About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of “Advancing Environmental Protection Through Science and Technology" from House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, published June 5, 2026. The transcript contains 13,671 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. For the expertise of its scientists, the EPA has now embedded that scientific talent directly within the program offices that implement major environmental..."
[00:00:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[00:03:30] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 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 submissions more effectively, respond to emerging risks more quickly, and base regulatory decisions on the best systems on the best available science on the best available on the best available on the best available science. In the program offices encourages earlier engagement, supports more efficient review processes, and improves communication about data and analytical needs. This approach limits duplication and allows the EPA to direct its research investments where they will have the greatest impact. The EPA's most important mission relies on robust scientific capacity to safeguard human health, enhance energy independence and supports energy independence and support a strong domestic economy. That capability guides the agency's evaluation of new chemicals, the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, and the use of accurate data to inform effective decisions. I want to 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? As 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 to 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. As 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 OAC strengthens scientific work across the agency, improves the timeliness of EPA decisions, and supports collaboration across program offices. I look forward to hearing Dr. Gwynn's testimony and to our discussion. So thank you. And I now recognize ranking member Amo, the ranking member of the subcommittee for his opening statement.
[00:09:00] Speaker 2: Thank you, Chairman Franklin, for holding today's hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's science and technology activities. I also want to thank Dr. Maureen Gwynn for appearing before this committee today. I'm grateful for your presence. Before I begin, I do want to make something clear. Dr. Gwynn, you're going to hear me be a little frustrated. And my frustration is not directed at you. 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 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 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. 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 Research and Development, ORD, has served as EPA's independent scientific backbone. ORD scientists researched various emerging threats, developed new testing models and provided the research that helped keep Americans safe. When lead contaminated drinking water, ORD helped identify the danger. When PFAS threatened communities around the country, ORD developed the science necessary and needed to detect and understand the risk. When corporate polluters threatened public health, ORD provided the evidence that informed EPA action on pollution limits. For decades, ORD 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 a scientist, you go down the queries, the challenges, and try to speak truth. You're a scientist, following the evidence where it leads, challenging assumptions, and importantly, telling uncomfortable truths. That independence is what made ORD 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 ORD scientists, it didn't just eliminate positions on an organizational chart. They eliminated expertise. They weakened America's ability to identify the next environmental threat before it 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, in 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 ORD and replaced it with the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, or OACs, housed directly under the Office of the Administrator. But the agency didn't stop there. An internal memo that you're aware of established an interim approval process requiring political leadership to review and approve OACs' 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 to 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, Dr. Gwynn, I hope you can help this committee understand how EPA intends to restore its scientific integrity, science 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.
[00:14:13] Speaker 1: Thank you, Ranking Member Amo. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee for her statement.
[00:14:18] Speaker 3: Well, good morning, Chairman Franklin and Ranking Member Amo, as well as you, Dr. Gwynn. Really, what a fascinating topic we have 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 2025, the New York Times broke the news that EPA's reorganization plan proposed to eliminate the Office of Research and Development and purge up to 75 percent of its staff. Less than a year later, in January of 2026, 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 36 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 13th notification letter. Without objection. As Ranking Member Amos said, I have no intention of demonizing you, Dr. Gwynn, for EPA's decisions. On the contrary, I want to be clear. EPA is trotting out a career scientist to appear today, as if scientific expertise actually holds any importance to this administration. 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 industry's loftiest wish list. Now, EPA scientists 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 health 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 life-saving greenhouse gas regulations. Now, this is the purest form of scientific denial. 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 risks to human health, has been repealed. Polluters rejoice. Vulnerable populations suffer. The Clean Air Act still exists, but President Trump and Administrator Zeldin 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. According to a recent ProPublica article, which I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, approvals to pollute have rolled in for petroleum refineries, Bitcoin miners, and medical sterilizer companies. And reportedly, EPA scientists were not consulted in this approval of these requests. So, again, I call into question this hearing's title, exactly how is EPA advancing environmental protection through science and technology? Now, I look forward to the opportunity to ask Dr. Quint about what's transpired at EPA since March of 2025, 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 vital oversight of EPA as it cannibalizes the very functions over which this committee has jurisdiction. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[00:19:03] Speaker 1: Thank you, Ranking Member Lofton. Now, I recognize the chairman of the full committee, Dr. Babin, for a statement.
[00:19:08] Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Good morning to everyone. Thank you for presiding over this imparted hearing here, Mr. Franklin. I also want to thank Dr. Gwyn 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 Trump administration, and we appreciate your willingness to be here. 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 replace legacy products with more efficient and environmentally friendly 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 describe the lengthy process 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 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. 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, placing scientific experts directly within the program offices that make regulatory decisions that facilitates early communication between scientists and program staff. This approach helps EPA to reduce duplication, improve coordination, and to support a regulatory environment that 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 challenges. OASIS claims to strengthen applied science -- 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 decisions all across all these programs and how this structure meets the immediate needs of program offices that protect human health and the environment. I look forward to today's conversation and gaining a clear sense of just where this approach already reinforces EPA's scientific capabilities and where the opportunities remain for further improvement. So, Dr. Gwynn, thank you once again for being here. We're looking forward to your testimony and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[00:24:43] Speaker 1: Thank you, Chairman Babin. I'll now introduce our witness. Dr. Maureen Gwynn serves as the Deputy Associate Administrator for Science in OASIS. Dr. Gwynn previously served as the Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development and Science Advisor at the U.S. 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 Council and oversaw the Agency's Scientific Integrity Program. Dr. Gwynn, you're recognized for five minutes for your testimony.
[00:25:24] Speaker 5: Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman Babin, Chairman Franklin, Ranking Member Lofgren and Ranking Member Ammo and members of the subcommittee. My name is Dr. 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 2000 and at EPA since 2006. 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 2025, EPA implemented organizational improvements designed to strengthen the agency's capacity 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 program offices, ensuring that applied research is closely connected to regulatory and implementation needs. a central element of this restructuring was the creation of OASIS 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 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 help 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's 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
[00:28:25] Speaker ?: that is balanced
[00:28:25] Speaker 5: and free from conflicts of interest. Following the redistribution of scientific functions across program offices, OASIS plays a central role in identifying research needs, ensuring consistency in documenting research activities, and supporting improved tracking and management 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 26 and beyond. Together, OASIS and the program offices are advancing statutory mandates, addressing 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 OASIS 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 am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[00:30:22] Speaker 1: Thank you, Dr. Gwinn. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questions. In light of the president's 2025 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.
[00:30:45] Speaker 5: In thinking about the design of OASIS in the reorganization of the EPA scientific enterprise, the leadership were looking for
[00:30:57] Speaker ?: a shift
[00:30:57] Speaker 5: of scientific expertise and research closer to decision-making, and then also with the development of OASIS, it was the coordination and collaboration role was a big part of that. In thinking about the support that OASIS can give to program offices as they develop their new research enterprise and their scientific organizations, the agency commitment to gold-standard science will be continued throughout this coming, over the future of the organization. Apologies. So, I'll take a step back and put it a little bit in context. So, with the reorganization, one of the things that we were considering is science will be moved across the organizations, the program offices, to be closer to the decision-making to really inform not only decision-makers what science is available, but the scientists as to what the decisions might be. With OASIS, we're also doing research, but we are responsible for the oversight of scientific integrity and gold-standard science across the agency. We've been responsible for developing the first report on gold-standard science and we worked across the agency getting input from all the program offices. We also are in the midst of reviewing and revising the first annual report to show how we will be implementing gold-standard science. Part of gold-standard science is things that we've been doing all along from the inception of EPA. It relates to the need to be transparent with our science, to include scientific integrity, to validate our work, to have quality assurance of the work that we're doing, and that is part of what we are enforcing or enforcing across the organizations in support of the gold-standard science.
[00:32:46] Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Dr. Gwynn,
[00:32:47] Speaker ?: for that.
[00:32:47] Speaker 1: I think we would all agree that there's nothing more essential than the belief we have in the integrity of the science that's 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? Thank you again for that question.
[00:33:23] Speaker 5: Related to the IRIS program, again, going back to the gold-standard science, scientific integrity and gold-standard science are critical to all of our work, particularly in the chemical assessment space. This includes the work that you're talking about from the IRIS program, the integrated risk information system program, as well as other chemical assessments done across the programs. 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 to staff across the agency. This work 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 capacity of our science program management and oversight of gold-standard science, we will continue to support and safeguard the science that we're doing so that it's credible, defensible science across all of the program offices.
[00:34:37] Speaker 1: Thank you, Dr. Guinn. I will now recognize Ranking Member Amo
[00:34:42] Speaker ?: from Rhode Island
[00:34:42] Speaker 1: for five minutes for questions.
[00:34:43] Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. 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. No surprises. Science isn't science. 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 want to get to the bottom of where this dangerous memo came from, who's responsible for it, and, you know, have some accountability here. So Dr. Guinn, who authored the interim approval process memo and who signed it? I appreciate the question
[00:35:39] Speaker 5: and an opportunity to give some clarity on the interim science approval memo. This is part of the process of, again, for some context in building 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 -- I'm sorry,
[00:35:59] Speaker 2: only because I have limited time. Okay. I'm asking a real simple, factual question. Who wrote it?
[00:36:04] Speaker 5: I wrote this memo after discussions with our senior leadership.
[00:36:07] Speaker 2: And do you feel like you were empowered to render your best judgment on the memo? 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 -- did you feel empowered to do your best to render judgment based on your scientific background here?
[00:36:28] Speaker 5: 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, 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.
[00:36:48] Speaker 2: So if you -- Yes. So you signed off on this. Yes. You wrote this. Who made the decision during this process to require that OASIS scientific activity have support from appropriate political leadership?
[00:37:01] Speaker 5: As part of our process in terms of developing our science and making sure it is in agreement with administration priorities. That was part of being sure that the work that we would continue to do in OASIS was supportive of the administration.
[00:37:19] Speaker 2: So there were people behind the process. So I get the process. But there were people who executed. What was the requirement -- or was this specific requirement about appropriate political leadership having to sign off made by career scientists or by political appointees?
[00:37:38] Speaker 5: I authored this document and that was my decision to put that in there.
[00:37:42] Speaker 2: So your decision was to defer to politics here.
[00:37:45] Speaker 5: To ensure that we were following the administration priorities. And with the transition year, 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. Well, Dr. Gwynn,
[00:37:59] Speaker 2: the administration priorities for the EPA have to be about science. It's about people's lives. So, look, I personally feel like you're falling on the sword here because you're a scientist. 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 going to have you sort of have to, you know, commit to something that isn't based on that record. But I don't want to put you in an awkward position. But I do want you to answer this question as someone who has dedicated her life, a life in 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?
[00:38:48] Speaker 5: We have a lot of safeguards in place related to that, but I would say as a scientist and--
[00:38:52] Speaker 2: But this memo, respectfully, this memo defers to OEC scientific activity having support from appropriate political research. So how does that jive?
[00:39:02] Speaker 5: It helps us prioritize the research we need to do. There are often scientific needs, more scientific needs than we have resources for. So we always have to make tough decisions. And that is generally based on administration priorities.
[00:39:15] Speaker 2: Respectfully, that's prioritization, which is separate from, I do think, 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 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 view that as a priority. Now, the fact of the matter is, and I know my time is expired, this is why we are having this line of questioning, because we are trying to protect American people, and that's the most important thing we should be doing. I yield back. Gentleman yields.
[00:40:02] Speaker 1: The chair now recognizes Chairman Babin for his question. Yes, sir.
[00:40:06] Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's strange to hear our friends across the aisle talk about fake news and science not being followed when we saw this for literally years during the Biden administration. First thing I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, has asked for unanimous consent to enter into the record an article entitled Fake News. And that says the EPA sets the record straight as former staff members say changes put people at risk, discussing claims from former staff who claim falsely that discontinuing the IRS chemical assessments threaten public safety. The shift does not change the law. EPA is still tasked with upholding all laws that protect human health and the environment. And so if I could -- Without objection. Yes, sir. Thank you. And Dr. Gwynne, within the new organizational -- in fact, before I get started, Dr. Gwynne, did you have anything else that you would like to say? Because I know you may have something else that you wanted to answer and elaborate a little bit more on the previous questionnaire.
[00:41:20] Speaker 5: Thank you for that -- 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. It is similar to what we've done in the past, but over a longer period of time and through more 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.
[00:41:48] Speaker 4: Dr. Gwynne, within the new organizational structure, how does the agency plan to increase public access to data, analytical methods, and supporting documentation so that stakeholders 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?
[00:42:11] Speaker 5: Thank you, Representative Babin. This -- the agency has always been committed to the transparency of the work that we do, not only just in the research space. Since 2016, we have had a very robust data public access plan in place that was developed cross-agency but supported by the Office of Research and Development in terms of tracking and other mechanisms and discussions of the data public access plans across the federal government. Since -- as I said, that was since 2016. It's been updated in a few interim times. That plan and that process is still in place. We had developed a forum of experts from across the agency to help support the continuation of the data public access, and that is still ongoing, and that is housed and supported in OASIS. So when we looked at the building of OASIS and, again, the structure for the cross-agency activities and support of the agency science advisor, that was in part, you know, included in OASIS in order to make sure that across the new scientific enterprise at the agency that we have data transparency and public access. Thank you very much.
[00:43:25] Speaker 4: My second question is given your extensive background at EPA, including your previous leadership role at the Office of Research and Development, how would you respond to claims that the reorganization has led to a loss of scientific expertise?
[00:43:42] Speaker 5: So through the 2025 reorganization of the EPA, of the 1,500 ORD employees that were with the agency, over 1,000 of them are still with the agency, and their expertise is still there and available and put to use. We are currently going through a research planning exercise, determining what research areas will go forward as priority areas for research. They are, in many cases, very similar to what we have done in the past because it is tied to statutory needs. So if you think about the statutes of the EPA, those are mirrored in the research needs and science needs, and so that is where the research area direction is going. So when we think about the expertise we need, and again, in research planning you often have more science needs than you have resources for, and you sometimes may not have the necessary expertise. As we go through this process and determine what those needs are, if we find there are any missing areas of scientific expertise, the agency has mechanisms and ways to fulfill those needs and those gaps. If not hiring, we can also leverage our resources and our partnerships with other federal agencies, with academia, with industry, through members of understanding or CRETAs or other mechanisms in order to make sure that we can address the needs of the statutes and fulfill the agency mission. Just a one-word answer.
[00:45:10] Speaker 4: Has this changed from ORD to OASIS? Has this been a diminution or an enhancement of science at EPA? One of the two.
[00:45:22] Speaker 5: I'm sorry, in terms of -- for clarity.
[00:45:25] Speaker 4: Since we've got OASIS after the termination of ORD, have we seen a lessening of scientific or an enhancement of scientific data and materials coming out of EPA now? Lessening or enhancement?
[00:45:44] Speaker 5: At this time, it's hard to say. I know you wanted yes or no, but it's -- we're six, seven months in. 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.
[00:45:57] Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman yields back. I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Lofgren, for her question.
[00:46:03] Speaker 3: Well, thank you very much. I want to explore the IRIS program for people who might be watching online. That is the Integrated Risk Information System Program. And really, it's to assess various chemicals that are important for regulatory decisions that EPA might make, including the adoption of clean air and drinking water standards, pesticide registration, and the like. Now, IRIS assessments undergo extensive internal scientific review. 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 utilize these assessments, but agencies around the country rely on the science that EPA has put into this. Now, it's my understanding that 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 is encouraging program and regional offices to develop their own toxicity values. Are there new assessments from IRIS still being developed? And what's been communicated to you about this program? What are the plans for the program?
[00:47:35] Speaker 5: I appreciate the question and just do a little bit of clarification on the IRIS program and how it is designed and how it worked in the past. The IRIS program is actually what I was hired into the agency to work on. The IRIS program does the first -- if you're familiar with risk assessment, there's four steps, and the IRIS program did the first two. It was hazard identification and dose response assessment. Generally, the data from that would be shared with end users to make their decisions, and they would do the follow-on exposure assessment and then the risk characterization. So, the IRIS program has developed numerous assessments that were used by other program offices for various decisions as well as used by external parties and other federal agencies or internationally. At this point, based on the memo that you had mentioned as part of this reorganization, 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 moved to the program offices, it will be fully done in the program offices at this time.
[00:48:42] Speaker 3: Well, that raises a question. And how -- what mechanisms are in place to see that every region and program officer -- I mean, you might have -- what's toxic in Texas might not be toxic in Idaho. How are you making sure that there's a comprehensive approach by farming this out?
[00:49:06] Speaker 5: Part of the OASIS goal is for the science program management. We also do applied research, but we are 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 oversight in terms of making sure that we don't duplicate efforts.
[00:49:28] Speaker 3: Let me ask you this. It's my understanding that as of last year, there were 12 pending IRIS assessments in development, several of which had already been released in draft form. Now, the press has reported -- I don't know, you can say whether it's accurate or not -- that the PFNA, highly toxic PFAS chemical, has been complete for more than a year. Has -- what's the status of that?
[00:49:58] Speaker 5: I am not sure of the details on that. I would have to get back to you. I know that in the memo and what has been decided by the leadership of the agency is that anything publicly available from the IRIS program will still remain publicly available and will be available on the website. And we're working on --
[00:50:17] Speaker 3: But that's not really -- the question is the work's been done, but it wasn't released yet, correct?
[00:50:23] Speaker 5: With PFNA, and I'll go back and confirm and we can answer that in writing, there would be a public draft that was done -- had gone through peer review.
[00:50:32] Speaker 3: I'll just close, Ms. Chairman, by saying I think this reorganization -- I don't want to put Dr. Gwyn on the spot. I'm aware that people who work for the administration who are negative about the administration are oftentimes looking for new career work. So I won't ask her anything, but I think this is not an improvement in protecting the public health, this reorganization, especially when it comes to the toxicity assessments. And I thank you, Dr. Gwyn for being here, and I yield back.
[00:51:06] Speaker 1: The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Van Epps.
[00:51:10] Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 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 and enforcement. Dr. Gwynne, how have the reorganization efforts ensured that scientific activities are transparent and aligned with EPA's regulatory authority, and can you assure this committee that the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions is only conducting scientific activities that Congress has authorized?
[00:53:10] Speaker 5: So -- excuse me, apologies. Thank you for that question. One of the things -- just going back again to the reorganization, I know you had described some of that and some of the shifts from ORD. The reorganization has moved science activities directly to the program offices where those regulatory decisions are made, in part to strengthen the relationships and collaboration there and the understanding of the science for decisions and the decisions that inform the science that we do. For -- with OACs, we're also doing 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 research that has been authored characterized by Congress. The research that OACs is doing is being done largely in collaboration through development of projects and problems -- problem formulation together with the program offices to make sure that the work is indeed responsive to the needs of the programs and the agency and will help inform the statutory requirements and the mission to protect human health and the environment.
[00:54:18] Speaker 6: Thank you. With over 60,000 chemicals and refining related jobs supporting 520 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 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. Dr. Gwynne, 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?
[00:55:09] Speaker 5: The agency has long been a leader in the development of what we call new approach methods in that computational toxicology space. 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 TSCA sits. And that collaboration had built a lot of strength and direction in supporting exactly what you're saying, like using this new science in computational toxicology to support the acceleration of the TSCA work and address some of the backlog issues. That work has been moved to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and is continuing there. There was a recent announcement this week about some of the aspects of what they've been doing in the short time since the reorganizations have occurred. Includes looking at the use of high-throughport toxicogenomics and other new approach methods to support TSCA, as well as FIFRA and some of the other work in OCSPP. Additionally, along with that announcement, there are the use and implementation of NAMS and the risk evaluations out of TSCA. The first review for some of that work will be next week under the Science Advisory Committee for Chemicals. And so it's an exciting time to see the actual application and implementation to, again, move decisions on those forward using the new approach methods.
[00:56:42] Speaker 6: Great. Thanks, Dr. Gwynn. Thanks for being here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[00:56:45] Speaker 1: Gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes a gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
[00:56:49] Speaker 7: Thank you to the Chair and Ranking Member, and I want to start by aligning myself with the comments made by Ranking Member Amo in his opening statement. Dr. Gwynn, 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. It was a massive explosion, as you know. And 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. I'll tell you, people in the northwest want answers. So I just wanted to raise that issue 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 freshwater and coastal ecosystems. The other is in Newport, along our coast, focused on coastal ecology, ocean acidification, estuary and 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'll 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. And 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 researcher's ability to independently identify an emerging environmental threat, like a new contaminant in the Pacific Northwest waterways? And I want to ask you, in addition to that, 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.
[00:59:29] Speaker 5: Thank you for that question, and again, I would also acknowledge the loss of life and the issues that your constituents and community have faced. Yes, we do have the labs in Corvallis and Newport, and they are still doing strong science in those spaces. They are part of OASIS, they are part of the Coastal Science Solutions Division, and 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 ecosystems work as well as others. To your question about how could scientists develop new issues or find new contaminants, well, there were two points I wanted to clarify on. With the reorganization, over 1,000 of ORD staff were reassigned across the agency, and so OASIS has 500 or so FTE, I think 475 were from ORD, so that work, that expertise is still in the agency and still functioning.
[01:00:29] Speaker 7: But overall, the number is significantly less, isn't that correct?
[01:00:32] Speaker 5: There were about 450 to 500 who retired or left the agency in the last year from ORD.
[01:00:36] Speaker 7: Okay, so you're down more than 400 scientists. So I'm going to be short on time, so I want to know, has any research project been delayed, modified, or declined because it did not align with the priorities set by political appointees?
[01:00:48] Speaker 5: When we first started in every new administration, we do a compliance check to see what is still…
[01:00:53] Speaker 7: That's a yes or no question. Has any project been delayed, modified, or declined because it did not align with the priorities?
[01:01:00] Speaker 5: There have been delays in terms of determining if there could be shifts in the work that's being done. And what's an example? What kind of research was…? It was getting a better understanding of the research if it was related to something that, in an executive order, was something that was not moving forward. And what was the topic of the research that was…?
[01:01:19] Speaker 7: I would have to get back to you on that. Please do. I'd like to know the answer to that. And I also wanted to understand, you know, ORD studied threats like microplastics. It's a capital Ocean Week this week. 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 going to protect public health?
[01:01:43] Speaker 5: 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. Part of that may be the extramural work, but it may also be the intramural work. The mention of microplastics, that is something we're working with the Office of Water on, on understanding – well, developing a method for microplastics analysis, as well as understanding some of the health effects of microplastics. Thank you.
[01:02:09] Speaker 7: As I yield back, I just – 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.
[01:02:16] Speaker 1: General Lady Yields, I now recognize my colleague from Florida, Mr. Herodopoulos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[01:02:21] Speaker 8: And this is not really just – this is just a request, if you could. I know there's been some discussion about some of these programs. I know that the administrator, Mr. 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. 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? Was there a conflict of interest? What oversight do we have that maybe 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. What I want to get into today – first, I want to applaud my colleague from the other side of the aisle, Ms. Bonamici, for creating the Estuary Caucus with my colleague, Congressman Posey. You all have done remarkable work. Thank you so much for working in a bipartisan fashion on that issue. In my community, the Indira Lagoon is an absolute national treasure, and we're doing everything we can to kind of clean up that lagoon with not only federal dollars, record numbers this past year with the help of all of Congress and, of course, the President, but also looking at 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?
[01:03:46] Speaker 5: Excuse me. Again, as I had mentioned in the testimony that we're going through the research planning process, and so that's been an effort to make sure that the research dollars, the science and technology dollars that we've received as an agency are used in the most efficient way in addressing the needs of the agency and of our stakeholders. So, we work very closely with other federal agencies as well to make sure that we're leveraging resources where we need to. Some of the harmful algal blooms work that we're doing is in conjunction with NASA and NOAA and other federal agencies. So, as we develop our research portfolio, we're updating the one every few years. We usually update it every four years or so. This one we are updating, and as we develop that and determine what the research products will be under these research areas, that will 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 will be used appropriately.
[01:04:46] Speaker 8: Thank you. And the second question I want to get to is that the emergence of new technologies. As you know, as you know, the area, again, as I mentioned, the Inver Lagoon is so vital to our community. We have a lot of dredging projects going on, and that's scooping up 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 septic systems, moving to sewer systems, which again, helping our waterways. But one of the new technologies that is actually being tried on a privately funded pilot in my home community of Titusville is dealing with nanotechnology. This is what's called nanotechnology or nanobubble technology. You raise the oxygen levels in order to break down organic pollution 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 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 want to have the experts look at this. You all know not just my area in Florida, but around the country as the Estuary Caucus looks at all these challenges. We've seen some successes, as if the other side doesn't know, on lakes. The river issues are a little more challenging, as you can imagine, with some of these pollutants that get into the bottom of the river. But I'd really like to see if I could, Mr. Chairman, take a look at this, some of these new technologies, because dredging is very exciting. Dredging is very expensive and is like almost a never-ending process. And this type of technology has shown a lot of promise. I'm really impressed that they actually provided some local private dollars to see if this might work. And we're working with our communities. But that would be a welcome opportunity, if you wouldn't mind, to look at that nanotechnology. And I don't know if you have any comments on that technology, if you've seen something that in the past.
[01:06:27] Speaker 5: We do have a robust portfolio on harmful algal blooms. This technology, in particular, is not one that I'm familiar with, but I understand and am familiar with the problem that you're talking about and that you're seeing in Titusville. This is something, you know, the work that we're doing, as I had mentioned previously, is on health effects, on bloom forecasting, but also in managing harmful algal blooms in the natural and built environment. We'd be happy to work with you and have a conversation about these new technologies and see if there's anything that we can further discuss.
[01:06:59] Speaker 8: That would be our pleasure and very much appreciate it. Again, we're just trying to solve a problem. We put a lot of local dollars in. We actually taxed ourselves to put more resources towards the lagoon. It's important. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to be a part of this today. And, again, I applaud the bipartisan nature in which the Estuary Caucus has been working and looking for solutions and not playing politics. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[01:07:20] Speaker 1: Chairman Yields, Chair now recognizes my colleague from North Carolina, Ms. Ross.
[01:07:24] Speaker 9: Thank you so much, Chairman Franklin and Ranking Member Ammo, for holding this extremely important hearing at a crucial time. And thank you, Dr. Gwynn, 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 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, 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 ORG's 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 exhaust, and wildfire smoke on human health. And by the way, we have a drought in North Carolina and 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 ORG 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. Dr. Gwen, were you familiar, just yes or no, with the Human Research Facility in Chapel Hill, which the EPA operated?
[01:10:20] Speaker 5: Yes, I am. Dr. Gwen, was there.
[01:10:23] Speaker 9: 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 ability. And according to E&E News, it was the country's preeminent laboratory for the study of air pollution and its impact on people. Dr. Gwen, is it accurate to say that this facility had unique scientific capabilities, yes or no?
[01:11:02] Speaker 5: Yes, it was a specialized research asset.
[01:11:04] Speaker 9: Dr. Gwen, Mr. Chairman, I'd like unanimous consent to submit two articles for the record. One is from GreenWire. RFK Jr. wants more air pollution research, but EPA shuts down its lab. 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-ended. Do you have any plans to reinstate this kind of expertise at EPA and help the states around the country? Please, yes or no?
[01:12:12] Speaker 5: If I could clarify a few points, but yes, 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 closed unrelated to the reorganization. This is something that was related to negotiations with the University of North Carolina since 2022. It was related more to the, you know, the downsizing of the federal footprint. So it is unrelated.
[01:12:38] Speaker 9: The downsizing of the federal footprint at the expense of the health and safety of the American people. I yield back.
[01:12:46] Speaker 1: General Lady Yields, my colleague from Alaska, Mr. Begich, is recognized for five minutes.
[01:12:53] Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question, Dr. Gwynn. 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?
[01:13:22] Speaker 5: Thank you for that question. In terms of any revisions to the peer review process, peer review process oversight is within OASIS. Within the past nine months that we've been an organization, we have not addressed any changes there. We also have the peer review handbook. That is something that we've discussed having further revisions to. And I think you're referring as well to the peer review by the FACA organizations within the agency. And so in terms of how that process is done, we follow the policies and legal needs related to FACA. The policies related to scientific integrity and peer review to make sure that we have a balanced and free of conflict of interest group of peer reviewers for these FACA.
[01:14:13] Speaker 10: You referenced in your testimony multiple times 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?
[01:14:32] Speaker 5: So gold standard science, I think I said earlier, is something that we have always been doing. It is tied to the scientific integrity and the transparency and validation and just the defensible quality of the work that we do to deliver the best available science. 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 this. 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.
[01:15:15] Speaker 10: The 2025 reorganization moved more scientists directly into regulatory program offices. Critics argue that embedding researchers within the offices that use their work to justify regulations creates an inherent pressure toward predetermined conclusions. How does EPA structurally insulate scientific findings from regulatory outcome pressure under this new arrangement?
[01:15:40] Speaker 5: So in the restructuring, moving the scientists to the regulatory programs was to really help 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. Under OASIS is, again, our coordination 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 it is included is across agency. There's a scientific integrity official, which I'm acting as right now, and a deputy scientific integrity officials at every organization that now has these science organizations. So they have a direct line to someone that they can reach out to if they're not comfortable coming directly to me to address any concerns they might have in terms of the independence or the response to the work that they're doing at the science in those organizations.
[01:16:49] Speaker 10: What changes do you believe should be made to the scientific integrity process as you see it, given your role in regulating and monitoring that activity?
[01:17:09] Speaker 5: We've had a very strong scientific integrity program and scientific integrity policy in place since 2012 in terms of changes related to the reorganization. What changes do you have to do with the scientific integrity? Because the scientific integrity program already included deputy scientific integrity officials from each of those organizations. And these are senior career, well, mostly scientists, but not all scientists, but senior career executives in each of those organizations. So we do have systems in place that will address the work that's being done in the new locations. We have not, I'm not sure that we have a strong need to make changes, but that's something we can discuss with the scientific integrity committee, and with the science advisor for the agency.
[01:17:51] Speaker 10: Thank you. I see my time has expired. So I yield back. The gentleman yields back.
[01:17:55] Speaker 1: The chair now recognizes my colleague from Texas, Mr. Menifee.
[01:17:58] Speaker 11: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. How are you doing? I'm Congressman Menifee. I represent Texas's 18th district, which is much of Houston, and we are an environmental justice community if you've ever seen one. 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. 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 half in its budget. 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. I want to talk about ORD and IRIS. As I understand, ORD was a firewall which did the independent science that was supposed to be separate from the rest of the organization. In the IRIS program, this is where they do the risk assessments to decide what's dangerous, how it should be regulated, and 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 want to talk about the people who are actually making the decisions. You're familiar with Deputy Administrator of the EPA, Mr. David Fatui, correct?
[01:19:33] Speaker 5: Yes, I am.
[01:19:34] Speaker 11: And he was nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the US Senate, right? Yes. Okay. So he's the person who communicated to senior leadership at EPA that the IRIS program was effectively going to be abolished. Is that right?
[01:19:47] Speaker 5: I believe the memo you're referring to was, yes, sent from David Fatui.
[01:19:52] Speaker 11: Are you familiar with the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025?
[01:19:57] Speaker 5: Yes, I am.
[01:19:59] Speaker 11: And I'm sure the rest of America it is as well. The Project 2025 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 in economic costs. Were you aware that Project 2025 specifically called for the elimination of the IRIS program?
[01:20:21] Speaker 5: Yes, I was.
[01:20:24] Speaker 11: They're not the only folks who have called for the elimination of IRIS. In January 2025, a coalition of over 80 industry groups sent a letter to Administrator Zeldin asking him to dismantle the IRIS program. They said that they wanted the EPA to prohibit the use of IRIS 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 80 set of industry groups?
[01:20:56] Speaker ?: I don't recall.
[01:20:57] Speaker 5: I don't recall. Okay.
[01:20:59] Speaker 11: Well, 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 U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But you're telling us you weren't familiar with this letter.
[01:21:14] Speaker 5: I just don't recall the specific letter. Can I make some clarifying comments about the IRIS program? Sure.
[01:21:23] Speaker 11: Very briefly. I'm trying to work through my time.
[01:21:25] Speaker 5: Yeah, I know. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. So the IRIS program doesn't develop the risk assessments. It would develop two parts of the risk assessment paradigm. And then that would be used by the program offices to do the final risk assessments. So it's a little bit different in terms of ORD never did the regulations themselves, even in the past with that. So I just wanted to clarify that as well as ORD, you mentioned ORD as a firewall. And I know we've talked a bit throughout the hearing about the research areas and the research planning and priorities. ORD always worked with the program partners to make sure we were following the priorities of the work they were doing.
[01:22:00] Speaker 11: But the folks at ORD didn't report up to political appointees who were nominated by President Trump, correct?
[01:22:05] Speaker 5: ORD did not have a political appointee in the Trump administration, but we have in the past. Understood.
[01:22:11] Speaker 11: And the IRIS program built the foundation on which these risk assessments rested, right?
[01:22:16] Speaker 5: For some of the risk assessments. They weren't always used. But some of the program offices did the full risk assessment. Got it.
[01:22:23] Speaker 11: I want to close talking a little bit about Mr. Fertui. So Mr. Fertui 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?
[01:22:40] Speaker 5: I was not. I knew where he had worked before, but I was not aware of that.
[01:22:44] Speaker 11: 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 IRIS program. 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 Mr. Fertui and Mr. Zeldin have stripped that from the American people. Mr. Chair, I yield back. The gentleman yields back.
[01:23:17] Speaker 1: The chair now recognizes my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Foster.
[01:23:20] Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our witness. Just if I could return to the threat about gold standard science for a moment. If, for example, a political appointee came in and appointed a commission 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 you're probably aware happened in the Department of Energy. Would that, would that qualify as gold standard science?
[01:23:59] Speaker 5: 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, you know, the transparency and other aspects. And there are elements of the quality assurance, so I'm not familiar, I know it's hypothetical, but.
[01:24:15] Speaker 12: Anything that's explicitly not peer reviewed would sort of be not, not used for gold standard science. Is that your understanding?
[01:24:22] Speaker 5: There are different levels of peer review and it depends on what, what the document would be used for. If you do sort of a technical memo that is just sharing information, depending on what's in that, it might need different levels of, of peer review, but it would still be considered gold standard science. There's, there's, the peer review policy lays out what level of peer review you would need for various, various aspects of, of peer review.
[01:24:46] Speaker 12: Yeah. So for example, if it was used to challenge the endangerment finding, um, that would raise to a level where you would demand peer review, uh, in order to make policy decisions based on it.
[01:24:56] Speaker 5: Depending on the level of impact that something like that would have.
[01:24:59] Speaker 12: I think that would be about as impactful as anything you can name. Um, okay. I'd like to, um, 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 2025, the, the Trump administration was going to 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?
[01:25:36] Speaker 5: 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.
[01:25:45] Speaker 12: So were you aware of public statements denying this at the same time you were actually doing the planning to, to undertake it?
[01:25:52] Speaker 5: I'm not sure of, uh, any public statements that were occurring, um, when we started planning the, the building up of OASIS.
[01:26:02] Speaker 12: Okay. Yeah. So when did you first learn of the agency's intention to eliminate, um, ORD rather?
[01:26:09] Speaker 5: Uh, July, 2025, there was a memo, uh, 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.
[01:26:23] Speaker 12: Yeah. And so were you consulted on the decision before it was made or was it presented to you?
[01:26:27] Speaker 5: I was not consulted on the, on the decision.
[01:26:33] Speaker 12: Okay. And which officials in the EPA, uh, made the decision to eliminate the ORD?
[01:26:38] Speaker 5: 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 career senior executive.
[01:26:45] Speaker 12: Were they made, uh, were they made by political appointees? Are you confident that it was made at the level of political appointees and not by senior staff?
[01:26:54] Speaker 5: I really can't say. I don't know. I'm sorry.
[01:26:57] Speaker 12: So when, 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. Okay. Which, um, um, um, all right. 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.
[01:27:19] Speaker 5: No, I was engaged in, and gave recommendations on the structure and functions of, of OACs. But not in terms of where it would be located in the agency.
[01:27:31] Speaker 12: Okay. And so is that also made at the political level?
[01:27:35] Speaker 5: I, I wasn't part of the discussion, so I can't say.
[01:27:39] Speaker 12: Okay. Yeah, no, you, you have my sympathy for, you know, the position you've been put in here. Um, uh, under the Trump administration, it 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?
[01:27:58] Speaker 5: I wasn't in those discussions, so I, I wouldn't be able to say.
[01:28:02] Speaker 12: Okay. All right. 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.
[01:28:15] Speaker 1: Gentleman yields back. Uh, the chair now recognizes my fellow Floridian, uh, Mr. Webster for the question.
[01:28:22] Speaker 13: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, well, first of all, Dr. Gwynne, 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?
[01:28:34] Speaker 5: Uh, thank you very much for that. There, there were a couple, um, comments made that I didn't have an opportunity to respond to, related to, um, the reassignments and, and the reorgan, 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, 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 reorganization. But I think, uh, I appreciate the time for making those clarifications.
[01:29:26] Speaker 13: Okay. Thank you very much. Um, how does the, uh, Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions coordinate with the Department of Energy, uh, the, uh, uh, the NOAA, NIST, um, NSF, uh, how do they do all that while maintaining the rigorous scientific standards of EPA?
[01:29:55] Speaker 5: We have 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 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, um, working groups that are sort of topically focused. Uh, one is the presidential task force for environmental, uh, health risks and safety risks 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, 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. Um, 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, uh, it's credible and, uh, defensible research. So.
[01:31:29] Speaker 13: Thank you very much. Uh, how does the EPA decide which long-term research projects to support?
[01:31:36] Speaker 5: So for our research planning process, I had mentioned earlier in pert 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 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 partners. So if it's work that's already being done elsewhere, we'll join them in that effort instead of duplicating efforts. So long-term or not, that's how that work would be, be determined.
[01:32:24] Speaker 13: Okay, well, uh, my clock's ticking down. I have 54 seconds left. Do you have anything else you'd like to say?
[01:32:32] Speaker 5: No, uh, thank you very much.
[01:32:35] Speaker 13: Okay. Yield back.
[01:32:37] Speaker 1: Gentleman yields back and seeing no others. Uh, Dr. Gwynn, I thank you for your testimony today and also for the members for their questions. Uh, the record will remain open for 10 days for additional comments and written questions from members. This hearing is adjourned.
[01:32:51] Speaker ?: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Related Transcripts from House Science, Space, and Technology Committee