EPA 2026 Budget request Senate Hearing

Sen. Murkowski (00:00):

… timely and transparent responses and information. I would expect EPA to abide by the parameters that are outlined in our reprogramming guidelines. And I think as a former member of Congress, you get it. You've been on the frustration end of things as well. So again, ways that we can be working together.

(00:20)
Now, turning our attention to the FY '26 budget proposal, in Alaska, we've seen on-the-ground examples of really good things being done with some of the programs that your budget has substantially reduced or proposed to eliminate. Example, the proposed reduction of the state revolving fund, reducing it from 2.8 billion down to 305 million. This is an 88% reduction. This was one of the ones when I mentioned unserious proposal. This is the one that I'm looking at because it clearly is one of the most essential programs that the agency administers. And you mentioned as part of your justification for cutting this program, that the account has been heavily earmarked, and this is true. The 66 members of the Senate, including 17 Republicans, making it our most bipartisan account who requested congressionally directed spending for the SRF accounts, did so in connection with the states to ensure the funding was going to critical clean water and drinking water projects. Now, I would also note that in FY '25, Congress voted for and the president signed into law a full year CR that keeps the SRF fully funded rather than reducing it by the amount of the CDSs.

(01:34)
I'm going to close my comments here with, I don't know if it's a note of sympathy or just it's an acknowledgement because I get it. You are, I think, 106 days since you were confirmed and sworn in as EPA administrator and for an agency as key and as vital as yours, that's really a short time to get everything up and running from enacting the administration's priorities to establishing a clear working relationship with us here in Congress. We know that you're still getting your team in place because we're trying to move them through our process here and it is slow and you need those folks. You need the members of your team. So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. There's plenty of time for us to figure out what's working, what's not, establish open lines of communication between our teams that will mutually benefit your mission and all those that we work for. So I'm eager to start on that. I thank you for your testimony today, your willingness to answer our questions and just the opportunity to be working with you.

(02:42)
And with that, I turn to Ranking Member Merkley for his comments.

Sen. Merkley (02:47):

Thank you very much, Chair Murkowski, and congratulations on being chair again. You were chair from 2015 through 2020, so you are well seasoned in that world. And one of the things I really appreciate about the appropriations committee and this subcommittee in particular is the bipartisan collaboration. 11 of our 12 appropriation bills went out with, well, massive bipartisan support, most of them unanimously, including the interior bill over several years and we look forward to hoping to replicate that again, I just want to see the work that we do in this committee get taken up on the Senate floor, be worked with the House, and have that whole bipartisan spirit result in a bill that lands in the Oval Office.

(03:36)
Administrator Zeldin, welcome. This is the ordinary business of Congress that we conduct every year, but this year is not ordinary. Article I of the US Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress. And under the US Constitution, the president and executive branch leaders like yourself are required to carry out those spending laws, even if you disagree with them. As former Appropriations Chair Robert Byrd said, The legislative control of the purse is the central pillar, the central pillar upon which the constitutional temple of checks and balances and separation of powers rests. And if that pillar is shaken, the temple will fall. It is central to the liberty, the fundamental liberty of the American people." But this administration, the Trump administration, is striving to topple that central pillar of liberty by seizing the power of the purse. President Trump and OMB director Russell Vought are pursuing a deliberate strategy of impoundments in which they ignore appropriation laws passed by Congress laws not just passed by Congress, but signed by presidents and withhold funding intended for specific agencies and programs. The EPA, the organization that you lead is one of those agencies. It's not the first time that a president has tried to impound funds for the EPA. President Nixon strived to do that in 1973. The Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch could not steal Congress's constitutional power of the purse. In other words, the executive branch must implement the laws signed into law as they are written.

(05:14)
That decision was reaffirmed two decades later in 1998 when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not give the constitutional power of the purse, could not delegate it to the executive branch through a line item veto. Yet under your leadership, Mr. Zeldin, EPA has illegally and unconstitutionally impounded about $24 billion, including 1.7 billion in environmental justice grants that help communities address pollution and transition to clean energy. Historically, we know that low-income communities and communities of color have suffered the most from pollution. That's because when people are powerful, they don't want those plants in their community, so they end up in communities where people are less powerful, where they have the least resistance. And so this funding provides those communities that have those fewer resources, the opportunity to protect themselves from the impacts of pollution.

(06:09)
For instance, in Oregon, a county was awarded $20 million for rural communities like Oak Ridge and Vanita and Cottage Grove to provide shelter during wildfires and severe smoke events, including upgrade of their HVAC systems and backup power, but the funding was impounded. Also impounded was funding for private capital investments to leverage private capital investments for solar installations and efficiency upgrades through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. You may not like those programs, but you are constitutionally obliged to carry out the law as written and you are not doing so. Illegally impounding these funds and others, EPA is refusing to spend in dangerous communities by making it harder to address pollution and climate chaos. If these illegal and unconstitutional impoundments weren't bad enough, your budget proposal makes a bad situation worse. It's scan on details. It denigrates science. It antagonizes federal employees. It undermines the core functions of the agency. A budget is a statement of values and your values are clearly to put the profits of polluters over the interests of the people. Your budget slashes EPA by 54%. It drains 90% of funding from the state revolving funds which support communities in meeting standards for tap water and protecting streams and rivers. As a result that I go to every county every year in Oregon and hold an open town hall, I meet with the community leaders beforehand and almost always they're raising issues of the challenge of providing clean water and wastewater treatment. The cost in small communities per person is extraordinary and these grants have been the salvation for communities as they seek to update infrastructure that is often half a century or more old.

(08:06)
My state knows the benefits of SRF funding. The Confederated Tribes the Grand Ronde used that funding to develop a toxics reduction plan to mitigate toxic pollution in Willamette River Basin. And the city of Umatilla has had to boil water because of water distribution failures and pressure loss with old infrastructure, and they're using this funding to modernize their clean water supply.

(08:28)
Your budget also eviscerates states by eliminating $1 billion in grants for cleanup of waterways, complying with air quality requirements, handling hazardous waste properly, and removing lead from drinking water. Your budget rips a quarter billion dollars out of the Office of Research and Development, which conducts scientific research needed to inform EPA's decisions on questions of environmental and public safety. In my home state, the ORD labs in Corvallis and Newport research how chemical contaminants will harm communities and ecosystems along the Pacific Coast. We are both coming from Pacific Coast states. It's important to us to understand how to protect the water off our shores. Pacific Northwest fisheries are the most productive in the world, the upwelling of nutrients and the California current combine to make them so productive, and therefore, this research is not just critical to the environment, but to the economy and livelihood of multiple stakeholders along our coast.

(09:29)
Perhaps even more troubling, your budget takes aim against your own employees. The so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has already taken a wrecking ball to EPA's professional staff. EPA is firing and pushing out by threat thousands of staff, including scientists and technical specialists whose institutional knowledge is irreplaceable and new staff with nothing but stellar performance reviews. Without adequate staffing, environmental regulations cannot be enforced. Perhaps that is your goal. Without adequate staffing, dangerous pollutants will not be identified. Perhaps that is your objective. Without adequate staffing, Superfund sites will continue to leak toxic chemicals. Perhaps that is your desire.

(10:18)
All of this is happening while EPA carries out a parade of reckless policy actions tearing down bedrock environmental laws, even allowing industry to simply send one email to get waivers from pollution controls that threaten our health and the environment we live in. We need an EPA that upholds the law and upholds the Constitution, is properly funded, is strongly staffed, is empowered to address urgent environmental challenges of our time. I hope to hear today that you're changing course from your reckless and dangerous pursuit in your opening months. The American people expect and deserve nothing less.

Sen. Murkowski (11:00):

Thank you, Senator Merkley. At this time, we will turn to the administrator. It's good to have you before the committee, your first such engagement. So welcome. I think you will find that this appropriations subcommittee is very active, very engaged with great inquiring minds. So welcome Mr. Administrator.

Lee Zeldin (11:21):

Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Merkley and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2026 budget request for the US Environmental Protection Agency.

(11:36)
EPA has wasted no time advancing President Trump's directive to help deliver clean air, land, and water for all Americans while restoring common sense accountability and cooperative federalism to environmental policy. We are fulfilling our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while powering the great American comeback and removing unnecessary barriers that have burdened American families and businesses for far too long.

(12:04)
We hit the ground running. Immediately upon President Trump's inauguration, completing the largest wildfire cleanup in agency history in less than 30 days after the catastrophic Los Angeles wildfires. We are taking bold steps to combat PFAS contamination and have advanced redevelopment at 21 Superfund sites across 13 states, delisting all or parts of four sites from the national priorities list. We've also completed 25 state implementation plans, 16 of which were backlogged from the prior administration.

(12:38)
With this renewed focus and commitment, the EPA is proudly working for the American people. We are revising the definition of waters of the United States to align with the Supreme Court decision in Sackett and have issued immediate actions for Mexico to permanently and urgently end the Tijuana River sewage crisis that has plagued Southern California for decades. Following my trip to St. Louis, we cut nearly two years from the cleanup timeline at the Westlake Superfund site, which has been contaminated by nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project. In fact, to mark the 100th day of the Trump presidency, the EPA released a list of 100 environmental actions we took during those first 100 days, a pace that motivates us to keep up each and every day. Together, these actions reflect the administration's commitment to environmental stewardship, cooperative federalism, and delivering results that make a real difference in people's lives. In lockstep with the president's agenda, EPA is also helping to unleash American energy, pursue permitting reform, make America the AI capital of the world and bring back American auto jobs. We eliminated waste and abuse in areas, like the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, reversed unlawful overreach, like the so-called good neighbor rule, and begun reconsidering many overreaching rules, including the power plant and EV-related regulation that threatens grid reliability, energy affordability and consumer choice. These historic actions will reduce regulatory costs which act as invisible taxes on Americans, making it more affordable now to own a home, heat homes, operate a business and bring manufacturing back to local communities. By reducing the EPA's budget by billions of dollars, the president's FY 2026 budget demands maximum efficiency from the EPA while we continue to fulfill all of our statutory obligations. Also included in the president's proposal is an additional nine million above FY 2025 enacted levels to equip EPA with funds to respond to drinking water disasters. There is also a $27 million increase in funding for tribes to address drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on their lands.

(15:04)
As I've stated in the past, at the Trump EPA, we will not view the status quo as a sacred cow that is untouchable. We will not consider the Biden-era regulations we inherited to be etched in stone, and we absolutely refuse to waste even a penny of tax dollars. Under the President's leadership and with the support of Congress, we will continue to deliver real results with greater accountability and a stronger environmental return on investment per dollar spent. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

Sen. Murkowski (15:35):

Thank you, Mr. Administrator. We will have five-minute rounds in order of arrival and I will begin with my first five minutes. And again, appreciate the opportunity that you and I have had to discuss some of the particular issues. I'd like to ensure that we continue that very direct engagement not only between us, but also with our staffs. We've had a conversation about transparency, partnership and responsiveness. And again, I think you come to this position really from a good place because you've sat in our seats here so to speak, when you have asked questions of an agency and you get frustrated because you're not able to get what you're seeking.

(16:34)
There is a lot going on within the agency as you have outlined and as the ranking member and I have outlined, but we need to be more informed rather than getting updates by way of tweets or stories from the media. The agency has issued reorganization notifications, but we're not getting the full picture or the answers to some of the questions that we have asked. So my direct question to you this morning is just a renewed commitment that the promise of transparency, partnership and responsiveness is there, that we're going to be able to have meetings between your senior teams and our folks on the appropriation side so that we can help you. Let me help you type of an approach. And that's what I'm seeking from you this morning, Mr. Administrator.

Lee Zeldin (17:37):

Absolutely, Madam Chair. And you uniquely, amongst 535 members of Congress, have a bat phone into my office, which I would encourage you to use at any time. We've spoken since my confirmation. And when we meet, you often have a very long list of priorities for Alaska that you're fighting for that you're passionate about. And to make sure that we're working through that list at every opportunity is something that will be a priority for our team as long as I am here as administrator and I would encourage you to reach out whenever you would like and I'd be available to work through whatever's at the top of your list that day.

Sen. Murkowski (18:17):

Very good. Very good. Let me ask about the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. I mentioned in my opening, these are probably the areas where on this committee we have more bipartisan support for a program and we are looking at a budget that effectively eliminates the one thing that we are all in agreement on. So I would ask you to share with me and the others on the committee why the agency would move away from such a critical on-the-ground program when we're talking about access to clean water.

Lee Zeldin (19:05):

Madam Chair, as you pointed out in your opening remarks and as you referenced from the skinny budget that was released that we're here to talk about today, there has been a bleeding out of funds deliberately through decisions made by Congress to earmark. I understand that I came into this position, I inherited a lot of earmarks that many of you have fought for and I want to be able to continue to work with each of you and your staffs. In some cases we need to get the recipients to submit paperwork where they are on the receiving end of big earmarks so that we can work through this backlog as quickly as we can.

(19:47)
It would be helpful to have a conversation about the SRF and the use of earmarks and how that has been reducing the funding through the years. As you all know, there's a difference when these skinny budgets come out, whether or not something is funded at $0 or it's funded at $1. Now, that might not seem like much to the American public in understanding how these conversations go in Congress. The SRF is not zeroed out in the skinny budget. And in fact, it has hundreds of millions of dollars there in it.

(20:24)
So as we go forward with this process, I look forward to more conversations about the SRF and I'm sure members of the House and the Senate will be having conversations amongst yourselves as to what you believe to be the appropriate funding level for SRF, as well as the future of the program and whether or not earmarks will continue to be used to reduce that balance. That's obviously a decision that Congress has a very important role to play.

Sen. Murkowski (20:56):

Well, we do and we can have a separate discussion about earmarks. I think we both know that earmarks don't contribute to the top line number. You are discussing here a concern that I have raised with you that there has been, over the years, congressionally directed spending earmarks that have been moved through the process authorized and appropriated to and still not spent down. So my time has expired now. Know that on this next round I'm going to ask for a little more discussion about that. But I do think that given the significance of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by so many of us, that this is something that let's have a broader discussion about how we move forward with what I would think most of us recognize has got to be a priority within the EPA.

(22:06)
The ranking member of the full committee has arrived. Ordinarily, I would defer to my ranking member here for his questions, but-

Speaker 1 (22:15):

We'll go to him first.

Sen. Murkowski (22:15):

Okay.

Sen. Merkley (22:20):

So as you can tell from my opening statement, I'm very concerned about the issue of impoundments. Are you familiar with the concept?

Lee Zeldin (22:29):

Of course, Senator.

Sen. Merkley (22:30):

You understand that it involves freezing funds that are to be allocated by law?

Lee Zeldin (22:36):

Senator, I'm familiar with the impoundments. I also understand we're having this conversation in the middle of the fiscal year as opposed to after the fiscal year.

Sen. Merkley (22:44):

Do you understand that the Constitution of the United States assigns the power of the purse to Congress and do you follow that understanding?

Lee Zeldin (22:53):

Absolutely.

Sen. Merkley (22:54):

So you understand that when you impound funds, you are violating the law.

Lee Zeldin (23:01):

No, Senator. We are going to follow all statutory obligations and we will abide by all laws.

Sen. Merkley (23:08):

But you're not. You're impounding funds against the law.

Lee Zeldin (23:11):

We absolutely disagree with you very strongly.

Sen. Merkley (23:15):

And the courts have also found it's not just against the law, it's unconstitutional.

Lee Zeldin (23:21):

If you're citing a particular district court judge, Senator, that's one thing, but there's a lot of district court judges coming up with their own interpretations of the law. That will go through litigation processes, but [inaudible 00:23:36] before all the laws.

Sen. Merkley (23:36):

It is the Supreme Court of the United States that has weighed in. And do you consider the Supreme Court not to be a legitimate source of decision-making?

Lee Zeldin (23:44):

Of course the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.

Sen. Merkley (23:47):

Then why are you not following the Supreme Court's understanding of the constitution and the law?

Lee Zeldin (23:52):

We are following all laws and the constitution, Senator.

Sen. Merkley (23:56):

Then why have you frozen 1.7 billion in EJ grants illegally and unconstitutionally?

Lee Zeldin (24:02):

They are neither illegal or unconstitutionally frozen, Senator.

Sen. Merkley (24:05):

Are they legally frozen?

Lee Zeldin (24:07):

Yes, Senator.

Sen. Merkley (24:08):

Under what authority of the law?

Lee Zeldin (24:09):

Senator, Congress appropriates funding and then, say, if the Biden administration is in place last year and they're at the beginning of the fiscal year, they might apply their own administration's policy priorities. So they might decide to send money to, say, the state of Alaska and they might include aspects of fighting for equity or education instead of remediation.

Sen. Merkley (24:34):

But it wasn't the Biden administration that passed this law. It was Congress. And so this is in the law as written and as signed by its president and yet you're defining it.

Lee Zeldin (24:44):

Senator, it would be important that the premise of your question… We're going to have to just disagree as strongly as possible.

Sen. Merkley (24:54):

You've also frozen-

Lee Zeldin (24:54):

Whether or not [inaudible 00:24:55].

Sen. Merkley (24:55):

… the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds, again, illegally and unconstitutionally. Are you going follow the Constitution?

Lee Zeldin (25:00):

Neither legally or unconstitutionally, Senator.

Sen. Merkley (25:02):

Well, we now have several court decisions that have said you have acted and you referred to district court decisions, but you don't agree with those district courts?

Lee Zeldin (25:10):

Senator, if you're referring to a district court decision that was then stayed by the DC Circuit, then I would also encourage you to look at the appeals process, which is important. And as you referenced earlier in a prior question, how important it is to look at the Supreme Court, well, then that message that you would be making to the DC District Court judge is that the DC District Court judge didn't have jurisdiction over that case and it belonged inside the court of federal claims. I agree with you how important it is to consider the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Sen. Merkley (25:40):

So there is one district court decision you abided by, and that was related to the clean school buses. If other district courts say that this is an illegal impoundment, an unconstitutional impoundment, will you follow the findings of those district courts or will you simply appeal it upwards?

Lee Zeldin (25:57):

We will abide by all laws and the United States Constitution at all times.

Sen. Merkley (26:02):

Well, again, the administration has responded to some district court decisions by saying we will simply appeal it. We'll seek a stay in an appeal. Will you follow, when a district court says you've illegally impounded funds, will you follow that district court decision?

Lee Zeldin (26:15):

Well, as you pointed out, Senator, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. So if a district court judge makes a decision, we are not going to assume that the United States Supreme Court is going to agree with that district court.

Sen. Merkley (26:26):

Even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that impoundments are unconstitutional? So your decision is to simply appeal to the Supreme Court seeking a different decision this time around?

Lee Zeldin (26:36):

I know that we're talking about hypotheticals of district court decisions to come, but as far as the district court decisions that made-

Sen. Merkley (26:41):

It's actually not hypothetical because we already have a series of district court decisions saying that this is illegal and unconstitutional.

Lee Zeldin (26:47):

As far as the district court decisions that have been made, it's important to note, as I stated a minute ago, the district court judge decision that you're referencing in the DC Circuit was instantly stayed by the DC Circuit.

Sen. Merkley (26:58):

You understand that impounding funds essentially makes the appropriation power of Congress very difficult? We have to reach decisions about funding that is important to Alaska, to Oregon, but also to every region of the country. And if then we strike this law, we strike these decisions to help address environmental issues in every part of the country, and then the executive comes along and says, "We want the power of the purse. We're going to treat these laws as suggestions. We're going to freeze these funds for programs we don't like or regions we don't like, or congressional districts we don't like," that that completely undermines the dialogue and the ability of here in Congress to produce bipartisan bills?

Lee Zeldin (27:42):

Senator, I don't know if on either side of the dais I've ever heard in one round of question, more premise of questions that I possibly disagree with. I refuse to waste a dollar of tax dollars, period.

Sen. Merkley (27:57):

Since you're violating both the law and the Constitution,

Sen. Merkley (28:00):

… will you follow your oath and if you can't follow your oath, will you resign from your office?

Lee Zeldin (28:04):

Yeah. Senator, listen, you like to preface your questions with declaring everything unconstitutional legal. We couldn't possibly disagree more strongly with what you're saying. What I do believe would be illegal is for me to play along where I'm seeing unqualified recipients getting funding, where I see an entity like a $2 billion recipient, power forward communities that gets a hundred dollars of GGR funds in 2023 and then they get $2 billion in 2024. When I see self-dealing and conflicts of interest loading up recipients of people who are Biden officials and Obama officials and Democrat donors, when I see wording of financial agent agreements and account control agreements that tie the hands of the EPA behind its back, will I play along with that? No, absolutely not. Because this is the-

Sen. Merkley (28:53):

In which case, you should resign because the president is involved in self-dealing at a level-

Lee Zeldin (28:56):

I should resign if I don't want to waste money?

Sen. Merkley (28:59):

… we have never seen on these critical-

Lee Zeldin (28:59):

Senator, if I refuse-

Sen. Merkley (29:00):

I will just conclude Madam Chair-

Lee Zeldin (29:02):

… to waste money, I should resign?

Sen. Merkley (29:02):

Madam Chair, I will just conclude by saying this issue of impoundments is an extraordinary challenge. The Supreme Court has ruled twice, the constitution is clear. You took an oath to the Constitution and it's extremely destructive of our legislative process for you to be engaged in this.

Chair Murkowski (29:18):

Let's move to Senator Fischer.

Senator Fischer (29:23):

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Administrator, it is really good to see you today. Thank you for being here. Before I get to a couple of questions, I wanted to quickly just note the support for some of your efforts. Earlier this month, you announced reorganization efforts to strengthen the agency. You specifically noted how these efforts will help to address the over 12,000 pesticide reviews that need to get done. Nebraska farmers rely on many of these crop protection tools and we need to ensure strong science and risk-based reviews. Madam Chair, I would ask you enter into the record a letter from the PREA Coalition in support of the administrator's work there.

Chair Murkowski (30:09):

Without objection.

Senator Fischer (30:10):

Thank you. I'd also like to quickly thank you, Administrator, for your deregulatory efforts, including reconsideration of the Clean Power Plan 2.0 rule. Nebraska is an all-public power state, the only one in the union and our Rural Electric Cooperative, they have raised significant concerns about that rule, so Madam Chair, I'd like to also enter this supportive press release from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association into the record.

Chair Murkowski (30:43):

Without objection.

Senator Fischer (30:44):

Thank you. Administrator, a couple of months back, you and Secretary Rollins met with me and several of my colleagues about the importance of Congress passing a permanent nationwide solution to allow for the year-round sale of E-15 and I thank you. I thank you for acting on the emergency summertime waivers to allow for the year-round sale of E-15 again this year, but certainly this yearly exercise, it needs to be done permanently.

(31:19)
We need to pass a solution, a permanent solution and not have your agency have to go through this product every single year. The President tried to get E-15 done permanently through regulation back in 2019 and he has maintained strong support for it since. I want people to understand the history here, Mr. Zeldin, we have effectively been operating under year-round E-15 for the last six years, although President Trump's regulation or through President Trump's regulation and then yearly emergency waivers. Is that correct?

Lee Zeldin (32:04):

Yes.

Senator Fischer (32:06):

Is it true that despite President Trump's best efforts, if we want real certainty here for consumers, congress has to act? Is that correct?

Lee Zeldin (32:16):

That is the most durable and easiest solution to this issue.

Senator Fischer (32:21):

Thank you. And lastly, having that permanent nationwide legislative solution for the year-round E-15 would certainly be more efficient and effective use of EPA's time and resources, is that correct?

Lee Zeldin (32:35):

Yes. Senator, as the chair pointed out, I've been in the position a little over a hundred days and I have had many, many, many meetings about this topic and a lot of passionate advocacy from including you, Senator and your colleagues and your constituents. If Congress was to finalize a long-term durable solution, so much of that advocacy on your part, all of your time can be better spent fighting for other priorities of your constituents.

Senator Fischer (33:03):

Thank you. As you know, the last administration failed to issue the renewable volume obligations that were due last November, the RVOs. They also set volumes that were 23 to 2025 that were too low and it didn't account for the increased soy crushing levels to support biofuel production including increased crushing capacity that's going to be coming online in Nebraska. I hope that you will set blending volumes for biomass based diesel that are in line with production and capacity of that industry. Do you have any update on the timeline for when we can expect to see the RVOs?

Lee Zeldin (33:53):

Yes, Senator. We are going to be going through a rulemaking process, now over the course of the next few months, we did inherit a blown deadline. We're looking to not only resolve that deadline in setting RVOs, but to also look to the future and to operate going forward in a way where we don't blow any deadlines moving forward. So over the course of the next few months, there's going to be an opportunity for the public to weigh in during a public comment period before a final decision is made. We've already started to hear a lot of advocacy from many of your constituents in Nebraska fighting hard for RVOs.

Senator Fischer (34:34):

As you know, the farm economy is suffering right now and farmers are worried about a number of things in order to help provide more certainty. I really appreciate your agency being on time with what needs to be done in order to provide them with that assurance and with certainty. Thank you, sir.

Chair Murkowski (34:59):

We'll next turn to the ranking member of the full committee, Senator Murray.

Senator Murray (35:02):

Thank you very much, Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Merkley. I look forward to working with both of you this year. Administrator Zeldin, you helm an agency that was created by a Republican president that is responsible for making sure that Americans can drink clean water and breathe clean air and lead healthy lives. It seems to me the Trump administration's entire vision for your agency amounts to burn it down. Now, burning down the EPA might be a great way to generate smog, but it is a terrible way to protect families health. Look at the 25 billion in federal funding you have been illegally freezing and canceling in my state and across the country. We are talking about investments in things like heat pumps to reduce energy costs and pollution, wildfire preparedness to prevent smoke exposure or infrastructure upgrades to protect drinking water from floods and earthquakes. Blocking this funding is hurting communities everywhere.

(36:03)
It has prompted lawsuits as well as investigations by the government accountability office, and I have to say to you, it is unacceptable to hear from GOA, that your agency has not been cooperating with those requests from them and now the president's request would slash funding for your agency by over 50%, taking it back to levels last seen 50 years ago, by the way. And I should note protecting the health and well-being of the American public does not happen on its own. The EPA is powered by skilled and dedicated public servants, a group you have worked to demonize for months on end. Now, while you proudly got your own agency's workforce, you leave hardworking Americans who are suffering the consequences. Your job is to make sure kids have clean water when they turn on the tap. Fresh air when they go outside. Your job is to make sure that our rivers in Washington state are full of salmon, not toxic, sledge, and your job is to follow the law and to get the funds out that Congress passed.

(37:09)
For the past two years. This committee has passed bipartisan spending bills to invest in the EPA and into our communities, and despite the draconian budget that you have put forward, I'm going to be pushing to work with this committee on a bipartisan agreement once again, that safeguards our health and our environment. Now, Administrator Zeldin, at the same time you propose cutting the EPA's budget by 54% and slashing staff by over 20% and gutting many of EPA's core programs, you insist that despite these cuts, the EPA can carry out the congressional directives of the bill we passed with bipartisan support through this committee without compromising the EPA's responsibilities. There is no way that can be true. Do you understand, Administrator, that your job is to execute the bipartisan laws negotiated in this committee and in Congress and carry them out faithfully not to gut the programs that Congress passed into law?

Lee Zeldin (38:11):

Of course, we will fulfill all statutory obligations and I would encourage you to read the announcement that we put out the morning of the President's 100th day that has a hundred environmental wins from the first 100 days of the Trump presidency. I don't know if you've had an opportunity to read it yet, but based off of-

Senator Murray (38:33):

Well, I haven't had an opportunity to see your budget. And when you eliminate offices and slash staffing and propose cutting the budget in half of EPA, you are making certain that the government will not be able to protect the public from pollution. That is not what Congress intended. Now, the federal government has given states significant responsibility to implement our bedrock environmental laws, like, enforcement of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA provides basic funding, categorical grants to every single state so they can carry out more than 90% of the on the ground work that is necessary to comply with environmental laws.

(39:13)
Your budget cuts 16 of 19 categorical grant programs, which the Environmental Council of the States is a bipartisan organization of environmental agency directors from all 50 states says will, "Incapacitate state environmental programs." That's from them, not from me. We are talking about massive cuts, 843 million for Texas, 459 million for Florida, 169 million for Louisiana. It's hard to see this as anything other than the EPA abandoning its responsibility to states. And I want to ask you, have you consulted with any of states on this proposal to eliminate almost all the categorical grant funding?

Lee Zeldin (39:59):

Every aspect of this skinny budget was done deliberately as a result of a lot of thoughtful conversation-

Senator Murray (40:10):

With the states.

Lee Zeldin (40:12):

States are absolutely included as it relates to conversations that take place about our priorities.

Senator Murray (40:21):

Well, I will say my state and many of the states said this would be devastating and states cannot shoulder this burden. And I look forward to working with this committee to, as we've done before in a bipartisan way, make sure that we fund these programs. Finally, your agency has been cutting billions of dollars in grants indiscriminately, irrationally across the country, including in my home state of Washington. And I want to give you an example.

(40:48)
Wildfire and extreme heat waves, they are major threats to public health for a lot of the country. A few weeks ago, the EPA terminated a grant that would've made sure community centers in Spokane had the infrastructure needed to serve as a refuge during extreme weather and wildfire emergencies. There was no explanation for that cancellation. That is a community that saw 19 people die and over 300 people hospitalized during a heat wave a few short years ago where wildfires are a constant threat. So let me ask you, is it woke to protect people from wildfires and heat stroke?

Lee Zeldin (41:29):

I don't know if you're going to get anyone in America to answer yes to the way you put that question out there.

Senator Murray (41:35):

Well, is it inefficient? Is it wasteful? Why was this grant eliminated?

Lee Zeldin (41:40):

Well, there are hundreds of grants. I would have to have that individual grant in front of me. Well, when Congress sets an appropriated level on a particular type of grant, we need to make sure that over the course of the fiscal year that that money is being spent-

Senator Murray (41:56):

Well, apparently after four-

Lee Zeldin (41:56):

… that we're working with Congress-

Senator Murray (41:57):

… months, you decided that this community-

Lee Zeldin (42:00):

… but we don't-

Senator Murray (42:00):

… in Spokane didn't need to deal with their extreme weather and wildfire emergencies. I don't know whether, you won't tell me whether it's inefficient waste, but whatever your word is, but you need to know that you're abandoning communities in my state-

Lee Zeldin (42:12):

We're not.

Senator Murray (42:12):

… and across the country and that funding was appropriated for work exactly like this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair Murkowski (42:19):

Thank you. Let's go to Senator Hoeven.

Senator Hoeven (42:21):

Thank you, Madam Chair, and Administrator, thanks for being here today, appreciate having you. Both NERC and FERC have expressed concerns about grid reliability for our electric grid nationwide. And the reason, as you know is very simply because we're losing base load on the grid and we have more and more variable sources of energy. And one of the big reasons we're losing that base load is because of the regulatory blizzard that's been put in place by the Biden administration that is forcing coal plants to close down with no benefit to the environment. We continue to move forward in our state with the latest greatest technological innovations to address SOx, NOx, mercury, CO2, you name it, right, and yet they're still forcing these plants to close down, but it is putting the grid at risk. So talk to me about how you're going to take steps to unwind these burdensome rules like the MATS rule and like the Clean Power Plan 2.0.

Lee Zeldin (43:30):

Senator, we believe at EPA we can choose to both protect the environment and grow the economy. It's not a binary choice where we have to pick one or the other. Over the course of the last couple of years of the Biden EPA, there were a lot of regulations that came out, many of which seeking to strangulate entire industries, to put, for example the coal sector completely out. Well, these are jobs. For many states, this is how they are powering their lives. This is an important engine of their economy. On March 12th, EPA announced many different regulatory actions including a reconsideration of that Biden era MATS rule, including the what's called Clean Power Plan 2.0 as you referenced, and other rules as well.

(44:22)
Now, some people like to post some photograph of the sixties and seventies and say that if we get rid of some regulation from 2024, this is what the water is going to look like, this is what the air is going to be like. We're talking about regulations from the last year or two and we're going to go through a reconsideration. We're going to follow the Administrative Procedures Act. There's going to be a public comment period, and while I can't prejudge outcomes now at the end of the process when I'm supposed to, we'll make a decision on what the future should look like on each individual regulation center.

Senator Hoeven (44:57):

Right. Same thing now for Waters of the US. Talk to me about how we are going to make sure that private property rights are respected with waters of the US, which once again, the Trump administration had put in place a responsible rule.

Lee Zeldin (45:14):

The Supreme Court in Sackett has very clear, simple prescriptive language as to what should be a water of the US. EPA seeks to follow the Supreme Court in Sackett and to make sure that there is a simple durable rule that can withstand the test of time, that would allow any farmer or rancher, landowner, anywhere in America or state, like, Alaska and others, they will know whether or not water that is on land is a water of the US or not. And what's very important to point out is that just because a water might not be a water of the US as it relates to Sackett, that doesn't mean that a state loses the ability to have oversight over that waterway. And that's a big misunderstanding as to what we're talking about here.

(46:05)
So we are doing a rulemaking to reconsider the definition of waters of the US to get the definition for EPA in line with the Sackett decision of the United States Supreme Court. We do not want any of your landowners to have to go pay an attorney or a consultant to tell them whether or not a water on their property is a water of the US. I want every one of your ranchers and landowners to know whether or not there's a water of the US on their property. We owe it to them. And we should look at a map of the United States that has one definition that is being followed in all 50 states. We shouldn't have different definitions depending on what state we are in. And no matter what happens in presidential elections of the future, if we do this right and we come up with a simple definition that follows the Supreme Court decision in Sackett, the definition that we come up with now should be one that withstands the test of time.

Senator Hoeven (47:00):

Thank you. And I also appreciate you referencing respect for states rights. Respect for private property rights and respect for states rights are constitutionally protected and it's vitally important that the EPA and other federal agencies don't overstep those constitutional rights.

Lee Zeldin (47:21):

Agreed, Senator.

Senator Hoeven (47:22):

Thank you.

Senator Fischer (47:24):

Don't forget permafrost. Senator Baldwin.

Senator Baldwin (47:29):

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Zeldin, Wisconsin's coastal communities and tribal nations depend on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to protect water quality of both Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. The initiative has been essential for cleaning up pollution, managing invasive species, and safeguarding access to clean water for over 40 million people. For every dollar spent on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, nearly $4 in additional economic activity is produced. These outcomes have only been possible because of strong collaboration between EPA and its regional partners. So your fiscal year 2026 skinny budget makes no mention of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative or the staffing necessary to carry it out. So I'd like you to tell us today what the administration's budget will include for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

Lee Zeldin (48:33):

Senator, while we're here and we're only able to speak about the skinny budget because the full budget has not been released, because you're asking about the Great Lakes Restoration Program, and I've heard from the Vice President who has fought for this program as well, a former Senator from Ohio, this is something that there is great pride inside of the agency for the Great Lakes restoration program. There's a lot of support inside of the administration to make sure that this is program is funded and it continues very strong.

Senator Baldwin (49:10):

Okay. So it will continue and it will be fully funded in the budget.

Lee Zeldin (49:15):

It will. It will absolutely-

Senator Baldwin (49:17):

That will be in the budget.

Lee Zeldin (49:18):

It will absolutely continue, and while I can't speak to a full budget that hasn't been released yet, I'm confident that you'll have a smile on your face as it relates to the Great Lakes Restoration Program when you see it.

Senator Baldwin (49:30):

[inaudible 00:49:31] to meet the demand and the expectation of access to clean drinking water, and we have increasing threats from PFAS contamination, an overabundance of lead service lines still and inadequate and aging wastewater infrastructure. Our public water systems have relied on the EPA state revolving funds to upgrade their water systems to fix things that are broken so that they can protect families and workers. This budget decimates the state revolving funds and our nation's primary federal program for funding water infrastructure projects. How do you justify this funding cut, this decimation to a family in Milwaukee seeking to protect their children from lead in their drinking water due to debt lead service lines, or a farmer relying on a rural public water system that hopes to provide PFAS free water to their workers and their livestock?

Lee Zeldin (50:28):

As I mentioned, Senator to Chairwoman Murkowski's question on this topic earlier, this is a good time for a conversation as it relates to the bleeding out of funding for SRF. Congress chooses-

Senator Baldwin (50:46):

Well, we're having this conversation right now and you're hearing, I hope strongly from this committee that we are committed to restoration of those funds because they serve such a vital function in our communities. I wanted to add a couple of words to Senator Fischer's question about biofuels. I just want you to know that the biofuels industry is incredibly important. In Wisconsin, we have several ethanol and biodiesel producers. Certainly we have corn and soybean farmers and rural manufacturing jobs that depend on a predictable and forward-looking renewable fuel standard. A strong standard would not only provide domestic market certainty to farmers during a time of volatile international market access, as you know, but also invest in our nation's energy independence while lowering fuel costs for consumers and creating domestic manufacturers jobs. So I urge you to release a proposed renewable volume obligation rulemaking soon and hope that the proposal will reflect market growth and demand in this sector.

Lee Zeldin (51:59):

I agree.

Senator Baldwin (52:00):

All right. Lastly, Wisconsin is home to an array of diverse landscapes from the coasts of the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes to the wetlands and grasslands across the Driftless Area of our state to the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest, many of our state's most effective environmental conservation and restoration projects across these regions promote biodiversity to protect their ecosystems. Can you confirm for me right now that the Trump administration's executive order to ban diversity, equity and inclusion at the federal level has not led to projects being deprioritized, delayed, or defunded by EPA, if they mention such terms as biodiversity?

Lee Zeldin (52:54):

Offhand, I can't think of a particular example. I would have to go back and talk to the team to see if there's anything-

Senator Baldwin (53:02):

Can you assure me that the executive order on diversity, equity and inclusion has not led to random word searches for words like diversity that lead to cutoffs in funding. Can you guarantee me that that has not happened at the EPA?

Lee Zeldin (53:20):

I wouldn't guarantee that. I would imagine that when we received an executive order as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion, that the team was probably searching-

Senator Baldwin (53:30):

Does that include biodiversity in your opinion?

Lee Zeldin (53:32):

What I'm saying is I would have to, as it relates to that term biodiversity, I would have to check with the team. I'm not aware of that, but I would have to ask.

Senator Baldwin (53:41):

Do you think supporting and promoting biodiversity somehow violates the President's executive order relating to bans on diversity, equity and inclusion funding?

Lee Zeldin (53:53):

I would have to see examples of how that term was applied to a particular program or grant in order to be able to answer that.

Senator Rounds (54:02):

Thank you, Senator Baldwin. And on behalf of the Chairman, I think she went to vote. Now that we're actually trying to get our 15-minute votes in again, I think we're all trying to honor that. Okay. Administrator Zeldin, first of all, welcome. I'm new to this subcommittee as well and I look forward to having the opportunity to work with you. I want to thank you first of all for your willingness to revise the Waters of the United States or WOTUS rulemaking. As you know, the last several decades, wetlands that were drained to become cropland prior to 1985 have remained exempt from regulation under the Clean Water Act.

(54:41)
The first Trump administration clarified the rules governing prior converted cropland or PCC, protecting affected land from clean water regulation as long as it was used for agricultural purposes at least once every five years. You're going to hear a lot about these ag issues as you come into this position. The most recent WOTUS rule under the Biden administration ended the prior converted cropland exemption immediately upon a change in use. This departs significantly from the flexibility provided by President Trump's 2020 WOTUS rule. I recently introduced the Farmers Freedom Act to codify President Trump's earlier definition of prior converted cropland. My question today for you, Administrator Zeldin, as you work to develop an updated WOTUS framework, will you consider revisiting the definition of prior converted cropland?

Lee Zeldin (55:36):

Senator, I'd be happy to follow up with you on that to make sure that we're heeding your calls and considering the merits of your point.

Senator Rounds (55:47):

Thank you. And look, I really appreciate your comments on WOTUS and where it's going, and the concern to have some clear definitions laid out that everybody can understand from administration to administration.

Senator Rounds (56:00):

The ongoing uncertainty surrounding WOTUS regulations has been a major challenge for American farmers. I've appreciated your commitment to working closely with the ag producers as you undertake this rulemaking process, and I appreciate that. You're going to find there's a lot of folks that want to work with you on that particular issue.

(56:19)
My next question, I want to just go back to something just to provide you an opportunity. There's a lot of us here that really do think that there's an importance to the Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds. There's a $2.46 billion decrease in the skinny budget proposal that's been laid out. Let me just ask this question on it. Congress appropriates and we direct, we authorize and so forth. My suspicion is that Congress will seriously consider reappropriating those funds again. Would it be fair to say, although there's been some suggestions, that you're not following the law and so forth. If we appropriate it and direct that it put back into those revolving loan funds, you'll follow the law and you'll see that it's been done.

Lee Zeldin (57:05):

Of course. Yes, Senator.

Senator Rounds (57:06):

Okay. I appreciate that because I think the misunderstanding is that somehow that you're not going to follow a law on this. When Congress puts it in and we say, "No, we want it back in, and it should go back out to the states," at that stage of the game, we can count on you working with us to get it done appropriately.

Lee Zeldin (57:25):

Senator, I appreciate you raising this point and this example. Congress appropriates funding and then the agency distributes that funding as it's required to under the law. That doesn't mean from one administration to the next, that the Trump administration is going to come in agreeing with the policy priorities of the prior administration that just left office. There might be a disagreement of opinion between administrations. We come in towards the beginning of a fiscal year. The way that funding will go out over the course of a fiscal year might be applying the new administration's priorities as the American public voted for last November.

Senator Rounds (58:12):

Right. Based upon where there is broad latitude provided to the executive branch in the expenditure of those authorities, but where the Congress is more specific in their appropriations, it makes it cleaner and more directed in terms of your ability to decide upfront whether it is truly the will of Congress to do it in one particular program, such as these revolving loan funds.

Lee Zeldin (58:39):

Senator, I love your question. This applies to so much, from appropriation to policy. If Congress wants an agency to take a specific action, Congress can give an obligation to an agency. I'm here, as I was during my confirmation process, and I will continue to come before Congress committing to fulfill all statutory obligations. If there's some new statutory obligation that's created because of some law that's passed, say a month from now, our agency will fulfill those statutory obligations. It's a really important point. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Rounds (59:13):

Thank you. Thank you. At this time on behalf of the chairman, I would recognize Senator Van Hollen.

Sen. van Hollen (59:19):

Thank you, Senator, and welcome Administrator Zeldin.

(59:22)
I noticed that as a member of Congress during the first Trump administration, you opposed their recommended cuts to EPA's Long Island Sound, a program. Similarly, during the first Trump administration, those of us who represent Chesapeake Bay States successfully opposed, on a bipartisan basis, their proposed cuts to the Chesapeake Bay program. I'm glad to see that the spend plan that was submitted by EPA for fiscal year 25 shows that you plan to continue to invest in the Chesapeake Bay cleanup program at the appropriated and authorized levels of 92 million. I just want to confirm with you today, yes or no. That's right, isn't it?

Lee Zeldin (01:00:05):

Yes. Everything in the skinny budget that is before us, the answer is yes, when repeating what you all are reading.

Sen. van Hollen (01:00:13):

This is with respect to the spend plan, which is separate from the skinny budget.

Lee Zeldin (01:00:20):

I'll answer maybe your next question. The Chesapeake Bay program, which I know you're fighting hard for, as we heard Senator Baldwin referencing the Great Lakes Restoration Program, the Chesapeake Bay program is an amazing program. Our team takes great pride in running it. It's filled with a lot of success stories that span multiple states, including yours, and we will make sure that you also have a smile on your face, as Senator Baldwin will have on hers, when the full budget is released and you see the numbers for Chesapeake Bay.

Sen. van Hollen (01:00:50):

I appreciate that very much. You anticipated my next question [inaudible 01:00:54] fiscal year 26, so thank you. Now let me turn to an area where we have some significant disagreement, which is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. In just the last few days, an independent analysis of the benefits of that fund was conducted by the University of New Hampshire. It was released. Simple question. Have you had a chance to read it?

Lee Zeldin (01:01:13):

Is that the one that was written by a former Biden administration official?

Sen. van Hollen (01:01:17):

I do not believe so, but we can check.

Lee Zeldin (01:01:20):

I think so.

Sen. van Hollen (01:01:20):

Here's my question. Have you read it, was my question.

Lee Zeldin (01:01:25):

Senator, if you're referring to the …

Sen. van Hollen (01:01:26):

This is on May 12th.

Lee Zeldin (01:01:28):

Yeah. If that's the one that I'm thinking of because I was presented a document, it might've been that what you're looking at, I understand it was referred to as independent, but my understanding from the person who gave it to me that it was written by a former Biden [inaudible 01:01:40].

Sen. van Hollen (01:01:40):

Well, we'll take a look at it, but hopefully just being a member of an administration doesn't disqualify somebody from a fair analysis.

(01:01:48)
Let me move on because this analysis shows significant benefits from the deployment of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, including 41,000 new jobs each year compared to current policy, over $20 billion in additional wages by the year 2031, and very importantly, a whopping savings of $52 billion over the next 20 years, for consumers. I hope you will read it and give it a fair look, because you have made some wild, untrue and reckless statements to justify your illegal freezing of these funds. Mr. Administrator, I can say that with confidence because the veracity of your statements has been scrutinized by the federal courts. That is where, unlike on media outlets, you actually have to present evidence under penalty of perjury, you and your lawyers on your behalf.

(01:02:46)
Let's look at what Federal District Court Judge Chutkan has said after weighing the evidence and claims that you have made. During a hearing in early April, the judge pressed lawyers for any evidence to back up your claims of waste, fraud and abuse and found that EPA and I quote, "Never proffered this adequate evidence." The judge wrote that the EPA and I'm quoting, "Has failed to provide a single piece of evidence to support your claims." She went on to find that EPA acted "arbitrarily and capriciously." She goes on to make a number of other factual findings, in that case. I'm well aware of the fact that you've appealed her decision, but these are factual findings based on the lack of evidence for the claims that you have made.

(01:03:37)
Let me ask you this. You've received five letters, some as early as February 24th, from Committees of Congress on this question of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. We checked this morning, based on what we know, you've not replied to a single one. My final question here … What's that?

Lee Zeldin (01:04:00):

I don't believe that that's accurate.

Sen. van Hollen (01:04:02):

Okay. Well, we double-check, if we're wrong, we will correct the record, but there are five of them. My question here to you today is twofold. One, will you commit to responding to those letters from members of Congress? Number two, will you meet with me to discuss the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, its status and its future?

Lee Zeldin (01:04:27):

Senator, we had, as you know, an opportunity to talk about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund a couple of weeks ago when we saw each other. I'm happy to have a follow-up meeting to discuss it further. I have, personally, read every single letter that every member of Congress has sent me, whether you're on you Senate Approps, you're on Senate EPW, or you're not. Then the same thing applies to The House side, I've read every letter. I believe every single member of this committee who sent me a letter has received a response, up to this particular point. You referenced the DC District Court judge's decision, it's important to note that that decision was stayed by a circuit court. I would further point out because … I don't know, Senator, if you've actually read the judge's 31-page opinion.

Sen. van Hollen (01:05:18):

Actually I have. Okay. I've got it right here,

Lee Zeldin (01:05:21):

Great. If you wouldn't mind, Senator, can I just finish the point real quick?

Sen. van Hollen (01:05:25):

Of course.

Lee Zeldin (01:05:26):

Okay. If you wouldn't mind checking out the footnote on page 29, it says that we have not provided any evidence of reduced oversight after the November election, but we provided the judge the January 13th amended account control agreement that does exactly that. Now, it's a decision that the judge makes to make believe that that document, wasn't provided to the judge. Now, here's the other thing …

Sen. van Hollen (01:06:01):

Mr. Administrator, I'm going to reclaim my time.

Sen. Murkowski (01:06:04):

Now I'm going to intervene, because we are in the middle of two votes. We still have three more members that need to ask their questions.

Sen. van Hollen (01:06:13):

I appreciate that. Therefore, Mr. Administrator, I look forward to meeting with you to discuss these things. As you know, in court, that is where people have to testify under penalty of perjury. I don't mean you, your lawyers on your behalf. These are the findings I read from the judge. Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to continuing the conversation and getting responses to those letters. I wasn't citing them from this committee members. There are five other members on other committees, including EPW, who at least have told us they haven't gotten responses. We'll follow up on that. Thank you.

Sen. Murkowski (01:06:46):

We will have an opportunity the second round.

Sen. van Hollen (01:06:48):

Okay.

Sen. Murkowski (01:06:48):

Senator Capito.

Sen. Capito (01:06:49):

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to just make a statement, then I have to go back, because I have an EPW hearing and you're coming in front of our committee, I believe next week.

(01:06:57)
First of all, I'm really pleased that EPA officials are in Charleston, West Virginia. The past EPA wouldn't come to Charleston, West Virginia, unless we kind of pressured them under duress to talk about the new WOTUS rule. I'm pleased that you all are listening to our farmers, our landowners, our local officials are being heard. I appreciate the quick and outward listening sessions that you're doing to a very overreaching and impactful rule on your reorganization, and we can dig into this more next week.

(01:07:27)
I'm very pleased that you've put more emphasis on the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. As you know, our chemical office, over the last four years, has been extremely sluggish, if non-existent, in terms of licensing new chemicals which are cleaner, greener, and safer. For the life of me could not figure out why they were stuck. We have a small refinery in West Virginia that's had three court cases that have judged, on their behalf for the small refinery, exemption. I know I've brought that up to you before, so hopefully you're still looking into that.

(01:08:03)
The last thing I would say is the Clean Power Plan 2.0. Luckily, it's getting frittered away because of the impacts it would have on jobs in my state and also on the ability for all of our states to provide the energy that we need, and that we know that we're going to want here in the future. Thank you very much. You don't need to respond. I just wanted to say welcome. See you next week and appreciate it.

(01:08:27)
Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sen. Murkowski (01:08:28):

Thank you, Senator Capito. We're all running this morning, so don't take any offense that we're like Jack-in-the-Boxes here. Let's go to Senator Ossoff.

Sen. Ossoff (01:08:37):

Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for convening the hearing, Administrator. Good to see you and welcome.

Lee Zeldin (01:08:41):

Thank you.

Sen. Ossoff (01:08:42):

Administrator, are you familiar with Thomasville, Georgia?

Lee Zeldin (01:08:47):

I don't know. I've been to a lot of parts of Georgia. I was just in Georgia about a week and a half ago.

Sen. Ossoff (01:08:50):

Thomasville's in southwest Georgia. It is a great town known for Southern hospitality, great people, Mayor Mobley, Pastor Rich. There's a lot of agricultural activity around there. There's also a history, a legacy of heavy industry that has led to significant air pollution and there remain significant concerns about air pollution, specifically particulate matter 2.5 and reported high levels of leukemia and pneumonia in and around Thomasville. As you know, oftentimes these rural communities don't get the love and attention of the federal government, they can be forgotten. In Georgia, big cities tend to get a lot of the federal support. There was great news for the good people of Thomasville last year when they won an EPA grant to help build a new health clinic, rehabbing the gym in the school to build a new federally qualified health center, near three daycare centers, as well as to upgrade wastewater infrastructure. Earl Williams, who leads the Thomasville Community Development Corporation called the grant a game-changer. Mayor Mobley said the award represented a "transformative opportunity to make vital health and safety improvements." Administrator, you canceled the grant, and I'd like to know why.

Lee Zeldin (01:10:16):

This was part of the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program?

Sen. Ossoff (01:10:20):

That's right.

Lee Zeldin (01:10:22):

This gets to an earlier interaction that we had and Senator Rounds got at it as well. When Congress appropriates a block of funding, an administration is going to apply their policy priorities to how that money is going to get spent. A new administration comes in, we still have to spend the appropriated funding, unless something changes …

Sen. Ossoff (01:10:49):

Administrator, with respect. I understand the appropriations process. My question is why you canceled this grant? What is it about building a new health clinic and upgrading wastewater infrastructure for my constituents in Thomasville, Georgia, that's inconsistent with administration policy?

Lee Zeldin (01:11:05):

I don't have the full grant in front of me. I only have a top line, which program it came out of. When a new administration comes in and they apply their policy priorities, President Trump …

Sen. Ossoff (01:11:14):

You're repeating yourself. My question is why you canceled this grant?

Lee Zeldin (01:11:18):

When a new administration comes in, in this case, President Trump put out executive orders as it relates to environmental justice with regards to DEI. I would imagine that [inaudible 01:11:27].

Sen. Ossoff (01:11:27):

What does this have to do with … Is a new health clinic for Thomasville Georgia woke.

Lee Zeldin (01:11:32):

I imagine, as we look through the details of the particular program, there must be some aspects of this applying the last administration's priorities on environmental justice.

Sen. Ossoff (01:11:45):

Here's a community that's suffered from air pollution, has a high disease burden as a result, finally the federal government comes, they're going to help build a health clinic and upgrade some infrastructure. You canceled the grant, devastating for the community. Here's what the head of the Community Development Corporation said about your decision to cancel this grant, denying my constituents a new health clinic and new wastewater infrastructure, a decision you made that hurts my constituents in Thomasville. Here's what he said, "We all work so hard for this and we won, and then all of a sudden one day it's gone, and it was just a great sense of disappointment. It was almost like I lost a good friend." He sent me another letter, said, "Our community is devastated." You hurt my constituents. I don't need a civics lesson on the appropriations process or a broad critique of this program. I want to know why you canceled this grant.

Lee Zeldin (01:12:43):

When you go back to them and they ask, "Well, did you find out why the grant got canceled?"

Sen. Ossoff (01:12:48):

I'm asking you. You canceled the grant. I don't need to ask them why the grant got canceled, because it was your decision, so tell me why you canceled the grant.

Lee Zeldin (01:12:55):

You could say, "I asked the question and then decided to spend the entire five minutes cutting him off eight times in the middle of his first answer, so I was unable to get a full response."

Sen. Ossoff (01:13:05):

Why don't you answer the question specifically and directly, why did you cancel this grant? Why are you denying my constituents a new health clinic and new wastewater infrastructure?

Lee Zeldin (01:13:14):

Do you want me to repeat anything that I said in the past?

Sen. Ossoff (01:13:16):

No, I want you to actually answer the question with specificity and not give a broad critique of this overall program, or a lesson on how the appropriation process works.

Lee Zeldin (01:13:21):

If you were listening to anything that I said, Senator, I already answered you.

Sen. Ossoff (01:13:24):

Okay. You don't have an answer.

Lee Zeldin (01:13:26):

Say whatever you want, Senator.

Sen. Ossoff (01:13:27):

Thank you, Madam Chair

Sen. Murkowski (01:13:34):

Administrator, I had asked you, or we had a discussion about the congressionally directed spending projects. You have indicated that indeed we've got a backlog here that we need to address. My understanding is that since fiscal year 2022, Congress had directed 2,264 CDS projects at the EPA, only 705 have received the funding. I think both of us would agree you we've got an issue here. There's a problem. The FY25CR of course did not include the CDS project. I'm looking at that and saying, all right, the agency has the balance of the fiscal year to work on catching up from this backlog of the CDS's. Can you just give me a little bit of your understanding in terms of how you've directed your team to expeditiously get these projects out the door in a more timely manner?

Lee Zeldin (01:14:46):

I appreciate the question, Madam Chair. The backlog goes back years. I've directed my team to both work with the members of Congress who represent those areas, the members of Congress who requested those earmarks, to get assistance in the case where the recipient has not been responsive. And simultaneously to try to engage as much as possible directly with the recipient to try to get the recipient to submit their paperwork. We want to completely get through the entire backlog that we inherited as quickly as possible.

Sen. Murkowski (01:15:24):

Can we help you with that?

Lee Zeldin (01:15:25):

Yes.

Sen. Murkowski (01:15:26):

I'm working with my constituents right now, as we're moving forward in this year's appropriations and getting requests for CDSs. Can you perhaps, either let me know who it is on your team that we need to be communicating directly to, if there are snags on your end or perhaps, again, you're just not able to get in touch with the applicant.

Lee Zeldin (01:15:51):

Yeah. A hundred percent. As you well know, the EPA is broke down into all sorts of different program offices. It might not be just one person for all grants, it might depend on whether the backlog … We might be talking about a backlog inside of the Office of Water where they need assistance from the members of Congress, or maybe it's another office, maybe it's the Office of Air and Radiation. We would look forward to an opportunity to work with you and your team, and all members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle as much as possible to eliminate the backlog that we inherited.

Sen. Murkowski (01:16:28):

Good. Good. Let's do that. I think that's a good plan.

(01:16:32)
Many members here have asked about different grants and programs, the pauses, the freezes. It's been particularly frustrating in Alaska when we hear that there's been a holdup in terms of the grant award. We've got just a limited construction season. It's just hard. Even if you're not choked by ice, you might have a barge that comes up with your materials for a project maybe once, maybe twice a season. It can push a project back, not just months, but by another season, another year, perhaps multiple years.

(01:17:21)
It's been hard to provide some clarity to our communities on which grants are going to be awarded, which are just going through the review process, that you've shared with us, which grants have been terminated. I'd ask if your folks could provide a list of what's actually been paused for review, versus what has been terminated. I think we've heard, for instance, on the EJ grants, that one has been perhaps more clear, but there are a lot in between. I think it would help our communities if there was more certainty as to what has actually been terminated, versus what is still in the pipeline for review. I'd ask for your help on that.

Lee Zeldin (01:18:11):

Absolutely, Madam Chair. We will continue to be distributing funding appropriated by Congress as we go through the rest of the fiscal year, that will include funds for your great state. We look forward to working with you on the process.

(01:18:29)
As you know, when the president first came in, there was a administration wide pause, that was lifted. The pause that was then instituted for EPA was more specific to some of the Inflation Reduction Act programs. There was a Clean School Bus Program concern that was raised early in the administration when Lion Electric and their bankruptcy issue caused some questions to be asked to make sure that the concerns with Lion Electric were just specific to Lion Electric. As it relates to the grants that were canceled, that's something that … If you have any questions about what was included in that, we're happy to answer any individual questions.

Sen. Murkowski (01:19:19):

Good. Okay. We'll work forward with you on that list. Senator Merkley.

Sen. Merkley (01:19:25):

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I have four letters from communities in Oregon that I'd like to enter into the record.

Sen. Murkowski (01:19:31):

Without objection.

Sen. Merkley (01:19:32):

Thank you so much.

(01:19:34)
The city of Chiloquin is a city of under a thousand people in rural Oregon. They had remediated a Brownfield site, winning the award for the Oregon Brownfield Project of the Year and had worked very hard and realized when you only have a thousand people, it's pretty hard to even write grants, let alone win one. They were very excited about their grant for a municipal center. Not only would have been city offices, but also emergency shelter. It's a community that's affected by wildfire smoke, more years than not, and Emergency Readiness Center to respond to emergency with upgraded communications. They had a grant awarded and obligated, that you canceled. Can you explain to the people of Chiloquin why this grant was canceled?

Lee Zeldin (01:20:29):

I know Senator Murray asked about a specific grant, Senator Ossoff asked about a specific grant, you're asking about a specific grant. I don't have all of the details on every single grant in front of me. However, I would have no hesitation whatsoever to be able to have a follow-up conversation, to the extent you're interested, that Senator Murray's interested, that Senator Ossoff is interested, to go through all of those individual details. It's possible that the issue that might be present on a particular request is something that can get fixed, that can get addressed as it relates to difference of administrative policy priorities from one administration to the next. I went through a bunch of different Alaska grants before we were here today, and I found that the grants might have an aspect that isn't consistent with this administration's policy priorities, but other aspects of it were, so we can work through that.

Sen. Merkley (01:21:23):

This is a grant that was both awarded and obligated. How does a community proceed to plan? Because they're contracting for design, they're contracting for construction. The grants already been awarded, you unawarded it. It seems to me like once it's been obligated, that should be kind of like, okay, well we'll take those priorities to the next set of grants rather than undoing the existing ones. I think that's particularly upsetting to the rhythm of how communities can proceed with confidence if a grant that's already been awarded and obligated can be snatched back.

Lee Zeldin (01:22:02):

Yeah. I'm going to be in front of House Approps tomorrow and next week Senate EPW, which you serve on, and House ENC subcommittee. My message would be, for all of your colleagues, that if anybody wants to ask about a specific grant, I would encourage them to reach out to us right now as opposed to waiting until we're here for a Q&A and I'm getting asked about a very specific grant, as opposed to your office contacting us and say, "Hey. By the way, when we're at the hearing, I would like to ask you all sorts of very detailed questions about this one specific grant. If you wouldn't mind bringing it because," because in that case, Senator, I'd be standing here ready to answer a thousand questions about every individual grant.

Sen. Merkley (01:22:46):

Well, there was a kind of procedural question embedded in that, which is; if a grant has been already obligated, and so here the community has contracted for design, perhaps for construction, isn't it kind of deeply inappropriate to then undo that, at that point?

Lee Zeldin (01:23:05):

Senator, if it's not consistent with administration priorities, depending on how the program was appropriated by Congress, and depending on what the details are of that individual grant, that grant can be subject to cancellation.

Sen. Merkley (01:23:20):

Okay. I will follow up with a question on specifically why these grants were funded or unfunded.

(01:23:29)
The second one is from a plan for a community health project to increase tree planting in a heat kind of dome section of a very poor part of Gresham, Oregon, and air conditioning and space to address respiratory illness. When you say it's inconsistent with the philosophy of the government, is the incoming government against

Sen. Merkley (01:24:01):

Addressing air conditioning to address heat emergencies or spaces to address respiratory illness during smoke emergencies.

Lee Zeldin (01:24:11):

You're asking about specific grant, I would need the details of that particular grant to be able to answer.

Sen. Merkley (01:24:15):

Actually, I was asking about whether the philosophy. Is that the philosophy of the incoming administration that you're against? You may have undid this for, who knows what reason, but are you opposed to tree planning and spaces to address respiratory emergencies?

Lee Zeldin (01:24:33):

Tree planning is fantastic. We would encourage more of it, Senator?

Sen. Merkley (01:24:37):

Well, if you look at these individual grants, which I'm sure there's so many of them, I know that they were done by kind of a huge swath of cancellation. But if you look at them going, "Well, there's nothing about this that we oppose. We like to have community health centers built." Is there a possibility you'll restore those grants?

Lee Zeldin (01:24:55):

Senator, over the course of the rest of the fiscal year, it is our intent to continue to be spending money that was appropriated by Congress to fulfill our obligations and to follow the law, and it very well will end up including grants that were canceled. The way that the grant may be finalized under new terms might not include whatever the particular aspect was that led to its cancellation the first time. But I'm sure that there's going to be many examples of grants that will end up going back out the door just not without the issue-

Sen. Merkley (01:25:33):

Possibly you may be restoring grants, if I just summarize what you just said?

Lee Zeldin (01:25:37):

Yes.

Sen. Merkley (01:25:38):

Yes.

Lee Zeldin (01:25:39):

Yeah.

Sen. Merkley (01:25:39):

The third one is Community Health Center in the town of the Grand Ronde and have a place to coordinate national response to natural disasters. I know you're not going to give a response to this specifically, but in philosophy it's not that the administration is against community health centers.

Lee Zeldin (01:26:03):

I remember during the first Trump term that was something that there was an increase of funding to community health centers that was subject of legislation. I remember because I was in the house at the time.

Sen. Merkley (01:26:15):

And the fourth one is an early learning center and the administration is not against early learning center, in philosophy?

Lee Zeldin (01:26:23):

I have not heard of any administration or any member of Congress or otherwise being against something like that.

Sen. Merkley (01:26:32):

Well, these are important grants. I think there may be elements of each of these grants that you don't particularly like, like they're going to put solar panels on the roof or the wording of the grant used the word resilience or said we're responding to heat emergencies from climate change. I'm sure there's words you don't like, but I hope when you review these grants. And you've stated the intention to spend the money in these categories by the end of the fiscal year, which is only months away, that you will examine these. I'll get you a list for Oregon. I think these small communities, it's so hard to even write a grant and it's such a victory when they win a grant and say, "We can finally solve a major community problem." And I know I'm over my time, Madam Chair, but I will close just with this note because you've responded to the question of earmarks or congressionally directed spending on the revolving water fund.

(01:27:37)
So in Oregon we call these community initiated projects. The communities say, "Here is our very top need and will you fight to get us help because we can't afford this water treatment on the front end or wastewater in the background?" And I think very similarly, I think it is in Alaska communities say, "Here's our priorities." Senator Murkowski is fighting for them. I think that that's kind of the best arrangement. It sounded to me like you didn't like the idea of us fighting for the top priorities for our communities, but I think it's absolutely our responsibility, better to have the community say they want their priority is and us fight for them and some bureaucratic decision made 3000 miles away or further away from Alaska.

Lee Zeldin (01:28:21):

Yeah. Senator, there are so many great examples of what's called congressionally directed spending earmarks where it's a member-

Sen. Merkley (01:28:33):

Community initiated projects.

Lee Zeldin (01:28:34):

Community initiated projects.

Sen. Merkley (01:28:35):

Thank you.

Lee Zeldin (01:28:37):

Where a member of Congress, House Senate is fighting for something that is filled with merit purely it's a great project that's going to have extremely positive outcomes. There are many of those examples, and that's something that I am not here to say generally encouraging or discouraging. That's a decision for Congress to make as to whether or not and how much to do it. My job is to make sure that the money gets out the door when Congress does. I don't want to use the wrong word congressionally, not congressionally directed-

Sen. Merkley (01:29:13):

Community initiated progress.

Lee Zeldin (01:29:14):

Congressionally initiated funds. We'll make sure that the money gets out the door, Senator. The point as it relates to the description, the notes in the skinny budget as it relates to SRF is just the concern of how that pot of money has been used with regards to these funds. With that being said, I'm sure that there are many different examples, many examples of what was described there being good outcomes for a particular community, a very thoughtful, congressionally initiated-

Sen. Merkley (01:30:00):

Community.

Lee Zeldin (01:30:02):

Community initiated project, funding. I was used to the term earmark when I was in Congress, but we call it something else now.

Sen. Merkley (01:30:08):

The reason I don't love congressionally directed is it's not that some invention of us up here that we just say, "Oh, what do we want?" No. It's, "What have our communities identified they want?" So I've been trying to get the appropriations community to change its terminology to reflect what's actually happening and I think it puts it in a strong light.

Sen. Murkowski (01:30:27):

So I want to just follow on Senator Merkley's comments here because the operating plan for FY25 we've received, it's very much in line with the previous year's funding level for each line item. There's a lot of changes that have been discussed, but it sounds like you are committing to spending the funds as delineated in the agency's spend plans. And I guess my ask to you is if that's not going to be the case that the committee or the subcommittee, excuse me, receive a reprogramming request so that we basically follow the process, the procedure here, if in fact the agency is not doing the stand-out as we have anticipated as these small communities understand them.

(01:31:29)
I just have two very quick follow-ons. One is very easy for you because we've discussed it at length, but it is a significant issue in my state when it comes to contaminated lands. The history that I have shared with you of Alaska Native, Alaska Natives receiving their settlement of lands being conveyed by the federal government and basically they were conveyed tainted lands, lands that were contaminated by various actions of federal agencies, whether it's the land managers or the Department of Defense. And so we have made some good progress with EPA and believe me this is not EPA's fault or liability for the contamination, it's the federal government's.

(01:32:24)
But what we have learned is that the EPA is uniquely qualified to help us solve this issue. Over the past couple years, there's been roughly $20 million in funding that has been directed to contaminated lands and the agencies have been doing some really good work. I just need your commitment that we're going to continue with this. $20 million, unfortunately, doesn't even get the first project clean up. We know that these are expensive, but it is an obligation. It is a liability of our government and we owe it whether it's to Alaska Natives as conveyance of their settlement or to others. And I know that when we're talking super funds, brown fields contaminated lands, we just have so much work to do here. So know that you got cooperation on my level here.

Lee Zeldin (01:33:18):

Yes, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to visiting over the course of the next couple of weeks.

Sen. Murkowski (01:33:24):

Yeah.

Lee Zeldin (01:33:24):

Be in Alaska, might be able to have the opportunity to hear about, see this firsthand. And I will, with regards to all appropriations, make sure that we are fulfilling our obligations under the law. So if Congress appropriates the funds, we'll make sure that it's spent.

Sen. Murkowski (01:33:46):

Very good. PFAS is something that we talk a lot about in Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Last month you announced that EPA will quote, "Tackle PFAS from all of EPA's program officers advancing research and testing, stopping PFAS from getting into drinking water systems, holding polluters accountable and providing certainty for passive receivers." You said, "This was just the beginning of the work that EPA is going to do to tackle PFAS," which I certainly appreciate and I know most everyone up here does. Can you tell me whether the operating plan and the skinny budget requests, whether they actually reflect this full-forward push on PFAS whether it includes the 10 billion that the bipartisan infrastructure law funding provided to take on PFAS contamination?

(01:34:51)
I'm looking at this skinny budget and I'm saying, "Good for you. Let's go on PFAS. But I'm worried about making sure that we're actually budgeting to do so and I'm also worried about whether or not with the rifts that we have seen to date as what is anticipated about perhaps an additional fork in the road, whether we're going to be able to do the job. So, again, this is something where you're going to have good support from people on this committee for the initiative, but do you have the budget and do you have the people?

Lee Zeldin (01:35:32):

Yeah, Senator. We're actually adding people into this effort inside of the Office of Water. As you noted, this spans multiple program offices at EPA. A lot of the PFAS work is done inside of the Office of Water. The reorganization announcement that we made a couple of weeks ago includes boosting effort inside of the Office of Water. The press release from April 28th that you referenced included a lot of different actions that we plan on taking. And everything that the agency has announced is already factored into the skinny budget as before the committee today day.

Sen. Murkowski (01:36:11):

And so let me just ask more directly whether or not you're concerned that the RIF or the deferred resignation is going to impact your ability to execute, whether it's on the PFAS side or contaminated lands or any number of issues that you've heard here from members?

Lee Zeldin (01:36:34):

No, Madam Chair, this is a very important priority of ours at EPA. When I was in Congress, I was a member of the PFAS Task Force. I had voted for the PFAS Action Act when I was a member of the house. I represented the district that had all sorts of different PFAS contamination issues. This is something that, in many respects, started during President Trump's first term in office and has continued to progress since. And we're going to make sure that we're hitting the ground running. That's included in the April 28th announcement. But as we noted in that announcement, that's just some of the many decisions and important work that's before us. It is a very high priority.

Sen. Murkowski (01:37:23):

So you've spoken to the adequacy to meet the PFAS mission. Are you concerned about your numbers EPA-wide to do your overall mission? Not just specific to PFAS, but with everything else that you're looking at? Because the reduction in staffing is very significant, you've got to admit that. And so you've got a big task and we want you to be able to execute on that. So just want to hear from you whether you have any concerns about your staffing levels right now.

Lee Zeldin (01:38:01):

Madam Chair, we are going to fulfill all statutory obligations. One of the things that was a surprise to me coming into the position was just how many people who are employees at the agency were not working on any statutory obligation at all. And I also want to say that there are a lot of amazing dedicated employees at EPA. The American public might feel disconnected from agency employees who might be working in Washington DC, but there are a lot of people who have been there for a long time. They believe in the agency mission, they work hard every single day. One of the reforms we brought in coming in is ending Covid year remote work. And it's great to hear noise in the building, to see the foot traffic and to see people being productive and collaborative. But if anyone out there was tuning in and they don't know what the agency looks like, it's filled with a lot of amazing dedicated workers who believe in the agency's mission and we're going to work hard to make the public proud.

Sen. Murkowski (01:39:10):

Well, I'm glad that you've acknowledged your workforce because I think you do have people who are good public servants, they're proud of the work they do and the work that they do has value and we want to recognize that. I know our second vote is coming to the end. Senator Merkley, do you have anything quick?

Sen. Merkley (01:39:35):

Just very quickly, I want to accentuate my concern following on your concern of the employees by the rough count we have now, we lost about 400 people, probationary staff who were fired, who were within their first year, 560 in the first round of deferred resignations, 180 and 80 in the DEIA who have been riffed. That's 1,129 deferred resignations. Second round 1800 have opt-in. So now we're up to almost 3000 office of R&D rumored that we reduced to 500 positions, which would be a loss of 1,300 additional. So now we're at 4,300. I'll just point out that for two decades, the level of employment at EPA was about 17,000. Right now it's about 14,000. So subtracting the numbers I just shared, we're talking about more than 4,000 reduction from that.

(01:40:37)
Meanwhile, there's all sorts of programs that have been established over time. Congress has said we want to undertake things like addressing the environmental laws and the fuel economy standards and the Innovation Manufacturing Act and updates to the Clean Water Act and updates to safe drinking water. So you have all these additional responsibilities, but it sounds like you're aiming to reduce the employment to around 10,000 and therefore it raises doubts that this work can really get done. Do you share those concerns or should, should we be concerned?

Lee Zeldin (01:41:17):

Senator, when the President's full budget comes out in the coming weeks, there will be more information as it relates to what you are raising on the number. The number that you just cited though is lower than the actual number. So from that respect, again, I know we're here to talk about the skinny budget, what's been released and we're still waiting for the release of the full budget. Some of the numbers that you gave were accurate, some wasn't-

Sen. Merkley (01:41:51):

What's your aim? Well, just fill us in. What are you aiming for? Aiming for 10,000, 11,000?

Lee Zeldin (01:41:56):

The right answer is going to be based off of as we go through the reorg, each office is going to be identifying how much that office needs, how much each region needs to be able to fulfill our statutory obligations, to fulfill our mission and to power the Great American Comeback. Each office, when they have their number, it all gets added up and that is the right-sized number for the-

Sen. Merkley (01:42:24):

So we'll get the number later is what you're saying?

Lee Zeldin (01:42:27):

Right. I'm just filling in on the process of how we are going to arrive in that. We're in the process of going through the reorganization now. That's how we will arrive at that final total number, which is higher than the number [inaudible 01:42:39].

Sen. Merkley (01:42:38):

Okay. All right. Well, we'll look forward to those details. You mentioned the PFOS mission and EPA just announced, and so therefore you're announcing, I guess, that your plan's to weaken the rural curbing forever chemicals. And what are those chemicals? Those chemicals are PFOS original covering six PFAS contaminants including PFOA and PFOS. I'm concerned that really this information which just came out yesterday sounds like it's at odds with your commitment to tackling PFOS. I'm concerned about the numbers. I know it sounds like we're going to learn a lot more when we have a full budget and a full vision laid out before us so we can have a more detailed conversation.

Lee Zeldin (01:43:27):

Well, Senator, I don't know if you're quoting a news story. And you might not come as a shock to you, but sometimes the news says stuff that's not accurate, that is not what the agency announced. And as it relates to PFOA and PFOS, you said that we were weakening the standard, and that's actually the opposite of what the agency actually announced, that we were keeping the standard. And there was an issue as it relates to the four other chemicals. And that's something that we are going to be going through a process, but that doesn't mean that it gets weaker. The number might end up getting lower, not higher. So when you go through a process and we follow the law at the end of it, the final MCL might be a lower number, not a higher number.

Sen. Merkley (01:44:21):

Madam Chair, I'll just submit for the record this article from the Washington Post titled "EPA plans to weaken the rule curbing 'forever chemicals' in drinking water." Thank you for your testimony, but we will look forward to a lot more information as we have a full budget at a full reorganization plan.

Lee Zeldin (01:44:36):

Yeah. Thank you. And Madam Chair, I would encourage the committee to look at the actual announcement from EPA as opposed to the Washington Post.

Sen. Murkowski (01:44:45):

We will have further discussion about so many of these issues, the reorganization, what we're seeing with the grants. But I appreciate Administrator Zeldin you appearing before the committee, you responding to our questions. We will hold the record open until May 21st for additional questions from members and would look forward to your responses to those as well. And with that, the committee stands adjourned. We got to vote.