▶ 0:04:19Mic check.
▶ 0:10:42Good to see you.
▶ 0:10:50You all right this morning?
▶ 0:10:52How you doing?
▶ 0:10:54Good words yesterday. Thank you.
▶ 0:11:13Are you?
▶ 0:11:24Okay, I'm ready. How about you?
▶ 0:11:27Okay, good morning. The committee on science, space, and technology will now come to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. Welcome to to today's uh hearing entitled chemistry competitiveness fueling innovation and streamlining processes to ensure safety and security. Uh I would like to now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
▶ 0:11:56Uh good morning and thank thank you to our witnesses. We appreciate you all being with us here today. And before I begin, I'd like to offer our prayers on behalf of the entire House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Uh to a couple of my of our colleagues. Number one, to Doug Lamalfa from California and to his family as they grieve the tragic loss of Doug, who although not a member of this committee, served the American people proudly for many years.
▶ 0:12:25I had a lot of communication and friendship long time with Doug Lalfa. I'd also like to extend our prayers to Congressman Jim Baird uh and his wife as they heal from a recent car accident. Jim was a member of this committee and I'm very grateful to learn that Congressman Baird, as a matter of fact, I texted with him uh last night. He has been released from the hospital and we continue to pray uh for a similar speedy recovery for his wife.
▶ 0:12:54Uh, Congressman Baird is a very dear friend, a valued member of this committee, a wounded Vietnam war vet, and a great member. Uh, we wish them both a uh, swift and full recovery. So, now, please allow me to return to the topic of this hearing, which is to examine the current landscape uh, of chemical research and development here in the United States of America. My hope is that this conversation will serve as a productive starting point. Can I set that right over there?
▶ 0:13:24uh a um a productive starting point as we consider policy improvements to strengthen chemical research and development ecosystem and to ensure the United States maintains its position as the global leader in innovation including in chemical science.
▶ 0:13:41Everything we rely on, building materials, household products, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals, space exploration, energy, transportation, semiconductors, defense, virtually all modern technology depends on chemicals. And I have the uh the privilege of representing more chemical refining facilities in my district than any other congressman in the entire House of Representatives.
▶ 0:14:08Yet developing new chemicals or new applications for existing ones is a long and resource intensive process that can take well over a decade, sometimes closer to two. And this reflects the complexity of chemical development, market approval, and risk evaluation. Innovation and chemistry is critical to our way of life and to our ability as a nation to reach even greater heights.
▶ 0:14:33Today's hearing will inform how we can advance research and development policies uh that promote domestic R&D allowing companies to develop products right here in America. We must strengthen supply chains especially when it comes to chemistries that can bolster our national security which is something that we should all be able to agree upon. So let me be clear.
▶ 0:14:56The development must come not excuse me must not come at the expense of human health or the environment which the APA EPA has always kept at the forefront of its regulatory processes and that has not changed. One thing we should all pay attention to is whether the EPA is sufficiently staffed and funded to ensure the safe approval of new chemicals.
▶ 0:15:19According to a 2023 GAO report, more than 90% of chemical reviews were beyond their statutoily required review times under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Because of administrator Zeldon's decisive actions to reorganize the EPA with science placed at the center of the agency, we have already seen measurable results through the substantial reduction of the long-standing backlog of chemical reviews and risk notifications that accumulated
▶ 0:15:49during the Biden administration. Reducing regulatory uncertainty and ensuring timely approval of a new, cleaner, and safer product is critical to keeping innovators engaged in developing solutions that sustain America's competitiveness. We must create a domestic R&D environment that keeps pace with industry capabilities and promotes innovation right here in our communities and our districts.
▶ 0:16:15I'm hopeful that today's discussion can help guide research and development policy at the EPA, especially as the Toxic Substances Control Act comes up for reauthorization later this year. enhancing US leadership in chemical advancements, especially like bad actors like China and sometimes India rapidly outinvesting the United States in this space and will help ensure that endusers can continue relying on products made in the
▶ 0:16:46United States because we know that domestic producers will keep our safety and national security in focus far beyond those in other countries will. I'm very eager to get this conversation underway and I look very much forward to identifying areas of agreement that keep America at the helm of safety and And so we have our ranking member, Miss Loftton from California. So I'd like to now recognize her for her opening
▶ 0:17:13Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before making my statement, I would like to join you in offering our wishes and prayers for the Lalfa family. I, as you know, I chair the California Democratic delegation and we were stunned and just heartbroken to learn of Doug's passing. We I personally worked with him very closely on uh some farm workforce issues and uh I will miss him greatly.
▶ 0:17:39Also, as you did, I was able to text with Jim Baird, our our member from uh who is just such a remarkable person, a hero, a war hero. um so bright. Uh he let me know as he did you that he has been discharged although his wife is still in the ICU. So she needs our prayers.
▶ 0:18:01Uh and we hope and that they will both have a speedy recovery and we join us here uh in in our work. I also want to uh thank uh you Mr. chairman for this hearing and the opportunity uh one year into the Trump basic assault on environmental protection uh to discuss what's happening at EPA.
▶ 0:18:25Now we are halfway through uh the Congress and so far no EPA officials have testified before the committee. I think Congress needs to hold the executive branch accountable and the political leadership at EPA and my judgment has much to account for. I hope that this hearing will soon be followed by another one in which this committee can hear directly from administrator Zelden and hold him accountable.
▶ 0:18:53It's been a bad year for EPA uh for our environment and for uh the public health and safety of the American people. Over the past 12 months, EPA's workforce has been gutted as thousands of employees were pushed out of the agency. Uh, critical laboratories such as the human research facility at the University of North Carolina have been shut down. Climate denialism is ascendant.
▶ 0:19:19Administrator Zeldon speaks of quote driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change he calls religion. While references to climate change are erased from agency websites and the agency moves to repeal the endangerment finding that underpins greenhouse gas Virtually every environmental standard is set to be weakened from particulate matter, mercury in the air we breathe, PAS in the water we drink.
▶ 0:19:48The agency seems to elevate the interest of corporate polluters over the public. Uh the APA in my view has abandoned its mission and obligation to protect the environment and public health. On top of it all, independent science at EPA has been wiped out. In a tragic loss for our country, the Trump administration has eliminated the EPA Office of Research and Development, which was the beating heart of science at the agency virtually since its creation.
▶ 0:20:18OARDD provided independent, unbiased, cuttingedge environmental research to ensure that the agency was equipped with the best available science. Now it's gone. EPA tried to obscure this uh by inventing a new quote applied science office, but it is barely one-third the size of OAD and located within the office of the administrator where presumably undesirable science is far more vulnerable to political interference.
▶ 0:20:47These changes essentially remove independent science from decision-making at EPA. But don't take my word for it. The Senate Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan 26-2 vote declared itself quote appalled at the elimination of OAD and expressed concern about the immeasurable risk to our health and environment that would come from undermining EPA's ability to clean up hazardous chemicals, respond to disasters, and support states and tribal nations
▶ 0:21:17with sound, actionable science. That is the Senate Appropriations Committee language. Two leaders under OD under Republican administrations, Dr. Paul Gilman and Dr. Jennifer Ormsza Zuleta have submitted a letter for this hearing which they which they expressed concern that the dismantling of OAD will quote be detrimental to research innovation and further hinder the efforts of the chemical industry to innovate.
▶ 0:21:45Now both sides of the aisle can agree a future without OD is a bleak future indeed. Indeed, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter to the record the letter from Dr. Gilman and Dr.
▶ 0:21:58So ordered.
▶ 0:21:59Today's hearing, thank you, is focused on chemical processes at EPA. The elimination of OAD will undoubtedly make these processes worse. Without independent science to support agency decisionmaking, EPA will struggle to craft health protective chemical regulations. Instead, the agency is far more likely to be unduly influenced by industrybacked science or to simply lack the scientific data necessary to make informed decisions altogether. I want to thank the uh witnesses for appearing today.
▶ 0:22:30We need to have an open and honest conversation about what's happening at EPA, especially regarding environmental research and development where the science committee has absolute jurisdiction. After a year of damage, it's time for us to start thinking about how to rebuild independent science at EPA and restore it to its rightful place. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. Thank you, Ranking Member Lofrren. Appreciate that very much.
▶ 0:22:58Uh I would like to emphasize that the office of research and development still exists and that there are about 138 scientists still in that office and scientists have been moved uh to program offices elsewhere. So uh just wanted to make sure that got into the record. Now let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Miss Charlotte Bertrand. And uh we're in different order. I'm sorry.
▶ 0:23:24uh and Miss Bertran who's who serves as a senior director of chemical management regulatory policy and strategy at the American Chemistry Council. We thank her for being here. She is a Texas A&M alum and served at NASA as the director of the environmental management division. Uh she also served over 20 years at the EPA in various senior deputy associate administrator roles in various program offices and as an environmental scientist. Thank you for being here, Miss Bertran.
▶ 0:23:55Uh, our second witness is Dr. Stan Mayberg, who served as a former acting deputy administrator at the United States Environmental Protection Agency and is appearing in his personal capacity. Thank you. Our third witness is Dr. Gwen Gross, uh, who serves as a senior technical fellow at Boeing for composits and chemical technology.
▶ 0:24:19Uh she is the chief chemist for the structural composits group and has been a trusted expert for Boeing's R&D endeavors for over 20 years. Welcome. And our final witness is Mr. Keith Carwell uh who serves as the president of Lubresol Additives and senior vice president at the Lubresol Corporation with facilities in my district as a matter of fact. So welcome to you. And I'd like to should note that my district is home to two Lubresolve uh facilities there.
▶ 0:24:48As I mentioned, I should note that my district is home uh including the company's largest plant in Deer Park, Texas, I'm sorry, which manufactures highly specialized additive systems for lubricating oils used in a variety of engines, as well as another chemical manufacturing facility located in Bayport in my district. Both facilities play a major role not only in our local industry but nationwide.
▶ 0:25:14I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and I'd like to now recognize Miss Bertran for five minutes to present your testimony. I'm sorry you probably thought you were going to be sitting down here.
▶ 0:25:25Good. I'm [laughter]
▶ 0:25:28Chairman Bavin, ranking member Lrren and members of the committee. Thank you for holding this important hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify. I am Charlotte Bertran, senior director of chemical management, regulatory policy and strategy at the American Chemistry Council. I recently joined ACC following almost 28 years of federal service that included senior executive roles at NASA and EPA.
▶ 0:25:51I am honored to appear here today representing the more than 150 member companies engaged in the business of chemistry meeting the nation's most demanding challenges. For more than 37 years, through the implementation of the responsible care program, our members have also demonstrated their commitment to health and safety. And for decades, ACC has advanced science and innovation and chemical safety through its long range research initiative.
▶ 0:26:19America's success depends on America's chemistry. Chemistry is essential to virtually every industry, modern life, and America's competitiveness. More than 96% of all manufactured goods are touched by products from chemistry. Critical new semiconductor manufacturing relies on more than 500 specialized chemicals to manufacture a single chip.
▶ 0:26:44Advanced materials such as lightweight composits for aircraft, specialized coatings for stealth applications, and chemical propellants for space and missile systems all demonstrate chemistry strategic importance to our nation. At its core, the business of chemistry is all about science. Science aimed towards innovations and products and services that makes people's lives better, healthier, and safer.
▶ 0:27:11During my time at NASA, I had the privilege of working closely with the AY's engineers and scientists to assess whether federal regulations could raise mission related concerns. This including considering the effects of proposed TUSCa regulations on chemicals that had been qualified for use through decades of rigorous testing in some of the most harsh and extreme conditions or were part of NASA's core research programs.
▶ 0:27:36For example, I learned that chemicals undergoing EPA regulation were in batteries that were part of NASA's systems. These batteries also were used to supply power for US military munitions, mission systems, and support satellites currently in orbit. This is because of their unique, irreplaceable properties that enable performance in the most extreme conditions and environments.
▶ 0:28:00In my experience, EPA's evaluation and regulatory approach often resulted in prohibitions with limited exemptions for national security or critical infrastructure uses, which in practice may have limited benefit if earlier prohibitions have already reduced the viability of domestic manufacturing. This outcome reflects aspects of EPA's science and policy approach.
▶ 0:28:25For example, rather than consistently applying a riskbased best available science framework required by statute, EPI EPA has relied on methodologies that raise scientific questions and layer conservative assumptions in lie of real world data. Research and development and manufacturing of new innovative chemistries in the US that may be the key to next generation technologies is also being impacted.
▶ 0:28:51EPA is required to complete new chemical reviews within 90 days. Yet more than 90% of active reviews exceed that statutory deadline. Over 60% remain pending for more than a year and some extend for several years.
▶ 0:29:09If these scientific and policy underpendings are not re-evaluated, they could limit innovation, affect the US competitive advantage, impact American jobs, and give foreign competitors, especially China, an opportunity to capture an even larger share of the rapidly growing global market. As recently as 2009, the US was the global leader in chemical manufacturing. That ground has been seated.
▶ 0:29:38Since that time, China's output has surged from 11% to 50% of the world chemical sales while the US is now very distant second place. So what is the solution? Put best available science first in chemical evaluations. Drive predictable, transparent, practical, fact-based policies, and create a regulatory environment that fosters domestic innovation. Thank you. and I'd be pleased to take questions.
▶ 0:30:07Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Miss Bertran. Appreciate that very much. And now I'd like to recognize Dr. Mberg for five minutes and for your testimony, sir. You're recognized.
▶ 0:30:16Good morning, Chairman Bablin and Ranking Member Lofrren and members of the committee. And thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue. My name is Stan Mberg. I worked at EPA for 39 years, 20 in Republican administrations and 19 in Democratic administrations, but I'm here today in my personal capacity. I have a perspective on today's hearings that's a little different from my fellow panelists. And to summarize my written testimony, independent EPA science should not be a partisan issue.
▶ 0:30:47No one disputes that chemicals are essential across every sector of our economy. Advances in chemistry have improved our lives. At the same time, some of those advances had undesirable consequences in polluted air, water, and land. Congress has been clear that we want the benefits of chemistry, but not at the expense of people's health.
▶ 0:31:09Laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and Super Fund have cleaned up pollution even while the economy has grown tremendously since 1970. But Congress also passed laws to prevent new problems by establishing review processes to keep people safe. Preventing pollution is always cheaper than repairing the damage later.
▶ 0:31:33In these laws, Congress gave EPA the responsibility of making judgments about reasonable and unreasonable risks. EPA's first administrator, Bill Ruckles, set forth principles which have guided EPA in almost every administration. Follow the law. Follow the science and be Science does not make these decisions for you. Making them responsibly is a tough job. You're guaranteed to not make everybody happy.
▶ 0:32:03Administrators must consider many factors, preeminently the law, but um also competing public interests that fit within the law. EPA has a single mission, protecting human health and the environment. But decisions about unreasonable risk also involve value choices. In democratic society, the responsibility and accountability for such choices rests with elected officials in Congress, the president, and appointed officials in the executive branch.
▶ 0:32:34Past EPA administrators saw peer-reviewed science as indispensable in making decisions and valued the independence of EPA science staff in that process. Advocates for rapid EPA decision-making understandably seek favorable decisions from the agency quickly. In my experience, officials at EPA also want to make decisions as quickly as possible.
▶ 0:32:58But quick decisions do not serve the public if they are not based on the best science, are inconsistent with the law, are unduly influenced by interested parties, or are not I want to be clear about what I am saying and what I am not saying. First, even the most expert scientists can and do disagree vigorously. That is science. I am also not saying that good science cannot be done by outside parties.
▶ 0:33:27EPA has always depended heavily on work conducted or sponsored by private parties and submitted to EPA. But EPA needs scientists who can give independent counsel to policymakers. The alternative is decision-making that is uninformed at best and captured by self-interested parties at worst. Everyone wants certainty, but often only when it agrees with their preferences. And that leads to the importance of the Office of Research and Development at EPA.
▶ 0:33:55Established 35 years ago, the work of OARD benefits the public and all of EPA and there are countless examples of the value of the science, some of which I reference in my written testimony. But beyond individual controversies, this hearing is about independent science. The current administration has driven 4,000 people from EPA, including many scientists, and says they need to redeploy staff from OAD to conduct chemical reviews under TUSCa, the subject of this hearing.
▶ 0:34:23But if EPA needs additional staff for TUSCa, and they do, the solution is not to cannibalize EPA's independent science. In FY2023, EPA asked for 124 million for TUSCa reviews, but in the FY2026 budget, the current administration only asked for $73 million for this function. And again, everyone wants EPA processes to be orderly, predictable, and based on valid scientific data.
▶ 0:34:51But without independent and credible EPA science, public confidence in EPA's decisions will deservedly diminish. This is not in industry's interest nor the public's. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
▶ 0:35:08Thank you. And now I'd like to recognize Dr. Gross for five minutes to present her testimony. You're now recognized, Dr. Gross.
▶ 0:35:15Good morning, Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Lafrren, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Dr. Gwen Gross, a senior technical fellow at Boeing for composits and chemical technology. Boeing proudly develops, manufactures, and services commercial airplanes, defense products, and space systems. Safety and quality are at the core of everything that we do.
▶ 0:35:39Boeing is committed to complying with environmental laws and regulations, creating economic opportunities, and driving innovation. I serve as a chief chemist within Boeing's advanced research and development organization. I'm an expert in the formulation and production of critical aerospace materials. I've worked the complete life cycle of materials integration from idea to implementation and as an intermediary between Boeing and our suppliers. Boeing is a downstream user of chemicals.
▶ 0:36:09We do not manufacture the chemical formulations that we use. Instead, as we develop new and innovative aerospace products, we rely on our chemical suppliers to develop new chemicals that meet our stringent performance requirements. Suppliers are responsible for obtaining regulatory approvals for new chemicals or new uses. Any delays they experience in obtaining those approvals delay aerospace innovations that Boeing is working to advance.
▶ 0:36:37Boeing uses chemical materials in a variety of ways in its products, including composits, sealants, adhesives, and coatings. The aerospace industry faces unique challenges when it comes to chemical material use and replacement due to complex FAA certification requirements and military specifications that govern our products and services.
▶ 0:36:59To produce and sell a commercial aircraft, Boeing must obtain type certification from the FAA by demonstrating that the aircraft design, including all of its component parts, meets all applicable FAA regulations. It can take 10 years or more to design, build, test, and receive type certification for an aircraft model or new replacement parts.
▶ 0:37:22The certification process which is integral to aviation safety includes consideration of the performance of the chemicals used in that design. Boeing must show that materials are suitable and durable. In practice, that means something like a polymer material like the carbon fiber composite used for wings needs to cycle from a sweltering Phoenix runway in July to sub-zero temperatures at 30,000 ft just minutes later.
▶ 0:37:50It must maintain structural performance while doing this multiple times a day, potentially for decades. If regulatory changes impacting chemical material use and replacement or changes in the chemical marketplace happen too fast, aerospace companies may not have sufficient time to find viable alternatives and to demonstrate that they satisfy those regulatory For example, finding a replacement for a chemical used in the formulation of a polymer composite system
▶ 0:38:20can be a challenging and len lengthy process. I began working on a new candidate for a next generation carbon fiber composite material when my daughter was 2 years old. Boeing is just now finishing the qualification on that material and my daughter is 18. Aerospace manufacturers are also impacted by delays in new chemical reviews and new chemical restrictions. One example is the replacement of fire suppression chemicals used on board aircraft.
▶ 0:38:48Boeing has devoted 20 years and considerable resources to developing alternatives to the industry standard agent halon. It's an ozone depleting substance that's widely used on aircraft due to its unique performance attributes and it has proven incredibly difficult to replace. Working with our our suppliers, a replacement was approved approximately eight years ago by the EPA and FAA for use in handheld fire extinguishers on board aircraft.
▶ 0:39:16Boeing is considering this for cargo compartment use and has seen some progress at the EPA towards this goal, which we very much appreciate. But even with this progress, regulatory uncertainty still remains. Boeing has also seen challenges when evaluating new chemicals under TUSCa research and development exemptions.
▶ 0:39:35It is not uncommon for promising new formulations to be removed from consideration early in the technology development process due to uncertainty about when and if an R&D chemical will be approved by the EPA. If there is a risk that EPA will not approve an R&D chemical in time to meet our internal technology development milestones for certification, our researchers may choose an existing chemical instead.
▶ 0:40:00Unfortunately, this limits new technology that may provide significant improvements such as lightweight materials. Regulatory changes to reduce this uncertainty would be helpful. In closing, thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today and I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:40:16Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much, Dr. [clears throat] Gross. I'd like like to now recognize Mr. Corkwell uh for five minutes to present your testimony. You're now recognized, sir.
▶ 0:40:27Thank you, Chair Babin, Ranking Member Lgrim. Thank you for the invitation to appear and testify today. It truly is an honor and a privilege. My name is Keith Corpwell and I represent 7,500 Lubresol Corporation employees headquartered in Ohio. I am the president of Lubresol's additives division. Louisol is a specialty chemical maker with over 26 labs, manufacturing sites, and offices here in the United States.
▶ 0:40:53I'm especially proud to be here today representing more than 600 Lubresol employees working in Dr. Babin's district where Lubresol operates the world's largest lubricant additive manufacturing facility. We're great also grateful for the support of Representative Miller who represents the Ohio district where our engineered polymers and surface solutions divisions are headquartered.
▶ 0:41:13To continue to survive and grow as a business, Lubberol develop new chemistry and deliver that chemistry to the market when it is Regulation plays a significant role in our ability to do these things. When the chemical industry and our regulators get that right, the results can be transformational for the American economy. My message to you today is that we have not gotten it right yet.
▶ 0:41:43But we have the opportunity to make changes needed and I urge Congress to take the actions to do so. For Lubresol, innovation and R&D are the heart of what we do every day. As a specialty chemical company, Lubberol creates combinations of chemicals that work together to solve specific challenges and improve the performance of our customers technologies. When new chemistry enters a market, we all benefit.
▶ 0:42:09For example, over the last century, Lubresol's additives along with advanced engine designs have extended the life of passenger cars from a few thousand miles to several hundred,000 miles, doubled the miles per gallon, drastically reduced the tailpipe emissions. Our additive technology has also improved agricultural and industrial machinery as well. And it's not just the engines that benefit. Chemistry and chemicals impact every aspect of our lives.
▶ 0:42:40Every cell phone, laptop, and camera in this room today relies on chemistry to continue to create and deliver more powerful devices at our fingertips. We do this by investing hundreds of millions of dollars in innovation, R&D, and testing. The innovation process for even a single new molecule can take many years and millions of dollars. Lubresol and companies like us cannot continue to make this scale of investment if regulation prevents us from getting the innovation to market on time.
▶ 0:43:10To be clear, Lubberol fully supports regulation that protects people and the environment. But to stay competitive, the US must adopt science-based regulations that enable and support the development and the delivery of new That's not the reality today. The EPA's current approval process under TUSCa is holding back the introduction of new chemistries. At Lubresol, we've experienced these painful consequences.
▶ 0:43:35In one example, Lubresol invented a new molecule that would provide next level prevention from wear as part of an industrial gear oil additive package. EPA's review of the new molecule resulted in the delay of three years. Due to this delay, Lubriol's customers went elsewhere.
▶ 0:43:52In another example, Lubisol invested 10 years of innovation, resources, and time, and over $10 million to create a next generation transmission additive that would advance the performance of off-road heavy duty vehicles like agricultural equipment and industrial machinery. The EPA, the EPA review for this additive started in 2020. We are still awaiting EPA's final new use rules that would apply to this And it is not only the delay in review.
▶ 0:44:22On more than one occasion for Lubisol, EPA risk reviews resulted in restrictions placed on the manufacturing and/or use of the new chemistry that are so conservative as to render the product Brocking blocking promising technology from reaching the market for which it was intended. The EPA can empower American innovation and strengthen our competitiveness while also protecting human health and the environment under TUSCa.
▶ 0:44:49We urge this panel and Congress to provide the guidance necessary to ensure that EPA's new chemical approval process is both science-based and timely. This year, Congress will have the opportunity to support the EPA in doing so by requiring that regulations under TUSCa be grounded in good science and risk, not hazard-based by using the most up-to-date science and realistic exposure scenarios, including safety protocols that are already in place.
▶ 0:45:18EPA can strike the necessary balance. Thank you for your time and attention today. I'm happy to answer any
▶ 0:45:25Thank you, Mr. Mr. [clears throat] Clark. We appreciate your testimony. I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony and I'd like to now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. And Mr. Corkwell, you had you have the honor of getting the first question if you don't mind. [clears throat] Uh this is about fueling innovation while ensuring safety and security. Your testimony highlights how delays and restrictive assumptions under TUSCa can delay new chemistry from reaching the market.
▶ 0:45:54Uh so let me ask you if you don't mind how do your Deer Park and Bayport operations happen to be in my district uh support innovation and critical sectors like transportation and energy as quickly as possible if you don't mind because I have several
▶ 0:46:10Yeah, thank you for the question. The products we make in your district at at those plants at Deer Park in Bayport are used to manufacture lubricants, greases, transmission fluids, gear oils. And I'm very proud at Lubazol to say there's there's virtually not an ambulance or a firetruck in America that probably does not have Lubazol's chemistry in its axle, its transmission, or somewhere it's in it in its engine. And helping those make those products last longer and be more efficient is part of what Lubazol is all about. And much of that chemistry for the US and the world comes from that particular plant.
▶ 0:46:40Thank you very much. Uh what are the consequences for US competitiveness if regulatory delays continue the way they've been been going? As you've heard from the testimony today, chemistry is often the start of a very long value chain where our chemical ingredients as a special specialty chemical maker are turned into products that are used to build airplanes and all the other devices we have.
▶ 0:47:02If we cannot continue to invest and have reliable timelines that allow us to make the investments needed, we cannot bring new chemistries to market. And the new chemistries we want to bring to the market are providing greater performance and in many cases have a better environmental profile than the ones we're trying to replace. We need to be able to bring those to market in a timely manner, a predictable manner, so that we can feed that supply chain.
▶ 0:47:27Exactly. And finally, what specific steps should Congress take to make sure that EPA uses the best available science and realistic scenarios so that we can protect the health and environment without stifling innovation.
▶ 0:47:43Yes, absolutely. I think most importantly is a predictable timeline. In order to make investment decisions and allow new innovations to come to market, we must know what the predictable timeline is. We need to use good science and all the science available. In most cases, the people doing the research on these products have the best available data. We need to take that into consideration and we need to consider the risk, not just [clears throat] the hazard, but the risk in the actual use and application that's being described.
▶ 0:48:10Thank you. And Dr. gross given that the timeline to usher a chemical from R&D phase to an industrial scale often takes 5 to 10 plus years as you mentioned with your own daughter uh from research bench to commercialization. So how can regulatory policy be designed to provide long-term certainty for chemical manufacturing companies and downstream users to account for changing political and economic landscapes?
▶ 0:48:36Thank you for the question. Uh, one of the things that we um, again, Boeing is a user, a downstream user. Um, we're not responsible for the applications like to the EPA for extended use. Um, that being said, clarity for the downstream users are where those applications are would be incredibly important. Today, you know, we rely on the suppliers to tell us where the bottlenecks are, why things are held up.
▶ 0:49:01um we could support them better if we actually understood say data needs or additional information that could help um in the EPA review process. Um so that clarity to the downstream users would be incredibly important and that's something that you know Congress could could help with.
▶ 0:49:17Great. Thank you. [clears throat] and Miss Bertrand regulatory timelines increasingly influence the transition away from legacy cleaning technologies raising questions about their alignment with the time required for research and development testing and qualification of missionritical alternatives in your view are current regulatory timelines aligned with the realistic pace of R&D testing and qualification required for missionritical precision cleaning So in in
▶ 0:49:47my experience the regulatory time frames are not often aligned um with the realistic place that is required for R&D testing and qualification. Um it can take 8 to 10 years to qualify for space flight. Um but that doesn't account for the volume of chemistries that are being prohibited and restricted right now. That also doesn't account for the immediate effects that regulations can have um when there's uncertainty in the market.
▶ 0:50:16So for example, while I was at NASA, they had already experienced the loss of mission critical chemistries. With no known alternatives needed to support um that was due to market drivers and regulatory environment, the supplier made a business decision to stop manufacturing those PL those products. So without an alternative, NASA needed to to find some mitigating measures and is currently investigating. When I left, they were still investigating alternatives.
▶ 0:50:44Um for a program like NASA's uh getting the chemistry is right is necessary is critical. Failure to clean systems can lead to catastrophic consequences. Um so chemistries like that have a very very important role for NASA and other um agencies.
▶ 0:51:03Yes ma'am. Thank you very much. And that concludes my time. I'd like to now recognize ranking member Lorren for five
▶ 0:51:11Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh just last week the New York Times reported that the regulatory toxicology and pharmarmacology journal has retracted the 25-year-old study that concluded that glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient in the commercial weed killer Roundup did not pose a human health risk for cancer. Uh with unanimous consent, I'd like to enter the article into the record. Mr. Chairman order.
▶ 0:51:37Uh the journal cited serious ethical concerns uh regarding the author's independence and disclosure. Uh these transgressions weren't breaking news. In 2017, court records revealed that Monsanto, then the the manufacturer of Roundup, had essentially ghostritten the study. Now, the journal's editor-inchief noted that the study relied heavily on unpublished company generated data and that he had lost confidence in the results.
▶ 0:52:06Uh, and the conclusion of the study that since the authors had received financial compensation from Monsanto and didn't disclose a conflict of interest, I think it's time uh to retract this study. uh between the year 2000 and its retraction, this I think glorified press release became one of the most cited uh papers on on the chemical.
▶ 0:52:30And that's a quarter century of not being open and truthful about the harms inflicted on farm workers who use this chemical day in and day out. The article uh mentions that the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans.
▶ 0:52:57And thousands of plaintives, including farmers and gardeners um with non-hodkin lymphoma, have sued Monsan alleging uh that Roundup caused their cancer and the company had covered up its risk. In an earlier case, a jury in a California state uh court awarded $289 million to a school groundskeeper uh who uh said that this chemical had caused his cancer.
▶ 0:53:25And since then, Bayer, which has acquired this, has paid out more than 10 billion dollars to settle approximately 100,000 Roundup claims. So, um I think this raises a question. Why should anyone relying on EPA to keep them safe trust any regulation that relies on industry produced science? Dr. Myberg, does this controversy illustrate the need for independent EPA science?
▶ 0:53:53In a word, yes. And that partic I saw that particular article. It was quite disturbing to me because this question about glyphosate has come up. I realize this is a fifer question, not a TUSCa question. But right,
▶ 0:54:05if you can't rely upon the science that's presented to the agency that's a pretty good argument for why EPA needs to be able to take an independent look and I would simply note that in the statutes such as TUSCa and FIFA, um the Congress has given the EPA administrator a really tough job.
▶ 0:54:21It is one that EP that industry relies on because if EPA to use the TSI example says that a new chemical is safe then I expect that that would be the first line of defense for any company to use in in if a question comes up about the use of that chemical but that's a very heavy burden uh on EPA and speaking for myself I wouldn't want to make such a determination without having the best scientific advice that I could possibly get and while I'm not at all disparaging
▶ 0:54:51industry science. I agree with comments about the value of those science and its qualifications. But even in the best of circumstances, you would want a competent professional staff at EPA who could evaluate those things. And without that, EPA's decisions are inevitably going to be called into question.
▶ 0:55:08Thank you. Miss Bertrren, the ACC has long uh said that this chemical is safe, citing the now retracted article. Um, does the ACC plan to rethink its position on the safety of this pesticide now that the article's been retracted?
▶ 0:55:25The ACC um is a strong advocate for using the best available science, using um decision data and facts in making decisions. Um I I'm not familiar with with exactly what you've just raised.
▶ 0:55:40Um but our position is that we do want sound science to be used in decisions. Dr. Mberg, you know, I represent a lot of farm workers in California uh who have been exposed to this chemical uh in their work. Can you speak a bit about EPA's role in protecting American workers from workplace hazards, including farm workers?
▶ 0:56:06Um, I'll I'll speak in general terms that EPA does have to consider a range of exposure scenarios certainly with pesticides as well as with toxic chemicals and ask for people who are applying for certifications under either rule to to to assess those in proposing say restrictions on pesticide use that are included on labels or restrictions in uses of new chemicals.
▶ 0:56:27Now, the agency of course works closely with OSHA in developing these kind of things to try to make sure there's consistency, but that that is something that is within the agency's authority to look at those at those applications.
▶ 0:56:38Thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, my time's expired, so I yield back.
▶ 0:56:42Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Now, I'd like to recognize gentleman from Texas, uh, Representative Weber. [clears throat]
▶ 0:56:50Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to do something that's a little unorthodox perhaps. I've got five minutes. We're going to start here and I'm going to give you about 30 to 45 seconds. If you had your crystal ball here and you could get Congress to do one thing, what would it be? Dr. Gross, you're up.
▶ 0:57:10Uh, one thing I would advocate for that clarity of where we are in those uh processes, whether it's registering a new chemical um or whether we're looking at an extended use rule um for the downstream users. uh that clarity for the users would be incredibly important for us.
▶ 0:57:28Okay. Now, no copycats, right? Dr. You're next.
▶ 0:57:34Um quickly, I would first add additional staff to the TOPS review process and secondly, I would restore the independence and integrity of the Office of Research and Development.
▶ 0:57:44Boy, y'all are short and sweet and to the point, huh, Mr. Corkwell, you're up next. I I would add that we need a predictable and timely process so that we can make wise investment decisions and to be sure we're going to get the chemistry to market.
▶ 0:57:57Okay, Miss Bertran.
▶ 0:57:59All right, going last. Um, that's unfortunate because Michael, my neighbor here, just used what I was going to say
▶ 0:58:05Well, if you're really good, you can lump them all together.
▶ 0:58:08Were you making notes? [laughter]
▶ 0:58:11We need predictability, transparency. That's what manufacturers have said is that they need a regulatory environment that they um understand time frames that the time frames are met so that innovations can be moved into market.
▶ 0:58:25Is there any hope for Congress to ever get to the point where we don't mess with something once we get a good process going? Anybody? You're you're you're shaking your head. No.
▶ 0:58:36Uh no, that's I don't think the answer is is no. That there's no hope, but it takes a lot of work. I had the privilege of working in 1990 on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 and that took pretty much all of two years and was a consumed a tremendous amount of attention in the Congress and it takes a lot of work and very dedicated staff in the agency and outside parties and in the Congress
▶ 0:58:58So I'm going to go with you Mr. Corkwell with a question. In your testimony you mentioned the difference between hazard-based and riskbased regulation. Can you explain why a hazard-based approach where the focus is on theoretical harm rather than real world use can actually prevent new chemistries from reaching the market if you can't be specific about something that's happened
▶ 0:59:20Yeah, I I can certainly use an analogy that I think everyone can understand, right? A a tiger has inherent hazards. A tiger in a cage at a zoo has a much lower risk. So if you're going to consider risk based, it means considering not just the hazard of the chemistry, but how it's used and how it comes into contact with people and workers, which is why we follow OSHA standards. Right?
▶ 0:59:43That is where PE proper PP, personal protective equipment for people that both manufacture the chemistries and use the chemistries in the manufacturer of bigger products is so important.
▶ 0:59:53Does that affect us in United States competitiveness around the globe?
▶ 0:59:59Yes, it does. So, as as we mentioned during the testimony, chemistry is often the start of a long value chain. If new chemistries cannot be used here in America and or imported into America, that means the next step in that value chain, whatever you're making from those chemistries, whether it's cell phones or airplanes, is likely to be done in another country.
▶ 1:00:18No kidding. This is for all witnesses. I've got about a minute and a half. Uh last May, President Trump issued his quote gold standard in quote science executive order that directs federal agencies to improve scientific integrity, transparent reproduct reproducibility in their research and It is vital that the public has confidence right in that science to be able to make that policy. So briefly, how can the government work within now don't go back to what you said earlier, try to think of something new.
▶ 1:00:46How can the government work within the industry to improve that confidence? We're going to go from this way, Miss Bertrren, starting with you.
▶ 1:00:53How can the government work within that
▶ 1:00:55So, I think there's an opportunity for public private partnerships. That's something that has helped with NASA with its success um to find mechanisms to identify best available science um meet those standards and leverage the expertise and the information and um from industry
▶ 1:01:11and that's from NASA. Actually, I have about 6,500 people who work for the NASA subcontractors live in my district just south of the good doctor. Mr. Corkwell, what do you think?
▶ 1:01:22Yeah, I think what I would most recommend is that we look at the data that's available. The people that are doing the research for many times years, if not decades, on these new chemistries have the available data. In my particular case, our company uses EPA approved methods at thirdparty labs to do all of our toxicity tests in addition to all of the testing we do internally in our labs here in the US. And we just want to make sure that data, that ve best available science is taken into consideration and looked at. I'm sorry I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yel
▶ 1:01:51Yes, sir. Thank you very much. And I'd like to recognize Representative Bonamichi from Oregon.
▶ 1:01:56He's not here. Okay. Sorry about that. So, Representative Haley Stevens. Yeah,
▶ 1:02:01thank you. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Weber, for you know, the unorthodox approach to rapidfire questions. Certainly.
▶ 1:02:10Will the gentle lady yield me her five minutes? [laughter]
▶ 1:02:15Never. No. But uh that we we hear you all loud and clear. I I come from Michigan and we are an industrial rich uh powerhouse tied to the auto industry, defense sectors as well as aerospace. And I have a pet project here in uh my service called manufacturing Monday where I have visited hundreds of manufacturers.
▶ 1:02:39I've had a real privilege of working alongside um some of the businesses that you all know and I've seen firsthand that we cannot manufacture without chemistry. And so what Dr. Gross shared while we congratulate you and your daughter on uh her incredible life that that really resonates uh to hear that something took that long.
▶ 1:03:04We here are recognizing on the science committee that we are competing against the likes of of China and of course we want to have uh the best safety standards and regulation. I I know firsthand from seeing um chemical manufacturers up close. What goes into that safety component?
▶ 1:03:25I sit on the education and labor committee on the workforce uh uh place uh safety protections sub and of course we know you all take that very seriously but we cannot let ourselves get out competed and we don't need to become China we're not trying to become China but we are trying to win and the innovation that takes place and of course the approvals from EPA are are very important and TUSCa is front and center um you know chemical evaluation s under
▶ 1:03:55TUSCa have always required highly specialized technical expertise and over the past year that office of you know research and development uh you know it's it's continuing to toggle the the exchange with TUSCa I led a letter uh with 30 colleagues actually Democrats to the uh former administration uh this was last term highlighting the importance of a functioning TUSCa review system particularly for implementing chips and science
▶ 1:04:26inflation reduction act and a key point was the value of industry putting in shaping risk evaluations and safety requirements sometimes the best policy emerges when research moves from the lab to the shop floor which we we all know so um Miss Bertrren Dr. Gross Mr.
▶ 1:04:46Corkwell, where do you see opportunities for EPA to improve engagement with industry during TUSCa reviews without compromising the scientific integrity of the assessments? And how can EPA and industry better align the process so that risk evaluations are both scientifically robust and practical for real world use? No small task there, Miss Bertrren.
▶ 1:05:12Okay, very good. Well, I'll start with um industry does supply a lot of information while going through those processes, but sometimes what comes out of a evaluation or review um indicates that EPA may not fully understand the chemical industry or might not fully what was being evaluated.
▶ 1:05:34So, so engaging more with industry to understand the data that's sent um to utilize that information because it represents um real world scenarios, I think would be um a great improvement.
▶ 1:05:47Yeah. And helps us achieve our sustainability goals. Dr. Gross, I'd love to get you in here, too.
▶ 1:05:52Uh yeah. Um one of the things that we um we struggle with inside of Boeing is, you know, that long development timeline. um we utilize a gated development approach very similar to what NASA utilizes. And at each of those major gates, one of the things that we do is we go in and we evaluate those safety questions, those uh hazard questions is are all the chemicals that we're looking at, are they all registered with TUSCa? Um when there's ambiguity in those questions, that's where we start having to make those decisions.
▶ 1:06:21Do we pivot to something different? Do we not? Um for for us if the decision say on a a new chemical use was uh a default to no that tells us we have to pivot. We have to go look at new technology instead of carrying that ambiguity for longer and longer and longer. Um, sometimes an early no is better for us as an industry. And then if it comes up again as an opportunity later, then that maybe that's something we can take advantage of. But the ambiguity that kills our decision
▶ 1:06:51and and so maybe it's time bound considerations. And if they're not ready to give you the yes, they can give you the the no so you can pivot. Um, which allows us to move forward. And just to emphasize it, it very much uh makes the point that if we can't achieve our sustainability goals because we don't have functioning agencies, then we're not innovating. So with that, Mr. Chair, thanks for this important hearing. And sorry, Mr. Corkwell, we'll get to you next time. But I know you got a friend in our chair.
▶ 1:07:22Thank you. And now I'd like to recognize the representative from Florida, Mr.
▶ 1:07:29Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it and thanks for the witnesses being here and giving us some good expert advice. Miss Bertrand does uh [sighs] space missions require highly engineered materials to meet certain specifications uh to ensure safety and performance. Uh given your time at NASA, I know you know all that and uh familiar with the role chemistry plays in next steps.
▶ 1:07:59So, can you elaborate on how chemistry enables
▶ 1:08:05Absolutely. I'd be happy to and thank you for that question. Um, I'll go back to my testimony that chemistry is is in everything essentially. You know, it's 96% of manufacturing is touched by chemistry. When you get to something like NASA, it was my experience that it's highly important to have an understanding of how something is going to perform in a very unique um harsh environment.
▶ 1:08:34So for NASA, it has to withstand 24,000 miles per hour in a launch, 24,000 miles per hour or um more descending back to Earth. It has got to withstand temperature ranges from minus200 degrees Fahrenheit to positive 5,000 degrees Fahrenhe Fahrenheit. So over decades of missions, NASA had identified what actually can withstand those harsh environments.
▶ 1:09:02And so chemistries that are capable of being resilient are important to that mission. um having access to them and also having access to new innovations that might be in the pipeline is important too.
▶ 1:09:16Uh can you uh well are are there any ways in which the regulatory system is holding back innovation and um space
▶ 1:09:27So the right now today there's 461 new chemicals under EPA's review. 90% of those have exceeded the 90-day statutory deadline. More than 60% of those have exceeded um the review by a year or more. Those chemistries are chemistries that could be the key to new technologies and innovation in any sector including aerospace and space.
▶ 1:09:57So yes, there are um current things that are impeding innovation. So what what happens when the access to certain materials or chemicals is threatened by bands or or excessive
▶ 1:10:15Yeah, that was a real concern when I was there. Um it was one of the risks that we identified of the TUSCa um existing chemicals program. So chemicals that were already in commerce that many of those chemistries operated batteries, they operated or they were used in like the um the fabrics that were used for heat shields, um they had critical uses and while NASA successfully achieved some limited exemptions, um the concern
▶ 1:10:45was that the overall supply chain would no longer be available given the prohibitions on other uses. So it can impact um that it forces supply chains overseas. Um it forces the evaluation of alternatives where there really may not be a good alternative given the environment that NASA systems must operate in.
▶ 1:11:08So in your written testimony, you state that China's chemical manufacturing has allowed to has been allowed to get 50% of the world's chemical sales. Would you uh would this level of market share negatively impact what's going on in the future of development of for dispense defense and space missions?
▶ 1:11:33It's a concern that um over the last 20 years that the US has um fallen so so to second and that the China is now over 50% of the chemical manufacturing sales. China is following the TUSCa rulemakings. Um when I was at NASA, we noted that they had comments in the TUSCa dockets.
▶ 1:11:55Um, it is a concern if we as a United States don't have access to chemistries that are critical not only for NASA but for other federal agencies because our market is declining in something or there's prohibitions on a chemistry and it forces um it forces the use um or access to that chemistry to come from a foreign entity.
▶ 1:12:24Okay, thank you very much. I got some more questions, but it's all my time. Wheel back.
▶ 1:12:29Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Now recognize Representative Ross from North
▶ 1:12:35Thank you very much, Chairman Babin, for convening today's hearing on chemistry competitiveness. I also want to thank the distinguished panel of witnesses for being here this morning and for your thoughtfulness. Chemical research, development, and innovation play a vital role in all sectors of our economy. As you've said, the chemical economy significantly impacts global GDP, and supports millions of US jobs.
▶ 1:13:02It boosts our economy, enhances national security, improves health, promotes sustainability by creating advanced materials, life-saving drugs, and better energy solutions. It underpins in industries from healthcare to aerospace and makes lives safer and more productive. It also helps us address the climate crisis.
▶ 1:13:25Energy independence and sustainability have been at the forefront of our priorities for some time and chemistry is vital for creating the components of many of our wind turbines, solar panels, and highcapacity batteries. My home state of North Carolina is essential to all of these efforts. North Carolina is the seventh largest chemistry producing state, providing approximately 12, no 21,000 direct jobs.
▶ 1:13:56Um 1,500 of those jobs are in my district in Wake County, North Carolina. Universities like North Carolina State University are leading advancements in chemistry research and development. Last year, NC State researchers demonstrated a new technique that allows self-driving laboratories to collect at least 10 times more data than previous techniques at record speed.
▶ 1:14:24This dramatically expedites materials chemistry, discovery, and research while slashing costs and environmental impacts. And while we're here to emphasize the importance of chemistry competitiveness, the Trump administration has actively dismantled EPA's Office of Research and Development.
▶ 1:14:45Attempts to cut budgets, eliminate programs, and freeze grants undermine evidence-based environmental policies in this country and raise serious concerns about our ability to innovate in chemistry competitiveness. For the United States to lead the world in chemistry competitiveness, we need in the EPA to be able to do its job. Mr. Mayberg, I'm going to have two questions for you. So, I'd like you to be very brief on the first one, but it's very important to North Carolina.
▶ 1:15:16Having previously worked for almost four decades at the EPA, even even spending time at the amazing facility in Research Triangle Park, how important was the Office of Research and Development for reviewing potential risks for current and new chemistries? Keep in mind, I have another question.
▶ 1:15:35It was uh the short answer is it was tremendously important. It was a resource for the entire agency and across all of the agency's programs. That was where our core scientific capability existed and not only for EPA but also for states. There was a resolution recently from the environmental council of the states highlighting the importance of EPA research in OAD to their own work as well. So terribly important.
▶ 1:15:56Thank you so much. And then I'd like to um also ask you about PAS and my colleague, oh I don't see my colleague, Representative Rouseer here, but PAS has really affected his district and he and I have done a tremendous amount of bipartisan work in order to clean up PAS.
▶ 1:16:15There's a state-of-the-art um water treatment facility in his district that I've toured and the EPA and in particular the former administrator who was from North Carolina put this issue front and center. How does ORD's research on emerging contaminants like POS translate into tangible regulations that protect public health and what role does it play in addressing climate change impacts in
▶ 1:16:44Um Congresswoman, that answer to that question could go on for a long time, but the short version is that um that OAD was tremendously important in North Carolina and helping North helping uh the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality actually monitor um airborne deposition and other forms of deposition from the PAS release that occurred in North Carolina. Uh I think this illustrates a point I made in my testimony that it's a lot easier to prevent problems than it is to clean them up later.
▶ 1:17:11And if one could turn back the clock, we might have done a little more review on the introduction of some of the PAS chemicals that are now out in the environment creating a hazard to deal with. Um, I also want to note just off point, which is to thank you and the other members from North Carolina, including my own congressman, Congressman Harim and Harrian, for um for uh for your presence and concern with this issue today.
▶ 1:17:34Well, thank you so much, and I yield
▶ 1:17:36Thank you very much. I'd like to recognize a gentleman from Florida, Representative Franklin.
▶ 1:17:41Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here with us this morning. Despite the focus of today's hearing being chemical innovation, been a lot of discussion from my colleagues uh centering around EPA's internal reorganization. I think it's important to clarify some of the facts just for the record. And um you know, first among those, this notion that the reorg is something novel or unprecedented simply isn't true.
▶ 1:18:04EPA has reorganized in one way or another almost every decade since its creation in 1970 and I think it's entirely appropriate and certainly within the administration's authority uh to structure the agency in a manner that it thinks is the best best able to respond to the current conditions and challenges. Uh second as as chairman Baba noted in his opening remarks uh EPA's office of research and development still exists. It hasn't been disbanded and several of its offices remain staffed.
▶ 1:18:31This is in addition to hundreds of other dedicated scientists who've been redeployed to other offices within EPA to better integrate science across the agency. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a unanimous consent to enter um the EPA's organizational chart for the OARD uh into the record. It's current and was last updated in October 25th.
▶ 1:18:50So ordered. Yes, sir.
▶ 1:18:51Thank you, Chairman. When uh administrator Zeldon took over the EPA at the beginning of last year, he inherited a backlog of 504 new chemicals in review that were beyond the statutorial uh required time frames and over 12,000 pesticide reviews that were well beyond their expected timelines. Less than 10 months later, EPA has announced it significantly reduced the backlog. And the key here, I think we all understand, we're not looking to pencil whip things to get them out the door.
▶ 1:19:17We all obviously want things done safely and it's a it's a matter of just doing it efficiently. I would say we owe the administration an opportunity to see if they have if they have think they can find a better mousetrap to make the system work better. I think we should do it. Um because it's clear the previous structure wasn't working. Uh to me, Mr. Corkwell, your your story to hear that Lubberall waited 5 years for a determination that um TUSCa prescribes a 90-day review period is absurd. Uh Dr.
▶ 1:19:44Gross, the the 16 years you've waited on on uh your application just is outrageous. And that's the kind of thing that just drives people uh crazy out there. We want it done right, but these clearly are it's not it's not functioning well and the and the ambiguity I think is killing us. Companies can't afford such delays. Uh you know in the private sector time is money and it's not all about money. Don't hear the wrong message.
▶ 1:20:05This is we obviously want to do things safely but we've got to encourage innovators and um you know companies a lot of times their literal survival depends on timely responses. As you had noted Dr. to grow. Just give us something. Give us some take away the ambiguity. Tell us which direction, but don't just stonewall us and let the air out of the ball. Um, as a nation, America's ability to innovate and compete in the chemical space depends on a well functioning EPA. And as Mr.
▶ 1:20:29Corkwell uh stated so well in his testimony, the US must develop science-based, riskbased regulations that will incentivize the development of new chemistry that meets the needs of the market at the speed required. and uh you know EPA was failing our innovations but thankfully there there's a new sheriff in town that's my opinion I know that's not shared by all across the the dis here but but I'm encouraged by what I see uh and to that point Bertrram from your vantage point representing nearly 200 American chemical manufacturers how has
▶ 1:20:59prolonged regulatory uncertainty affected decisions by your ACC members about things like whether to to maintain their investment production capacity or to take it elsewhere outside of the United States. Thank you for that question. Over the last um 10 years since 2016 uh the number of new chemicals that have been submitted to EPA for review has declined by 67%.
▶ 1:21:22So this is um what happens is that manufacturing companies have to decide if United States is the right place to come to market. Um they might consider going elsewhere. they want to manufacture in the United States but given the regulatory uncertainty it can drive them overseas where they might have better clarity. Um if something is comes to market overseas it still cannot be imported into the United States. So it takes the entire value chain with it.
▶ 1:21:52So that the new innovations that can come out of that new chemistry are by our laws have to stay overseas. So we lose a lot. Just in a followup a little bit to a question you were asked before but just another bite at the apple here. In your view, what's the single biggest federal process that Congress can make uh change to the process that would restore our US competitiveness in space?
▶ 1:22:16US competitiveness space. We need to have transparent, predictable, science-based regulations that are well
▶ 1:22:25Great. Thank you, chairman. I yield
▶ 1:22:27Great. Thank you very much. And now uh the representative from Oregon, Selenus.
▶ 1:22:34Thank you, Chair Babin, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Like um some of my colleagues on the Democratic side, I am deeply concerned by the administration's attacks on science across government, including their unilateral decision to eliminate EPA's office of R&D. And while I do appreciate our witness's concerns about the chemical safety review process impeding innovation and therefore um a lot of processes within business, um EPA is charged with protecting human health and the environment.
▶ 1:23:04And so we have to figure out what this balance looks like. Dr. Mberg, in Oregon, Nike is working to innovate safer, more sustainable replacements for hazardous chemicals. But as long as dangerous chemicals remain on the market, there's less economic incentive for companies like Nike to invest in cleaner, more sustainable alternatives. How can Congress best support the development of safer chemistries?
▶ 1:23:28And what role does strong independent science have in supporting our competitiveness with customers that actually value
▶ 1:23:36Um, Congresswoman, thank you so much for that question. Um, that speaks to a couple of things. One is EPA's ability to use TUSCa to address existing chemical risks as well as new chemicals that historically new chemicals have always had urgency behind them.
▶ 1:23:50Um I'll I'll pass aside for the moment the the 90day 90-day deadline set in 1976 and and for 50 years has been an issue in terms of meeting that deadline, but that's always been the one that's sort of yelled the loudest and the one that's been most held up has been the review of existing chemicals. Now, the 19 the 2016 and Lottenberg amendments were intended to help provide additional tools for that, but it's still been a very slow process.
▶ 1:24:15And to your point, one of the things you can do to help stimulate innovation, which includes both efficacy and safety um is to address some of the chemicals on the market now that may not meet the same criteria that you would want to have for a new chemical.
▶ 1:24:31Great. Building on that, um, foreign markets, including the EU, have significantly, oftentimes more stringent chemical safety requirements in the US. By undermining the scientific rigor behind EPA's chemical safety determinations and limiting some of the transparency into the data, are we making it harder for American businesses to participate in some of these markets?
▶ 1:24:51Uh that's an excellent question because as you note most companies do business all over the world and many parts of the world have um particularly in Europe with the reach um uh protocols have some pretty stringent markets and my own what I hear back from businesses they want to have consistent requirements to make sure that you're meeting you're you they can do business everywhere.
▶ 1:25:12In fact, that was one of the main arguments behind the 2016 amendments was that in the absence of more um stronger EPA authorities, individual states, and I think Oregon was one of them, were adopting their own requirements. And so the idea was to strengthen TUSCa. So that in exchange for providing more consistency across the country and if the belief is that TUSCa is not doing the job, then I think you may see a resurgence of some of these specific things which would create additional impediments for business.
▶ 1:25:40Thank you, Mr. Corkwell and and Dr. Gross. Um, in your testimonies, you both emphasize the importance of long-term regulatory certainty and a reliance on sound science for fostering innovation at your companies. Does limiting EPA's access to the best available science improve the long-term certainty of chemical regulations? And does it make it the AY's determinations or um more or less susceptible to change as political priorities actually shift over time?
▶ 1:26:10I'll I'll start. I think when we said what is very important to us is a predictable timeline and predictability doesn't mean predictable for two years or four years or five years. As you heard many of these developments are five and 10 years long. We need predictability in the long term but we do need a process that looks at the science and the actual technology associated with those products.
▶ 1:26:30At Lubresol we make some very very specialty chem chemistry which means we are looking at very small tweaks in molecules to give us different performance or better environmental uh aspects. So when we lump all chemistries of a type together we miss out on that opportunity to see the fine differentiations between them which is most of the research my company does.
▶ 1:26:50Thank you Dr. Gross. This is definitely an important question um for Boeing in that we have those extended timelines. You mentioned uh the European Union's reach organization. Um one of the the things there uh Boeing definitely looks during our development cycle. We look at all of those global regulations as well because we are a global company. Um and knowing what potential challenges are coming forward.
▶ 1:27:18So what may be regulated in the future um not just what's in the pipeline today is definitely part of that look that we go to. So again going back to you know visibility. It's not just what's in today for you know a new extended use. It's what's potentially coming up the pipeline and then what's potentially going to be regulated in the future. So you when we talk about ambiguity it's across that whole life cycle.
▶ 1:27:43So improving that visibility of what may be a concern 10 years from now versus what's a concern today would definitely benefit us as a manufacturing company.
▶ 1:27:52Thank you. My time is expired. I yield
▶ 1:27:56Thank [clears throat] you. And now the representative from California, Mr.
▶ 1:28:01Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and uh thanks for convening this hearing on what's a critically important topic, I think, for everyone here on the DIS. Uh Mr. Corkwell, I'd like to start with you. I was very interested in your testimony about uh the new dialectric fluid for immersion cooling and AI that Lubrazole is developing.
▶ 1:28:20Um I was chairman of the House AI task force last uh Congress and one of the things that we are trying to raise awareness of is the uh the necessity for expanding the use of liquid cooling and AI data centers to minimize the environmental footprint of those data centers, particularly non- evaporative liquid cooling. uh and it seems like that's what you're focused on as well.
▶ 1:28:42Could you tell us a little bit more about that technology and uh the challenges that you see in accelerating adoption of emerging cooling for uh for data centers? Yeah, thank you very much and uh we are very interested in that and and supportive of your efforts there. And if anyone has a doubt as to the difference between air cooling, which is what we use today in data centers, and liquid cooling, the difference is walking outside on a 30°ree day or jumping in a pool of 30°ree water.
▶ 1:29:09Liquid cooling is just enormously much more effective at heat transfer. And when we look at data centers, one of the critical issues is the electricity they use. And much of that electricity, as much as 40 or 50% is used in running the fans and compressors to do the cooling. Moving to liquid cooling solves so many of those problems. So, Lubresol is developing products in those areas.
▶ 1:29:32To my knowledge, there's there's nothing being held up right now with a uh PMN at at EPA, but it speaks to the innovation. This is a very new field, lots of innovation happening, and we're going to be able need to be able to be timely in what we do, and we may have to have new chemistries coming forward with that. And we just need that predictable process so we can make those investments and keep that chemistry coming so that innovation happens here rather than
▶ 1:29:57Right. Well, keep up the good work. And I would be remiss if I didn't use this as a shameless opportunity to plug uh the bill that I've sponsored, HR5332, the liquid cooling for AI act. are trying to uh not only raise awareness of the benefits of liquid cooling but also to try and stimulate new uh research and development uh to to make sure that uh that we keep as you say America on the forefront. Uh Dr. Mayberg, I' I've been very interested in your testimony.
▶ 1:30:24I mean obviously we are very concerned that we get reauthorization of uh TUSCa right. Um, and I think we can all agree we want to get the EPA scientific research and development processes right.
▶ 1:30:39And that means striking this, you know, critically important balance between on the one hand, uh, providing the environmental protection that TUSCO was intended to, but on the other hand, minimizing the bureaucratic delay for the approval of uh, chemicals that are actually safer and and you know that that might if those delays happen here, push that innovation overseas. Can you talk about how we balance these priorities and what we need to do to get that reauthorization right?
▶ 1:31:08Um, Congressman, thank you very much for that question. And I can talk about it in general terms. I can't talk about it about specific chemicals or circumstances, but that's what I'm looking for. Right.
▶ 1:31:17But, uh, but in general, there are a couple of things. One is I agree with the comment that was made earlier is that make sure people are talking to each other. That's always important. Um because one of the reasons that causes delays in my experience um with EPA is that you that the EPA reviewers ask for information that maybe should have come in when the application did and then you find out midway through the review period that you need additional information to gauge exposure or other risk. And it is indeed a risk assessment both hazard and exposure. And so those things are both important.
▶ 1:31:47And if you don't have the information that you need to sort of make a recommendation with confidence, you're sort of stuck. And that's partly what goes on with some of the delays on this. And so an analysis, a really good analysis of the sources of the delays would be useful, I think, in crafting an appropriate remedy because it var it varies from case to case.
▶ 1:32:06Right. Like to throw it open to the rest of the panel with a minute I have left. Anyone else want to take a stab on what does it mean to get uh the EPA's scientific research and development process right? What does that mean? I will say as a downstream user again of chemicals, we don't develop the chemicals, we're the users. Um we do look for what comes out of those reviews um for things that go into like safety data sheets.
▶ 1:32:35So when we uh we mentioned earlier uh personal protective equipment you know for our users things like that we look to the science for what's the right way to utilize these new chemistries these new formulations to protect our workers to protect you know our customers and so it it is critical to have that correct in the long term for a user like Boeing
▶ 1:32:55right well I want to thank everyone for your testimony and it'll take the collaboration of everyone across the stakeholder spectrum uh to get this reauthorization right so we appreciate you being here you'll Thank you. Gentleman's [clears throat] time is expired. Now I'd like to recognize Representative Fushi from North Carolina.
▶ 1:33:12Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. North Carolina serves as an epicenter of environmental science and engineering research. The EPA campus at RTP annually contributes over $245 million within the region and $262 statewide.
▶ 1:33:36However, the Trump administration's efforts to drastically gut the EPA, particularly its office of research and development, directly harms North Carolinian communities and stifles economic growth.
▶ 1:33:52And in response to the notion that ORD still exists, EPA themselves stated that their intention to eliminate ORD ORD's research labs have been reassigned to the new applied science office within the office of the administrator and 90% of ORD's employees have either left the agency or been reassigned to other offices.
▶ 1:34:16EPA admitted they do not know what to do with the remaining 130 OARD staff, but they are working on plans on where to place them, and they have announced riffs targeting an unknown number of them. So, yes, OARD is gone.
▶ 1:34:33Hollowing out ORD functions and federal science funding will severely damage the EPA's ability to make informed evidence-based decisions as well as jeopardize public health, economic activity, university research capabilities, and environmental protections for local communities.
▶ 1:34:55The Environmental Protection Network predicts that the Trump administration's cuts to scientific research and roll backs of environmental regulations will lead to nearly 200,000 premature US deaths through 2050 and trigger more than 10,000 asthma attacks each day These impacts can lead to missed school and work days as well as increased emergency
▶ 1:35:25care. So my first question to Miss Bertrand, Dr. Gross, and Mr. Corkwell. In what ways has the Trump administration's actions that I have just described hindered industry and US companies like ACC members, Boeing or Lubresol in achieving their goals on chemical research and innovation and keeping the US ahead and competitive internationally.
▶ 1:35:54Miss Bertrren, we'll start with you. So the information that I have and I know of of organizational change comes from the press, but ACC currently and a longstanding advocates for EPA to have the necessary resources to um accomplish all of their statutory missions including the TUSCa mission um at hand.
▶ 1:36:20Yeah. Yeah, let me first state that Lubresol believes we we do need a good regulatory process and in doing so we need a process that's timely and predictable. It it is not my position to say how Congress or the EPA accomplishes that. But what I can tell you is what we need from the EPA in order to keep moving forward is a timely predictable science-based system that we can use.
▶ 1:36:43Thank you for the question, Representative. Um I've mentioned earlier that you know we use this uh development process um the gated process and that our development timelines are very long um and as Boeing is you know dedicated to complying with all the the regulations um we do have to be administration agnostic our you know development cycles will span potentially multiple administrations and and to that end we we just have to be flexible and so um I
▶ 1:37:13I I can't comment comment on specific changes from administration to administration um because that's just the reality of our timelines.
▶ 1:37:21Thank you for your responses. Dr. Mberg, under the current administration's proposed budget cuts, EPA's funding would be reduced by 54%, including a 34% reduction in scientific support functions and the complete gutting of EPA's Office of Research and Development.
▶ 1:37:41These actions will eliminate up to 75% of the workforce, severely undermining the EPA's research capacity and harms local communities, particularly within its largest OD facility at the research triangle park located in my district. You have worked at EPA for 39 years, witnessing firsthand the critical work that ORD performs.
▶ 1:38:06Can you tell us why it is important for industry and US competitiveness and for public health and the constituents we all represent to preserve the scientific capacities of the OD
▶ 1:38:22I realize time has expired I very
▶ 1:38:24very quickly
▶ 1:38:25yeah very quickly that EPA is important for the public in providing assurance that decisions that are made about chemical use are safe and it's important for industry in providing as other witnesses that certainty and predictability and it's important I think for the world in establishing that innovation includes both efficacy and
▶ 1:38:45Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
▶ 1:38:48Thank you. Uh and now the representative from Tennessee, Mr. Fleshman.
▶ 1:38:53Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um and to the distinguished panel, thank you very much. Um one of my other functions, as a matter of fact, today I'm the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of Appropriations. So, we're in the process of passing a very strong bipartisan bicameal u energy and water bill. Uh but I could not do my job without chemists. Uh I do a lot of work with the nuclear industry. So, uh to each and every one of you all who are participating. Thank you to the American Chemistry Council.
▶ 1:39:23Tremendous years of affinity and work with you all. So, thank you for your discipline and and your profession. Um I want to start with my question for Mr. Corkwell. Uh sir, you've talked about innovation and the importance of bringing safer, more efficient chemistries to market. Can you share how Lubresol collaborates with customers and equipment manufacturers during the development to ensure these solutions meet real world needs and deliver the performance improvements they're looking
▶ 1:39:52Yeah, thank you for the question. So for nearly a hundred years, Lubresol existed starting in a garage in Cleveland, Ohio. And all of that time it has been about science, technology and improving performance through chemistry. That continues today by working with those others in our value chain uh like the engine manufacturers, the vehicle manufacturers, the industrial equipment manufacturers to set up the test that meet the criteria to demonstrate the use of agriculture equipment during harvest and to find some of those most extreme
▶ 1:40:22conditions that can cause your oil to age prematurely or your engine to wear prematurely. to make sure the products we are innovating are helping those products last longer, produce less emissions, and use less fuel. So, innovation means being able to change those molecules and bring those new chemistries to market to replace older ones so that we can have better efficiency and better environmental
▶ 1:40:48Thank you. Appreciate that response. Miss Bertrren, uh, you represent companies making significant research and development investment decisions. Can you quantify how regulatory uncertainty under the Toxic Substance and Control Act affects the timeline and cost of bringing new chemicals to market? What specific reforms would provide the certainty needed to keep chemical innovation in the United States rather than moving overseas?
▶ 1:41:17Yes, thank you for that question. Um last I guess in 2024 um uh chemical manufacturing sector invested 14.8 billion dollars into research and development. That is private sector money. That's not taxpayer money that goes towards new chemistries, new products, new manufacturing ideas.
▶ 1:41:35when there are delays um in actually approving new innovations or if there's uncertainty as to whether or not there could be approval achieved in the United States. Um it's more than just an administrative impact. This is an impact where companies have to make a decision as to whether or not there's a different market for them to invest in overseas.
▶ 1:41:59And one of the things that comes with it is that if a chemistry moves overseas um and it is manufactured overseas, it still cannot be imported into the United States. So all of the uses of that innovative chemistry, the innovative technology that comes out of it will also stay out overseas. So it puts the United States dependent on foreign
▶ 1:42:22Thank you very much. I appreciate that perspective. And again, once again to each and every one of you all, thank you for great testimony. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
▶ 1:42:30Thank you, sir. [cough and clears throat] And now the uh uh general representative Sykes from Ohio. Sorry.
▶ 1:42:39Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh and I appreciate you and and the ranking member for holding this hearing today. Uh and I I'm from Ohio as well, so certainly have a long history with uh chemical manufacturing, manufacturing as a whole. You you said Lubresol for example, Mr. Corkwell started in Cleveland, Ohio. So I certainly will uh direct a lot of my conversation towards you. Uh and Akran, where I'm from, born and raised and represent is was formerly the rubber capital of the world.
▶ 1:43:07And so uh we have a long history of manufacturing, particularly rubber manufacturing. And today the sustainable polymers tech hub tech hub is based in my district continues that and we're very proud of that work. Uh the polymer industry cluster uh is researching these sustainable polymers to scale up production and promote workforce development.
▶ 1:43:28And it's been supported by more than $80 million in federal and state uh investments, much of it from this committee, which I I'm very proud to sit on uh as well. And so certainly our community's hard work and talent has produced a lot of the economic growth and continues to attract investment. But while our labor may be for sale, our health is not.
▶ 1:43:51And decades of inadequate regulation over these chemical industries means that everyone in Akran has a friend or family member with a cancer story. Uh in fact, studies like ProPublic has shown that neighborhoods in Akran like Summit Lake have and Kinmore continue to pose lifetime cancer risk from industrial pollution that are nearly twice the EPA's acceptable levels. Now I understand and I appreciate uh the need to get products to market.
▶ 1:44:19Uh without that innovation and those products getting to market uh we would not have the history that we have. But unfortunately that good history comes with some bad. Uh and you made a comment and I just lost my notebook. Oh, there it goes. Uh Mr. Corkwell that it is it's really nice when you get it right, but when you get it wrong, it's really bad. But you didn't mention about what happens when you get it wrong. Um, and sometimes you all get it wrong.
▶ 1:44:46So, for example, in Ohio, there's been 422 enforcement cases under the Toxic Substance and Control Act, resulting in nearly $27 million recouped from responsible parties from federal penalties. And it's been very critical uh also outside of my district in East Palestine uh from the train derailment where we saw polyurethane released into the atmosphere in the air and in the water. Um, but that's just one of the only examples. Uh, Mr.
▶ 1:45:14Chair, I'd like to request unanimous consent to enter into the record a September 24th, 2025 article from Cleveland.com regarding an incident that took place just an hour north of my district. According to the article in September 16th, the Lubers off facility in Avon Lake accidentally released 20 pounds of polyurethane into a nearby creek and failed to notice a leak and fail and Lubers failed to notice a leak and only responded to it after a local resident notified its town
▶ 1:45:42So ordered.
▶ 1:45:43Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm going to guess that uh that spillage into bodies of water does not fall into the company's specific use cases that you're advocating for. So Mr. Corkwell, did the did Lubberol submit research to EPA that assessed the health and environmental risks of dumping 20 pounds of polyurethane into a creek? And are you currently reimbursing Avon Lake for the full cost of the response to this?
▶ 1:46:06Thank you for your question. Uh I can't comment specifically on the case there, but what I can tell you is Lubazol believes very strongly in safety. We start every meeting of every day with safety. We start every day and every plant with safety discussions. the incident you talk about in Avon Lake, the 20 pounds that were released from the facility. I know they were very quickly cleaned up uh and and it was responded to, but more importantly, Lizol learns the lessons from these to try to make sure that none of these incidents can happen again. There can be no further releases.
▶ 1:46:36This is something that is a core bedrock of our company is to try to be better every day, particularly when it comes to safety.
▶ 1:46:43Thank you, Mr. Corp. I think that you and all of the industries present and witnesses believe in safety as do I. Uh and as a member of this committee from Ohio, I am shocked that you weren't prepared to answer that question. Um it it's not a surprise. This just happened in September. Um and to me that makes me concerned about your preparation for this committee.
▶ 1:47:09makes me less confident in your preparation in dealing with companies and spiels. Uh this was that was an alleyoop. That was an easy one. We like basketball references in Ohio and Akan too. So um you know it's no question that our community wouldn't be what it is today uh without industry and and certainly we want to work with you and I hope that you don't take my line of questioning as I don't want your industry to thrive or survive because I want it to but I really want my community to survive and thrive as well. Uh so thank you for your response.
▶ 1:47:39Hopefully uh you'll be willing to give us more answers so I can uh even though I don't represent the folks from Avon Lake, I do recognize and we learned this from East Palestine Pollution knows no geographic bounds. Uh and so we look forward to your response and thank you Mr. Chair. I yield back.
▶ 1:47:53Time's expired. Uh now I'd like to recognize the uh representative from North Carolina, Mr. Rouseer.
▶ 1:47:59Thank you uh Mr. Chairman. I appreciate each of the witnesses being here today. Interesting uh subject for sure. uh regulatory reform has been a focus of mine for a long long time. So and additionally I guess I might add uh in a previous life I was in the executive branch.
▶ 1:48:15So some of what I'm going to ask uh is directly related to uh some of my observations over the years and I'll start with this uh you know talking about regulatory delays and and all those all those issues associated with it. How much of that is really the regulation versus management and uh meaning uh you know we've always done it this way in the agency and we're always going to do it this way. Uh I open that up to everybody.
▶ 1:48:48Congressman, I'll take a little bit of a of a stab at that and the answer is that it's very difficult to say it's one thing or another. It just depends on the circumstances. There's no question that leadership is always important and making decisions is always important. And in my testimony, I referenced the fact that the decisions that the statutes give the EPA administrator to make are hard determinations.
▶ 1:49:10Um, and the main concern I have in speaking to this is that the agency have the institutional capacity to make those decisions and do them in a good way. It's also true that the agency needs decision-making processes and I was very proud that administrators I worked for took that responsibility to make those decisions uh as expeditiously as they could even when they were going to be controversial and so um I it's not to say not to avoid the question but in some ways you have to have both
▶ 1:49:41no neither one by itself will be helpful.
▶ 1:49:44Yeah. Anybody else have any comment on that front? How do we compare with Canada? same product, same uh you know what's the regulatory process there? How quickly do they get them approved versus we have gone from being one of the fastest most predictable systems for getting new chemicals into market and through a review to one of the slowest um least predictable regulatory environments for
▶ 1:50:14new chemistries. So other um other uh countries including Canada have a more predictable reliable process um for getting new innovation to
▶ 1:50:27So is the regulation itself or or what what's what's the main difference there? Um I I think the main difference is that there there is more there's more certainty with um the timeliness of an outcome from other countries than than ours right now that has a commitment within TUSCa for 90 days and yet um 90% of the chemistries that are submitted um don't meet that deadline 60% of them exceed a one year.
▶ 1:50:58Do we have all the tools most modern tools available to uh to do this?
▶ 1:51:08Again, I um I'll sort of repeat a comment I made earlier which I think staffing is actually is a real issue and the resources available to do this work because it is a tough decision for the administrator. The administrator deserves the best possible advice they can get and simply to handle the volume of work and is is important.
▶ 1:51:27the dead the deadline that Congress set of 90 days is a very tough deadline when you think about 18 or 16 years of process development and efficacy and things and you think okay 90 days to determine whether or not it's safe. Um that's a that's a an interesting an interesting comparison and it's across administrations and across you know across administrators this has been a thing that the agencies struggle with for a long time. So it suggests that there may be some structural problem in the way in which it's set up.
▶ 1:51:54Yeah. I I remember during my time in the executive branch uh [clears throat] you know blackberries were quite popular and I was very surprised to learn even just a few years ago that in some places they're still utilizing blackberries. I didn't even know they could be serviced. Uh so uh anyhow you know the government is always a little behind the private sector uh when it comes to innovation and and implementing the tools of uh innovation. Uh which is which is why I ask uh you know that question.
▶ 1:52:20I I am pleased to report that by the time that when I left in 2016, we did have
▶ 1:52:28AI does that have uh great potential here to improve the regulatory process?
▶ 1:52:34Artificial intelligence.
▶ 1:52:35Yeah, I I certainly think that AI is a um positive. [clears throat] There's an opportunity there to start utilizing new new tools with AI. I mean, it's emerging. It's something that ACC has invested in um has has recently had uh conversations with EPA about how AI can be used um to help improve some of the work that they're doing and make it um quicker.
▶ 1:53:02With that, Mr. Chairman, my time just expired. I yield back.
▶ 1:53:05Thank [clears throat] you, sir. Now, Representative Bonamichi from Oregon. Thank you very much to the chairman, to the ranking member, and thank you to the witnesses for being here and for bringing your your expertise. Uh we we know that chemistry can drive innovation, but we also know that it should not be done without sound science behind it. You know, Congress created the EPA. I think everybody acknowledged that this morning to protect human health and the environment.
▶ 1:53:32Uh but I'll add that the purpose is not to fasttrack profits. It's to protect human health and the environment. So last year when the Trump administration shut down the EPA's office of research and development and then fired or displaced hundreds of scientists and dismantled the independent research backbone that chemical regulators depend on to function. That decision did not streamline anything. It weakened chemical safety. It undermined public trust and it slowed down the reviews industry claims to care about.
▶ 1:54:01So I want to ask you Dr. Mberg a couple of questions from your experience. Does independent research at OARD speed decision-making and innovation and how would gutting or eliminating this office increase uncertainty, litigation risk and delay?
▶ 1:54:16Uh, thank you very much for that question. The OD work makes I think decisions in the long run more streamlined. It sometimes can create more discussion because you get different perspectives from different parts of the agency. And this is not unlike any other organization where you have people who bring different points of view. From the standpoint of an administrator, what you really want is all of those perspectives and then to make a decision.
▶ 1:54:40So in in my jud in my experience, a little bit of upfront uh controversy in the front end, saves you a lot of time in the back end because you get better decisions that are less subject to litigation risk and to being overturned is arbitrary and capriccious.
▶ 1:54:54Sounds sounds very reasonable. Uh and Dr. Dr. Mberg, we know um EPA's vision from the time it was created uh has been about protecting health and the environment, but I want to talk a little bit about TUSCa and how TUSCa depends on that rigorous independent science and I heard Miss Bertrren in her her testimony talk about how the process is too slow.
▶ 1:55:16Um will you talk about how the effect of you know gutting or eliminating ODR how does that make the system does it make it faster safer or more trustworthy um for that pro for the tuska process?
▶ 1:55:31Again I'll just speak from from my observation experience. I don't think it makes the the process more trustworthy which in some ways is the most important part. um a fast decision that doesn't people don't have confidence in is not going to be a decision in the long run that will be in industry's interest or the public's interest and I think OD gave insights in in this particular area and OAD is useful in so many areas across the agency that I'm not just speaking really about about TUSCa reviews but I do think that
▶ 1:56:01uh that anything that weakens people's confidence that EPA is in fact using as as everyone has spoken to the best available science in making decisions is really um is really not going to be in the interest of of anybody any of the actors in the system.
▶ 1:56:15I' I've been here long enough and on this committee long enough to agree with what you said and I want to ask you, Miss Bertrand, because I did hear your your testimony and obvious we're always looking for smarter, better ways to do things. Um and you know, we've heard criticisms that the chemical review process is slow, but can you talk about why it's important that TUSCa requires EPA to base safety determinations on the best available science? It's I mean the goal isn't to say we're going to speed this for the convenience of a corporation. We we want the best available science.
▶ 1:56:44So can you talk a little bit about um how that process could be expedited in a safe way uh that uses the best available science?
▶ 1:56:55Thank you for the question. So the best available science would include in this process working closely with submitters of of innovations on gathering up the data that is necessary to conduct the review and when it's in hand using that information as part of the review.
▶ 1:57:14So, um, using science that's available, using science that is, um, uh, based off of the weight of the evidence and working in in a partnership with the companies that are doing the submissions, I think, would help speed up that process.
▶ 1:57:30Thank you. And I I'll note for the record that Dr. Mayberg was nodding his head in agreement if if you agree. So, I want to ask you, Miss Bertrren, do you agree with Dr. not Mayberg uh that eliminating or gutting uh the uh ODR will make the process slower not faster for TUSCa review.
▶ 1:57:51So what what ACC advocates for is that there is a um there are adequate resources for EPA to conduct all of their statutory requirements, including the statutory requirements for timely review of new chemicals and the review of um existing
▶ 1:58:10Okay. And and and I will add as I yield back that in in my opinion and from what I've heard today, gutting or eliminating ODR is not going to further that goal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. uh [clears throat] recognize representative self from Texas, please.
▶ 1:58:24Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to build on uh the comments of my uh colleague from North Carolina on artificial intelligence. Uh because this hearing is supposed to talk about the creation of new chemicals, the new uses of existing chemicals and AI. Uh this committee has heard testimony from other witnesses that AI plus quantum computing will yield us uh progress of not 10 times not a hundred times but 10,000 times.
▶ 1:58:54So I understand that it takes two things. You need a data set. Well you guys have been dealing with chemistry for a hundred plus years now. So you have a data set I think and it requires a known structure in this case. And if there's anything that has a known structure, it's chemistry. It's chemicals. Uh so we're already seeing gigantic jumps in medicine, developing new medicines through AI.
▶ 1:59:23So I want to kind of uh talk about two things. The creation of new chemicals. Why could we not use AI, artificial intelligence, machine learning? Because you're talking about tweaking. I think one of you talked about tweaking molecules. that looks to me to be right in the wheelhouse of AI. Uh so let's talk about creation of this of new chemicals or tweaking. Who would like to take that on
▶ 1:59:49I believe that was my comment. So I'm happy to uh to expand on that. Uh in terms of AI and modeling, we use that in our internal research all the time when we're trying to predict the performance of new chemistries, whether it's for wear or fuel economy or or anything else, including toxicity. Um, and I think it speeds up the process tremendously and we've been doing it for a very long time because we do have some large databases around how certain chemistries perform.
▶ 2:00:15It allows us to narrow the funnel much more quickly to get to chemistries that we think will be In my company, we still go to real testing at the end. It just makes the process much faster to get to what you think is a suitable solution.
▶ 2:00:33I thought you would bring up testing. Is there a way and I realize this is may be controversial but one of the things that we found in the defense industry is testing often is requires over testing. Uh so your comments on your testing process are our regulations government regulations forcing you to overest. Yeah, great comment there. There are some places where overtesting is is a must, right? We we talked about uh space flight. We talked about some engine uses.
▶ 2:01:03You want to test the most extreme conditions even if they're on the edge of of reality. I think when it comes to the use of chemistry, one of the things we would recommend again is that risk based, not hazard based to understand the hazards of the chemistry, but then to really understand the risk of how it is used in its process. In many cases, the chemistries I deal with are used only in industrial processes. are not ever seen or touched by normal
▶ 2:01:27Dr. Gross, any comments
▶ 2:01:30um with inside of Boeing risk based testing is is definitely we take on and that's all done in that framework of the regulations of which we have to comply. So FAA within their their guide work um you know I mentioned in my written or my oral testimony about um durable materials and we have to demonstrate that to the FAA um for typeert for the life of the airplane.
▶ 2:01:55So whatever that performance envelope is um and so sometimes that may look like over testing but um it's it's a requirement and it's it's it's really important for us to get that right. Well, the president is pushing the defense industry now dramatically to produce faster. So, I think this is one of the areas where we're going to have to accept more risk. Uh, I want to go now to review. Uh, this may be for you, Dr. Mberg. Uh, the the review using AI.
▶ 2:02:25Do you have any comments on the po potential use of AI in the review
▶ 2:02:30Um, my comments are necessarily a bit speculative. I have the same hopes for AI and its speeding up of things that everybody else does. I will note that the office of research and development developed the whole field of computational toxicology which actually has been used to try to expedite reviews over the the previous thing by looking at uh structure analysis comparisons to be able to make inferences about how new chemistries may relate to the chemistries of some of the existing chemicals.
▶ 2:02:57So the agency has been committed to try to speed those things up and reduce the need for say animal testing and things like that for many years and looking at chemicals. Um as to I hesitate to make predictions about exactly what AI will do in this field but I think the agency and this is me speaking only on for myself. I would think the agency will be open to opportunities to help use the AI to help make those kind of comparisons.
▶ 2:03:22Well, I've heard too few comments in in my mind about AI in this field because you have the data sets, you have the uh you have the known structure. It looks to me like this is a wheelhouse of chemistry. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 2:03:36Thank you. [clears throat] And um who's next? [snorts] Uh representative from Delaware, Representative McBride.
▶ 2:03:43Thank you uh very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much to you and rep uh ranking member Lofrren for convening this hearing on chemistry competitiveness and thank you so much to our witnesses for bringing forward your expertise uh and sacrificing your time today to speak with us. Wilmington is often called the chemical capital a title earned through a long history of chemical innovation.
▶ 2:04:06Delaware is the birthplace of nylon, teflon, kevlar and Gortex materials that fundamentally changed how Americans live. And while these products were brought to market by industry, their development would not have been possible without the basic science carried out at our national labs and premier research institutions. For instance, work carried out by Dr.
▶ 2:04:28Joseph Fox's research group at the University of Delaware led to to the development of the tetrazine liation, the fastest known chemical reaction that can take place inside a living system without affecting the living system itself. This work is now used in the development of medical imaging, targeted cancer therapy and wound dressing among other purposes.
▶ 2:04:48In another example, a collaboration at the University of Delaware uh is developing the environmental protection garment shell which will be which will form the outer layer of space suits to prevent lunar dust particles from penetrating the material. This lifesaving and fundamental work is made possible through funding provided by the federal government.
▶ 2:05:09Government funds are essential and integral and they help to fund research that market forces alone do not always incentivize. It's this research that helps commercialization poss make make commercialization possible and it's imperative that Congress continues to provide funds for independent worldclass research that saves lives and improves our economy. Innovation does not uh innovation does not end with invention.
▶ 2:05:38It's critical that the manufacturing, storage, use, and disposal of these chemicals and their byproducts is monitored and responsibly regulated to protect the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the land we depend on. Congress must continue to provide monetary support from fundamental research, back research scientists, and trust the peer-reviewed science that helps keep Americans across the country healthy and safe. And and my first question is to Dr. Mayberg.
▶ 2:06:05Federal funding supports the basic chemical research that helps industry develop products for commercialization, but it also, as we've talked about throughout today's hearing, underpins independent safety science. What are the consequences for public health and US global competitiveness when EPA lacks the resources or sta staffing to independently evaluate chemical risks?
▶ 2:06:30Um, thank you very much, Congresswoman, for that question. Um the basic issue there is that and we there was some discussion of data sets earlier and that's a very relevant point here because while there's a tremendous amount of data there also data sets that are missing about potential exposure cases for example so that you can do risk based evaluation and not hazard-based evaluation because it's entirely correct that when you think about risk it's a combination of hazard and exposure but if you don't know what the fate and transport is of chemicals
▶ 2:07:00in the environment then you can't do a very good a job of assessing what potential exposures would be. And that this is one of the issues that comes up in the review of chemicals is that the agency simply doesn't have the information about the potential fate and transport of chemicals in the environment and goes back to to um applying companies to ask for more information about that. And that can get into a cycle where which ends up um causing a longer review cycle than you might otherwise wish to have.
▶ 2:07:29And so it's very important that there be good communication between the agency and applicants and when the agency says you know we just don't have the data here that becomes the responsibility of the applicant to help uh supply that and EPA has adequate authority under TUSCa to make those kind of requests.
▶ 2:07:46Thank you very much. Um Miss uh Bertrand chemical manufacturing as I've talked about creates jobs and and helps fuels my state fuel my state's economy. Um, but I'm curious if you could speak to how public research dollars and public research infrastructure helps to keep businesses competitive globally.
▶ 2:08:05So, the business of chemistry is all about science and so it's an ever evolving um research and development. Um, the the chemistry sector is one of the largest sectors in the United States for making investments into research and development.
▶ 2:08:21Um, one of the the numbers that I mentioned in my uh written testimony is that um chemical manufacturers in 2024 have invested 14.8 billion dollars into research and development of new chemistries, new products, new manufacturing. Um so of course this research and development um will leverage um information and science um from across all different types of sources to in moving something forward.
▶ 2:08:49Great. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 2:08:53Thank you. [clears throat] And now, uh, Representative Biggs from South
▶ 2:08:59Thank you, Chairman Babin, for holding this hearing on chemical regulation and thank you to the witnesses for being here today and offering uh your input based on your education and experience. Um, I really appreciate it. American science is the best in the world and has been for over a century. We have long dominated science innovation and the United States is the best destination for pursuing new and innovative chemistry.
▶ 2:09:28My background in healthc care has afforded me the opportunity to read a few maybe too many um evidence-based practice studies. But anyway, here we are today. However, I would like to point out that political agendas and bureaucratic red tape have stifled American scientific advancement.
▶ 2:09:52Since the mid 1980s, the EPA has run a program known as the integrated risk information system. Iris was formed by the EPA without congressional approval and its data has been used by TUSCa, the Clean Water Act, state and state agencies to make hazard determinations based on flawed Both iris and tusca have produced hazard values
▶ 2:10:22for chemicals that are sometimes below background atmosphere levels or what is produced by the human body. For example, the iris value for ethylene oxide has been cited at roughly 23,000 times lower than what's naturally found in humans.
▶ 2:10:46This placed undue burden on industry to comply with standards that have no basis in science and human health and it has led to delays in approvals on new chemicals and higher compliance costs for older ones. President Trump is committed to restoring the American gold standard of science.
▶ 2:11:09His executive order released in May commits federal science to free itself from the partisan political agendas that have absolutely restrained American innovation. To that end, I would like to direct my first question to Mr. Corkwell and um to Miss Bertrand.
▶ 2:11:34Congress structured America's regulatory system to consider the risk associated with realworld uses. This uniquely provides our nation with a competitive advantage in innovation over places like Europe and China. However, as I mentioned before, Iris seems to push unound science that is far beyond what is reasonable and and practicable.
▶ 2:12:05Can you speak to how the IRS system has undermined that competitive advantage of our riskbased regulatory system?
▶ 2:12:15Do you want me to start? Go ahead. Um so it we agree that um it's vital that sound science serve as the foundation for regulations. There's two components there that you mentioned when you start when you talk about um consideration of risk in the real world. Um one component of that is what can come out of an IRS assessment which is the um estimate of a level at which could produce harm. The other component of risk are realworld exposures.
▶ 2:12:43Having the best available scientific information that's based off of weight of evidence is imperative for both of those parts to make sure that we get things right and we can maintain competitiveness uh globally. Um what has been found with some of the Iris assessments is that they have been at levels that are far more stringent. Um and they're not in line with what is in place in the rest of the world.
▶ 2:13:10And in fact, for some of them, the values of virus have been at levels that have been lower than what is produced by the body. So in other words, it's predicting harm at levels that the body itself routinely produces. So we would very much advocate for the use of the full amount of data in doing these types of assessments because it can impact and it has a lot of um it it can impact our con the the once you start looking at risk
▶ 2:13:40at Lubresol we do not utilize Iris in any of our submissions as I've talked about before we are very much in the specialty chemical business where moving a double bond or adding a single other atom greatly changes the performance and the environmental profile. So, we prefer to do the testing for the advantages that we're looking for and also the benefits on the environmental profile rather than using broad models.
▶ 2:14:03Thank you so much. And my time has expired, so I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:14:08Thank you, [clears throat] Representative Biggs. And now the uh representative from California, Mr.
▶ 2:14:15Thank you, Mr. chairman, and thank you to the witnesses uh for being here today and spending your time to try to educate a bunch of Congress people about these important issues. Uh in my district, the importance of chemical research and development is visible every day. It's visible in our aerospace and defense manufacturing facilities and our water treatment plants and everything from wildfire retardant to rocket propellant.
▶ 2:14:37Many of my constituents in the Analopee Valley, I represent the district on the north side of LA County, um who work in advanced manufacturing rely on chemical innovation for the materials and components that make modern aerospace and defense systems possible. They care about staying competitive globally, but they also care about transparency, safety, and whether regulatory decisions are based in sound science.
▶ 2:14:59It's good to hear uh bipartisan support for strengthening US chemical research and development, but I think we all know that we must do so in a way that is both predictable for innovators and credible to the public. I grew up in a chemistry household. Uh and I'm grateful for everything that chemistry has produced for humanity.
▶ 2:15:16Just one example, today we feed billions of people through the chemical process that creates nitrogen But when an administration is launching full-scale attacks on American science, health, and oversight, trust is inevitably damaged, and any type of reform effort, well-meaning or not, can become stuck. Uh, so the first question I have is Dr. Mberg, can you discuss the role of transparency and independent scientific review and maintaining public trust in chemical innovation and what happens when that trust breaks down?
▶ 2:15:45Well, Congressman, thank you again very much for that question. And to me, this is where I'm basically channeling Bill Ruckle's house that transparency is absolutely essential. This is one of those kind of situations where you really do have to show your work. Um, scientists, legitimate scientists can and often do disagree about what is significant about a particular set of facts.
▶ 2:16:07Um, for example, the types of on most of these chemicals, you for obvious reasons can't do human studies or what the impacts of these chemicals would be. And so you have to extrapolate from animal studies or other kinds of work. And it is certainly the case that these judgments do involve certain value judgments about risk. For example, if you have a lowest observed effect level in an animal study, what does that mean about human studies? How much more conservative should you be? Is it 10? Is it 30? Is it 100?
▶ 2:16:36Different uh different scientists have different views on what the level of uncertainty should be. And some of it's based on how much data you have, how much data you don't have, and what you think might be you could extrapolate from the information you have. So it's very important to have a systematic process where that is openly and transparently reviewed.
▶ 2:16:53Um so that you can have confidence that when the administrator has to make the decision they have to make about is a particular chemical use safe, they are basing it on the best available information that's been pretty thoroughly scrutinized before he or she has to make that
▶ 2:17:09Thank you. I have a follow-up question to that for you as well. In my district, we've dealt with wildfires, landfill toxic events, and other environmental health emergencies. How important is supporting EPA's independent science capacity, not just for regulation, but for responding to real world incidents when they happen?
▶ 2:17:26Um, again, that's a great question and I can speak to it from both professional and personal experience that um, it's essential because the emergency response people rely on the office of research and development when they're coming across a situation of a chemical mixture that they haven't seen before like a train derailment. This came up earlier or in my case in Winston Salem, we had a chemical plant or a fertilizer plant rather that caught on fire that had 600 tons of ammonium nitrate in it which was um, to say the least alarming.
▶ 2:17:55And we relied very much on OARD and doing assessment of the monitoring results in support of the emergency response people who deployed to make monitoring measurements about how bad the pollution was from that fire. Now, fortunately for us, the um the fire the fire chief made the right decision, pulled people back from the incident and let the fire burn itself out so it did not create an explosion as it had in West Texas in um in 2012.
▶ 2:18:20But that data, that scientific information, the expertise that we had to be able to make those assessments was critical in the kind of work that you had to that you had to do. And I suspect was also true in the fires in Los Angeles. Um although I didn't follow that response in in depth, but in the fires in Los Angeles, you have the same question. Lots of things being burned all at once and trying to assess and give credible information of what the risk from those exposures could be.
▶ 2:18:47Thank you. um with our uh Chakita Canyon landfill, which is an ongoing health catastrophe uh in our district. Um we have seen EPA play a useful role and my uh primary comment is that we need EPA to be more active in responding to this uh environmental emergency that we have to understand the impact of airborne uh pollutants and other chemicals that are offging from the landfill.
▶ 2:19:16And my hope is that the EPA can do more uh to help the people who need help. Um I think going the opposite direct direction uh with staff and cuts is the wrong direction. Uh I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 2:19:31Thank you. And now the uh representative from Florida, Mr. Herodopoulos.
▶ 2:19:36Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd like to uh ask for unanimous consent to insert the 2023 GAO study into the record and the 2025 GA article. New chemicals programs could improve better could improve safety in better managed plans. If I could for the record.
▶ 2:19:52So, ordered.
▶ 2:19:54Well, first thanks for taking the time to visit with us today. It's always as a new member, it's always interesting to get everyone's perspective as we move forward. And and what is troubling as a new member is is just the number that we see from these reports where we have this 90-day rule and 90% of the time it's not on time and and in the real world everyone be fired in on the spot and and maybe I'll get into some questions in a second but I just it just seems to me that the new technologies that are coming online are going to be better
▶ 2:20:24for the environment. I think some of the discussion points that were made u by u Mr. for uh Corkwell, we're right on target as these changes are being made. I mean, we see the innovations taking place, but it seems like the agency itself uh whether it be for a variety of reasons, but anything else, it's really behind the times and how how modern business works versus how the current realities of government and and in some ways it's the the arrogance of it all that 90 days and everyone just accepts the fact that there's a 10% completion rate.
▶ 2:20:53Um and it's just beyond frustrating. I'm really glad that administrator Zelden has has taken this new uh perspective on thing in training people so that they literally embed expertise across the alliance as opposed to just one choke point which seems to happen in in many cases. And so I am encouraged by that.
▶ 2:21:10But let me just ask if I could because it my concern as as the chairman and I have talked at length is how do we beat China in space and if we're always being held up by our own agencies as far as the new technologies and coming online, China will beat us because they are moving through their bureaucratic process quicker than our own. And isn't it ironic that communists are beating us in some areas on bureaucracy? We're more bureaucratic than a communist organization. I mean, give me a break.
▶ 2:21:37And so I hope that we can move in this new direction and it's not just about money because if it was just about money, the previous administration didn't have any problem spending yet that 10% number was still there. So um I would hope that that my my question if I could um is I heard someone mention I think it was uh Mr. Minberg uh you'd mentioned that these rules have been placed for a long time from this 90 days. Then what's your magic number? Is it 95? Is it 120?
▶ 2:22:08What What's the What's the step that says we can't get it done in 90 days? [snorts]
▶ 2:22:13Congressman, thank you for your question. One of the nice things about being retired is you're no longer obligated to um to answer to to to have an opinion on that subject. But I will say that um when I think about this, I think about, you know, the the number that was set back in 1976 when TUSCa was first passed, which was 90 days. And I have to admit, it occasionally made me think about what would occur if my own personal obligation were to run a four-minute mile.
▶ 2:22:40I could be pushed pretty hard, but the likelihood that I'm going to meet a four-minute mile is pretty slim.
▶ 2:22:45Oh, you've been there you were there 34 years. Thank I mean, you have the opportunity to testify before these committees. Did you say that? Well, so what's the magic number? You've been there 34 years. What's your magic
▶ 2:22:55If if I were um I again, I'm going to
▶ 2:22:58I mean, we have more technology. We have AI. But we have the ability to digest information more quickly than ever to get the research done. I think it's logical that it should be less than 90 days. So give me the argument the other way that I'm missing. Sure. The argument the other way is what happens if you're wrong. Um there was previously a proposal and it may have been incorporated to some extent the earlier TUSCa that if if you didn't get approval in 90 days then it was automatically deemed approved.
▶ 2:23:22Um I the problem you have with that is what happens if you're wrong because once that toothpaste is out of the tube and PAS is probably the biggest example. Once that toothpaste is out of the tube it's very hard to go back and get it back in the tube and so consequently it's a value judgment about how much risk you are willing to bear for a wrong
▶ 2:23:43and I but I would just say I can make the exact same argument with the other side that the government did approve things that that that they messed up on to say the least. So, I I I just think that it it seems like the answer too often is we just need more people and more money and we'll solve the problem. But as this report shows over and over again that the new technologies should be able to solve these problems more quickly and it's the private sector that usually has better information than our own government and they're providing this good information.
▶ 2:24:08And it seems like sometimes there's a political agenda there as opposed to a pragmatic agenda because I'm not going to lose to the Chinese because someone isn't working as efficiently because they know that they can push off a 90-day deadline because there's no consequence for poor performance. So I I just hope that it's a logical thing and I know the chairman is focused on winning this space race and I think this GAO report affirms what the chairman has said is that we need to rely on our partners. We have public private partnerships on everything today including our space program.
▶ 2:24:37We need to be more concert with the private sector to win the technological race that we're in the middle of whether it be AI or space race. And I think too often we just throw it to oh there could be a problem. Well, there's a problem right now if we lose the space race, and that's what I'm more concerned about than anything else. But I appreciate your good work and your time. Thank you, and I yield back.
▶ 2:24:55I thank the gentleman um very much. Uh Representative Freriedman from
▶ 2:25:01Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the witnesses for coming and testifying today. I represent Los Angeles, a community that has lived with the consequences of toxic chemicals in our water, our air, and our homes for decades. from POS and parakquot to chromium 6 and countless other pollutants. During my time in the California legislature, I authored laws banning POS known as Forever Chemicals from cosmetics and from children's products which they were widely used in.
▶ 2:25:29I um authored a bill that required an accelerated re-evaluation of parakquat, a highly toxic herbicide linked to fatal poisonings and Parkinson's risks and already banned in 70 countries around the world. I ban the use of fire retardants in mattresses and other uh the 30 most toxic chemicals already banned in the EU from personal care products like makeup.
▶ 2:25:53It's clear that if you live in California after these bills, you're going to be able to buy products that are safer than in many other parts of our country. And I want to add that a lot of the work that I did was bipartisan because people want to know their products are safe. And we see with the Maha movement a growing recognition of the health impacts of some chemicals that were approved in the United States that clearly have health impacts. Now the bills that I took were not about being against innovation. And I represent areas that have pharmaceutical research and development that have a lot of aerospace. They're about health protections.
▶ 2:26:23So I agree with my colleagues that we have to support innovation. We need to be a global leader. But we also can't streamline at the cost of public health. We need strong safeguards. Now, in Los Angeles, we are constantly under the risk of drought. As you, I'm sure, are familiar.
▶ 2:26:38We sit on huge reservoirs under the San Frernando Valley, reservoirs that are almost unusable because of of historic POS and other Um, when Lockheed Martin closed its Burbank operations in the early 1990s, it was a great company that did a lot of amazing things for the United States.
▶ 2:26:57But it also left behind one of the worst groundwater contamination cases in the country, including chromium 6 pollution that compromised the drinking water for my city in Glendale and in Burbank and in Los Angeles. We still drink that water, but we have to filter it. And those costs are pa p pay p pay p pay p are passed directly to rateayers making the cost of water in my communities much more expensive than in other parts of the country. Dr.
▶ 2:27:22Mayberg as Congress considers ways to support innovation what specific safeguards should be strengthened to prevent future toxic chemical contamination uh contamination to waterways. Um, and how should we deal with how do what do I tell my constituents as we streamline who have to pay constantly to get chromium 6 and poor chloride and other contaminants out of our drinking water and who still say that the contaminants that are left in the water even after purification pose what they believe are an unreasonable risk and are
▶ 2:27:52and for forcing [clears throat] some of them to buy bottled water rather than use city
▶ 2:27:58Congresswoman, thank you for that question and I'm just want to emphasize what I'm about to say now. speaks only for myself but that is that the the issues you are phrasing are the classical [clears throat] issues in excuse me in risk evaluation and the best thing that the agency can do is to have the best science it can get on what exposure scenarios are possible.
▶ 2:28:19Now there's a there's sort of a a a dis a a distribution about possible versus likely and somewhere you have to draw a line on where on on where that that possible and likely boundary is because you want to set up your regulation processes for new chemicals because in addition to cleaning up the existing problems, the first thing you want to do is not create new ones. And that does require some difficult judgments.
▶ 2:28:45And there are judgments about which science scientists disagree both about some of the hazard information as well as about some of the exposure risk information. And you simply need to take the time to work those things through. Not to get perfect consensus from everybody, but at least to engage in what you might call the weight of evidence, if you will, of what is the most likely. then design regulations around exi both existing and new chemicals to minimize the likelihood that you get the kind of situations you just described.
▶ 2:29:14preventing it entirely is going is a lot of work, but you do have to do things that do not that reflect reasonable not unreasonable risk and those are the judgments that you ask the administrator to make in implementing a statute like TUSCa
▶ 2:29:28and then when things do as you say go bad and let's say we have an expedited review and we just heard a suggestion of having a 60-day review in some cases we're using AI which right now if you see how it's functioning on the internet I don't think that we're anywhere close to using AI to tell us what our chemical what chemicals are safe or uh you We've had situations where AI um you know became a Nazi let's say.
▶ 2:29:49So given that and given that we have some cases where these companies in my community are doing their due doing what they were ordered by our court to do and helping to pay for cleanup but we have many cases where the companies are long gone. uh sites of land even in urban Los Angeles with the value of land we have large pieces of land are left are left undeveloped because the cost of developing that uh those sites and the mitigation required are so expensive.
▶ 2:30:17How do we and who pays the cost in the end for this? The um the short answer is that that citizens do um that and that that scenario is precisely why the super fund law was passed to help remediate those kind of situations. But super fund cleanups are a lot more expensive than prevention in the first place.
▶ 2:30:37Thank you very much. I yield back.
▶ 2:30:41Thank [clears throat] you. And now I'd like to recognize the representative from Tennessee, Mr. Van Emps.
▶ 2:30:46Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for sharing with us today. You've already emphasized how chemicals and the development processes behind them are embedded in every sector that matters to us competitiveness from energy to transportation and from defense to consumer goods. The United States owes these successes to an entire ecosystem of development.
▶ 2:31:08Private firms willing to invest at scale research universities generating fundamental discoveries and talent in a public sector that is situated to keep the consumer and the creator secure. We must protect this ecosystem while still enabling discovery, commercialization, and domestic manufacturing. [snorts] I know that failing to do so will not simply slow the industry, but rather force it to move elsewhere, which is unacceptable.
▶ 2:31:33The Trump administration has been leading on streamlining our approval processes and shortening timelines across the board to drive competitiveness and fuel innovation, but there are still gaps to close. This first question is is for everyone.
▶ 2:31:48My district in Tennessee is fortunate to host exemplary research institutions and How are you working with higher education and other institutions to ensure the sector has the future workforce it needs and how could those efforts be expanded and what support would you need?
▶ 2:32:07Miss Burchan, would you like to start?
▶ 2:32:10Sure. Um, you know, ACC and its members make heavy investments into research and development. Um ACC has a long range research program um that invests into research that can support um other you know it it brings in researchers from from other areas to to help um and also the companies themselves have invested over 14.8 billion dollars into research and development.
▶ 2:32:40Thank you.
▶ 2:32:42As I mentioned before, science and technology have been at the core of lubricol since its very beginning. So we are very supportive of STEM activities, having interns and doing as much as we can to try to generate that next generation of of innovators to help us go through the process. Uh but I think you know as we're talking about here today the the efforts to reduce the backlog are great but the statistics about new submitts for new chemistries dropping by 67%.
▶ 2:33:09Is an indication that innovation is not happening at the rate we would like it to happen. we can do.
▶ 2:33:19Um this is a a very uh important question and Boeing um we partner actively with uh universities with uh the national labs and other institutions like that. Um some of the FAA technical excellence centers that are in the universities. Um obviously we're very active in those. Um from a personal example, I personally sit on multiple PhD committees um for Boeing sponsored research.
▶ 2:33:46Um so it is part of our our culture is to be involved at those levels to look at the pipeline of talent and education that will come up into the aerospace industry and that comes from a large variety of different degrees and backgrounds of which chemistry is critical. Um, so anything that you know we can do to strengthen those ties is is going to be very important to us.
▶ 2:34:12Thank you.
▶ 2:34:15Mr. Corkwell, this question's for you. You mentioned the EPA's approach could could be improved by including existing regulations from other agencies to reduce duplication. How can federal agencies better coordinate with one another to reduce duplication while maintaining safety standards? Would you mind expanding on that?
▶ 2:34:31Yeah, absolutely. And and I think that that applies to everything we do, right? Communications and interactions are incredibly important when it comes to innovation. And in this particular case, one thing that I would encourage is the uh the coordination between OSHA in in the EPA. So much of what we talk about when we talk about risk is based on exposure. And that is a an area where OSHA has tremendous uh abilities and a lot of data there that helps understand what is the use and how do we protect people who might use these chemistries, many of which are used in production.
▶ 2:35:01They're not they're not the final material. They're something that is used in a process to make a material.
▶ 2:35:07Thank you. And uh quickly, Dr. Gross, for you, uh chemistry innovation is imperative for national security and military applications. Would you like to just build off of that from a national security perspective? it's it's a very critical question. Um and unfortunately, as a chemist, it's not an area of which um I have any expertise to comment.
▶ 2:35:28But I can say that, you know, Boeing is very committed to um safety and to uh the American agenda. And so as such, we will meet our customer demands as as we can.
▶ 2:35:42Great. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 2:35:45Thank you. And now, Representative Riley from New York.
▶ 2:35:49Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [clears throat] Thank you to all the witnesses uh for being here. There was a discussion earlier about um you know some of the top priorities for improving American innovation and competitiveness uh national security and there was a lot of conversation around processes and timelines and backlogs. Um I want to get your thoughts on uh something that I think is really important in that conversation which is just the pipeline of scientists that we have in this country.
▶ 2:36:16Um, we have I I represent one of the most rural districts in America, uh, in upstate New York. And, um, we have tons of kids who are just the hardest working, most brilliant students you're going to meet. Um, but I worry that they don't have the same opportunities for STEM education, particularly at early ages, as um, kids in other uh, communities.
▶ 2:36:44And that's obviously, I think, bad for the kids. Everybody should have the same opportunities, but I think it's also really bad for uh American innovation and competitiveness and national security because we have all this talent out there that we're not getting into the right places. I've seen this done right. Um I had a chance to visit Grten uh go Red Hawks a couple of weeks ago. They've got an amazing STEM program.
▶ 2:37:08the entire uh floor in in the the school they've redone with different um areas where you can do different uh STEM activities and they've built a full uh curriculum. Uh last week I was at Sherburn Earville uh go Timberwolves um and they have a program where they've brought in basically like an out ofthe-box curriculum and and all the tools they need in in the classroom and I got to go spend some time with the students.
▶ 2:37:35But generally, I I think those tend to be the exception because generally our uh rural schools, they have a higher uh cost per student. That's that's sort of obvious, right? Some of the kids, some of the Timberwolves going to Sherburn, Earlville have hour bus rides to get to school. That's not a cost or a challenge that urban schools may necessarily have. The economies of scale are different, right? You have to pay for a cafeteria whether you got 100 kids or a thousand kids.
▶ 2:38:02And so what happens is the budgeting gets done and the extra STEM programs are a luxury that the rural schools often can't afford. Um Mike Kennedy uh from Utah, my friend uh represents a a rural uh uh district in uh in Utah. He and I have a a bipartisan bill. It's called the Rural STEM Pipeline Act. It's pretty simple.
▶ 2:38:26It's going to help recruit more teachers to teach in rural communities, more STEM teachers, because if you have more STEM teachers, you're going to have more students having those opportunities. More students have those opportunities. Um, the more uh scientists we're going to have serving the country. Um, so I just want to get your thoughts on uh this issue generally um as we're moving this bill. Would love to have uh your your input on it and your support on it.
▶ 2:38:50And I think it's really important in communities like mine and um just interested in your in your thoughts on that to anybody really. I'll open it up. Um that at ACC we have a program it's FSY that has provided um and and I will need to get information to your office to get get the numbers
▶ 2:39:10but I think it's around um $40 million in scholarships um that have um provided opportunities for and I believe it was around 800 but I I think we would enjoy sharing some of the information with you um 800 students for for HB.CU. use. So, um, we can share that with you.
▶ 2:39:29Yeah, that's great. I'd love to talk with you about it and, um, and and and see because I I really think this is this is something that requires the public investment. I think it's just the right thing to do to make sure kids have the opportunity to pursue their talents and their dreams. But it really is listening to this conversation today. I was actually going to ask a totally different series of questions and then this came up and it really occurs to me like it is a national security imperative to make sure the kids in rural America can become scientists, right? Um any other thoughts on this?
▶ 2:39:59I I will say Boeing is very dedicated, like I said, to bringing up that STEM pipeline um to making sure that we have opportunities um in a lot of those underprivileged uh districts like you mentioned. Um, I'll I'll throw out there for you. I am a product of a rural school district. My sixth grade class, there were 10 of us and we were the largest class they'd ever graduated.
▶ 2:40:21Oh, that's great.
▶ 2:40:22And I I spent my hour plus on the bus every day getting to school. So I when it when you you make that investment, you don't know where those people could end up. They could end up talking to Congress someday. Yeah, that's my that was actually I was actually going to say that I I there are kids there are kids in in like third grade at um Sherburnville and Graten who I want to see them grow up and and testify here and be like sitting in those seats and they've got all the talent and the work ethic.
▶ 2:40:52They just need the opportunity. So I'll follow up with some of you to see if there's ways we can work on this uh together. Uh Mr. Chairman, appreciate it. Thank you.
▶ 2:40:58Thank you. [clears throat] And now I'd like to rep recognize Representative Miller from Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and thank you for all of our witnesses for being here uh this morning. Very much appreciate your time. Um, but I'm going to start this off just a little bit differently than I normally do. I want to address two things. Uh, one with the committee itself and the chairman. Uh, not too long ago, I heard an individual make a reference over there. I believe her name was Miss Freriedman. She compared artificial intelligence to a Nazi.
▶ 2:41:27I feel like that should be condemned by the entire committee regardless of political affiliation.
▶ 2:41:32Would the gentleman yield? That is not what she said.
▶ 2:41:34No, she then we could play it back, sir. And you and I can speak can speak after and we can go in the back, but it's exactly what she said and I take offense to that and everyone should as well. Not trying to make it political, but any reference to the Nazis or the Holocaust has no place in this chamber or on this committee. That's number one. Number two, when it comes to OAD, I've been hearing a lot about it throughout this of going back and forth. I've been in, I've been out. OD has not been eliminated. Just like when the EPA was created by President Nixon in 1970.
▶ 2:42:05It wasn't an act of Congress. It was actually done by him and Congress gave him the authority because he signed executive order that pulled many different agencies and departments to create the EPA. It came from HHS. It came from the Department of Interior and several more agencies in order to what we're here discussing today to see how we can improve on that. So, I just want the second one clear for the record as well. Uh, the other thing is Mr. Corkwell, thank you for being here today.
▶ 2:42:31Uh, you're right in our district and I've enjoyed working with you and your team very much. Uh, you've been very helpful in terms of moving things like this forward. I have a whole list of things here to say, but I'm just going to dive right into the questions if that's okay. Uh, Mr. Corkwell. I just want to once again thank you for being here and for Lubresol's work across the country, especially like I said in our district in Brexville, Ohio, which serves as a global hub for R&D and supports over 440 high-skilled jobs.
▶ 2:43:01So once again, thank you for your time here today and thank you for our commitment to our district and for all of those people you employ who also take care of their families. So thank you again. You mentioned that better chemistry isn't reaching the United States market. Can you provide examples and explain how EPA's current implementation of TUSCa particularly around R&D exemptions or conditions of use has slowed or blocked these innovations? What has been the true impact?
▶ 2:43:27Yeah, thank you very much uh for your comments and for your question. Uh, I did have several examples both in my oral testim testimony and my written testimony, but there is the the example, as I mentioned, of an off-road transmission additive that's uh, we've spent more than 10 years in the R&D process in Ohio working on it and more than $10 million doing the testing for it, and we're still waiting since 2020 to get it through the system.
▶ 2:43:50And this sorts of new technologies are are the new technologies that allow, in this case, agricultural equipment to work more efficiently and more effectively. So we can use less fuel when we're running tractors and and combines in the field and make them last longer as well. So a lot of what we're trying to do is bring new chemistries to the market that are improvements on the chemistries that are out there, but that requires us to have that predictable and timely system so we can make those investments.
▶ 2:44:18Yeah, thank you for that honest answer. It's very much appreciated. Uh secondary question for you, Mr. Corkwell. If these delays continue, what are the implications for the United States leadership in critical manufacturing sectors? What actions could Congress take to make the approval process more predictable like you were talking about earlier and promising technologies reach the market in time to make true impact?
▶ 2:44:40Yeah, I I think as we've talked about before, in many many cases, chemistry is the start of the value chain. the chemistries I make are used to make my customers products that are then used in bigger production like Boeing's airplanes. And again, if if those chemistries are not approved here, then they also cannot be imported as basic chemistries, which means all of those steps in the value creation will have to occur somewhere else in the world.
▶ 2:45:04The final products may still come here, but the chemistries won't, and all of that work to create those final products will have to happen somewhere else.
▶ 2:45:12Thank you very much. Thank you all for your time and your testimony here this morning. Uh I hope you enjoy the rest of your time. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:45:20Thank [clears throat] you. And now, Representative Foster from Illinois.
▶ 2:45:24Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to our witnesses. Uh let's see. First, uh Mr. Corkwell, you said something that that made me recall something. Um you mentioned the toxicity databases across the agencies, and I was wondering if they are stovepiped to some extent.
▶ 2:45:40uh that is there a problem because we have toxicity databases in the EPA, the FDA, OSHA, NIH probably and and so on and you know is is there a problem there because we had a recent presentation about Project Genesis and one of the things they're intending to do is to unify database access across the federal government. Is there something there
▶ 2:46:01I'm certainly not an expert on government databases but I can tell you that silos in organizations are a common problem. Speaking of my own organization, we are constantly working to break down silos and I think that's an important thing, right? Everybody sharing the same data and reaching across and using that joint expertise.
▶ 2:46:17Yeah, Mr. Mayberg, you looked like you had something to say.
▶ 2:46:20Uh, yes, I did and I actually agree with Mr. Cork well on this that to the extent you can not silo the silo siloing among agencies is a challenge and the example I would have is that the agency for toxic substances and disease registry registry maintains toxicological profiles which in some ways are different from the information that was formerly in Iris and sometimes you have differences and the chemical I'm thinking of particularly is methyl bromide between um exposures over annual exposures versus short-term
▶ 2:46:50exposures and you can understand that and they draw from some of the same in some of the same data sources but there are different assumptions that um that the different databases make about what constitutes a you know the right um level of exposure just the way so some way to reconcile those things would seem to be in order.
▶ 2:47:09Yeah. Okay. So, but that I think we should our committee should put on the list of the genesis program to actually at least make the you know there there may be fundamental problems with the measurement conditions being different for OSHA versus the FDA or so on. But that's there sort of two recurrent themes here. Um uh one of which is the TUSCa review delays and the other one is China competition. Now do any of our witnesses know what fraction of Chinese farmland is unusable because of chemical contamination? It's 20%.
▶ 2:47:4020%. So when we talk about we should match China, let's be careful about what we want to match uh there. Um and let's see another another thing has to do I was um I was encouraged uh Mr. Bertrand that you said that you encouraged full resourcing of these.
▶ 2:47:57Now, when the president um when the president, you know, proposed a mark of $73 million instead of $124 million uh for TUSCa reviews, is that something that you spoke out on, your organization spoke out on?
▶ 2:48:12You know, our position has consistently been that we want EPA to have the adequate resources that they need to implement the program. But in that specific instance where you were talking about a massive cut to a program that that is responsible for the delays, did you speak out on that or
▶ 2:48:31I would need to get back to you.
▶ 2:48:33Okay. That it's important. You have to, you know, you you have your integrity is on the line here and make sure when things happen on either side that you that you you know speak your best view of things. Um let's see. Okay. there. Now, in terms of the Tusca review delays, there sort of two basic elements that are determining the the hazard level.
▶ 2:48:52Um, and and then understanding the exposure model, I I want to echo Representative Ross' comments about the potential for sort of automated cloud-based biology uh that they're using for drug screening and stuff like this.
▶ 2:49:06I think there's going to be a lot of improvement where you'll be able to get mass-produced human organoids and, you know, in some automated giant factory just do thousands of levels of of exposure and actually understand pretty quickly what the safe level in human blood is for a variety of chemicals pretty quickly and the drug com drug drug companies are pushing that really hard.
▶ 2:49:27Um, and is that is that part of the answer something that that is likely to get easier quickly and are we going to be left with the tough issue of just arguing about what a realistic exposure model is?
▶ 2:49:42I'll take this one of um I think um again Boeing will comply with the regulations. We will follow the safety protocols. You know, that's incredibly important to us. Um, but one of the things I've talked about today is just sort of the differences that aerospace has. Um, that also goes to size of scale. Um, one of the things that surprised me the most when I joined the company was the fact that we paint every airplane by hand. There there's not an automated paint system that we've utilized for our legacy, you know, airplanes.
▶ 2:50:12And so when you talk about that exposure routes, you know, we need cognizant of that.
▶ 2:50:16Yeah. I have just a um I'd like to introduce for the record actually some really excellent reporting by the Wall Street Journal that you know highlights a difference in the exposure model having to do with fume incidents on airplanes because this is something where there's a design choice you can make. You can use gas extracted halfway through the jet engine to um put into the cabin or you can make an electrical system.
▶ 2:50:37And on Dreamliners, you use an electrical system that just brings in fresh air, whereas in older designs, you use recycled or halfway tapped off bleed gas, I guess they call it. Um and and so, you know, this is the important part of it. And that is the part that maybe that's why we need people with good [cough and clears throat] judgment to decide what's safe here. And so I'm I'm now past my time and yield back.
▶ 2:51:00Gentleman's time's expired. Um Mr. Fong from California, you're recognized.
▶ 2:51:06Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh thank you to the witnesses. This is certainly a very important topic, one that doesn't probably get a lot of attention, but but chemistry leadership uh underpins American innovation as as noted from advanced manufacturing and and energy to medicine and national security. Um today as as in the testimony given uh our competitors are moving faster uh while outdated dup duplicative processes are slowing innovation here at home.
▶ 2:51:34Um and so we need to um you know our challenge and our and our mission is to uh to restore US leadership uh through science-based uh regulation smarter streamlining uh and policies that allow innovation to be developed, scaled and manufactured in America. Um I want to ask uh I want to start with Dr. Gross.
▶ 2:51:53In my district, uh, I have NASA Armstrong and the Mojave Air and Spaceport, uh, which facilitate cutting edge development of stateofthe-art technologies, uh, requires, uh, significant supply chain coordination, uh, to meet, um, the goals of of, uh, the projects on in these installations. Your time at Boeing uh, gives you uh, significant insight into supply chains and materials uh, necessary for advancement uh, in the aeronautics and aviation industries.
▶ 2:52:20Uh what happens to if you can give us a real world like example what happens to our missions when when access to certain materials chemicals uh are threatened by by bans or excessive regulations or limited delays or extensive delays? Um have we seen other countries outpacing us uh in in the area of aerospace because of um the lack or of of chemical availability?
▶ 2:52:44Um so that's a that's a that's a very uh intriguing question in that I I talked previously about how our development cycle is done in sort of these this gated approach um and there's a performance target that we have associated with that if we have to pivot away from a formulation because there's ambiguity around approval of a chemical or something like that what ends up happening is we may have to compromise some of that performance target and so the the long range impact of that is the fact that those choices
▶ 2:53:14that are made very early in that life cycle can then end up in something like a heavier composite part. That heavier composite part then it increased fuel burn or requires more, you know, rocket thrust for a something from NASA. So those ramifications sort of ripple down that development cycle. And in the case of like commercial aircraft, that can be a decadesl long impact then for things like fuel burn and CO2 emissions.
▶ 2:53:42Yeah. because we're planning you're looking out 10 years or and you're trying to and so if there's a if there is a a choke point or something that happens that you can't that you haven't adjusted for there's there's it just extends everything out
▶ 2:53:54everything gets extended.
▶ 2:53:56Thank you. Um if I can ask Miss Bertrand uh I represent uh one of the uh the biggest agricultural produ producing rate regions in California. Um our farmers and ranchers rely on on chemistry to protect us against pests and prevent diseases. Um, you know, we've seen at least as recently the last two seasons, uh, we've had a lias outbreak uh that has decimated a number of crops in the central valley.
▶ 2:54:20Um, California's Department of Pesticide Regulation um has tied the hands of growers uh by restricting the use of proven and effective treatments uh in favor of other less effective chemistries. Um, unfortunately that's led to more applications, worse outcomes. It's actually threatened beneficials at the same time. Um and it's vital that regulations on pesticides and chemicals on the federal level about re be risk risk based and developed based on sound science.
▶ 2:54:49Miss Petran, can you explain why a riskbased approach is so important to protecting our our our food supply chains?
▶ 2:54:55Sure. Thank you for that question. So, so risk combines both hazard but um and knowledge of exposure. And so if something is based off of hazard alone, it leads to approaches that overregulate because there may actually be no risk that exists because the exposure wasn't there. Um so it's important to have um scientifically sound information and real world information on the exposure side to come to the right end when you're estimating risk.
▶ 2:55:26Otherwise, you you end up with a result that is
▶ 2:55:30Thank you. Um, and then my time's running out, but I want to ask you, Mr. Corkwell, um, certainly as just to follow up on on the agricultural uh, importance uh, when it comes to chemistry. Um, you know, my farmers rely on tractors and other heavy equipment to keep our our food supply moving. Um, these machines uh, must be able to operate in nearly all conditions. How does Lubisol develop chemistries that ensure that these engines last longer and perform more reliably uh, without the need of constant repairs?
▶ 2:55:56and what kind of research and development testing goes into making sure these products meet the demands of of the farmer?
▶ 2:56:02Yeah, thanks thanks for your question. We work very closely with a lot of the largest tractor and agricultural machinery producing companies to develop the tests that allow us to improve those products and the agricultural system is is very unique in that you have some fluids that may also be in the transmission and the axle and in the hydraulic system all at once. So they play multiple roles and as you well know when it's time for the harvest the equipment has to work. Downtime is not an option. So that it is a very demanding part of our portfolio.
▶ 2:56:32Thank you. Well, I want to thank you for uh the testimony and the work that you do. I just this is important because there are real world consequences if we don't get this right. So thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
▶ 2:56:41Yes, sir. Thank you. Uh Representative Byer from Virginia. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and ranking member. Thank all of you for hanging in for almost three hours. I really appreciate that. F. First, let me uh my Republican friend entered in the record an organizational chart listing OD as if that's sufficient proof that ORD hasn't been obliterated beyond function. So, I'd like to supplement that by entering in additional pages from today's EPA website.
▶ 2:57:09The main OD page says in plain language that the two leadership roles are vacant, as is every leadership position in every division. And I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record. And as Congressman Fuche stated earlier, 90% of OD employees who were there just one year ago, December 2024, are no longer at OAD. So I don't think no serious assessment of the state of OD would conclude that it still exists in any meaningful way. Mr. Ward, thank you.
▶ 2:57:38The uh Mr. Corkwell, I appreciate your testimony and learning much more about the work that your company's doing. And you specifically talked about new innovative chemicals that were more environmentally sustainable and how EPA needs to be a better partner, which is why I think the Democrats here specifically are so concerned about the attacks on OD and Iris. There's a lot of concern about the role that microplastics, endocrine disruption, and obesity are playing in the escalation of cases.
▶ 2:58:05We're seeing an explosion of cancer in people under the age of 50 and it's it's not accidental and we're learning how much but exposures in our environment especially in the gut can change the microbiome and have devastating ripple effects. So Dr. Mber can you talk about why it's important to have adequate funding for things like the endocrine disruptor screening program and to maintain research the research directorate at the EPA?
▶ 2:58:32Oh, thank you very much for that question. I'll simply [clears throat] speak from my experience that the identification of these issues started at ORD with identification of problems that you that you didn't anticipate at the time when some of the chemicals that were previously approved were probably were approved. And so if you don't have that kind of research in place then you miss things miss signals that occur in the environment that may be instructive for what kind of health risk may occur.
▶ 2:58:58Now, I'm not saying that every single risk that you ident to to the point about hazard versus exposure. I'm not saying that everything that is identified as a hazard is necessarily a risk because you it is true that you can find ways to or certain uses will limit exposure and thereby limit risk. But if you don't have the basic data that shows the relationship between exposures and risk, then you're really left sort of operating in the dark.
▶ 2:59:24And so that core research is really important and it's sometimes difficult to do and takes a long time because especially if you're studying exposures to humans. This is an epidemiological study and you don't you don't do controlled experiments. You have to go back and look with what happened to people who are inadvertently exposed and that kind of research takes time and it's really in EPA's interest to to make sure it's supported.
▶ 2:59:48Thank It's a great pivot because I'd love to ask Miss Bertrand who you're both sides 24 years with the EPA, now you're with the chemical folks. Um, you've listened now three hours to basically an R versus D debate. Do we have, you know, faster throughput and high speed and and innovation and keep up with China or do we recognize safety and all the mistakes that we've made over the years? Uh, you know, Mr. Corkwell.
▶ 3:00:16I I grew up with leaded gasoline and we've seen the impact that that had. Um we're finding out PAS right now. I mean, American history, in fact, world history is filled with examples of the real damage done to people about things that we didn't understand. So, Miss Bertrren, how do we get that right balance so we don't wait five years when it could theoretically be done in six months or three months and yet still preserve the safety?
▶ 3:00:43So I don't think that safety and econ and competitiveness are mutually exclusive. They go they can go hand in hand. Um I think that what is important is to use the best available science in making decisions. And that is what ACC advocates for using the best available science and using fact and data to make those decisions.
▶ 3:01:03And didn't you do the same thing in your 24 years at EPA? Didn't you want to use the best available science then too?
▶ 3:01:09Of course.
▶ 3:01:12But How do you how do you reconcile those? Cuz because all I'm hearing today are attacks from my wonderful friends on the other side about how irresponsible EPA is and dragging these things out for years and years and years and how that's bad for America and bad for our
▶ 3:01:27You know, when I was at EPA, one of the one of the areas that I did work on was reducing that backlog of new chemicals um very successfully. And you know, it meant looking at establishing very clear processes. Um, unfortunately that backlog has now grown back up again. There's 461 new chemistries um that have that are now in that pipeline waiting for review. 90% of them haven't met their statutory deadline.
▶ 3:01:58Uh let me switch. Oh, actually I'm out of time, but uh thank you. This is something that we continue to struggle with because I I don't buy the idea that EPA was full of a bunch of people who didn't want to do their jobs well who woke up every morning saying, "Let me go let me go see if I can slow this down." That there were good people trying to do good work
▶ 3:02:18and we should be supporting them in every way that we can.
▶ 3:02:21I yield back.
▶ 3:02:22Thank you,
▶ 3:02:22Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:02:23Uh, Representative Gillan from New York.
▶ 3:02:27Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member, for holding this uh hearing. Thank you to all the witnesses again who have held on for this very long hearing. Thank you for your testimony today. Um so I represent the southshore of Long Island which is adjacent to New York City.
▶ 3:02:44Um it is the home of legacy contamination including in administrator Lee Zeldon's district we had the Gman Plume um and other legacy contamination throughout Long Island where we've now seen cancer clusters where like everybody on the block gets breast cancer, men, women, everybody. Um, and we're also a community that has been devastated by the 911 World Trade Center attack.
▶ 3:03:08Pretty much, I would say everybody in my district who lived there at that time knows someone who was killed on that day or someone who has died since that time. So, we talked a lot today about the need for expediency, but balancing with that the concern for human life and safety and concern for preserving our environmental beauty and our environment that supports all of our lives. Um, and Dr.
▶ 3:03:30Mayberg, you talked a lot about we have to make a a a value judgment about rushing and the cost of rushing and how that could have a much more devastating impact than the cost associ associated with waiting. We saw that with uh 911 where the EPA administrator at the time came out right away and told everybody, "Don't worry about it. The air is safe. You're all fine. Go back to work.
▶ 3:03:56I understand we wanted to get the economy going again, but as someone who worked blocks away from the World Trade Center, now I have to worry. And now we've seen my friend's husband who worked on the pile and was told that it was safe to do that and he's dead. And there's a whole new branch of science about 911 related cancers. So I my question I guess would be first to you Dr. Mayberg. How do you weigh the costs?
▶ 3:04:24How can the EPA effectively weigh the costs of expediency? Because yes, I want to win the space race, but I don't want my neighbors, my friends, my fellow Americans to die because something was put out there that they were exposed to. And now again with 9/11, every day I have to fight here to fund the World Trade Center Health Program because we still don't know how many thousands and thousands of people might develop one of these cancers.
▶ 3:04:51Thank you very much for that question and it sort of illustrates the dilemma that I think this committee has been struggling with and I think on a bipartisan basis about how to make these kind of balancing judgments because um I think and knowing that the official who was the administrator at that time I think if she had it to do over again she would have expressed herself somewhat differently because there clearly are and continue to be real risks.
▶ 3:05:15At the same time the there is something to be said about the need to make decisions and you do you have to simply do the best you can. You try to to derive as as Charlotte said you try to do make the process work as reliably independently as you can and then to make sure that in that process you have access to the best information you can get and then make the decisions you have to make at the time.
▶ 3:05:39Um in short, for example, in the case of super fund, you sometimes do short-term removals just to to mitigate the immediate risk. But the long-term thing to mitigate long-term risks simply takes longer and more planning. And the best way you can do that is to get the best possible talent you can get into the agency to do the objective assessments to make then those judgments that are based on the best science that's available as everyone has said.
▶ 3:06:04So my principal concern with this is simply to protect and preserve the integrity of the agency in setting up a structure that makes those decisions best on based on science. And that's in some ways to me at the heart of my my testimony is that the agency's role that has been given by Congress is a critical one. And you want to make sure they're as well positioned as they can to make difficult judgments.
▶ 3:06:26Thank you. Thank you, doctor. Um, and so I joined this committee because it tends to be one of the most bipartisan
▶ 3:06:34And I do think we've heard some consistent things despite some of the back and forth today that there needs to be more investment and more resources with the EPA. I think all of you agreed with that we need to need to make sure that the EPA has the proper resources to execute its job. Um, we need we want to streamline processes. Certainly, I think Dr. Dr. Mberg, you also talked about or somebody else talked about uh redundancy where there are different standards and sometimes that can actually frustrate industry even more.
▶ 3:07:04I know in New York I think we have among the most stringent PAS standards which may not be the same in another state. So that might make all of your jobs in the private sphere much more difficult. Um, so is there a way we can convene experts like you to try to create a way where we can we can all be happy where we know that we are streamlining the processes processes, eliminating redundancies, but yet making sure we're taking the extra care to make sure we're not going to be releasing contaminants because
▶ 3:07:34from the corporate perspective, that's not helpful either because you'll be bankrupt if something goes the wrong way.
▶ 3:07:40The gentle lady's time has expired. Thank you. So now
▶ 3:07:44can you get back to me please on that
▶ 3:07:47So uh the gentle lady a from Maryland is recognized for at least five minutes.
▶ 3:07:53So thank you chair and ranking member and the witnesses for joining us. I think I'm bringing it home and you are or maybe not maybe there's one last one but uh thank you for for for sticking in with us and I echo many of my colleagues Ray the need for public partner public private partnership and furthering innovation but also that balance of risk and safety and I echo the comments just made by Congressman Gillan of New York in terms of bringing together your expertise and a lot of thought leadership and how we balance it as
▶ 3:08:23legislators. So, I'm going to dive into Maryland. I represent the sixth district of Maryland and we are home to some of the most I think nation's jewels in terms of research. NIST, parts of NIH, National Cancer Institute, Fort Dietrich and many research labs and universities.
▶ 3:08:42Um I'm very proud of my state and this work and but you know we really believe in in in furthering this this research and in particular NIST for over a quarter of a century has laid the foundation for innovation in setting standards and measurements that make technology trustworthy from cyber security and quantum and even health care. But when these technologies work together, industries work faster and the public can trust it. So, NIST also develops technologies that the chemical industry depends on.
▶ 3:09:11And from your testimony, there's a clear overlap with NIST's mission and research. All of you are at the forefront of groundbreaking research across your sectors from the development of safer halon uh replacements to aircraft fire suppression to advancing composite materials. I want to start with Dr. Gross. In your testimony, you discuss fire suppression chemicals and the critical impact to the safety of flight.
▶ 3:09:38If you've not already done so, I would really encourage you to work with NIS Stellar Fire Research Lab because they've got a great core research area since the 1900s and also the National Fire Academy in Emittsburg. They're just excellent resources. Um, but beyond what you shared in your testimony, could you talk about your views on Halian replacements for fire suppression?
▶ 3:10:00This was something that came up from one of our constituents and more broadly as an expert in composite materials how these materials will impact aircraft efficiency and reduce emissions.
▶ 3:10:11Um first off uh thank you very much for the question representative. Uh we have engaged with NIST um on the Halon
▶ 3:10:19and are very very thankful for for the help that we received from them. So we do appreciate that. Um, I think I mentioned in the the testimony, um, you know, the expanded use, um, approval is what we're waiting on. And so, just knowing because halon is no longer
▶ 3:10:38Um, we need to have those replacements and we need to have them so that we can safely fly our airplanes. And so that's where we need to know, are we going to get those approvals or do we need to go back into that R&D cycle to find new chemistries in order to have to meet those fire safety requirements that come down to us from the FAA for our
▶ 3:10:58Is there things that we could do in Congress to help that or in working with the agencies to facilitate that? you know, this obviously is not my area of expertise per se. So I I'm sure that there are and so what I would offer up is that we can have those experts within the company to come and talk to you about that and see if there are opportunities that would make sense so we can follow up with you on that.
▶ 3:11:21That would be great.
▶ 3:11:22Um for your second question on the composite materials um the impact there um lightweing is always one of the things that we're looking at with composits and so we've talked about I've mentioned fuel burn and CO2 emissions. Um the other things though that we appreciate with with composits is you know the the lack of corrosion and so that gives us other benefits when we look at the the products for like coatings and and other things like that that protect the structure and so it there are a lot of benefits to us when we look at these new chemistries
▶ 3:11:53these new polymer systems and how we would apply them to our structures.
▶ 3:11:57Thank you very much. um you know the public is best served when industries like doctors like Boeing and others um work closely with our federal experts at agencies like this. So thank you for saying that. the um with my uh lead uh the remaining time I have left which is is little.
▶ 3:12:14I do want to submit for the record something that deals with um we talked about supply chain resilience and um and and standards and regulatory um issues here but it would be interesting to see if in the global marketplace
▶ 3:12:30will the gentle lady yield to her compadre there to her left. Oh, sure, sure, sure. In the go mark first, if there are any blueprints in the EU or other places across the globe uh that they are doing things that would inform us. Thank you. And I yield to my um my
▶ 3:12:44Thank you, Congress member. And I'm sorry to have to do this, but after I spoke and I left the room, I was told that one of my colleagues uh misrepresented something that I said and uh I would like to for the record clarify. I had made a statement saying that I don't think we're close to any I don't think we're anywhere close to using AI to tell us what chemicals are safe. We've had situations where AI became a Nazi, for example. And given that, I was personally attacked.
▶ 3:13:08And I would just like to read into the record from a letter issued unanimously by the Congressional Jewish Caucus um in July of 18th of 2025 referring to when AI's Grock referred to itself as me Mecca Hitler prayed praised Adolf Hitler and advanced a Holocaust style response to what it considered anti-white hate use anti-semitic tropes like targeting individuals by Jewish surname for vilification and generated graphic rape fantasies.
▶ 3:13:38and gave step-by-step instructions for committing sexual assault on individual exus users. This was these were actions that after much public backlash um ex apologized for and reprogrammed their AI.
▶ 3:13:53If the gentle lady can wrap up.
▶ 3:13:54Yes. Oh, I was pointing out that if we have an AI which called itself Adolf Hitler, that maybe this technology is not ready to decide what chemicals are safe given the ability for it to be programmed with values different than our own. And I would ask Mr. Miller if he agreed with Brock's statements of
▶ 3:14:14Lady's time's expired.
▶ 3:14:15Mr. Chairman,
▶ 3:14:16yes, ma'am. I ask unanimous consent um to put into the record only because misunderstanding is the bane of of
▶ 3:14:26It's like being a husband copy of the article uh relating to what Grock the chatbot called itself as well as a transcript of Miss Freriedman's remarks in the effort to uh make sure that we
▶ 3:14:40say that because forward together that's so so order without objection. We'll do that. And I say that in chess because sometimes us men just don't pay attention. But I appreciate your sentiment and uh we appreciate y'all being here. I thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony and the members for their questions. Uh the record will remain open for 10 days for additional comments and written questions from members. The hearing is adjourned.