Advancing Environmental Protection Through Science and Technology

All right. The subcommittee on environment will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the subcommittee at any time. Welcome to today's hearing entitled " Advancing Environmental Protection Through Science and Technology." I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. Good morning and thank you all for uh joining us to witness uh uh joining our witness this morning uh the purpose of this hearing is to examine the science and technology activities of the Environmental Protection Agency this includes the newly formed Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, OASIS, and how it contributes and coordinates EPA's research efforts across the agency. Environmental challenges have evolved and become more since the agency was founded fifty-six years ago. In order to address these challenges today, the EPA must maintain strong and credible scientific foundation that supports practical and effective decision making. Today's discussion will help us understand the research conducted at the agency and how this new office advances EPA's mission by absur- by ensuring that regulatory actions rely on sound science operational efficiency, and real-world results for the American people. This committee has a long history of oversight of EPA science, and we have jurisdiction over the implementation of the Environmental Research Development and Demonstration Authorization Act, or ERTA. Uh, the act directs EPA to maintain a long-term research and development program that can address future and emerging threats while also meeting its near-term regulatory responsibilities. Under ERTA, we oversee the EPA's Science Advisory Board, or SAB, which conducts independent reviews of the scienti- uh, scientific foundations of EPA's science standards and regulations. I was pleased to see that the newly reconstituted SAB is comprised of a seasoned group of scientific professionals. I expect their background and expertise to strengthen the agency's uh scientific work. As EPA embeds scientific experts in program offices, it must continue to support robust peer review processes and the long-standing commitment to scientific integrity. With that context, we now turn to the creation of OASIS, which was established in the office of the administrator to facilitate agency-wide coordination. Over the last fifty-six years, our understanding of environmental conditions, exposure routes and health impacts, and the fate and transport of chemicals through the different pathways has grown exponentially. This evolution requires an honest evaluation of how EPA conducts and applies scientific research to tackle today's environmental challenges. Concentrating scientific capabilities within a single research arm as EPA previously did through the Office of Research and Development, ORD, often made it difficult for regulatory program offices to obtain the timely information and data needed to perform their duties. While ORD was highly regarded for the expertise of its scientists, the EPA has now embedded that scientific talent directly within the program offices that implement major environmental statutes moving away from this siloed often disconnected framework. This shift is not only structural but strategic. When scientific experts work side-by-side with program staff, EPA can evaluate complex submit submissions more effectively, respond to emerging risk more quickly, and base regulatory decisions on the best available science. Embedding scientists and technical experts in the program offices encourages earlier engagement, supports more efficient review processes, and improves in uh communication about data and analytical needs. This approach limits duplication and allows the EPA to The EPA's most important mission relies on robust scientific capacity to safeguard human health, enhance energy independence, and support a strong domestic economy. That capability guides the agency's evaluation of new chemicals, the clean-up of hazardous waste sites, and the use of accurate data to inform effective decisions. I wanna address a question that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have raised about the agency reorganization. Does the EPA currently have the scientific staff and resources it needs to carry out this new model effectively? Our responsibilities ex as our responsibilities expand within program offices, addressing today's environmental problems will require solutions that are more data intensive than ever before, which in turn increases the need for specialized expertise. The EPA must avoid stretching scientific capacity too thin. Sustaining scientific excellence requires adequate staffing, reliable resources, and continued investment in workforce development. My goal is to ensure that EPA has the support it needs to fulfill its mission and maintain the United States' position as the global leader in science and technology. A strong scientific work, a strong scientific workforce ensures that EPA's research remains responsive and innovative. Today's hearing will help us identify ongoing research and development priorities and evaluate how OSA uh how OACs strengthen scientific work across the agency, improves the timeliness of EPA decisions, and supports collaboration across program offices. I look forward to hearing Dr. Gwyn's testimony and to our discussion. So thank you, and I now recognize Ranking Member Amo of the uh, Ranking Member of the subcommittee for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Franklin, for holding today's hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's science and technology activities. I also wanna thank uh, Dr. Maureen Gwyn. uh for appearing before this committee today, I'm grateful for your presence. Uh before I begin, I I do wanna make something clear. Uh Doctor Gwynn, uh you're gonna hear me be a little frustrated, and my frustration is not directed at you. Uh i- you've spent over a decade serving the American people as a scientist and a public servant and thank you for being in the arena. However, it is wholly unacceptable that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has decided to cower behind you, uh rather than face the music himself, it's important for these officials to show up and do their jobs. The American people deserve answers directly from the source on why he's sold out their health and well-being to the highest bidder. Because over the last year, Administrator Zeldin has carried out what might be the most sweeping attacks on scientific independence in EPA's history. This committee has made multiple attempts to obtain information on Zeldin's plans, yet time and again, EPA has responded with stonewalling, half answers, and missing information about the impact on the agency's mission to protect human health and the environment, human health and the environment. So, to be clear, this is about whether nonpartisan, independent, peer-reviewed scientific evidence will continue to guide environmental policy in the United States, or will it be extreme right-wing political ideology and corporate polluters driving the agenda, one that will hurt the American people. Because for decades, the Office of S- of Research and Development, or uh ORD, has served as EPA's independent scientific backbone. OID scientists research various emerging threats, developed new testing models, and provided the research that helped keep Americans safe. When lead uh contaminated drinking water, ORD helped identify the danger. When PFAS threatened communities around the country, ORD developed the science uh necessary. uh, and needed to detect and understand the risk. When corporate polluters threatened public health or provided the evidence that informed EPA action on pollution limits for decades, board saved lives because it had the independence to follow the evidence, wherever it led. And as a national program office, it was separate from regulatory offices and free to conduct rigorous, life-saving, scientific research Importantly, without interference. This is what science is supposed to do. I think that's when you're you're a scientist, you go down the queries, the the the challenges, and try to speak truth, following the evidence where it leads, challenging assumptions, and importantly, telling uncomfortable truths. That independence is what made Ordva- valuable, and it is exactly what the administration has dismantled, unfortunately. Trump and Zeldin would rather base EPA actions on the whims of the highest bidder than the well-being of the American people. When the Trump EPA bullied, intimidated, and pushed out hundreds of award scientists, it didn't just uh eliminate positions on an organizational chart. They eliminated expertise. They weakened America's ability to identify the next environmental threat bef- before it c- becomes a public health crisis. So, we're left to wonder who will be there to discover the next PFAS. Who will be there to call out the long-term effects of microplastics in our lungs, uh in our in uh our our bodies and the impact of wildfire smoke on our lungs? Who will be there to protect our children? Who is looking around the corner for dangers we cannot yet see? Those are questions Americans should never have to ask. But when you push out scientists, dismantle independent research, and silence inconvenient findings, those questions just become a lot harder to answer. So instead, Administrator Zeldin dismantled or and replaced it with uh the Office of Applied Science uh and Environmental S- Solutions or uh uh OASIS housed directly under the office of the administrator but the agency didn't stop there. An internal memo that you're aware of established uh an interim approval process requiring political leadership to review and approve OASIS work to ensure there are quote no surprises let's call that what it is. That's putting a tight leash and muzzle on scientists to ensure that they only produce research that mirrors Trump and Zeldin's pro-polluter agenda. So like, so when you see the dismantling of an independent scientific office, remove its autonomy, formalize political interference in research, the outcome is predictable. Science suffers, accountability suffers, and ultimately the American people are less safe, a fundamental role of the agency. So, Doctor Gwynn, I hope you can help this committee understand how EPA intends to restore its scientific integrity, what science uh will be conducted within OASIS and whether the agency can continue to perform the high quality research that the American people need and deserve to protect their health and their future. Thank you for being here, thank you for your service, and I yield back.

Thank you, Ranking Member Amo. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee for a statement.

Well, good morning, Chairman Franklin and Ranking Member uh Amo. As well as you, Doctor Gwyn. Uh, really what a fascinating topic we have uh today, advancing environmental protection through science and technology. I would argue that EPA has done precisely the opposite. In fact, science committee democrats have been arguing that for over a year. In March of twenty twenty five, the New York Times broke the news that EPA's reorganization plan, uh, proposed to eliminate the Office of Research and Development and purge up to seventy-five percent of its staff. Uh, less than a year later, in January of twenty twenty six, the committee held a hearing on EPA chemical research, where some of my Republican colleagues echoed the EPA's talking point that ORD was not being dismantled. Despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, and then just thirty-six days after that valiant defense of the agency, EPA formally notified the committee. that Ord had been officially shuttered. I think there's a valuable lesson for all of us here about the risk of trusting anything the Trump administration says. And I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the February thirteenth notification letter.

Without objection.

As ranking uh member Amo said, I have no intention of demonizing you, Doctor Gwyn, for EPA's decisions. On the contrary, I wanna be clear, EPA is trotting out a career scientist to appear today as if scientific expertise actually holds any importance to this administration, uh that that's really a joke. Closing the independent office of research and development and placing EPA's research office directly under the administrator himself is really a fulfillment of the ind- industry's loftiest wish list. Now EPA scientists uh are under the obligation to get their work approved by political leadership to ensure there are, quote, no surprises. There could be no clearer way to send the message that EPA's mandate to protect human health and the environment has been replaced by a different mandate, close its eyes, look away, provide comfort to big polluters. ORD was not a regulatory office. However, EPA does have a legal responsibility to use the best available science, So what better way to gut regulations than to force the agency's eyes closed? We've already seen how EPA operates now that its blinders have been carefully crafted and installed. And I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a New York Times article titled "Trump's EPA has put a value on human life, zero dollars."

Without objection.

This is a policy change that literally devalues human life. So the agency can claim that protective regulations on pollution do not actually save enough money to bother with implementation. Trump's EPA is also repealing the landmark endangerment finding, which rips away the foundation of lifesaving greenhouse gas regulations. Now this is the purest form of scientific denial. Well, we're living really in a bizarre version of reality, where this administration can declare that well-established science The fact that greenhouse gases pose serious risk to human health has been repealed. Polluters rejoice, vulnerable populations suffer. The Clean Air Act still exists, but President Trump and Administrator Zelden are doing everything they can to pretend it doesn't. The APA is offering industry a free pass to violate the Clean Air Act, and polluters are signing up in droves. Uh, according to a recent ProPublica article, which I unanimous consent to enter into the record. Uh, approvals to pollute have rolled in uh for petroleum refineries, bitcoin miners, and medical sterilizer companies, and reportedly EPA scientists were not consulted in this approval uh of these requests. So again, I call into question this hearing's title exactly uh how is EPA advancing environmental protection through science and technology. Now I look forward to the opportunity to ask Doctor Quinn about what's transpired at EPA since March of twenty twenty five uh when we first knew that ORD was doomed I'm under no illusion that her expertise has been duly considered by this anti-science pro-polluter administration but this is an important opportunity to conduct a vital oversight of EPA as it cannibalizes the very functions over which this committee has jurisdiction. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you, Ranking Member Loeffler, and uh now recognized as Chairman of the full committee, Doctor Babin for a statement.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. Good morning to everyone. Uh, thank you for presiding over this important, uh, hearing here, Mister Franklin. Also wanna thank, uh, Doctor Gwynne for being here and joining us today. We're looking very much forward to your testimony. This marks the first appearance by an EPA official before our committee during the second administration and we appreciate your willingness to be here. Uh the EPA's work grows more complex every year. And I welcomed Administrator Zeldin's decision to take a fresh look at how the agency is operating. Today's hearing gives us an opportunity to learn more about EPA's new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, or OASIS as we call it, and how the agency is deploying its scientific capabilities to meet the nation's evolving needs. This reorganization comes at a time when scientific data, advancements in artificial intelligence, and public expectations for transparency continue to grow, making it essential that EPA adapts thoughtfully and effectively. My district has more chemical manufacturers than any other congressional district in the entire country. I see firsthand how this industry continues to create solutions to modern-day problems and legacy products with more efficient and environmentally friendly uh chemicals. The manufacturers, the workers, the communities in my district and throughout this nation depend on that certainty. That certainty that comes from regulatory decisions issued in a timely, a consistent, and scientifically robust manner. Past backlogs and delays from previous administrations demonstrate that this has not always been the case by a long shot. Earlier this year, this committee held a hearing where witnesses described the lengthy process uh required to bring a new chemical for commercial use to market, sometimes taking literally decades for the EPA to rule one way or another. This regulatory uncertainty hampers domestic manufacturers and makes them less competitive on a global scale, when these corporations and these chemicals go overseas to be manufactured. The need for timely science-based chemical reviews illustrates a broader principle that should guide every part of EPA's work. Whether the focus is on air quality, water quality, waste management, or chemical safety, EPA's work does not occur in isolation. And decisions in one ar- one area can affect the outcomes in another. When EPA delivers clear, timely decisions that protect human health, and the environment we all benefit. Delays create uncertainty, but protecting health and safety must remain central to every review. When EPA strengthens coordination, clarifies data needs, and supports consistent scientific methodologies that meet the rigorous expectations of gold standard science, its mission is strengthened. We all want a system grounded in both efficient processes and high-quality science.

Mm.

As innovation accelerates, EPA must equip itself with the tools, the expertise, and organizational structure necessary to evaluate chemicals effectively. EPA created OASIS to meet that need,

Mm.

placing scientific experts directly within the program offices that make regulatory decisions uh that facilitates early communication between science- scientists and program staff. This approach helps EPA to reduce duplication, improve coordination, and to support a regulatory environment that in- actually encourages rather than stifles innovation. At the same time, as EPA expands OASIS, it must maintain a strong program of long-term research that looks beyond the immediate regulatory needs and anticipates future environmental and technological cha- uh challenges. OASIS claims to strengthen applied science ins- excuse me, OASIS aims to strengthen applied science inside program offices, but forward-looking research sits outside that mission and we must ensure that it continues. This research lays the broader scientific foundation that supports EPA's credibility and has contributed to modernized methods, improving and have improved risk assessment. tools and advanced technologies needed to protect human health and our environment. Most importantly, it gives the agency the ability to anticipate emerging threats before they reach the regulatory stage. As we examine OASIS today, we want to understand just how the agency strengthens the long-term scientific foundation that supports uh decisions all across the all these programs, and how this structure meets the immediate needs

Thank you, Chairman Babin. I'll now introduce our witness. Uh, Doctor Maureen Guen serves as the Deputy Associate Administrator for Science in OASIS. Doctor Guen previously served as the Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development and Science Advisor at the US Environmental Protection Agency. In this role, she provided direction to ORD on overall program goals, objectives, policies, strategies, technical and scientific approaches, and program plans based on recognized scientific expertise. She also chaired the agency Science, Technology and Policy, Counsel, and oversaw the agency's scientific integrity program. Doctor Gwynn, you're recognized for five minutes for your testimony.

Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman Babin, Chairman Franklin, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Ranking Member Amo, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Doctor Maureen Gwynn, and I currently serve as EPA's Deputy Associate Administrator for Science in the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, or OASIS. My responsibility in this role is ensuring OASIS and coordination across the agency produces rigorous, transparent, and trusted science. I've worked in the federal government since two thousand and at EPA since two thousand six. Over nearly two decades at EPA, I have had the privilege to serve in leadership roles dedicated to strengthening the scientific foundation of the agency's decisions, including as the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development as well as the Acting EPA Science Advisor. As both a scientist and a leader, my work has spanned toxicology, risk assessment, and public health. Throughout my career, I have worked to keep EPA's science objective, credible, and relevant. And I am honored to represent the many EPA scientists and staff dedicated to that mission. In twenty twenty five, EPA implemented organizational improvements designed to strengthen the agency's capacity to deliver science that meets its statutory obligations, and responds to environmental challenges with clarity and speed. This new structure realigns the agency's scientific expertise more directly with EPA's air, water, land, and chemical progr- program offices, ensuring that applied research is closely connected to regulatory and implementation needs. A central element of this restructuring was the creation of OACs within the office of the administrator, placing science at the forefront of EPA's decision-making. OASIS serves as a coordinating hub that ensures consistency and collaboration across EPA's research enterprise, advancing gold standard science, and strengthening technical assistance to state and local partners. We focus on applied research and suppor- that supports statutory needs, along with cross-cutting programs in scientific integrity, children's environmental health, scientific partner engagement, and laboratory operations across the country. Working collaboratively with other EPA career staff, I helped shape recommendations on the design and structure of the new OASIS organization, drawing on EPA's unique assets and capabilities, the agency's statutory obligations, and other relevant considerations. Now that the reorganization is complete, we are implementing that framework and watching the EPA scientific enterprise take shape in real time. OASIS not only produces science but also provides oversight, guidance and coordination of science activity across the agency. We help ensure gold standard science throughout the EPA, reinforcing principles that the agency has upheld since its inception. Clarity, transparency, openness to independent validation, collaboration across disciplines, and peer review that is balanced and free from conflicts of interest. Following the redistribution of scientific functions across program offices, OASI OASIS plays a central role in identifying research needs, ensuring consistency in documenting research activities, and supporting improved tracking and management of sci- of scientific work, agency-wide. EPA's program offices, which now house more scientists than before, are responsible for defining and implementing their research activities for fiscal year twenty-six and beyond. Together, OACs and the program offices are advancing statutory mandates addressing prior tor- priority environmental challenges and supporting long-term research needs. Looking ahead, it is important to recognize that research planning at EPA remains an ongoing dynamic process with OAC's actively coordinating efforts across the scientific enterprise while we are laying the groundwork for lasting success this year marks a pivotal transition and we remain committed to continuous improvement learning and adaptation as we move forward. That spirit of evolution keeps our approach responsive and effective in positioning EPA for sustained excellence in protecting human health and the environment. Even in this transition year, scientists across EPA are delivering practical tools and research products that advance the agency's mission. Within OASIS, we are leading cutting edge work in support of our partners across the agency, as well as states and tribes. In closing, EPA's scientific enterprise remains strong, adaptive and grounded in decades of expertise. EPA will continue to deliver applied solution-oriented science across all environmental media, and our commitment to gold standard science ensures that the evidence underpinning EPA decisions remains credible, transparent, and sound. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Dr. Gwynn. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questions. In light of the President's twenty twenty-five executive order on gold standard science, what specific steps will OASIS be taking to ensure that all new and existing rules and regulations are firmly based on high quality, relevant, and peer-reviewed scientific evidence?

Thank you for that question. Um, in thinking about uh the design of OASIS uh in the reorg uh the reorganization of the EPA scientific enterprise, uh the the leadership, we're looking for a shift of scientific expertise and research closer to decision making, um, and then also with the development of OASIS it was the coordination and collaboration role was a big part of that. Uh, in thinking about the, um, support that OASIS can give to program offices as they develop their new research enterprise and their scientific organizations, the, the, um, excuse me, the agency commitment to GS- to gold standard science will be continued throughout, uh, this - this coming, uh, the ne- over the - over the - the path - the future of the organization. Um, apologies. So, with - I'll take a step back and put it a little bit in context. Um, so with the reorganization, one of the things that we were considering is, um, science will be moved across the organizations, the program offices, to be closer to the decision making to really inform not only just decision makers what science is available but the scientists, as to what the decisions might be. Uh, with OASIS we're also doing research Um, but we are responsible for the oversight of scientific integrity and gold standard science across the agency. We've been responsible for developing the, um, the first report on gold standard science and we worked across the agency getting input from all the program offices. Uh, we also are in the midst of reviewing and revising the - the first annual report to show how we will be implementing gold standard science. Part of gold standard science is, uh, things that we've been doing all along from the inception of EPA. It relates to the um need to do be be transparent with our science, to uh include scientific integrity, to validate our work, to have quality ass- uh assurance of the work that we're doing. And that is part of what we are enforcing or uh enforcing across uh the organizations in in support of the gold standard science.

Well, thank you, Doctor Gwynne, for that. I think we would all agree that uh there there's nothing more essential than the belief we have in the integrity of the science that's a that's a uh underpinning all these decisions that EPA is making. In response to ongoing concerns regarding the scientific integrity of EPA's IRIS program, the Deputy Administrator issued a memo in April directing program offices to conduct their own assessments. How is the agency working to strengthen scientific credibility and transparency? And what plans are in place to ensure program offices have the resources needed to carry out those assessments effectively?

Uh, thank you again for that question. Um, the related to the the IRIS program. Uh, again, going back to the gold standard science, uh, the scientific integrity and gold standard science are critical to all of our work, particularly in the chemical assessment space. Uh, i- this includes the, uh, the work that you're talking about, uh, from the IRIS program, the Integrated Risk Information System, uh, program, a- as well as other chemical assessments done across the programs. Um, this Gold standard science, it builds on existing policies and procedures that we already have in place. I mentioned scientific integrity, equality, assurance, as well as data public access for transparency. We are going to continue those as well as strengthening and building on our peer review policy and our peer review guidance uh to staff across the agency uh this work will will help to safeguard the work that's being done in the assessment space across the program offices. One of the aspects of the structure of OASIS was to support assessment work and in our uh capacity of our science program management and oversight of gold standard science we will continue to uh support and insure the the the you know safeguard the the science that we're doing so that it's credible defensible science across all of the program offices.

Great, thank you, Doctor Graham. Um, I will now recognize ranking member Amo from Rhode Island for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. The interim approval process memo for OASIS implements a no surprises policy for EPA science that requires all OASIS activities, scientific activities, be quote, "supported by appropriate political leadership." Here's the thing, the no surprises science isn't science. The true science follows the evidence wherever it leads, even if it's surprising, and even if those discoveries are inconvenient for Trump's political agenda. So what we have here is a formalization of political interference in EPA's decision making. So I I wanna get to the bottom of where this dangerous memo came from, who's responsible for it, and, you know, have some accountability here. So, Doctor Gwyn, who authored the interim approval process memo and and who signed it?

I appreciate the the question and opportunity to give some clarity on the interim science approval memo. Uh, this is part of the process of, again, for some context in building the, this transition year of building these new science organizations. Part of what we're doing is, you know, we're still doing the science, we're doing it in different places. And so we're looking at our

OK. It's, I'm sorry, and only because I have limited time,

OK.

I just, I'm asking a real simple factual question.

Sure.

Who wrote it?

I wrote this memo after discussions with our senior leadership team,

Who signed it? You wrote it. And, and do you feel like you were empowered to render your best judgment on the memo?

and they picked it up.

Um, were you pressured by supervisors to implement the policy regardless of your professional opinion. I mean, there is a deference to politics here. So is is did you feel empowered to do your best to render judgment based on your scientific background here?

This memo is based on how we've approached our scientific approval in the past. It's a little bit different this year because of the timing and with the reorganizations. In the past, uh, when we have done research planning, That is a year-long process where we discuss with the program offices and understand the priorities of the leadership of each of those offices.

So, so if you, so you signed off on this,

Yes.

you wrote this.

Yes.

Who made the decision during uh this process to require the OASIS scientific activity have support from appropriate political leadership?

As part of our process in terms of developing our science and making sure it ma- it is in um, in agreement with administration priorities. Uh, that was part of being sure that, uh, the work that we were continuing to do in OASIS was supportive of the administration's priorities.

OK, so there were people behind the process, so I get the process. But there were people, uh, who - who - who executed. Uh, what - what was the requirement prop- uh, or was this specific requirement about appropriate political leadership having to sign off made by career scientists? Or by political appointees.

I authored this this document and that was my decision to put that in there.

So your decision was to defer to politics here.

To ensure that we were uh following the administration priorities. And with the transition year, it w- it's there was a lot of moving parts, and I wanted to make sure that we weren't doing work that wasn't within the administration priorities.

What, well, Doctor, the administration priorities for the EPA have to be about science. It's about people's lives. So I, look, I personally feel like you're falling on a sword here because you're a scientist.

Mm-hmm.

You've spent over a decade at the Office of Research and Development working on behalf of the American people conducting research free from political interference. I'm not gonna have you sort of have to - to, you know, commit to something that isn't based on that record, but I don't wanna put you in an awkward position. But I do want you to answer this question as someone who has d- dedicated her life a life and service that I'm grateful for to environmental science. Do you honestly believe that EPA scientists can do their job without fear or favor in an agency where political appointees hold a veto over their research?

We have a lot of safeguards in place related to that, but I would say as a scientist and in the leadership role

But this this memo, uh respectfully, this memo memo defers to always see scientific activity

Yep.

having support from appropriate political research. So how does that, how does that jive?

It helps us prioritize the research we need to do. Uh, we, there are often scientific needs, more scientific needs than we have resources for. Uh, so we always have to make tough decisions. And that is generally based on administration priorities.

Respectfully,

So that was the purpose.

respectfully, that that's prioritization, which is separate from, I do think, uh, the transparency and truth-telling and respect to the scientific process, and enterprise. The thing that makes America great is our commitment to that that has been eroded by this memo and actions of this administration, the benefits polluters, the the benefits the corporate supporters of the president. And I don't think that's right. And I know that your great history, your record of service, does not, uh, view that a as as a priority. Now, the the fact of the matter is, and I know my time has expired, this is why we are having this line of questioning, because we are trying to protect American people.

Gentleman Yields, the chair now recognizes Chairman Babin for his questioning.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's uh it's strange to hear our friends across the aisle talk about fake news and science uh not being followed when we saw this for ye- literally years uh during the uh bu- for the the Biden administration. First thing I'd like to do, chairman has asked for unanimous consent to enter into the uh record uh an article entitled fake news. And that says the EPA sets the record straight as former staff members say change has put people at risk. Uh discussing claims from former staff who claim falsely that con- discontinuing the iris chemical assessments threaten public safety. Uh the shift does not change the law. EPA is still tasked with upholding all laws that protect uh human health and the environment. And uh so if if I could enter this.

Loud objection.

Yes sir, thank you. Uh and Doctor Gwyn uh within the new organizational in fact before I get started, Doctor Gwyn would you did you have anything else that you would like to say? Cuz I I know you you may have something else that you wanted to uh answer and elaborate uh a little bit more on the uh the previous questionnaire.

Uh, thank you for that, uh, for the opportunity. One of the things about the interim science approval process is that it is interim for us to get our research in place for this first fiscal year and then to move forward uh it is similar to what we've done in the past but over a longer period of time and through uh more um in-depth discussions and communications as we do problem formulation so I just wanted to add that as a little bit of context for that first part of that approval process. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Doctor Gawain, within the new organizational structure, how does the agency plan to increase public access to data, analytical methods and supporting documentation so that stakeholders, uh, can understand just how EPA reaches their scientific conclusions? And how does this approach compare with the former work in the Office of Research and Development, ORD, that was discontinued?

Uh, thank you, uh, Representative Babin. Uh, this Uh, the agency has always been committed to the transparency of the work that we do, not only just in the research space. Uh, i- since twenty sixteen we have had um, uh, a very robust uh, data public access uh, plan in place uh, that was developed cross-agency but supported by the Office of Research and Development in terms of tracking and - and other mechanisms and discussions of the data public ass- a- access uh, plans across the federal government. Um, since, as I said, that was since twenty sixteen, it's been updated in a few interim times. Uh, that that plan and that process is still in place. Uh, we had developed a uh forum of experts from across the agency to help support uh the continuation of the data public access uh and that is still ongoing, and that is housed and supported in OASIS. So when it when we looked at the building of OASIS and again the structure for the cross-agency uh activities in support of the agency's science advisor, that was in part, you know, included in - in OASIS in order to make sure that across the new scientific enterprise at the agency that we have, uh, data transparency and - and public access.

Thank you very much. My second question is, given your extensive background at EPA, including your previous leadership role at the Office of Research and Development, uh, how would you respond to claims that the reorganization has led to a loss of scientific expertise?

So, through the - the twenty twenty-five reorganization of - of the EPA, um, abo- of the fifteen hundred ORD employees that were, uh, with the agency, over a thousand of them are still with the agency and their expertise is still uh there and available and put to use. We are currently going through a research planning exercise, uh, determining what research areas will go forward, um, in turn i- as priority areas for research. They're in many cases very similar to what we've done in the past because it's tied to statutory needs. Uh, so if you think about the statutes of uh the EPA, those are mirrored in the research needs and science needs, and so that that's where the research area uh direction is going. So, um, when we think about the expertise we need, and again in research planning you often have uh more - more science needs than you have resources for and you sometimes may not have the necessary expertise, uh, as we go through this process and determine what those needs are, if we find there are any missing areas of scientific expertise, uh, the agency has mechanisms and - and ways to - to, uh, fulfill those needs and those gaps. Uh, if - if not hiring, we can also, uh, leverage our resources and our partnerships with other federal agencies, with academia, with industry, uh, through, uh, memos of understanding or CRETAs or other mechanisms in order to make sure that we can address the needs of uh, the statutes and the, fulfill the agency mission.

Just a one word answer. Has this changed from ORD to OACs? Has this been a diminution or an enhancement of science at EPA? One of the two.

Uh, I'm sorry in terms of has w-

As, as, uh,

For clarity.

since we've got the, uh, OACs after, after the, uh, termination of ORD, have we seen a lessening of scientific or an enhancement of scientific uh data and and materials coming out uh of EPA now. Lessening or enhancement?

At at this time it's hard to say. I know you wanted yes or no, but it's it's we're six, seven months in. Uh, so and during that time we've been developing new processes and getting things up to speed. So I'm not sure that I can give a yes or no answer at this point.

OK, thank you.

Thank you.

I yield back.

Chairman yields back. Uh, and I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren,

Uh, well thank you uh very much. I I wanna explore the um IRIS program for people who might be watching online. That is the Integrated Risk Information uh System program. And really it's to uh uh assess um uh various chemicals that are important for regulatory uh decisions that EPA might make, including uh the adoption of clean air and uh drinking water standards, pesticide registration and the like. Now uh IRAS uh assessments undergo uh extensive internal scientific review,

Mm-hmm.

they're peer reviewed, there's public review and comment before they're finalized. And it's important to note that not only does the EPA uh utilize these assessments but uh agencies around the country uh rely on the science that EPA has put into this. Now it's my understanding that uh EPA, and I think you referenced this earlier in your testimony, is now discouraging the use of iris toxicity criteria in its own offices, and it's encouraging program and regional offices to develop their own toxicity values. Are there new assessments from iris still being developed and What what's been communicated to you about this program? What are the plans for the program?

I appreciate the question and just do a little bit of clarification on the IRIS program and and how it is designed and how it had worked in the past. Um the IRIS program is actually what I was hired into the agency to work on. Um the IRIS program does the first if you're familiar with risk assessment there's four uh steps and I the IRIS program did the first two it was hazard identification and dose response assessment. Um, generally the the data from that uh would be shared with end users to make their decisions, and they would do the follow-on, you know, exposure assessment and then the risk characterization. So the Irish program has deve- developed numerous assessments uh that that were used by other program offices for various decisions as well as used by external parties and other federal agencies or internationally. Um, at this point uh based on the memo that you had mentioned as part of this re- reorganization, Um, the assessment work, the full risk assessment work will be performed in the program offices. So in the past where IRIS might have developed part of that, and then that was uh moved to the program offices, it will be fully done in the program offices at this p- this time.

Well that - that - that raises a question,

Um, I

and how i- what - what mechanisms are in place to see that every region and program officer, I mean, you - you might have what's toxic and Texas might not be toxic and Idaho, what - how are you making sure that there's a comprehensive approach i- i- by - by farming this out?

Part of the OASIS uh goal is for the science program management. We also do applied research, but it - we are uh designed and we were built to be able to coordinate research and science activities across the agency. And so there will be a role there for that coordination and um, oversight in terms of ma- making sure that we don't ha- duplicate efforts.

Uh, let me ask you this, it's my understanding that as of last year there were twelve pending iris assessments uh in development um several of which had already been released in draft form now the press has reported and I don't know you can say whether it's accurate or not um that the PFNA uh highly toxic uh PFAS chemical was has been complete for more than a year has what's the status of that?

I am not sure of the details on that, I would have to get back to you. I know that in the memo and and what has been decided uh by the leadership of the agency is that anything publicly available from the IRIS program will still remain publicly available uh and will be available on the web site and and we're working on

But but that's not really the the question is

displaying it on the web site.

The work's been done but it wasn't released yet, correct?

With PFNA, and I should - I'll go back and confirm and we can answer that in writing, there would be a - a public draft that was done - had gone through peer review.

Uh, I'll just close, Miss Chairman, by saying I think this uh reorganization I - I - I don't wanna put Doctor Gwyn on the spot. I'm aware that people who work for the administration who are negative about the administration are oftentimes looking for a new uh career work, so I won't ask her anything, but uh I I think this is not uh an improvement in protecting the public health, this reorganization, and especially when it comes to the toxicity assessments. And uh I thank you, Doctor Gwyn, for being here and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes my colleague from Tennessee, Mister Van Ips.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you, Doctor Gwyn, for being here today. For years, the EPA has rightly received criticism from the public. for operating without congressional authority and lacking transparency. More alarming is that the agency has been captured by the left for political ends, resulting in major mission drift from its intended purpose, to protect public health and the environment in cooperation with the States. Both the Obama and Biden administrations diverted the EPA's mission by assaulting the American energy sector and stifling growth in the industrial sector. contracting our economy and killing jobs, while doing little to protect the environment and the public. Thankfully, the Trump administration and Administrator Zeldin have taken decisive action to direct the EPA back to its core mission, driven by clear mandates, streamlined processes, state leadership, and rigorous science. Notably, last year, Administrator Zeldin announced EPA would shift staff from the Office of Research and Development into EPA program offices, while establishing the new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions to align the EPA's scientific functions with the agency's rulemaking authority. This is meaningful reform after the Office of Research and Development has acted without accountability for decades, shrugging congressional and public input to pursue political ends. One of the major criticisms of the Office of Research and Development was that the office conducted scientific activities without congressional authorization. At the same time, these activities were driving regulation,

So, excuse me, apologies. Um, thank you for that question. Uh, one of the thing- just going back again to the reorganization, I know you had described some of that and some of the shifts from from ORD. The reorganization has moved science activities directly to the program offices where those regulatory decisions are made, uh in part to strengthen the relationships and collaboration there and the understanding of the science for decisions and the decisions, that uh inform the science that we do. Uh, for - with OACs we're also doing uh applied research that is in coordination with those program offices. So I think that gets to the heart of your question in terms of ensuring that it is uh research that has been authorized by Congress. Uh the research that Oasis is doing is um being done largely in in collaboration through development of um projects and and problems problem formulation together with with the program offices to make sure that the work is indeed responsive to the needs of the programs and the agency. and it will help inform the statutory requirements and in the mission to protect human health and the environment.

Thank you. With over sixty thousand chemicals and refining related jobs supporting five hundred and twenty businesses, Tennessee is helping to lead American innovation in advanced chemical manufacturing. In my district, Clarksville, Tennessee, is home to a growing manufacturing hub with co- companies conducting advanced chemical manufacturing activities, many of them in the early stages of launching new projects. The primary environmental statute that impacts these new manufacturing projects is the Toxic Substances Control Act, New Chemicals program. Doctor Gwynn, the New Chemicals program has long had a backlog in reviewing new chemicals for manufacturing. There are tools like computational toxicology that may help the agency chip away at that. Can you tell me what work is going on in areas like computational toxicology to advance scientific approaches that can help speed up new chemical reviews especially considering your expertise in toxicology.

The agency has long been a leader in the development of what we call new approach methods in that computational toxicology space. Uh, we - we had a center in the Office of Research and Development that really focused on that work area. They worked very closely with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention where TASCA is - uh, sits. And, uh, that collaboration had built a lot of, uh, strength and dire- direction in supporting exactly what you're saying, like using this this new science in computational toxicology to support the um acceleration of the the TASCA work and - and address some of the backlog issues. That re- that work has been - has been moved to uh the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, uh and it's continuing there. There was a recent announcement this week about some of the uh aspects of what they've been doing in - in the short time since the - the reorganizations had - have occurred, uh includes uh looking at the use of high throughput tox- toxical genomics and other um new approach methods to support TASCA as well as FIFRA and some of the other work in OCSPP. The uh additionally along with with that announcement there are um the use and implementation of NAMS and the the risk evaluations out of TASCA uh their first review uh for some of that work will be next week uh under the the science advisory, uh committee for chemicals. And so it's an exciting time to see the actual a- application and implementation to again move decisions on those forward using the new approach methods.

Great. Thanks. Thanks, Dr. Gwynn. Thanks for being here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes a gentlelady from Oregon, Miss Bonamici.

Uh, thank you to the chair and ranking member, and I wanna start by aligning myself with the comments made by our ranking member Amo in his opening statement. Um, Doctor Gwynn, um, the district I represent in Oregon, the northern boundary is the Columbia River. And some Oregonians crossed the Longview Bridge to go to work in southwest Washington. As you know, there was recently a massive chemical explosion there. Eleven people lost their lives, at least one, maybe more of those were my constituents. Uh, it was a massive explosion, as you know. Um, and I kno- it's my understanding the EPA is working with state officials to monitor air and water the plant is right there on the Columbia River. Uh, I I tell you people in the Northwest want answers, so I just wanted to raise that issue. um and and acknowledge a tragic loss of life in that chemical explosion. Oregon's also home to two EPA research facilities, one's in Corvallis and they're focused on fresh water and coastal ecosystems, the other is in Newport along our coast, uh focused on coastal ecology, ocean acidification, estuarine health, and for decades, six decades at least, these labs have been partners to Oregon tribes, to farmers in the Willamette Valley, to fishing communities, and to state environmental agencies. And I and I tell you the decisions made about EPA's scientific integrity and rigor have consequences. They have consequences for the health of Oregonians, and our rivers and coasts and community and our economy. And the scientists at those labs and across the agency, they have built the Office of Research and Development over years to conduct independent peer-reviewed research that informed EPA's broader mission isolated from politics. And now this oasis housed under the office of the Administrator, it's not a replacement for ORD, it's a retreat from independent gold standard science toward politically directed research. Now I'm always looking for smarter, better ways to do things, but firing more than half of the EPA scientists and researchers and transitioning to a politically motivated approach is shockingly inappropriate, and frankly dangerous. So, in your testimony you describe OASIS as advancing gold standard science, But internal EPA guidance requires that scientific activities and deliverables under OASIS align with agency and administration priorities and that future research priorities are identified by political leadership. So how would this affect a research's ability to independently identify an emerging environmental threat like a new contaminant in the Pacific Northwest, waterways. And I and I wanna ask you in addition to that, have have any proposed research projects even one, been delayed, modified, or declined because they did not align with the priorities set by political appointees? And if so, please name them.

Uh, thank you for that question, and I, and again I would also acknowledge the, the loss of life and the, and the issues that your, your constituents and community have faced. Um, yes, we do have the labs in Corvallis and Newport and they are still doing uh strong science in those spaces. They are part of OASIS. They're part of the Coastal Science uh Solutions Division. uh and we- I've been lucky enough to be able to go and visit those locations, and they're doing a lot of support as you said for uh fresh um for uh for our ecosystem's work as well as others. Uh to your question about how could uh scientists develop new issues or - or find new contaminants, the - well, there were two points I wanted to clarify on. One was with the reorganization - reorganization over a thousand of ORD staff were reassigned across the agency. And so OASIS has five hundred or so, uh FTE, I think four hundred and seventy-five were from ORD. So that work, that expertise is still in, in the agency and still functioning.

But overall the number is significantly less, isn't that correct?

There were about four hundred and fifty to five hundred who retired or left the agency in the last year from ORD.

OK, so you're down more than four hundred scientists. So, I'm gonna be short on time, so I wanna know has any research project been delayed, modified, or declined because it did not align with the priorities set by political appointees?

When we first started uh uh in every new administration we do a compliance check to see what is still in.

It's a - that's an yes or no question. Has any project been delayed, modified or declined because it did not align with the priorities?

There have been delays in terms of determining if it, if there could be uh shifts in the work that's being done and some effect compensations.

And what - what's an example? What - what kind of research was

It was getting a better understanding of the research if it was related

that done?

uh to something that in an executive order was something that was not moving forward.

And what was the topic of the research that was d- d- deleted?

I I would have to get back to you on that.

Ple- please do. I'd I'd like to know the answer to that. And and and I I also wanted under to understand, you know, ORD studied threats like microplastics. It's a capital ocean week ti- this week.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, ocean acidification long before they warranted urgent regulation. So what mechanism now exists within OASIS to conduct that sort of proactive, long-term research that's gonna protect public health?

As part of our research planning activities, we expect that there will be long-term research in the work that we're going to be doing. Uh part of that may be the extramural work, but it may also be the intramural work. Um the mention of micro-plastics, that is something we're working with the Office of Water on, on understanding uh well, developing a method for uh uh for micro-plastics analysis, uh as well as understanding some of the health effects of micro-plastics.

Thank you. I as I yield back, I just this we need independent science at EPA and I truly hope you'll work with this committee to protect what remains of it, and I yield back.

General Lady Yields, I now recognize my colleague from Florida, Mister Heronopolis.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and uh uh this is not really just it's just a request, if you could. I know there's been some discussion about some of these programs. I know that uh the Administrator, Mister Zeldin, has done a great job of looking at how some of the past dollars have been spent, especially in the greenhouse gas reduction fund. Um I'd love to get a report to see how those dollars are being spent and and because there's a lot of concerns about were they truly merit-based. Uh, was there a conflict of interest? Uh, what oversight do we have that maybe we can claw back some of those dollars if it's not effective science? So I'd love to get a report on that if I could. That'd be great.

I'll take that back to to the agency.

Thank you so much.

Yeah.

Uh, what I wanna get in today, first I wanna uh applaud um my colleague from the other side of the aisle, Miss Bonamici, for creating the estuary caucus with my colleague, Congressman Posey. Uh, you all have done remarkable work. Thank you so much for working in a bipartisan fashion on that issue. Uh, in my community, the Indian River Lagoon is a, is an absolute national treasure. And we're doing everything we can to kinda clean up that lagoon with not only federal dollars record numbers this past year with the help of uh all of Congress, and of course the President, but also looking at uh new ways in which to solve problems. So as we look at that issue with water quality, estuaries in general, and try to stop algae blooms, what research are we doing today to try to move those issues forward, and making sure that a lot of those research dollars become shovel-ready projects.

Uh, excuse me. Again, as I had mentioned in the - in the testimony that we're going through the research planning process, and so that's been a, um, an effort to make sure that the research dollars, the - the science and technology dollars that we've - we've received as an agency are used in the most efficient way, in - in addressing the needs of - of the agency and of our stakeholders. So, uh, we work very closely with um other federal agencies as well to make sure that we're leveraging resources where we need to. Some of the harmful algal algal blooms work that we're doing is in uh in conjunction with NASA and NOAA and other federal agencies. So as we develop our research uh portfolio, we're updating the one um you know every every few years we usually adopt uh update it every you know four years or so. Um this one we are updating and and as we develop that and determine what the research products will be under these research areas, That'll be how we will track the work that we're doing and how it, how the funding that we received in those particular areas and those program areas uh will be used appropriately.

Thank you. And now, uh the second question I'm running into is that the emergence of new technologies. Uh as you know, as you know the area again as I mentioned the Inverville Lagoon is so vital to our community. We have a lot of dredging projects going on. And that's scooping up the ba- out the bad stuff and put it on the side but unfortunately as you know they continue to make their way into the waterways or moving away from uh s- uh septic systems, moving the to sewer systems which again helping our waterways. But one of the new technologies that that's actually being tried on a on a on a privately funded pilot in my uh c- home community of Titusville is dealing with nano technology uh this is what's called nano technology or nano bubble technology. You raise the oxygen levels in order to break down organic pollution and and to see if that might be another way in which to solve the problem as opposed to just digging it out, over and over, which is a Uh almost an endless process as you consider the size of Lagoon. I'd really like to see if the EPA be willing to work with these different groups, as they find this technology, because we wanna have the experts look at this. You all know not just uh my area in Florida but around the country, as as the estuary caucus looks at all these challenges. They've seen some successes, if the other side doesn't know, on lakes. The the river issues are a little more challenging as you can imagine, with some of these uh pollutants that get into the bottom of the river. But uh I'd really like to see if I could, Mr. Chairman, take a look at this.

Uh, we do have a a a a Uh, we do have a a a a l- robust portfolio on harmful algal blooms. This technology in particular is not one that I'm familiar with, but I understand and familiar with the problem that you're talking about and that you're seeing in your um in Titusville. Uh, this is something, you know, it would the work that we're doing is a as as I had mentioned previously is on health effects, on bloom forecasting, but also in managing um harmful alg algal blooms in the natural and built environment. Uh, we'd be happy to work with you and have a conversation about these new technologies and see if there's anything uh that we can further discuss.

That would be our pleasure and I very much appreciate it. Again, we're just trying to solve a problem. We put a lot of local dollars and we actually taxed ourselves to put more resources towards the lagoon and it's important. And, Mister Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to be a part of this today. And again, I applaud the the bipartisan nature in which the S. D. W. A. Caucus has been working and and and looking for solutions and not playing politics. And with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields, chair now recognizes my colleague from North Carolina, Miss Ross.

Thank you so much, Chairman Franklin, and ranking member Ammo, for holding this extremely important me- hearing at a crucial time. And thank you, Doctor Gwyn, for sharing your testimony and insight on EPA's science and technology activities. I'm proud to represent the Research Triangle of North Carolina, a major center for science and technology, and home to some of the world's top research in- institutions and the EPA. The Research Triangle has been the home to EPA's largest research facility where hundreds of scientists from the Office of Research and Development have worked for more than two decades, until recently. Ord has played an extremely important role in protecting North Carolina and our nation's public health environment. It's developed tools to monitor air pollution, helped identify and manage PFAS contamination, informed public health guidance during the pandemic, and connected with hundreds of thousands of students and community members through programming. Despite all of this important and lifesaving work, the Trump administration decided to dismantle org and reassemble it, leaving it as a husk of itself, the office of applied science and environmental solutions that we've been discussing today. The new office, as you've heard, is subject to the whims of leadership. The administration's reorganization of org directly impacted the research triangle and led to the departure or firing of hundreds of highly skilled scientists, staff, contractors and trainees, as well as the loss of their institutional knowledge and expertise. This will impact both our local economy and the research ecosystem that is built around orgs collaboration with our local universities. For example, one such collaboration, EPA's Human Research Facility in Chapel Hill, has been shuttered, completely closed. This state of the art facility was one of the only places in the entire country where researchers could study the impacts of different air pollutants, like ozone, vehicle of exhaust, and wildfire smoke on human health. And by the way, we have a drought in North Carolina and wire- wildfires in Western North Carolina since Helene that would really benefit from their expertise. But unfortunately, they're gone. I'm very worried that this administration's dismantling of ORB robbed the agency of both the capacity and willingness to conduct high-quality research into the human health effects and pollutants. We cannot achieve clean air without this expertise. Doctor Gwynn, were you familiar, just yes or no, with the human research facility in Chapel Hill which the EPA operated?

Yes, I am.

The Human Research Facility contained nine specialized sealed chambers where volunteers could be exposed to different sources of air pollution, allowing researchers to study health effects of pollutants like ozone and wildfire smoke. According to the New York Times, it was the world's only laboratory with that specific avail- ability. And according to E and E News, it was the country's preeminent for the study of air pollution and its impact on people. Is it accurate to say that this facility was had unique scientific capabilities, yes or no?

It was a, yes, it was a specialized research asset.

Um, Mister Chairman, I'd like unanimous consent to submit two articles for the record. One is from um Greenwire. RFK Junior wants more air pollution research, but EPA shuts down its slab.

Without objection.

The second is how the Trump administration ended independent science at the EPA from the New York Times.

Without objection.

So, as you've heard, the Trump administration shut down the slab. I understand that when you transition there are some bumps in the road. But when you transition and you end something, that is life-saving at a time when a state like North Carolina and throughout the country were experiencing wildfires. This can be life-ending. Do you have any plans to reinstate this kind of expertise at EPA and help the states around the country? Please, yes or no.

If I could clarify a few points, but yes, we the expertise that was involved in the work you mentioned is still with the agency, and I just would clarify that the Chapel Hill facility was uh closed unrelated to the reorganization. This is something that was related to um negotiations with UN s- the University of North Carolina. Since twenty twenty two it was related more to uh the, you know, the downsizing of the federal footprint. So it is unrelated uh to the

The downsizing of the federal footprint at the expense of the health and safety of the American people. I I yield back.

General Lady Yields, uh, my colleague from uh Alaska, Mister Begich is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Uh, my first question, Doctor Gwynn. Um, EPA's peer review process has historically faced scrutiny over whether panel members have financial or ideological conflicts of interest. What concrete steps has OASIS taken to reform the peer review selection process, and how does the agency now ensure that panels represent genuinely balanced scientific perspectives?

Uh, thank you for that question. Uh, in terms of any revisions to the peer review process, that's, uh, peer review process oversight is within OASIS. Within the past, um, nine months that we've been been an organization, we have not, uh, addressed any changes there. We also have the peer review handbook, that is something that uh we've discussed having further um revisions to. And w- I think you're referring as well to the um peer review by by the uh the FACA organizations within the agency. And so in terms of how that process is is done, we follow the policies and and legal needs related to FACA, uh the policies related to scientific integrity, and peer review uh to make sure that we have a balanced and um free of conflict of interest group of peer reviewers for the these VACA.

Uh you referenced in your in your testimony multiple times uh the gold standard science. Can you define for the record what specific benchmarks or criteria EPA uses to determine whether a piece of research has met that standard before it is used to support a regulatory decision or public health determination?

So, gold standard science, I I think I said it earlier, is um is something that we have always been doing. It is tied to the scientific integrity and the transparency and validation and and just the the defensible quality of the work that we do to deliver the best available science. Uh, we are in the midst of developing an implementation plan for gold standard science for the agency, and there are things in there that we might be able to track. Uh, this I, I am not sure that we have specific benchmarks at this time, other than what we've used in the past in order to make sure that our work has been peer-reviewed and validated both internally and externally before it is used in any decision making.

Uh, the twenty twenty five reorganization moved more science scientists directly into regulatory program offices. Critics argue that embedding researchers within the offices that use their work to

So, i- in the restructuring, moving the scientists to - to the regulatory programs was to really help, uh, increase the dialogue and collaboration. The reorganization helped us, you know, educate more of the scientists on the decision making and the decision making on the science that would be done. The science we're doing is the same, it's just where it's being done is a little bit different. Um, under OASIS is, again, our coordination and and sort of oversight role related to peer review and scientific integrity, and making sure that our staff, regardless of where they are doing their science, that they feel comfortable coming to either the scientific integrity program, which is more than um, it is included it is across agency there is a scientific integrity official which I'm acting as,

What changes do you believe uh should be made to the the scientific integrity um

Mm.

process uh as you see it, given your role in in uh in regulating and monitoring that activity.

We've had a very strong scientific integrity program and and scientific integrity policy in place since twenty twelve, uh in terms of changes related to the reorganization because the scientific integrity program already included deputy scientific integrity officials from each of those organizations. And these are senior career uh scienti- well, mostly scientists, but not all scientists, but senior career fi- uh executives in each of those organizations. So we do have um systems in place that will address uh the work that's being done in the new locations. Uh we uh have not I I I'm not sure that we have a a strong need to make changes, but that's something we can discuss with the Scientific Integrity Committee, um and with the the science advisor for the agency.

Thank you. I see my time is expired, so I uh yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes my colleague from Texas, Mister Menefee.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. How are you doing? I'm Congressman Menefee. I represent uh Texas's eighteenth district, which is uh much of Houston, and we are an environmental justice community if you've ever seen one. Uh, higher incidence of lung issues, breathing issues, heart issues, lower life expectancies, and we're also right next to the largest petrochemical complex in the entire nation in the Houston ship channel. Uh folks have experienced cancer clusters where families have lost multiple members of their families because of contamination and cancer that has come from it. And I've had to go into those communities and explain to these folks that the EPA has cut X percent of its staff has halvened its budget. Um, and so when I hear about the EPA cutting resources, consolidating resources, or restructuring in ways that are harmful to people, I take it very personally. Um, I wanna talk about ORD and IRIS. as I understand, ORD was a firewall which did the independent science, uh, that was supposed to be separate from the rest of the organization. In the Irish program, this is where they do the risk assessments to decide what's dangerous, uh, how it should be regulated, and, uh, how companies should go about ensuring that people are protected. And these firewalls, these independent processes have existed for decades, under presidents from both parties, Nixon, Reagan, Bush one, Clinton, And it's just now that we have completely blown that up and restructured. And I appreciate you coming here today and falling on the sword, but I wanna talk about the people who are actually making the decisions. You're familiar with Deputy Administrator of the EPA, Mister David Fatui, correct?

Yes, I am.

And he was nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the US Senate, right?

Yes.

OK, so he's the person who communicated to senior leadership at EPA that the Irish program was effectively going to be abolished. Is that right?

I believe the memo you're referring to was, yes, sent from David Fatui.

Are you familiar with the Heritage Foundation's Project twenty twenty five?

Yes, I am.

And I'm sure the rest of America is, it is uh as well. Uh, the Project twenty twenty five called for the elimination of IRIS. And it said that "IRIS often sets safe levels based on questionable science, and that its reviews result in billions and economic costs. Were you aware that Project twenty twenty five specifically called for the elimination of the IRS program?

Yes, I was.

They're not the only folks who have called for the elimination of of IRS. Uh, in January twenty twenty five, a coalition of over eighty industry groups sent a letter to Administrator Zeldin, asking him to dismantle the IRS program. They said that they wanted the EPA to prohibit the use of IRS assessments to develop finalize or issue a rule of regulation, and disband the iris program and return responsibility to program offices. Were you aware of this letter from this eighty set of industry groups?

I don't recall.

OK, well I'll I'll let you know, and you helped usher in these changes, so I believe you should know, but this letter was signed by the American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute, and the US Chamber of Commerce, but you're telling us you weren't familiar with this letter.

I just don't recall the specific letter. Um if can I make some clarifying comments about the iris program and and and what the role of it is.

Sure, very briefly, I'm trying to work through my time.

Yeah, I know. I thank you for that, I appreciate it. So the iris program doesn't de- develop the risk assessments, it would develop two parts of that risk assessment paradigm. And then that would be used by the program offices to do the final risk assessments. So it's a little it it's a little bit different in terms of ORD never did the regulations themselves. um even in the in the past with that so I just wanted to clarify that as well as ORD uh you mentioned ORD as a firewall and I know we've talked a bit throughout this the hearing about the research areas and the research planning and priorities. Uh ORD always worked with the program partners to make sure we were following the fi- the priorities of of the work they were doing.

But the folks at ORD didn't report up to political appointees who were nominated by President Trump, correct?

ORD did not have a political appointee at in the Trump administration but we have in the past.

Understood. And the IRIS program built the foundation on which these risk assessments rested, right?

For some of the risk assessments. They weren't always used, but some of the program offices did the full risk assessment.

Got it. I wa- I wanna close talk a little bit about Mister Fertulli. So Mister Fertulli has spent time in the EPA prior to this current go, but before that he worked at a large law firm that were representing many of the polluters who have come to the EPA and asked them to dismantle the IRIS program. Were you aware of that?

I was not. I I I knew where he had worked before, but I was not aware of that.

So in fact he represented many of these companies, then came to the EPA and Trump won, and rolled back a bunch of regulations, then went back to representing those companies, then came back to EPA, and has now spearheaded the termination of the IRS program. I I think it's imperative that people in my district know that there's a through line right there. And we look to you, scientists who's been with the agency for decades, to be that firewall now that Mister Fertulli and Mister Zeldin have stripped that from the American people. Mister Chair, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes my colleague from Illinois, Mister Foster.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and to our witness. Uh, just if I could return to the the thread about uh gold standard science for a moment. Um, if um, for example, a political appointee came in and appointed a commission of, you know, not of of um of of his favorites, his cronies, to write a report. And that report was not subject to any kind of peer review, and then used as a policy, as input to policy, as actually, now you're probably aware, happened in the Department of Energy. Um, would that, would that qualify as gold standard science?

Based on my understanding and the definitions of gold standard science, gold standard science would need to be validated and peer reviewed as well. as um you know the transparency and other aspects. And there are el- elements of the quality assurance so i- I'm not familiar, I know this is hypothetical but

So the the fact that yeah anything that's explicitly not peer-reviewed would sort of be not not used for gold standard science. Is that your understanding?

There are different levels of peer review and it depends on what um what the document would be be used for if you do sort of a technical memo that is just sharing information eh depending on what's in that it might need different levels of of peer review but um it would still be considered gold standard science. There's the peer review policy lays out what level of peer review you would need for various various aspects of of peer review.

Yeah, but so for example if it was used to challenge the endangerment finding, um would that would raise to a level where you would demand peer review uh in order to make policy decisions based on it?

Depending on the level of impact that something like that would have.

No, I think that would be about as impactful as anything you could name. Um, okay, I'd like to, uh, uh, understand a little bit more about, uh, the decision to, um, uh, disband ORD. Um, you know, I guess we have known since, uh, March of twenty twenty five that the Trump administration was gonna be shutting it down, the Office of Research and Development. And we learned that when committee democrats became aware, uh, of the reorganization plan that the EPA submitted to OMB, and bizarrely that did not keep EPA from denying it for months and months. Uh, do you have understanding of why that took place, or how that took place?

I'm a career senior executive and was not involved in the decision. I just implement the work that's been uh proposed. So no, I was not aware.

So were you aware of public statements denying this at the same time you were actually doing the planning to to undertake it?

I'm not sure of any public statements that were occurring um when we started planning the the building up of Oasis.

OK. Yeah, so when did you first learn of the agency's intention to eliminate um OFR or ORD rather?

Uh, July twenty twenty five there was a memo um that was sent around for the elimination of ORD. We had previously started working on um the reorganization of the scientists to other locations and so we had been in discussions about those, but

Yeah, and so were you consulted on the decision before it was made or was it presented to you?

I was not consulted on the on the decision.

OK. And which officials in the EPA uh made the decision to eliminate the RRD?

Uh, I don't I do not know. Uh, these these were decisions made um that I was not part of and and as a courtesy executive.

Were they made um were they made by political appointees? Are you confident that it was made at the level of political appointees and not by senior staff?

I really can't say. I don't know. I'm sorry.

So when you received the information that it was being eliminated, that it came through as an email or a letter or something like this, uh who signed that email or letter?

Administrator Zeldin.

OK, which um um alright, were you involved in the decision to locate the uh new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions within the office of the Administrator? Um

No, I was engaged in and gave recommendations on the structure and functions of of OAC_s. But not in terms of where it would be located in the agency.

OK. And and so is that also made at the political level?

I I wasn't part of the discussion, so I can't say.

OK. Yeah, no, you have my sympathy for, you know, the position you've been put in here. Um, uh, the under the Trump administration already was reorganized. And why why was this reorganization considered insufficient? Was there any discussion of that when, um the decision was made to obliterate it.

I wasn't in those discussions, so I I wouldn't be able to say.

OK. Alright, well I'm just about out of time here, but um, yeah, we'll be um continuing to try to understand what's been happening here for um probably years to come. Uh thanks much, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, uh the chair now recognizes my fellow Floridian uh Mister Webster, for question.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman, um Well, first of all, Doctor Gwyn, do you have any um thing you'd like to respond to that you didn't have enough time to respond to and you'd like to do that?

Uh, thank you very much for that. There there were a couple um comments made that I w- didn't have an opportunity to respond to related to um the reassignments and and the reorganor reorganization and the number of uh the impacts to the ORD staff um there were a thousand uh ORD staff reassigned within the agency. Uh, I think someone had mentioned that there were, um, uh, firings for the others. There were no, um, no reductions in force related to the reorganization for the ORD staff. And so I wanted to make sure we made that, uh, clear on this, uh, today. And then the other one I had mentioned about the - the human subjects uh facility in Chapel Hill was, um, was in the process and in discussion of being closed, related, unrelated to the re- reorganization. But I think uh I appreciate the time for making those clarifications.

OK, thank you very much. Um, how does the uh Office of Applied Science and Environmental S- Solutions coordinate with the Department of Energy, uh, the NOAA, NIST, um, NSF, how they do all that while maintaining the rigorous scientific standards of EPA.

We have a a lot of mechanisms of partner engagement with federal partners, including the ones you've listed as well as others. Some of them are um formalized if they're a a memo of understanding or a memo of agreement. We're in the process right now of signing on to a memo of agreement with NSF related to research security, which is a priority for for the agency. Um we also do um participate in some uh federal government-wide organizations through the White House, through the Office of Science, Technology and Policy. That includes some of the groups that you just mentioned, uh as well as some working groups that are sort of topically focused. Uh one is the Presidential Task Force for Environmental uh Health Risks and Safety Risk to Children. We're very engaged there with a variety of um other federal partners to focus on children's environmental health. And then there are also activities that we're doing, uh some of our um a hog a a harmful algal bloom forecasting work is done in conjunction with uh NOAA and NASA as well as some other federal agencies so there's a variety of uh engagement that we have there in terms of the work we do in keeping it to the standards of the science of EPA uh we all follow the the same policy guidelines for that work so if we're working on a project and it needs to be peer reviewed we will make sure either we or one of the other federal partners partners will manage that peer review uh and we do the same as we would as if we did not have external federal partners just to make sure that it is um falling gold standard science and is within the it's credible and uh defensible research. So.

Thank you very much. Uh how does the EPA decide which long-term research projects to support?

So for our research planning process, I had mentioned earlier in per- in terms of uh for the reorg uh we reorganization, sorry, We are working with our program partner science divisions to understand the research areas and the research they'll be doing. Um once we've worked through what those research areas are w- and will be for the agency, we will develop um research products and that's we'll prioritize based on uh resources, expertise, the the priority of the work uh for the the administration and then uh as well making sure that we're leveraging our resources with our other federal

OK, well I uh, my clock's ticking down. I have fifty-four seconds left. Do you have anything else you'd like to say? OK. You're back.

Gentleman yields back and seeing no others, uh, Doctor Gwynn, I thank you for your testimony today and also for the members for their Uh, the record will remain open for ten days for additional comments and written questions from members this hearing is adjourned.