June 04, 2026
Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) opening assertion as ready for the file:
Good morning, Chairman Franklin, Ranking Member Amo, and Dr. Gwinn. What an enchanting subject we have now earlier than us at this time: “Advancing Environmental Protection Through Science and Technology.” I’d argue this EPA has performed exactly the other. In truth, Science Committee Democrats have been arguing that for over a yr.
In March 2025, the New York Times broke the information that EPA’s reorganization plan proposed to remove the Office of Research and Development and purge as much as 75% of its workers. Less than a yr later, in January 2026, this Committee held a listening to on EPA chemical analysis, the place a few of my Republican colleagues echoed the EPA’s speaking level that ORD was not being dismantled, regardless of irrefutable proof on the contrary. Just thirty-six days after that valiant protection of the company, EPA formally notified the Committee that ORD had been formally shuttered. I feel there’s a helpful lesson for all of us right here concerning the dangers of trusting something the Trump Administration says. I request unanimous consent to enter that February 13th notification letter into the file.
As Ranking Member Amo stated, I’ve no intention of demonizing Dr. Gwinn for EPA’s selections. On the opposite, I wish to be clear – EPA trotting out a profession scientist to look at this time, as if scientific experience holds any significance to this Administration, is a joke. Closing the impartial Office of Research and Development and putting EPA’s analysis workplace immediately below the Administrator himself is the success of trade’s loftiest want record. Now EPA scientists are below the duty to get their work accepted by political management, to make sure there are “no surprises.” There might be no clearer strategy to ship the message that EPA’s mandate to guard human well being and the surroundings has been changed by a unique mandate: to shut its eyes, look away, and present consolation to massive polluters.
ORD was not a regulatory workplace. However, EPA has a obligation to make use of the most effective obtainable science. So, what higher strategy to intestine rules than to pressure the company’s eyes closed? We’ve already seen how EPA operates now that its blinders have been rigorously crafted and put in. I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the file a New York Times article titled, “Trump’s E.P.A. Has Put a Value on Human Life: Zero Dollars.” This is a coverage change that actually devalues human life, so the company can declare that health-protective rules on air pollution don’t truly save sufficient cash to hassle with implementation.
Trump’s EPA can be repealing the landmark Endangerment Finding, which rips away the muse of life-saving greenhouse gasoline rules. This is the purest type of scientific denial. We live in a bizarro model of actuality, the place this Administration can declare that well-established science – the truth that greenhouse gases pose severe dangers to human well being – has been repealed. Polluters rejoice, and weak populations undergo.
The Clean Air Act nonetheless exists, however President Trump and Administrator Zeldin are doing all the things they will to faux it doesn’t. The EPA is providing trade a free cross to violate the Clean Air Act, and polluters are signing up in droves. According to a latest ProPublica article, which I ask unanimous consent to enter into the file, approvals to pollute have rolled in for petroleum refineries, bitcoin miners, and medical sterilizer firms. And reportedly, EPA scientists weren’t consulted within the approval of those requests. So, once more, I name into query this listening to’s title – how, precisely, is EPA advancing environmental safety by way of science and know-how?
I sit up for this chance to ask Dr. Gwinn about what has transpired at EPA since March 2025, after we first knew that ORD was doomed. I’m below no phantasm that her experience has been duly thought of by this anti-science, pro-polluter Administration. But this is a crucial alternative to conduct important oversight of EPA because it cannibalizes the very capabilities over which this Committee has jurisdiction.
I yield again.
###