During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) questioned EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin about claims regarding the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that were found to be unsubstantiated by federal courts.
00:00Thank you Senator and welcome Administrator Zeldin. I noticed that as a member of Congress during the first Trump administration, you opposed their recommended cuts to EPA's Long Island Sound program.
00:16Similarly, during the first Trump administration, those of us who represent Chesapeake Bay states successfully opposed on a bipartisan basis their proposed cuts to the Chesapeake Bay program.
00:29I'm glad to see that the spend plan that was submitted by EPA for fiscal year 25 shows that you plan to continue to invest in the Chesapeake Bay cleanup program at the appropriate and authorized levels of $92 million.
00:43I just want to confirm with you today, yes or no, that's right, isn't it?
00:47Yes, everything in the skinny budget that is before us, the answer is yes when repeating what you all are reading.
00:54Well, this is this is with respect to the spend plan, which is separate from the skinny budget.
00:58I do also and by the way, and I'll answer maybe your next question, the Chesapeake Bay program, which I know you're fighting hard for, as we heard Senator Baldwin referencing the Great Lakes restoration program, the Chesapeake Bay program is an amazing program.
01:13Our team takes great pride in running it.
01:16It's filled with a lot of success stories that span multiple states, including yours, and we will make sure that you also have a smile on your face, as Senator Baldwin will have on hers when the full budget is released and you see the numbers for Chesapeake Bay.
01:31I appreciate that very much.
01:33You anticipated my next question, right, fiscal year 26, so thank you.
01:37Now let me turn to an area where we have some significant disagreement, which is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
01:44In just the last few days, an independent analysis of the benefits of that fund was conducted by the University of New Hampshire.
01:51It was released.
01:52Simple question.
01:53Have you had a chance to read it?
01:54Is that the one that was written by a former Biden administration official?
01:58I do not believe so, but we can check.
02:01I think so.
02:02Here's my question.
02:03Have you read it was my question.
02:06Senator, if you're referring to the ā
02:08This is on May 12th.
02:09Yeah, if that's the one that I'm thinking of, because I was presented a document.
02:14It might have been that which you're looking at.
02:16I understand it was referred to as independent.
02:17Okay.
02:18But my understanding from the person who gave it to me that it was written by a former Biden official.
02:21Well, we'll take a look at it.
02:22But hopefully just being a member of an administration doesn't disqualify somebody from a fair analysis.
02:29Let me move on, because this analysis shows significant benefits from the deployment of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,
02:38including 41,000 new jobs each year compared to current policy, over $20 billion in additional wages by the year 2031,
02:48and very importantly, a whopping savings of $52 billion over the next 20 years for consumers.
02:54And I hope you will read it and give it a fair look, because you have made some wild, untrue, and reckless statements to justify your illegal freezing of these funds.
03:09And, Mr. Administrator, I can say that with confidence, because the veracity of your statements has been scrutinized by the federal courts.
03:17That is where, unlike on media outlets, you actually have to present evidence under penalty of perjury, you and your lawyers on your behalf.
03:27So let's look at what federal district court Judge Chutkin has said after weighing the evidence and claims that you have made.
03:34During a hearing in early April, the judge pressed the lawyers for any evidence to back up your claims of waste, fraud, and abuse,
03:41and found that EPA, and I quote, never proffered this adequate evidence, unquote.
03:48The judge wrote that the EPA, and I'm quoting, has failed to provide a single piece of evidence to support your claims.
03:56She went on to find that EPA acted, quote, arbitrarily and capriciously, unquote.
04:02And she goes on to make a number of other factual findings in that case.
04:07I'm well aware of the fact that you've appealed her decision, but these are factual findings based on the lack of evidence for the claims that you have made.
04:18Let me ask you this.
04:20You've received five letters, some as early as February 24th, from committees of Congress on this question of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
04:31You, we checked this morning, based on what we know, you've not replied to a single one.
04:39So my final question here, what's that?
04:41I don't believe that that's accurate.
04:43Okay, well, we double-check.
04:44If we're wrong, we'll correct the record.
04:48But there are five of them.
04:51And my question here to you today is twofold.
04:54One, will you commit to responding to those letters from members of Congress?
04:58And number two, will you meet with me to discuss the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, its status, and its future?
05:08Senator, we had, as you know, an opportunity to talk about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund a couple weeks ago when we saw each other.
05:16I'm happy to have a follow-up meeting to discuss it further.
05:20I have personally read every single letter that every member of Congress has sent me, whether you're on, you know, Senate Appropes, you're on Senate EPW, or you're not.
05:32And that same thing applies to the House side.
05:33I've read every letter.
05:35I believe every single member of this committee who sent me a letter has received a response up to this particular point.
05:44You referenced, Judge, the D.C. District Court judge's decision.
05:49It's important to note that that decision was stayed by a circuit court.
05:53I would further point out because, and I don't know, Senator, if you've actually read the judge's 31-page opinion.
06:00Actually, I have.
06:01Okay, so.
06:01I've got it right here.
06:02Great.
06:02If you wouldn't mind, Senator, if you can look.
06:05Can I just finish the point real quick?
06:06Of course.
06:07Okay, if you wouldn't mind checking out the footnote on page 29, it says that we have not provided any evidence of reduced oversight after the November election.
06:24But we provided the judge the January 13th amended account control agreement that does exactly that.
06:33Now, it's a decision that the judge makes to make believe that that document, that that wasn't provided to the judge.
06:42Now, here's the other thing.
06:43Mr. Administrator, no, I'm going to reclaim my time.
06:46Now, I'm going to intervene because we are in the middle of two votes.
06:49We still have three more members that need to ask their questions, so.
06:55I appreciate that.
06:56I just want, therefore, Mr. Administrator, I look forward to meeting with you to discuss these things.
07:01As you know, in court, that is where people have to testify under penalty of perjury.
07:06I don't mean you.
07:07You're lawyers on your behalf.
07:08And these are the findings I read from the judge.
07:11Thank you, Madam Chair.
07:12I look forward to continuing the conversation and getting responses to those letters.
07:17I wasn't citing them from this committee members.
07:20There are five other members on other committees, including EPW, who at least have told us they haven't gotten responses.
07:27So we'll follow up on that.
07:27And we will have an opportunity in the second round.
