📋 Tender Overview
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 agencys budget request. The Senator and Administrator Lee Zeldin discussed how the subcommittee can best serve the agencys 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 Murkowskis 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 Senators full remarks and questions.
The full transcript of Senator Murkowskis opening remarks, questions and exchanges with Administrator Zeldin, and the Senators closing remarks can be read below.
TRANSCRIPT
Opening remarks
Murkowski: Good morning, the Committee will come to order. Id 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, its agency actions that draw the majority of the questions. I think its probably safe to assume that this year its going to be a mixture of both of these. And again, weve just seen the skinny outline of Fiscal Year 2026, we have yet to see the full details of the Presidents budget request, but I have to say at the outset: looking at some of these proposed cuts, Im looking at them and questioning whether they are serious cuts. I find many of them problematic. Im 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 were 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... Weve got work to do. I think we know that.
So now were 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 thats been taken with regards to freezing funds, canceling grants, and then the reorganization of the agency. Im 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 administrations 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, its problematic when as a committee were asking questions, we dont 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 Im talking to in Alaska. One example is the Community Change Grants in my state, weve received $150 million from this program. Its communities like the little village of Kipn
