🔥 EPA Chief Clashes with Democrats in Heated House Hearing! 4 Most Jaw-Dropping Moments

[0:00] At a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Democrats clashed with EPA Administrator Lee [0:05] Zeldin in a series of heated exchanges. Known for not backing down, Zeldin pushed back hard [0:11] under tough questioning. Watch the four most explosive moments unfold right here. The question [0:16] administrator is, can the EPA increase the frequency of inspections at facilities with [0:22] a history of violations like JCI so these problems are identified and enforced as repeat violations? [0:28] The work of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance is important. We take seriously [0:36] any matters that are raised to us from members of Congress. We are happy to look at any of these [0:42] cases strictly on the merits and while we won't be able to communicate publicly about any ongoing [0:49] enforcement matters, if there is a belief that something needs to be inspected, to look at, [0:55] to be enforced against or working with our agency to comply on, we will make sure that we mobilize [1:01] those in the agency. [1:02] I don't mean to cut you off. I'm trying to get an answer to my question. My question [1:06] is really about not waiting five years for the EPA to come back when there's a repeat violator. [1:12] So I'm trying to ask if maybe you as administrator think that if the EPA could increase [1:18] the frequency of the inspections when you have like a facility that's having repeated violations. [1:23] Yeah, I never say anything about waiting five years. I'm talking about at the end of this hearing, [1:26] I understand. If you want to have a member of your staff talk to someone on my team [1:30] and we can look into it. Okay. I'm asking as a general rule, if you have a repeat violator, [1:36] whether it's a good idea for the EPA not to wait five years to come back. I mean, it's a simple, [1:40] easy question. Yeah, of course. And I said, I've never said anything about waiting five years. [1:44] Yeah. Okay. Well, I hope the EPA will look at doing that when there's repeat violators. [1:51] So moving on last week, a hydrogen sulfide leak at an industrial facility in West Virginia killed two [1:56] workers and it sent dozens more people to the hospital. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board, [2:03] an independent agency that investigates chemical disasters, has already announced it is investigating [2:08] the incident. Do you support the investigation by the Chemical Safety Board into the fatal chemical [2:14] release in West Virginia? Well, we have been involved in this process already. Based on Catalyst [2:22] Refiners, self-reported Tier 2 Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory submissions from 25 and 26, [2:29] the chemicals and their quantities, including the self-reported submission, did not trigger applicable [2:34] thresholds under the risk management plan rule. OSHA is leading the onsite investigation. [2:38] Sir, I'm going to interrupt you because I'm trying to get a very specific answer [2:42] about the Chemical Safety Board, not your involvement. The Chemical Safety Board, they announced they're [2:49] doing an investigation into the incident. I'm asking if you support the Chemical Safety Board doing [2:54] an investigation. It's a yes or no. Yeah. Well, you cut me off right when I was saying that OSHA is leading [3:01] the onsite investigation. EPA is coordinating with OSHA to determine whether or not the facility was [3:06] complying with regulations. So you don't support the investigation by the Chemical Safety Board then? [3:13] I'm not saying that at all. I mean, I'm trying to get an answer to that question. This is not [3:16] that hard. I'm telling you what the process is that we're following. Okay. Well, I'm asking you a [3:21] question. And the question is, do you support the Chemical Safety Board investigation? Either you don't or [3:26] you do. I understand OSHA is doing something. I don't understand why you'd think I wouldn't support [3:30] that. Well, I'm just, that's what I'm saying. So you do support it. Sure. I'm- Okay, great. I guess [3:35] the problem is that I was- That's so easy. This is not a quick question. So I thought you were maybe [3:39] interested in what was going on beyond the grandstanding, but go ahead. Where's the- You're [3:43] the grandstanding. You're the one reading prepared statements instead of asking questions. I'm telling [3:47] you the process that's going on. I'm telling you more about what we know and you don't want to know about it. [3:50] You just said you support the Chemical Safety Board's funding. I mean, rather, [3:55] the Chemical Safety Board's investigation. The President's proposal, the budget proposal, [4:02] is to eliminate the Chemical Safety Board funding. Do you support that? Do you support eliminating- [4:08] Every single aspect of the fiscal year 27 budget that I'm here talking about, I am supportive. [4:16] So do you support the Chemical Safety Board's elimination? Every single aspect- Every single [4:20] aspect of what the President is proposing- Okay, so I'm going to reclaim my time because- [4:25] It's clear the Administrator is just killing time instead of what he just said is contradictory. [4:31] On the one hand, he supports the Chemical Safety Board investigation. On the other hand, [4:36] he supports eliminating- Actually, when you cut me off when I was talking about an OSHA [4:38] process that's going on right now- It's my time, sir. It's not your time. [4:42] It's not your time. Even though this Chairman doesn't want to enforce it, I will. [4:46] Everybody settle down. You've just contradicted yourself, and it's very rude. It's very rude to [4:51] even have the Chairman- I'm telling you the actual [4:52] process that's going on right now- Even have the Chairman have the witness [4:55] stop what he's saying. He's clearly contradicting himself- Why don't you care about the actual [4:57] process that's going on? And he looks like a fool in doing so, and in that, you won't even stop so [5:03] that I could be heard. It's not appreciated. And with that, I'm going to yield back my time- [5:09] Let me yield back. And, you know, hopefully the EPA Administrator can take the smirk off his face and worry about [5:15] people's health and safety. Okay. You didn't say anything about OSHA- Oh, [5:20] the actual process that's going on right now- Gentlemen- Gentlemen from- How does the President's [5:24] proposed elimination of state and local air quality management grants, which states rely on to fund [5:31] monitoring, enforcement, and community transparency of air pollution align with that cooperative federalism [5:38] model? We are in a situation where we inherited an agency where money was being lit on fire. I was [5:47] asked to make a pledge when I was going through my confirmation process, that we would find out [5:52] what the Biden EPA was referring to when they said that they were tossing gold bars off the Titanic, [5:58] trying to get billions of dollars out the door before- I've got just three minutes. Can I just [6:02] ask you, is yes or no, do you agree with the President's proposal to eliminate that grant program [6:08] in its entirety? Every single aspect of the- Respectfully, can you do yes or no? You're going to [6:13] filibuster my time. The answer is yes with regards to- You do. So you said you were trying to put the [6:18] fire out on these grants while putting the fire on communities that depend on these grants to have [6:26] the audacity to drink clean water and breathe clean air. You think that's the right approach? [6:33] Congress has a deliberative process where you all can decide how you want to spend this money. The [6:40] president has a responsibility to come in with a little more fiscal responsibility than- [6:45] Okay, let me- let me- I reclaim my time. As we've discussed, states partially rely on federal grants to [6:50] implement federal environmental standards, conduct inspections, ensure compliance, and enforce them. [6:57] How do you expect cash-strapped states like Louisiana to make up for the enforcement gap [7:02] you're creating while cutting the enforcement budget of your agency by 50 percent? [7:08] So it's your position- No, it's your position. You made the cuts. [7:13] So, but no, if I understand your question correctly, you're saying that EPA is cutting enforcement? [7:19] You're cutting the dollars. Let me give you a quick lesson in federalism. [7:23] Your responsibility to the states are to provide the resources so they can in fact enforce. [7:28] If you cut the resources, they then cannot enforce. It's very basic math, sir. [7:33] Oh, okay. So now allow me to respond- I would love you to. [7:37] In fiscal year 25, during the first year of President Trump's term in office from January 20th [7:43] of 25 to January 19th of 26, we sentenced more criminal defendants. We obtained far more in [7:48] criminal fines and restitution. As a matter of fact, 57.7 million in the last year of the Biden [7:54] administration, 561.9 million during the first year of the Trump administration. We obtained far [8:01] more in criminal forfeiture. In the last year of the Biden administration- [8:04] Where was the criminal forfeiture from? Who was the criminal forfeiture from? [8:07] Who was the criminal forfeiture from? Don't read off your prepared notes. Answer my question. [8:12] 1.1 billion dollars. [8:14] Could you tell me from who? Can you tell me? Because right now you're reading the script [8:19] and I'm asking you a question. I'm giving you the numbers. [8:21] No, you're not giving me the answer. Sir, respectfully, could you just answer my question [8:25] and abandon your script? You're the administrator of EPA. You should know this. If you cut 50% of a budget, [8:32] how can they possibly enforce the way it's needed? In my home state of Louisiana, [8:36] people live in communities that need fence line monitoring. [8:39] You know the way of wording it is you're welcome. [8:41] Sir, no. Clean up of contaminated soil. [8:42] I'm reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. [8:44] The last- Mr. Chairman, I'm reclaiming my time. [8:46] Administrator, I am not going to allow you to- [8:48] What's your question? [8:49] Sir, I'm not going to allow you to over-speak me and ignore my questions with prepared scripts. [8:55] I have very specific questions that require specific answers. You've been a member of Congress before. [9:00] You know better. Shame on you. I yield. [9:03] With nearly $3.5 billion in proposed cuts to water infrastructure and categorical grants, [9:10] does that mean that residents of New York should expect higher water bills or delayed projects? [9:15] Which one? [9:16] Well, it's interesting how you're posing the question. [9:19] Why is- [9:20] It's either or, right? [9:22] Because you're cutting funding to state, right? [9:23] Energy prices. You know how much energy prices are up in New Jersey in the last five years? [9:28] What would you do if you were governor, right, of New York, which you ran for? [9:31] Republicans cut a trillion dollars from health care that now states have to backfill. [9:35] Now you want to cut $3.5 billion from water infrastructure. New York, I'm sure, has a ton [9:41] of projects that are now either going to be delayed or to do those projects, it's going to be on [9:46] the back of New Yorkers, right? So which one is it? Delayed projects or higher costs for residents of New York? [9:51] The state you sought to represent as- [9:53] Right, so the first part of that, as I've referenced earlier, is that the EPA, [9:58] the president's FY27 budget does not factor in how much you're going to choose to raid the budget. [10:03] Okay, and that's a point you've made before, so I'm going to move on. [10:05] That's point one. [10:05] I'm going to move on, because you've said other crazy stuff- [10:07] You're asking your question, why are you allowing me to answer that? [10:08] You've said other crazy stuff today, okay? [10:10] You don't want me to answer your question, so we just want a grandstand. [10:11] That the Biden administration, I mean, are you going to do anything at some point? [10:16] You ask a question. [10:17] How many instances- [10:18] You ask a question, give me an opportunity to answer. [10:21] Because I moved on, and you've done this numerous times. [10:23] So listen, I just want to ask you a question. [10:25] You've said that the Biden administration with the IRA had more funds than the EPA knew how to spend, [10:30] and there was waste fraud and abuse, right? [10:32] And this was going out to people that were in the Biden orbit. [10:35] You had said that earlier, yet I'm curious if you have any issue with the fact that during the 2024 [10:41] campaign, the president asked the oil and gas industry for a billion dollars [10:45] in exchange for supporting these rollbacks that the EPA is administering now. [10:50] Is that all an issue for you, that the president said to the oil and gas industry, [10:53] give me a billion dollars and I will do your work? [10:56] Is that not the work that the EPA is doing today? [10:58] I don't know. [10:58] Are you actually asking questions where you want answers? [11:00] I am asking a question. [11:01] Are you going to give an answer? [11:02] I'm going to start an answer, and then you're going to cut me off. [11:04] Is that how this works? [11:04] All right. [11:04] Well, if that's going to be the case, I have another thing for you. [11:07] What do you think about the $220 million ad campaign that Secretary Noem had with the DHS [11:12] that went directly to Trump? [11:14] I'm talking that went to Trump operative. [11:17] Did you speak out against that as a member of the administration? [11:20] How about the fact that the Biden EPA was giving high gas to former Obama and Biden officials? [11:26] How about the conflicts of interest during the Biden EPA that you don't want to apply? [11:29] All right. [11:29] What about in the Trump administration? [11:31] All right. [11:31] Well, if you want to talk about the Biden administration, [11:33] talk about the Trump administration. [11:34] You're a part of the administration. [11:36] You're saying that Secretary Noem was wrong. [11:38] You're agreeing to talk about the EPA. [11:40] You're not going to. [11:42] You don't want to work with the agency. [11:44] Mr. Zeldin. [11:47] Thank you. [11:48] Administrator Zeldin, have you ever participated in a meeting with Bayer [11:53] where you discussed the legal or litigation issues that the company was facing? [11:59] No, I never did. [11:59] Okay. [12:00] I have some- [12:01] My meeting with them was very brief, and that topic did not come up. [12:05] All right. [12:05] I do- are you aware of any outreach that they would have in your agency about this? [12:10] I could say that I directly had a brief meeting, but it was a brief meet and greet, [12:17] and that topic did not come up. [12:18] Thank you. [12:20] Mr. Chair, I'd like to submit EPA visitor logs from July 7th, 2025 to the committee. [12:29] Without objection, so ordered. [12:31] And you're certain they didn't bring up anything regarding your work? [12:36] I'm telling you, 100%, absolutely. [12:40] Maybe there was some brainstorming that was done beforehand of potential topics. [12:44] Are you aware of any- [12:44] That topic was not brought up. [12:45] Are you aware of anything brought up to [12:47] any members of your staff or your team, your senior team? [12:52] I am not aware of that, no. [12:53] Okay. [12:55] I would like to submit to the record some internal emails from the EPA that I have acquired [13:03] via a Freedom of Information Act submission. [13:06] Without objection, so ordered. [13:07] We have documentation here. [13:12] Emails from your senior advisor for agricultural rural affairs saying that you were meeting with [13:19] the Bayer CEO last year. He said in these emails that they will be bringing up some legal slash judicial [13:27] issues. More specifically, in this internal email in your EPA, it says that Bayer was specifically [13:35] seeking and discussing Supreme Court action. It will want an update on EPA's regulatory review. [13:44] And that, interestingly, Bayer will provide a small thanks for updating the glyphosate webpage from the [13:51] EPA and work on MAHA. Do you have any idea what they might have been referring to in this email? [13:59] Well, first off, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, it's possible that the team was doing brainstorming [14:04] of potential topics. [14:05] Okay. [14:05] As somebody who actually attended- [14:07] Thank you. I'm sorry. I just have 40 seconds. I'm not trying to be rude. [14:10] This glyphosate update that they're referring to seems to be correlated to the EPA agency [14:16] withdrawing its support for California's cancer warning on glyphosate. Now, this is important [14:21] because five days after the EPO this year, Bayer filed their opening brief to the Supreme Court, [14:28] citing Trump's executive order and hinging their case on the EPA's warnings or lack thereof of glyphosate. [14:36] So we have internal emails from your agency saying that Bayer wanted to thank you and your agency for removing [14:46] support for California's warning because their case before the Supreme Court right now hinges on you [14:54] not warning the American people and withdrawing your support on glyphosate. Do you understand [15:00] the conflict of interest that is before the American people right now, Mr. Secretary? [15:04] I understand the gentlelady's time. Thank you. [15:07] For more content like this, stay tuned to Congress Clips, and thanks for watching.