Budget Hearing – Environmental Protection Agency

House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

2025-05-15

Loading video...

Summary

This meeting of the House Appropriations Committee addressed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) budget request for fiscal year 2026, focusing on proposed deep cuts, regulatory reforms, and the agency's operational priorities under Administrator Zeldin's leadership. Members discussed concerns about the EPA's expanded size and funding under the previous administration, as well as the potential impact of current budget proposals on environmental protection and economic development nationwide. Administrator Zeldin outlined his commitment to returning the EPA to its core mission of safeguarding human health and the environment while fostering economic growth and reducing regulatory burdens.

Themes

EPA Budget and Funding Priorities

The administration proposed a significant cut of $5 billion to the EPA's budget for FY26, bringing it to $4.2 billion, prompting concerns from committee members. Critics argued that the EPA had "ballooned in size" and received "bloated" supplemental funding under the previous administration, leading to questions about the allocation of funds, such as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Administrator Zeldin affirmed his commitment to adhering to congressional appropriations and spending taxpayer dollars efficiently, aiming for maximum efficiency while fulfilling statutory obligations[ 00:44:35-00:44:57 ]

. Republican members expressed a desire for more detailed budget information to make informed decisions.

Regulatory Reform and Deregulation

A major theme was the EPA's pivot towards regulatory reform and reducing perceived overreach, with Administrator Zeldin stating his aim to restore "common sense, accountability, and cooperative federalism to environmental policy". The agency is revising the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) definition to align with the Supreme Court's Sackett decision, seeking a "simple, straightforward, prescriptive definition" that is durable and provides certainty for landowners[ 00:57:52-00:58:46 ]

. The EPA also announced reconsideration of rules like power plant and EV-related regulations, which it believes threaten grid reliability and energy affordability. However, Democratic members voiced strong opposition, accusing the administration of systematically weakening environmental protections and benefiting polluters. Concerns were also raised about the use of "guidance letters" that bypass standard rulemaking processes and the need for EPA staff with real-world industry experience[ 01:10:45-01:11:03 ] .

Specific Environmental Programs and Issues

The hearing delved into several specific environmental issues and programs. The EPA committed to addressing PFAS contamination, clarifying that while litigation might necessitate procedural changes to some drinking water standards, the agency remains committed to protecting public health[ 00:41:03-00:41:28 ]

[ 00:38:27-00:38:47 ] . The Rural Drinking Water Technical Assistance Program received bipartisan support, with the Administrator committing to its funding and effective implementation[ 00:46:18 ] . The administration's proposal to eliminate the Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program (DERA) sparked debate, with one member highlighting its proven effectiveness and ROI, while Administrator Zeldin cited concerns about market distortion and the program not being a statutory obligation[ 01:06:26-01:06:27 ] . Other discussions included the EPA's efforts to resolve the Tijuana River sewage crisis, modernize IT systems for chemical risk assessments, and address the backlog in pesticide applications[ 00:59:35-00:59:46 ] [ 00:46:41-00:46:45 ] .

Cooperative Federalism and Tribal Relations

A key policy direction for the EPA under Administrator Zeldin is advancing "cooperative federalism," which involves respecting states and tribal nations as governmental partners[ 00:32:05 ]

. The EPA is focused on working with states on implementation plans and granting primacy applications, noting an increasing demand from states to take on more environmental responsibilities[ 00:36:28-00:37:12 ] [ 01:35:40 ] . However, the proposed deep cuts to state and tribal assistance grants raised concerns about creating "unfunded mandates" for states, potentially forcing them to return program implementation to the EPA due to lack of resources[ 00:34:56-00:35:11 ] . Specific issues regarding cancelled environmental justice grants impacting tribal nations, such as the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, were also raised, with the Administrator expressing willingness to work on rectifying some of these situations.

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was largely divided along partisan lines, yet maintained a respectful and engaged demeanor. Republican members consistently expressed strong appreciation and trust in Administrator Zeldin's leadership and actions, particularly his efforts to reduce regulatory burdens and streamline the EPA[ 01:10:12-01:10:37 ]

. They commended specific achievements like addressing the Tijuana River sewage crisis and rapid wildfire cleanup efforts[ 00:59:31-00:59:56 ] . Conversely, Democratic members voiced significant concerns and skepticism regarding the proposed budget cuts and policy shifts, fearing they would weaken environmental protection, harm public health, and create unfunded mandates for states[ 01:36:43-01:37:00 ] . Despite these philosophical differences, members engaged in detailed questioning and received specific commitments from the Administrator on several programs, indicating a functional working relationship for oversight and appropriations[ 00:42:02-00:42:12 ] [ 00:46:18 ] [ 01:39:11 ] .