Simpson Remarks at Budget Hearing for the Environmental Protection Agency

The Committee will come to order. This morning I’d like to welcome the 17th Administrator of the EPA, Lee Zeldin. Administrator Zeldin, welcome back to the House. I’m sure it feels different to sit on the other side of the witness table. 

We are here to discuss the FY 2026 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency.  

The EPA has ballooned in size over the last several years because the agency received $100 billion in supplemental funding outside of the annual appropriations process. That’s more than 10 times the annual funding of the entire Agency. 

And we are now starting to learn from your work, Administrator Zeldin, that there are serious questions about where some of this funding has gone. 

Specifically, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund recipients with potential conflicts of interest, and other program integrity concerns that several news outlets – such as the Wall Street Journal – have reported on.

The agency has also hired more than 1,300 additional FTE with this supplemental funding. I have had concerns about the potential staffing cliff when the supplemental funding runs out. Which means absorbing the supplemental FTE into our discretionary budget.  Administrator Zeldin, I know you’re well aware of this issue, so I’ll be asking you more about it later.

Additionally, EPA also doubled down on its regulatory footprint over the last few years. EPA regulations from the Biden Administration have made it harder for industry to thrive, or sometimes even survive, here at home. Even though these very industries have made great strides in reducing their environmental footprint.

This Administration is taking a hard look at EPA’s funding priorities and regulatory overreach, which I believe is much-needed. I want clean air and clean water just as much as anyone, but we must find an appropriate balance that also continues to promote economic growth and jobs here at home. 

Administrator Zeldin, I have been following your actions to reduce regulatory burdens, right-size the agency, and implement common-sense solutions to lower costs and increase American competitiveness. 

I hear often from various industries in Idaho – from farmers to manufacturing to chemical producers – that they are all looking for regulatory certainty. I hope that this hearing today will assure my constituents and industries in Idaho that EPA has a plan to provide this certainty – whether it’s re-writing rules or processing chemical or pesticide applications within the statutory deadlines. 

This hearing will also give us an opportunity to hear about how the “skinny budget” comports with this Administration’s goals for the agency, including returning EPA to its statutory functions. The request provides $4.2 billion for the EPA, which is $5 billion below the FY25 continuing resolution level. 

It proposes deep cuts to State and Tribal assistance grants, which we likely cannot fully agree to in our bill, but I look forward to hearing more from you as part of this initial step in the budget process.

I am ready to have the necessary and tough deliberations about how best to spend limited federal resources in order to ensure our natural resources – our lands and waters in Idaho and across the country – are protected and preserved while still promoting economic development and job creation.

Thank you, Administrator Zeldin, for being here today to have this discussion with us. Now, I’d like to yield to Ranking Member Pingree for her opening statement.