If the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and other science activities were limited only to those explicitly authorized by Congress, as this statement suggests, the consequences could be significant and potentially harmful to environmental protection efforts.

ORD’s research often addresses emerging environmental threats, such as new pollutants, climate change impacts, or novel industrial processes. Limiting research to only what is specifically authorized by Congress could reduce the agency’s ability to respond quickly to emerging issues and technological advancements.

Waiting for Congress to authorize specific research would likely introduce significant delays in responding to urgent environmental or public health crises. If an issue arises, such as the discovery of a harmful pollutant, the EPA would not be able to investigate or develop solutions unless Congress formally approves it. This could lead to a slower response to serious threats, including toxic spills, contamination, air and water quality issues, and climate-related disasters.

Furthermore, if the EPA’s scientific research is subject to congressional approval, it would almost certainly (and possibly by design) become politicized. Research might be influenced by political agendas or lobbying, rather than being driven by scientific priorities or actual environmental needs.

Limiting the EPA’s ability to conduct broad scientific research would likely undermine public trust in environmental regulation (which is also 100% by design in this case.) If people believe that the agency’s research is being dictated by political agendas rather than unbiased scientific inquiry, confidence in the EPA’s findings and regulations will erode.

Full contextual analysis of Section 3.4: Environmental Protection Agency here.