At today's Senate Environment Committee hearing, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) accused EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin of violating the law through impoundments.
00:00So as you can tell from my opening statement I'm very concerned about the
00:06issue of impoundments. Are you familiar with the concept? Of course, Senator. You
00:12understand that it involves freezing funds that are to be allocated by law? Senator,
00:18I'm familiar with with the impoundments. I also understand we're having this
00:21conversation in the middle of the fiscal year as opposed to after the fiscal year.
00:26Do you understand that the Constitution of the United States assigns the power of
00:31the purse to Congress and do you follow that understanding? Absolutely. So you
00:37understand that when you impound funds you're violating the law? No, Senator. We
00:44are going to follow all statutory obligations and we will abide by all
00:49laws. But you're not. You're impounding funds against the law. We absolutely
00:54disagree with you very strongly. And the courts have also found it's not just
00:59against the law. It's unconstitutional. If you're citing a particular district court
01:05judge, Senator, that's one thing. But there's a lot of district court court
01:11judges coming up with their own interpretations of the law. That'll go
01:16through litigation processes. But at it is the Supreme Court of the United States that
01:20has weighed in. And do you consider the Supreme Court not to be a legitimate source
01:24of decision-making? Of course the Supreme Court is the the highest court in the
01:29land. Then why are you not following the Supreme Court's understanding of the
01:32Constitution and the law? We are following all laws and the Constitution, Senator. Then
01:38why have you frozen 1.7 billion in EJ grants illegally and unconstitutionally? They
01:44are neither illegal or unconstitutionally frozen, Senator. Are they legally frozen? Yes, Senator. Under what is the
01:50authority of the law? Senator, Congress appropriates funding and then say if the
01:56Biden administration is in place last year and they're there at the beginning
01:59of the fiscal year, they might apply their own administration's policy
02:03priorities. So they might decide to send money to say the state of Alaska and they
02:09might include aspects of fighting for equity or education instead of remediation.
02:16But it wasn't the Biden administration that passed this law, it was Congress. And so this is in the law as written and as signed by his president and yet you're defying it.
02:25Senator, it would be important that the premise of your question, I mean, we're going to have to just disagree as strongly as possible.
02:36You've also frozen the greenhouse gas reduction funds, again, illegally and unconstitutionally?
02:40Neither illegally or unconstitutionally, Senator.
02:43Well, we now have several court decisions that have said you have acted and you referred to district court decisions, but you don't agree with those district courts?
02:51Senator, if you're referring to a district court decision that was then stayed by the D.C. Circuit, then I would also encourage you to look at the appeals process, which is important.
03:04And as you referenced earlier in a prior question, how important it is to look at the Supreme Court.
03:08Well, then that message that you would be making to the D.C. District Court judge is that the D.C. District Court judge didn't even have jurisdiction over that case and it belonged inside the Court of Federal Claims.
03:18I agree with you how important it is to consider the decisions of the Supreme Court.
03:21So there is one district court decision you abided by, and that was related to the clean school buses.
03:28If other district courts say that this is an illegal impoundment, an unconstitution impoundment, will you follow the findings of those district courts or will you simply appeal it upwards?
03:39We will abide by all laws and the United States Constitution at all times.
03:43Well, again, the administration has responded to some district court decisions by saying we will simply appeal it, we'll seek a stay in an appeal.
03:51Will you follow, when a district court says you've illegally impounded funds, will you follow that district court decision?
03:57Well, as you pointed out, Senator, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.
04:01So if a district court judge makes a decision, we are not going to assume that the United States Supreme Court is going to agree with that district court.
04:07Even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that impoundments are unconstitutional.
04:14So your decision is to simply appeal to the Supreme Court seeking a different decision this time around?
04:18Well, I know that we're talking about hypotheticals of district court decisions to come, but as far as the district court decisions that have been made.
04:24It's actually not hypothetical because we already have a series of district court decisions saying that this is illegal and unconstitutional.
04:29And as far as the district court decisions that have been made, it's important to note, as I stated a minute ago,
04:34the district court judge decision that you're referencing in the D.C. Circuit was instantly stayed by the D.C. Circuit.
04:40Do you understand that impounding funds essentially makes the appropriation power of Congress very difficult?
04:46We have to reach decisions about funding that is important to Alaska, to Oregon, but also to every region of the country.
04:55And if then we strike this law, we strike these decisions to help address environmental issues in every part of the country,
05:02and then the executive comes along and says, we want the power of the purse, we're going to treat these laws as suggestions,
05:08we're going to freeze these funds for programs we don't like, or regions we don't like, or congressional districts we don't like,
05:15that that completely undermines the dialogue and the ability of here in Congress to produce bipartisan bills?
05:23Senator, I don't know if on either side of the dais I've ever heard in one round of question more premise of questions that I possibly disagree with.
05:35I refuse to waste a dollar of tax dollars, period.
05:38Since you are violating both the law and the Constitution, will you follow your oath?
05:44And if you can't follow your oath, will you resign from your office?
05:46Senator, listen, you like to preface your questions with declaring everything unconstitutional legal.
05:54We couldn't possibly disagree more strongly with what you're saying.
05:57What I do believe would be illegal is for me to play along where I'm seeing unqualified recipients getting funding,
06:05where I see an entity like a $2 billion recipient, Power Forward Communities,
06:10that gets $100 of GGR funds in 2023, and then they get $2 billion in 2024.
06:16When I see self-dealing and conflicts of interest,
06:19loading up recipients of people who are Biden officials and Obama officials and Democrat donors,
06:25when I see wording of financial agent agreements and account control agreements that tie the hands of the EPA behind its back,
06:32will I play along with that?
06:33No, absolutely not, because this is the good thing.
06:35In which case you should resign because the president is involved in self-dealing at a level we have...
06:39I don't want to waste money?
06:40...never seen on these critical...
06:41Senator, if I refuse to waste money, I should resign?
06:44Madam Chair, I will just conclude by saying this issue of impoundments is an extraordinary challenge.
06:50The Supreme Court has ruled twice.
06:52The Constitution is clear.
06:53You took an oath of the Constitution, and it's extremely destructive of our legislative process for you to be engaged in this.
