U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–504 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 26, 2018 

Serial No. 115–121 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

WITNESSES

E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ..................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ................................................................... 142 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Report of the Government Accountability Office, ‘‘U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Installation of Soundproof Privacy Booth,’’ April 16, 2018, 

by Thomas A. Armstrong, General Counsel, submitted by Ms. DeGette ........ 90 

Letter of April 25, 2018, from Lexi Shultz, Vice President, Public Affairs, 

American Geophysical Union, to Mr. Walden, et al., submitted by Ms. 

DeGette ................................................................................................................. 98 

Statement of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, April 

20, 2018, submitted by Mr. McNerney ............................................................... 100 

Article of April 25, 2018, ‘‘Virginia Tech team gets EPA grant to engineer 

citizen-science water quality project,’’ by Robby Korth, The Roanoke Times, 

submitted by Mr. Griffith .................................................................................... 101 

List of questions asked by Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Ms. Castor ............ 104 

Letter of April 23, 2018, from Lauren Atkins, South Connellsville, PA, to 

Mr. Walden and Mr. Pallone, submitted by Mr. Pallone .................................. 105 

Letter of April 23, 2018, from William Armbruster, Ph.D., et al., to E. Scott 

Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. 

Shimkus ................................................................................................................ 107 

1Mr. Pruitt’s response to submitted questions has been retained in committee 

files and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ 

ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108218. 

(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET 

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Shimkus, McKinley, Barton, 

Blackburn, Harper, Olson, Johnson, Flores, Hudson, Cramer, 

Walberg, Carter, Duncan, Walden (ex officio), Tonko, Ruiz, Peters, 

Green, DeGette, McNerney, Ca ́ rdenas, Dingell, Matsui, and Pallone 

(ex officio). 

Also present: Representatives Long, Costello, Bilirakis, Lance, 

Griffith, Rush, Eshoo, Schakowsky, Butterfield, Castor, Sarbanes, 

Welch, Luja ́n, Loebsack, Kennedy, and Engel. 

Staff present: Jennifer Barblan, Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Mike Bloomquist, Staff Director; Samantha Bopp, 

Staff Assistant; Daniel Butler, Staff Assistant; Karen Christian, 

General Counsel; Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Energy/Environment; Jerry Couri, Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment; Jordan 

Davis, Senior Advisor; Lamar Echols, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Wyatt Ellertson, Professional Staff Member, Energy/ 

Environment; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Adam 

Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Ali Fulling, Legislative Clerk, Oversight and Investigations, Digital Commerce and 

Consumer Protection; Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator, Environment; Zach Hunter, Director of Communications; Peter Kielty, Deputy General Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Tim Kurth, Deputy Chief Counsel, 

Communications and Technology; Ben Lieberman, Senior Counsel, 

Energy; Ryan Long, Deputy Staff Director; Milly Lothian, Press Assistant and Digital Coordinator; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy/Environment; Drew McDowell, Executive Assistant; Brandon 

Mooney, Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Annelise Rickert, Counsel, 

Energy; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; 

Jason Stanek, Senior Counsel, Energy; Austin Stonebraker, Press 

Assistant; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs; Andy 

Zach, Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment; Michelle 

Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Priscilla Barbour, Minority Energy Fellow; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jacqueline Cohen, Minority Chief EnvironVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
2 

ment Counsel; Jean Fruci, Minority Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and 

Chief Health Advisor; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Professional 

Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff Assistant; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator; Jon Monger, 

Minority Counsel; Kaitlyn Peel, Minority Digital Director; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Minority 

Chief Counsel; Michelle Rusk, Minority FTC Detailee; Andrew 

Souvall, Minority Director of Communications; Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary; and Catherine Zander, Minority Environment 

Fellow. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The subcommittee will come to order. Before we 

begin, I would like to take a moment to address the guests in our 

audience. First of all, thank you for coming. We think engaged citizens are a welcome and valuable part of the political process. I only 

wish every hearing drew this much interest. 

The purpose of this hearing is to hear from the Administrator of 

the EPA on important matters currently before the Agency, including the subcommittee’s continued interest in the workings of the 

Environmental Protection Agency. It is an opportunity for the subcommittee to ask questions and have a thoughtful discussion on 

these issues. The number of people in the audience this morning 

demonstrates the strong interest in these topics, and we welcome 

that interest and your attendance today. 

I do want to remind our guests in the audience that the Chair 

is obligated under the rules of the House and the rules of the committee to maintain order and preserve decorum in the committee 

room. I know that we have deep feelings on these issues and that 

we may not agree on everything, but I ask that we abide by the 

rules and be respectful of our audience members, our viewers, and 

our witnesses. 

The Chair appreciates the audience’s cooperation to maintaining 

order as we have a full discussion on these important issues. And 

I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

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

Good morning, Administrator Pruitt, and welcome back to the 

Environment Subcommittee. I am glad you are here today and look 

forward to our discussion. From a policy perspective and from my 

seat outside the Agency, I am generally pleased with the direction 

you are taking at the EPA. As I mentioned when you were here 

5 months ago, the American people don’t want ideologues rewriting 

or reinterpreting our laws, they expect and deserve folks at agencies like the EPA who will faithfully implement what Congress has 

passed. 

I am especially happy with the reinvigorated Superfund program 

and in particular, after more than 20 years on the National Priorities List, I am very glad to see progress finally being made on the 

West Lake Landfill which we have talked about numerous times. 

3 

Superfund sites are a tangible environmental and public health 

problem that may pose multiple immediate threats. 

One of the bills I worked on when I joined this committee was 

to help make the Superfund program operate more rationally, so to 

see that you also care about this program is important to me. I also 

want to applaud your initiative to look at the EPA’s workforce and 

identify ways to make the Agency more efficient and effective. As 

I mentioned back in December, this exercise, sadly, has not been 

undertaken in more than 20 years. I believe a lack of consistent review can lead to complacency or foster regulatory overreach and I 

look forward to learning more about efforts to reshape the bureaucracy. 

As the author of the changes to Title I of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act, I also want to commend you for reducing the backlog 

of applications for new chemicals. I understand the backlog has 

crept back up by one-third of its normal level, but I look forward 

to seeing what actions you take including the use of new user fees 

to help EPA operate its new chemicals review process more expeditiously. 

Finally, I am glad to hear that the regulatory process you are 

running is not looking to short-circuit public comment. Past administrations have issued enforceable guidelines or employed other 

tricks to get their way on policy when many Americans and their 

representatives in Congress may have disagreed. 

Now as public servants our jobs are not based solely on the 

things we do or the things we have done, but also the way we conduct our business. It is no secret that there have been many stories 

in the press about the management and operation to the Agency 

and your dealings with potentially regulated sectors. I consider 

much of this narrative to be a distraction, but one this committee 

cannot ignore. 

I look forward to hearing your side of the story on the rumors 

and allegations you are facing. Before yielding back my time I want 

to make a couple of environmental budget and policy observations. 

First, even though Federal law requires the President to propose 

a budget, the U.S. Constitution vests the actual budget and spending authority with the Congress, particularly the House of Representatives. Second, the President’s budget was released on February 12th, 2018 without full knowledge what Congress would do 

in the Consolidated Appropriations Act that became law 6 weeks 

later. Had the Administrator joined us in February or March, he 

would not have had to face this dynamic. But regardless of what 

Members think of the administration’s budget proposal, I hope 

today they will remember our own role in the budget and spending 

debate. 

Finally, I want to say something about administrative efforts regarding transportation fuels. Recently, the White House is engaged 

with the EPA and Department of Agriculture to consider administrative changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard. I take these efforts quite seriously, not only as subcommittee chairman but also 

as a representative of a corn and soybean growing district in southern Illinois that also happens to have two oil refineries. 

I believe that no matter how well intentioned any regulatory effort may be, the only way to get a lasting solution, especially one 

4 

that will not spend more time in court than on the books, is by 

having Congress settle this issue by statute. I urge you, Mr. Administrator, and the other members of the executive branch to patiently work with us in good faith on a legislative solution to the 

Renewable Fuel Standard. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Good morning Administrator Pruitt and welcome back to the Environment subcommittee. I am glad you are here today and look forward to our discussion. 

From a policy perspective, and from my seat outside the Agency, I am generally 

pleased with the direction you are taking the EPA. 

As I mentioned when you were here 5 months ago, the American people don’t 

want ideologues rewriting or reinterpreting law. They expect and deserve folks at 

agencies like EPA who will faithfully implement what Congress has passed. 

I am especially happy with the reinvigorated Superfund program and in particular, after more than 20 years on the National Priorities List, I’m very glad to 

see progress finally being made at the West Lake Landfill. Superfund sites are tangible environmental and public health problems that may pose multiple immediate 

threats. One of the first bills I worked on when I joined this committee was to help 

make the Superfund program operate more rationally; so, to see that you also care 

about this program is important to me. 

I also want to applaud your initiative to look at the EPA’s workforce and identify 

ways to make the Agency more efficient and effective. As I mentioned back in December, this exercise, sadly, has not been undertaken in more than 20 years. I believe a lack of consistent review can lead to complacency or foster regulatory overreach, and I look forward to learning more about efforts to reshape the bureaucracy. 

As the author of the changes to title I of the Toxic Substances Control Act, I also 

want to commend you for reducing the backlog of applications for new chemicals. 

I understand the backlog has crept back up by one-third of its normal level, but I 

look forward to seeing what actions you take, including the use of new user fees, 

to help the EPA operate its new chemicals review process more expeditiously. 

Finally, I am glad to hear that the regulatory process you are running is not looking to short circuit public comment. Past administrations have issued enforceable 

guidelines or employed other tricks to get their way on policy when many Americans 

and their representatives in Congress may have disagreed. 

Now, as public servants, our jobs are not based solely on the things we do, or the 

things we have done, but also on the way we conduct our business. 

It is no secret that there have been many stories in the press about the management and operations of the Agency and your dealings with potentially regulated sectors. I consider much of this narrative to be a distraction, but one this committee 

cannot ignore. I look forward to hearing your side of the story on the rumors and 

allegations you’re facing. 

Before yielding back my time, I want to make a couple of environmental budget 

and policy observations. 

First, even though Federal law requires the President to propose a budget, the 

U.S. Constitution vests the actual budget and spending authority with the Congress, 

particularly the House of Representatives. 

Second, the President’s budget was released on February 12, 2018 without full 

knowledge what Congress would do in the Consolidated Appropriations Act that became law six weeks later. Had the Administrator joined us in February or March, 

he would not have had to face this dynamic. But regardless of what Members think 

of the administration’s budget proposal, I hope today they will remember our own 

role in the budget and spending debate. 

Finally, I want to say something about administrative efforts regarding transportation fuels. Recently, the White House has engaged with the EPA and Department 

of Agriculture to consider administrative changes to the Renewable Fuels Standard. 

I take these efforts quite seriously, not only as subcommittee chairman, but as the 

representative of a corn and soybean growing district in Southern Illinois that also 

happens to have oil refineries. 

I believe that no matter how well intentioned ANY regulatory effort may be, the 

only way to get a lasting solution—especially one that will not spend more time in 

court than on the books—is by having Congress settle this issue in statute. I urge 

you, Mr. Administrator and the other members of the Executive Branch, to patiently 

work with us in good faith on a legislative solution to the RFS. 

5 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and recognize the ranking member 

of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. With that, I have 50 seconds left. Seeing no one 

wishing that time, I yield back the balance of my time and recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 

New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are here today to discuss 

EPA’s budget for fiscal year 2019. The President has called for a 

nearly 30 percent cut at EPA which would severely impair the 

Agency’s ability to fulfill its mission, to safeguard public health, 

and our environment. We know all too well the costs of failing that 

mission, of the pain of communities, of children and families who 

suffer illness resulting from pollution in their air and water. So 

yes, I am concerned that EPA is increasingly allowing polluters to 

set the agenda and threaten public health with minimal accountability. 

Under Administrator Pruitt, common-sense public health and environmental protections are being slated for elimination with no regard for scientific evidence and little justification beyond the wishes of regulated entities. These actions include reopening clean car 

standards without any mention of health or pollution, continuing 

to repeal the Clean Power Plan and dismissing the science of climate change, implementing TSCA reform that ignores bipartisan 

congressional intent, and a number of attempts to undermine the 

Clean Air Act. 

I expect the courts will agree that many, if not all, of these actions are unjustified. In addition, I am troubled by the dismissal 

of science by the Agency’s political leadership. Hundreds of scientists have left EPA with no apparent plan to replace them. Expertise on the science advisory boards has been eroded and the recently proposed rule to undermine the use of science in 

rulemakings will severely limit the Agency’s ability to safeguard 

public health. 

I know many career employees at EPA simply want to work hard 

to ensure the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is 

safe. To them I say thank you. But the Agency’s political leadership 

is pursuing a different agenda and the mounting evidence of serious ethics violations, incredible investigations at the highest level 

cannot go unscrutinized. 

Mr. Chair, I value this subcommittee’s bipartisan record. There 

are times that we disagree, but we have worked through tough 

issues together and are often able to find bipartisan balance. I 

know there are those in the majority who support rollbacks of EPA 

rules, but all of us should be troubled by the numerous reports of 

misuse of taxpayer dollars and apparent conflicts of interest that 

have made the Administrator a frequent subject of investigation. 

I am of course referring to the Administrator’s pattern of wasteful spending on luxury travel, personal security and yes, office upgrades. To say nothing of his well-documented sweetheart rental 

from a lobbyist with business before EPA and huge unapproved 

raises for top political staff, amongst others. Perhaps most conVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
6 

cerning have been the reports of retaliation against employees both 

career and political that have dared to question Administrator Pruitt’s most troubling abuses and expenditures. And in almost all 

cases, the more we have learned the worse they get. 

At this point, we must ask if the Inspector General will have the 

resources needed to investigate the Administrator’s seemingly endless misconduct. At the heart of all these issues is an apparent pattern of an Administrator refusing accountability and putting personal and special interests ahead of the American people. I would 

ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to imagine, if a 

Democrat acted in this manner, would you stand for it? I think the 

answer is clear: You would not. My colleagues and I may disagree 

about many of the policy decisions coming out of this EPA, but one 

thing I hope we can agree on is that we cannot afford to turn a 

blind eye to the reports of this Administrator’s fiscal mismanagement and abuse of his position. 

Mr. Administrator, the evidence is clear. You have failed as a 

steward of American taxpayer dollars and our environment. You 

claim to believe in the mission of the EPA, but your actions including your mistreatment of EPA’s dedicated career staff tell a very 

different story. Evidence from your time in State government 

should have made this obvious, but only in recent weeks have we 

come to fully understand the extent of your political ambitions, 

your tendency to abuse your position of personal gain, and to advance the agendas of your political benefactors, and what appears 

to be a propensity for grift. 

But, most importantly, your conduct as Administrator has demonstrated a lack of respect for American taxpayers and the Agency 

you were appointed to lead and has affirmed the regrettable but inevitable conclusion that you were never fit for this job and your refusal to provide any serious transparency, accept any accountability, or show even the slightest contrition is inexcusable. 

Mr. Chair, no one is above the law. Congress must hold this Administrator accountable on behalf of the American people, and I 

hope our committee can continue to investigate and bring the truth 

of these important issues to light in a bipartisan manner. With 

that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO

We are here today to discuss EPA’s budget for fiscal year 2019. The President has 

called for a nearly 30 percent cut at EPA, which would severely impair the Agency’s 

ability to fulfill its mission to safeguard public health and our environment. 

We know all too well the costs of failing that mission, of the pain of communities, 

of children and families who suffer illness resulting from pollution in their air and 

water. 

So yes, I am concerned that EPA is increasingly allowing polluters to set the 

agenda and threaten public health with minimal accountability. 

Under Administrator Pruitt, commonsense public health and environmental protections are being slated for elimination with no regard for scientific evidence and 

little justification beyond the wishes of regulated entities. 

These actions include reopening clean car standards without any mention of 

health or pollution, continuing to repeal the Clean Power Plan and dismissing the 

science of climate change, implementing TSCA reform that ignores bipartisan Congressional intent, and a number of attempts to undermine the Clean Air Act. 

I expect the courts will agree that many, if not all, of these actions are unjustified. 

7 

In addition, I am troubled by the dismissal of science by the Agency’s political 

leadership. 

Hundreds of scientists have left EPA with no apparent plan to replace them. Expertise on the Science Advisory Boards has been eroded. And the recently proposed 

rule to undermine the use of science in rulemakings will severely limit the Agency’s 

ability to safeguard public health. 

I know many career employees at EPA simply want to work hard to ensure the 

air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is safe. To them, I say thank you. 

But the Agency’s political leadership is pursuing a different agenda. And the 

mounting evidence of serious ethics violations and credible investigations at the 

highest levels cannot go unscrutinized. 

Mr. Chairman, I value this subcommittee’s bipartisan record. There are times 

that we disagree, but we have worked through tough issues together and are often 

able to find bipartisan balance. 

I know there are those in the Majority who support rollbacks of EPA rules. But 

all of us should be troubled by the numerous reports of misuse of taxpayer dollars 

and apparent conflicts of interest that have made the Administrator a frequent subject of investigation. 

I am of course referring to the Administrator’s pattern of wasteful spending on 

luxury travel, personal security, and office upgrades. To say nothing of his well-documented sweetheart rental from a lobbyist with business before EPA and huge unapproved raises for top political staff, among others. 

Perhaps most concerning have been the reports of retaliation against employees, 

both career and political, that have dared to question Administrator Pruitt’s most 

troubling abuses and expenditures. 

And in almost all cases, the more we have learned, the worse they get. 

At this point, we must ask if the Inspector General will have the resources needed 

to investigate the Administrator’s seemingly endless misconduct. 

At the heart of all these issues is an apparent pattern of an Administrator refusing accountability and putting personal and special interests ahead of the American 

people. 

I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to imagine if a Democrat 

acted in this manner. Would you stand for it? I think the answer is clear- you would 

not. 

My colleagues and I may disagree about many of the policy decisions coming out 

of this EPA. But one thing I hope we can agree on is that we cannot afford to turn 

a blind eye to the reports of this Administrator’s fiscal mismanagement and abuse 

of his position. 

Mr. Administrator, the evidence is clear: you have failed as a steward of American 

taxpayer dollars and our environment. 

You claim to believe in the mission of the EPA, but your actions, including your 

mistreatment of EPA’s dedicated career staff, tell a very different story. 

Evidence from your time in State government should have made this obvious, but 

only in recent weeks have we come to fully understand the extent of your political 

ambitions, your tendency to abuse your position for personal gain and to advance 

the agendas of your political benefactors, and what appears to be a propensity for 

grift. 

But most importantly, your conduct as Administrator has demonstrated a lack of 

respect for American taxpayers and the Agency you were appointed to lead, and has 

affirmed the regrettable but inevitable conclusion that you were never fit for this 

job. 

And your refusal to provide any serious transparency, accept any accountability, 

or show even the slightest contrition is inexcusable. 

Mr. Chairman, no one is above the law. Congress must hold this Administrator 

accountable on behalf of the American people. I hope our committee can continue 

to investigate and bring the truth of these important issues to light in a bipartisan 

manner. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now 

recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Greg Walden from 

Oregon, for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

8 

Mr. Pruitt, welcome back to the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee. As you know, we scheduled this hearing to focus on the 

EPA’s policy and budget priorities some time ago, but you surely 

understand that Members on both sides of the aisle have some serious questions about the management and operations of the Agency. 

We expect you to answer these questions fully and truthfully. 

I am concerned that the good progress being made on policy front 

is being undercut by allegations about your management of the 

Agency and use of its resources. These issues are too persistent to 

ignore and I know many Members are looking forward to hear 

more clarity from you today. You will have ample opportunity to 

help provide us with any information that can help answer these 

questions. Additionally, there are numerous ongoing investigations 

into these issues and I want you to commit to the committee that 

you will provide us with all the same information you provide to 

the EPA Inspector General and other congressional committees. 

Having said that, let me also say that I appreciate your good 

work to focus EPA on the mission Congress has tasked it with in 

statute, that being clean air for Americans to breathe, safe water 

for our citizens to drink, and soils free from pollution. As an example, I want to commend your efforts to reinvigorate the Superfund 

program and specifically to accelerate the cleanup of the Willamette River at the Portland Harbor. This has gone on long enough 

and you stepped in and made a difference to the satisfaction of the 

people of Portland, Oregon. And even some of your most liberal detractors applaud your efforts on this critical cleanup and I thank 

you for taking the lead. 

I also appreciate your desire to rebalance the power between 

Washington, DC, and the States, making our efforts more efficient 

and helping deliver tangible results to communities across the 

country. To truly succeed, we need stronger local, State, Federal, 

and private partnerships where we can team up and leverage all 

available resources to accomplish the goals of cleaner water, cleaner air, and cleaner soils. Importantly, I appreciate your stated commitment to administer the law as Congress intended and to have 

the Agency concentrate on its statutory obligations under environmental and public health laws as well as the Administrative Procedures Act. 

Bringing new transparency to your public processes, especially 

when it comes to the data and science that underpins policies, is 

truly a welcome change from past EPAs. Mr. Administrator, too 

many of your predecessors believed a clean environment was also 

incompatible with a healthy economy. I share your view that we 

can and must have both in America. We need common sense regulation that protects the public, actually cleans up the environment, 

and does so in a way that does not unnecessarily suffocate the 

economy. I believe the EPA should focus on innovative problem 

solving and partnership with States, the private sector, and other 

stakeholders that leverage their resources and expertise. I look forward to our discussion today about the Agency’s budget and the 

EPA’s direction now and in the future. 

As with our hearing with you 5 months ago, I remain interested 

in the goals you are establishing for the programs at EPA and the 

metrics you intend to use to measure their progress. Particularly, 

9 

I noticed objective number 5 in the proposed budget discusses staffing and internal management issues. It is important that EPA not 

be bloated, but it is essential that EPA have the staff with proper 

expertise, implementing and enforcing programs that correlate 

with their experience; finding that critical staffing balance is one 

of the most important roles of anyone given the enormous task of 

managing a large, taxpayer-funded enterprise. 

Finally, I want to applaud those objectives in the Agency’s budget that reduce red tape result in the regulated community better 

knowing what is expected of them and promoting prompt, even, 

and fair enforcement of the law. I look forward to learning more 

about all of that today. So I thank you for joining us again before 

the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I look forward to your 

testimony. 

With that Mr. Chairman I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Welcome back to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Administrator. As you know, we scheduled this hearing to focus on the EPA’s policy and 

budget priorities. But you surely understand that Members on both sides of the 

aisle also have serious questions the management and operations of the Agency. We 

expect you to answer these questions fully and truthfully. 

I am concerned that the good progress being made on the policy front is being 

undercut by allegations about your management of the Agency and use of its resources. These issues are too persistent to ignore, and I know many Members are 

looking for more clarity from you today. You will have ample opportunity today to 

provide us with any information. Additionally, while there are numerous ongoing investigations into these issues, I want you to commit to providing this committee 

with all the same information you provide to the EPA Inspector General and other 

congressional committees. 

Having said that, let me also say that I appreciate your good work to focus EPA 

on the mission Congress has tasked it with in statute: clean air for Americans to 

breathe, safe water for our citizens to drink, and soils free from pollution. As an 

example, I want to commend your efforts to reinvigorate the Superfund program, 

and specifically to accelerate the cleanup of the Willamette River at the Portland 

Harbor. Even your most liberal detractors applaud your efforts on this critical clean 

up. 

I also appreciate your desire to rebalance the power between Washington, DC, 

and the States, making our efforts more efficient and helping deliver tangible results to communities across the country. To truly succeed, we need stronger local, 

State, Federal and private partnerships where we can team up and leverage all 

available resources to accomplish the goals of cleaner water, air and soil. 

Importantly, I appreciate your stated commitment to administer the law as Congress intended, and to have the Agency concentrate on its statutory obligations 

under environmental and public health laws, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act. Bringing new transparency to your public processes, especially when it 

comes to the data and science that underpins public policy, is truly a welcome 

change from the past practices at the EPA. 

Mr. Administrator, too many of your predecessors believed a clean environment 

was incompatible with economic growth and job creation. I share your view that we 

can and must have both. We need common sense regulation that protects the public, 

actually cleans up the environment and does so in a way that doesn’t unnecessarily 

suffocate the economy. 

I believe the EPA should focus on innovative problem solving and partnerships 

with the States, the private sector, and other stakeholders that leverage their resources and expertise. I look forward to our discussion today about the Agency’s 

budget and EPA’s direction now and into the future. 

As with our hearing five months ago, I remain interested in the goals you are establishing for the programs at EPA and the metrics you intend to use to measure 

their progress. Particularly, I noticed Objective #5 in the proposed budget discusses 

staffing and internal management issues. It is important that EPA not be bloated, 

but it is essential that EPA have staff with proper expertise implementing and enVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
10 

forcing programs that correlate with their experience. Finding that critical staffing 

balance is one of the most important roles of anyone given the enormous task of 

managing a large, taxpayer-funded enterprise. 

Finally, I want to applaud those objectives in the Agency’s budget that reduce redtape, result in the regulated community better knowing what is expected of them, 

and promote prompt, even, and fair enforcement of the law. I look forward to learning more about that today. 

Again, thank you for being here today. I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Congressman Pallone from New Jersey, for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Pruitt has brought secrecy, conflicts of interest, 

and scandal to the EPA. In any other administration, Republican 

or Democrat, you would be long gone by now. So far, 140 House 

Democrats have signed on to a resolution introduced by Ms. Castor 

expressing no confidence in you, Mr. Pruitt. Additionally, four Republican House Members have also called on you to step down. 

And the voices are growing. Just look at the critiques from 

former Bush EPA Administrator and New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman who called Administrator Pruitt’s tenure, and 

I quote, a slap in the face to fiscal responsibility and responsible 

governance, and said also that evidence is abundant of the dangerous political turn of an Agency that is supposed to be guided by 

science. Another former Republican EPA Administrator William 

Reilly called Administrator Pruitt, and I quote, a third-rate ideologue. 

Past Administrators of both parties believed in the EPA’s mission and understood that they had been given a sacred trust by the 

people of our country. Unfortunately, this is not the case with you, 

Mr. Pruitt. Clearly, you do not believe in EPA’s mission and appear 

to have forgotten that you are here to serve all the American people, not merely a select few or just yourself. And the fact is, Administrator Pruitt has used this office as nothing more than an opportunity to either enrich himself or his corporate friends and President Trump seems to be perfectly fine with all these actions. So 

much for draining the swamp. 

When we met in December, you pledged to be more transparent. 

You promised to do a better job providing technical assistance, 

sending witnesses to hearings, and responding to congressional requests. But you have followed through on none of these promises. 

What you have done is generate scandal after scandal. When confronted about them you have repeatedly failed to take responsibility for your actions and instead you have blamed your staff, your 

security detail, your critics, pretty much anyone but yourself, and 

you are accountable for your Agency and all of these scandals, in 

my opinion. The buck stops at your desk. 

There are so many outstanding questions that we need truthful 

answers to today but because so far we have only gotten halftruths, misleading answers, or outright falsehoods. For instance, 

you rented a condo at well below market value and then emphatiVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
11 

cally claimed on Fox News that your landlord’s lobbyist husband 

had no business before the EPA, a statement that was proven to 

be untrue. And it is that kind of conduct that prompted Ranking 

Members Tonko, DeGette, and Vice Ranking Member Castor and 

I to request that you be placed under oath for this hearing and that 

it be expanded to include the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. 

The chairman did not agree to that request, but I would remind 

you what Chairman Walden said to the press when he declined our 

request. He said lying to Congress is a crime regardless of whether 

or not you are sworn in. So now committee Republicans have conveniently told the press that they are investigating you for some 

of your outrageous ethical abuses, yet I have seen no evidence from 

committee Republicans that that is really happening. 

Fortunately, committee Democrats have been demanding answers, and five independent Federal investigations are now being 

done into your conduct at our request. Yesterday, I joined with 

Ranking Member Cummings of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to request an additional investigation by the Office 

of Special Counsel into your troubling pattern of apparently retaliating against EPA employees who question your extravagant 

spending, and I am confident that these investigations will affirm 

what I have come to believe is true: that you are unfit to hold public office and undeserving of the public trust. 

And I don’t say those words, you know, because I particularly 

dislike you or, you know, hold you in ill repute. I just think that 

every indication we have is that you really should resign and you 

are undeserving of the public trust. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Administrator Pruitt has brought secrecy, conflicts of interest and scandal to the 

EPA. In any other administration, Republican or Democrat, you would be long gone 

by now. 

So far, 140 House Democrats have signed onto a resolution introduced by Ms. 

Castor expressing ‘‘no confidence’’ in you, Mr. Pruitt. Additionally, four Republican 

House Members have also called on you to step down. 

And the voices are growing. Just look at the critiques from former Bush EPA Administrator and New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, who called Administrator Pruitt’s tenure a ‘‘slap in the face to fiscal responsibility and responsible 

governance’’ and said, ‘‘Evidence is abundant of the dangerous political turn of an 

Agency that is supposed to be guided by science.’’ Another former Republican EPA 

Administrator, William Reilly, called Administrator Pruitt a, ‘‘third rate ideologue.’’ 

Past Administrators of both parties believed in the EPA’s mission and understood 

that they had been given a sacred trust by the people of our country. 

Unfortunately, this is not the case, Mr. Pruitt, clearly you do not believe in EPA’s 

mission, and appear to have forgotten that you are here to serve all the American 

people, not merely a select few, or just yourself. The fact is Administrator Pruitt 

has used this office as nothing more than an opportunity to enrich himself and his 

corporate friends, and President Trump seems to be perfectly fine with all of his actions. So much for draining the swamp. 

When we met in December, you pledged to be more transparent. You promised 

to do a better job providing technical assistance, sending witnesses to hearings, and 

responding to Congressional requests. You have followed through on none of those 

promises. 

What you have done is generate scandal after scandal. When confronted about 

them, you have repeatedly failed to take responsibility for your actions. Instead, you 

have blamed your staff, your security detail, your critics—pretty much anyone but 

12 

yourself. You are accountable for your Agency and all of these scandals. The buck 

stops at your desk. 

There are so many outstanding questions that we need truthful answers to today, 

because so far, we’ve only gotten half-truths, misleading answers, or outright falsehoods. For instance, you rented a condo at well below market value, and then emphatically claimed on Fox News that your landlord’s lobbyist husband had no business before the EPA—a statement proven to be untrue. 

It is that kind of conduct that prompted Ranking Members Tonko, DeGette, and 

Vice Ranking Member Castor and I to request that you be placed under oath for 

this hearing and that it be expanded to include the Oversight and Investigations 

Subcommittee. The chairman did not agree to that request, but I would remind you 

what the chairman said to the press when he declined our request: lying to Congress is a crime, regardless of whether or not you are sworn in. 

Now, committee Republicans have conveniently told the press they are investigating you for some of your outrageous ethical abuses. Yet, I’ve seen no evidence 

from committee Republicans that this is really happening. 

Fortunately, committee Democrats have been demanding answers and five independent Federal investigations are now being done into your conduct at our request. 

Yesterday, I joined with Ranking Member Cummings of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to request an additional investigation by the Office of Special Counsel into your troubling pattern of apparently retaliating against EPA employees who question your extravagant spending. 

I am confident that these investigations will affirm what I have come to believe 

is true: You are unfit to hold public office and undeserving of the public trust. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. We now conclude with Members’ opening statements. The Chair would like to 

remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all Members’ 

opening statements will be made part of the record. 

We would also now like to thank and welcome our distinguished 

witness, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, for being here today. 

You will have an opportunity to give an opening statement followed 

by a round of questions by Members. You are joined by the Honorable Holly Greaves, Chief Financial Officer. Welcome to you also, 

we appreciate you being here. 

And, Mr. Administrator, we now recognize you for 5 minutes for 

your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF E. SCOTT PRUITT, ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, good morning to you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Pallone, members of the committee, it is good to be with 

you today and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters 

that you have raised. 

There is consequential and important work being done at the 

EPA since the beginning of the Trump administration, both in 

terms of improved environmental outcomes as well as substantial 

regulatory reform. We are stripping burdensome costs from the 

American economy at an unprecedented pace, and we are doing 

this while inspiring confidence in the American people that it’s 

Government going to work with them as opposed to against them, 

to achieve harmony between jobs and growth and environmental 

stewardship. 

In the short time of the Trump administration we have made 

enormous progress as far as improved environmental outcomes. 

These are just a few: We have removed over three times the number of polluted sites in contaminated communities across the country as compared to the previous administration for 2017, and for 

2018 we are on pace to remove as many as ten times the number 

13 

of polluted sites. We are working cooperatively with the States to 

improve air quality through the approval of 350 State Implementation Plans. And with regard to water we are leading a multiagency 

approach that has set a goal of eradicating lead from our drinking 

water within 10 years, largely through the utilization of a tool that 

you provided, WIFIA. It is my goal to prioritize applications for 

critical water infrastructure over the 10 years to hopefully see $4 

billion a year dedicated to the replacement of lead service lines in 

order to reduce lead in our drinking water. 

President Trump has set an ambitious goal for the EPA under 

his administration, and our measurable achievements are a testament to the effectiveness which a results-driven EPA can achieve. 

President Trump did not only task us with accomplishing the core 

mission of the EPA acting more efficiently and more effectively 

than ever before, he also demanded comprehensive regulatory reform. That transformational change is happening. In just 1 year, 

the Trump administration has saved the American people almost 

$8 billion in regulatory savings. And the EPA alone is responsible 

for nearly two dozen regulatory actions, saving Americans one billion of that eight billion in regulatory cost. 

These actions are providing America’s job creators with the regulatory clarity they deserve. By repealing and replacing the so-called 

Clean Power Plan we are ending a one-size-fits-all regulation on 

energy providers and restoring rule of law. By rescinding and rewriting the 2015 Waters of the United States rule we are ending 

Washington’s power grab over land use decisions across the country. It is indisputable that we have made enormous progress in advancing President Trump’s reform agenda and pruning back decades of regulatory overreach that was unnecessary, burdensome, 

and ultimately harmful to hardworking Americans across the country. 

When the President nominated me to this position I believed the 

work was going to be impactful and it has been and tremendous 

progress has been made. But I did not expect the work to be easy 

and I knew there would be meaningful opposition. However, as I 

sit before you today, I recognize there have been very troubling 

media reports over the past few weeks. I promise you that I, more 

than anyone, want to establish the hard facts and provide answers 

to questions surrounding these reports. 

Let me be very clear. I have nothing to hide as it relates to how 

I have run the Agency for the past 16 months. I am not afraid to 

admit that there has been a learning process, and when Congress 

or independent bodies of oversight find fault in our decisionmaking, 

I want to correct that and ensure that it does not happen again. 

Ultimately, as the Administrator of the EPA, the responsibility for 

identifying and making changes necessary rests with me and no 

one else. With that being said, facts are facts, and fiction is fiction, 

and a lie doesn’t become truth just because it appears on the front 

page of a newspaper. Much of what has been targeted towards me 

and my team has been half-truths, or at best stories that have been 

so twisted they do not resemble reality. And I am here, and I welcome the chance to be here to set the record straight in these 

areas. 

14 

But let’s have no illusions about what is really going on here. 

Those who have attacked the EPA and attacked me are doing so 

because they want to attack and derail the President’s agenda and 

undermine this administration’s priorities. I am simply not going 

to let that happen. I look forward to your questions today, and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pruitt follows:] 

15 


31504.001
16 


31504.002
17 


31504.003
18 


31504.004
19 


31504.005
20 


31504.006
21 


31504.007
22 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

thanks the Administrator. I will start the series of questioning, and 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for the first round. 

We have obviously a lot of media presence here. I have been 

asked the last couple days what am I going to do, what am I going 

to say, and I said, ‘‘Well, I am going to talk policy and stewardship.’’ So half my 5 minutes is going to be on a policy issue, and 

hopefully that will save some time for us to talk about some stewardship issues. 

Since you last testified before the subcommittee, the White 

House has hosted a number of meetings, some of which have included you and other Cabinet officials, senators, and various stakeholders, to discuss changes in the Renewable Fuel Standard. As I 

alluded to in my opening statement, those potential administrative 

actions hang like the sword of Damocles over efforts on Capitol Hill 

to reach an enduring, legislative solution to the problems of that 

program. 

Are any of these administrative changes imminent, or will you 

commit to allowing Congress time to work on a legislative solution? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think both are important, and 

I do think there are some regulatory options that we can pursue. 

Many have talked about transparency as an example with respect 

to the trading platform and the RFS trading platform, how long 

you can hold a RIN as an example, who can buy, who can sell 

RINs. There are those kinds of, I think, evaluations that we can 

engage from a regulatory perspective. And, as you know, there is 

also consideration about the RVP waiver and the E15 being allowed year-round. 

I think that is something, it is a legal determination. It is not 

a policy determination. And we have been earnest the last several 

months evaluating that in hopes that we can get to a conclusion 

on our ability to take those kinds of actions. But I really believe 

that Congress’ role in this is terribly important because as you look 

at the issues that we are facing with respect to the Renewable Fuel 

Standard and the viability of the RINs platform we need both Congress and our regulatory responses to be working together. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, let me just tell you from my perspective what 

happens as we are trying to get our disparate groups together is 

that every time someone gets hauled down to the White House the 

other side goes crazy. And then, you probably get to see the same 

thing, the other side gets hauled down and the other side goes 

crazy. And we are trying to get everybody in the room and that is 

the perspective that I come from. 

The follow-up on this is what actions, if any, are you taking now 

to prepare for the Renewable Fuel Standard post 2022? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, as you know, under the statute we have an 

ability to reset those volume obligations, and we are evaluating 

that. There is a cap of 15 billion for conventional presently. But another area, Mr. Chairman, that I know you have been interested 

in is high octane. And with respect to—it was mentioned in some 

other comments about the CAFE standards. There needs to be a serious consideration of us pursuing as a country fuel choices and options to meet those CAFE standards and provide high octane as an 

option to the American people. I think there is a potential that will 

23 

serve both the ag sector as well at the auto sector and consumers 

across this country that we could pursue together. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, thank you. Now I want to move to the administrative portion of my two questions. Obviously you have already alluded to and some of my colleagues have alluded to all the 

recent stories and issues and your willingness to set the record 

straight. So, in my minute and 45 seconds left, I want to give you 

the time to address those as you will. 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my 

opening comment, I want to address each of these respective issues 

and provide information, and we will work with Congress both with 

Oversight as well as this committee to provide any and all information that helps answer those questions. Those have been a distraction to our agenda, I think the Congressman mentioned that earlier, and that troubles me. Ultimately, as Administrator of the 

EPA, I have to take responsibility to make changes internal to the 

Agency to get accountability in our processes to ensure that in each 

of these areas we get better results and that we show the American 

people that we are committed to being good stewards of taxpayer 

resources, staying true to our mission at the Agency, which I believe that we are and have, and I am committed to doing that. That 

is why I am here to talk to you about it today. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank the Administrator and I yield back my 

time and now turn to the ranking member of the subcommittee, 

Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Recently it came out that two 

EPA employees who came with you to Washington from Oklahoma 

were given significant raises over the White House’s objection. 

When you were interviewed by Ed Henry on Fox News you claimed 

to have been unaware of those raises. At the time, Ed Henry asked 

you whether you intentionally went around the White House or 

whether you simply had no idea what your staff was up to. 

The EPA Inspector General is looking into those raises and last 

week the IG released preliminary information showing that the 

forms to grant the raises were signed by your chief of staff, Mr. 

Ryan Jackson, who wrote that he was signing on your behalf. This 

is your opportunity to set the record straight. Did you, Administrator, authorize Mr. Jackson to sign those documents for you? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congressman, those were delegated to Mr. Jackson, 

and the Inspector General did reference that in his management 

alert and he recognized the authority. 

Mr. TONKO. So you did authorize him then to sign them? 

Mr. PRUITT. Those decisions, that decision was made by my chief 

of staff. 

Mr. TONKO. Yes or no, did you authorize him? 

Mr. PRUITT. There are delegations giving him that authority. 

Mr. TONKO. So that is a yes. 

Mr. PRUITT. The Inspector General recognized that, Congressman. 

Mr. TONKO. So you authorized Mr. Jackson to sign those documents for you. In internal emails, Sarah Greenwalt, one of the 

aides who received a substantial raise, stated that you were aware 

of and supported the raises. Was that true? 

24 

Mr. PRUITT. I think with respect to the raises, what is important—— 

Mr. TONKO. Was that true? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congressman. 

Mr. TONKO. I have 5 minutes, so I have to move along. 

Mr. PRUITT. I was not aware of the amount, nor was I made 

aware—— 

Mr. TONKO. Not the amount, were you aware of the raises? 

Mr. PRUITT. I was not aware of the amount, nor was I aware of 

the bypassing or the PPO process not being respected. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, then, I am concerned that you have no idea of 

what is going on in your name at your Agency, especially on an 

issue already under IG investigation. You have spent this week 

claiming to champion transparency, but on Tuesday you blocked 

the press from attending an event where you announced a new proposal that will severely limit the Agency’s use of public health 

studies in policymaking. 

When internal emails came out about this new policy last week, 

they revealed that it had been developed entirely by political staff, 

seemingly without a robust outside stakeholder process, and once 

the press started covering those emails they were removed from 

the Agency’s public FOIA portal. I do not know if you were personally involved in the decision to remove those emails, but it certainly 

was not transparent. 

Mr. Administrator, you like to claim that you support the rule of 

law and acknowledge the limits of EPA’s authority. Many of our 

environmental statutes are clear. EPA must use the best available 

science as a foundation of policymaking. This proposal would prevent that. Are you aware, yes or no, that Nancy Beck raised concerns that such a policy could also impact data that would be important to industry such as confidential business information? Yes 

or no. 

Mr. PRUITT. This effort—— 

Mr. TONKO. Yes or no. 

Mr. PRUITT. This effort, Congressman, was about ensuring 

that—— 

Mr. TONKO. Were you aware that—— 

Mr. PRUITT [continuing]. At the Agency—— 

Mr. TONKO. Were you aware that Nancy Beck raised the concern? Were you aware? 

Mr. PRUITT. As I indicated, Congressman, this effort is actually 

a reflection of Congress’ commitment to transparency at the Agency. 

Mr. TONKO. Sir, I need to move on. I take that as a yes. To mitigate that concern it appears that the proposal has been crafted so 

that you, the Administrator, has the discretion to grant exemptions 

as you see fit without any transparency or accountability for your 

decisions. For example, if EPA was assessing the safety of a chemical, you alone would have the power to selectively block public 

health studies that do not support your political priorities and 

allow ones that favor your friends in industry. Not only does this 

open the door to special treatment for industry over the public 

health, but you could also pick winners and losers amongst the industry types. 

25 

Do you think it would be hypocritical to exempt industry data 

containing confidential business information from disclosure but 

not personal health information from public health researchers? 

Yes or no? Would it be hypocritical? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think that is a misstatement. Congressman, I believe that what needs to be clear is that what actions we took this 

week were to ensure that data and methodology were also available 

to those that are are concerned about our rulemaking. 

Mr. TONKO. You know, I believe it is hypocritical. So moving on, 

given your track record how can the public trust your discretion to 

make fair decisions when it comes to those biases? 

Mr. PRUITT. You know, Congressman, this was an effort to ensure transparency. Because as we do rulemaking at the Agency 

what is important—— 

Mr. TONKO. Based on your record should the public trust your 

decision-making here with the hypocrisies that would exist in the 

system you defined? 

Mr. PRUITT. This is actually in support of transparency for all 

rulemaking at the Agency. This is not an individual decision that 

is made by the Administrator. This is programmatic offices making 

decisions on rules—— 

Mr. TONKO. Sir. 

Mr. PRUITT [continuing]. That are based upon transparent—— 

Mr. TONKO. Sir, I think this boils down to an issue of trust, and 

you have developed a system where you are picking winners and 

losers. We pit the public against the industry or you are picking 

favorites within the industry and I think there is a hypocritical 

outcome to it all. 

And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague for staying within time. And 

the Chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Congressman Walden, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my 

opening statement there are many reviews currently going on at 

the EPA, in the Inspector General’s Office, Government Accountability Office, and other congressional committees, about some of 

these concerns you are hearing about today, Mr. Administrator, 

and that have been raised in the media. So my question is pretty 

easy. Will you commit the EPA will provide this committee with all 

the documents and information EPA produces for those inquiries? 

Mr. PRUITT. Absolutely. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. As I told you the last time you were 

here, this committee is charged by the House of Representatives 

with legislative and oversight responsibility for the bulk of the statutes that the EPA implements and we decide where the Agency’s 

money can best be spent. Can you help me understand your guiding principles for determining legitimate uses of Federal money by 

the EPA including whether you are using any kind of previous 

spending guidance to make these decisions? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congressman, I believe that as we are making decisions we have policy and guidelines at the Agency that drive those 

decisions. Some of them are attributable to programmatic offices, 

some of them are attributable to, you know, the science part of our 

26 

office. But yes, those guidelines govern our decisions each and 

every day. 

Mr. WALDEN. And are they similar to the guidelines that governed your predecessor’s decisions? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. In what ways? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, these are policies that predated our time there 

at the Agency, and so they have governed our—you know, from 

travel to internal decisionmaking on allocation of dollars to serve 

programmatic offices. So these are predated policies that govern 

our actions every single day. 

Mr. WALDEN. Let me ask you about the issue of science and 

transparency. I have had a lot of constituents over the years who 

have been very concerned about decisions in various agencies that 

get made by Administrators or the bureaucracy, and in some cases 

they can’t get access to the underlying data that underpins the decisions. The proposal that you put forward this last week or so, how 

does that address that issue? Are we going to get science that everybody gets a chance to see that can be replicated that maybe is 

peer-reviewed so we are all working off facts? 

Mr. PRUITT. And actually this has been an interest of Congress. 

As you know, there has been proposed legislation to address this 

very issue. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, it has been. 

Mr. PRUITT. And this was a regulatory action that was taken this 

week, a proposed rule that actually goes to the heart of transparency, as I was trying to share earlier. Because it requires that— 

and when we do rulemaking at the Agency we can’t just simply 

publish the conclusions, the summaries of studies, because what 

has happened historically is third parties have provided studies or 

summaries, we have taken those conclusions, used those as a basis 

of rulemaking but not published the data, not published the methodology that actually supported the conclusion. And so, those that 

are commenting on rules were ill-equipped to be able to understand 

whether the conclusions were rightly concluded or not. 

So this is an effort on our part to ensure that, as we do science 

at the Agency—whether it is internal at the EPA or whether we 

use third parties, as far as their findings—data, methodology, and 

conclusion should all be a part of the package. 

Mr. WALDEN. So is what you are trying to do is make more information available or less information available? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, absolutely more information available. 

Mr. WALDEN. To the public. So you are going to require that 

every one of these decisions or whatever they are based on, the 

data and the methodology as well as the conclusions are transparent and available to the public. Is that going to be on your 

website? How are we going to know this? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, it is actually a proposed rule, Congressman. It 

is actually something that we are taking comment on, and I am 

sure there will be a wide array of comment on that very proposal. 

But the objective, once again, is to ensure transparency, reproducibility, with respect to the science that we rely upon in making our 

decisions in rulemaking. 

27 

Mr. WALDEN. As you know, Mr. Administrator, last year, and 

then I think we actually passed it into law this year, this committee unanimously, I believe, here and in the House, rewrote 

America’s Brownfields Legislation and we are working together to 

rewrite the Safe Drinking Water, clean Drinking Water Act as well 

and make additional grants available. What are you doing to help 

clean up these brownfields sites that litter our neighborhoods and 

our country? 

Mr. PRUITT. You know, we just issued a series of grants across 

the country this week with respect to the Brownfields Program, 

and you are right. It has been a tremendous success reclaiming polluted areas across this country to allow communities to once again 

enjoy those areas. And so with the partnership of Congress, the increased omnibus, you know, provided additional monies there for 

us to enhance that program, we are administering those grants and 

seeking to partner with communities all over the country to ensure 

that these areas are cleaned up and re-purposed and able to be enjoyed again by those communities. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I just have a few seconds left. I want to follow 

up on what the chairman of the subcommittee talked about regarding the RFS and new fuel standards. I want you to know that Mr. 

Flores and Mr. Shimkus and others on this committee have put a 

lot of time in because it is a priority of mine and theirs to figure 

out going forward how we have a standard that works for those 

who grow corn, those who refine fuels, the auto industry, and the 

environment. 

And I would hope this administration would look to our leadership in this effort as well as any independent actions or the fact 

that we are actually a co-equal branch and the House has some authority in this area as well as the Senate. Will you commit to that? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think it is essential, as I shared with the chairman 

earlier, because at the end of the day certainty is very important 

in this area. And I think you see tremendous investment over the 

last—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. We will make 

sure—and I apologize. I just want to make sure that—we have a 

lot of people lined up. We will have more time to talk about that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair thanks the chairman, and the Chair 

now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I listened, Mr. Administrator, to your reasons why 

you haven’t resigned and basically you said that you are staying 

because only you can carry out the President’s mission. And I 

strongly disagree with that. I think your actions are an embarrassment to President Trump and distract from the EPA’s ability to effectively carry out the President’s mission and if I were the President I wouldn’t want your help, I would just get rid of you. But I 

am not the President so let me move on. 

It has been reported that you have even gone so far as to retaliate against EPA’s employees, punishing those who questioned your 

spending and management, and sidelining those who attempted to 

advance important public health protections. So I wanted to ask 

28 

again, yes or no, because we don’t have a lot of time, it has been 

reported that at least five EPA employees were recently reassigned, 

demoted, or otherwise retaliated against after they raised concerns 

about your spending. Is that correct, yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. I don’t ever recall a conversation to that end. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I will take that as a yes. I was further 

alarmed—— 

Mr. PRUITT. It shouldn’t be taken as a yes. 

Mr. PALLONE [continuing]. That you removed the head of the 

EPA office that found that you did not face direct death threats. 

Has it always been your practice to fire people who disagree with 

you? 

Mr. PRUITT. I mean, Congressman, the Inspector General himself 

has noted that the threats against me are unprecedented—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, you are not answering yes or no. So 

again—— 

Mr. PRUITT [continuing]. With respect to the quantity and the 

type of threats and is on the record saying so. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Look, six staffers is a pattern, I think you 

need to start taking responsibility. But you say you are going to 

take responsibility but you don’t. I am very concerned by this troubling pattern of retaliation which is not only potentially illegal but 

is also creating a hostile environment that is expediting the exodus 

of valuable expertise from the EPA. In place of those dedicated 

public servants you are installing industry lobbyists. 

Let’s look at the case of Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, an expert who 

fought to finalize a ban on methylene chloride, a deadly chemical 

used in paint strippers. The New York Times and other media have 

reported that her efforts were opposed by Nancy Beck, the chemical 

industry lobbyist you put in charge of regulating chemicals. Just 

last year, Nancy Beck was being paid by the chemical industry to 

lobby against chemical regulations. Now that she is retired, Nancy 

Beck is running the chemical program and the proposal to ban 

methylene chloride has been abandoned. 

Yes or no, were you involved in the decision to abandon that 

rulemaking or was that decision made by Nancy Beck? 

Mr. PRUITT. The rulemaking has not been abandoned. Actually 

there is a proposed rule—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, you say that but that is not accurate. Do you 

know that manufacturers of methylene chloride paint strippers 

have been aware of deaths linked to this use for more than 28 

years but continue to produce it? Yes or no. 

Mr. PRUITT. That is actually a solvent that we are considering 

under the—— 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Obviously you don’t want to admit what it 

does. Despite all your scandals, the White House says you have the 

President’s support because you are implementing his deregulatory 

agenda, but I think that agenda has real costs. In October 2017, 

right before EPA abandoned the rulemaking, Drew Wynne, a 31- 

year-old small business owner in South Carolina, died while using 

methylene chloride. Drew’s brother is here today, and I want to 

thank him for traveling here from South Carolina and continuing 

to advocate for a ban of this deadly chemical. 

29 

Were you or others at EPA aware of Drew Wynne’s death when 

the Agency abandoned the ban of this deadly chemical? Yes or no, 

were you aware of his death? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think it is important, Congressman, to know that 

we have a proposed ban in place that is being considered and we 

are taking comments on, and we haven’t finished that process. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, obviously you are not going to admit whether 

you know about Drew’s death. Unfortunately, in February another 

31-year-old man, Joshua Atkins, died using a methylene chloride 

paint stripper to refinish his bike. I learned about Joshua from his 

mother, Lauren, who sent me a deeply touching letter. 

And I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to put that 

letter into the record, in which she states her hope that her son 

will be the last to die from this chemical. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Can we make sure we see the letter? 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes. I will give it to you right now, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, Mr. Pruitt, your deregulatory agenda costs lives, real people with names, with brothers, with mothers. You have the power 

to finalize the ban of methylene chloride now and prevent more 

deaths, but you haven’t done it. Do you have anything to say to 

these families at this point? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congressman, as I was trying to indicate earlier, 

there is a proposed ban in place that we took comment on that we 

are reviewing presently. There has been no decision at this time to 

not—— 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Well, obviously you have nothing to say 

to these families. Look, you say you are going to do something, but 

these chemicals are still on the shelves and they make a mockery 

of Lautenberg’s TSCA reform legislation that this committee 

worked so hard on, including our chairman, Mr. Shimkus, and it 

makes a mockery of the EPA. You have the power immediately to 

get this chemical off the shelves, and you are not doing it and you 

should do it. 

And again, Mr. Shimkus, I appreciate your help with TSCA, but 

he is not implementing TSCA, so I am wondering if our efforts 

were totally in vain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

thanks the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes Chairman Emeritus Congressman Barton from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am honored to 

have the EPA Administrator back before the committee. 

Mr. Administrator, you are not the first person to be the victim 

of, for lack of a better term, Washington politics. You got picked 

to be the EPA Administrator because of the service you provided 

for the great State of Oklahoma in fighting some of the Obama administration radical clean air policies. You recommended and I support the recommendation that you made to the President that we 

withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement. That is a decision that most of the stakeholders at EPA violently oppose. 

If you can’t debate the policies in Washington, you attack the 

personality and that is what is happening to you. Republicans do 

it when it is a Democratic President. The Democrats do it when it 

is a Republican President. And in my opinion, and it is just my 

opinion, that is what is happening to you. 

30 

On your housing costs, were those approved, the contract, before 

it was signed? Didn’t you get an ethics review and didn’t that individual say it was acceptable? 

Mr. PRUITT. There have been two ethics reviews, Congressman. 

Mr. BARTON. I need quick answers because I want to ask you—— 

Mr. PRUITT. There have been two ethics reviews speaking to the 

lease itself saying that it met market rates. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. You have been attacked for flying first class. 

Is that illegal? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congressman, that was approved by the travel office 

and the security team at the EPA. I have since made changes to 

that. But that was—— 

Mr. BARTON. But it is not illegal. 

Mr. PRUITT. It is not. 

Mr. BARTON. It may look bad but it is not illegal. There was an 

Energy secretary named Hazel O’Leary under the Clinton administration. She leased party jets that were used by rock stars. Party 

jets, not one time but several times. Have you ever rented a party 

jet? 

Mr. PRUITT. No, Congressman. 

Mr. BARTON. You have not rented a party jet. OK, that is good. 

Let’s talk about this transparency issue. As I understand it, your 

transparency proposal is that if they are going to use the science 

to make a recommendation on an EPA regulation they have to actually report what the science is. They have to release the documents and the data sets and all of that. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. That is exactly right, Congressman. 

Mr. BARTON. Is there anything wrong with that? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think it enhances transparency and the confidence 

of the American people as we do rulemaking. 

Mr. BARTON. I think it is an excellent idea and it is long overdue. 

In your budget—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman suspend for a minute? 

We have guests in the gallery. You are our guests. I have some 

magic words that will then cause you to have to leave. I do not 

want to say that. So if you would respect—we were asked for decorum. That is not being decorous, whatever the word is. So let’s just 

continue on with the testimony and we will move forward. 

The chair recognizes the chairman emeritus. 

Mr. BARTON. OK, thank you. On your transparency proposal, if 

it is actually accepted, we will actually get to see what the science 

is behind the support for the regulation. Is that not correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. It is. And I think what has been of note to me as 

I have been serving at the Agency is that there is a reliance at the 

Agency on many third-party studies. And, as those studies are the 

support of our rulemaking, it is important to make sure that the 

methodology and data accompany those conclusions so that the 

American people can make informed decision about the rules and 

whether they actually are based upon sound science. 

Mr. BARTON. This is to get a little bit to the budget we are actually here to discuss, there is a program in your Agency called Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, short in acronym is LUST. The 

money that goes into that fund is supposed to be used to clean up 

or prevent leaks from underground storage tanks. To your knowlVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
31 

edge, is there anything under current law that prevents a State 

from using it for other purposes? In other words, the money is supposed to be used to clean up these underground storage tanks, but 

my understanding is very few States use it for that purpose. 

Mr. PRUITT. You know, Congressman, I am not aware of that 

happening but it is something that we would investigate and look 

into if you have some information about that happening in your 

State and elsewhere. 

Mr. BARTON. Would you do that and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Dr. Ruiz, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you for your service. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Pruitt’s ethical violations as the head of an Agency 

with a mission to protect the public’s health demonstrate a concerning lack of integrity and a pattern of the rich and powerful 

putting their rich and powerful friends and their own self-interest 

above the interest of the public’s health and at the expense of the 

common good. Clean air to breathe and safe water to drink is not 

a privilege only for the rich and powerful but a right for everyone, 

and the role of a public servant is to serve and protect the public, 

in particular the public’s health. 

However, the gross elimination of many public health protections 

are kickbacks to the rich lobbyists and corporation friends that 

have a real impact and I want to highlight one example. This week 

the EPA announced that it intends to limit the kind of scientific 

studies it will use in issuing new protections to only studies that 

make public the private, personal, confidential information of the 

people who participate in those studies. 

Revealing that info is a clear ethical violation of any reputable 

research institutional review board in the United States. The type 

of studies you want to exclude are the same kind of scientific studies that were used to prove that lead in pipes and paints harm children and that secondhand smoke is a dangerous carcinogen. We 

are talking about landmark studies such as the Harvard School of 

Public Health’s six-city study which proved a connection between 

air pollution and early death back in 1993. That just by living in 

a city with poor air quality your average life expectancy was lower 

than those who didn’t. This study later became the basis of fine 

particulate matter regulations in the Clean Air Act. 

When you were here in December, you and I spoke about fine 

particle matter which, thanks to studies based on confidential patient health information, we now know is associated with premature death, asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, decreased lung 

function, and respiratory diseases. You acknowledge these risks 

and agree that there is no safe level of fine particle pollution, but 

your new policy would block EPA from considering the studies that 

have shown these dangerous health implications. 

So do you deny now that fine particle pollution has these health 

impacts, and will these new regulations cause your Agency to disregard these sentinel studies? 

Mr. PRUITT. If they provide the data and methodology to the 

Agency and the findings, it will be used. 

32 

Mr. RUIZ. Well, that is a clear violation of ethical rules protecting 

patient confidentiality. 

Mr. PRUITT. Those can be redacted, Congressman. 

Mr. RUIZ. Who is protecting the subjects in those studies? So you 

have promised us a replacement rule for the Clean Power Plan. 

Will that replacement rule acknowledge the health impacts of fine 

particle pollution? 

Mr. PRUITT. We actually have, as you know, a proposed rule in 

the marketplace on just that issue. 

Mr. RUIZ. Well, you know, I mentioned the risks of lead in drinking water. So with this new rule—those risks were shown by epidemiological studies that protected the patient confidentiality and all 

the other intricacies of confidential information. Now your rule 

would lead to the idea that if it doesn’t suit the manufacturers’ intent that now those studies could be disregarded. 

So do you believe that mesothelioma can, or that asbestos causes 

mesothelioma? 

Mr. PRUITT. I do. But the confidential business information to 

which you refer along with personal information can be redacted. 

Mr. RUIZ. So that information—so you have been in office, you 

know, you have dismantled protections for the public’s health, and 

there is—and protections for children who suffer asthma, seniors 

with respiratory illnesses, and you demonstrated a disregard for 

true scientific study, the scientific process, and the confidentiality 

of people who want to participate and help further our collective 

knowledge to protect the public good. 

You have done this to allow your rich and powerful corporate 

friends to create more pollution in order to increase profit at the 

expense of the common good. Again if children with asthma and 

seniors with COPD—and I am an emergency physician. I participated in IRB boards. I know the importance of protecting the information in order to get more participants, and I have also treated 

children with asthma gasping for air or seniors at their last wits’ 

end. When you remove these protections under the guise of a false 

transparency notion, then you are making life more difficult for everyday American families, and this is disgraceful and the American 

people deserve better. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Administrator, for coming before us. I think that was the first policy 

question you got from the other side of the aisle. Observation. 

And to the public, I think this has been a lot of a classic display 

of innuendo and McCarthyism that we are seeing too often here in 

Washington that, unfortunately, I think works against civility and 

respect for people in public office. I am hoping we would be able 

to stay on policy today as much as we could, but I can see some 

just can’t resist the limelight, the opportunity to grandstand. 

So, having said all that, I thank you for what you have done. You 

have been able to stay disciplined on these policies. I know in West 

Virginia the impact that it has had on Brownfields Legislation of 

what you are doing on that I see the rollback of some of the regulatory reform that there is hope now. A lot of the people in the fossil fuel industry that they could see that deterioration in the past 

33 

8 years prior to that. There is some hope. We are seeing the economy start to rebound thanks to you and the administration of taking this fight on. 

So I know that if I could, I know just as an example, here was 

an example that despite what has been said to the achievements 

that you have made that the EPA just awarded $1.9 million to research in drinking water having to do with Flint, that research in 

Flint. People are ignoring the progress that we are making and 

they are trying to make this another attack on President Trump, 

and unfortunately there are a lot of people that are going to go 

along with that. 

So if we could, if I could get back to one of the things that has 

disturbed me some with some of the events over the last numbers 

of years was we had a good friend in Leslie Lampton who passed 

away last week. Lampton has Ergon Refinery located in Mississippi 

but they have the only refinery in West Virginia. It is a small, kind 

of a boutique operation at 23,000 barrels. I know the definition of 

a small refinery is 75,000 barrels, so they are a third of the size. 

But yet, so they are struggling meeting all of the qualifications, all 

the requirements of a major refinery. 

Is there something that we could work together or something to 

help out these small refineries so that they can compete? Because 

they can’t handle the RINs, they don’t have a market for that with 

them. So is there something that we could be doing to help out 

these boutique refineries? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congress has been very helpful in providing a small 

refinery exemption under the statute. It is objectively determined. 

It is 75,000 barrels, as you indicated, production and we have received I think 24 applications in 2017, a little bit over 30 in 2018. 

And I would say to you that the volatility of the RIN trading platform is creating instability across the entire RFS discussion. 

So it is really in everyone’s best interest to get more clarity and 

confidence in how this RIN trading platform and relief needs to 

occur. It is going to benefit the ethanol industry, benefit the ag sector, and I think benefit those that are suffering with the RIN obligations. And so it is our hope that we can chart a path forward 

with Congress to achieve those kinds of outcomes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Mr. Administrator, for numbers of years we 

were working to try to get resolved something for it was sitting out 

here for 30 to 40 years was the coal ash issue and we got that 

taken care of 2 years ago. But my question then back to you as the 

Administrator is are there States that have opted not to put together their own program and turn it over to the EPA, or can you 

help us, like give me an update on where we are with some of the 

State implementation? 

Mr. PRUITT. We have provided guidance to the States with respect to developing their own programs, and very few States have 

actually done that, to your question. And we are working with 

those State partners to equip and educate them on the option by 

providing the guidance. I think it is important that they pursue it 

and I think it is important they pursue it in a timely way, and it 

hasn’t taken place yet. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Have any States chosen not to put together their 

own program? 

34 

Mr. PRUITT. I just think it is early. It is nascent in the process 

and I think it is just very few early adopter States so far, and that 

is the reason we are working hard to educate and inform those 

States. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Mr. Administrator, thank you for handling all 

these issues and I hope that we can stay on policy and talk about 

some of the progress that has been made because I think it has 

been good for the environment. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to ask a couple 

questions about the Superfund program, particularly about your 

friend Mr. Albert Kelly, who you put in charge of the program despite his past. He was scheduled to appear before the committee in 

January, but he backed out at the last minute, citing travel obligations. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were disappointed in that, but Mr. Kelly sent a letter for the record that 

he would be willing to answer any and all of our questions regarding his lifetime ban from the banking industry and the illegal activities that led up to that. 

It is now more than 3 months later, we have gotten no information from Mr. Kelly. We are told that political leadership has been 

preventing him from speaking with us, and if that is true, that is 

certainly disappointing. Two weeks ago, you were interviewed on 

Fox News by Ed Henry, and he asked you several questions about 

Mr. Kelly. In the interview, you said that the details of the settlement with the FDIC were private, and that none of us really know 

what happened. 

So my question is, if Mr. Kelly is happy to share the details of 

his lifetime banking ban as a matter of transparency, is he not telling us the truth, or are you stopping him from doing that? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think Mr. Kelly, if he is willing to share that with 

you, he should do that. 

Mr. PETERS. Terrific. 

Mr. PRUITT. And I would encourage him to do so. 

Mr. PETERS. And because we do think that it is an important 

issue of transparency, I am glad to hear that. 

The FDIC ban is not the only concern about Mr. Kelly. It has 

been widely reported that his family abuts a Superfund National 

Priorities List site. He is the head of the Superfund program, creating at least a perception of a conflict of interest in that he might 

be favoring the site that is next to his property. You have mentioned that one of your goals, one of your values, is that you are 

committed to good stewardship of taxpayer resources. 

Has this financial conflict been reviewed by EPA ethics officials, 

and if so, were they provided with all the necessary information to 

conduct that review? 

Mr. PRUITT. I don’t have knowledge about that, Congressman, if 

that has happened or not. 

Mr. PETERS. All right. I certainly would ask that that be done. 

When you came to testify before this subcommittee in December 

you claimed that you had to remove scientists from EPA’s Science 

35 

Advisory Board because of, quote, the appearance of a lack of independence. John Konkus, your Deputy Associate Administrator for 

the Office of Public Affairs, who is tasked with reviewing millions 

of dollars of grants for EPA, was approved to provide media consulting advice to unnamed clients, likely including his prior clients 

from his Republican-affiliated consulting firm. Were you aware 

that Mr. Konkus was continuing to work as a media consultant for 

outside clients? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am aware that the ethics officials at the Agency 

approved that. That is what I am aware of. 

Mr. PETERS. Don’t you think this creates an appearance of a lack 

of independence? 

Mr. PRUITT. The ethics officials didn’t believe that. 

Mr. PETERS. Do you have an opinion personally about that? 

Mr. PRUITT. I don’t know anything about the contract. I just 

know that the ethics officials approved that transaction. 

Mr. PETERS. It just seems to me that, if he is working for people 

outside the Agency with his fingers inside the Agency, that that 

could be a lack of independence, and I will just offer that as my 

own observation, then. 

You brought in Jeff Sands directly from Syngenta, which was facing a very large fine from EPA for failing to protect its workers 

from a dangerous pesticide, chlorpyrifos. During his brief tenure at 

EPA, this fine was reduced from $4.9 million to $400,000. Were you 

personally involved in this decision to reduce this fine? 

Mr. PRUITT. It is my understanding that Mr. Sands’ involvement 

at the Agency occurred after the decision in March of last year with 

respect to chlorpyrifos—— 

Mr. PETERS. OK. Without respect to the timing, then, were you 

personally involved then in the decision to reduce this fine? 

Mr. PRUITT. I was not. 

Mr. PETERS. And I guess, I think I would suggest it also creates 

at least the appearance of and independence. 

And now it has come out that your head of security, who was 

promoted to that role after you fired his predecessor for questioning 

your security spending, did outside investigative work during the 

2016 presidential election for America Media Incorporated, the 

publisher of National Enquirer. That includes the period when AMI 

purchased and killed a story about President Trump having an affair with a Playboy Playmate. Do you think that that outside work 

at least creates the appearance of a lack of bias? 

Mr. PRUITT. It is my understanding that is being reviewed. And 

I was not aware of that outside contract, and it is being reviewed. 

Mr. PETERS. OK. I guess again I would say you are not answering the question, I think it creates at least the appearance of bias, 

and we would like to see attention to that. 

Finally, I guess, just to follow up on the first question, are you 

willing to produce Mr. Kelly to answer the questions before this 

committee? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not standing in the way of Mr. Kelly providing 

information to this committee or any other committee and that is 

a decision that he can make and provide that information. 

Mr. PETERS. In the interest of transparency would you be willing 

to direct him to come and answer those questions? 

36 

Mr. PRUITT. I don’t think I have that authority. I would encourage him to do so. 

Mr. PETERS. If you have that authority would you be willing to 

exercise it? 

Mr. PRUITT. I would encourage him to do so. 

Mr. PETERS. I will take that as a no. 

I will yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee for 5 minutes, Congresswoman Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Administrator, thank you for being here. We do have 

questions about the budget. And we are always interested in ways 

that we can stop Federal overreach, and that is something that is 

so important to my constituents in Tennessee and something that 

we hear about a good bit and they want the EPA to kind of get 

off their back many times when they are manufacturers and when 

they are farmers. 

And as a matter of fact, talking with some of my farmers at Mule 

Day in Columbia, Tennessee, they were talking about the WOTUS 

rule and I want to ask you about that because they say that they 

have to move heaven before they can move earth and so they want 

to get the EPA off their farms. And they are very grateful that we 

have had the delay in the WOTUS rule and it is important to 

them, it is important to manufacturers. They feel like they can 

move forward and do something and they are not fighting with this 

rule. 

So I want you to talk a little bit quickly because I have one other 

question for you about where we are with the repeal and the rewrite on WOTUS and then the cost of implementing that rule and 

what you all have ascertained through your cost-benefit analysis of 

what the cost of compliance of that rule would have been. 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, I will address a couple things, Congresswoman, in response to your question. First, the decision on repeal 

as well as the replacement to the 2015 rule will all occur in 2018. 

We will be done with that process this year. As you know, and you 

made reference to that, the compliance dates have been extended 

but we actually have two other rules in the marketplace. One is to 

rescind the 2015 rule and then a proposal will be coming out next 

month with respect to the replacement that will be inspired by Justice Scalia and I believe the intent of the Clean Water Act with respect to the definition of the Water of the United States. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK, thank you. Let’s talk about fuel economy 

standards. We have auto manufacturers in Tennessee and in 

Franklin and we have Nissan, the plants over in Smyrna. We have 

GM, which is in my district down in Spring Hill, you have Volkswagen over in Chattanooga. One of the things they talk a lot about 

are the fuel economy standards and the cost per car that trying to 

go to these new economy standards would do, and you have talked 

about adjusting the standards. 

So there again I want you to talk a little bit about where we are 

when it comes to adjusting those standards and then what you see 

as the cost of implementing and then the cost of compliance. 

37 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, Congresswoman, as you indicate we recently 

issued a midterm evaluation that occurred in April of this year and 

we determined that the standards that have been set were too ambitious and didn’t meet the facts and data that we currently have 

at present. So we started or will be starting very soon a rulemaking process along with DOT to reevaluate those standards. 

I think what is important about the CAFE standards is we ought 

to endeavor as a country to set standards for lower emissions on 

cars that people actually want to buy, you know, and I think what 

has happened for a number of years is that we have created these 

arbitrary levels that has put a certain sector of the cars in the marketplace that no one is purchasing which means they stay in older 

vehicles which actually defeats the purpose of the very act. 

So we are working with DOT in collaboration interagency to address that and that proposed rule will be coming out very, very 

soon with DOT. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. That sounds great. I think you are exactly 

right on that. And we hear that not only from manufacturers but 

from the dealers that the economy standards have pushed forward 

vehicles that people don’t want to purchase many times and so 

they are staying in the car longer or they buy a bigger car that is 

heavier that they feel like is going to be a safer vehicle for them. 

So I appreciate you being here today and I will yield back my 30 

seconds. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The chairman thanks the gentlelady. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to, Mr. Administrator, I want to thank the EPA for 

a recent announcement of an agreement was brokered between 

International Paper and the McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation which are the responsible parties for the site cleanup at 

San Jacinto docks and waste pits in East Harris County in Texas. 

Over the past 10 years, Congressman Poe and I have shared that 

area, although now it is in Congressman Babin’s district. Our district lines change pretty often in Texas, anytime a Federal court 

decides it. 

So we have been working on it for 10 years and I want to thank 

you for that. The reporting on the agreement stated that right now 

the remediation process is expected to take about 29 months. Do 

you know or can you say how certain is that timeline? Because 

having watched other Superfund cleanup sites, once you get into it 

you always find other problems. So. 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, I feel very confident at the timing on that, 

Congressman. Region 6 there in Texas and headquarters, the partnership that existed there working with the local community is exactly how this should work. There was a temporary solution that 

had been put in place at San Jacinto and it threatened the health 

of citizens in that area and this is a permanent solution that will 

be provided within the time period you described and at a cost of 

$115 million. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I know that is expensive. But again this 

area is developing and for years we have had signs up at the San 

Jacinto River and the Upper Galveston Bay about expectant mothVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
38 

ers and children shouldn’t eat the crabs or the fish, but when I go 

out there, I don’t see anybody that is not crabbing or fishing. So 

it is really important to get it completely cleaned up so it can be 

restored. 

It is also an area where we park a lot of our barges in the Houston Ship Channel and recently those barges break loose when there 

is a storm or a flood and they will break that cap, that temporary 

cap that they have. And EPA has been really good on the job, the 

regional office in Dallas, to make sure they, you know, they keep 

that pollution at the docks and from continuing to come out. 

Let me go to our—— 

Mr. PRUITT. If I may, Congressman, I think with the hurricanes 

that came through last year there was significant concern about 

those temporary measures being displaced which was really what 

hastened a solution with respect to a permanent solution. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. Hurricane Ike actually broke the temporary 

dike but that was coming from the Gulf. Our problem last year was 

the flooding coming downstream that hurt that and also, like I 

said, barges came loose from their mooring and ran into it. 

Let me talk about the Renewable Fuel Standard, because if you 

know the area that I represent at one time I had five refineries, 

now I only have three of them. But the American Petroleum Institute and ethanol industry agree on—there is not much they agree 

on. A number of waivers the Agency has granted under the small 

refinery exemption under your watch has managed to get everyone’s attention. API wrote you a letter in February and stated their 

belief that EPA should not grant small refineries exemptions. 

The law provides flexibility when it comes to small refineries, 

however, the press reports that EPA has been given as many as 

25 waivers including some that refineries are not experiencing 

hardship and some may not be that small. The smallest I have in 

my area is a hundred thousand barrels a day. The other ones have 

two quarter of a million every day. There is lack of transparency 

in the small refinery waiver process and we understand and respect confidential business information, but the EPA is a Federal 

Government Agency, and secrecy is not something that I think the 

EPA ought to be worried about, and it gives appearance of partiality and unfairness. 

Do you know how many applications for waivers did the Agency 

receive in 2016 and ’17 compliance years for these waivers? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, it runs about a year behind, Congressman. The 

applications we got in ’17 relate to the 2016 obligations and as I 

recall they were somewhere in the mid-20s that we received. We 

received more than that this year for the 2017. But what is really 

driving this in a lot of respects, I mentioned this earlier, is just the 

RIN prices, you know, dropping to 40 cents, up to 85 cents, and the 

rest. And so you just see a lot of pressure on those small refineries 

particularly because of these escalating RIN prices and the instability of the market. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I have said it many times in this committee 

over the last 10 years, the Chair and I have a difference from 

southern Illinois to East Houston on the RIN issue. Has the Agency granted any waivers to facilities that output exceeds 75,000 barrels a day? 

39 

Mr. PRUITT. We look at it on a facility by facility basis and the 

statute says that it is 75,000 barrels or less. So it is objectively determined in that regard. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Texas again, another one, for 5 minutes, Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman and Mr. Pruitt, welcome. I 

wish your second appearance before this committee was under 

much different circumstances. As you know there has been many 

press reports about problems at the EPA under your watch. These 

problems can’t be solved by Congress and this committee. That is 

not our role. The solution is between you and President Donald 

Trump. You work at his pleasure and that is pure and simple. 

But today, right now, you are America’s EPA Administrator and 

my home district of Texas 22 needs you to work hard for our district. We are still trying to recover from Hurricane Harvey. We also 

have a Clean Air Act that actually works with local officials, local 

governments, to make our air cleaner instead of pursuing goals 

that can be never be achieved with technology that doesn’t exist. 

On Harvey, I have to publicly thank you for two things. First of 

all, your EPA helped my home county of Fort Bend break through 

this whole log jam of regulations to allow us to start dredging our 

flooded bayous, our flooded waterways, quickly, and get that stuff 

taken care of. You did that sir. Thank you so much for letting my 

home county get moving forward. 

Also, I want to echo my comments from Senator Green, and by 

the way this may be the only bipartisan thing you hear in this 

committee today, but it is true. I want to thank you for all the hard 

work you did to fast track efforts to use the Superfund to clean up 

the San Jacinto Waste Pits. As you know, Hurricane Harvey displaced the protective caps. We don’t know how much dioxin, cancer-causing dioxin exploded out of there. You stepped up like that 

with a plan to fix that and that will be fixed sometime as you mentioned within the next year or so at the latest. So thank you, thank 

you, thank you for that. 

My first question is about ozone and air quality. This committee 

has heard over and over about how the impacts of ozone and pollution some of this happens outside of our control, yet for some reason we have to regulate that. This ozone comes from as far away 

as China or maybe as close in Texas as forest fires in Bastrop 

County a couple years ago. These uncontrolled sources, which EPA 

calls them, can create chaos for compliance with their rules by local 

governments. They are just frustrated, frustrated, frustrated. 

Our President recently asked you to respond faster to States’ petitions for relief under exceptional events and international emissions provisions of the Clean Air Act. For 8 years those were never 

used before. Now you have a great weapon to help us out. How do 

you comply with this new request from the President? Can you give 

this committee progress through efforts to make sure that actually 

exceptional events and international emissions are complied with 

and taken into account with the Clean Air Act issues? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congressman, thanks for the question. It is a very 

important question. And I think with exceptional events I think 

there is probably more latitude we have, but you mentioned someVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
40 

thing else that I think is extremely important and that is the international transport, air transport of pollution and ozone. We have 

nonattainment areas all over this country that are being caused by 

what is occurring in Asia. There has been much effort, much work 

done by industry and States and citizens across the country to 

lower emissions with ozone and we have made tremendous success. 

But some of the problems we have are caused by others as you 

have indicated, particularly in the international arena. So we need 

to find answers there. It may be something we need to come back 

to Congress and ask for your assistance to address on that particular front. Exceptional events, I think, are a little bit different. 

I think it is more factually driven than the other issue, but nonetheless it is a very important issue that we need to address. 

Mr. OLSON. One final question, very briefly. We have heard over 

and over about burdens placed on States from regulation after regulation after regulation. Last administration would save the same 

life three times with three different laws, different regulations. 

That puts a huge bite into some local governments and local people 

trying to comply with the Federal laws. 

Do you have the resources you need in the Office of Air and Radiation to issue guidance to make sure working with States that we 

count one life and make these things actually viable? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, I mean, as I came in to this position, we had 

700 State Implementation Plans, SIPs, where States have invested 

money and resources to actually provide a plan on how to improve 

air quality, and they were sitting on a shelf. We have moved on 

350 of those. I mentioned that in my opening statement. But we 

need to focus on those priorities partnering with States, and the 

first place to start is to work with them on those State Implementation Plans. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Pruitt, when you were in front of this committee 

in December, we discussed the installation of a soundproof privacy 

booth in the Administrator’s office, or the SCIF, at a cost of over 

$40,000. At that time you told me that your view was that the expenditure was appropriate despite the fact there were two other 

SCIFs at the EPA. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. This is actually not a SCIF. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Well, whatever it is, the soundproof booth, 

you expressed your view that it was appropriate, correct? Yes or 

no. 

Mr. PRUITT. I didn’t express that $43,000 was appropriate. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes or no. OK, you are not going to answer my 

question. Did you know at that time that this expenditure violated 

Section 710 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act and the Antideficiency Act? Yes or no, sir. 

Mr. PRUITT. It is actually the opinion of the Office of General 

Counsel at the Agency that that is not the case. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So you are not going to answer that question either. Do you know whether any one of your staff knew that that 

expenditure violated these two laws? Yes or no, sir. 

41 

Mr. PRUITT. The OGC again has indicated that their opinion is 

it is not a violation. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So you are not going to answer that question. 

If we can, please give the witness a copy of the April 16th, 2018 

letter. Are you familiar with that letter from the GAO, Mr. Administrator? Yes or no. 

Mr. PRUITT. I am familiar with the GAO’s decision, yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. And in that decision—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentlelady suspend for a minute? Can we 

see a copy of that? 

Ms. DEGETTE. Certainly. I would be happy to present what is 

asked unanimous consent that it be placed in the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. After we look at it, we probably will. And while we 

are waiting, we are going to—I think we are ready to accept that 

other letter that you asked to be submitted. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady may continue. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Now the conclusion of this was that these two laws were violated. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. Their conclusion is that those statutory requirements were not followed by the Agency. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. Now, did you know about that at the time? 

Mr. PRUITT. I did not. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Did your staff know about that at the time? 

Mr. PRUITT. About what, Congresswoman? 

Ms. DEGETTE. About these two laws that were supposed to be 

complied with before the expenditure happened, yes or no. 

Mr. PRUITT. As I indicated, the Office of General Counsel, career 

individuals at the Agency advised—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. No, I am sorry. You can’t filibuster, sir. Did you 

know or did your staff know? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not filibustering, Congresswoman. I am trying 

to answer your question. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Well, let me ask you this. The EPA has the 

ability to impose penalties for this illegal activity. Will you or your 

staff be subject to these penalties, yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. We are investigating this internally with appropriate individuals both here as well as the Inspector General. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, you don’t know. All right, my next question, 

sir, is would you agree that public officials should be held to the 

highest standards of ethical conduct? 

Mr. PRUITT. I believe that, yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. Now, in that vein, I want to ask you about 

two troubling financial housing transactions that you have been involved with as a State then a Federal elected official. In 2003, you 

were an Oklahoma State senator with a State salary of $38,400, 

correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. And also an attorney with a law practice. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes, correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. And also an attorney with a law practice. 

42 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Now you lived in a second home near the 

State capital purchased by a shell company, Capital House LLC, 

from a lobbyist, Marsha Lindsey, correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. It was not a shell company. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. But it was an LLC, Capital House, correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. Which is normally how you buy real estate in Oklahoma. 

Ms. DEGETTE. You know, yes or no would work. 

Mr. PRUITT. I am seeking to answer your question, Congresswoman. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Now, what was your financial investment in 

Capital House, LLC? 

Mr. PRUITT. It was one-sixth of the purchase price, as I recall. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And so, what, do you remember the amount? 

Mr. PRUITT. I do not. I did not negotiate the purchase price. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So you actually put that amount into the LLC. Is 

that right? 

Mr. PRUITT. That was the portion that I was responsible for, yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And did you actually pay that amount into the 

LLC? 

Mr. PRUITT. I did. I did. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Now, it has been reported that another lawmaker rented a room in that home and paid rent to you 

although you never listed your share in the shell company or that 

rent on your financial disclosures. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. I don’t ever recall that. No. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Was that rental income distributed among 

the owners of the shell company in the proportion that you contributed to the company? 

Mr. PRUITT. K1s were issued to each of the individual members. 

Those were reported as income through our tax filings, and so all 

income was reported. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Did you pay taxes on that income? 

Mr. PRUITT. We did. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Can we get that information, sir? 

Mr. PRUITT. I can provide you K1—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Did you personally pay taxes on your income from 

that rental? 

Mr. PRUITT. I can provide you the K1. 

Ms. DEGETTE. That would be great. Did you pay taxes on that 

income? 

Mr. PRUITT. As I indicated, I received a K1—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. I know you received a K1. Did you pay taxes on 

that income? 

Mr. PRUITT. That was provided to my accountant in our filing. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So you are not going to answer that question either. 

Mr. PRUITT. I am answering the question, Congresswoman. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes, OK. Did you pay taxes on the income that 

you got for your share? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congresswoman, as you know, you provide information to your accountant, they determine what you pay. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So you are not going to answer that question. Now 

I have some other questions about your DC condo, but I am out of 

43 

time. And I just want to say to my colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle and also to you, I am not doing this to hassle you. I am 

doing this because, as elected officials and appointed officials, we 

have the public trust. Everything we do has to be to the highest 

ethical standard, as you just agreed with me. And when we have 

these transactions, it brings disrespect on us as public officials—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time—— 

Ms. DEGETTE [continuing]. And as the job we do. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. Has expired. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So I am just going to continue this, and I would 

hope you would be forthcoming with this committee. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Your unanimous consent request will be respected, and we will put your letter, 

the GAO letter, into the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, you know, I served for 261⁄2 years 

in the United States Air Force, and I do believe that public officials 

have a standard of conduct that should be beyond reproach, but so 

should Members of Congress. And, you know, I think it is shameful 

today that this hearing has turned into a personal attack hearing 

and a shameful attempt to denigrate the work that is being done 

at the EPA and with this administration and make this a personal 

attack rather than focus on what we are here to talk about, which 

is the budget and the functioning and the policy work being done 

at the EPA. 

So I am going to redirect my questioning to you, Mr. Pruitt. 

Under the provision, under the previous administration the EPA 

put severe squeezes on job opportunities and businesses in Eastern 

and Southeastern Ohio which, by the way, we didn’t make personal 

attacks when that happened, we talked about policy at the time. 

And this has had, you know, our district has an abundance of fossil 

energy resources and energy opportunities. 

Today we have an EPA that recognizes the importance of those 

jobs and is willing to work with the States like Ohio to provide a 

healthy balance between jobs and environmental regulations. That 

approach has made a real difference in my State and in my district, and I applaud those efforts at restoring sensibility. Along 

those lines I would like to talk a bit about New Source Review and 

the Agency’s work to date on some of the issues surrounding New 

Source Review. 

In February, this committee held a hearing exploring the challenges that New Source Review standards pose for our energy and 

infrastructure investments and opportunities. We learned that 

many companies avoid carrying out projects to improve existing facilities because they are afraid of being targeted by an EPA enforcement action for having incorrectly interpreted New Source Review requirements. I have been encouraged to see the EPA’s recently released guidance memos clarifying certain NSR program requirements and policy. 

So, Mr. Pruitt, from your perspective what is the goal of these 

NSR guidance memos and what impact are they having? 

44 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, it is one of the greatest issues that I think we 

are dealing with at the Agency to address that which companies 

want to do across the country which is invest, invest in capital infrastructure to improve the reduction of emissions. And so what we 

want to do is provide clarity. You mentioned a couple of memo 

guidances we provided. One is a once-in, always-in approach that 

we took to this issue along with the project netting approach that 

was a second step. 

So we are engaged in those kinds of initial steps, but overall we 

are looking at a comprehensive rule that will address New Source 

Review in order to provide certainty and clarity to those across the 

country that as they make investments to improve outcomes as far 

as emission reductions that they are not going to face new permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Do you think the NSR program can be further reformed so that we continue to protect air quality while removing unnecessary burdens placed on industry? 

Mr. PRUITT. I mean I do. I think, you know, the Clean Air Act 

was last amended in 1990, 28 years ago, and so I think there are 

provisions of the Clean Air Act that should be looked at and that 

is one. 

Mr. JOHNSON. In regards to the Clean Air Act, how is the EPA 

striving to provide more flexibility and deference to State agencies? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, as mentioned earlier, we are providing guidance in certain and many programs encouraging States to be active 

partners there. But one of the things that I think is most essential 

with respect to air quality is just the utilization of State Implementation Plans and us being responsive, responding to those Departments of Environmental Quality, Departments of Natural Resources, whatever the Agency may be, to really work with them in 

close partnership to adopt those plans and approve those plans in 

a timely way. It really sends a bad message when States take those 

steps, invest, and then don’t get a response from the Agency for 

years, and air quality suffers as well. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I have some other questions, but I am running out of time. 

Lastly, I know that EPA has expressed interest in finding a resolution to some of the concerns regarding EPA’s current brick MACT 

rule which was issued in 2015. Would you commit to working with 

me and this committee in providing further information on this 

work and any potential possibilities? Compliance dates are right 

around the corner and it is important to provide this industry with 

some common-sense regulatory certainty. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Congressman, absolutely. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, thank you. 

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the chairman. 

Administrator Pruitt, since becoming EPA Administrator your 

public calendar is filled with meetings with oil and gas companies, 

trade associations, and lobbyists, but not with environmental 

groups or public health groups. It seems that deep pockets are a 

45 

prerequisite to getting a spot on your calendar. Mr. Pruitt, isn’t it 

true that you and your affiliated political organizations received 

nearly $4 million in campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congressman, I haven’t looked at those numbers in 

some time, so I am not sure. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I can assure you that it is. And as an example of pay-to-play, on June 5th, 2017, you announced that the 

EPA halted implementation of the methane rule. This was an attempt to retroactively delay the rule’s requirements on oil and gas 

industry for 90 days. A few weeks prior to that on May 24th, 2017, 

you spoke to the American Exploration and Production Council. 

Mr. Pruitt, was your June 5th actions made in response to a request by the American Exploration and Production Council or any 

of its individual members? 

Mr. PRUITT. Methane is something that we take very seriously 

and will regulate. In fact, we have proposals that we are considering now to regulate methane going forward as part of the VOC 

approach. And so methane is—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you aren’t answering my question. You had 

a meeting—— 

Mr. PRUITT. The actions that were taken then were unrelated to 

any meetings or events. It was actions to provide certainty to those 

in the marketplace with respect to how we were going to approach 

methane. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Well, I ask this because Concho Resources, 

an oil and gas exploration and production company is a member of 

the American Exploration and Production Council. Concho Resources also happens to be represented by the Washington, DC, 

lobbying firm Williams & Jensen. You made these decisions on the 

methane rule that would directly benefit Williams & Jensen’s client 

while living in a Capitol Hill condo owned by the wife of a then 

Williams & Jensen lobbyist with a rent of $50 a night. 

I wonder what the owners got or tried to get in return for their 

generosity. This is another example of pay-to-play. Arbitrarily delaying a rule is illegal and the DC Circuit Court found your actions 

to be in excess of statutory authority. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science on the EPA Administrator’s 

plan to disallow the use of scientific evidence in decisionmaking, 

and I would like to submit this for the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would pass it over to the Chair 

so I can look at it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Administrator, do you have confidence in 

the AAAS and the Union of Concerned Scientists in deciding what 

would be best practices for transparency and good science? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am sure their opinion is credible. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Then how can you justify the proposed rule disallowing science that was supported by these agencies? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, the actions that we take at the Agency are different than their responsibilities. We actually issue rules of general 

applicability that apply to people all over the country and we need 

46 

to ensure that the science that we use that underpins those rules 

actually show methodology, data, and conclusions. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Science which disagrees with professional scientists that are practicing professional scientists. 

Mr. Pruitt, by reducing the CAFE standards you will both allow 

more pollution on American streets and make U.S. cars less competitive with overseas manufacturers. Yes or no, did the $4 million 

that you received from the oil and gas industry influence your decision? 

Mr. PRUITT. The decision we made on midterm evaluation was a 

decision based upon the record. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Administrator Pruitt, I find it very disturbing 

that you appear to personally benefit from many of your decisions 

and actions that will ultimately harm the people of this country, 

especially people who have little or no ability to defend themselves. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores—we got a lot of 

Texans here—for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. That is right. 

Administrator Pruitt, thank you for joining us today. Let me 

start by echoing Chairman Shimkus’ comments regarding the Renewable Fuel Standard. While I am pleased that the Agency is beginning to look at its authorities after 2022, I would like to respectfully remind the EPA that administrative actions prior to that time 

are limited by statute. Accordingly, I request that the Agency work 

with Congress, particularly Chairman Shimkus, Mr. Welch, and me 

as we try to develop interim and long-term solutions, fuel solutions 

that are good for the environment and good for auto mileage, good 

for the American consumers, good for the agricultural and ethanol 

interest, and really good for all impacted stakeholders. 

A few minutes ago, Mr. Ruiz was trying to defend the EPA’s 

practice under the prior administration of using hidden science to 

develop policy solutions, and you weren’t given a chance in regard 

to your efforts to open that process up and become more transparent with scientific studies. Can you spend about 30 seconds describing what you are trying to do to make science inside the EPA 

more transparent, especially because it is paid for by the American 

taxpayer? 

Mr. PRUITT. It seems to me that it is common sense that as we 

do rulemaking at the Agency, when we base it upon a record, scientific conclusions, that we should be able to see the data and 

methodology that actually caused those conclusions. That just 

makes common sense to me. That is the only change we are making. So any third-party study, we are agnostic about who actually 

adopts the study, we are just simply saying to all third-party 

science, they need to have methodology, data, and findings packaged together so that we can make an informed decision about the 

efficacy of their scientific findings. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. So I think you and I both agree that the American people deserve to see that science. It shouldn’t be hidden as 

it was hidden in the prior administration. So I thank you for your 

efforts to make that science more transparent. 

47 

Now to my questions, as the American people are well aware the 

EPA under the Obama administration abused environmental regulatory process by ignoring congressional statutes and by circumventing the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately, the Federal court system stepped in to protect American families from this abuse of the 

rule of law. In this regard I have the following questions: one—I 

will go through the questions first, and you all can respond supplementally if you would like to. 

Can you provide this committee with a list of those overreaching 

and overturned regulations that were overturned by the court systems? Can you provide this committee with the economic cost of 

those overturned regulations, and can you also inform the committee about EPA’s actions, if any, to modify those regulations so 

those overreaching regulations to conform with the rule of law? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, on all fronts. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And I would ask you to do that supplementally 

in the interest of time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Pruitt, yesterday I sent you a letter on EPA’s January 25th, 2018, guidance to reverse the longstanding once-in, always-in policy for major sources of hazardous air pollutants. This 

document rolls back one of the bedrock safeguards to limit toxic air 

pollution from factories and industrial operations. The Clean Air 

Act requires EPA to control hazardous air pollutants to protect 

public health. These pollutants are the worst of the worst and they 

include many that cause cancer in children like mercury, arsenic, 

and lead. The law focuses on limiting these pollutions from industrial sources by requiring them to control their emissions using the 

maximum achievable control technology, or MACT. 

The once-in, always-in policy ensured that polluters continued to 

clean up their act and didn’t backslide on their progress, but in the 

January 25th guidance you punched a huge, giant loophole in these 

critical public health protections, essentially allowing sources to increase their toxic air emissions with no consequences. At a Senate 

hearing in January, you were asked about the new once-in, alwaysin guidance and indicated that, quote, ‘‘It was a decision made outside of the Air Program office. It was a policy office decision,’’ unquote. 

At the time, you didn’t seem aware of the details, and that happens when things are—you have a lot of stuff, but I am hoping now 

that you have had more time to familiarize yourself, and I would 

like to ask you some questions. It is not clear whether EPA has 

any idea how many sources might increase their emissions of hazardous air pollutants as a result of this policy change, and I would 

like to ask you some yes-or-no questions. 

Yes or no, did EPA determine which sources and how many 

would be covered by this policy change before releasing the January 25th guidance? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. There was a review of those issues, Congresswoman. 

48 

Mrs. DINGELL. Yes or no, thank you. 

Mr. PRUITT. And I would say to you that this was an incentive 

to companies to actually invest in emissions. 

Mrs. DINGELL. OK, did you—yes or no—did EPA determine the 

location of these sources? 

Mr. PRUITT. That is something that I would have to—I don’t 

know about the locations. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Please, for the record—yes or no—did EPA provide that? Yes or no, did EPA assess the magnitude of hazardous 

air pollution that could increase as a result of the January 25th 

guidance? 

Mr. PRUITT. It is actually a benefit with respect to providing incentive, as I indicated, to those major emitters to get into another 

category. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Yes or no. So—— 

Mr. PRUITT. I understand that they looked at that, yes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Has EPA initiated or completed any of the previously mentioned analyses since the release of January 25th guidance? 

Mr. PRUITT. The work that was done was in support of the guidance that was issued. 

Mrs. DINGELL. It is also not clear whether EPA has looked at the 

potential health effects of this decision. Yes or no, did EPA conduct 

an analysis of the health effects including the potential increased 

risk of cancer of this decision before releasing the January 25th 

guidance memo? 

Mr. PRUITT. That is something we will have to provide and 

verify. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Yes or no, did EPA conduct an analysis of the potential health effects of this policy on children, babies, or pregnant 

women before releasing the January 25th? 

Mr. PRUITT. That is something we will have to assess and provide. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Yes or no, did EPA conduct an analysis of the potential health effects of this policy on older Americans or those 

with chronic health problems before releasing the January 25th 

guidance? 

Mr. PRUITT. I hate to be redundant, but that is something we 

will have to assess and provide. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Yes or no, did EPA conduct an analysis of the potential health effects of this policy on minority and low-income 

communities before releasing the January 25th? 

Mr. PRUITT. I would answer the same way. 

Mrs. DINGELL. In the absence of information from EPA, a number of independent groups have taken it upon themselves to analyze the potential toxic impacts this policy would have on communities near and downwind from major sources. They found that the 

chemical industry stands to benefit substantially from this loophole. Have you met with any industry representatives who requested the repeal of this once-in, always-in policy? 

Mr. PRUITT. Again, this was a decision to provide incentive to 

companies to invest to lower emissions. 

Mrs. DINGELL. There are no incentives for pollution. I am going 

to conclude with one different subject, because this is very imporVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
49 

tant to me. You recently concluded the midterm evaluation of fuel 

economy standards for model years 2022 to ’25. It is my deep belief 

that the auto companies, their workers, and the consumer have 

benefited from having one national program for fuel economy and 

that it is critical to preserve that moving forward. The importance 

of these standards besides saving energy, reducing emissions, is the 

certainty that businesses need. I am deeply worried about reports 

that California doesn’t matter to you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time is expiring. 

Mrs. DINGELL. All right. I just want to say it is my hope that we 

can have one national program moving forward. If you do, we work 

on it together, everybody wins. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

We are going to accept for submission into the record the statement from the American Association for Advancement of Sciences. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Just for our colleagues’ note, the chief executive officer is a guy named Rush Holt, who you will all remember. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Hudson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Pruitt, for being here today. I have two areas of questions I want 

to jump into with you. The first relates to the chemical GenX and 

the Cape Fear River back home in North Carolina. In your testimony, you highlighted the importance of safe drinking water and 

the EPA’s efforts to proactively protect source water as well as address contamination concerns. As I am sure you are aware, my 

State of North Carolina is facing growing concerns over the emerging contaminant GenX. I have been engaged with you on this issue 

several times in the past. 

My concern is that we have a chemical that is spreading that we 

simply do not know enough about. I am worried that on the EPA’s 

website you state that a management plan for PFOS, the related 

family of chemicals, won’t be developed until the fall of 2018. 2 

days ago I received a letter from the Office of Water addressing 

some but not all of our questions that I have asked about GenX. 

I understand the EPA has posted comprehensive scientific literature related to GenX on its website, but EPA is also developing 

human health toxicity information on GenX to aid States and localities in setting or refining public health goals. 

I would just ask, sir, what information is EPA seeking that the 

literature has, does not already provide, and when will the results 

of the EPA’s information development be available to the public? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, a very important issue, and I have talked to the 

Governor there in North Carolina, and it is something that I am 

aware of the issues in North Carolina. We will have a toxicity review by the summer. 

Mr. HUDSON. By the summer. 

Mr. PRUITT. With respect to GenX. And as you know this is an 

iteration beyond PFOA and PFOS. GenX was a successive, you 

know, chemical. I am very concerned about its impact and we are 

accelerating that tox review and then we will look at further steps 

in the fall. But we have been in communications with North Carolina and the Governor particularly about that. 

50 

Mr. HUDSON. Great. Well, I appreciate the attention you put on 

this. What were the updates to EPA’s risk management of GenX 

based upon independent laboratory analysis of compounds found in 

the Cape Fear River water samples and what about those findings 

can you discuss now? 

Mr. PRUITT. With respect to the toxicity review or other studies, 

Congressman? 

Mr. HUDSON. Well, there were independent laboratory analyses 

of the compounds that was done. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. That is part of the work that is being done to 

support the tox review that will occur this summer and then there 

will be additional standards set in the future. But what we are trying to do is work with those States like North Carolina that have 

an imminent concern and trying to provide them guidance as they 

adopt State responses as well. 

Mr. HUDSON. OK. Well, then I don’t know if you are able to make 

a conclusion yet, but was GenX used in a manner that was incompatible with the consent agreement under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act or are you in a position to determine that? 

Mr. PRUITT. That is something I am not able to speak to at this 

point, but we can get you the information, Congressman. 

Mr. HUDSON. Great. Well, I appreciate the seriousness with 

which you have taken this and the work you are doing with our 

Governor and also on this. So thank you for that. 

Mr. PRUITT. Governor Cooper has been very, very concerned 

about it and very focused upon it, and it is important that we address it with him and the State. 

Mr. HUDSON. Great, thank you. I would like to pivot now and 

discuss another area that you have highlighted as a priority for the 

Agency, which is clean air. In the 47 years since the enactment of 

the Clean Air Act, the EPA has never taken an enforcement action 

against amateur racers who make modifications to vehicles used 

exclusively on tracks for racing. Do you support this policy? 

Mr. PRUITT. The policy of taking no enforcement? 

Mr. HUDSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRUITT. I think it is wise, yes. 

Mr. HUDSON. I appreciate that. In 2015, under the previous administration, the EPA slipped a few sentences into a 600-page unrelated rule that proposed to repeal this policy. And after a public 

outcry and a number of us raised concerns, they backed off, but 

they sort of left some ambiguity there about the legality of this. 

Would you support legislation clarifying that vehicles can be modified for racing and that doing so does not violate the anti-tampering provisions in the Clean Air Act as long as those vehicles are 

not used on public roads or used exclusively for competition? 

Mr. PRUITT. It is always helpful to us to get congressional clarity 

on these issues, so absolutely. 

Mr. HUDSON. Great. Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate the time 

you have given us here today and thank you for your focus on clean 

air and clean water, goals we all share. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

51 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Pruitt, it is widely reported at this point that most 

of your patrons and supporters are from the oil, gas, and coal industries. The regulations you have withdrawn, delayed, or weakened, rules on coal ash disposal, water pollution from coal-fired 

utilities, methane gas emissions from oil and gas operations, air 

pollution from glider trucks, formaldehyde emission standards, all 

translate into additional profits for those industries but negatively 

impact public health. 

So it doesn’t come much as a surprise that you have determined 

in the midterm evaluation that the stronger vehicle fuel efficiency 

standards are too stringent. I strongly disagree with this determination. There is a very robust record to support the need for 

stronger standards and the availability of technology to achieve 

them highlighted by the 1,200-page Technical Assessment Report 

issued by the EPA. 

Administrator Pruitt, you have stated many times that you intended to operate at the EPA on the basis of cooperative federalism 

and the rule of law. But when it comes to California and vehicle 

emission standards all of a sudden neither of these concepts seem 

to apply. You have made it clear that you do not favor California’s 

waiver under which the State sets greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles and you have stated that California should not 

have, quote, an outsized influence on vehicle standards. But this 

position is inconsistent with your preference for States’ rights, and 

more importantly it is inconsistent with the law. 

California’s special status with respect to vehicle emission regulation has been enshrined in Federal law for over 50 years. Section 

209(b) of the Clean Air Act states the Administrator shall, not may, 

shall grant a waiver to any State if the State, not the Agency, determines the State standards will be at least as protective of public 

health and welfare as the Federal standards. 

The auto manufacturers have repeatedly said that they do not 

want the protracted legal fight that would inevitably occur if EPA 

moved to revoke California’s waiver. But many of your public statements allude to the Agency moving in that direction. So I would 

ask you, does the Agency intend to initiate proceedings to revoke 

California’s waiver, yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. Not at present. In fact, we work very closely with 

California officials on that issue. I have sent EPA representatives 

to California—— 

Ms. MATSUI. So that is a no? 

Mr. PRUITT [continuing]. To meet with CARB and Ms. Nichols. 

It is important that we work together to achieve, as was indicated 

earlier, a national standard. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. So it is really not a yes or no. It is a—— 

Mr. PRUITT. Congresswoman, we are working very diligently and 

diplomatically with California—— 

Ms. MATSUI. All right, OK. OK. 

Mr. PRUITT [continuing]. To find answers on this issue. 

52 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. OK. Well, I believe the answer should be a no 

because you said you have said you want a national program, and 

you won’t get this without California’s agreement. The law requires 

you to set standards that protect public health and welfare. California standards’ does just that. California agreed to a national 

program to enter into an agreement to accomplish that goal. If you 

challenge the waiver or significantly weaken the standards you are 

not following the rule of law. 

If you are, in fact, doing what you were appointed to do, what 

you said you were going to do, you must uphold the law and set 

protective standards. So far you have demonstrated little intention 

to do that. That is why the entire country needs California’s waiver 

to ensure that public health and the environment are protected 

even in the face of an Administrator who cares maybe more about 

repaying special interests than about safeguarding the public’s interests. 

Now, Administrator Pruitt, I believe, to a question that you answered from Mrs. Blackburn earlier, you said the EPA has data 

supporting your decision to revise emission standards for light-duty 

vehicles. Will you commit to providing that data to both sides of 

the committee by the end of the day? And that is a yes or no. 

Mr. PRUITT. We actually have two responsibilities under this 

process. One is a midterm evaluation and then proposed rulemaking that will occur. And so we will provide the data to you that 

gave rise to the midterm evaluation. 

Ms. MATSUI. Will you provide it at the end of the day, the day 

that you have—— 

Mr. PRUITT. I will instruct our team to get that together and get 

that to you as soon as possible. 

Ms. MATSUI. End of the day, yes. 

Mr. PRUITT. I will instruct my team to get that and get that to 

you as soon as possible. 

Ms. MATSUI. As soon as possible, hopefully within a week, then? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, we will get it to you as soon as possible, Congresswoman. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. I will hold you to that, OK. 

Mr. PRUITT. It is my intent to do so, yes. 

Ms. MATSUI. I will hold you to that. OK, thank you, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Cramer, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Administrator, for lots of things, first of all, for being here. 

And once again I never cease to be impressed with the incredible 

depth of knowledge you have on the details of so many things. It 

seems to me, however, the more details you know, the more some 

people demand and they expect you to know everything. And I 

have to say, in my years both on this committee and on previous 

committees, I have never had a Cabinet official that knew as much 

about the policies that your Agency is implementing as you have 

with yours. So thank you for that. 

53 

I also want to thank you for your incredible not just an understanding of, but commitment to, cooperative federalism. It is something that has been lost in previous administrations, including by 

some of your critics that were predecessors to you, and the restoration of it is no small matter. And I want you to know on behalf of 

the people of North Dakota how very much we appreciate your approval of our State’s application for primacy over class VI wells, 

which is our CO2 wells, so I think it was a clear demonstration of 

the policy. 

I am also, I have to say I am somewhat struck by some of the 

accusations that have come at you today. For example, you were 

accused of picking winners and losers with your policies. And I just 

have to ask, isn’t the Clean Power Plan at its very core the picking 

of winners and losers by trying to regulate electric generation outside of the fence line? I mean isn’t that a picking of winners and 

losers? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, I mean the Agency, in response to that, Congressman, actually defined a best system of emission reduction 

under the statute as being able to coerce decisions being made at 

the local level on how you generate electricity. So I think, by definition, that was almost picking winners and losers. 

Mr. CRAMER. You have also been accused of hypocrisy. You have 

been accused of the lack of transparency by people who in the same 

breath are defending secret science as a means of carrying out 

their political philosophy, all the while accusing you of being the 

ideologue in the room. The irony is rich beyond rich with me. 

Mr. PRUITT. And I think what—if I may, for a second. 

Mr. CRAMER. Please. 

Mr. PRUITT. I think what is important with respect to the scientific transparency, it doesn’t apply to only certain studies. It applies to all third-party studies of every type. I mean, many Members on this committee, I am sure, would be very concerned that, 

if API went out and did a study, didn’t provide the methodology, 

didn’t provide the data, provided conclusions to the EPA, and then 

the EPA acted on rulemaking with respect to methane or other 

issues, there would be tremendous concerns about that. 

So it applies to all third-party science irrespective of the source. 

It just simply says data, methodology, conclusions matter, and the 

American people need to be able to consume that. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, it seems to me and I appreciated the inquiry 

earlier and maybe you could elaborate a little bit on how personal 

data can be protected and is protected. Nobody is asking for the 

names of every victim of every, you know, of every pollution source 

that has ever happened in the world or that has been sourced in 

any study. They are not asking for personal data, we are asking 

simply for the science to be revealed. I mean you can protect the 

personal data, right? 

Mr. PRUITT. Both the personal data, Congressman, as well as 

confidential business information, both CBI and personal information can be redacted and can be addressed and still serve the purposes of the proposed rule. 

Mr. CRAMER. I have to say I think, though, of all of the accusations today, it was interesting after about 4 minutes of defending 

54 

the swamp, one of their leaders said, ‘‘So much for draining the 

swamp.’’ 

Mr. Administrator, I think the greatest sin that you have committed, if any, is that you have actually done what President 

Trump ran on, what he won on, and what he has commissioned you 

to do in finding some balance in both carrying out the mission of 

environmental protection while at the same time looking out for 

the economy and jobs creation. And I just, again, for the people in 

North Dakota, I appreciate that so much. 

In my remaining minute, if you would take some time to just 

elaborate even a little bit more on the New Source Review issue, 

because, you know, in North Dakota we have a number of existing 

plants that are finding it very difficult to even meet the spirit of 

the intent, if you will, of New Source Review, and I think it just 

seems to be working against itself. 

Mr. PRUITT. I mean, I think for the American people as we talk 

about, I mean what New Source Review is, is when you have a 

company that wants to invest sometimes hundreds and millions of 

dollars in their facilities to reduce pollution they refuse to do so because if they invest too much it is considered a major modification 

to the facility which then requires what, additional permitting responsibilities which they may not get. So dealing with New Source 

Review is something that is very, very important to actually 

incentivize companies and reward companies who want to invest in 

better outcomes. 

It was talked about earlier with respect to once-in, always-in. 

That effectively is what that is, because under the category of 

major emitters and minor emitters in what we said is that, as you 

are a major emitter and you invest and you actually reduce your 

pollution down to minor levels, you can actually be rewarded for 

that and actually, I think, incentivized to do that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Ca ́ rdenas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling 

this hearing and also I marked your words that you said that today 

hopefully we are going to be talking about policy and stewardship. 

So I hope that we can get that on the record as well on both of 

those fronts. 

Mr. Pruitt, welcome to the people’s House. The list of your failures is long and your wasteful spending is an embarrassment to 

Government and very offensive to the taxpayers who pay all of our 

salaries. This administration is so packed with unethical behavior, 

but yet at the same time you have to understand that your power 

directly impacts health and well-being of vulnerable populations in 

this country—seniors, our children, our sick, and our disabled. It is tempting to ask why you spent nearly $68,000 on hotels and 

travel from August through February, just in 5 months, and 50,000 

on modifications to your office including a privacy booth that cost 

over $43,000, and an oversized desk with ornate woodworking that 

cost over $2,000, but we already know that some of these purchases 

were made in violation of Federal laws. 

When you appeared before the subcommittee in December, this 

subcommittee, you said that your phone booth is used for classified 

55 

conversations and sensitive conversations with the White House. 

Has this $43,000 phone booth, has it been certified as a SCIF, and 

also so are you using it for classified conversations, is that appropriate? 

Mr. PRUITT. It has not been certified as a SCIF, and it does provide protection on confidential communications. And I think it is 

important, Congressman, to know where this originated. I did have 

a phone call that came in of a sensitive nature and I did not have 

access to secure communications. I gave direction to my staff to address that, and out of that came a $43,000 expenditure that I did 

not approve. That is something that should not occur in the future. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK, so you are not taking responsibility for the 

$43,000 that was spent in your office, you are saying that staff did 

it without your knowledge? 

Mr. PRUITT. Career individuals at the Agency took that process 

through and signed off on it all the way through. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. So you were not involved in that, is what 

you are saying? 

Mr. PRUITT. I was not in involved in the approval of the $43,000, 

and if I had known about it, Congressman, I would have refused 

it. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. That seems a bit odd. If something happens in my office, especially to the degree of $43,000, I know about it 

before, during, and after. But anyway, let me get on to my next 

points. I am sure you can see the irony of this $43,000 expenditure, 

even though you are saying before the public that you are not taking responsibility for it. 

EPA’s budget is far from unlimited. When you commandeer public resources for your personal use, other lifesaving Agency activities do suffer. In another troubling example, Millan Hupp, an EPA 

appointee who came with you from Oklahoma and was recently 

awarded with a large raise over the White House’s objections, reportedly went out to open houses in search for a condo for you. Mr. 

Pruitt, I hope you understand that using public employees for your 

private business is illegal. 

Turning now to your highly questionable condo lease from Vicki 

Hart, I find it highly concerning that you apparently never had an 

EPA ethics attorney review the lease before you signed it. Did you 

have an EPA ethics attorney look at that lease before you signed 

it? 

Mr. PRUITT. On the other issue, Congressman, I want to address 

that I am not aware of any Government time being used by Millan 

Hupp. She is a friend of both my wife and myself and has been for 

a number of years, and she is a friend. And the activities—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. You stated for the record that you are not 

aware that she used her official time. Thank you very much. But 

did any of the attorneys at the EPA look at your lease before you 

signed it? 

Mr. PRUITT. The review that took place took place afterwards. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Afterwards, OK. And what did they say about 

that lease afterwards when they reviewed it? 

Mr. PRUITT. They said that the rate paid was comparable to 

other—what I leased actually was comparable to other arrangements. 

56 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Did they state that in writing or verbally? 

Mr. PRUITT. Actually in writing, in writing twice. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. In writing, OK, can you get a copy of that to the 

committee? 

Mr. PRUITT. I can get the ethics opinions to you, yes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK, thank you. It was also recently reported that 

as Attorney General of Oklahoma you reassigned an investigative 

staff of the office to be your personal driver and security team. Are 

those reports accurate? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not aware of what you are referring to, Congressman. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. All right, to my next question. In an apparent attempt to rebut reports, your Agency published data in February claiming a large increase in penalties against polluters, but 

that data included the penalties assessed by the Obama administration. In fact, 90 percent of those numbers that you reported 

were actually assessed by the previous administration. Did you intentionally claim credit for the enforcement actions taken by the 

Obama administration to obscure your weak record on enforcement, yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. In fact, the Obama administration cut into agents at 

that office. We have increased the number of agents in that office. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you. On my time—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. I just want to show you a picture of the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan. The gentleman—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS [continuing]. That I grew up in, and that is the 

new picture here. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman will suspend. His time is expired. 

The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Michigan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. I yield. 

Mr. WALBERG. And I would thank the Administrator for being 

here. I appreciate you taking the time to do this. It is important 

for us as we work in our relationship, the constitutional relationship that we have time with you. So thank you for being here and 

thank you for your policy efforts as you perform your functions. 

Administrator Pruitt, the last time you were before this committee you told me then, I quote, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is something that we should work together to make sure is 

achieving good outcomes and I think it has and we will continue 

that discussion as we head into 2018. I appreciate those words, but 

we have seen a lack of support for the GLRI. 

Again in this fiscal year 2019 budget request, the GLRI was 

funded at 30 million by this administration. Obviously I was and 

am not OK with that level of funding and worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Great Lakes Caucus in an 

effort to restore full funding, which we did, for that. And I certainly 

would love to stand on the banks of one of the Great Lakes in my 

district, Lake Erie, with you, and just have an opportunity to discuss further what is so important about 20 percent of the world’s 

fresh water resources being there in the Great Lakes and what a 

57 

job we have attempted to do as Great Lakes States to make that 

work for us. 

Do you believe that 30 million is adequate funding for such a 

critical program? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, I commend what Congress has done to address 

that. I think Congress restored that level to 300 million, I think, 

in the omnibus. 

Mr. WALBERG. 300 million. 

Mr. PRUITT. And I remain personally and as Administrator of the 

EPA committed to you to work—— 

Mr. WALBERG. Will you make a request to the administration to 

work with us on that? 

Mr. PRUITT. I will continue to do that Congressman. 

Mr. WALBERG. I would appreciate that because it is important 

and I think again it is something that we want to in the Great 

Lakes Region take care of that resource as good stewards and I believe you do as well. 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, the challenges there, the invasive species we 

know is an issue. We want to do all that we can. I was actually 

in Region 5 earlier this week and obviously they are very focused 

on those efforts as well. I am hopeful that we can find better outcomes as we go forward on the funding levels. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, with that, with invasive species and with 

algae bloom, which has been significant, touching my district, 

across the line in Ohio as well, when we discussed last time you 

mentioned that there would be an interest—and let me find—you 

said it is something that we ought to do going forward and ensure 

that there is a partnership like that and specifically referring to 

Agriculture and Interior. 

Have you had an opportunity to talk with Sonny Perdue or Ryan 

Zinke about this issue of algae bloom and how to address it in the 

Great Lakes? 

Mr. PRUITT. Secretary Perdue and I have actually talked about 

issues with respect to geographical focal areas, but Ryan and I 

have not. And I think it is important, you know, as I indicated, for 

States like the Great Lakes Initiative, you have States that have 

joined together partnering and collaborating with the Federal Government to achieve better outcomes, and I think that is an example 

of true federalism. 

Mr. WALBERG. Is there anything I can do to assist in bringing 

that coalition together? I would be delighted to stand on the banks 

of Lake Erie with you and Secretary Zinke. 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, yes. We ought to do that together with the 

other two individuals as well. 

Mr. WALBERG. OK, next topic is the constant threat of invasive 

species. I believe we have an administration right now that isn’t 

committed to some of the shipping interests in Illinois and Indiana 

that there were before and I don’t discredit that. But we have a 

water resource that could be impacted in many different ways 

recreationally, commercially as well, if Asian carp, one of those species were to get into the Great Lakes. 

Can you please provide an update on what your efforts have been 

with the Army Corps of Engineers that have been dragging their 

58 

oars in the water for too long on this issue? Have you had any significant contact with them in moving this issue forward? 

Mr. PRUITT. I have had contact with Secretary Esper as well as 

R.D. James there at the Corps on a multitude of issues. I don’t recall speaking about this particular issue, but I appreciate you making me aware of it, and we will talk to them about their involvement. 

Mr. WALBERG. Yes, if you could get on that. That is just so significant. And it is amazing right now though we have seen DNA 

that have come from carp in the Great Lakes, thus far we are not 

seeing the impact of the fish themselves. We can’t have that happen. If it happens there is no turning back, and this is an environmental protection issue. And so I hope that you will check into that 

further, and I certainly would like to check with your office. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Pruitt for being here. As you know, I have the 

honor and privilege of representing the 1st congressional district of 

Georgia which includes the entire coast of Georgia and it also includes the Savannah Harbor. The Savannah Harbor Expansion 

Project is a billion-dollar project, arguably the most important economic development project in our State’s history next to the Interstate System. It supports the infrastructure and economic principles that were laid out by President Trump. It is exactly 

that.This is what he has been talking about when he has been talking investing in the infrastructure in our country. It is one of the 

most studied projects in the history of mankind. 

We started this project in the late 1990s. Since that time, three 

ports in China have been started and completed, yet this is not 

completed yet. Back when you were here in December, I brought 

to your attention the Tier 4 emission standards that are being required for the harbor pilots and for their boats and the problem 

that it was causing us then. You understand that unless we can 

get those ships in and out of port, it does us no good to invest a 

billion dollars into this project. We have to have those harbor pilots 

and their vessels in order to get these ships in and out of port. 

Now the Tier 4 emission standards, I spoke to you in December 

about those. This was after months of my staff and your staff going 

back and forth to discuss this. Since that time almost 5 months 

ago, I have had the harbor pilots come up to Washington at their 

own expense and their own time to meet with your staff. Your staff 

was completely unprepared. It was complete waste of time for the 

harbor pilots to be here. You gave me a commitment back in December that you would look into this. I need to know where we are 

at with this. This is extremely important for us. 

Can you give me an idea of where we are at with this? 

Mr. PRUITT. First, Congressman, my apologies to you and your 

constituents if we weren’t responsive. And that is the first I have 

heard of that and I will check on that very issue and my apologies 

there. 

Secondly, as I shared with you recently, we are actually sending 

representatives, I think, to California to meet with the architect on 

59 

the construction of the vessels to determine whether there is a way 

to modify—— 

Mr. CARTER. When will they be going to California? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think this month. I think it is actually this month. 

Mr. CARTER. This month, April? 

Mr. PRUITT. May, I am sorry. It is happening in May. 

Mr. CARTER. May, so next month. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. 

Mr. CARTER. Can I have the commitment that we are going to 

get this fixed? Are you personally involved in this? Are you personally looking into this? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am now. 

Mr. CARTER. You are now as of today. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. 

Mr. CARTER. But you told me you were in December. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. My communication—— 

Mr. CARTER. Now you are telling me today. I want to believe you. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. So my communications to the team in December were to take steps, and apparently that has not been done. 

Mr. CARTER. That has not been done. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. So I will be personally engaged on this going 

forward. 

Mr. CARTER. I certainly hope so, because look, I want to help you, 

OK, because I want you to help me. This is extremely important. 

This is, as I said before, the largest economic development project 

in the State of Georgia since the Interstate System. We have got 

to have this done. If we don’t have the bar policy, they don’t have 

the vessels and the manufacturer is telling us that they cannot 

meet the Tier 4 emission standards and build these vessels that 

they need. 

Mr. PRUITT. I think it is also a competitive situation with other 

regulations outside of our Agency that are causing a certain type 

of vessel along with the engine. So there is work to be done. 

Mr. CARTER. I just need a commitment. Can I have a commitment from you that this will be resolved in 30 days? 

Mr. PRUITT. You have the commitment from me to get engaged 

on this issue with our Air Office to find answers. We will have answers—— 

Mr. CARTER. Can I have a commitment from you that you will 

get this resolved as soon as you can? 

Mr. PRUITT. I will find answers to this within 30 days. 

Mr. CARTER. OK. I can’t stress to you how important this is. 

Also, the Tier 4 emission standards are causing problems with generators. They are not able to build the large one megawatt generators. And keep in mind now I said I was representing the entire 

coast of Georgia. We have hurricanes in Georgia, therefore we need 

generators. In fact, in one 11-month period we had two hurricanes. 

They cannot make these. Will you commit to reviewing the Tier 4 

standards to see if they are practical and if they are rational? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. I will engage in conversations around this issue 

with our Air Office to see what the options are. 

Mr. CARTER. The last thing I want to ask you about is biobutanol. It is my understanding that you have—— 

Mr. PRUITT. About what, I am sorry? 

60 

Mr. CARTER. I am sorry? 

Mr. PRUITT. About what, I am sorry? 

Mr. CARTER. Biobutanol. 

Mr. PRUITT. OK. 

Mr. CARTER. This is one of the biofuels that is an alternative 

fuel, and it is my understanding that you have a comment period 

that is about to end at the end of April. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. I can verify that. 

Mr. CARTER. OK. Well, please verify that because, as you know, 

the ethanol additives cause a lot of deterioration to marine engines. 

Biobutanol, as I understand it, is much better, much more compatible for marine engines, and we need that to come to market. When 

this comment period is up, I hope that you will act on it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is—— 

Mr. PRUITT. Pathway for advanced categories under the RFS, is 

that what you are referring to? 

Mr. CARTER. Yes. 

Mr. PRUITT. OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi for 5 minutes, Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Pruitt, welcome. It appears that it has become a 

political blood sport to try to destroy anybody associated with the 

Trump administration, and I want to say thank you for what your 

Agency has done and the attention that they have given to the New 

Source Performance Standards for residential wood heaters. That 

was very helpful to some, you know, employers that were in real 

danger of not being able to meet a particular deadline and I appreciate the work that your Agency has done on that. 

And I also want to ask you a few questions and I need to ask 

you about a series of media reports that I found particularly concerning. According to these reports at least five EPA officials have 

been reassigned, demoted, or requested to switch jobs because they 

raised concerns about your spending and management of the Agency. You know, you have already testified this morning that these 

actions were based on other reasons, but even the implication of retaliation can have an impact on the morale of EPA employees. Will 

you explain these allegations and tell us what steps EPA takes to 

investigate allegations brought forward by EPA employees? 

Mr. PRUITT. First, there is no truth to the assertion that decisions have been made about reassignment or otherwise as far as 

employment status based upon the things that you reference. I am 

not aware of that ever happening, and it is something I want to 

make very, very clear. The individuals, I don’t know to whom you 

reference across the board, but the folks that I am aware of, two 

of those individuals are SES individuals that are serving in other 

capacities. They are actually still employees of the Agency. 

So I think that is important to note, but I just want to emphasize 

very, very clearly to you that there is no actions that we have 

taken that I am aware of related in any way to the issues you raise 

as far as reassignment or employment action based upon that. 

61 

Mr. HARPER. Can you assure me and the employees of EPA that 

all whistleblower complaints are taken seriously at EPA and that 

you will make your best efforts to ensure that whistleblowers are 

protected from any kind of retaliation? 

Mr. PRUITT. Absolutely, and I think that is how we get better. 

I think that is how we improve outcomes and processes. And this 

is not one of those situations, Congressman, in this situation, but 

absolutely, prospectively that is something that I can commit to 

you and will commit to you. 

Mr. HARPER. You know, I have had some of my constituents raise 

an issue regarding oil spill response training and I am told that the 

funding for certain training courses for Federal and local responders involved in inland oil spill prevention and cleanup have been 

eliminated and that the EPA Environmental Response Team is no 

longer able to consistently make these courses available. With an 

increase in oil production across the country there remains a need 

for oil spill response training for local, State, and Federal responders. 

Would you be willing to commit to looking into whether funding 

can and will be made available for what we believe is a very important training? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. Yes, Congressman, I agree with that. 

Mr. HARPER. Over the last 6 years, EPA has used its discretion 

to reduce and perhaps eliminate the effectiveness of the on-site 

technical assistance appropriated by Congress to small and rural 

communities in my home State of Mississippi including terminating funding for my State’s two full-time EPA funded circuit 

rider positions. My rural and small communities have told me numerous times, however, that this is the best and most helpful assistance with EPA water standards and unfunded mandates. 

So to address this problem in 2015, Congress passed and the 

President signed a version of my bill, the Grassroots Rural and 

Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act, solely to stop 

this problem that was caused by EPA and still continues today. So 

this bill requires EPA to give preference to the technical assistance 

that small and rural communities find the most beneficial and effective. 

So on April 11th of 2018, EPA announced the award of technical 

assistance grants. It was my hope that this announcement would 

have returned the two full-time circuit rider positions funded by 

EPA to Mississippi and the other States, yet I am told that there 

is less help with EPA mandates to small and rural communities. 

So did EPA conduct a review of what small communities find is the 

most beneficial and will you look into this for possible necessary 

correction? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. So those TAG grants are so important. And 

when you reference small and rural communities, some of our 

water infrastructure we think about the dense markets as far as 

the age in infrastructure across the country but those rural communities also need tremendous assistance. So those TAG grants 

are something that should be a focus in that area that you raised 

and I will look into the status of that for you. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much for what you are doing for 

the country. 

62 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Administrator Pruitt, I must say unlike my colleagues, no, thank you, no, thank you, to the policies of the Environmental Protection Agency under your tenure. But in my home 

city of Chicago we are in the middle of a dire situation as reported 

in a recent Tribune article entitled, ‘‘Brain-damaging lead found in 

tap water in hundreds of homes tested across Chicago, results 

show,‘‘ and this article is written on April the 12th, 2018. The article went on to state that, in the nearly 2,800 homes tested between 

2015 and to 2017, close to 70 percent were found to contain elevated levels of lead. Additionally, three of every ten homes tested 

contained lead concentration higher than 5 parts per million, the 

maximum amount allowed in bottled water by the FDA. 

I understand that EPA is currently considering revisions to the 

lead and copper rule. This rule was supposed to have been issued 

last year, but the Agency under your leadership has repeatedly delayed any action on this. You have also delayed action on the lead 

renovation, repair, and painting rule for commercial buildings. And 

your recent proposal on scientific data could block the EPA from 

considering landmark studies, what you misleadingly have termed, 

quote, secret science, end of quote. These important studies are 

critical in identifying potential risks to public health including 

those related to lead contamination, cancer as it related to smoking, as well as the health impacts associated with other dangerous 

contaminants. 

And I would like to hear from you on how the Agency will move 

to phase out lead in drinking water such as require replacements 

of lead service lines as well as your justification for your attacks 

on established scientific data. I have also been concerned by some 

of your public statements expressing a belief that there might be 

a safe level of lead and suggesting that lead contamination of 

drinking water is caused by Superfund sites as opposed to lead piping. 

Mr. Administrator, as you well know, even your own Agency has 

declared that there are no safe levels of lead for consumption. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, even consuming tiny amounts of lead can permanently damage the developing brain of children and contribute to kidney failure, heart disease, and other severe health problems. I also understand that this 

issue of replacing lead piping will require billions of dollars to remediate this problem on a national level. So I am curious to hear 

from you on ways that the EPA might provide financing and other 

mechanisms to help address this issue. 

As you know, the administration’s fiscal year 2019 budget proposed $863 million on Drinking Water State Revolving Funds 

which is an $81.2 million decrease from the fiscal year 2017 enacted levels. However, the most recent EPA Needs Survey estimates that it will cost over some $472 billion for capital improvements between the years 2015 and 2034. I will be meeting, Mr. Administrator, with senior State officials in the near future to discuss 

these and other issues, but I would like to hear from you on what 

steps the EPA will be intending to address these critical issues 

which have of course—— 

63 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. PRUITT. If I may, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Just for a short minute. 

Mr. PRUITT. There is no safe level of lead in our drinking water. 

It is something we need to act aggressively upon as an Agency and 

as a country. We have estimated it is about $45 billion to replace 

the lead service lines across the country, and with WIFIA and the 

authority this Congress has given the EPA, I really believe that we 

can prioritize funding in the WIFIA program up to 4 billion a year 

in over a 10-year process, or thereabouts, achieve tremendous results. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK, the gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Continuing 

along these lines, thank you, Administrator Pruitt. And, Mr. Chairman, if we could submit for the record the article from The Roanoke Times from today—the article came out yesterday, but it is 

in today’s electronic clips—‘‘Virginia Tech team gets EPA grant to 

engineer citizen-science water quality project.’’ 

As you will recall, in the previous administration there was a regional EPA Administrator who looked the other way. The Flint, 

Michigan, problem became a problem, but it was exposed by Marc 

Edwards, a professor at Virginia Tech, because he went out there 

on his own dime with his own monies and started doing the studies 

that needed to be done. Now your EPA has granted his group $1.9 

million to have folks test their water and send it in so we can find 

out exactly where the hot spots are, whether they be in Mr. Rush’s 

district of Chicago or elsewhere. 

And Professor Edwards says he calls this the largest engineering 

citizen-science project in American history. The 3-year grant will 

support his team, and some other universities are involved, and he 

said that, ‘‘All the work we did with consumers over the years and 

the students at Virginia Tech created this bottom-up, organic 

science phenomena. It created a tidal wave of understanding that 

couldn’t be ignored. This is how science is supposed to work, to 

me.’’ Marc Edwards, Virginia Tech. If we could have that article 

put in the record by unanimous consent? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Democrats have looked at it, and they have 

approved. Without objection, it is submitted for the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much. Now I am going to switch 

gears, but I couldn’t help think Mr. Rush’s comments were so timely for that. 

All right, I am going to switch now to the final rule for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium 

and Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles: Phase 2 that was approved 

in the prior administration. You all are taking some action in regard to one part of that which I want to talk about in a minute, 

but I first want to talk about trailers. And I asked these questions 

of the prior folks at the EPA and I don’t know how they have authority to regulate trailers when the Clean Air Act clearly says that 

the term ‘‘motor vehicle’’ means any self-propelled motor vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or a highVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
64 

way and a trailer is not self-propelled, nor is it a motor vehicle, nor 

does it have an engine. It might have a compressor if it is a refrigerator truck. 

You would agree with me that this needs attention and that we 

need to make sure that trailers are not being declared by the EPA 

to be self-propelled motor vehicles, yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. We are in process—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. I have got to move on to the next one, 

because I have got a more complicated one. You are also in the 

process of looking at the situation in that same regulation related 

to gliders and to big trucks. And I have got a problem because my 

district has the Volvo North America truck manufacturing site, 

thousands of jobs, billions of dollars were spent to meet the new 

requirements. Now I would agree with you in that, that the law 

does not say the EPA can do what they did because they went after 

gliders and they didn’t, they went after it and just said you basically can’t do it, which they don’t have authority to do because it 

is not a new motor vehicle engine, which is defined in the code in 

similar sections to what I just read on the trailers, utility trailers, 

in my district as well. 

But what is interesting is, I do believe that there ought to be 

something because, you know, Volvo and other truck manufacturers spent billions upgrading. And what the code says is, is that you 

really don’t have any authority over used motor vehicles during the 

useful life of that motor vehicle, but that is 11 years and 120,000 

miles. So what is happening is in some cases the gliders are not 

being used just on wrecked trucks or other trucks that might be, 

you know, within that time frame, but they are being used on 

trucks outside of their useful life. 

Don’t you think that it would be appropriate to take a look at— 

and all that is in the law, you have that authority. Take a look at 

it and see what can be worked out so that we don’t have trucks 

that are just being overhauled by the glider companies that are 

decades old and nowhere near meeting the emission standards of 

the United States, but at the same time recognizing they have a 

right to do that if the truck has not used up its useful life as defined already as 11 years and 120,000 miles. 

Mr. PRUITT. So that alternative is something that we haven’t reviewed yet, but I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. We 

have been focused upon the statutory analysis both for gliders and 

trailers, but this is something we need to add to the evaluation. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I just have to say what is interesting is, is 

I think about 80 to 85 percent of what the previous administration 

wanted to accomplish could have been accomplished if they hadn’t 

done sloppy legal work. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Pruitt, thank you for being here today and I apologize for the abrasiveness of some of my colleagues who would rather tarnish your character than really try to delve into the issues 

facing this great Nation. 

65 

I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the Obama administration’s Waters of the U.S. rule, otherwise known as 

WOTUS. And I know Congresswoman Blackburn brought it up earlier, but I want to go into a little more detail. As you know, this 

flawed regulation sought to expand Federal control over 60 percent 

of our country’s streams, millions of acres of wetlands that were 

previously non-jurisdictional. It has allowed the EPA and the Army 

Corps to regulate almost every water from manmade conveyances 

to large rivers. 

The rule has created an unnecessary confusion and suffering for 

farmers, ranchers, job creators, and private property owners, and 

in reality the regulations have done very little to benefit environmental stewardship. WOTUS is by far the largest issue for agriculture in South Carolina, and I know on your multistate action 

tour this past summer hosted by, I think, Super-Sod there in Anderson, you saw the real negative impact that WOTUS regulations 

had on farmers and local businesses. 

These regulations are emblematic of the aggressive and unconstitutional overreach by the Federal Government under the Obama 

administration and the habitual undermining of State and local authority regarding environmental matters. It is our responsibility in 

Congress to use our lawmaking power to enact legislative and permanent fix. 

Mr. Administrator, I appreciate your attention and efforts to curtail the WOTUS rules. We talked about that the last time you were 

in front of this committee about the President’s Executive order, 

and I just want to ask this question. I saw earlier this month that 

you issued a memo taking control of decisionmaking from the 

EPA’s regional administrators on important matters to streams 

and wetland jurisdictions. Can you elaborate on the intentions of 

this document and why you issued that memo? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. There have been many decisions made at the 

regional level through delegation, as I was talking about earlier, 

utilizing that definition historically, you know, that 2015 decision 

and then even prior to that in 1986 and the 2008 guidance. And 

so we had inconsistency across the country with respect to what jurisdiction we had, and this was an effort to draw that back to make 

sure we had uniformity and how we review our responsibility on 

the Clean Water Act and make sure that every region is implementing that the way that they should. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So why is this important to Waters of the U.S.? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, certainty is, certainty and clarity around the 

Waters of the United States rule is terribly important because, you 

know, if you have landowners across this country guessing about 

whether the EPA or the Corps of Engineers or any other Agency 

at the Federal Government has jurisdiction over their decision, 

meaning that they have to seek a permit, then they don’t want to 

find out years later that they should have got that permit and then 

face fines each day for those number of years. So clarity and certainty around where Federal jurisdiction begins and ends really is 

at the heart of our efforts this year with respect to the Waters of 

the United States rule. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Is there any effort by the Agency to go 

back and look at these maps that were drawn? Because when I 

66 

look at the Waters of the U.S. ruling and I look at streams or doggone ditches in my district that were falling under the jurisdiction, 

these are ditches that only hold water in an increment rain event, 

that aren’t navigable waterways in anybody’s opinion. And if you 

came out there and looked at some of these areas you would go, 

‘‘Why in the world is that covered?’’ Is there any attempt by the 

Agency to go back and review these maps and really pull some of 

those designated areas back in? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, that is part of our objective and effort with the 

rewrite of the Waters of the United States rule. It is not just that 

there was rescission, repeal in the marketplace. It is also, what is 

coming next? Where is the clarity? Where does jurisdiction begin 

and end? Because these jurisdictional determinations you are referring to, you are right, they have been so inconsistent, so different 

in certain parts of the country that ephemeral drainage ditches, 

dry creek beds, puddles, prairie potholes in North Dakota, you 

know, are considered waters of the United States, which I believe, 

looking at the text of the Clean Water Act, clearly was not within 

the intent of Congress. 

So that is something that we are going through that process, providing that clarity, and then those jurisdictional determinations 

will take effect or maybe change after that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Just the last question, during my time as a State 

legislator we had instances where areas were considered isolated 

wetlands and these were areas where logging loading decks were 

loaded, were situated, and they sat there for a while. Water settled, 

no wetland, no streams, but bulrushes popped up because water 

settled in there from where the equipment had set and all of a sudden this area was designated an isolated wetland and wasn’t able 

to be replanted, wasn’t able to be developed. 

Is there anything the EPA is doing to look at those isolated wetland issues like that? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, and also prior converted crop lands. I mean 

there are similar issues around that issue, so absolutely we are. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the chairman for holding today’s hearing and 

for extending the legislative courtesy for me to participate at your 

subcommittee which I am not a member of. I am very glad to be 

here. 

Administrator Pruitt, public officials and public office have a 

public trust to live up to. We are called to hold ourselves to the 

highest ethical standards so that the people that we serve have the 

confidence that we work for them. Not for ourselves, not for special 

interests, but for them. In front of your title Administrator, is U.S. 

EPA, an Agency that Richard Nixon founded. And I think if a public official loses the trust of people, his or her ability then becomes 

crippled because of the trust factor. 

Now you have a solid record of breaking ethics rules from the 

State level right up to the Federal Government. It is a long list and 

it includes wasteful spending. I think it is an embarrassment to 

67 

our country, and I think it is offensive to constituents. My constituents raise a lot of questions about and say, ‘‘How can he be doing 

this?’’ So the question that I want to ask you might be a little unusual one: Do you have any remorse for the excessive spending on 

behalf of yourself, the expensive air tickets, stopping in Paris, the 

amounts of dollars that you have expended at the Agency for an 

expensive telephone booth? I know you said it is for a SCIF, but 

there is a SCIF at the EPA. Do you have any remorse about this? 

Do you—— 

Mr. PRUITT. Let me say to you, Congresswoman. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, you can answer it yes or no. Do you have any 

remorse? 

Mr. PRUITT. I echo your comments. I think that what you said 

is absolutely true about the importance of public trust—— 

Ms. ESHOO. No, I want you to answer me. I have—sir, I have 2 

minutes and 38 seconds. 

Mr. PRUITT [continuing]. And I endeavor to achieve to live in a 

way that respects that. 

Ms. ESHOO. Do you have any remorse? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think there are changes I have made already, the 

change from first class to coach travel. That is a change I have 

made. I learned about the pay raises. 

Ms. ESHOO. All right. Well, sir, you are not going to outtalk me. 

You are not going to outtalk me. You claim that Steven Hart, the 

lobbyist who owned the condominium where you paid below-market 

rent, never lobbied you. However, we now know this isn’t true. Mr. 

Hart’s firm disclosed that he met with you regarding cleanup of the 

Chesapeake Bay. Did you have any other official meetings with Mr. 

Hart, yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. The meeting that you referred to was not a meeting—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Did you have any other meetings with him? 

Mr. PRUITT [continuing]. It was with respect to an individual—— 

Ms. ESHOO. All right, I am moving on. Did you ever discuss Mr. 

Hart’s clients or EPA business with him outside of official settings? 

Mr. PRUITT. There was no other meeting with Mr. Hart except 

for nonprofit. 

Ms. ESHOO. Do you have any other lobbyists or representatives 

of industries with business before the EPA provide you with similar personal favors that you haven’t previously disclosed? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congresswoman, as I have indicated with respect to 

this situation with Mr. Hart and Mrs. Hart, the only event that 

took place was a meeting with a nonprofit Chesapeake Bay—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Are there any other instances in which you granted—— 

Mr. PRUITT [continuing]. And I am not aware of any other instances. 

Ms. ESHOO. Are there any other instances in which you granted 

access to donors or lobbyists to whom you owed personal favors? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not aware of any instances. 

Ms. ESHOO. Your travel including regular upgrades to first class 

at the taxpayers’ expense has cost over $200,000 since you became 

Administrator. Are you reimbursing the taxpayer for any of that? 

68 

Mr. PRUITT. We can provide you the analysis that occurred in 

June of last year with respect to what caused the change to first 

class. 

Ms. ESHOO. I don’t need any analysis. I know what airline tickets 

cost. I fly across the country every week. 

Mr. PRUITT. And I have changed that recently. 

Ms. ESHOO. No, so what are you going to—you didn’t answer my 

question. I asked you if you were going to reimburse the taxpayers 

for the overage and this includes ten trips to Oklahoma as well. So 

are you going to reimburse or what are you going to do about it? 

Mr. PRUITT. The travel office and the security team determine 

where I sit on a plane and all trips that I have taken with respect 

to EPA dollars have been for official trips. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, you know what. With all due respect, I may 

be elected, but I am not a fool. That is really a lousy answer from 

someone that has a high position in the Federal Government. I 

mean, this is not a dodge-question day. We ask these questions on 

behalf of our constituents, and I don’t really find you forthcoming. 

So the last few questions that I would like to ask with 5 seconds 

left is, when you traveled to your home State—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Did you attend political fundraisers during any of these visits? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

Ms. ESHOO. I would like an answer. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Pennsylvania? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Pruitt, I think the opprobrium that you generated on some 

of these spending decisions is actually warranted, and I have reviewed your answers and I find some of them lacking or insufficient. And I believe you have demonstrated—or, you have not demonstrated the requisite degree of good judgment required of an appointed executive branch official on some of these spending items, 

and I would like to follow up on a couple of specific instances. 

It has been reported that EPA officials who have challenged your 

spending decisions and who have been reassigned or demoted were 

not reassigned or demoted over the challenging of your spending 

decisions but they all had performance issues. Have in each of 

those instances, those performance issues, been documented prior 

to them being reassigned or demoted? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not sure to what you are referring as far as 

a conclusion that they had been performance related. I talked 

about this earlier. I am aware of two individuals being reassigned 

because they were in the SES category, and that routinely happens 

in that category. I know of no instance where there were decisions 

made at the Agency based upon counsel or otherwise on spending 

with respect to employment-related decisions. I said that earlier, 

and I say it again to you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Are there instances where current EPA officials 

have objected to spending decisions that you have made who still 

remain in their present positions? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not aware of any employment action taken 

with respect to anyone and spending-related counsel. These indiVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
69 

viduals to whom you refer, I had limited interaction with them. 

They did not spend meaningful time with me with respect to 

spending and recommendations around spending. One of the individuals was the head of Advance. Most of the time I spent with 

him was in the field and not at headquarters. So there is really no 

factual connection whatsoever in employment status with those individuals and any counsel regarding spending. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Now the issues of the two close aides who used 

to work for you in Oklahoma and their pay raises, are you saying 

that you were not aware that those pay raises were provided to 

them until after the fact? 

Mr. PRUITT. I was not aware of one of those individuals even 

seeking a pay raise. I was aware of another person going through 

the process, but I was not aware of the amount that was provided 

or the process that was utilized to evaluate that. And that is what 

I have spoken to historically. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The other issue that has received a lot of attention is the $43,000 phone booth. And you are saying that at no time 

from the point between when you learned that it was $13,000 to 

the time that it became $43,000, you were never apprised of the 

additional cost related to that? 

Mr. PRUITT. I was not aware of it—13,000, 8,000, or 43,000. I 

gave a simple instruction to my leadership team to address secure 

communications in the office and then a process began and we have 

documentation we can provide you on that, Congressman. Career 

individuals were involved in that process from beginning to end 

and made the decision that you see in that, with the $43,000 allocation. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Now, I tend to be very conscientious of those who 

have personal security-related concerns. And I don’t know who has 

said what to you or when, but I do think that there is a lot more 

to that than some people may realize in the general public. 

Having said that, it has been reported that, I believe the IG has 

indicated or at least someone in the IG’s Office has not found some 

of the personal security concerns that you have proffered in relation to the enhanced security that you have received to be either 

warranted or credible. Would you kindly provide a little bit more 

detail on why you think you need—and I am just going to be very 

honest with you. When folks read about trips to Disneyland, professional basketball games, Rose Bowl, and the additional security detail related to that, that doesn’t sit well with a lot of people. 

Mr. PRUITT. So I can, Congressman, I can read directly from an 

Inspector General threat investigation, and I can provide this to 

you. There are several on here listed with respect to threats, and 

I will just read you two. ‘‘The threats were directed toward her father. The threat stated, ‘I hope your father dies soon, suffering as 

your mother watches in horror for hours on end.’’’ 

There is another entry, correspondence between the subject and 

individuals. ‘‘Pruitt, I am going to find you and put a bullet between your eyes. Don’t think I am joking. I am planning this.’’ 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. PRUITT. So these are threats that the IG has documented. 

We can provide this to you. The IG has said that the threats 

against me as Administrator—— 

70 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman—— 

Mr. PRUITT. [continuing]. Are unprecedented—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the Administrator, if you will suspend, I think 

the point has been made. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko. 

Mr. Pruitt, the person appointed to run the EPA needs to be 

someone who cares about protecting the health and safety of people 

all across the country, and until now both sides, both Presidents 

on both parties, we have had a pretty good track record with our 

EPA Administrators. But your time in office really has been different. Your tenure has been stained by repeated abuses of public 

trust and violations of ethical guidelines, guidelines that are designed to ensure that the Government’s business is conducted with 

impartiality and integrity. 

But what really bothers me perhaps even more, on top of that 

your Agency is willfully ignoring sound science and stripping the 

protections that keep millions of Americans safe. You are making 

our water less safe to drink and our air less safe to breathe. You 

are increasing our exposure to more dangerous chemicals and you 

are making our planet less healthy for our children and our grandchildren. 

And that is not just hyperbole. Under your leadership, Mr. Administrator, the EPA has weakened standards for ozone pollution, 

proposed a repeal of the Clean Power Plan, announced a repeal of 

the Waters of the United States rule, abandoned the once-in, always-in policy that aimed to lock in reductions of hazardous air 

pollution from industrial sources, withdrew the mercury effluent 

rule, delayed the implementation of safety procedures at chemical 

plants to prevent explosions and spills, withdrew a proposal to 

track emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds from 

oil and natural gas facilities, proposed eliminating the Lead Risk 

Reduction Program, announced a reconsideration of a rule regarding coal ash, announced a reconsideration of vehicle emission 

standards for model years 2022 to 2025—and we did a lot of work 

in this committee on these vehicle emission standards. 

You proposed repeal of emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles. You announced a plan to weaken emission standards for brick 

and tile manufacturers. You proposed a rule reducing air pollutants 

at sewage treatment plants. You have scrubbed the content of your 

website, including the page devoted to explaining climate change. 

You have removed the word ‘‘science’’ from the mission statement 

of your Office of Science and Technology. You have dismissed 12 of 

the 18 members of the Board of Scientific Counselors. 

You stayed silent when counties failed to meet new ozone standards by an October 2017 deadline. Your EPA has collected far 

fewer fines from polluters than any of the last three Administrators 

during the same time, and more staff and funding cuts are looming 

which means even fewer toxic chemicals and other environmental 

hazards will be measured and the statutes that protect all Americans will not be enforced. 

There is so much here, Mr. Administrator, that I wish I had 

more time. But instead I will focus on an issue that is in the headVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
71 

lines now and has profound implications for our future, the Paris 

Agreement. By announcing that we will abandon our commitment 

to the Paris Agreement, and we heard this from Mr. Macron yesterday being critical of it, this administration is setting the clock 

back on U.S. climate action and forfeiting our Nation’s position as 

the global leader in developing the clean energy economy of the future. The move will only open the door for others to take our place. 

This decision is bad for the planet and bad for public health. Scientists at the EPA and the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

have found that climate change is a significant threat to the health 

of the American people, increasing exposure to disease, increasing 

the risk of illness and death from extreme heat and poor air quality, and increasing dangerous extreme weather events. The Paris 

Agreement was and still is our best chance to address these risks 

for all Americans but we can’t do it alone. Mr. Pruitt, you have 

supported the President’s decision to announce a withdrawal from 

the Paris Agreement. 

President Trump and you have said that the deal unfairly puts 

constraints on the U.S. coal industry and that it somehow is a 

threat to our sovereignty. It doesn’t make any sense because the 

Paris Agreement is voluntary. It imposes absolutely no constraints 

on U.S. trade policy or U.S. domestic energy policy, but there is an 

historic economic opportunity for American companies and workers 

to lead the world in creating and providing newer, cleaner forms 

of energy. 

Again, yesterday French President Macron reminded us that 

there is no planet B—that is a quote—but turn to our future. And 

he said, quote, I am sure one day the United States will come back 

and join the Paris Agreement and I am sure we can work together 

to fulfill with you the ambitions of the global compact on the environment. I certainly hope he is right for the sake of our children 

and our grandchildren. 

To me, an Administrator should be someone who cares about 

these things, not someone who is going to ruin these things. Not 

someone who is going to make our future more dangerous for our 

families. And that is what bothers me, because you are not 

doing—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ENGEL. You are instead—I am finishing, Mr. Chairman. You 

are instead—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Finish quickly. 

Mr. ENGEL [continuing]. You are going against the tenets of what 

your job is supposed to do, and that makes me very, very angry. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for 5 minutes, Mr. Lance. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you and the 

ranking member for allowing me to participate. I am a member of 

the committee, but not of this subcommittee. 

Administrator Pruitt, the EPA has a long and distinguished history established by President Nixon as you know better than anybody. I represent a district in northern New Jersey outside New 

York and we are concerned about some of the allegations regarding 

the overspending, and in particular the $43,000 for the security of 

the phone booth. As you know, this has been criticized by the GovVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
72 

ernment Accountability Office. The general counsel, Mr. Armstrong, said that you had a responsibility to notify lawmakers. You 

have indicated that you believe this is not part of renovations. 

Having said that, isn’t there other secure locations within your 

Agency, and why did we need to spend taxpayer funds to build a 

new secure place for making of telephone calls? 

Mr. PRUITT. First, on the GAO matter, we have in fact notified 

the GAO with respect to those issues and rightfully so, based upon 

their determination. And I do want to say that the Office of General Counsel at the Agency, career individuals, interpreted the expenditure as not being within the guidelines of the statute, and 

that is the reason the Agency acted as they did. And those were 

all individuals, career individuals, that were part of that process. 

Mr. LANCE. The GAO disagrees with you, the General Counsel 

disagrees with you? 

Mr. PRUITT. That is right. But steps were taken to notify irrespective of that. 

Mr. LANCE. I tend to agree with the GAO General Counsel. I 

want that on the record. Why did we need another SCIF or SCIFlike facility when there was already one at your Agency? 

Mr. PRUITT. So it is not a SCIF, and it was not intended to be. 

As I shared earlier, Congressman, in an earlier question, I simply 

requested for a secure communication, a secure line in my office 

based upon phone calls that occur that are confidential in nature. 

And so, based upon that instruction, a process ensued where this 

investment took place. And that is—— 

Mr. LANCE. Did any of your predecessors suggest that this be 

needed, Republican or Democratic? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not sure, Congressman. 

Mr. LANCE. Well, I think the answer is no. It is either a yes or 

a no. And I don’t demand just a yes or no, you are willing to elaborate. But did any of your predecessors suggest this? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not sure. 

Mr. LANCE. And I am not a person here who requires a yes or 

no. I would like you to answer in detail, did any of your predecessors require that? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am just not aware of any requests of previous—— 

Mr. LANCE. Well, I have the honor of representing a predecessor 

of yours, Christine Todd Whitman. She is a constituent of mine. 

She was the Administrator for the second President Bush, and she 

has indicated that she saw no need for such an enhanced telephone 

system when she was Administrator and there was secure communications then, and she has indicated that she did not think this 

was appropriate. And respectfully, I do not think it is appropriate. 

And I think that there are already secure locations, and I think it 

was a waste of funds. 

Regarding a completely different issue: In a March 30th memo, 

you stated you signed a directive to give more authority to your office over environmental regulations for a project near regional waterways. It is my view that taking this authority may supplant the 

role of local representatives and experts, water quality boards. You 

have relied heavily and when you were Attorney General of Oklahoma on federalism and perhaps appropriately so for local and 

State control over suits against the EPA. Yet, it appears to me that 

73 

your directive supplants local control and that it would give you as 

Administrator final decision-making authority over the protection 

of streams, ponds, and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. 

I would be interested in your views. It impresses me that your 

views may have changed, Administrator, now that you are the Administrator, from your position as Attorney General of Oklahoma. 

Mr. PRUITT. They haven’t changed with respect to the collaboration with the States in that regard. I think what you are referring 

to is a decision to bring that delegation back from the regions. And 

what we have seen, Congressman, is a great variation, inconsistency from one region to another with respect to the issues that you 

have described. And so this is an effort at the Agency to get uniformity and to get consistency across the regions. Collaboration, 

consultation will continue both at the regions and with the States. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. I end my questioning by saying that I am 

concerned about what I believe is overspending. I am particularly 

concerned about the secure location. It is my judgment that that 

was not needed and that is the judgment certainly of at least one 

of your predecessors, a constituent of mine, Christine Todd Whitman. 

Mr. PRUITT. And, Congressman, I agree with your statement. I 

believe that that was an amount of money that should not have 

been spent and was never authorized by myself. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, 

Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I would like to thank the Chair 

and ranking member for allowing me, a member of the committee 

but not this subcommittee, to be here today. 

There is a lot of interest, Secretary Pruitt, in your testimony. 

And I also have been troubled by certain behaviors. And it has 

been reported that your decision to abandon the planned fuel efficiency standards was heavily influenced by Samantha—is it 

‘‘Dravis’’ or ‘‘Dray-vis’’?—one of the employees you brought with you 

from Oklahoma who is now under investigation for receiving a salary from taxpayers despite not coming to work for 3 months. You 

personally brought Ms. Dravis on the job at EPA when you became 

Administrator. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. She is not from Oklahoma, and yes, she came in 

upon the start of our administration. And are you referring to the 

midterm evaluation, the decision reached on the midterm evaluation? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am going to continue with my questions, and 

maybe I will get to that. She was hired using the same Safe Drinking Water Act authority that was used to give unapproved raises 

to other staff that you did bring from Oklahoma. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not aware if she was hired under that Safe 

Drinking Water Act authority. There is authority on the Safe 

Drinking Water Act to administratively determine certain individuals. It is legal, authorized, it has been used by previous Administrators, and it could have been used in that instance. I am just not 

aware. 

74 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. How much was Samantha Dravis paid for the 

3 months during which she did not report to work? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, I am not aware. There is a pending investigation, as you have indicated, review of that and I am not aware that 

she did or did not appear for work. So that is something that is 

being reviewed at this point. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Senator Carper has stated on the basis of information, I believe, from a whistleblower, has stated that he 

worked with you on a deal to preserve fuel efficiency standards. He 

has said that you abandoned that deal at the urging of Samantha 

Dravis. Did Samantha Dravis urge you to abandon the potential 

deal with Senator Carper? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am just not aware. I don’t know if you are speaking of the midterm evaluation or another issue. I just don’t, I am 

not sure what you are asking. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, regardless of what the source of the—I 

mean these are pretty straightforward questions about her and the 

3 months that she—are you contesting that she did not work for 

3 months? 

Mr. PRUITT. No, I am not speaking to that at all. I am not—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So I don’t know what your point is about asking where it came from. I am asking if she worked for 3 months 

without any—she did not work for 3 months, with pay. 

Mr. PRUITT. But your question was about fuel efficiency and I am 

not entirely sure what the question was with respect to her influence in that regard. So that is what I was trying to determine, 

what area you were talking about. I am not aware of—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. 

Mr. PRUITT. I will just say it to you this way: I am not aware 

of any decision around fuel efficiency, CAFE or otherwise, was an 

influence in that way. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Are you aware that she was paid and did not 

work for 3 months? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not aware of any. I know it is under review 

at this point, and those facts will bear out. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I wanted to ask you also, I have a little time 

left, about your vehicles. At the same time that the EPA has moved 

to increase fuel costs for American households, you have reportedly 

asked taxpayers to cover the cost of a luxury SUV for your use. Is 

it true that as Administrator you upgraded from a Chevy Tahoe, 

which I know your predecessor used, to a Chevy Suburban with 

leather interior and other luxury features? 

Mr. PRUITT. As I understand it, the decisions to add a vehicle to 

the fleet was something that was in process prior, and they asked 

for input about the vehicle, that I did not give direction to start 

that process or end that process, they just asked for consultation. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. It isn’t the first time in public service that you 

have upgraded your official vehicle. As Oklahoma Attorney General 

you upgraded to a big, black SUV when your predecessor used a 

sedan. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. The sedan was something that went out of service 

and we had to replace that with an SUV, yes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You had to replace it with an SUV? 

75 

Mr. PRUITT. There was a replacement that occurred because of 

the other one coming out of service. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So it is not just that it had to be replaced. It 

had to be replaced with a bigger, less fuel-efficient and larger, more 

expensive car. So it just seems to me that this pattern that we 

have been hearing today of behavior—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY [continuing]. Is very concerning. And I thank 

you for your answers. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from southwest Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator Pruitt, for being here today. And I think that it has been 

well established today that you have the most famous cone of silence since Agent 86. 

But that is not where my questioning is going to go today. I have 

a 30-year career—had a 30-year career—as a real estate broker before I came here, and part of being a real estate broker, it was very 

important to people the energy efficiency of their homes. And when 

they were looking for a new home they looked at that Energy Star 

certified program, things that complied with that. In your testimony you talk about the Energy Star program and how it helps 

businesses and consumers save money by reducing their energy 

use. The Energy Star program provides consumers with accurate 

information about what products and systems deliver high quality 

energy savings, as you know. 

I am wondering if you can talk about the process involved with 

updating the Energy Star standards to include the most innovative 

and up-to-date technologies such as high performance HVAC systems which can outperform current Energy Star-approved equipment. 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, the program to which you refer, Congressman, 

has been extremely successful from the public-private partnership 

and there is actually a rulemaking schedule that will occur in January of next year, as I understand, to establish fees that will, you 

know, support that program. I think the concern has been just the 

long-term stability and viability of the program. So we are in the 

process now of preparing for that and it is something we are committed to and I think it has been very successful. 

Mr. LONG. OK. I think that it is important to both the regulating 

community and the public that the Government speak with one 

consistent voice. I know from experience, you talk to people—if 

they call an IRS office, they may call seven different days and get 

eight different answers, depending on which office they call. What 

are your plans for ensuring the EPA’s policy positions are implemented consistently across Government, including the EPA headquarters and the EPA regional offices in litigation and enforcement? And I was just using IRS as an example, because that is 

somewhere a lot of people get a lot of different answers, so for the 

EPA. 

Mr. PRUITT. It is a very important question because we have 10 

regions across the country, and what we have seen from a compliance and assistance perspective—enforcement, permitting, many, 

76 

many issues—a great inconsistency. And so we are in the process 

of going through a Lean program at the Agency evaluating metrics. 

Mr. LONG. I am sorry, what program? 

Mr. PRUITT. It is a management program to ensure that we are 

committed to metrics. 

Mr. LONG. What did you call it? What was the—— 

Mr. PRUITT. It is Lean. 

Mr. LONG. Lean, OK. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. It is a private—but I have a person, a COO, 

that is dedicated to ensuring that we are setting metrics objectives 

at each of the regions and that there is verticality, uniformity from 

headquarters to the regions and across the country to ensure on 

compliance, assistance, permitting, all these various issues that we 

don’t see this dispersion and great variety. 

Mr. LONG. On these EPA proposed rule revisions which recognize 

the importance of the States overseeing the implementation of the 

program regulating coal combustion residuals, I believe that oversight is critical. Has your Agency given more thought to adjusting 

deadlines imposed under the existing Federal rules so the States 

have time to get their programs developed and approved by the 

EPA? 

Mr. PRUITT. There has been consideration of that, yes, and I 

think you make a great point about the timeline, that States need 

to develop their own programs. We provide a guidance in that regard to the States, but they need time to adopt and implement 

those programs. And so both are very important trying to address 

the impending deadlines but also work with the States to achieve 

the startup of their programs. 

Mr. LONG. With Oklahoma being a neighbor to Missouri, I am 

sure that you know that electric power providers in Missouri rely 

on a balanced portfolio of energy inputs including a large amount 

of coal for our energy. Is it still your plan to undertake a timely 

repeal of the carbon regulations for power plants? 

Mr. PRUITT. If you are referring to the Clean Power Plan of the 

previous administration, you know, that is in the marketplace 

today, yes. 

Mr. LONG. OK. And those regulations were dependent on the last 

EPA’s official finding that carbon endangers the environment. Is 

EPA planning on revisiting that endangerment finding also? 

Mr. PRUITT. You know, our focus has been in the Clean Power 

Plan and addressing that from a rulemaking perspective. So that 

has been our focus today. 

Mr. LONG. OK. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Administrator, I have been listening to your testimony here 

in the committee room, and back in my office I have been watching 

it very constantly on television. And I must tell you this is very disturbing, what I am hearing today. One of the most alarming aspects that I have heard concerns your expenditures. I am going to 

call them your outlandish expenditures on security. 

77 

And what is even more alarming to me is the fact that there has 

been an obvious practice of retaliation against EPA employees who 

question your spending. And you are a lawyer, I read your bio. You 

have been a civil servant for many years and you have done a lot 

of great things. You must certainly know that whistleblower protections are essential to ensuring fairness and good government. But 

according to press accounts, five EPA staff members were fired or 

reassigned after questioning your spending or advising you that 

you need to notify Congress of expenditures over $5,000. 

Now, the nonpartisan GAO office has now validated those employees finding that you broke the law. That is not the Democrats 

or any other political group. That is the nonpartisan Government 

Accountability Office has now validated those employees, finding 

that you broke the law in failing to notify the Congress. Now do 

you intend to hold yourself or your staff accountable for this action? 

Mr. PRUITT. First, I want to say I know of no instances, Congressman, where a decision has been made on employment status 

related to spending or any recommendations regarding spending. I 

have said that earlier and I will say it again to you now. 

With respect to the accountability—— 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. But my point is notifying Congress. 

Mr. PRUITT. That is an issue that I have addressed already a 

couple of times here. Office of General Counsel, career individuals 

at the Agency advised those folks going through the expenditure 

process that they did not need to notify Congress. GAO came out 

recently and said otherwise. That notification has taken place. 

Those individuals, those career individuals that made the decision 

on that expenditure, were following the advice of counsel and the 

direction of what they knew to be right at the time. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. So it is your position that you had no responsibility to notify Congress of these expenditures? 

Mr. PRUITT. No, I believe that the decision has been remedied, 

and it should have been done at the beginning. But it was not 

done, and the question is, as they made those decisions, who guided that? And it was career individuals at the Agency. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I was further alarmed that the pattern was 

extended to the head of the Office of Homeland Security at EPA, 

who signed off on a February memo finding that you did not face 

direct death threats. That person was removed from his role, I am 

told, the day that the Senate Democrats revealed the existence of 

the memo. The timing of the move clearly suggests an effort to intimidate, in my opinion, and to deter staff who might share their 

concerns with Congress. Any truth to that? 

Mr. PRUITT. And I think Donna Vizian at the office, who heads 

our Human Resources area, would say the contrary to that. The 

reference I made earlier to a previous question about the Inspector 

General and their actual recitations of threats I can provide to you, 

Congressman. The person to whom you refer does not have all the 

information with respect to the collection of threats. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me take you to question 2, I am running 

out of time. Last month, you moved to weaken protections from 

toxic coal ash, which poses serious risks to human health and the 

environment. I had a coal ash spill in my State of North Carolina 

and they are still mitigating that damage. The spill that occurred 

78 

in Kingston, Tennessee caused 30 premature deaths, 200 serious 

illnesses among workers who cleaned up the spill. 

Amazingly, you have proposed weakening the protections despite 

the hard science proving the dangers caused by the spills. This is 

unacceptable. Were you aware of these severe worker impacts 

when you proposed weakening the coal ash rule? 

Mr. PRUITT. The specific examples that you refer to, no, I was not 

aware of those specific examples. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Last January, you delayed the essential protections for farm workers from dangerous pesticides, including delaying protections for minors. That delay has now been thrown out. 

My staff says thrown out. You and I as lawyers, I guess we would 

call it something different, dismissed by the courts. Is that true or 

not true? 

Mr. PRUITT. No, it is my understanding that there is a proposal 

to deal with those age requirements that are being considered but 

there has not been any final action on that. States, as you know, 

have age requirements as well and we are contemplating in that 

process whether those age requirements should be deferred to in 

this process. But I am not aware of it being final at this point, Congressman. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Well, let me thank you for your testimony. I 

have listened to as much as I could today and, again, I say I am 

very disappointed with your record at the Agency. It is not commensurate with your record over many, many years in other capacities, and your lack of concern for workers is what concerns me 

most of all. You have wasted taxpayer money. You—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. And 

thank you for allowing me to sit on this subcommittee. Of course, 

as you know, I sit on the full committee. 

Administrator Pruitt, I want to talk about the environmental review and approval process for local projects. With the significant 

portion of my constituents living on Florida’s west coast, I am always concerned about hurricanes as you can understand as well as 

flooding. However, our area only has two evacuation routes to move 

residents inland during an emergency. To alleviate this problem, 

the Pasco County government initiated the Ridge Road Extension 

Project to create a third evacuation route, but you know they have 

been working on this since 1997. Can you believe that? Since 1997, 

for over 20 years, the county has been treading through regulations, filling out forms, and meeting with Federal officials to get 

this public safety project up and running. OK, so we are talking 

about again a public safety project we need to save lives, God forbid we had a disaster. 

So while they have met with some recent success, and I have 

been working to help them out, the project still has not received 

final approval. Administrator Pruitt, what has the Agency done 

under your leadership to streamline the review of projects particularly when they involve public safety where lives could be on the 

line, in this case they definitely are on the line, and is permitting 

improvements something that your EPA workforce assessment, are 

they addressing these issues? 

79 

Mr. PRUITT. It is absolutely a priority. In fact, we began an effort 

last year before we arrived at the Agency. They didn’t know how 

long it took to actually go through the permitting process, in fact 

I asked that question upon arrival to give me an idea about the 

length that it took for permitting and they didn’t know the answer. 

So we have evaluated that data. And I know this won’t surprise 

you but it takes a long time. You have already cited your example. 

And so by the end of 2018 we are making changes internal to the 

Agency. The decision that we make on permits up or down will 

occur within 6 months starting in January of ’19. So that is the effort that we are engaged in. But as you know this is an interagency 

approach as well and we are collaborating with the Corps of Engineers around some of these issues in making sure that we have 

consistency in working with them. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK, so you say within 6 months beginning in 

2019? 

Mr. PRUITT. At the end of this year, we will have a plan in place 

to execute upon as we begin January of ’19. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. On the same point, the President released an 

infrastructure plan, of course as you know, which included sections 

on permitting improvement. One of the proposals is that one Agency, one decision. Is that what you are referring to, environmental 

review structure? Another is allowing for localities to complete a 

single environmental review document for a project. Are these 

things that you could support? 

Mr. PRUITT. I do support and I think these are great recommendations that have been made as part of the infrastructure 

package the President made and something I hope Congress 

adopts. But whether it is adopted or not, we are advancing this 6- 

month review process internal to the Agency. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. As far as, you know, there are a lot of local 

governments that can’t afford to hire high priced consultants, as 

you know. So this is very, very important to them and they 

shouldn’t be penalized because they can’t afford to hire these high 

priced consultants. You know, in my area over the years they have 

spent a lot of money on this project and but I am sure that there 

are examples all over the country where it has taken many, many 

years. So I appreciate you working with me on this and hopefully 

we get approval soon. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thanks, Congressman. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank you very much and I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Representative Castor, for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you, Chairman Shimkus, for allowing 

me to participate in the hearing today. 

Mr. Pruitt, your pattern of unethical conduct and conflicts of interest are now very well known, but I am very troubled by your 

failure to take personal responsibility for your actions. You simply 

dismissed all of the ethical lapses at the beginning of your testimony as troubling media reports so I think that is a failure in leadership. 

But the point I want to make today is that those costs, your 

wasteful spending, those costs pale in comparison to the damage 

80 

you are doing to the health of American families and the assault 

on our clean air and clean water protections, our protections 

against dangerous chemicals and pesticides. Mr. Pallone highlighted the issue of the dangerous paint stripper, methylene chloride, at the beginning, that is known to have caused over 50 deaths 

and yet the EPA under your administration now has, you say we 

are stalled, we don’t have a final decision, but in essence you have 

turned a blind eye to those families. 

There is also the case of chlorpyrifos which is a dangerous nerve 

agent. It is in the same chemical class as sarin. There was a recommendation by EPA scientists when you came in, in fact the last 

administration had said we are going to propose very significant restrictions especially to protect babies, children, young people under 

18. You came in and turned that around. You said, ‘‘Oh, well, this, 

well, it is not final.’’ 

But you have set a pattern here. America’s pediatricians are outraged. Public health advocates are outraged and so am I, because 

we are talking about the development of brain in babies and children. We are talking about not just children that might be in farmlands, but they live and work or they live and play in those areas. 

There were a lot of kids in the audience today and parents who 

care about this a great deal. It is Take Your Child to Work Day. 

That was good to have them in here. 

So my first question is why are corporate polluter profits more 

important to you than the health of families and children? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, on the issue that Ranking Member Pallone 

brought up and this issue that you have raised, I would ask you 

not to jump to conclusions, that there is a final process there. As 

you know, the previous administration—— 

Ms. CASTOR. But there is a pattern. There is a pattern. And—— 

Mr. PRUITT. I am trying to respond. 

Ms. CASTOR. And, you know, your actions belie what you say 

when your EPA scientists and public health advocates and pediatricians all say here is the ban and you come into office and time 

and time and time again you are siding with the special interests 

and not with the public. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yet that solvent that you are referring to is actually 

one of the 10 priority chemicals that we are reviewing under TSCA 

that you authorized. And so we are—— 

Ms. CASTOR. You are right. And that was a recommendation that 

was the action of this committee and you have set the pattern. 

And, really, whatever you could say today, I think people need to 

look at your actions rather than your rhetoric. 

But in addition to your failure to take any responsibility, I have 

to say that I am disappointed in a lot of my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle that have let the Administrator off the hook today 

by barely asking any tough questions. There were a few exceptions, 

and my hat is off to them. Maybe they are trying to save his job 

because they are worried, if he doesn’t perform well today, he could 

be fired. 

Several congressional Republicans have already publicly called 

for your firing, but unfortunately not on this committee. Either way 

it is embarrassing that most of the Republicans refuse to take this 

committee’s oversight responsibility seriously and hold you acVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
81 

countable. They claim to have requested documents from the administration regarding Administrator Pruitt’s misconduct and conflicts of interest, but there is no evidence of any investigation. 

Meanwhile, the Democrats on this committee, we have sent numerous inquiries to EPA, the Office of Inspector General, the GAO, 

the Office of Special Counsel, and some of those have borne out and 

you have been found in violation of the law. Unfortunately, we 

have yet to see any real effort from my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle. 

So I have been keeping a list today as well, Mr. Administrator, 

of the unanswered questions, because you often say it is not final, 

we are looking at this, the jury is out. But you failed to give direct 

responses on a number of questions. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this list for the record 

of the endless string of questions that Administrator Pruitt has not 

answered today. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let us look at that. Pass it over here, please. 

Ms. CASTOR. Will do. 

And finally close out by saying—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. CASTOR [continuing]. Mr. Pruitt, you violated—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here, Mr. Pruitt. I have been watching you 

during the hearing and you certainly have the bearing of a man 

who thinks he is untouchable. I don’t know if that is true or not, 

but I would be careful of that because I don’t think Americans go 

for that, and in your position they just want you to protect their 

air, they want you to protect clean water, and they want you to 

conserve the land. 

As has been said by many of my colleagues, EPA under your tenure has been cloaked in secrecy and swamped with ongoing legal 

and ethical failures. You have refused to release detailed information from your calendar, often provide no advanced notice of where 

you are going to be, Agency career staff, we are told, have been instructed not to take notes or carry their cell phones, and this level 

of secrecy has forced a lot of citizens to take the avenue of filing 

Freedom of Information Act requests. I understand that EPA political leadership has added a new layer of so-called awareness reviews to those requests, which can delay the release of information 

to the public and also limit the amount of information redacted in 

the responses. 

Are you aware that your political appointees are conducting 

these reviews before information is released to the public, yes or 

no? 

Mr. PRUITT. First, let me say that there has been no instruction 

not to take notes or to carry phones. That is simply fabricated. 

With respect to the process you are referring to, the FOIA process 

is governed by statute. And—— 

Mr. SARBANES. But you have set up these political appointees to 

do reviews, are you aware of that? 

Mr. PRUITT. The Office of General Counsel is conducting FOIA 

reviews. 

82 

Mr. SARBANES. OK, all right. You are not aware of that. I am 

going to move on because, as you know, we are limited here. But 

if that was done, that is a pretty clever move. We wrote to you last 

year with concerns about Carl Icahn’s role as special advisor on 

regulations, potential conflict of interest due to his financial holdings and outspoken positions on the Renewable Fuel Standards 

programs. So here we are a year later, the EPA’s implementation 

of the RFS programs, specifically the small refinery waiver provision, is under fire from both farmers and refiners. 

My colleague Mr. Green raised the issue of secret waivers. I want 

to build on that a little bit. I want to know about CVR Energy in 

which Carl Icahn owns a majority stake. Administrator Pruitt, you 

met with representatives from Carl Icahn’s company, CVR Energy, 

in June of 2017. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. If that is what the calendar represents. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK. Did Carl Icahn’s company apply for a waiver 

from ethanol blending requirements for any of its refining facilities? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am unsure. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK. We will look at the record for that. And did 

Carl Icahn’s company receive a waiver for any of its refining facilities? 

Mr. PRUITT. These exemptions are governed by statute, as you 

know. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK. Well, you are going to find that out for us 

and we appreciate your following up because that is important to 

know because it raises serious questions about conflicts of interest. 

I have had the privilege of chairing here in the Congress the Democracy Reform Task Force. We have been trying to keep up with 

the ethical lapses of the Trump administration, which I will tell 

you is kind of a full-time job, and you certainly have been at the 

center of some of that focus. To date, five independent Federal investigations have been initiated at this committee’s request and 

more than eight independent Federal reviews are currently underway with respect to your office. 

Yesterday, the Democracy Reform Task Force released another 

report in a series that is looking at failures and ethical lapses within the Trump administration. This one was detailing your wasteful 

spending and favors for your friends. It put the interests of dirty 

polluters ahead of the American people. So this is now available for 

people to take a look at. It goes through the litany of ethical violations that have come to characterize and be the hallmark of your 

time in office. 

You have really become—I mean, it is sad to say it—but you 

have become in many respects, and you ought to take this to heart 

as somebody who holds an office in the public trust, you are wearing that mantle today, that office of public trust as head of the 

EPA, something people care deeply about. If you are going to wear 

that mantle, you have to exercise the office with attention to the 

public interest and not to private interest. 

But, unfortunately, you have become the poster child for the 

abuse of public trust and this goes back a long way. You brought 

your way of approaching these public offices to the EPA and it has 

undermined the credibility of that organization. But it is a hallVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:14 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X121EPABUDGETPDFMADE WAYNE
83 

mark of the Trump administration, and we are going to continue 

to demand answers and we are going to continue to hold you accountable in every hearing that you choose to be up here. 

I give you credit for coming today, but we are going to continue 

to hold you accountable for the dereliction of duty that we see. 

With that, I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont for 5 minutes, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you, with 

Mr. Flores, and I have been working on ethanol. 

Mr. Pruitt, I have heard reports, read reports that, as a result 

of the pressure on Midwest ag in response to the retaliatory tariffs 

by China, that there is a move by some to increase ethanol usage. 

Can you comment on that very briefly? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, are you referring to the RVP waiver? 

Mr. WELCH. That is correct. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. We have been actively evaluating the legal authority under the statute to grant the RVP waiver for the last several months. And the reason it is taking some time, Congressman, 

is because—— 

Mr. WELCH. I want to interrupt because actually what I am talking about, I appreciate the work on ethanol that my colleagues 

have done, but what is reported is that as a result of the tariffs 

that China is imposing on soybeans and grain that there is going 

to be a concession from the Trump administration to go to E15, so 

I will just leave it there. 

I do want to ask you some questions along the lines of how you 

have been running your department. Is it the case that any of your 

predecessors, Republican or Democrat, who have had the high responsibility as Administrator of the EPA have had a 20-person security detail? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am unaware of previous considerations in that regard. 

Mr. WELCH. Is it not at all relevant to you what the precedents 

have been with Republican and Democratic Administrators in the 

past? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am just not aware, Congressman, of processes prior 

to my time at the Agency on what was considered and what wasn’t 

considered. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. Did the taxpayers spend $30,000 for a security detail to accompany you on the trip to Disneyland? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am unsure about that. I mean, we took—— 

Mr. WELCH. That is knowable. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. The records show that. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. So you can determine this. It is not like 

secret stuff. 

Mr. PRUITT. The detail, the law enforcement make those determinations on what type of security should be provided, whether—— 

Mr. WELCH. You know, I have been listening to a lot of the answers, and the answers are ‘‘somebody else knows it,’’ and it really 

is starting to seem like there is something on your desk with a 

motto that says ‘‘The Buck Stops Nowhere,’’ and you are the guy 

who is in charge. 

84 

Mr. PRUITT. Yet, Congressman, I have made decisions to switch 

and make sure to make changes from first class back to coach, I 

rescinded the pay raises to those individuals. 

Mr. WELCH. No, I get it. 

Mr. PRUITT. In fact, that has happened. 

Mr. WELCH. Let me ask you just about this phone booth, because 

it is a metaphor. Are you aware that at the EPA headquarters 

there are two secure facilities where private phone calls could be 

secure? 

Mr. PRUITT. And, again, I didn’t request a SCIF. I requested a 

secure communication that was not accessible to my office and—— 

Mr. WELCH. I understand that. But you are the boss. So you tell 

your folks that you want a secure way of communicating, reasonable request, they are going to accommodate it. The boss is the one 

who has to make certain that it is a reasonable imposition on taxpayers, or do you disagree with that? 

Mr. PRUITT. And in this instance the process failed. As I indicated in my opening statement, those processes will be changed 

going forward. 

Mr. WELCH. Did you ask the question—here is the question that 

I think a lot of people would ask, Republican or Democrat, how can 

I make a secure phone call, and the answer would be well, Mr. Pruitt, there happens to be two places in this building right close to 

your office where you can do that. Had you asked that—— 

Mr. PRUITT. They are not right close to my office. 

Mr. WELCH. Pardon me? 

Mr. PRUITT. They are not right close to my office. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, how often do you have to use your secret 

phone booth? 

Mr. PRUITT. It is for confidential communications, and it is rare. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. So on those rare occasions, is it too much to ask 

you to walk whatever distance it takes for you to get to that secure 

line? 

Mr. PRUITT. I guess it depends on the nature of the call and how 

urgent the call is. 

Mr. WELCH. The point is that you have two locations that you 

can go to when you have to make those rare secure phone calls. 

This is taxpayer money. It is taxpayer money. Let me ask you this. 

Did you have installed or were there installed biometric locks on 

your office? 

Mr. PRUITT. There were problems with locks on two of the three 

doors and changes were made to those locks. No instruction was 

given for biometric locks, but that was a decision made by those 

individuals. 

Mr. WELCH. So these things just happen. 

Mr. PRUITT. There was a process at the Agency in that regard, 

and there was an evaluation. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, what is a biometric lock? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not entirely sure. 

Mr. WELCH. So do you know, is it the case you don’t know how 

to open your door? 

Mr. PRUITT. I just know how to put a code in. Excuse me? 

Mr. WELCH. No, seriously. What is a biometric lock? 

Mr. PRUITT. I don’t know. I just put a code in. 

85 

Mr. WELCH. A biometric lock, it responds, as I understand it, to 

like fingerprints or some other—your eyes, some physical characteristic. 

Mr. PRUITT. That is my understanding as well. 

Mr. WELCH. All right, so you have them, right? 

Mr. PRUITT. Those are on, those have been added to the office, 

yes. 

Mr. WELCH. Why? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes, Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to waive on to this subcommittee. I do appreciate that. 

Mr. Pruitt, I share a lot of the concerns my colleagues have 

voiced today on the ethics front, but I am actually here to talk 

about an issue that, as you might imagine, I am from Iowa, so of 

utmost importance to my State, to my district. During your confirmation process you stated that you would work to uphold the Renewable Fuel Standard and over the last 2 years President Trump 

has pledged on numerous occasions to support the RFS, in fact 

time and time again he has pledged to support it. However, over 

the last several weeks, information has been revealed that makes 

me question that commitment as you might imagine. 

Various reports have indicated that the EPA has granted socalled economic hardship exemptions to numerous refiners who appear to be neither small nor financially distressed. You know what 

the law says, it has to be 75,000 gallons or less to be granted that 

economic hardship waiver. I can tell you I have heard directly from 

my constituents, farmers and many others, and from farmers 

across the country who are extremely troubled by this action. And 

this comes at a particularly difficult time in farm country as you 

know when we have had low prices, we have seen farm income 

trending downward, and industry profits are soaring. 

I am extremely disappointed in the action as you might imagine 

and the lack of transparency and accountability in the process is 

also unacceptable. Under section 211 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA 

Administrator is required to reassign gallons that are waived 

under the small refinery exemption to other obligated parties. Because this entire waiver process has happened, really, without any 

transparency whatsoever, I am disappointed, my constituents are 

disappointed, and we really have no idea whether those gallons 

have been reassigned as required by law. 

So my first question, Mr. Pruitt, yes or no, have you reassigned 

these gallons as required by law? 

Mr. PRUITT. It is my understanding that the process has happened as it is supposed to under the statute. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Well, we are going to need that. And how do you 

plan to reassign then the gallons you waive for going forward for 

the 2019 RVO? 

Mr. PRUITT. And I do think your question is very important with 

respect to the volume obligation, Congressman. And when you 

think about the commitment of this administration to the RFS, the 

point of obligation was denied as you know. That was a big issue. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. But that is not my point. I am talking about the 

waivers. 

86 

Mr. PRUITT. No, I know. I understand. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. And I would like to move on to my next question 

if I could. Yes or no, do you intend to inform this committee and 

the public about the details behind these waivers such as which refiners received a waiver? 

Mr. PRUITT. Subject to the confidential business information or 

other information that would be the only thing that would not be 

available. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Well, Mr. Pruitt, we just want to know who got 

these waivers, not why necessarily, and I can’t understand why 

that would be considered confidential business information. Reports 

have indicated that 25 refiners received waivers from their obligations. Is that number accurate? 

Mr. PRUITT. That was actually in 2017, I think. The applications 

are still pending in 2018. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. What is the number at the moment? 

Mr. PRUITT. It is over that number for 2018, as I understand it. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Did you discuss these exemptions with the White 

House? 

Mr. PRUITT. There is ongoing discussions with the White House 

on various issues around the RFS program. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Who at the White House specifically was involved? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think the NEC in consultation with the Air Office. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Did you brief the President on these waivers? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, as I indicated this was a dialogue amongst 

staff members, NEC and Air Office, at our shop. So. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Has anybody explained to the President the substantial impact that these waivers have on the ethanol industry? 

Some have estimated a billion gallons. 

Mr. PRUITT. I am sure it has come up in many discussions. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. And moving on, you told me and many others 

that EPA is studying whether it has the legal authority to grant 

the RVP waiver. That was the last time that I waived on to this 

committee and we talked about that issue. And that seems like it 

is taking quite a while as you might imagine for many of us in corn 

country, and with the President’s recent remarks which were referenced here about his interest in year-around E15, I am wondering what the holdup is on this at this point. 

Mr. PRUITT. It is just trying to ensure that the legal basis is solid 

because there will be litigation that will ensue. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Well, do you plan to move forward and grant the 

RVP waiver and allow year-round sales of E15? 

Mr. PRUITT. I intend to finish that process very soon to make—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Yes. Hopefully, the sooner the better because this 

is something that obviously is very important not only to my State 

and my district, many folks around the country. So we are looking 

forward to that. And of course refinery executives have called your 

action on the hardship waivers, to go back to that, quote, ‘‘giving 

out trick-or-treat candy,’’ unquote, to their industry. And I am here 

to tell you that farmers are very disappointed by this. They have 

been waiting for years for the E15 waiver year-round. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I think this program is in need of substantial oversight, the waiver program and certainly the E15 as well. 

87 

And these actions I don’t think can happen in secret. I know that 

was addressed earlier in this hearing. We need to make sure that 

these waivers are not abused as a financial windfall for special interests and I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, on 

this further. And I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Pruitt, you seem to view the EPA budget as a personal slush fund, redirecting resources to your personal travel that 

should go to environmental protection. During your tenure you 

have spent more than $160,000 on travel in first class, on private 

jets, and on military craft. Public office is a public trust and I think 

flying coach is the least we can do to deserve that trust. 

My question for you is this. When you are paying for your own 

airfare with personal funds do you fly coach? 

Mr. PRUITT. I follow the security recommendations of my team 

when I pay for it personally as well. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Will you commit to reimbursing taxpayers for your 

luxury travel? 

Mr. PRUITT. You refer to it as luxury travel, and the $160,000 

that you refer to pales in comparison to the previous administrations. I think you are referring to international travel. I took two 

international trips. Previous administrations took multiple trips 

and spent far more than that. These decisions about security detail, 

who attends and what they do to provide protection, happened according to law enforcement recommendations and that is what I 

followed. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. It has been recently reported by EPA ethics officials 

that on at least two personal trips you flew in coach on Southwest 

Airlines using a companion pass from Ken Wagner, your subordinate at the EPA. Clearly a plane ticket has more than nominal 

value. Are you aware that Federal ethics rules prohibit you from 

accepting gifts from subordinates? 

Mr. PRUITT. And that is not represented accurately, what you 

said. We actually flew like carpooling. We shared costs from Oklahoma—— 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Did Ken Wagner give you the boarding pass? 

Mr. PRUITT. There was no gift whatsoever. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. All right, well, I think that those ethics officials will 

continue to look into that. 

Mr. Pruitt, your travel since becoming Administrator has taken 

you to Morocco, Italy, and to luxury resorts around the United 

States. We have even heard from Kevin, a political appointee who 

worked in your office, that you told staffers to, quote, ‘‘find me 

something to do,’’ close quote, in order to schedule travel to your 

desired destinations. Unfortunately, it seems your desired destinations have rarely included low-income communities and communities of color facing serious environmental risks. 

The biggest problem with the pay-to-play system is that those 

most at risk are also the most unable to pay for your attention and 

concern. Of your extensive travel spending, how much would you 

88 

say you spend visiting low-income communities and communities of 

color? 

Mr. PRUITT. I would consider East Chicago—which I have made 

trips there, I was in Region 5 recently this week, and San Jacinto 

in Houston, as indicated earlier. The trip to Italy was a G7 trip occurring a week after the Paris decision. I was there for 4 days 

around the G7. There is a free trade agreement that is in existence 

in Morocco, and the ambassador of Morocco invited me to Morocco 

to negotiate the environmental chapter on that free trade agreement. Both of those things are very important to the scope of our 

duties at the EPA. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Administrator, you have gone to great lengths to 

keep your calendar secret, but what has come out is it is clear that 

most of your meetings and stakeholders have been with industry 

and not impacted communities. I think we can agree with that. Do 

you see the problem with granting greater access to polluting industries than impacted communities? 

Mr. PRUITT. I have met with stakeholders across the country on 

these issues, people that we regulate that their voices have not 

been heard for many years. Those farmers and ranchers that I 

have met with, they are our first environmentalists and first conservationists. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Do you understand that you have a responsibility to 

protect the health and environment of low-income, minority, tribal, 

and indigenous communities? 

Mr. PRUITT. Absolutely. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Throughout your brief tenure as EPA Administrator 

you have directed significant policy changes made with disproportionate harm to low-income, minority, Tribal, and indigenous communities. The repeal of the once-in, always-in policy mentioned by 

my colleague, Ms. Dingell, for example, the weakening of coal ash 

regulations is another. But Mr. Pruitt, today you repeatedly 

blamed your chief of staff, your chief counsel, career officials, and 

others. Yes or no, are you the EPA Administrator? 

Mr. PRUITT. I said that in my opening statement, Congressman. 

And I didn’t blame anyone. I just simply shared facts with you 

as—— 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Administrator, it is just a simple yes-or-no question, sir. Are you the EPA Administrator? 

Mr. PRUITT. I said in my opening statement that I take responsibility. I have made changes historically and making changes going 

forward, and I simply have not failed to take responsibility. I have 

simply recited the facts of what has occurred. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. It is a simple question, Mr. Pruitt. Are you the EPA 

Administrator? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Just to be clear, do you run the EPA? 

Mr. PRUITT. I do. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Yes or no, are you responsible for the many, many 

scandals plaguing the EPA? 

Mr. PRUITT. I have responded to many of those questions here 

today with facts and information. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Are you able to answer that in yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. That is not a yes-or-no answer, Congressman. 

89 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. It is pretty simple that it is a yes-or-no answer here. 

There is clear concern with what has been happening not just by 

the entire Congress. And I appreciate you being here today, but 

these questions need to be asked and answered. 

Mr. PRUITT. And we have answered them today. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. And you are not the only one that has been doing 

these ugly things, these horrific things, these scandal-plagued 

things in this administration, and I hope this is one of many hearings that this committee will have so we can get to the bottom of 

this and make sure taxpayers are made whole. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s has expired. 

Seeing there are no further Members wishing to ask questions, 

I would like to thank our witness for being here today. Before we 

conclude, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit the following documents for the record. I just want to make sure I get 

them all in: letter to the chairman and ranking member from 

Lauren Atkins; report from GAO on EPA’s use of fiscal year 2017 

appropriations; letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Mr. Rush Holt; article from the Roanoke 

Times; questions from Ms. Castor; letter from the American Geophysical Union; letter from 985 scientists. 

In pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that they 

have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the 

record, and I ask that witnesses submit their questions within 10 

business days upon receipt of the questions. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

90 


31504.008
91 


31504.009
92 


31504.010
93 


31504.011
94 


31504.012
95 


31504.013
96 


31504.014
97 


31504.015
98 


31504.016
99 


31504.017
100 


31504.018
101 


31504.019
102 


31504.020
103 


31504.021
104 


31504.022
105 


31504.023
106 


31504.024
107 


31504.025
108 


31504.026
109 


31504.027
110 


31504.028
111 


31504.029
112 


31504.030
113 


31504.031
114 


31504.032
115 


31504.033
116 


31504.034
117 


31504.035
118 


31504.036
119 


31504.037
120 


31504.038
121 


31504.039
122 


31504.040
123 


31504.041
124 


31504.042
125 


31504.043
126 


31504.044
127 


31504.045
128 


31504.046
129 


31504.047
130 


31504.048
131 


31504.049
132 


31504.050
133 


31504.051
134 


31504.052
135 


31504.053
136 


31504.054
137 


31504.055
138 


31504.056
139 


31504.057
140 


31504.058
141 


31504.059
142 

[Mr. Pruitt’s response to submitted questions has been retained 

in committee files and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/ 

Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108218.] 

Æ 


31504.060