The Daily Signal - #507: EPA Administrator Wheeler Explains What's Changed at the Agency Since the Obama Years

Episode Date: July 19, 2019

For Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler, it's important to make sure states--not the federal government--is making the calls on environmental issues when possible. He joins The Daily Signal for an exclusive interview to explain his views on federalism, regulation, and more. We also cover these stories:•President Donald Trump condemns the "send her back" chant from the crowd at his rally, in reference to Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.•The House passes legislation to hike the minimum wage to $15 an hour. •More kids want to be YouTube stars than astronauts.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, June 19th. I'm Rachel Del Judas. And I'm Kate Drinko. Today we'll feature Daniel Davis's exclusive interview with EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler. They talk about how the EPA is working with states, how the agency is working to increase transparency about its scientific models, and of course, regulations. Plus, a new survey shows not many American kids these days want to grow up to be astronauts. We'll discuss. By the way, if you're enjoying this podcast, please consider leaving a review or a five-star rating on iTunes and encourage others to subscribe.

Now on to our top news. Representative Ilan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, was harshly critical when asked about a chant at a Trump rally earlier this week where the crowd shouted, send her back in reference to Omar. Omar came to the United States as a minor and was a Somalian refugee. Here's what Omar said via CNN. We have said this president is racist. We have condemned his racist remarks. I believe he is fascist. I want to remind people that this is what this president and his supporters have turned our country that is supposed to be a country where we allow democratic debate and dissent to take place. And so this is not about me. This is about us fighting for what this country truly should be. And here's the moment from the Trump rally. Obviously and importantly, Omar has a history of launching vicious anti-Semitic screams. And she talked about the evil Israel.

Trump addressed the issue Thursday via Fox News. When your supporters last week were challenging, chances to send her back. Why didn't you stop them? Why didn't you ask them to stop saying? Well, number one, I think I did. started speaking very quickly. It really was a loud, I disagree with it, by the way, but it was quite a chant, and I felt a little bit badly about it, but I will say this, I did, and I started speaking very quickly, but it started up rather, rather fast, as you probably noticed.

So you'll tell your supporters, never. Well, I would say that. I was not happy with it. I disagree We win it. Democrats passed their bill 231 to 199 to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour with the help of three Republicans. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted before the vote, quote, The House is preparing to pass the Raise the Wage Act, which would give up to 33 million Americans a raise by gradually lifting the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, end quote. But a $15 minimum wage isn't necessarily good news for the economy. or American workers. A Congressional Budget Office report shows that the U.S. would lose 1.3 million jobs by raising the minimum wage once fully implemented by 2025, while up to

27 million workers would receive higher wages, and the number of individuals below the poverty line would decrease by 1.3 million. The last time the House tried to raise the minimum wage was in 2007, when it raised the minimum wage to 725. Representative Omar has introduced a resolution supporting all boycotts from Americans. She told outlet Al Monitor, quote, we are introducing a resolution to really speak about the American values that support and believe in our ability to exercise our First Amendment rights in regard to boycotting. And it is an opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement. The BDS movement, or the boycott, divest, and sanctions movement aims to change Israel's behavior through economic incentives.

Representative Lee Zeldin, Republican of New York, tweeted, Israel is our best ally in the Middle East, a beacon of hope, freedom, and liberty, surrounded by existential threats. Shame on Representative Ilan Omar for bringing her hateful twist on that reality to House Foreign Committee today, propping up the BDS movement and blaming Israel for all of its challenges.

Senator Chuck Schumer is asking the FBI and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate a Russia-based app that went viral over the week, which shows users what they will look like in a variety of situations, including how they'll look as an elderly person. Base apps location in Russia

raises questions regarding how and when the company provides access to the data of U.S. citizens to third parties, including foreign governments. Schumer wrote in a letter to FBI director Christopher Ray and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joseph Simons Wednesday. According to Forbes, the app, headquartered in St. Petersburg, quote, now owns access to more than 150 million people's faces and names, end quote.

I ask that the FBI assess whether the personal data uploaded by millions of Americans onto face app may be finding its way into the hand of the Russian government, or entities with ties to the Russian government, Schumer said. Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy financier, accused of having sexual relations with underage girls, isn't going anywhere. A judge has denied him bail. Reportedly, Epstein's Manhattan home included tens of thousands of dollars in cash and a stash of diamonds, as well as a foreign passport. Judge Richard Berman said, per the New York Times, I doubt that any bail package can overcome danger to the community.

The city council in Berkeley, California is removing all mention of sex and gender in the area city code in an effort to be more, quote, inclusive. Rajel Robinson told NBC Bay Area, it is Berkeley being Berkeley, and what that means is it's Berkeley being inclusive. Robinson said, a male-centric municipal code doesn't reflect the reality of the city of Berkeley. Among the phrases being taken out of the code are, quote, manhole, which will be changed to maintenance hole. The words brother or sister and the city co will now be sibling, and the word manpower will be changed to human effort or workforce. I really thought this was fake news when I first thought. It's not the Babylon B folks.

Well, next up, we'll feature Daniel's interview with EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler. If you're tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger and bigger government, it's time to partner with the most impactful conservative organization and America. America. We're the Heritage Foundation, and we're committed to solving the issues America faces. Together, we'll fight back against the rising tide of homegrown socialism, and we'll fight for conservative solutions that are making families more free and more prosperous. But we can't do it without you. Please join us at heritage.org. Well, I have the privilege of being joined now in studio by Andrew Wheeler. He is the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Administrator, thanks for being here. Thank you, Daniel. It's great to be here. So you became the acting EPA administrator just over a year ago and were confirmed later. I believe in February of this year. Yes, February 28th. Okay. So looking back over your full year as EPA administrator, acting and official, what are a couple of the top achievements that you really look back on and are proud of? Well, first, it's gone really fast.

It's been a very fast year. But, you know, getting our major regulation out a couple weeks ago on the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, so huge accomplishment. We reorganized our regions. We got that done this spring. But just moving forward on so many different regulatory fronts and improving the overall structure of the agency has just been really gratifying. So during the Obama administration, a number of states were often frustrated with their relationship with the EPA. Tell us about your approach with states and with governors and how you approach regulatory issues under this administration. Certainly.

We defer so much more to the states. You know, the big difference between the Clean Power Plan, which is the Obama regulation, and the ACE, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, which was our regulation to address greenhouse gases from the electric power sector, is that we rebalanced it. We gave the authority back to the states. What the Obama administration tried to do was make all of the energy. decisions at the federal level about what types of fuel different states should be able to use. That's not the role of the federal government. That's not the role of the EPA.

That authority has historically been with the states and the state public utility commissions. So we have rebalanced that and returned that authority back to the states. And that's just one example, but we're doing that in all of our regulatory efforts. Well, one of those key regulatory issues was the Waters of the United States rule originally proposed under the Obama administration. And earlier this year, your agency proposed a revised version of that rule, which determines what counts as an official body of water subject to federal regulation. Tell us the EPA's thought process in revising that rule.

Sure. Well, first of all, the Obama regulation, as soon as it was issued, was stayed by a number of courts. In fact, today, we have the Obama regulation, I believe, is in effect in 22 states. and the 1980s definitions are enforced in 28 states. So it's really a patchwork approach right now. But what we did is we took a step back. We took a look at the Clean Water Act.

We took a look at the Supreme Court decisions. And we put forward a proposal, the Waters of the U.S. proposal that we believe follows the law. The second and the overarching guiding principle for us on the waters of the U.S. to the new definition that we have, which would be finalizing by the end of this year. is that the property owner should be able to stand on his or her property and decide for themselves whether or not they have federal waters on their property without having to hire an outside attorney or a consultant to do that for them. And then third is we're also, for the first time,

acknowledging the fact that some waters are protected by states and other waters should be protected by the federal government. We don't have to overlap on every single waterway. If the United States were to walk away from regulating water tomorrow, which we're not going to, but if we were, most waterways would already be protected under state law. So we're recognizing that for the first time. Well, the EPA uses lots of scientific models to develop its regulations. When it comes to defining waters of the United States, obviously there's been controversy in recent years over how to define that and the subjectivity of what is a water of the United States. Is that primarily a legal question or is it really more dictated by science?

It is both. But if you go back to the original Clean Water Act, it says navigable waters are waters of the United States. So what we did is we clearly defined what is a water of the United States, but we also define what is not a water of the U.S. For example, we clearly define that agricultural ditches are not waters of the U.S. And I don't think Congress intended for a ditch next to a row of corn should be considered a water of the U.S. There are certainly some scientific questions at play as far as adjacency to navigable waters for wetlands, other water bodies such as that.

So science does play a role in it. But I believe the Obama administration took it to an extreme on the science side instead of taking a look at what is, truly a navigable water and according to the Supreme Courts, what are the waterways that the United States government should be stepping in? Well, the EPA in the past has often developed major rules using science that the public didn't have access to, wasn't able to publicly evaluate. What have you, under your leadership, been doing to increase the transparency so that the public can have access to the science that's being used as the basis for these regulations?

Certainly. We put forward a science transparency proposal, and we are working to finalize that this year. And what that does is require that any of the science that the federal government, the EPA uses for our regulatory purposes, should be made available to the public. So the underlying research, the underlying data. We believe that transparency will lead to better regulations. I started my career at the EPA working in the Toxics Office on TRI, the Toxies Release Inventory, which is a community right to know. Act. And I really do believe that the public has a right to know the information that the government is using to design their regulations. So by putting the science out there and allowing anybody to take a look at how we're making our regulatory decisions, I think will lead to better

regulations, better regulatory decisions and decisions that will have better support with the American public. And will that rule pretty much apply to all regulations, they all have to be based on publicly available data? Yes, there would be some exceptions. We certainly, for example, some health studies data that involves people. You know, we have to follow the HIPAA requirements so that, you know, people's individual health information is not released to the public. But that can be masked and it can be taken care of and still be released in a meaningful

manner so that people can understand what we're using. You also recently issued a memo directing EPA offices to issue new rules regarding how they perform cost-benefit analysis on regulations. Can you explain that and what's the goal of that? Certainly. Again, it's part of transparency and making sure the American public understands what we're basing our regulations on and why. To the heart of that is the cost of the regulations. We owe it to the American public to explain to them what are the cost of a regulatory action and what are the benefits. What we did last year is we proposed a regulation that would have applied cost-benefit analysis across the board to all of our regulations.

We took a look at that. We took comments on it, and we decided the better approach would be to require that under each of our statutes. Because each statute has a different scientific basis. Each statute has a different regulatory basis. So we're going to move forward first under the Clean Air Act. We will have that done by the end of this year. And we will propose a new regulation that will require cost-benefit analysis to be done for all the Clean Air Act regulations. And then we will go statute by statute across all of our major statutes under the EPA's jurisdiction.

Great. Well, in the past, the EPA has also sometimes justified new and costly rules by appealing to co-benefits, which for our listeners is essentially indirect benefits that don't have much to do with the original purpose of the regulation, but are used to justify it. It's something that some of our heritage experts here have written on a lot about. How do you perceive this issue of co-benefits and what's the EPA? doing now to address any past abuse? Certainly. First of all, I think it's fine for us to take a look at the co-benefits and explain what the co-veninvits might be, but that should not be the basis for a regulatory decision.

And what the Obama administration did in particular on the mercury air toxics regulation was the benefits that they calculated came from particulate matter. And 90, I believe it was 98 or 99 percent of the benefits for the mercury regulation were from addressing particulate matter. We already have regulations addressing particular matter matter, and we regulate, particularly matter of PM, down to the level that is safe for people. What the Obama administration did is go beyond that and then use those benefits to justify their standards for mercury. The Supreme Court actually remanded that regulation back to the agency and said your cost-benefit analysis is suspect. You know, it's suspect. You need to

to take a second look at that, which is what we're doing in redressing the mercury standards. And we should have our final regulation out on the mercury air toxics rule by the end of this summer. And what we're doing is following what the Supreme Court told us to do, which is to do a more balanced approach at looking at the cost-benefit analysis and make sure that we are attributing the benefits of the regulation to the purpose of the regulation. And I think we owe that to the American public. Yeah. Well, looking ahead to the rest of the year and next year, Are there any other big items that come down the pike that folks should be looking out for from the EPA?

Sure. We will be finalizing our cafe standards for the automobile sector in the next couple of months. We will finalize our waters of the U.S. regulation by the end of this year. And we will be proposing a new regulatory program for lead and copper pipes. This is for the drinking water. And this is what happened in Flint, Michigan, with the lead pipes in Flint, Michigan's. So we were updating that regulatory approach. It hasn't been updated in over 20 years.

And we'll be proposing a new regulation that will help identify the lead pipes around the country that need to be replaced more quickly. Or also take a look at mandatory testing for schools and daycare centers. And that proposal should be out sometime over the next month. You mentioned the cafe standards for vehicles. Tell us about, I know California has played a big role in trying to set standards. Tell us about that. and how you've been pushing back on California? Certainly.

First of all, the Attorney General from Louisiana, Attorney General Andri said the CAFE does not stand for the California assumes federal empowerment. The federal government should be setting the CAFE standards for the entire country, not the state of California. Now, we worked with California. We tried to negotiate with them a standard that we would be appropriate for the entire country and that California could live with, and they just would not negotiate with us. they just would not come to the table.

It's really a shame. And they've been in the press criticizing everything that we do instead of coming forward with a plan that would work. California was looking at a, and their standard just looks at CO2 from cars. We believe that there are other public policy goals that should be addressed under a CAFE standard, including public safety and the lives of our citizens.

Our proposal, as we proposed last year, will actually save American lives. It will reduce the price of a new automobile by $2,300. Right now, the average age of cars on the road is 12 years old. It used to be eight. Older cars are less safe and they're worse for the environment. So by reducing the price of a new car, we believe it would get more people buying newer cars,

getting the older cars off the road, be safer vehicles, better for the environment, and it would be a better program for the entire country. That's terrific. Well, Administrator, we really appreciate your work here at Heritage, and I know a lot of folks across the country have been very much relieved at the EPA's a change in approach during the Trump administration. So I appreciate your work. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thanks for having me here, Daniel. Do you own an Amazon Echo? You can now get the Daily Signal podcast every day as part of your daily Alexa briefing. It's easy to do. Just open your Amazon Alexa app, go to settings, and select Flash briefing. From there, you can search for the Daily Signal podcast and add it to your flash briefing

so you can stay up to date with the top news of the day that the liberal media isn't covering. According to a Harris Bowl commissioned by Lego and reported on by Ars Technica, it turns out that today's kids don't have much interest in going to the moon. 29% of American kids want to be a vlogger or a YouTuber. A vlogger, by the way, is a video blogger. 28% want to be a teacher and a mere 11% want to be Astero. Daniel, I understand that you once harbor dreams of being an astronaut. So what's wrong with today's kids?

You know, if there's any sign that humanity is not progressing, this is it. I think being an astronaut is the coolest vocation occupation you could ever, ever have, you could ever dream of. Like, who would not in their right mind want to be an astronaut? Me. I think there is something wrong with you. Astronauts are amazing. I grew up

Okay, so just growing up So when I used to live in the Houston area Which is a very big like space NASA area And you know, that's kind of a thing Go to the museum and eat the space food And isn't space food horrible? I thought it was cool Because it was space food so

Okay You know That was a kind of a dream of mine And I clearly did not have the math Or science skills Inately to do that But still think it's pretty cool I used to play with like toy shuttles and have all the planets on my wall.

Why do you think it would be so cool? Like what about like even if you got the incredible experience of being on the moon, I mean, we can see from pictures what it looks like. We can see from pictures what the Earth looks like from the moon. Why, I don't know, I guess why was it worth the risk and the danger and everything else? Yeah, but I mean, that's kind of the point. Like if you're seeing a picture, it's not the real thing. I mean, it's not the same as being there as a unique.

I mean, what's the coolest place that you have ever been to? Well, this is a problem when you grew up in California. You've heard you from the coolest place. No, well, okay, outside of California, what's the coolest place you've been to? Ireland. The Holy Land. I haven't been to Ireland. See, would you rather see pictures of the Holy Land or would you rather have gone there?

I guess gone there, but at the same, I mean, I think it's just like when you read about being an astronaut, It just sounds like there's so many downsides. You spend so much time studying. It's so hard. It's so competitive. It sounds completely miserable, the actual trip. Like, you've got very limited movement. Like, the food is horrible.

Like, I feel like it would be very claustrophobic. But, I mean, at the same time, even with all my adult pessimistic doubts, I do think it's a little bit sad that this few kids. I mean, obviously childhood is a time when you are looking at jobs through very, rosy through rose-colored glasses and you're not thinking about all the annoying things they involve like commutes so i mean i just think of being on the moon or just being in space doing a space walk i mean on the one hand it would be pretty terrifying knowing that there's literally just a little suit space suit keeping between you and the cold void of space sucking the life out of you but on the other hand seeing the beautiful blue earth i mean seeing the the star

I mean, I feel like it would be a worship experience. You can see the stars here. I know, but it's different. It's not the same with all of the pollution in the air and all of the... When did you get out of cities? Right, outside the cities. Yeah. I think America agrees with me.

It was better to go to space than not. The other thing that I found really upsetting about this was I understand, I sound so old right now, but I understand that the kids really like YouTubers. I have made brief forays into this world. It seems like an extremely stupid world that I can't understand at all. I mean, I'm... Kate, how disordered dear loves have to be in order to not desire to go to his face. Okay, whatever.

I'm onto the YouTube now. I just don't understand why 30% of kids nearly want to be YouTube stars. Like, it's like people who are themselves, but they talk directly in camera and they do, like, really stupid pranks. Like, pretend they've gone somewhere and then show it was all Photoshopped or... I heard that there was like a family of YouTubers where they were, it was alleged that they pretended they fled from a wildfire, but the wildfire wasn't actually affecting their house. So like they made up the whole thing kind of,

but not totally because it could have affected their house. And it just sounds like this really amateur acting, like amateur reality shows. And I think that's so sad that as a kid you want to be yourself but famous. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, vlogging has opened up a lot of doors for some people. Like, some people have become famous.

I think Justin Bieber was found on YouTube, wasn't he? Oh, that's a great argument. He seems real happy. He is. He's doing great. I mean, I am not privy to Justin Bieber's inner psychological profile, but he doesn't strike me as a happy person. He's married and he's like...

So you can be married and unhappy. I don't know. His marriage might be... Hopefully his marriage is great. I just, I don't know. He seems haunted to me. And he makes terrible music. YouTube and the vlogging world has opened up opportunity.

It's leveled the earth, right? So that the gatekeepers aren't keeping people back anymore. So if you really are great, you can rise to the top. But it also creates this whole, you know, this whole world of mediocrity also that's just out there. And I think it is a bit, how old a bit narcissistic to be putting yourself. on your own YouTube channel every day? I don't, my impression is... It's not just like I have a podcast, I mean...

No, just my impression is these vloggers aren't like singing original songs for the most part or making their own music or doing their own covers. It's generally them talking about their lives. Now, I could be wrong, as I said, I haven't extensively studied this part of the U.S. media ecosystem. But, yeah, I guess if you love YouTube bloggers... They can be helpful.

Like, if you have questions about some... some specific topic. Yeah, but those are, I don't think the people explaining. Wait, like if you're a guy, like, what are girls thinking about so-and-so? You trust YouTube on that? I trust a girl more than myself. Our producer is pointing at me saying, I'm on the money. Not that I actually search for those things.

I'm just saying that if you have, you know, if you want information, there are people who might have that information on YouTube. All right. Well, I was going to say YouTube is great for, like, me figuring out stuff. Like, how do you, you know, fix your plumbing issue, or how do you build a bookshelf, or how do you use a hammer and nail if you've never done that before? Hello, Life. But I guess advice on how the opposite sex thinks is also okay. I mean, I'm not saying there's not bad advice out there, too. I hope Dr. Laura's on YouTube. You have to discern for yourself.

It's just so judgmental of you right now. Well, as long as my girlfriend doesn't listen to this episode will be great. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or a rating on iTunes to give us any feedback. Rob and Virginia, we'll see you Monday. The Daily Signal podcast is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Lauren Evans and Thalia Ramprasad.

For more information, visit Daily. signal.com.