US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Alaska Lisa Murkowski
05.15.25
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, hosted the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in subcommittee to discuss the agency’s budget request. The Senator and Administrator Lee Zeldin discussed how the subcommittee can best serve the agency’s mission of providing clean air, water, and land for all Americans, while the Administrator committed to fostering a better working relationship with the subcommittee and Senator Murkowski’s office.
Chair Murkowski discussed a number of issues important to Alaska that she is looking forward to collaborating with the EPA on, including cleaning up PFAS contaminated lands, ensuring clarity for Alaskans on frozen or paused EPA grants, addressing the backlog of Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) projects, and investing in cleaning up lands conveyed to Alaska Natives that were contaminated by the federal government.
Click here to watch the Senator’s full remarks and questions.
The full transcript of Senator Murkowski’s opening remarks, questions and exchanges with Administrator Zeldin, and the Senator’s closing remarks can be read below.
TRANSCRIPT
Opening remarks
Murkowski: Good morning, the Committee will come to order. I’d like to welcome Administrator Zeldin to the committee here this morning. I think it is important that as we begin our budget hearings, we begin the oversight through the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee with the EPA, an area of interest, I think, for all of us, as we think about how we ensure that Americans from Alaska to Oregon, to New York to all the places in between, have the benefits of clean air, clean water for all of us.
So, thank you, Administrator, for being here to discuss the Fiscal Year 2026 budget request. We recognize that what we have seen is “skinny,” as we refer to it around here. Each year, the subcommittee holds a hearing to examine the EPA budget requests. Some years, the budget is the focus of the hearing, and others, it’s agency actions that draw the majority of the questions. I think it’s probably safe to assume that this year it’s going to be a mixture of both of these. And again, we’ve just seen the “skinny” outline of Fiscal Year 2026, we have yet to see the full details of the President’s budget request, but I have to say at the outset: looking at some of these proposed cuts, I’m looking at them and questioning whether they are serious cuts. I find many of them problematic. I’m just going to be open and honest with my words here this morning and we will have good dialogue, constructive dialogue, in this committee.
So again, while we’re waiting for additional details, I want to spend my time this morning talking about the vision for the EPA and Administrator, how you plan to use your position to continue to better provide clean air, water and land for Americans from Alaska to Florida, from California to Maine, and how a budget like the one that you propose could support that mission.
Under the Biden administration, I had some very serious concerns about the regulatory overreach of the agency. I expressed them often. I also shared the concerns that I felt were overzealous enforcement actions coming out of the agency that went contrary to the needs of Alaskans. We were able to figure out how to find common ground in certain areas to make progress, and some things that were certainly good for Alaska. I mentioned to you contaminated lands, residential wood stove testing and certification. We still have a long, long ways to go on PM, 2.5, I think we know that. PM 2.5 and 301 (h) waivers… We’ve got work to do. I think we know that.
So now we’re in a in a new administration, new administrator and perhaps a different direction here. I do appreciate many of the actions and the initiatives that we have had a chance to discuss. (I) certainly support the willingness to work with the Army Corps of Engineers to review the WOTUS rule, your reconsideration of Clean Power Plan 2.0, the vehicle emissions rules, and then, of course, a renewed focus on permitting, something I would think that all of us can come together on.
But my concern this morning, and what you will hear from me, and I think many others, is the approach that’s been taken with regards to freezing funds, canceling grants, and then the reorganization of the agency. I’m looking at it through the not only through the lens of Alaskans, but really all Americans who, regardless of how you feel about the EPA, we benefit from its data driven decision-making, the remediation efforts and the mission to protect human health and environment. And I respect, I give a lot of leeway for an incoming administration’s prerogative to implement changes in support of the policies and priorities, but it also has to be done with clear articulation of the of the goals against which such changes will be measured.
And so, it’s problematic when as a committee we’re asking questions, we don’t receive basic data that would be helpful, would be good guidance for us. And so, when we see implementation of significant changes without working or seriously communicating with us, your partners in Congress, it just makes it harder for us to do the job of supporting your mission. We are on the same side here, and so we want to work with you in so many of these areas.
I think we all can agree that there are inefficiencies and redundancies to be found throughout the federal government, some of EPA programs we know are overly burdensome. And again, I applaud the administration for seeking to find ways to help ordinary Americans cut through red tape and make programs easier to access. But the seemingly indiscriminate freezing of EPA funding, regardless of source, has caused some significant anxiety from the folks that I’m talking to in Alaska. One example is the Community Change Grants in my state, we’ve received $150 million from this program. It’s communities like the little village of Kipnuk, it’s the Native village of Kotzebue. Took a lot of work to get to the place where they were able to secure the funding, and they’ve had their grants canceled by the agency without any explanation, and so this is where some of the anxiety comes, is just not knowing why.
It’s not just in Alaska. I think members on both sides of the dais can, and probably will, talk about the benefits of the grants to their states and their communities. You’ve also proposed massive reorganizations of EPA to include the elimination of the Office of Atmospheric Programs and the Office of Research and Development. It is true that agencies funded by our bill will have the flexibility to reprogram and reorganize, and we provide that flexibility because we know – we get it. There can be urgent and exigent circumstances that warrant such actions. However, agencies must comply with the requirements and provide the committees with the requisite information, whether it’s budgetary and staffing implications, but also the rationale for the actions to include why these actions are so urgent. And so far, EPA has not adhered to our reprogramming guidelines and has been largely unresponsive to the questions. So, I would certainly expect timely and transparent responses and information. I would expect EPA to abide by the parameters that are outlined in our reprogramming guidelines. And I think, as a former member of Congress, you get it. You’ve been on the frustration end of things as well. So again, ways that we can be working together.
Now, turning our attention to the FY 26 budget proposal. In Alaska, we’ve seen on the ground examples of really good things being done with some of the programs that your budget has substantially reduced or proposed to eliminate. Example: the proposed reduction of the State Revolving Fund, reducing it from $2.8 billion down to $305 million. This is an 88% reduction. This was one of the ones when I mention unserious proposal. This is the one that I’m looking at, because it clearly is one of the most essential programs that the agency administers. And you mentioned as part of your justification for cutting this program that the account has been heavily earmarked, and this is true. The 66 members of the Senate, including 17 Republicans, making it our most bipartisan account, who requested congressionally directed spending for the SRF accounts did so in connection with the states to ensure the funding was going to critical clean water and drinking water projects. Now I would also note that in FY 25, Congress voted for, and the President signed into law, a full year CR that keeps the SRF fully funded, rather than reducing it by the amount of the CDS is.
So, I’m going to close my comments here with, I don’t know if it’s a note of sympathy or just an acknowledgement, because I get it. You are, I think, 106 days since you were confirmed and sworn in as EPA Administrator. And for an agency as key and as vital as yours, that’s really a short time to get everything up and running, from enacting the administration’s priorities to establishing a clear working relationship with us here in Congress. We know that you’re still getting your team in place, because we’re trying to move them through our process here, and it is slow, and you need those folks. You need the members of your team. So, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here. There’s plenty of time for us to figure out what’s working what’s not, establish open lines of communication between our teams that will mutually benefit your mission and all those that we work for. So, I’m eager to start on that. I thank you for your testimony today, your willingness to answer our questions and just the opportunity to be working with you. And with that, I turn to ranking member Merkley for his comments.
First line of questions from Murkowski
Murkowski: I will begin with my first five minutes, and again, appreciate the opportunity that you and I have had to discuss some of the particular issues. I’d like to ensure that we continue that very direct engagement, not only between us, but also with our staffs. We’ve had a conversation about transparency, partnership and responsiveness, and again, I think you come to this position really from a good place, because you’ve sat in in our seats here, so to speak. When you’ve asked questions of an agency and you get frustrated because you’re not able to get what you’re seeking.
So, there is a lot going on within the agency, as you have outlined, and as I suppose the ranking member and I have outlined. But we need to be more informed, rather than getting updates by way of tweets or stories for them from the media. The agency has issued reorganization notifications, but we’re not getting the full picture or the answers to some of the questions that we have asked. So, my direct question to you this morning is just a renewed commitment that the promise of transparency, partnership and responsiveness is there, that we’re going to be able to have meetings between your senior teams and our folks on the Appropriations side, so that we can help you. Let me help you type of an approach, and that’s what I’m seeking from you this morning, Mr. Administrator.
Zeldin: Absolutely, Madam Chair, and you uniquely amongst 535 members of Congress have a “Batphone” into my office, which I would encourage you to use at any time. We’ve spoken since my confirmation, and when we meet, you often have a very long list of priorities for Alaska, that you’re fighting for, that you’re passionate about. And to make sure that we’re working through that list at every opportunity is something that will be a priority for our team as long as I am here as administrator, and I would encourage you to reach out whenever you would like, and I’d be available to work through whatever is at the top of your list that day.
Murkowski: Very good. Very good. Let me ask about the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. I mentioned in my opening, these are probably the areas where on this committee we have more bipartisan support for a program, and we’re looking at a budget that effectively eliminates the one thing that we’re all in agreement on. So, I’d ask you to share with me and the others on the committee why the agency would move away from such a critical on-the-ground program when we’re talking about access to clean water?
Zeldin: Madam Chair, as you pointed out in your opening remarks, and as you referenced from the skinny budget that was released that we’re here to talk about today, there has been a bleeding out of funds deliberately through decisions made by Congress to earmark. I understand that when I came into this position, I inherited a lot of earmarks that many of you have fought for, and I want to be able to continue to work with each of you and your staffs. In some cases, we need to get the recipients to submit paperwork where they’re on the receiving end of big earmarks, so that we can work through this backlog as quickly as we can. It would be helpful to have a conversation about the SRF and the use of earmarks, and how that has been reducing the funding through the years.
As you all know, there’s a difference when these skinny budgets come out, whether or not something is funded at $0, or it’s funded at $1. Now that might not seem like much to the American public in understanding how these conversations go in Congress. The SRF is not zeroed out in the skinny budget – In fact, it has hundreds of millions of dollars there in it. So, as we go forward with this process, I look forward to more conversations about the SRF, and I’m sure members of the House and the Senate will be having conversations amongst yourselves as to what you believe to be the appropriate funding level for SRF, as well as the future of the program, and whether or not earmarks will continue to be used to reduce that balance. That’s obviously a decision that Congress has a very important role to play.
Murkowski: Well we do, and we can have a separate discussion about earmarks. I think we both know that earmarks don’t contribute to the top line number you are discussing here. A concern that I have raised with you, that there has been, over the years, Congressionally Directed Spending, earmarks, that have been moved through the process, authorized and appropriated to, and still not spent down. So, my time has expired. Now know that on this next round, I’m going to ask for a little more discussion about that. But I do think that given the significance of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by so many of us… let’s have a broader discussion about how we move forward with what I would think most of us recognize has got to be a priority within the EPA.
Second line of questions from Murkowski
Murkowski: Administrator, I had asked you, we had had a discussion about the Congressionally Directed Spending projects. You have indicated that, indeed, we’ve got a backlog here that we need to address. My understanding is that since fiscal year 2022, Congress had directed 2,264 CDs projects at the EPA – only 705 have received the funding. So, I think both of us would agree, you know, we’ve got an issue here. There’s a problem. The FY 25 CR, of course, did not include the CDS projects. So, I’m looking at that and saying, all right, the agency has the balance of the fiscal year to work on catching up from this backlog of the CDSs. Can you just give me a little bit of your understanding in terms of how you’ve directed your team to expeditiously get these projects out the door in a more timely manner?
Zeldin: I appreciate the question, Madam Chair. The backlog goes back years. I’ve directed my team to both work with the members of Congress who represent those areas, the members of Congress who requested those earmarks to get assistance in the case where the recipient has not been responsive, and simultaneously, to try to engage as much as possible directly with the recipient, to try to get the recipient to submit their paperwork. We want to completely get through the entire backlog that we inherited as quickly as possible.
Murkowski: Can we help you with that?
Zeldin: Yes.
Murkowski: I’m working with my constituents right now as we’re moving forward in this year’s appropriations and getting requests for CDSs. So, can you perhaps either let me know who it is on your team that we need to be communicating directly to if there are snags on your end, or perhaps, again, you’re just not able to get in touch with the applicant?
Zeldin: 100%. As you well know, the EPA is broken down into all sorts of different program offices.
Murkowski: Right.
Zeldin: And the it might not be just one person for all grants. It might depend on whether the backlog might… we might be talking about a backlog inside of the Office of Water, where they need assistance from the members of Congress, or maybe it’s another office. Maybe it’s the Office of Air and Radiation. We would look forward to an opportunity to work with you and your team, and all members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle as much as possible, to eliminate the backlog that we inherited.
Murkowski: Good, good. Let’s do that. I think that’s a good plan.
Many members here have asked about different grants and programs, the pauses, the freezes. It’s been particularly frustrating in Alaska, when we hear there’s been a hold up in terms of the grant award. We’ve got just a limited construction season. It’s just hard. Even if not choked by ice, you might have a barge that comes up with your materials for a project, maybe once, maybe twice a season, and so it can push a project back, not just months, but by another season – another year, perhaps multiple years. It’s been hard to provide some clarity to our communities on which grants are going to be awarded, which are just going through the review process that you shared with us, which grants have been terminated.
So, I’d ask if your folks could provide a list of what’s actually been paused for review versus what has been terminated. I think we’ve heard, for instance, on the EJ (Environmental Justice) grants, that one has been perhaps more clear, but there are a lot in between. And I think it would help our communities if there was more certainty as to what has actually been terminated versus what is still in the pipeline for review. So, I’d ask for your help on that.
Zeldin: Absolutely, Madam Chair, and we will continue to be distributing funding appropriated by Congress as we go through the rest of the fiscal year that will include funds for your great, great state, and we look forward to working with you on the process. As you know, when the President first came in, there was an administration-wide pause that was lifted. The pause that was then instituted for EPA was more specific to some of the Inflation Reduction Act programs. There was a Clean School Bus program concern that was that was raised early in the administration, when Lion Electric (Company) and their bankruptcy issue caused some questions to be asked to make sure that the concerns with Lion Electric (Company) were it was just specific to Lion Electric (Company). And as it relates to the grants that were that were canceled, that’s something that if you have any questions about what was included in that we’re happy to answer any individual questions.
Murkowski: Good, okay, we’ll work with you on that list.
Third line of questions from Murkowski
Murkowski: The operating plan for FY25 we received. It’s very much in line with the previous year’s funding level for each line item. There’s a lot of changes that that have been discussed, but it sounds like you are committing to spending the funds as delineated in the agency’s spend plans. And I guess my ask to you is, if that’s not going to be the case, that the subcommittee receive a reprogramming request so that we basically follow the process if, in fact, we’re not doing the agency is not doing this spend out as we have anticipated, as these small communities understand them.
I just have two very quick follow ups. One is very easy for you, because we’ve discussed it at length, but it is a significant issue in my state when it comes to contaminated lands. The history that I have shared with you of Alaska Natives receiving their settlement of lands, being conveyed by the federal government. And basically, they were conveyed tainted lands, lands that were contaminated by various actions of federal agencies, whether it’s the land managers, or the Department of Defense. And so, we have made some good progress with EPA. And believe me, this is not EPA’s is fault or liability for the contamination. It’s the federal governments. But what we have learned is that the EPA is uniquely qualified to help us solve this issue. Over the past couple years, there’s been roughly $20 million in funding that has been directed to contaminated lands, and the agencies have been doing some really good work. I just need your commitment that we’re going to continue with this. $20 million, unfortunately, doesn’t even get the first project cleanup. We know that that these are expensive, but it is an obligation. It is a liability of our government, and we owe it, whether it’s to Alaska Natives as conveyance of their settlement, or to others. And I know that when we’re talking (EPA) Superfunds, Brownfields, contaminated lands, we just have so much work to do here. So, know that you got cooperation on my level here.
Zeldin: Yes, Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to visiting over the course of the next couple of weeks in Alaska. Might be able to have the opportunity to hear about, see about, see this firsthand, and I will, with regards to all appropriations, make sure that we are fulfilling our obligations under the law. So, if Congress appropriates the funds, we’ll make sure that it’s spent.
Murkowski: Very good.
PFAS is something that we talk a lot about in Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Last month, you announced that EPA will “tackle PFAS from all of EPA’s program officers, advancing research and testing, stopping PFAS from getting into drinking water systems, holding polluters accountable, and providing certainty for passive receivers. You said this was just the beginning of the work that EPA is going to do to tackle PFAS, which I certainly appreciate, and I know most everyone up here does.
Can you tell me whether the operating plan and the skinny budget requests, whether they actually reflect this kind of full forward push on PFAS, and whether it includes the $10 billion that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding provided to take on PFAS contamination. I’m looking at this skinny budget, and I’m saying, good for you, let’s go on PFAS. But I’m worried about making sure that we’re actually budgeting to do so, and I’m also worried about whether or not with the RIFs that we have seen to date, as well as what is anticipated about perhaps an additional fork in the road, whether we’re going to be able to do the job. So again, this is something where you’re going to have good support from people in this committee for the initiative. But do you have the budget, and do you have the people?
Zeldin: Senator, we’re actually adding people into this effort inside of the Office of Water. As you noted, this spans multiple program offices at EPA. A lot of the PFAS work is done inside of the Office of Water. The reorganization announcement that we made a couple weeks ago includes boosting that effort inside of the Office of Water. The press release from April 28 that you referenced included a lot of different actions that we plan on taking, and everything that the agency has announced is already factored into the skinny budget that is before the committee today.
Murkowski: And so, let me just ask more directly, whether or not you’re concerned that the RIFs or the deferred resignation is going to impact your ability to execute, whether it’s on the PFAS side or contaminated lands, or any number of issues that you’ve heard here from members.
Zeldin: No, Madam Chair. This is a very important priority of ours at EPA. When I was in Congress, I was a member of the PFAS Task Force. I had voted for the PFAS action act, when I was a member of the House. I represented the district that had all sorts of different PFAS contamination issues. This is something that, in many respects, started during President Trump’s first term in office, and has continued to progress since. And we’re going to make sure that we’re hitting the ground running. That’s included in the April 28 announcement, but as we noted in that announcement, that’s just some of the many decisions and important work that’s before us. It is a very high priority.
Murkowski: So, you’ve spoken to the adequacy to meet the PFAS mission. Are you concerned about your numbers EPA wide to do your overall mission, not just specific to PFAS, but with everything else that you’re looking at? Because the reduction in staffing, is very significant, you’ve got to admit that. And so, you’ve got a big task, and we want you to be able to execute on that. So, just want to hear from you whether you have any concerns about your staffing levels right now.
Zeldin: Madam Chair, we are going to fulfill all statutory obligations. One of the things that was a surprise to me coming into the position was just how many people who are employees at the agency were not working on any statutory obligation at all. And I also want to say that there are a lot of amazing, dedicated employees at EPA. The American public might feel disconnected from agency employees who might be working in Washington, D.C., but there are a lot of people who have been there for a long time. They believe in the agency mission. They work hard every single day. One of the reforms we brought in coming in is ending COVID year remote work. And it’s great to hear noise in the building, to see the foot traffic, and to see people being productive and collaborative. But if anyone out there was tuning in and they don’t know what the agency looks like, it’s filled with a lot of amazing, dedicated workers who believe in the agency’s mission, and we’re going to work hard to make the public proud.
Murkowski: Well, I’m glad that you’ve acknowledged your workforce, because I think you do have people who are good public servants. They’re proud of the work they do, and they’re the work that they do has value. And we want to recognize that.
Closing Remarks
Murkowski: We will have further discussion about so many of these issues: the reorganization, what we’re seeing with the grants. But I appreciate, Administrator Zeldin, you appearing before the committee, responding to our questions. We will hold the record open until May 21 for additional questions from members and would look forward to your responses to those as well.
And with that, the committee stands adjourned – we’ve got to vote!
MIL OSI USA News –