During a House Agriculture Committee hearing in July, Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-HI) asked agriculture company leaders if President Trump's layoffs to the Environmental Protection Agency would hurt their businesses.
00:00Mr. Chairman, now recognizing the general lady from Hawaii, Congresswoman Takuda for five minutes.
00:05Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to build on the question that Representative Salinas started with in terms of the recent announcement of the elimination of the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
00:17Do you feel that the work that ORD has been doing since, I believe, 1979 in terms of protecting human and environmental health, research, technical assistance to tribes, states, local governments, data collections, dashboards, do you think all of these, the work that they did was, in fact, important?
00:37Just a simple yes or no from the members of the panel.
00:43I need a verbal.
00:45Do you think that EPA's ORD was important?
00:50Did they provide value?
00:52Definitely.
00:54It's not a hard question.
00:56Yes or no?
00:57Yes.
00:59Yes.
01:02I'll pass on that.
01:03I'm here for biostimulants.
01:04Okay.
01:05I'll pass on that.
01:06So right now we are looking at the complete elimination of the office, reduction of staff that they're looking to do.
01:12We've already lost thousands of EPA staff since the beginning of this year.
01:16They're looking at a 23% reduction.
01:19You've talked about the need for more technical assistance.
01:21You've talked about the need for research.
01:24You've talked about the fact that there's a backlog in the regulatory process.
01:27Do you believe that eliminating now staff, professional staff, researchers, scientists,
01:32individuals who have dedicated their life's work towards this mission is, in fact, a good thing?
01:42Now, from what I understand, the Trump administration plans to create a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions.
01:50A few of the staff from ORD have been migrated over.
01:55Given this, basically, political reorganization, do you not think it, in fact, points to what Representative McGovern was talking about earlier,
02:05that all this is, is a shell game, to try to deregulate, reduce oversight and transparency, eliminate data collection, research,
02:16all to speed this process up, but, in fact, reduce protections for human health by getting rid of the Office of Research and Development
02:25and all of the science and the work that has come with it over the last few decades?
02:32Could there not be a case made for that, given what we're seeing as just a political shell game
02:36and a reduction right now in elimination of research and protections, data collections, dashboards,
02:44technical assistance that have gone to states?
02:48I'm not versed enough to comment on that, so I'll pass.
02:52Anyone want to comment on this?
02:53Does anyone have any confidence that this new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Protection
02:58will, in fact, protect human environmental health while also seeking, as they say, to deregulate the process?
03:08Not enough information to really understand that.
03:12So, do I have some agreement that the elimination overall of ORD is, in fact, a bad decision by this administration?
03:17Do you feel somehow the elimination of ORD will, in fact, help to deregulate the process
03:26and speed up introducing whether it's pesticides, biostimulants, adjuvants into the system?
03:33How do you think it will help your industries and your members eliminating ORD?
03:38Do you think it will?
03:39I don't know one way or the other, but I know what we were working with before wasn't getting through either.
03:48So, elimination of roles that are tied to the science and providing answers is tough.
03:55And so, you know, I'm looking at no matter what gets put in place, hopefully it's something that is skilled, looks at the science, can make decisions,
04:03and can move them forward so that we can get some of these new solutions to growers.
04:07So, right now, they're getting rid of the scientists in ORD.
04:11They are getting rid of what was literally the EPA's scientific backbone.
04:18I don't see how this is a good thing.
04:20And again, to point to the skepticism that was brought forward by Representative McGovern earlier,
04:25it does point, in fact, to a political shell game that seeks to simply deregulate the process
04:30to reduce transparency and oversight and data that ultimately will undermine human and environmental health and transparency.
Be the first to comment