circle back 
with you to see where we are on that.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. All right. Thank you for that.
    I want to switch gears. Obviously, the EPA came out with 
the Clean Power Plan 2.0. My concerns are with a couple of 
things but, primarily, 60 percent of all electricity generation 
in the United States comes from coal and natural gas. Under the 
EPA's Clean Power Plan 2.0, essentially coal will be regulated 
out of existence and there will be additional burdens put on 
new natural gas plants that may or may not come online in the 
United States.
    Considering your previous statements about wanting to make 
sure--in this hearing, that wanting to make sure that nobody 
is--nobody in our country is left behind when it comes to 
having a clean environment and clean water, clean air, et 
cetera, for our citizens, is it not also a concern that if that 
plan goes into effect and the power generation that we 
typically use right now would go away, that electricity prices 
would skyrocket on poor families, whether they may be Black 
families, Hispanic families, White families, that their cost 
would go up exorbitantly under that same plan? Would they not 
be left behind by the Clean Power Plan?
    Mr. Regan. Well, we spent a lot of time with the industry, 
with the grid operators, and here are the facts from our 
vantage point: (1) These control technologies do not have to be 
put in until 2031, 2032, so we are talking about some time down 
the road; (2) All of our cost estimates say that the actions we 
are taking will only potentially increase price by less than 
one percent; and (3) That the approach we are taking, because 
of the diligence that we have done, will not have any impact on 
reliability.
    To the point we were just discussing, this national rule is 
delegated to the states, and each state will design a state 
implementation plan that gives it flexibility on how it reaches 
these goals.
    Mr. Donalds. Administrator, I got to cut you down, because 
we got 20 seconds, congressional hearings.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Donalds. I am going to respond with this: whenever we 
get information from experts who say that costs will be 
contained in a certain strata, that typically is not the case. 
Even with the tax credits, with the Inflation Reduction Act, 
CBO said it would cost around $260 billion. Wall Street is 
saying the value of those credits is upwards of 1.3 trillion 
and higher.
    So, when you say that essentially regulating out coal and 
some aspects of natural gas in the United States will only lead 
to a one-percent increase in electricity cost, that simply does 
not add up. And at the end of the day, whether it is 2024 or 
2032, it is poor people in this country who are going to be 
left behind by that type of proposal.
    Chairman, I am over my time. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Pressley from Massachusetts.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Administrator Regan.
    You know, the kids say, it is 7 p.m. on Friday, 95 degrees, 
and that is because the climate crisis is real and it is here. 
Climate change is not an abstract problem for people of a far-
away future to solve. No one knows that better than our youth. 
And I know you agree because, under your leadership, EPA 
created the first of its kind National Environmental Youth 
Advisory Council. And I am proud that Osasenaga Idahor, one of 
my constituents from Hyde Park, is a member. Voices like his 
are essential to addressing this crisis.
    So, when my colleagues across the aisle use platforms like 
this hearing to pretend that climate change is some hoax, I 
cannot help but think about the stories I hear from our youth 
when I am back home.
    Administrator Regan, are you familiar with urban heat 
islands?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, I am.
    Ms. Pressley. EPA reviewed several studies and found that 
some communities in the United States, particularly those that 
are low income and with higher populations of people of color, 
have neighborhoods with higher temperatures compared to the 
surrounding areas.
    Take, for example, the district I represent, the 
Massachusetts Seventh, where my constituents have been under 
constant heat advisories and feeling the consequences of urban 
heat islands on a daily basis this summer.
    The city of Chelsea, a predominantly Hispanic community in 
my district, can be 10 to 15 degrees hotter than neighboring 
communities in the Boston area on a given day.
    Administrator Regan, what are some of the primary causes of 
urban heat islands?
    Mr. Regan. Well, as we see a change in climate and 
intensity in heat, obviously, when you lack natural spaces, 
natural resources, trees, grass and the like, that heat just 
concentrates in the concrete and in the buildings. You also 
typically have these urban areas that may or may not be blocked 
by downwinds because of a mountain.
    So, in these isolated areas, all you have is a 
concentration of heat disproportionately impacting people who 
are already suffering. And you are exacerbating respiratory 
illnesses, asthma, and other illnesses. And so, we have been 
working hard, especially thanks to your leadership and the 
President's leadership.
    And you look in the Inflation Reduction Act, that provides 
grant resources for cooling centers, for safe havens for our 
elderly or for our children to go to if they are living in some 
of these urban areas.
    It is 10 to 15 degrees more in your state. It is 10 to 15 
degrees more in Atlanta. We have got these situations going on 
all across the country and, unfortunately, those who can afford 
it the most are getting hit the hardest.
    Ms. Pressley. Yes. And I will just add, that is exactly why 
we knew anecdotally what communities would be hardest hit 
during the pandemic. It was a perfect overlay of heat maps with 
those communities that had the highest rate of COVID 
infections, hospitalizations, and fatalities.
    It is no accident that communities experiencing the worst 
of these causes are the same ones that have been on the front 
lines of historic inequities. Racist policies like redlining, 
where lenders would literally draw a red line around 
neighborhoods to deny services like mortgages and loans to 
Black and Brown folks wanting to move in, have made it more 
likely for communities of color to be situated in formerly 
industrial areas that have more heat-trapping concrete and less 
tree cover.
    At the same time, folks living in these neighborhoods are 
also more likely to struggle with asthma, cardiovascular 
diseases, and other complex medical conditions that turn more 
deadly in the heat. In 2023 alone, we saw a record 2,300 people 
died due to excess heat, a figure that is considered an 
undercount by experts.
    So, yes, environmental justice and health equity go hand-
in-hand. The Biden-Harris Administration has recognized this by 
delivering $2 billion in funding to Climate Justice Community 
Change Grants.
    Administrator Regan, how will these new grants help 
communities like those that I represent in the MA-7 address the 
health risk associated with heat islands?
    Mr. Regan. There are significant opportunities. And the 
good part about it is that these solutions do not have to come 
top down. They are coming from the bottom up. These communities 
have had these solutions. And if they have more access to solar 
energy, they will not be afraid to run their air-conditioning. 
The bills will be lower, and they will be healthier inside.
    Like I said earlier, if they can invest in cooling centers 
and have safe havens and safe places for their constituents--
your constituents to go, that is a game changer.
    They have also--many cities have thought about creative 
things, like painting the tops of buildings and--with 
reflective light that push that heat back, or thinking about 
what type of material they use for their sidewalks.
    There are a lot of innovative ideas by young people, by 
people who have been thinking about this for a long period of 
time. They are competing for our grants. We are giving them the 
resources, and they are creating solutions for their 
communities.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. I look forward to continuing to 
work with you, Administrator Regan, and the Office of 
Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights to protect 
these investments and ensuring communities have the resources 
they need to address these threats.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burchett from Tennessee.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regan, some of these things have been asked before, but 
as the 435th most powerful Member of Congress, sometimes they 
get to me a little late, so I am going to ask them again. And I 
would appreciate you giving good answers for my folks back in 
Tennessee.
    There have been some tests--you all have issued some rules 
targeting numerous sectors, substantially increasing the cost. 
For example, you all's rule on lime manufacturing plants 
imposes costs of 2.5 billion on a small industry with a 2.3 
billion in revenue.
    Do you all think it is necessary, considering your own 
scientists determined emissions from lime plants are acceptable 
with ample margins of safety?
    Mr. Regan. I think the rule that has been proposed is done 
in a way that we believe maximizes protection from an 
environmental health standpoint. But as I mentioned to a 
colleague earlier, this is something that I would love for our 
staffs to have a conversation about to be sure that we are all 
on the same page in terms of the direction that we are going.
    Mr. Burchett. I would like that a lot. A lot of folks in my 
area, this could be very damning for them.
    When you testified before the House Science Committee last 
September, you said about the lime rule: I think what we want 
to do is to ensure that we are meeting the letter of the law 
with as much flexibility as possible.
    Does that sound accurate to you?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, that is the goal.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Well, let me ask you then, why did you 
all disregard the Small Business Administration's 
recommendations for more timely and flexibility when issuing 
the lime rule?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I am not quite sure if we ignored the 
Small Business' regulation, but, again, that is something that 
I would love to have a discussion about to see if we are on the 
same page there.
    Mr. Burchett. And I would appreciate you getting back to me 
on that. If you do, I would appreciate that.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Burchett. Can you explain how increases in compliance 
costs impact businesses that are trying to stay afloat in 
today's already challenging economic circumstances?
    Mr. Regan. Well, compliance complexity can be looked at a 
few ways. I think that what we try to do is evaluate and 
analyze the administrative burden and the compliance burden of 
any of our rules. And we weigh that against the opportunities 
for these companies to invest in new technologies that might 
provide efficiencies in some other areas while also lowering 
the pollution burden on the environment and individuals. So, we 
take a look at all of it and try to come out with a win-win-
win.
    Mr. Burchett. Let me follow-up on that. Did your Agency 
engage with stakeholders at all levels to determine exactly 
what the impact of these regulations would be for businesses of 
all sizes and for the folks that they serve?
    Mr. Regan. We do. Typically, we engage with all of our 
stakeholders numerous times, privately and in public venues.
    Mr. Burchett. Is the public venues like a hearing type of 
situation?
    Mr. Regan.
    [No verbal response.]
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Witnesses warned us that--this 
Committee--that if the Biden Administration continues at the 
Obama Administration's regulatory pace for 8 more years, the 
cost of these rulemakings could exceed $60,000 per household. 
$60,000.
    What impact do you think that would have on low-and middle-
class Americans?
    Mr. Regan. I am not sure that I agree with the $60,000 
number. It just does not comport with our analytics.
    Listen, in many regards for some of the things that we 
proposed that some have said increase cost, we actually will 
see lower cost, lower prices, whether that is the entity that 
we are regulating or the health benefits that surrounding 
communities may pay.
    One example is thinking about the HON rule and looking at--
for some of our chemical facilities for less than one percent--
--
    Mr. Burchett. The what rule?
    Mr. Regan. The HON rule. For less than 1 percent, they can 
invest in a control technology that will lower cancer risk by 
96 percent.
    There is a lot of regulations that we have that we see 
significant cost-benefit opportunities but seem to be distorted 
when we have these conversations.
    Mr. Burchett. Sure. I would warn you, though, you know, if 
it was--if we wanted to save lives, we would just bring the 
speed limit down to 15 miles an hour and tell everybody to, you 
know, drive a moped or something because, I mean, there would 
still be the cost associated with all that.
    And the cost avoidance, of course, is always something to 
take into consideration. But I think the taxpayers in this case 
are going to be left holding the bag. And I am very much aware 
of that situation, so--but thank you very much for being here.
    And I yield, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Crockett from Texas for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you so much, Mr. Administrator, for being here.
    First, I just have to again send love to Dr. Nance, who is 
my Regional Administrator. She and I love to go and give big 
checks in my district. So, I appreciate her so very much.
    I also want to make sure that I level set, because I 
thought it was interesting that we were having an EPA hearing, 
considering the fact that some people in this chamber do not 
believe in this thing called climate change. So, I just wanted 
to level set really quickly with you and find out from you if 
you believe that climate change is real or a hoax.
    Mr. Regan. Climate change is very real.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. Thank you so much. I thought you may say 
that.
    And interestingly enough, you know, I am sure that there 
are those in this country that are looking for those Nixon 
Republicans, those Republicans that simply just wanted to do 
the work of the people and were not about sending out 
misinformation, disinformation, and continuously trying to 
undermine our Federal Government agencies that are trying to do 
everything that they can to protect the people.
    When we look at the Supreme Court and their recent ruling, 
again, they chose not to protect the American people. But 
hopefully, we would get people in the legislature and maybe we 
can get some legislation on the books to combat what the 
Supreme Court did so that we can get back to the business of 
protecting people.
    The reason that I bring Nixon up is because it was 
President Nixon, a Republican, who spearheaded the EPA's 
creation at a time where our country and communities were 
facing deteriorating air qualities in cities where there was 
rampant pollution in our neighborhoods and when urban water 
supplies were constantly being contaminated with dangerous 
toxins. I just would imagine that President Nixon would never 
stand for Project 2025, which wants to do the complete opposite 
of that.
    In addition, you know, there is a lot of conversation 
around rolling back regulations. My colleagues continuously 
talk about rolling back regulations and not really 
understanding the importance of these guardrails. And so, I 
just want you to listen to a situation that technically 
impacted your agency.
    In 2018, Trump made sure that he scrapped a 2015 Obama-era 
rule requiring advanced braking technology on trains 
transporting particularly hazardous materials. That rule would 
have required compliance by certain trains by 2021 and others 
by 2023, but as Fortune reported at the time, Trump's 
Department of Transportation decided that the cost of 
installing these more sophisticated brakes outweighed the 
benefit.
    While it has been noted that technically the rule would not 
have required the Norfolk Southern train that derailed in Ohio 
to have such brakes, some believe it would have if not for 
Trump.
    Norfolk Southern estimates that it will spend more than $1 
billion to address the contamination caused by the East 
Palestine derailment and improve rail safety and operations, 
which includes the settlement with the United States valued at 
over $310 million, as well as around $780 million in 
environmental.
    Regulations are made to protect people from potential 
disasters such as this. And I can pretty much probably guess 
that the people of East Palestine would have preferred that 
there would have been some protections that would have kept 
them from enduring that terrible situation. But I want to talk 
about a few other things, and then I will let you go.
    There has been all this talk about the money that you are 
getting and all this talk about our debt. I just want to remind 
my colleagues that it is factual, it can be looked up, under 4 
years of the Trump Administration, unlike any other 
administration in the history of this country, they somehow 
managed to rack up $8 trillion in debt in 4 years.
    But to be clear, in racking up that debt, it was not 
because they were trying to take care of agencies such as yours 
that are trying to protect people and make sure that they have 
clean air, clean water, clean soil. It was so that the rich 
one-percenters could have their tax cut.
    And, again, Project 2025 is about making sure that those 
tax cuts that will expire in 2025, that they will get those 
back again. Again, they do not want to take care of the people, 
and it is OK to have debt in this country so long as the one-
percenters get what they want. I just want to lay that out.
    Finally, when we look at where this money is going from 
this Administration, Rep. Jordan's district got 500,000. The 
Chair's district got about 1.6 million in EPA grants. Rep. 
Greene's district got 500,000, Rep. Luna's district got 
300,000, and Rep. Perry's district got a million dollars.
    So, for Republicans that may feel a way about EPA and it 
allegedly pushing a woke agenda, I just want to know, can we 
get the money back?
    I will yield.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Boebert from 
Colorado for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator Regan, is it true that the EPA has never 
obtained formal authorization legislation from Congress?
    Mr. Regan. I am sorry?
    Ms. Boebert. Is it true that the EPA has never obtained 
formal legislation--authoritation legislation from Congress? It 
has never been authorized by Congress?
    Mr. Regan. EPA is not authorized by Congress?
    Ms. Boebert. I am asking you.
    Mr. Regan. I thought EPA was authorized by Congress.
    Ms. Boebert. Well, the EPA is not. The EPA has never been 
formally authorized by Congress. However, this agency has 
imposed over $1.3 trillion in regulatory costs since the Biden 
regime took office.
    We authorize Committees here in Congress to ensure that we 
have proper oversight and accountability in the functioning of 
the executive branch. And this process is extremely vital, 
because often we see agencies abuse the separation of powers, 
creating rules and laws, regulations without consent of 
Congress.
    And we appropriate funds to agencies like the EPA and 
expect these tax dollars--this tax dollar funding to be used in 
accordance with the legislative priorities and comply with the 
oversight requirement.
    So, Mr. Regan, last month, the Supreme Court rightly 
overturned the Chevron doctrine which the EPA relied on to 
support its very controversial and costly rulemakings.
    Since your agency has never been authorized by Congress and 
has since lost most legal standing, does your agency still plan 
to enable rogue bureaucrats to enact unconstitutional 
regulations?
    Mr. Regan. I am not quite sure I follow you. You are saying 
that----
    Ms. Boebert. I am saying the Chevron doctrine was 
overturned by the Supreme Court.
    Mr. Regan. We have no authority?
    Ms. Boebert. I am saying you have never been authorized--
wait. Hold on.
    Mr. Regan. Congress does not delegate authority for us to 
do the regulations and the business and the policy. So, since 
1970----
    Ms. Boebert. So, the Chevron doctrine, where you have 
created all of these rules under that have been proven to be 
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court has been overruled.
    So, now I am asking, are your bureaucrats still going to 
implement these rulemaking processes?
    Mr. Regan. You do know Chevron is not just focused on EPA. 
So----
    Ms. Boebert. But you are. So, I am asking about the EPA, 
and I am asking about your rogue bureaucrats that have enacted 
these unconstitutional regulations. Are you going to repeal 
them? Are you going to continue to implement them or are you 
going to stop altogether, since it has been overturned?
    Mr. Regan. Do you understand the ruling?
    Ms. Boebert. Do you understand the ruling----
    Mr. Regan. I do.
    Ms. Boebert [continuing]. Of the Supreme Court?
    Mr. Regan. I do. So, your question is ill-formed. No----
    Ms. Boebert. Will you be repealing----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. We are not going to stop----
    Ms. Boebert. So, you are going to unconstitutionally 
continue with these rulemakings in the EPA.
    Mr. Regan. We are going to adhere--we are going to adhere 
to the Supreme Court and continue to do our----
    Ms. Boebert. So, which rulemakings are you going to roll 
back?
    Mr. Regan. We are going to adhere to the Supreme Court and 
continue to do our work in accordance to the Supreme Court. The 
Supreme Court made a ruling.
    Ms. Boebert. And which ones are you going to repeal?
    Mr. Regan. The Supreme Court didn't tell us to repeal 
anything.
    Ms. Boebert. They have been deemed unconstitutional.
    Mr. Regan. No.
    Ms. Boebert. Absolutely, they have. This was a huge 
victory. And, you know, I mean, even in our appropriations bill 
in the House this year, the funding has been reduced by 20 
percent. I would argue that it needs to be reduced by 100 
percent.
    But in this, it is because of these radical Green New Deal 
policies that jeopardize domestic energy development and 
overload America's power grid and raise costs on American 
consumers and businesses.
    So, with the EPA and these overreaching regulations, do you 
have any intent on working with the House majority to lower 
energy costs and produce more reliable and affordable energy?
    Mr. Regan. If you look at our rule, we are producing 
reliable, affordable, diverse----
    Ms. Boebert. I think Americans' wallets would disagree with 
that. I mean, the Biden Administration, if they continue under 
Obama's administrative policies, this regulatory pace for a 
full 8 years, the cumulative costs of this Administration's 
rulemakings would exceed $60,000 per household. And as you 
know, the Biden Administration reversed President Trump's 
successful deregulation by executive order. So, the Biden 
regime is on pace of increasing regulatory costs at a rate of 
$617 billion per year in just rulemaking, rulemaking that we 
are seeing is unconstitutional.
    Mr. Regan. This is shocking. You spent so much time with 
our regional staff and our regional administration at Region 8 
and have such productive conversations about how we are doing 
things for your district and your state, and then you take this 
microphone and you pretend----
    Ms. Boebert. I have also seen----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. And pretend that we should not 
exist----
    Ms. Boebert [continuing]. The coal plants that have been 
decommissioned in my state.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. So, 100 percent we should not 
exist?
    Ms. Boebert. I have seen the energy regulations that have 
regulated my district into poverty. So, sir----
    Mr. Regan. You spent time with my staff in your district--
--
    Ms. Boebert. Of course, I am. I have oversight over your 
staff, and I want them to answer.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Complimenting them----
    Ms. Boebert. I want them to provide a service for the 
American people.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Complimenting them about their 
partnerships.
    Ms. Boebert. But there is so much--yes, there are some 
things that have been done well, but not everything.
    Mr. Regan. But we should be 100 percent removed?
    Ms. Boebert. When we have $617 billion per year in 
rulemaking, that is absolutely absurd. When you are taking our 
affordable clean energy and regulating it out of existence and 
killing these good-paying jobs in my district, yes, I have a 
problem with that.
    Mr. Regan. Sure, yes.
    Ms. Boebert. My time has expired, and I yield.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, I think that was 46 seconds over, 
so we will take that.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Raskin, if we are going to start timing 
people over, then you are going to have to start editing your 
comments on your opening statements and everything else, but I 
will do that.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly.
    Chairman Comer. All right. The Chair recognizes Mr. Goldman 
from New York.
    Mr. Goldman. Wow. Mr. Regan, I do not want to spend too 
much time on this, but I would just like to clarify a few 
things for my colleague from Colorado.
    The Loper Bright ruling, as you know, said that the courts 
should not defer to agency rulemaking if a statute is ambiguous 
and, instead, the courts get to determine whether or not what 
the statute means.
    Is that your understanding as well?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. So, that would not require any regulations 
to be reversed or overturned, correct?
    Mr. Regan. Correct.
    Mr. Goldman. But I do want to talk about that case, because 
it is an incredible power grab for the judiciary, and I want to 
go through a couple of things with you.
    I am going to take as one example a recent rule that the 
EPA implemented and finalized in March, the greenhouse gas 
emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles, which is--I think 
you have put it as the strongest national greenhouse gas 
standard for heavy-duty vehicles in history, and one that would 
have a significant impact on my district, one of the most 
densely populated districts in the country, where there is a 
lot of last mile delivery facilities and operations that create 
a tremendous amount of greenhouse gases.
    Can you just very briefly, just for timing's sake, explain 
the process that the EPA goes through to--and what kind of 
expert analysis is used to final--and what kind of input is 
implemented to finalize a rule like this?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, we have some of the world's best 
engineers and scientists who focus on these rules, and 
typically, and especially in our Ann Arbor laboratory, our 
world-renowned laboratory, we invite in all of our 
stakeholders, all of the industry, the best manufacturers, the 
best engineers and scientists, and we go through simulations 
and really look at what would happen in the real world if we 
were to pursue some of these regulations.
    So, we take our scientists, match them with the world's 
best scientists on the private sector side, and then we look at 
how we can build on the regulations that preceded the one that 
we are about to put in place.
    But we also look at a cost-benefit analysis, and we look at 
penetration rates. We look at the market, and we best determine 
how can we put the best technology on the road that keeps this 
country globally competitive and also reduce the pollution that 
we are aiming for.
    Mr. Goldman. That is--thank you for the explanation--quite 
a in depth and detailed, lengthy process involving the world's 
greatest experts.
    In that room with the world's greatest experts and the EPA 
experts, are there any Federal judges?
    Mr. Regan. No.
    Mr. Goldman. So, what the Supreme Court just did, am I 
correct, is say that the experts should not get any deference 
in how they implement the rulemaking process but that the 
nonexperts in the judiciary are the ones who get to do that? Is 
that your understanding?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I will be careful in commenting on this 
ruling, but what I can say is the experts that are in the room 
and myself and the CEOs that are in the room that are making 
these decisions, this new case seems to take that away from us 
and gives it to the court.
    Mr. Goldman. Exactly. A complete power grab that was led 
for many years, decades, by the Koch brothers, who have spent 
tens of millions of dollars in trying to overturn this Chevron 
doctrine in order to benefit their oil and gas and other 
industries that harm the environment.
    And you know what is interesting about this case, this 
Loper Bright case, is that Clarence Thomas did not recuse 
himself. He ruled on it. And yet, Clarence Thomas took free 
private flights, paid for by the Koch brothers, went to their 
events, raised money for them. This is all documented.
    And then after that, in 2020, Clarence Thomas just 
completely reversed his view of this Chevron doctrine. Funny. 
Convenient. And yet, he is ruling on this case.
    And what is going to happen is that this Trump Project 
2025, just like Ms. Boebert said, is going to try to eliminate 
all environmental regulations. Donald Trump has offered to do 
that for the oil and gas company if their industry leaders can 
provide him with $1 billion to help in his campaign. But now 
that he has absolute immunity, if he becomes President, he 
cannot get charged for that obvious criminal public corruption 
violation. And so, he is going to try to implement Project 
2025, eliminate the EPA, eliminate climate change from all 
regulations, eliminate the experts at the EPA and other 
agencies and put in his political lackeys, and then get to go 
to Clarence Thomas to determine whether or not what the 
executive agencies decided makes any sense.
    This is the destruction of our democracy.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back, ate up Mr. 
Raskin's 45 seconds.
    But the Chair now recognizes Ms. Greene from Georgia.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Americans have been enslaved in $34.8 trillion in debt, and 
one of the reasons is because of the reckless spending of the 
Biden Administration, all due to climate cultist beliefs that 
they have got to regulate and spend hard-earned tax dollars in 
order to control the climate.
    The Biden Administration's cumulative new regulatory costs 
imposed surpass all of his predecessors. According to analysis 
of the Administration's own published cost estimates, as of May 
17, 2024, the Administration had already imposed 1.6 trillion 
in new regulatory costs. That 1.6 trillion is almost the entire 
budget for 1 year for the Federal Government. These costs are 
several times higher than the costs imposed during the entire 8 
years of the Obama Administration, and they are over 1.7 
trillion greater than those imposed during the Trump 
Administration.
    As of May 2024, the EPA had on its own imposed 1.3 trillion 
of the Biden Administration's total new regulatory costs, over 
80 percent. An estimated 870 billion of these costs are 
attributable to the EPA's light-and medium-duty EV rule. But 
even the remaining 400-plus billion in new costs are 
substantially equivalent to all new regulatory costs imposed 
through the Obama Administration.
    Mr. Regan, you unveiled a new rule this year, a climate 
regulation. The rule is designed to ensure that the majority of 
new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States 
are all electric or hybrids by 2032. That is approximately 8 
years from now. This is an absurd regulation on tailpipe 
emissions limits imposed by the EPA.
    Inflation is so high right now, so high. Many Americans are 
not able to even buy a new car right now. They are not able to 
buy a home. They can hardly afford their rent. I know many 
senior citizens in my district are having to choose between 
rent and being able to pay for their medications.
    This is absolutely unreal that this would be a rule imposed 
on Americans to the point where they would have--within 8 
years, are they even going to be able to buy a car? Think about 
that. Think about hardworking families, parents both working, 
with their kids. They are just trying to get through life. And 
this rule that you have imposed is going to force them to 
have--because of the tailpipe emissions--have to buy an 
electric vehicle.
    I do not think many Americans are going to be able to do 
that, and it is going to drastically, drastically crush 
Americans who, by the way, pay your paycheck, pay my paycheck, 
pay for this Federal Government. It is outrageous.
    Right now, we have an ``EV euphoria is dead. Automakers are 
scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans.'' 7.6 of 
new cars and trucks sold are electric vehicles, because nobody 
wants them.
    And then let us add on the reality of electric vehicles. 
Electric vehicles add 1,000 pounds or more per vehicle. That 
causes damage to roads, bridges, and parking garages.
    I want you all to imagine for just 1 minute a parking 
garage that has been built to hold the weight of combustion 
engine cars and trucks. And imagine a parking garage filled 
with electric vehicles. It cannot sustain that weight, and 
neither can many roads and bridges.
    Electric vehicles are too heavy. There is 2,000 pounds in 1 
ton. The Delaware Bridge, for example, has a weight limit of 3 
tons. So, there is several EVs on the market right now that 
already exceed that limit for that bridge, for that one bridge. 
One of the electric vehicles exceeds the limit, the weight 
limit for that bridge. Tesla Model X, Audi e-tron, BMW, e-
Hummer, and Rivian, some of these electric vehicles exceed 
8,000-pound limits on some of these roads.
    Because of the rules that you are imposing, this is going 
to crush Americans' ability to even be able to afford a car and 
send us back into the time before people could afford cars, and 
I cannot even imagine that.
    In Georgia alone, we had the electric vehicle car Rivian. 
They are now delaying construction of a $5 billion factory in 
Georgia.
    This is a complete catastrophe, Mr. Regan. It is a complete 
catastrophe, and it needs to be undone. The EPA regulations are 
unsustainable for Americans. And believe me, Republicans want 
clean air and water too, but the climate cult has got to end.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you, lady from Georgia.
    Now the Chair recognizes our energy expert, Mr. Fallon from 
Texas.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Listen, I do not want to plow our fields that have already 
been tilled, Mr. Regan, so I am going to keep things simple. I 
want to start with just speaking with you, having an exchange 
philosophically.
    You would agree that we--and this is real basic stuff. You 
would agree we live in a representative republic, correct?
    Mr. Regan. I am sorry?
    Mr. Fallon. We live in a representative republic----
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon [continuing]. Philosophically?
    I agree with you. So, which do you believe, given a binary 
choice, should have more legal weight and be held in higher 
regard, choices A and B? A, laws passed by Congress, the folks 
that are elected by the people, and then signed by the 
President. So, that is choice A. Or, B, a rule imposed by 
unelected bureaucrats. What do you think should have more legal 
weight and held in high regard, A or B?
    Mr. Regan. I like the system that we have.
    Mr. Fallon. So, do you want to answer, A or B?
    Mr. Regan. Congress writes the laws, the President signs it 
in, and we implement them.
    Mr. Fallon. So, you agree then that a law should have more 
weight than a rule?
    Mr. Regan. I am sorry?
    Mr. Fallon. You would agree then that a law should have 
more weight than a rule, have more legal standing?
    Mr. Regan. The rules are designed under the auspice of the 
law.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So, we are not going to get an answer.
    So, you know, I think it is obvious----
    Mr. Regan. That is not binary.
    Mr. Fallon. Well, I think it is obvious that we are a--if 
we are not a rule of law Nation and if the rule of law does not 
prevail and the laws of rules prevail, then our Republic is in 
dire jeopardy.
    Administrator, the EPA under your direction, would you 
describe it as--do you think that you all have shown restraint 
and balance or have you repeatedly seriously overreached?
    Mr. Regan. No, I think we have shown balance and an 
aggressive approach to tackling some of the biggest challenges 
that our country faces.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So, you have shown--in your opinion, you 
have shown restraint and balance.
    What I find interesting about that is that under your 
tutelage, the EPA has imposed $1.6 trillion of new Federal 
regulatory costs, and those are estimates that your own 
department has published. The prior Administration cut costs by 
$160 billion. And this is what I find even more interesting. In 
the EPA, these regulatory costs--there is one agency in less 
than 4 years has imposed more costs than the entire Federal 
Government did under the 8 years of, of all things, the Obama 
Administration.
    So, again, changing gears, keeping things simple, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, which leads me, and I am sure 
many others, to presume that your job is to protect the 
environment.
    Mr. Regan. And public health.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. I looked up what environment--the 
definition, and it says, complex of physical, chemical, and 
biotic factors, such as climate, soil, living things--makes 
sense--that act upon an organism or an ecological community.
    OK. So, I am troubled when--and I did watch the exchange. I 
was not here, but I was up in my office, and I watched the 
exchange between you and, at the time, Chair Mace, where she 
was talking to you about an outfit called the Climate Justice 
Alliance.
    And, of course, I think that $50 million is a lot of money, 
and it does not have anything whatsoever to do with protecting 
the environment, Free Palestine, Defund the Police, those 
certain things. And you said, when she asked her--you said and 
insisted under oath that they had not received a penny from the 
EPA. Is that correct?
    Mr. Regan. That is correct.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. But when I heard you and when I heard her, 
the exchange, it seemed to me you were saying they have not yet 
received a penny. And then she asked you--and I would like to 
give you the opportunity now to clarify because I was very 
interested in the response. She asked you to commit right now 
to guaranteeing that, while you are the EPA Administrator, that 
they will never receive a penny.
    Mr. Regan. And I appreciate you giving me the opportunity 
to say, because of some of the things that were said that I 
think we all agree are offensive, I have to legally go through 
a process to ensure that they either are in or out of the 
bounds. Because there is going to be litigation one way or 
another. And so, what I said was--she did not give me the time, 
so I am glad you are--they have not received any money yet. 
They are going through a very thorough evaluation.
    Mr. Fallon. Thorough, like the things--when administrators 
say robust, I get scared.
    Mr. Regan. And we have yet to make that decision.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So, you cannot guarantee us that that kind 
of an outfit, the Climate Justice Alliance, which has nothing 
to do with protecting the environment but everything to do with 
protecting far leftist political fortunes, may actually get 
that $50 million?
    Mr. Regan. Well, listen, I do not want to get into the 
hypotheticals, but----
    Mr. Fallon. Can you answer--we only have 10 seconds left--
that you would agree that you would not like to see an outfit 
like the Climate Justice Alliance get any money? Can you even 
at least go that far?
    Mr. Regan. I would not like to see any organization----
    Mr. Fallon. Including Climate Justice Alliance?
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. That expresses bigotry or any kind 
of racist behavior or discrimination, I would not like to see 
any organization get any money from the Federal Government. It 
is abhorrent.
    Mr. Fallon. So, can we work together in making sure they do 
not get any money? You have got a whole line of people behind 
you, like 14 I think is what I counted.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. That would be awesome.
    Mr. Regan. We have got a lot--I have got a lot of people 
behind me. I have got my general counsel. I have got the 
program looking into the options that I have----
    Mr. Fallon. I hope we all work together as a team, because 
it is a----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. To not give that grant.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fry from South Carolina.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator, thank you for being here.
    I want to begin with an item of great importance, at least 
to the people of South Carolina in the Pee Dee region. As you 
may know, Galey and Lord--about the Galey and Lord Plant site 
which sits along the Cedar Creek and the Great Pee Dee River in 
Society Hill, South Carolina. It was abandoned in 2016.
    Mr. Administrator, Galey and Lord is a former textile plant 
that began operations in 1966. PFOS, dyes, and heavy metals 
have since contaminated the soils, the wetlands around the 
site, the waterways around the plant. Hurricane Florence most 
recently also caused a release of wastewater to nearby Cedar 
Creek into the Great Pee Dee River in 2018, further posing 
damage to my constituents.
    After a voluntary cleanup contract was terminated in 2017, 
it took the EPA 2 additional years to remove the site's 2,400 
abandoned containers, including 100,000 gallons and 53,000 
pounds of liquid waste. Galey and Lord was finally added to the 
EPA's Superfund National Priorities List in March 2022.
    Still, I have serious concerns about the timeliness of 
EPA's actions in Society Hill. After visiting Society Hill just 
last week, I have difficulty believing that tangible steps have 
been taken to address the issue.
    Administrator, I understand the site's remedial 
investigation and feasibility study was made possible after 
this priority listing in 2022. Can you describe this 
investigation and any subsequent actions the EPA has taken 
since that time?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. I can say that we are working very 
aggressively to--you know, it is on the Superfund priority 
site. And the ultimate goal that we share is to make this 
economically viable, a commercial industrial property in the 
community again. Fuel sampling is anticipated to begin later 
this year. I think that we have more resources due to the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, that $5 billion focused on 
Superfund and brownfields. So, we have more resources. This is 
a priority, and I think that you will see us moving much 
quicker than we have in the past.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you.
    What is the timeline or estimated completion date that you 
believe exists?
    Mr. Regan. Let me get you that. I do not have that timeline 
in front of me, but I do not mind being transparent and sharing 
that with you.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. I do appreciate that.
    How do you suggest the small town of Society Hill--they 
have got about a thousand residents. How do you suggest that 
they would deal with this over the course of such a long period 
of time?
    Mr. Regan. Listen, it is tough. We have seen this all 
across the country. It is unfair. It is a burden. It lowers 
morale. It lowers property values. And so, we understand the 
sense of urgency that we need to take. And, you know, the hard 
part is living with this before it is listed on the NPL list or 
it is listed. Once it is listed, it moves much quicker. It is 
going to move even quicker because we have the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law resources. So, it is a weight on the 
community, and we are very sensitive to that.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
    And just curious. I mean, I had the opportunity last week 
to visit it. I mean, it just looks like a war zone. I mean, the 
plants have burned twice. I think it is twice. Maybe even more. 
There are giant holes in the sides of the buildings. it is 
completely overgrown. People come to peel off scrap metal and 
steal from it.
    Are there logistical concerns that pose a delay to the 
timeframe of cleaning up this site and returning it back to its 
natural state?
    Mr. Regan. I do not think there are any logistical 
concerns. I will say that I share the concerns that you have 
just laid out, which is trespassing and theft and other things. 
I think we are looking into some fencing and some other things 
that we can do to prevent people from coming onsite, maybe even 
some beautification while we are doing the work.
    So, my folks have committed to me that they are focused on 
this as a high priority, and, you know, I am hoping we can stay 
in touch on this.
    Mr. Fry. Well, and I appreciate that. Happy to be a willing 
partner with you all. This is of great importance to that part 
of the region in my state.
    Do you--with respect to the security around it, the 
fencing, other things that may occur, is that something that 
the EPA would be funding, or is that something that the 
property owner itself or other entities would be contributing 
to?
    Mr. Regan. That is something that, more than likely to 
expedite the timeframe, EPA could fund and then get the funds 
back from the polluter or the perpetrator.
    Mr. Fry. What do you expect--just curious. Out of pure 
curiosity, Administrator, what do you expect the cost of that 
to be? What is the anticipated cost of cleanup of that site?
    Mr. Regan. I have no idea. I mean, I would be purely 
guessing if I threw out a number.
    Mr. Fry. OK. What is it--what do you see in other sites 
around the country, the cost range, if you will? Like between a 
million and a hundred million, something like that, or what do 
you----
    Mr. Regan. I will tell you what, we will get those to you 
really quickly.
    Mr. Fry. OK. Looking forward to partnering with you.
    Mr. Regan. And the reason that is is that they range. You 
know, these sites, they range in size. They range in 
contamination. They range in the depth of the contamination. 
So, that is a pretty hard question to answer without exactly 
knowing what your site looks like.
    Mr. Fry. Would love to work with you on that. I think it is 
of great importance. A lot of people are very frustrated, not 
necessarily with the EPA, but just with the site itself out 
there.
    Mr. Regan. Sure.
    Mr. Fry. So, to the extent that we could expedite it and we 
can get that place cleaned up, it is a beautiful part of the 
state. They have got tremendous natural resources and would 
love to see it returned back to its natural state.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Langworthy from New York.
    Mr. Langworthy. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the Administrator being here with us here today.
    And I would like to discuss the EPA's recent final rule 
entitled, ``Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, 
and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing 
Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review.''
    It is no secret that the final rule will have a severe 
impact on more than 700,000 marginal oil and gas wells 
throughout the United States, including wells operated by small 
scale operators in my own district in the southern tier of New 
York.
    Administrator, prior rules acknowledge the need for 
accommodations for marginal wells. This rule should have done 
the same. Did EPA consider the vast differences between a 
marginal well operation and high-volume well operations when 
crafting this rule?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, we did.
    Mr. Langworthy. OK. And now under this rule, the EPA is 
providing no more than a 36-month regulatory compliance 
timeline for the oil and gas operators.
    Administrator Regan, you know as well as I do that the 
small scale, family owned marginal well operators will be 
seriously stretched in their ability to meet the new tranche of 
requirements that your agency is meting out for them under this 
requirement. Have you considered extending the timeline to at 
least accommodate the smaller well operators who, as you know, 
operate with fewer resources at their disposal?
    Mr. Regan. I believe that has been up for discussion, and 
we will circle with you to see where that conversation lands.
    Mr. Langworthy. OK. That would be very helpful.
    Look, I have had some very frank conversations with the oil 
and gas operators in my district, and these are all on the 
smaller scale, often family owned operations, and they provide 
crucial employment and economic activity in the southern tier, 
as well as contribute to our Nation's energy needs.
    Twenty years ago, the Federal and state regulatory burden 
facing these operators could fit in a small packet of paper. 
Today, it is practically a phone book. Much of what the EPA has 
done under this and former administrators to hamstring our 
energy producers, this rulemaking is unacceptable.
    But I want to shift topics and briefly discuss EPA's recent 
greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles, the 
phase 3 final rule. Heavy vehicles included in this rule serve 
dual purposes through the winter season in the Northeast. Many 
snowplows fall under this. In fact, it was the New York City 
Department of Sanitation who purchased several electric trucks 
to serve double duty as garbage trucks and snow removal plows, 
and the result is that they were removed from the street very 
quickly.
    The Commissioner of the New York City Department of 
Sanitation said during a city council hearing in November 2022 
that we need them to go 12 hours a day, so I do not see today, 
given the current state of technology, a path forward to fully 
electrifying the rear loader portion of the fleet by 2040.
    Administrator, New York City's electric snowplow experiment 
failed, yet the EPA has continued to enforce several rules for 
vehicles that serve as snowplows in the winter. How do you 
expect plow operators in a place like Buffalo, New York, to 
remove 8 feet of snow during our next major disaster if 
electric snowplows cannot last more than 3 hours with a foot of 
snow?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think that we have taken into 
consideration when and where and how these vehicles perform the 
best. And I think as these technologies continue to evolve, we 
will see these technologies expand in areas that, quite 
frankly, they are seeing some challenges now.
    When we looked at this rule nationally and we looked at the 
opportunities and talked with the OEMs, they gave us assurances 
that these vehicles could perform for their customers, which is 
why many of them stood with us when we issued the rule.
    Mr. Langworthy. You are using a technological wish list 
that does not exist. And severe weather places like what I 
represent in Buffalo, New York, and surrounding areas have much 
higher snowfalls than others. And to meet these guidelines is 
just completely unrealistic given today's technology.
    I am running out of time, so I am going to finish by saying 
this: the EPA has claimed over and over that its policies are 
in line with the original bipartisan mission of the Agency; 
however, I do not believe that could be further from the truth.
    Under the direction of your department, Administrator, you 
have cost the American people trillions of dollars, you have 
hurt small businesses, and you have put the lives of millions 
of Americans in jeopardy all in the name of climate virtue 
signaling. And we see it with the onslaught of regulations that 
have been handed down, affecting everyone from oil and gas 
operators to, you know, small-and medium-size communities just 
looking to remove snow from their streets to keep their public 
safe.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues on this 
Committee to continue to push for greater accountability for 
these absurd policy priorities of your agency.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    And I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. I have not asked 
my questions yet.
    Administrator, every sector of our economy relies on access 
to affordable and reliable power supplies, and electricity 
demand is expected to only increase over time. You agree with 
that. Electricity demand is going to increase.
    Unfortunately, recent actions taken by the Biden 
Administration cast doubt on the future of electricity supplies 
that we often take for granted. EPA's Clean Power 2.0 would set 
even more stringent emission standards for existing coal and 
NGCC, natural gas-fired power plants. However, the final rule 
hinges on the rapid adoption of carbon capture and storage 
technology, or CCS, and hydrogen co-firing.
    Many believe the EPA's plan and deadlines are simply 
unachievable. I think everyone on our side has made reference 
to that. It is fair to ask whether EPA's true aim is simply to 
kill off coal-fired generation without regard to utilities' 
ability to replace its baseload resource. It is also fair to 
ask whether EPA is acting without regard to state environmental 
regulators while developing compliance plans and permitting 
programs.
    On June 21, 2023, this Committee launched an investigation 
into Clean Power Plant 2.0. In documents provided to the 
Committee and subsequently made available to the public, we 
discovered Agency comments suggesting that--the Administration, 
you--CCS and hydrogen co-firing have not been adequately 
demonstrated and, therefore, the proposed rule would violate 
the Clean Air Act.
    Despite this knowledge, the Biden Administration issued a 
rule that it not only knew had serious legal flaws but would 
also impose nearly impossible-to-meet standards on 60 percent 
of our Nation's electricity generation.
    Now I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a Wall 
Street Journal editorial detailing the findings of this 
Committee's investigation and the Agency comments on the rule.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. While the majority of the Nation's overall 
electricity is produced via coal and natural gas, this 
percentage is even higher for states like Kentucky, my home 
state, where over 90 percent of our electricity comes from 
fossil fuel-fired power generation.
    Administrator Regan, if over 90 percent of Kentucky's power 
producers are forced to adopt technologies like CCS or hydrogen 
co-firing, how would this impact the price and reliability of 
electricities for consumers in states like Kentucky?
    Mr. Regan. Well, Chairman, first of all, I would like to 
say that as a former state regulator who had to design these 
state implementation plans, we have definitely kept that at top 
of mind. There is flexibility in this program that the states 
and we will take advantage of to make sure that the states can 
meet this goal.
    I have spent time in states like Wyoming with Governor 
Gordon or North Dakota----
    Chairman Comer. Let me finish with my questions.
    Estimates have shown that the compliance costs associated 
with this rule would be upwards of $10 billion. Now, this is a 
significant amount considering the pressures already facing the 
power structure.
    So, my question, sir, is why is EPA pushing a costly rule 
that will reduce the amount of additional power generation when 
more power generation needs to be brought online to meet 
increasing needs across the country?
    I mean, you said that electricity demand is going to 
increase. If the country adopts you all's goal of more electric 
vehicles, that is going to require more electricity, a growing 
population. I mean, we have got a border that is wide open. 
People are coming in every day. There is going to be more 
demands for electricity. So, why would EPA push this rule if--
take away the costs, but the demand for more energy, and I do 
not believe that is going to achieve that.
    Mr. Regan. We think it can. And with that demand, we think 
we will get more cleaner energy. And listen----
    Chairman Comer. Where is it going to come from?
    Mr. Regan. I have been to Wyoming. I have been to North 
Dakota, spent time with Governor Burgum. I have been to Wyoming 
and spent time with Governor Gordon. They are doing it. There 
is a facility in Texas, Petra Nova, that is doing it. So, the--
--
    Chairman Comer. Are you concerned with the blackouts in 
California, states that are growing? Or I do not know if 
California is growing. There is a lot of people in California, 
a lot more people in California than Wyoming and North Dakota. 
Seems like the states like California are the ones that are 
most at risk. And then with your new rules, it puts states like 
Kentucky at risk.
    Mr. Regan. We have thoroughly--along with DOE and FERC and 
others, we have thoroughly evaluated the reliability. We are 
talking about between now and 2031, 2032. We believe that we 
can make this transition, get it done, even with the new 
demands that are on the system.
    By the way, DOE is investing tons of money into our grid to 
make it smarter and more resilient. We have got an infusion of 
dollars from BIL and IRA that would make our energy system much 
stronger.
    Chairman Comer. And I appreciate that, but I have been 
asked by all my electric cooperatives in Kentucky--these are 
not privately owned. These are cooperatives. Every single 
cooperative in Kentucky is screaming at the top of their lungs 
about your new proposals. They fear Kentucky is not going to be 
able to comply. They fear that Kentucky--the energy rates, if 
we eliminate fossil fuels, which is--90 percent of the 
electricity in Kentucky is generated by fossil fuels. The cost 
to consumers is going to be outrageous, and people who are 
struggling now because of inflation are only going to have to 
pay more for their utility bills.
    So, I want to express that concern to you on behalf of all 
my electric cooperatives in Kentucky.
    My time has expired.
    Mr. Regan. Chairman, can I offer----
    Chairman Comer. Yes. Go ahead, please.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. For the electric co-ops? I have a 
great respect for electric co-ops. I would love to have the 
leadership of that co-op in Kentucky come in and----
    Chairman Comer. They would love to talk to you. We will 
make that happen.
    Mr. Regan. OK. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. It does not appear we have any more 
questioners.
    So, in closing, I want to thank you, Administrator Regan, 
for appearing here today and for your testimony.
    I now yield to Ranking Member Raskin for closing remarks.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just want to make three points in closing. The first is 
that Americans want the EPA to be doing more to stop climate 
change, not less. And yet we heard from a number of our 
colleagues on the GOP side today, as well as from Project 2025, 
that EPA's rules are hurting Americans. But that is not the 
perspective most Americans have. Most Americans want the EPA to 
be doing more.
    We have a philosophical difference or a scientific 
difference. We believe that climate change is real and is a 
dagger pointed at the throat of humanity. And too many of our 
colleagues agree with the erudite gentlelady from Georgia who 
calls climate scientists, and most Americans by extension, 
climate cultists. We heard it twice from her today.
    Well, if there are brainwashed cultists on the issue, it is 
the people who are following the conspiracy theories of QAnon 
and assert that scientists like Dr. Fauci are trying to invent 
diseases. That is where the cultists come in.
    Secondly, a number of our colleagues wanted to lecture you, 
Administrator Regan, about the role of agencies which are, of 
course, indispensable in implementing the will of Congress. 
That is why Congress set up the EPA. That is why Congress set 
up the National Labor Relations Board. That is why Congress set 
up the Department of Justice. And our colleagues have no 
problem using those agencies to get the things done they want 
to do. If you read their Project 2025, they want the President 
of the United States to be able to use the Department of 
Justice for the first time in American history to go after his 
political opponent----
    Chairman Comer. Oh.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. And to--well, if you disagree with 
that, then I am delighted to hear it, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Which Department of Justice is going after 
political opponents? The Merrick Garland Department of Justice 
or the----
    Mr. Raskin. Well, let us see, there is a case right now 
against a Democratic Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez. 
There is a case right now against a Democratic Congressman from 
Texas.
    Chairman Comer. I see a pattern with Democrats.
    Mr. Raskin. And--well, wait a second. Do not be too clever. 
You are a smart man. But try to follow a principled argument. 
You just claimed that the Department of Justice was somehow 
biased against Republicans, and I am naming you cases where the 
DOJ is going after Democrats. Your problem is the jury system 
in New York which found unanimously that Donald Trump was 
guilty of 34 criminal felonies. That has got nothing to do with 
the Department of Justice.
    Chairman Comer. Well, when the Department of Justice sends 
the No. 3 guy down there to prosecute the case on behalf of 
the----
    Mr. Raskin. Which case are you referring to?
    Chairman Comer. The Trump case that you just referred to.
    Mr. Raskin. You are talking about the one, the district 
attorney--District Attorney Bragg's case in New York?
    Chairman Comer. The No. 3 guy went down to New York.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. All right. We will have to take that up at 
another point, but I am talking to you about what President 
Trump--former President Trump says he wants to do. And if you 
think it is outrageous, then I am delighted to hear it, that he 
would use the Department of Justice----
    Chairman Comer. No. I just thought it was--the part that 
was outrageous, you say the Department of Justice under Trump 
was going to be weaponized, when we believe that this 
Department of Justice has been pretty darn weaponized.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, what is the proof of that? I just named 
you three cases where the Department of Justice is going after 
Democrats. And, I mean, that is a very serious slur against the 
Department of Justice and the Attorney General.
    Chairman Comer. I stand by that.
    Mr. Raskin. You stand by your slur then. Well, I would love 
us to have a complete hearing then on whether or not it is 
true, because I think it is wrong. And, in fact, really, it is 
just setting the stage for Donald Trump to try to use the 
Department of Justice as an instrument of persecution against 
his political opponents, real or imagined.
    Chairman Comer. We do not know if Donald Trump is going to 
be President or not. Are you throwing in the towel, Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No, no. I--well, I certainly hope he does not 
try to steal the election the way he did last time, and I 
hope----
    Chairman Comer. So, you are in denial, Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Oh, no, no. I do not deny it. I affirmed it. 
Joe Biden beat him by more than 7 million votes, 306 to 232 in 
the electoral college. We know that happened. And yet I hope 
you are not an insurrection denier, because you were there with 
me that day when they came in chanting, ``Hang Mike Pence.'' Do 
you remember that?
    Chairman Comer. I remember September--January the 6.
    Mr. Raskin. Do you remember them chanting ``Hang Mike 
Pence''----
    Chairman Comer. I voted to certify.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Them trying to overthrow the 
election?
    Chairman Comer. Unlike you, I have never not voted to 
certify an election.
    Mr. Raskin. I am sorry?
    Chairman Comer. Did you not vote to not certify the 2016 
election?
    Mr. Raskin. The 2016 election? I simply spoke against 
irregularities.
    Chairman Comer. Ah.
    Mr. Raskin. I did not try to overthrow the Government of 
the United States. I did not try to get the Vice President not 
to do his job, and I did not even go to a Senator.
    But in any case----
    Chairman Comer. I have always voted to certify elections. I 
just want to state that for the record.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. So, then you would agree then that Donald 
Trump lost the 2020 election?
    Chairman Comer. I voted to certify the election. I have 
said that a million times. When the 50 states----
    Mr. Raskin. Did you say once that Donald Trump lost the 
election?
    Chairman Comer. I have said that. When the 50 states 
certified the election, the election was over. Now, we have 
gone over----
    Mr. Raskin. No, I do not mind the diversion, Mr. Chairman.
    But let me just say this. On the question of the agencies 
in America, let us be clear about what the Supreme Court did. 
What the Supreme Court said was, of course the agencies can 
adopt rules and regulations. My friend from Colorado was really 
mistaken about that. The agencies, even under their terrible 
ruling, can continue to adopt and promulgate regulations and 
rules under the notice and comment process we have.
    But the Supreme Court then in this amazing power grab 
irrigated to itself the power to determine whether or not an 
ambiguous or silent statute should be interpreted this way or 
that. So, it was a political power grab by the Court. That is 
all that they did.
    But Mr. Regan is doing his job. The EPA is doing its job. 
The NLRB is doing its job. The Department of Justice is doing 
the job. They have got to adopt rules that Congress told them 
to. So, that was a power grab by the Court against the Congress 
of the United States.
    Now, what is interesting about Chevron is that that was a 
6-0 decision that the conservatives supported because it was 
giving Reagan Administration-era agency bureaucrats the right 
to revisit the way that statutes were being interpreted from 
the 1970's. They pushed for it then. Now they are saying they 
do not want the agencies to have that power.
    In any event, the people of America want you to have the 
power to have muscular enforcement of our rules for clean air, 
clean water, and clean climate.
    I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    I will agree that the American people want clean air and 
clean water, and I think that is why we have an EPA. That is 
the role of the EPA, to ensure that we have clean air and clean 
water. And the role of the EPA is to ensure that if there are 
bad actors, people who pollute the water or pollute the air, 
then they are to be held accountable.
    The problem that we have with the EPA, on our side of the 
aisle, and the problem that many industries in America have 
with the EPA is we believe the EPA has overstepped its bounds. 
We believe that many of the people in the EPA, career-type 
people in the EPA, are interpreting the laws that Congress 
passes in the way they want to interpret the law as opposed to 
the way Congress intends for the law to be interpreted.
    We fear that maybe the heart--your heart is in the right 
place on a lot of things, but you do not take into 
consideration the costs. We have a problem in this country. And 
the No. 1 issue in this election--I think prior to the debate, 
the No. 1 issue in this election is inflation. And a lot of the 
laws and a lot of the rules that we believe EPA is 
misinterpreting are having a significant cost on everyday 
average working Americans.
    If you look at what Mr. Burlison and I mentioned with 
respect to wastewater with meat processing plants, our 
processors, and our farmers. So, it is going to have a 
significant impact on the cost of food. And we are talking 
about Chicken McNuggets at McDonald's. We are talking about 
chicken at Chick-Fil-A, and things like that, that average 
working-class Americans go through the drive-thru after work 
and----
    Mr. Raskin. Chairman, forgive me. Do you know what the cost 
of 10-piece Chicken McNuggets is today?
    Chairman Comer. Well, I buy a lot of Chicken McNugget 
meals.
    Mr. Raskin. It is under $5. It is $4.49 at the closest one 
you can get here. I mean, and Impossible Nuggets are even less.
    Chairman Comer. So, there is no inflation at McDonald's, 
Mr. Raskin. And I would say I spend more money at McDonald's 
than any person in Congress, and I will stand by that. I will 
testify under oath. My three kids----
    Mr. Raskin. Well, we certainly do not mean to bankrupt you 
with our environmental regulations when you go to McDonald's.
    Chairman Comer. I want to share a story, Mr. Regan. Before 
I came to Congress--I have been in Congress 8 years--I was 
Commissioner of Agriculture in Kentucky. I am a farmer by 
trade. And one of the first meetings I had, Federal-type 
meetings I had when I was Commissioner of Agriculture, Gary 
Black was Commissioner of Agriculture in Georgia. He was a 
Commissioner at the same time I was Commissioner. Obviously, a 
good buddy of mine.
    He convened a meeting with all the ag commissioners that 
were in District 4, in Atlanta. We went to Atlanta. And I 
brought a farmer with me, a leader in agriculture in Kentucky. 
His name was Wayne Hunt. And we were talking about some of the 
new proposed rules on water nutrient testing. And we went into 
this meeting--and I am a farmer by trade, and, you know, I had 
no idea what to expect. We went in, and the Administrator at 
that time--and this was under the Obama Administration--for 
District 4 was there. And her, I guess, experts--you mentioned 
world-class experts. There was a room full of people. And we 
were talking about the costs of implementing this.
    We were talking about the fact that if you test water and 
you find nitrogen--you know, excessive levels of nitrogen, let 
us say, that may not be from fertilizer. That could be from 
sewage treatment plants. That could be from fertilizer from 
golf courses that were on. You know, it did not necessarily 
have to assume it was fertilizer from farmers, because it was, 
you know, talk and suggestions to limit the amount of 
fertilizer per acre and things like that which would--you know, 
there is a direct correlation with the fertilizer and crop 
yields and things like that. So, we were trying to explain 
that.
    There was not a single person in that room--and it was a 
room of probably a dozen EPA employees, full-time employees. 
Not a single one of those had ever had any type of agriculture 
background. Not a single one of them had any type of 
environmental science background. In fact, if memory serves me 
right, the Administrator at that time for District 4 was a 
career child prosecutor for the Atlanta DA before she was named 
EPA Administrator. And we asked her, you know, how she got to 
be EPA Administrator, and she said, well, I care about the 
environment. Well, we all care about the environment.
    But we fear on this side of the aisle that there are rules 
being made by people who may not have any idea how that rule 
would affect food production or how that would affect 
inflation, how that would affect the taxpayers. We all want 
clean air and clean water, but we want some common sense used 
in trying to achieve this.
    So, I just want to remind you, Mr. Regan, that your rules 
and regulations impact a lot of people. We support efforts to 
preserve and protect the environment.
    The Ranking Member and many of his colleagues mentioned 
climate change. I do not think a single one of our members 
mentioned climate change until I just said it now.
    We want the EPA to abide by the rules of Congress and not 
take orders from left-wing climate extremists, because that is 
what we fear is happening now.
    So, we want to continue to communicate. We want to work 
with you. We share the same overall objective, a clean 
environment and holding bad actors accountable for polluting 
our streams and our air, but we also have to take into effect 
the costs and the practicality. I mean, we have to have more 
electricity production. We do not believe your rule and your 
objectives are going to achieve that.
    So, thank you for being here today, sir. We appreciate your 
testimony.
    And with that and without objection, all members have 5 
legislative days within which to submit materials and 
additional written questions for the witness which will be 
forwarded to the witness.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:48 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]