[Senate Hearing 111-1194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1194
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY AND
TRANSPARENCY REFORMS AT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 9, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-588 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Oversight
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JUNE 9, 2009
OPENING STATEMENTS
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico....... 4
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 5
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 7
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland, prepared statement................................... 8
WITNESSES
Jackson, Lisa, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 51
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 52
Senator Cardin........................................... 53
Senator Inhofe........................................... 59
Grifo, Francesca, Senior Scientist and Director, Scientific
Integrity Program, Union of Concerned Scientists............... 71
Prepared statement........................................... 74
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 94
Senator Cardin........................................... 96
Senator Vitter........................................... 97
Green, Kenneth P., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research........................... 104
Prepared statement........................................... 107
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 112
Goldman, Lynn, Professor and Principal Investigator, Johns
Hopkins National Children's Study.............................. 114
Prepared statement........................................... 116
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY REFORMS AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
jointly with the
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The full Committee and subcommittee met, pursuant to
notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Senators Whitehouse, Barrasso, Boxer, Inhofe,
Lautenberg, Voinovich, Cardin, Carper, and Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. The hearing will come to order.
I am delighted to be joined by the Ranking Member of the
full Committee, and I am the chairman of the Subcommittee, and
this is a joint hearing.
I am delighted to welcome the Administrator, and very
pleased to be joined by Senator Udall and Senator Voinovich.
From a point of view of logistics, I understand that
Administrator Jackson has an appointment at the White House at
11 o'clock, so you would like to leave here a little bit after
10:30, I would think, in order to be able to be there on time.
And in order to allow time for questions, I would ask that we
keep our opening statements brief, and I may exercise the
prerogative of the Chair to cut them off at some point so that
we can get to the testimony and get to the question and answer.
But I do want to thank the Administrator for being here
today. This is only her third appearance before the Senate,
which suggests her view of the importance of the issues of
scientific integrity and transparency that bring us here today.
I want to thank our Chairman, Senator Boxer, who will be
here later in the hearing, but at the moment has
responsibilities in other committees. Without Chairman Boxer,
today's hearing would not have been possible.
Under the previous Administration, as this Committee
witnessed, EPA's integrity was compromised. Science took a back
seat to politics. Polluters' interests came before protecting
public health. And this proud agency suffered an embarrassing
string of court defeats with rulings literally mocking the
agency's arguments.
But the winds of change have blown and under the Obama
administration science is resuming its rightful place in public
policy and EPA is reestablishing its reputation as an agency
whose sole mission is to protect our health and environment.
Two Governmentwide memoranda have gone out throughout the
Obama administration directing all executive branch agencies to
improve scientific integrity and achieve unprecedented levels
of transparency and openness. Within EPA, Administrator Jackson
has issued agency-specific guidance on the proper role of
science and transparency in agency decisionmaking. EPA has also
begun to repair programs and protocols that undermined the
proper role of science in the previous administration.
Last month, Administrator Jackson overhauled the integrated
risk information system, known as IRIS. IRIS assesses the
toxicity of new chemicals to determine their potential risks to
human health. Under the last Administration, IRIS was changed
to a complicated, obscure, 25-step process full of unnecessary
conflicts of interest and delays. Reviews were taking 5 or 6
years or more, and the Office of Management and Budget was
given undue secret influence over the outcome. The overhaul
restores the integrity and transparency of the IRIS system and
ensures that the majority of IRIS reviews are complete within
23 months.
Administrator Jackson has also resumed the staff white
paper used to give the Administrator the recommendations of
EPA's expert scientists, which former Administrator Johnson had
replaced with an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to wide
opinion that this was an attempt to sideline the expert opinion
of agency scientists in order to favor the opinions of
industries regulated by the EPA.
We applaud this great start, but there is clearly more to
do. The last 8 years have taught us that we need lasting
reforms that permanently reestablish EPA's credibility and
restore the pride of its dedicated employees who work long
hours for much less money than they could be paid elsewhere,
with passion and dedication, because they care deeply about
EPA's mission.
I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss some of
these future plans today. EPA's important mission protecting
the health of the American people and the environment that
sustains us and our children gives it sobering
responsibilities. It must be as its first Administrator,
William Ruckelshaus described it, an independent agency with
only the critical obligation to protect and enhance the
environment.
Administrator Jackson, it appears that you and your
colleagues stand ready to meet these responsibilities. I
welcome you. I look forward to your testimony.
And I turn to our very distinguished Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome the Administrator here today, and I agree with
the statement that was made in the opening part of the
Chairman's statement that best available science is important,
and I applaud you, Madam Administrator, for coming out and
talking about scientific integrity and transparency as
something that is going to be expected. But I have to look and
see what the record is so far, and I think transparency and
openness are losing for right now.
For one, I was disappointed by a recent announcement that
EPA is eliminating a policy to make the process of setting
national ambient air quality standards more transparent. I was
also troubled to read about the secretive process behind the
Administration's recent proposal for the new fuel economy
standards. According to Energy and Environment Daily, Mary
Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board, and Carol
Browner, quote, this is as it was quoted in the Energy and
Environment Daily, which I suspect that you have read. It says,
``quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House
with the auto industry officials,'' in an effort to conceal
information used to develop the fuel economy proposal, Nichols
said that she and Browner, ``put nothing in writing ever.''
Now, that doesn't look like transparency and openness, and
this was the process on an issue of great importance. Instead
of back room dealings, EPA should be encouraging public
participation at every step of the rulemaking process.
Of course, openness and transparency can mean many things.
At a minimum, they should mean that EPA conducts policy
analysis using the best available science and that such
analysis is clear, objective and accessible so the public can
understand it.
Again, measured against this standard, I am afraid that
we've missed the mark. To cite just one example, in its
economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey global warming bill, EPA
assumes that carbon capture and storage technology will be
commercially available by 2015. Considering the numerous
unresolved issues surrounding CCS, including liability, siting,
permitting and the viability of the technology itself, this
assumption seems pretty far-fetched.
Administrator Jackson, don't get me wrong. I appreciate
EPA's analysis and assistance it provides in crafting
legislation. I would say, however, that EPA's Waxman-Markey
analysis is flawed in several important respects, including its
assumptions, as I noted, about the nuclear power CCS, as well
as the availability of offsets.
It also fails to account for the impact of the bill's
overlapping mandates and the regional disparities the bill will
create. In order to provide a more balanced assessment of the
bill's cost, some of my colleagues and I will be sending a
letter requesting the EPA, in fact, I have the letter here
right now, that the EPA conduct a new analysis of the Waxman-
Markey bill that reflects more realistic assumptions on a range
of issues. I hope that you will commit to me today that the
agency will re-work its analysis and complete it by June 26.
This is the letter. It has been signed by all but two of
the Republicans. They will sign it, but we haven't been able to
get it signed yet. And I think it's consistent with the
comments that you have made, Madam Administrator, and thank you
for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
from the State of Oklahoma
I have always believed that one of the primary
responsibilities of this committee is to ensure that regulatory
decisions are based on the best available science. I want to
commend Administrator Jackson for making scientific integrity
and transparency essential components of EPA's mission. She has
eloquently expressed support for these principles in Agency
memos, congressional testimony, and speeches. My hope,
Administrator Jackson, is that you will transform these words
into actions.
So what is EPA's record so far? At this point, transparency
and openness are not winning the day. For one, I was
disappointed by the recent announcement that EPA is eliminating
a policy to make the process of setting National Ambient Air
Quality Standards more transparent.
I was also troubled to read about the secretive process
behind the Administration's recent proposal for new fuel
economy standards. According to Energy and Environment Daily,
Mary Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board, and
Carol Browner, ``quietly orchestrated private discussions from
the White House with auto industry officials.'' In an effort to
conceal information used to develop the fuel economy proposal,
Nichols said that she and Browner ``put nothing in writing,
ever.''
Now that doesn't look like transparency and openness; it's
more like hide and seek. And this was the process on an issue
of great importance. Instead of backroom dealings, EPA should
be encouraging public participation at every step in the
rulemaking process.
Of course, openness and transparency can mean many things.
At a minimum, they should mean that EPA conducts policy
analysis using the best available science and that such
analysis is clear, objective, and accessible so the public can
understand it. Again, measured against this standard, I'm
afraid EPA has missed the mark.
Let me explain. In its economic analysis of the Waxman-
Markey global warming bill, EPA based its conclusions on
several questionable assumptions. For example, EPA assumes that
only 6 gigawatts of new nuclear generation will be built in the
U.S. over the next 10 years and 13 gigawatts through 2025. Yet
EPA's previous modeling of Lieberman-Warner assumed a much
greater role for nuclear: 24 gigawatts by 2020 and 44 gigawatts
by 2025.
EPA also assumes that carbon capture and storage (CCS)
technology will be commercially available by 2015. Considering
the numerous unresolved issues surrounding CCS, including
liability, siting, permitting, and the viability of the
technology itself, this assumption seems farfetched.
Administrator Jackson, don't get me wrong: I appreciate
EPA's analysis and the assistance it provides in crafting
legislation. I would say, however, that EPA's Waxman-Markey
analysis is flawed in several important respects, including its
assumptions, as I noted, about nuclear power, CCS, as well as
the availability of offsets. It also fails to account for the
impact of the bill's overlapping mandates, and the regional
disparities the bill will create.
In order to provide a more balanced assessment of the
bill's costs, some of my colleagues and I will be sending you a
letter requesting that EPA conduct a new analysis of the
Waxman-Markey bill that reflects more realistic assumptions on
a range of issues. I hope that you will commit to me today that
the Agency will rework its analysis and complete it by June 26.
In my view, conducting this new analysis is a necessary
component of your pledge to make EPA more transparent. I look
forward to working with you to make it a reality.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Udall, do you care to make an opening statement?
Senator Udall. Just briefly, Chairman Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. I appreciate the brevity.
Senator Udall. It's good. I also want to hear the
Administrator on this very important subject.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. One of the things that I think struck me
when I looked at this field. In 2008, a survey of EPA
scientists concluded, and this is a survey done by the Union of
Concerned Scientists and included a report signed by thousands
of scientists, including several dozen Nobel Prize winners,
reveals some disturbing information: 783 scientists responded
that the EPA policies do not allow scientists to speak freely
to the news media about their findings; only 197 scientists
believe that the EPA allows scientists to communicate freely
with the media; 291 scientists responded they are not allowed
to publish work in peer-reviewed scientific journals regardless
of whether it adheres to agency policies or positions.
Now, I know the EPA under your leadership, Administrator
Jackson, and the President, have made changes and I am looking
forward to hearing about those today. I think as part of a
systematic approach, I would recommend that we not limit
ourselves only to the idea of the EPA fishbowl, but also to
promote scientific integrity more broadly in the academic and
private sector science that ultimately supports much of what
EPA does through regulation.
Intimidation, retaliation, lack of funding and political
interference are not limited only to EPA, but pose problems
throughout the scientific community.
So my urging would be to the scientists and to the agencies
that have these scientists, give us the truth. The people can
handle the truth in a democracy. When we know the truth, then
we can take the actions based upon sound science that will get
us there.
So thank you for being here today and I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Voinovich, do you care to make an opening
statement?
Senator Voinovich. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. I appreciate the fact that we are having
the hearing today. I firmly believe that EPA should be working
with the best science and that the agency's analysis and
decisions should be undertaken in a balanced and transparent
process.
One of the problems we have as policymakers is that
advocates on all sides of a debate claim that the system is
rigged. I have seen it now for 11 years, because of the fact
that there is no credibility about who is giving the
information.
Greater transparency should help allay some of these
concerns and, of course, the better information that we have,
the better decisions that we are able to make.
In this regard, I do have concern with EPA's recent
evaluation of legislation passed out of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee to address climate change. To help us fully
understand how this bill will impact emissions and our Nation's
energy infrastructure and economy, I am joining Senator Inhofe
and my other colleagues in asking you to re-run an analysis of
that piece of legislation.
For example, the EPA assumes that nuclear power will expand
by 150 percent over the lifetime of the program. This is in
stark contrast to formidable challenges limiting the expansion
of nuclear power, including the uncertainty in the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's licensing process, financing of the new
bill, lack of human capital, and so forth. And I am a great
advocate of nuclear power, as you know. The fact of the matter
is that that seems to be a very ambitious number in order to
meet the caps.
Senator Inhofe has already talked about the issue of
technology and capturing and sequestering carbon. I think you
know that the Department of Energy has seven test cases right
now on sequestering, and they claim that it will take them 10
years to really evaluate those tests that they have that they
are running. So those types of things are very, very important.
As we all know, EPA's modeling is only as good as the
assumptions that are built into it, and here optimistic
assumptions about technology and offset availability and the
lack of comprehensive analysis of the entire legislative
proposal greatly constrains the potential costs of the program.
And I think that analysis of the previous cap-and-trade
legislation showed significant economic hardship, while
providing no impact on global temperatures. The time to take a
detailed look at this is right now.
The point I am making is that the last time we had this
before this Committee--first of all, we didn't have enough
hearings, and I am going to ask the Chairman of the Committee
to have some more hearings. They had eight of them in the
House. We only had two of them, and I think we need to have
those hearings.
But more important, there is no way that we ought to vote a
bill out of this Committee until we have heard from the
Environmental Protection Agency as to its impact. The last time
around, we didn't get the EPA analysis until after it went out
of Committee. We didn't get the energy information. So there's
a lot of speculation about the real impact of it.
So the point I would like to make today is that you're here
to talk about good science, and I think it's great. And some of
the concerns that Senator Inhofe mentioned about some of what
went on in two instances bothers me. I think that the Acting
Chairman of this Committee did a very good job of excoriating
the last Administration. I don't think that it was bad as what
he depicted to us today, in all due respect, and it's your job
to make sure that, you know, 4 years form now somebody else
isn't sitting in that chair and doing the same thing about your
Environmental Protection Agency.
So we look forward to your hearing and we look forward to
working with you.
Thank you also for serving in this capacity. As I said when
you visited me in the office, you have the toughest job in the
Federal Government.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Lautenberg, would you care to
make an opening statement?
Senator Lautenberg. Show me a Senator that doesn't care to
make one.
[Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. Given that, the Chair will declare that
this will be the last opening statement before we get to
Administrator Jackson's testimony. If any other Senators
arrive, their statements will be taken for the record. In that
way, we can get to our testimony, given her schedule and the
appointment she has at the White House.
Senator Voinovich. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to have
my entire statement in the record, by the way.
Senator Whitehouse. Without objection.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
[The referenced material was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you, Ms. Jackson. It's always a pleasure to see you
because as I see it, and I don't know what Senator Whitehouse
said, but you always carry good news.
So I am happy, and I hope that the discussion was frank and
candid that the Chairman participated in because we've had
plenty of trouble. We've had fake science all over the place.
We have had people who thought one way, professional people
whose minds, no, their minds were changed, their words were
changed. That's what we saw on a constant basis.
From reversing global warming to creating clean energy, the
jobs that go with it, identifying and replacing cancer-causing
chemicals, science is the critical factor. And I know that
you're a practitioner of truth, as well as science, and I
appreciate that greatly.
Science was under attack, under constant attack in the
previous Administration, which did its best to ignore, censor
and suppress science. For example, they let political
appointees in the White House delay or stop EPA risk
assessments if they didn't like the outcome. We rely on those
studies to tell us which chemicals may cause cancer, birth
defects or other serious health problems.
But I am pleased to say, to note, that the Obama
administration has already reversed some of the anti-science
and anti-transparency policies of the past.
Administrator Lisa Jackson, you come from New Jersey. You
tell the truth, even if it hurts. And this helps. Ms. Jackson
reversed the policy governing risk assessments and made it
clear that science would direct them, not the politics.
She issued a memo to EPA employees in May, ``Scientific
integrity will be the backbone'' of her leadership of the
agency, and we're grateful to you for that. And earlier this
year, the White House directed the Office of Science and
Technology Policy to create a plan to increase scientific
integrity across the entire Federal Government.
And I want to also commend the EPA Administrator Jackson
and the Obama administration for defending scientists and their
research. As the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction
over dangerous chemicals, I know that science is the foundation
for protecting future generations.
For example, there are tens of thousands of chemicals on
the market, and if you tested the blood of any person in this
room, you'd find an ample supply of industrial chemicals,
including some that are known or suspected to cause cancer.
Unfortunately, current law makes it difficult for the EPA
to require testing of chemicals and also almost impossible for
EPA to regulate these chemicals, even if they're believed to be
dangerous. And that's why I plan to reintroduce my Kids Safe
Chemicals Act in the coming months. The bill will require
chemical companies to prove that their products are safe before
they end up in our homes and come in contact with our children.
We already regulate pesticides and pharmaceuticals this
way, and it's just common sense that we do the same for
chemicals that are used in consumer products.
The new tone of openness, transparency and reliance on
science is the right first step toward making our products, our
homes and our environment safe for all our families. I applaud
the Administration for their work, and I close with an example
of a scientist that was brought in here from the Pasteur
Institute in France. And he said that he absolutely denied the
fact that global warming was in place because there would be
more mosquitoes and more malaria if that was the case, and he
hasn't seen examples of it. There is science on the fly if
you've ever seen it.
Thank you very much.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
I see that the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Senator
Cardin, has appeared. Before his arrival, I unfortunately took
the liberty of closing the proceedings to further opening
statements.
Senator Cardin. Is that subject to objection?
[Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. I would ask that the distinguished
Senator----
Senator Cardin. I'm looking forward to hearing from the
Administrator, so I would be glad to put my statement in the
record.
Senator Whitehouse. I would appreciate it. That's very
kind.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator
from the State of Maryland
Madam Chairman, thank you, and our colleague Chairman
Whitehouse of the Oversight Subcommittee for holding this
hearing today. And thanks to our witnesses for coming before
the committee to help us address the very important issue of
scientific integrity and transparency in the regulatory and
enforcement work of the EPA. I especially want to thank and
acknowledge Dr. Lynn Goldman from Johns Hopkins University in
Baltimore, I am very much looking forward to your testimony.
In September of 2008 this committee held an oversight
hearing to examine President Bush's environmental record. I
don't intend to fan partisan flames by rehashing that
discussion, but I am greatly concerned about the legacy of Bush
EPA policies that remain on the books and how they factor into
enforcement actions, regulatory decisions and permit reviews
taking place today. It is incredibly important for EPA to
reassert the role science plays in its decisionmaking. We've
seen a significant absence of science in the policies emanating
from the Office of Water in particular.
The implementation of programs within the Clean Water Act,
our nation's legal foundation for surface water protection is
an area of great concern to me. The stated goal of the Clean
Water Act: ``To restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Nation's water'' makes it clear
that science is intended to guide the principals behind the
law.
Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
After the Supreme Court handed down its narrowly split
decisions in the SWANCC \1\ and Rapanos \2\ cases, both clear
examples of the court's ideological factions, EPA used these
decisions to issue an ideologically driven guidance that
drastically narrowed the jurisdictional scope of the Clean
Water Act. In an internal memo \3\ from former EPA Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Granta Nakayama noted that ``The Rapanos decision
and the resulting Guidance have created uncertainty about EPA's
ability to maintain an effective enforcement program with
respect to Clean Water Act obligations.'' The memo further
indicates that EPA's office of enforcement dropped or failed to
pursue more than 500 Clean Water Act enforcement cases as a
result of the Rapanos Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of
Engineers--2001.
\2\ Rapanos v. Army Corps of Engineers--2006.
\3\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum from Granta Y.
Nakayama, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, to Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's Assistant Administrator for
Water (Mar. 4, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This same guidance created a convoluted and inconsistent
jurisdictional review process that has removed Federal clean
water protections from millions of acres of wetlands and
thousands of miles of streams that were historically protected
by the Clean Water Act, including the entire Los Angeles River
in California and the Santa Cruz River in Arizona. The faulty
jurisdictional determination review process does not require
site visits, nor analysis of the chemical composition of soils
or water, nor recording of biological indicators.
I appreciate the attention Administrator Jackson has given
to this issue. The letter \4\ she and other leaders in the
Administration sent to the Chairman of the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee acknowledged the current Clean
Water Act jurisdiction guidance's shortcomings and
consistencies and laid out a set of principles for Congress to
address in a legislative solution to the Rapanos and SWANCC
decisions, which is very helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ May 20, 2009 letter from Council on Environmental Quality,
Environmental Protection Agency, United States Department of
Agriculture, Department of Interior and the Army of Engineers.
Administration's recommendations for legislative solution to Rapanos
decision.
Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining
Mountaintop removal coal mining is one of the most
environmentally destructive mineral extraction practices in the
world. It's touted as being safer for workers, yet the harm the
practice causes to drinking water sources, surface water
quality and the incredibly destructive force and frequency of
flood events exacerbated by mountaintop removal sites have made
life in the towns located in the West Virginia coalfields
anything but safe. Several scientific studies have been
conducted on the adverse effects of mountaintop removal has on
water quality and human health. Yet mountaintop removal mining
is a permitted activity allowed by EPA.
I know that the Department of Interior administers Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) programs, which
regulate the mining operations themselves, however the valley
fills, that require 404 (dredge and fill) permits, associated
with mountaintop removals require EPA approval. Your
predecessor rewrote the rules on valley fills throwing science
out of the window and gave a rubberstamp to just about any
mountaintop removal permit application that came through the
Agency.
A Harvard School of Public Health Study on life expectancy
rates in the U.S., published in the Public Library of Science's
Medical Journal on April 22, 2008 \5\, found West Virginians to
have the lowest life expectancy in the country. Further
examination of the Harvard study data, by West Virginians for
Affordable Health Care \6\ found, at the county level, life
expectancy rates in the Southern West Virginia coalfields,
where mountaintop removal is the normative practice, to be in
the lowest 1 percent in the country, nearly 11 years shorter
than the national average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ M. Ezzati, A. Friedman, S. Kulkarni, C. Murray, ``The Reversal
of Fortunes: Trends in County Mortality and Cross-County Mortality
Disparities in the United States.''
\6\ http://www.wvahc.org/downloads/early_deaths.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drinking water studies in the West Virginia coalfields have
revealed dangerously elevated heavy metal levels in the water
that flows out of the taps of the region. The water is far from
safe to drink, and when the color of the water that flows out
of the tap changes from yellow, to orange to red and eventually
black, as it often does, well, that is all the scientific proof
these victims need to know that mountaintop removal mines
threaten their lives.
I appreciate the sentiment from the Administration on using
science to guide its work. I only had time to delve into just
some of the issues facing just one of EPA's program offices,
the Office of Water. I look forward to hearing about the
changes we can expect to see at EPA and the planned reforms to
address the unfortunate policies that they inherited. I am
confident that the reassertion of science will bring about the
policy reforms necessary for the Environmental Protection
Agency to get back to the work of protecting the environment.
Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. With that, and with gratitude to the
Senator from Maryland, Administrator Jackson, you have the
floor.
STATEMENT OF LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Jackson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks in absentia, at least for now, to Chairwoman
Boxer for holding this hearing, for allowing me the honor of
speaking on scientific integrity. As an engineer, as someone
trained in science as a chemical engineer, if not in practice
every day, it is truly an honor to be able to speak on behalf
of the Administration on this topic.
Also, good morning to the Ranking Member, to all members of
the Committee. It is good to see you all.
I just want to start by saying, and I will paraphrase my
remarks. I am sure they are in the record. But if there is only
one thing that we remember it is that good science does not
simply happen at EPA or anywhere. Good science is only assured
by the rigorous and constant application of processes that have
been tried and true methods of showing the best way to reach
scientific consensus on any topic. And there are many topics
where opinion isn't entirely clear.
Those are things like peer review, things like a scrupulous
adherence to transparency, which I believe we are well on the
road to not only committing to, but putting into practice at
EPA. And I would love to give examples which I will do in my
testimony.
Many of the ideas I am going to share here this morning
were in a memo that I issued just last month. We called it
Scientific Integrity: Our Compass for Environmental Protection.
We call it the Compass memo. We are driven, guided by science.
It is not only the backbone, but it must be our guide.
As you can see, I am very proud of the work EPA has done.
I, too, have seen the surveys that Senator Udall cited that
indicate that a majority of past EPA scientists have
experienced what they believe is some form of political
interference in their work. That has to change and it will
change.
Already, I sit here proud because I believe no other agency
in Federal Government has done as much to restore the role of
science than EPA, and that focus has come from me and from my
office. It is important that career scientists know that their
work will guide the policies that we make during my tenure and
the tenure of the President.
On March 9, as you noted, President Obama issued a memo on
scientific integrity underscoring the need for the public to
trust the science and scientific process that informed public
policy decisions. It provides important guideposts for our
work. And as I have said many times, while the laws that EPA
implements have room for policy judgments within them, the
scientific findings on which these judgments must be made must
be independent. They must be arrived at using well-established
scientific methods--peer-reviewed, and they must be rigorous
and accurate and impartial.
Policymakers must respect the expertise and independence of
the agency's career scientists and independent advisers and
insist that scientific processes meet the highest standards of
quality.
Now, we recognize that environmental science is complex and
it is multifaceted, and scientists may differ on methodologies
that should be employed or how any particular study should be
interpreted. What I am committed to is that kind of debate
within our agency, and I am committed to making sure that that
debate receives a full airing of views, because I believe that
makes final decisions that much stronger.
Debate is not something that we should fear. It is actually
a force to challenge us and guide us, and in New Jersey is
makes us a little bit tougher. Right, Senator?
Senior scientists must take responsibility for resolving
differences, using established science policies and their best
professional judgments. I believe actions do speak louder than
words, and during my first few months as Administrator, we have
taken several actions to bolster the scientific processes we
use. We have emphasized the importance of transparency and re-
thought the integrated risk information system, or IRIS.
The new process is more transparent, but it is also timely
because timeliness is crucial to making sure that when the
science comes out, it is still useful to the American people
and to policymakers. EPA will control the IRIS process as it
has done in the past. Once again, it now controls it and it
will have final responsibility for the content of the IRIS
assessments.
At the end of the day, EPA will listen, take in the best
scientific opinion from many sources, but it will be the
arbiter about what the final decisions are.
We are improving efficiency, integrity and transparency in
our programs. Our commitment to quality, integrity and timely
public engagement was also the impetus for EPA staff to develop
a science plan for our activities. We are working to develop,
for example, a comprehensive human health and exposure
assessment for dioxin, the dioxin reassessment. And I have
committed that that reassessment will be completed by the end
of calendar year 2010.
When we speak about the national ambient air quality
standards, we know they play a central role in protecting human
health and the environment, and we have now reexamined our
NAAQS process to ensure that we take into account the latest
peer-reviewed science of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee, or CASAC, authorized by law to advise EPA on
standards.
It is essential that the best science and the greatest
transparency inform air quality standards because we know that
prevents illnesses and saves lives.
Finally, the President's Memorandum on Scientific Integrity
assigns the Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy the responsibility to make recommendations to
achieve the highest level of integrity in the executive
branch's involvement with scientific and technical processes.
EPA's active involvement will strengthen our ability to produce
top quality science that meets the highest standards of
integrity.
I have also asked our Acting Science Adviser Kevin
Teichman, who is here with me today, to work closely with OSTP.
After OSTP issues its recommendations, I will work closely to
make sure that we are fully applying them at EPA.
The Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity
provides us with a unique opportunity to demonstrate our deep
commitment to scientific integrity and fulfill our obligations
to the American people. I commit to seizing this opportunity in
the pursuit of EPA's vital mission to protect human health and
the environment.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Administrator.
I count six of us present, and Chairman Boxer to come,
which makes seven. So if we take 5 minutes each, we should just
about meet your schedule. So I would encourage my colleagues to
use their 5 minutes wisely, because I will try to stay within
that, knowing your scheduling demands.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Administrator Jackson, many of us view
the EPA as an organization that is emerging from a terrible
time, whether it is the documented experiences of EPA
scientists that Union of Concerned Scientists catalogued and
that Senator Udall referred to, or the decisions of the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals mocking agency theories in terms of
Alice in Wonderland, or unprecedented challenges to the
previous Administrator from the professional science advisory
boards, or the evaluations by GAO, or indeed the hearings of
this very Committee. There is a long and very complete record
of things having gone significantly wrong.
As you and I discussed when you were a candidate for this
office, we talked about the processes and the institutions that
can help keep EPA on the straight and narrow. And one of them
is the Inspector General. And throughout the difficult times
that EPA experienced, we heard very little from the Inspector
General. We had a candidate for that position who failed to
clear, and from the very earliest moment, I urged that you
consider this to be a priority position--get somebody very able
in and move as rapidly on this as possible.
What can you tell us now about the process of appointing an
Inspector General for the EPA?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, it remains a priority of mine.
Sometimes in the appointment process, we hit a few road bumps,
and I am--we are not quite back to the drawing board, but we
are now interviewing some new candidates for the position. I am
optimistic that we will be able to move along with the White
House expeditiously to name a new Inspector General. It is a
very important, very important position. I couldn't agree more.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, this will be one of many
inquiries I make about it, just to keep----
Ms. Jackson. I appreciate that.
Senator Whitehouse. You know of my interest in this
question.
More generally, we had a wonderful speech delivered by our
President in Normandy. He talked about why the soldiers return
to Normandy and tell their stories. The line in his speech was
so people don't forget. And of course, he went to Buchenwald
and also the whole message of the Holocaust is that it can
never be forgotten.
Now, nothing along that line happened at EPA. Things were
much--it is a question of a whole completely different scale.
But the question of so people don't forget that the President
indicated, I think is an important one. And I also think, and
colleagues may disagree, but I think that the things that went
wrong at EPA were not only significant, but also unique in the
EPA's history.
It had a long history of being a proud, independent
organization that irrespective of the political direction of
the Administration, went ahead, did its job, played by the
numbers, and made honest decisions.
So I think the experience of the last 8 years is a
significant one. It was particularly bad, particularly unique.
Things went wrong, and I don't think we can just forget. And I
would like to ask you what your view is on the question of so
we don't forget; what role you think the I.G. might have in
that; and whether there are any procedures in place within the
EPA at this point to try to catalogue what took place so that
there is an agency institutional memory of this. I think you
and I share the belief that the better we remember this, the
less likely it is to be repeated.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator. And we also share the belief
that that is a very good role for an Inspector General once we
have one, which is why it is such an important position. You
know, we are all about looking forward at the EPA because we
have such a tremendous workload in front of us for the American
people.
And yet, there should be some ability for us as an agency
to look at our record, the totality of it, but certainly
focusing on the court decisions and some of the more egregious
examples of scientists who felt that they weren't allowed to
speak.
And I think the Inspector General could play a very strong
role in doing that for the agency, while still allowing the
agency scientists to move forward with their agenda, which is
very important as well.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Administrator.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
First of all, I referenced this letter that we had sent to
you, and I would like to know. We are requesting a response by
June 26. Will you do that?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I haven't seen that letter. If it has
been received at the agency, it certainly hasn't made its way
to me. It sounds like you are still having it signed. I am
happy to review it.
Senator Inhofe. No, we have already sent it. Now, maybe the
agency didn't get it to you. It covers five areas, and even if
it is a couple of areas where you are not going to, could we
just get a response by the 26th, not expecting that every
question is going to be answered, but it is going to take more
time for this or this--just a response.
Ms. Jackson. Not knowing what it says, I commit to you that
we will timely in responding to your letter. What is today, the
8th?
Senator Inhofe. I don't know.
Ms. Jackson. We will get you some response to your letter
and it will be as responsive as we can be.
Senator Inhofe. Now, I have applauded you several times,
and I have quoted your quote when you say the American people
will not trust us to protect their health and their environment
if they do not trust the transparency, and so forth. And yet
this Bob Dineen, the CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association,
made this statement. He wrote, in talking about the lack of
access to the EPA's modeling, he said, ``The inaccessibility of
these models and the lack of clear and detailed documentation
on how the various models and data sets were integrated appear
to violate EPA's guidance regarding transparency.''
Would you commit to allow full access to the assumptions
and the inputs that developed the modeling? Do you have any
thoughts about why this statement was made?
Ms. Jackson. I don't know the gentleman. I don't want to
try to get into his thought processes. What I can commit to you
is that that modeling was done at the request of colleagues of
yours in the House of Representatives. We were being responsive
to their requests, as you are asking me to be responsive to
yours, and I will certainly do that. But I have to respect them
giving us input and asking the EPA to provide a service to
Congress. That is part of our job and our function, and we are
happy to do it.
Senator Inhofe. All right. That sounds good. I wasn't going
to ask this question, except the Senator from New Jersey piqued
my curiosity on something that I think would be good to have on
the record here.
Science is an interesting thing. It is one that changes
from time to time. Just as an example, many of the very top
scientists throughout the world, such as Claude Allegre in
France and David Bellamy in U.K. and Nir Shaviv in Israel, who
at one time back during the initial Kyoto years in the late
1990s were very, very strong in saying that anthropogenic gases
cause global warming. Those same scientists, them and about 700
other scientists, have now said no, we were wrong on the
science at that time; we thought that was true and it is no
longer true.
In fact, the interesting thing I saw just last week is
Sarkozy appointed Claude Allegre to be the Minister, I believe,
of the Environment for France. I am not sure that is the right
title, something like that. And here is a guy who is totally on
the skeptic side of the science.
I guess what I would say is we recognize that science--that
there are interpretations. Science does change, and there are a
lot of people who were immediately on one side that are now on
the other side--just the recognition that science does change.
Ms. Jackson. The recognition--I recognize that as we get
more data, scientists are duty-bound to constantly be reviewing
it and it may or may not change their position.
Senator Inhofe. Very good.
Ms. Jackson. On the issue of climate science, despite the
fact that 700 sounds like a large number, the vast majority of
scientists who work in the field, the scientific consensus, is
still that anthropogenic causes are causing our climate to
change. So I certainly, and you and I have discussed this
before, Senator, recognize the need to keep an open mind and to
look at information as it comes in. I am not a climate
scientist by training, but I do respect the consensus that has
been reached amongst them.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, but as you say, as new data comes in,
scientists do change.
Last, the IRIS process that you are adopting here does
overlook some steps that the previous Administration was
criticized for, such as OMB and others. There have been several
people in the scientific community that feel that the EPA is
writing the science, reviewing the science, and declaring the
science.
Would you look at the--where is that chart? Well, the OMB
part is in the post peer-review and several internal EPA steps.
Would you look at the chart that was used prior to that and
then respond to us in writing for the record which of those
steps you are eliminating. Would you do that for us?
Ms. Jackson. I am happy to do that, and I have looked at
that chart in the development of the new process.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I know. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. I thank the distinguished Ranking
Member.
I note with pleasure the arrival of our Chairman, who has
contributed so much to keeping EPA within the proper bounds of
scientific integrity and transparency. She has very courteously
told me to continue following the early bird rule, so we turn
now to Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
I think it is important for the EPA and this Committee to
also consider the consequences of the Data Access Act and the
Data Quality Act. As you probably know, Administrator Jackson,
these two appropriations riders passed in 1998 and 2000. And
they put federally funded science, which is either done by in-
house agency scientists or academics at a disadvantage to
private sector for-profit science. These Acts give legal rights
to regulated industries to file baseless attacks and delays
against science supporting environmental regulation, without
any penalty.
In principle, data access is a good thing, but due to the
successful efforts of industry lobbyists, industry gets access
to Government and academic data being used for regulation, but
not the other way around. The data is only flowing one way from
the researchers to industry opponents.
Using these Acts in 2003, the industry-funded Competitive
Enterprise Institute filed a challenge to withdraw the National
Assessment on Climate Change, despite that fact that it was
heavily peer-reviewed, unlike the work of the think tank. The
assessment was eventually published, but only after a fight.
My question has two parts. First, in its review of
scientific integrity at EPA, is the agency paying any attention
to the impacts of these two Acts on the scientific basis for
EPA's regulatory decisionmaking? And second, do any ongoing
reviews underway at OMB promise to reform the way that these
Acts are implemented?
Ms. Jackson. The agency's review, Senator, of the impact of
those Acts I think has been part and parcel of our work with
the Office of Science and Technology Policy on implementation
of the Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity. So I do
believe that there has been--I am looking for Kevin--some
discussion of that as part of that process. And I would expect,
because it affects us agency-wide, certainly EPA is one agency
where there is a potential for great effect. We have been quite
vocal in that process.
Senator Udall. And as you know, when you pass
appropriations riders, many times you don't get the full
benefit of the experience of the Congress. So I hope that when
you review these and look at these that you come back to us,
and come back to this Committee and to the Congress with
recommendations, changes to be made to make our scientific
decisionmaking more effective, more fair to both industry
scientists and Government scientists. Because I think that is
ultimately where we are going to get the very best policy.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Excuse me.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a full statement if I could please put that in the
record, and I have some question.
Senator Whitehouse. It will be put in the record without
objection.
[The referenced material was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Barrasso. Welcome. I hope you had an enjoyable trip
to Wyoming and had a chance to see some of the great beauty of
the incredible State.
Ms. Jackson. A beautiful State.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
I was looking at a New York Times article, and this was May
20. It said, ``Vow of silence key to White House-California
Fuel Economy Talks.'' And it starts by saying there was a
simple rule for negotiations between the White House and
California on vehicle fuel economy: put nothing in writing, put
nothing in writing. It goes on and talks about decisions that
nothing would be put in writing ever. And that was by Mary
Nichols from California, talking about fuel standards and what
was happening in the two States.
When they say ``put nothing in writing ever,'' it also
mentioned they didn't have any group meetings in discussing
these fuel standards. And this was all in regard to approving
vehicle emissions standards.
Did you participate in any of these meetings between Ms.
Browner and Ms. Nichols?
Ms. Jackson. I don't think I participated in any meeting
with the two of them. Certainly, EPA was integrally involved in
development of those fuel emission standards and the
announcement made by the President.
Senator Barrasso. Well, this seems to imply that the
decisions were all made in meetings that you actually didn't
participate in at all. And yet if you look at the Clean Air
Act, it says the Administrator shall, by regulation, prescribe
and from time to time revise in accordance with the provisions
of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any
air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles
or new motor vehicle engines which in the Administrator's
judgment cause or contribute to air pollution, which may
responsibly be anticipated to endanger public welfare.
I mean, it goes on and on, but it says the Administrator
shall, not Carol Browner. Under the law, wasn't this your
decision to make? It seems that Ms. Browner is the one in
charge and she has not been approved by the Senate, and not
you, who were the administrator who we have confirmed to really
run the Environmental Protection Agency, not an energy czar.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, I think your question actually is based
on a misunderstanding of the process here. First off, these
were negotiations. I have run an enforcement program. I have
been involved in numerous negotiations, and negotiations demand
a level of trust among the people around the table. We were
talking about the auto industry. We had 10 CEOs who joined the
President for that announcement. We had the unions. We had the
State of California who have done path-breaking work on auto
emissions standards. We had EPA and we had the Department of
Transportation. Those discussions EPA participated in from a
technical standpoint in order to give information on things
like from our Ann Arbor lab, the costs or the feasibility of
various types of controls on engines.
But to imply that the kind of secrecy that goes with
negotiations so that people can speak freely to each other
somehow is lack of scientific integrity is just a
misunderstanding of the process.
Senator Barrasso. But this is a hearing on transparency.
What we are dealing with here is with transparency, and I want
to know where the buck stops. Does it stop with you or does it
stop with Ms. Browner? Because this talks about, I mean,
specifically the New York Times article on May 20, it was then
that Nichols and Browner decided to keep their discussions as
quiet as possible, holding no group meetings, none at all. And
then they, quote Ms. Nichols as saying, ``We put nothing in
writing ever.''
CNN this week had a story on Friday about the number of
czars running this Administration instead of the people that
are confirmed by the Senate. And I have great concerns in an
Administration that says, we want transparency; we want to be
open; we want the American people to see what exactly is going
on.
What the New York Times article speaks about are secret
meetings, private meetings, hidden meetings, and that you, as
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, were
not even involved in, even though is affects specifically the
areas that the laws of the Nation say you are to oversee.
Ms. Jackson. To state again, my staff, certainly high-level
members of my staff, were involved in the Auto Task Force, as
well as on the subcommittees that were working specifically on
this particularly thorny issue. This issue is one that demanded
a cry for coordination at the White House level because it
involved two agencies of the Federal Government, DOT and EPA,
along with a State and 12 other States or more who had decided
to join with California.
And so I don't want to be left with the impression or the
sound bite that somehow EPA wasn't involved in the process. We
clearly were. The negotiations that led to the path-breaking
agreement that the President announced took time and it took
energy and they were handled out of the White House.
Senator Barrasso. Are you saying the staff was in charge
then? I am still confused by this, and I see that my time has
expired, but thank you very much for your comments.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. I
apologize for holding to the clock, but the Administrator has
an appointment at the White House so I am trying to get
everybody a turn in before she has to leave.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Jackson, it is a pleasure to have you before
our Committee.
I want to touch on a couple of issues. First, the Clean
Water Act. I am very interested in effective policies
concerning clean water in America. I had the responsibility to
chair the Subcommittee, and it seems to me that the Supreme
Court decisions on jurisdiction has made it extremely difficult
for you to achieve, for us to achieve the goals set out in the
Clean Water Act based upon good science information.
And I would just ask for your help. I know we have talked
about this before. And giving us the strategy so that we can
allow science to dictate our policies in this Country, at least
advise us as to what we should be doing on clean water. We have
a tremendous interest in my State, as you know, with the
Chesapeake Bay and I think this is important throughout our
Country, and just urge your attention to a strategy that will
allow us to return to good science in helping us develop the
policies for clean water in this Nation.
Ms. Jackson. I am happy to do that, Senator.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
I want to turn your attention to mountain-top removal of
coal. Senator Alexander and I have filed legislation in regards
to this as one of the most destructive practices in the world
for extracting minerals. It is controlled not only by the
Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act, but also 404 permits
under EPA. So you have a direct interest in this area.
I think it is pretty intuitive that drinking brown water is
not healthy for you, as it gets darker and darker. But we now
have some empirical evidence on health results of communities
that are affected by this mountain-top mining, and would just
urge you to get us the best science information possible so
that we can make the right decisions. I know that there is a
lot of interest involved here, but public health dictates that
we take action.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I don't want to eat up all
your time, but thank you for giving me just a minute to address
that.
I think that those who are most concerned about this issue
probably do have a valid concern that EPA can be more
transparent in the review processes it uses to judge the
potential clean water impacts of these projects. Once again,
EPA's role here is to look at what impacts these projects
potentially have on water quality, and the law says there can
be no significant degradation. And I think it is valid for
people to say, what does that mean and how are you judging
that.
So the commitment I would like to make to you is that we
will get better information out there and increase the
transparency of our process so that people don't have to guess
what it is EPA is thinking or what our scientists are using to
make judgments on any particular permit.
Senator Cardin. That is fair enough. That is what we want.
We want to see transparency. We want the information to be made
available to us. We want to make the best judgments based upon
the information that is available. And I think in this area of
mountain-top mining, it is going to become obvious, but we need
transparency in the process.
Later on the third panel, a distinguished person from
Maryland will be testifying once again before our Committee,
Dr. Lynn Goldman, and I welcome here to the Committee, a
Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins
University. She testified last year before our Committee and
talked a little bit about some of the problems of the previous
Administration.
The specific issue I want to talk about is a comment made
in that statement where she discussed concerns about changes
that have been made in EPA's integrated risk information
system, IRIS, that opened the door for interference by Federal
agencies like the Department of Defense, who are responsible
for waste cleanups in communities and have an interest in
delaying action.
I just want to use my last 50 seconds I have left just to
compliment you and your agency for the manner in which you have
worked with the Department of Defense. We are making progress
in Maryland as a result of cooperation now between agencies.
And that is good news, and I just really wanted to compliment
the early action of your agency in trying to work out
differences with other Federal agencies so that communities can
get the benefit of cleanup where it is needed, and we are
making progress now at Fort Meade that was not made before. So
thank you very much.
Ms. Jackson. Well, and thank you for your advocacy on
behalf of the people of Maryland.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. The distinguished Senator from New
Jersey, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It
shifts very transparently, but always good chairmen on this
Committee because this Committee is driven by truth and candor,
and that is the way we want to do it. Certainly, that is the
mantel that you have adopted, and we appreciate it greatly.
I introduced the Kids-Safe Chemicals Act. It would force
companies to conduct and submit studies on the safety of
chemicals. Would that help ease your task in monitoring what is
going on there?
Ms. Jackson. The work you have already done, Senator, on
leading the charge to ask tough questions about the Toxic
Substances Control Act, about who should be responsible for
getting the best data to EPA and about EPA's role, is extremely
important.
EPA hasn't taken, but I hope will soon take on behalf of
the Administration, a formal position on the legislation. But I
think there is much to applaud in the idea that the American
people are ready, and I think maybe even hungry, to know that
the Government is ramping up its attention to the evaluation of
chemicals before they end up in products that are used by our
children or by our families.
Senator Lautenberg. I wrote a law that is referred to in
its simplest form as the right to know. And it mimicked, if I
may say, what was law in New Jersey, and people had a right to
know and it was very helpful to us even though it had little or
no penalty except public knowledge. It worked wonders. And this
is something that the past Administration has continued to chip
away at, and see if we could reduce that requirement. Well, we
don't want that to happen.
In 2006 and 2007, the EPA completed only four chemical risk
assessments, despite a backlog of more than 70 chemicals. In
fact, 69 percent of outgoing assessments have been in progress
for more than 5 years.
What might you do to speed up the pace of risk assessment
at EPA, while you are maintaining the quality standard that you
have set?
Ms. Jackson. The risk assessment process at EPA was
previously taking close to 10 years, if you looked at how long
it was taking to get some assessments out. We have now
committed to a new IRIS process that would take about 23
months, Senator. And our idea there is that you can invite
rigorous public discussion. You can invite all kinds of input,
including input from fellow agencies like the Department of
Defense, but it will be on the record. Everyone will be able to
see those comments, and EPA will control the final decision.
And the reason that is important is to ensure that we don't
end up in endless debates back and forth at the expense of
American's health while they wait and wait and wait for
somebody in the Federal Government, and it is really EPA's role
to do it, to speak on risk of any particular chemical.
Senator Lautenberg. I would ask you a question about
Superfund. You are intimately knowledgeable about what the pace
of Superfund cleanup has done. I picked up kind of management
of the law from Governor Florio, Jim Florio, who wrote the
Superfund law in 1980. It took us a long time to learn how to
do the job properly.
It took a long time to get people trained. We have always
managed, in my view, to get loyal and competent people in
positions of importance in Government. I find the commitment to
the work is far more binding than that which I have found in
the private sector.
What do you think we might be able to do pace-wise if we
could reinstate the polluter pays obligation?
Ms. Jackson. Well, reinstatement of that obligation
obviously is the first step, because it means a constant steady
stream of a known amount of money to these cleanups. One of the
things that has happened over the past year is this kind of,
you know, giving different sites allowances and trying to
figure out what is the minimum amount necessary to keep the
cleanup going.
But I know you and Chairman Boxer have asked some very hard
questions that I haven't yet fully answered about expressing
your frustration with the pace of cleanups, the number of
construction completions going down, and finding ways to see
that number rise back to the levels we saw even 10 years ago.
And so, I am committed to trying to find those answers. I
don't have them today. I did commit to the Chairman that we
would do that work, and Mathy Stanislaus, thanks to the
Committee, and your confirmation by the full Senate, has
started actually I believe yesterday as head of the Superfund
program, of OSWER, and that is certainly one of his charges.
We have to be creative and innovative, but we need to keep
these cleanups moving. And I can tell you, going around the
Country now and having events with Recovery Act money and
seeing the joy, the literal joy in communities when you come
back to them and say not only are we back with a little money,
we are back with enough money to change the cleanup schedule.
I could do that all day long. I wish it was my only job.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much.
I would just close, if I might take 1 second.
Senator Whitehouse. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Lautenberg. Cruel behavior.
[Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. It is, but it is 10:31. The
Administrator has to get to the White House, and I will ask her
if she could give 5 minutes to the Chairman. We will then
conclude.
Ms. Jackson. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Because of time, I just want to say that I will be
submitting my questions to you for the record. Some of them
follow up on Senator Lautenberg's questions. But I just feel I
want to respond to Senator Barrasso in his anxiety over your
not doing enough, if that is what he was trying to say, and say
that I don't think in all my years, I have ever encountered an
Administrator who hit the ground running the way you did. And
thanks to this President for getting this appointment right.
I will just give a few examples. Air testing near schools,
you promised you would do it. You started it right away, so
that we can know if our kids are being exposed to toxics.
Investigating the coal ash waste nationwide, and we are working
very closely because we are very concerned about disasters
waiting to happen all over this Country, and we are working on
that.
You hired an expert on children's health, reporting
directly to you, and we have had meetings in my office about
how to do more, and Senator Lautenberg, even though he is
chafing at not being able to talk a little longer, I want him
to know how proud I am of him in his work to protect kids. And
this kids' safety law is essential. And as Chairman, I commit
myself to moving on this.
I think Senator Whitehouse's new chairmanship for Oversight
is being proven that this was a great decision of this
Committee, because he will be working directly with you as
well.
You also announced the review of the waiver, and that set
off, you know frankly, the negotiations that Senator Barrasso
criticized. Why is the party of no criticizing the fact that we
resolved an enormous dispute between the Federal Government and
19 States, or let's say 18 States, that were very upset that
they couldn't do more on fighting global warming through
vehicle emissions?
And the fact that of course you were at the table, but this
did require the White House because, as you pointed out, there
were so many parties involved, the DOT, the EPA, the autos, all
the States. And you know, we should say hooray because now
these lawsuits are being dropped, and yes, maybe not a lot was
put in writing. Maybe there was a concern because there were a
lot of lawsuits out there. The fact is, we should be very
pleased.
And of course, your work on the endangerment finding, the
proposed one that I think is leading us to hopefully a way to
deal with greenhouse gas emissions; the IRIS risk analysis
process that you have changed.
So I just want to say, you know, I could not be more
pleased. And then I am going to in my last 2 minutes just make
a couple of statements from my opening statement.
Science had clearly been under siege when you took the
reins. From clean air to perchlorate to children's health, I
believe decisions that should have been based on science were
based on politics and the polluters were running the show. This
is my opinion and I would be glad to go toe to toe with anybody
who thinks differently. You know, that is why the whole IRIS
program was so derailed because we put the polluters at the
table. And the fact is, it is the EPA's job to clean up the
environment. It is not the Environmental Pollution Agency. It
is the Environmental Protection Agency. And I am so proud of
the work you are doing.
And I also want to thank Senator Inhofe, he is in there,
out there somewhere, because when it came to giving you the
political appointees that you need and that the President had
sent down, he has been most cooperative. And we were able to
get Gina McCarthy through after a little bit of a fuss and a
fight. We have some of the others done, Tom Strickland. And I
have to say that Senator Inhofe has not been obstructionist,
and I appreciate it so much.
So I just want to thank you, Administrator, for your
openness, your honesty. You just come and you look us all in
the eye regardless of whether you agree with us. You tell us
what you think. You are also willing to have an open mind for
all of us. And what more could we ask from you?
But I just wanted to counter Senator Barrasso's point, if
you heard him and didn't know you, you would think he was
talking about somebody else. You couldn't be stronger or more
assertive in implementing your responsibilities under the law.
And I want to thank again Senator Whitehouse for working
with me to create this Subcommittee, because this oversight is
essential. You have so many issues on your plate and so many,
frankly, dangerous problems that you are dealing with, problems
that have been neglected.
So we will work with you in the future, as we have going
into this, and I am very proud of the work you are doing.
And I thank you, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. On that happy note, the Administrator
is excused for her engagement at the White House. I thank her
very much for her attendance and her testimony, and hope I have
not caused too much anxiety on the part of her staff who
urgently are signaling that she needs to be on the way.
Senator Boxer. Will you tell the President we all want you
to have more input? Tell him that Senator Barrasso is very
worried, and he should listen to you.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Jackson. I will, but he will say, what, more? How much
more can I possibly give you?
And you know, just to have a second. Senator Barrasso is
gone, and I am sorry to hear that, but you know, I just want to
say for the record, of course EPA was there. We were hands-on
at the table. To take Mary Nichols' quote, and we both know
her. Someone should ask her what she meant, but certainly EPA
was integrally involved in this ground breaking.
And I agree with you. I don't know how you get bad news out
of that announcement. That announcement took every single
constituency who might be worried and said, this is a good
thing for us, for our businesses, for our unions, for the
American people.
So I just think that that process is an example of how
EPA's science came to the fore, and how our experts and our
people who work so hard got an opportunity to see a happy day.
No one was happier than those scientists on that day.
So thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Senator Whitehouse. The next panel consists of John B.
Stephenson, the Director, Natural Resources and Environment, at
the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Director Stephenson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Stephenson. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, and
other Members who are here, I am pleased to be here today to
discuss the importance of scientific integrity and transparency
at the EPA.
My statement is based on our past work on both EPA's
integrated risk information system, or IRIS, and EPA's Federal
advisory committees and their use, such as the Science Advisory
Board.
Our work last year on IRIS, as you remember, which is a
data base that contains the agency's scientific position on the
potential human health effects of more than 540 chemicals,
identified significant concerns about both the lack of
transparency in the process and the resulting effect on the
credibility and integrity of these assessments.
We noted that the consequences of these problems were very
serious because IRIS assessments, after all, are the
cornerstone of EPA's ability to ensure scientifically sound
environmental decisions, policies and regulations. We also
found that the timeframes for completing assessments were
unacceptably long, often taking over a decade to complete. In
many cases, assessments became obsolete before they could be
finalized and were stuck in the endless loop of assessment and
reassessment.
Last year, we testified before this Committee about EPA's
lack of progress in streamlining IRIS and our frustration in
its lack of response to our recommendations. Indeed, the
process that EPA unveiled in April, 2008 a year ago was a step
backward and worse than the one it replaced.
As a result of this serious and seemingly intractable
problem, we added IRIS to GAO's January, 2009 report on
Governmentwide high-risk areas needing increased attention by
executive agencies and the Congress.
Today, I am pleased to report that while it is too soon to
offer a blanket endorsement, the new IRIS process introduced by
EPA on May 21 of this year appears to be a step in the right
direction. In particular, we are pleased that the new IRIS
process, if managed effectively, will be largely responsive to
the recommendations we made in our March, 2008 report.
First, the process will be managed by EPA, rather than OMB,
as the former process was. Second, it addresses a key
transparency concern by expressly requiring that all written
comments provided by other Federal agencies on draft IRIS
assessments be part of the public record.
Third, the new process streamlines the previous one by
consolidating and eliminating several steps. Most importantly,
the step under which the Federal agencies could have IRIS
assessments suspended in order to conduct additional research,
a step which would have defeated the intent of basing IRIS
assessments on the best available science.
And fourth, the request for an increase of $5 million and
10 additional staff positions will help ensure that more
resources are allocated to the IRIS program to meet user needs.
Of course, the ultimate success of IRIS will depend upon how
effectively EPA implements the new process.
While these changes reflect a significant improvement that
can help EPA restore the integrity and productivity of this
critical program, we believe additional clarification is needed
for some elements of the new process. Specifically, it is not
clear whether significant agreements reached among the Federal
agencies during interagency consultation meetings will be
documented in the public record. Nor is it clear to us why
comments from other Federal agencies cannot be solicited at the
time the initial draft is sent to independent peer reviewers
and the public.
These changes would enhance transparency, further reduce
the overall assessment timeframes, and provide greater
assurance that the draft had not been inappropriately biased by
policy considerations of agencies affected by the outcome, such
as the Departments of Defense and Energy.
Finally, it is unclear whether or how OMB or other White
House offices will be involved in the new process.
Switching gears a bit, I would like to briefly summarize
our work on EPA's scientific advisory committees and offer some
cautions about how they are formed and used. EPA currently has
24 separate Federal advisory committees that help ensure
scientific integrity by providing advice and expert peer
review. We have made a number of recommendations to EPA to
improve the independence and credibility of peer review panels
convened by the Science Advisory Board, one of EPA's largest
and most prominent Federal advisory committees.
EPA implemented our recommendations, enhancing its
assurance that relevant conflicts of interest are identified
and addressed, and that the committees are balanced in terms of
points of view. However, we believe that wider use of these
same policies and procedures by EPA's other scientific advisory
committees could help more broadly ensure that committee work
is not jeopardized by allegations of conflicts of interest or
bias.
We also believe that there are opportunities for EPA to use
its scientific advisory committees, such as the Children's
Health Advisory Protection Committee, more effectively and
proactively than they have in the past.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes a summary of my statement. I
will be happy to answer questions that you or other members of
the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Director.
Let me first tell you how much we appreciate the work that
you did back in, I guess, 2008, on the original IRIS process,
which as GAO found lent itself to interference, perhaps even
capture, and was not consistent with the transparency that one
expects for this type of determination, where the life and
health of Americans will be at stake.
So it was good work. We appreciate it. And I am delighted
that you have come back to review the remedy, and I think the
recommendations that you make for EPA are very helpful on that.
I would like to follow up a little bit on this question of
the science advisory boards. You have indicated a distinction
between two methodologies. One is a sort of representative
methodology where you get an industry scientist and somebody
else and they become proxies for different interest groups. And
the other is a process whereby you try to get people who are
the best scientists and you bring them in to give their best
judgment. And that those are two different approaches.
When Administrator Johnson was in charge, we often heard
that where there was some uncertainty or where there was some
doubt, that created a range of reasonable decisionmaking for
the Administrator and he could therefore decide, based on the
doubt, to err, say, toward the industry side of the equation.
It strikes me that there is a circularity here. If you use
the representative model, bringing in scientists who would
ordinarily have a conflict of interest, but are exempted from
conflict of interest rules in order to provide the industry
point of view, and they conflict with the legitimate science or
with the environmental science point of view, by using that
representative mechanism, you have created doubt in your
science advisory panel.
And now you are in a position to say, aha, there is doubt
about the science from the scientific advisory panel, and
therefore I now have authority not to go where the science
would ordinarily dictate.
And it seems that there is almost a feedback loop between
the Administrator's discretion to avoid the science based on
doubt and uncertainty, which he referred to over and over again
in hearings, and the doubt and uncertainty that is inherently
created when you have this turned into kind of a mini-
legislative body instead of a peer science body.
Would you comment on that?
Mr. Stephenson. Yes. I think both roles are appropriate. I
mean, you want representative scientific advisory committees to
represent special groups, industry or whatever. That is
appropriate. But you also want a set of advisory committees
that are advising the Government. They are special Government
employees, if you will, on the integrity in the science. And
our only caution is that you shouldn't confuse the two types of
groups and you should use them appropriately.
We think as a general rule that having stronger conflict of
interest policies and procedures for assigning the members or
selecting the members of those committees are nevertheless
still important.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You had stated in your opening statement, Mr. Director,
that the IRIS approach now is a step in the right direction.
And I notice that Chairman Boxer and I both have this same
chart. This is one that was put together of the revised IRIS
process post-April 10th of 2008.
Now, we are supposedly streamlining the way it assesses the
health effects of chemicals. The EPA is removing some of the
steps of the integrated risk information system review process.
That is what we are talking about here, some of the steps.
Now, it looks like a busy chart. It looks like a lot of
steps, probably a lot of them I would find that were not
necessary. But EPA specifically is cutting back internal EPA
review. It is cutting back peer review, cutting back OMB
review, and cutting back the international partner review.
Now, if they are cutting back all of these, why do you say
that is a step in the right direction?
Mr. Stephenson. Well, I don't think they are cutting them
out entirely. In our view, and this is a preliminary view, they
have consolidated some of those assessments that the other
Federal agencies will provide.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Well, specifically, look at the OMB
interagency review and the revised assessment post-peer review.
Where were they combined with something else to preserve the
integrity of their review?
Mr. Stephenson. Well, in our view, they could consolidate
the agency input as well as the industry input and any other
stakeholder input at the same time, and consider those and do
it in a very public way. All the research and information
provided by the Federal agencies, as well as any other
stakeholder, could be considered at that time.
Senator Inhofe. So you are saying that there is OMB
interagency review now, in this revised IRIS system that is in
place today?
Mr. Stephenson. What we are saying is it is not clear how
the White House offices will be involved in this particular
process. And we think that needs to be clarified and that needs
to be strengthened. We are certainly not against agency input
to the IRIS process. It just should be scientific research, the
same as any other stakeholder should be. It should be done in
public, very transparent.
Senator Inhofe. OK, I would like to ask the same thing of
you that I did of the Administrator, that you would submit in
writing, for the record, which of these steps that were in this
chart that you have seen and have worked with, that are
eliminated or combined, and where they are combined. Would you
do that?
Mr. Stephenson. We will be happy to do that.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Some comments were made by Senator
Whitehouse about the science. He referred to industry science
and environmental science. Is it your effort? I think we are
all interested in having both sciences, as they are kind of
conflicting sciences.
Mr. Stephenson. Absolutely.
Senator Inhofe. Would it be your wish, whether it is on a
scientific advisory board or elsewhere, to have equal input if
we are characterizing by either environmental or industry? My
personal feeling is there shouldn't be a difference. Science
should be science and it should be blind to industry and
environment.
Mr. Stephenson. I absolutely agree. IRIS is supposed to be
a collection and synthesis of the available science on a given
chemical at a given time, and certainly everybody has a
research and science that is relevant to that. I don't make a
distinction between industry science and environmental science.
Senator Inhofe. But if some of the scientists come from an
association or an industry that could be made appear to be
prejudiced, would you make the effort to have the other side
also?
Mr. Stephenson. Absolutely. That is written out in the
scientific advisory committee rules that you should have all
points of view equally represented.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stephenson. Certainly.
Senator Whitehouse. Chairman Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. How unusual for me to be able to call
on you.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you very much. I greatly
appreciate it.
Let me just say to GAO and to you personally, Mr.
Stephenson, a great big thank you for the work that you did,
because when I called you in here and we found out what was
going on, there was some grave concern. And I don't disagree
with anything Senator Inhofe said, but that's not what was
going over there.
And this is what the process was when you took a look at
it. By the way, this is only part of it, because here it says,
Federal agencies identify mission-critical chemicals, and if no
new studies, then go to step 14. Step 14 isn't even on here
because they didn't have space for it, so there is more. And
then over here it says, public listening session for comment on
draft assessment announced in FRN in step 17(a). And that's not
even on this particular sheet.
So what was going on over there? If I could just say what I
would have entitled this thing, it is how to kill scientific
risk assessment. That is what I think was going on. They were
killing it. They were killing it by dint of the process. They
were killing it by inviting the polluters to the table. That is
not what this is.
I want to protect my little baby grandson from getting
cancer from a lot of chemicals that are out there. I know we
all feel the same way. So therefore, I want a system based on
science, not based on politics, not based on having the
polluter at the table. Of course, they are going to argue that
their chemical is safe. We saw the makers of arsenic say that
their chemical was safe. So they are all going to say it is
safe.
Well, now we have a new assessment. It is understandable to
people. It is streamlined, which I would think the other side
would like. And the question that Senator Inhofe asked was
fine. He said, how do we get the other agencies in? It is right
here in step 6(b), EPA-led interagency scientific discussion.
And therefore, they are going to listen. But EPA will lead it.
They are not going to let these other folks lead it.
So let me ask you a couple of questions in my remaining
time. Do you think in general, and I get your specific
criticism of EPA and I think they have to address them, but do
you think in general that the most recent changes help to
ensure transparency when developing IRIS assessments and the
changes ensure that EPA controls the development of such
assessments, rather than having the polluters control it?
Mr. Stephenson. Well, we are GAO, so we are naturally
skeptical, and we reserve judgment to see how it is
implemented. We think that is very important. But in general,
it does allow for all of the research considered in the IRIS
process to be publicly available equally, whether it is an
agency or an industry or any other environmental group.
Senator Boxer. Good. And of course, it has to be
implemented right. And in your own report here, which the
Chairman has handed me, the IRIS reforms, if implemented
effectively, will represent significant improvements. Among
other things, they restore EPA's control of the process and
increase transparency.
But your hesitation is that it has got to be implemented in
the right way. Correct?
Mr. Stephenson. Correct. And we do say that it does go
toward implementing most of the recommendations that we made in
our April, 2008 report. We just haven't done a full analysis of
it.
Senator Boxer. How long will you need until we call you
back to let us know if you think they are implementing it
effectively? Will it take 6 months, a year? Because we want to
stay on top of it through this Oversight Subcommittee.
Mr. Stephenson. We want to see what kind of progress they
make on the first problematic assessments of some chemicals
that have been in the process for over a decade. Now, maybe
they have been in a decade for very good reasons, but in
general, we want to see if the Administrator can meet her
commitment of 23 months on average for an assessment. So I
would say at least a year.
Senator Boxer. So, we will have you back in a year to see
what the progress is.
Senator Whitehouse, I hope that you will do this in a year.
Now, last question. In your opinion, how important is it to
ensure that scientific panels base their decisions on the best
available science, not other considerations? Could agencies
improve their methods for ensuring the use of the best
available science?
Mr. Stephenson. Absolutely. We think that there are many
EPA advisory committees. And as I said, they serve multiple
purposes. The best available science is for the FACA Committee
that is an important goal. And we have noted in the past that
EPA can use these advisory committees more effectively and
proactively than they have in the past. So we will be watching
that as well.
Senator Boxer. OK. Let me say finally, again, you know,
there is a lot of times you do a lot of reports and nothing
much happens, and I don't like that. This time, a lot has
happened and implementation is the key, but you have to feel
good that you made a big change happen here in the IRIS
program. So I just want to thank you.
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you. That is our job.
Senator Whitehouse. And now finally the distinguished and
very patient Senator from Delaware, Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stephenson, welcome. It is good to see you. Thank you
for joining us today and for the work that you and your
colleagues at GAO do.
As you know, the EPA's integrated risk information program
and its data base contain the EPA's scientific position on the
potential human health effects of exposure to I believe more
than 540 chemicals. And you stated before that the system has
received an increase in funds and in resources, but we still
have some ways to go to have all the information we need in
order to fully understand the true human health impacts of
certain chemicals.
I am concerned that the missing data in IRIS will delay air
toxic policy decisions. And first of all, let me just ask you
to just talk with us about is there a better way to collect
this information; what are some of the options; how are we
collecting that information now; how might we collect it more
prudently in the future.
Mr. Stephenson. Of course, assessments of air toxins are
also some of those 540 that you mentioned. And what we said in
our 2008 report is that early planning could really help if EPA
on either a two or even a 3-year window out could identify,
along with the program offices within EPA, the assessments that
were vitally needed to implement the air toxics program and
other Clean Air Act programs.
We think that would go a long way to informing the research
community what was going to be needed such that it would be
available when the IRIS assessment on that particular chemical
started. We think that would go a long way toward streamlining,
making more efficient the overall assessment of all chemicals,
including air toxins.
Senator Carper. Now, who have you shared that notion with?
Mr. Stephenson. We actually recommended that in our 2008
report on IRIS. And early planning can really help in that
regard. We had I think 15 or 20 recommendations in that report
for improving the then-IRIS process.
Senator Carper. And who at EPA has responded to those
recommendations in that report?
Mr. Stephenson. They haven't been responded to specifically
in detail. There is a 60-day requirement for all Federal
agencies to respond to GAO recommendations and provide that
information to the Congress as well. And we haven't done as
good a follow up on that as we could have. We are in the
process of doing that now to see exactly what has been done
toward each of those recommendations.
Senator Carper. Has the 60-day clock already run?
Mr. Stephenson. Oh, yes. That was an April, 2008 report.
Senator Carper. Well, we are coming up on a 460-day clock.
Is that right?
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. OK. Of the recommendations that were
included, did you say 20?
Mr. Stephenson. I am doing it by recollection, but there
were a lot.
Senator Carper. But what were some of the most important
ones? You may have said this already.
Mr. Stephenson. Well, early planning. We highlighted the
need for transparency. We don't have objections to anybody
providing research for EPA to consider on a given chemical. We
just think it should be very transparent. The research should
be publicly available for the whole scientific community to
look at. We offered lots of opportunities for streamlining the
process, eliminating what we thought as redundant steps or
unnecessary steps.
So they went the whole gamut of what we called a broken
system back a year ago.
Senator Carper. I presume that there has been an informal
dialog back and forth between GAO and EPA over the last years.
Is that true, on these points?
Mr. Stephenson. Somewhat. I mean, we don't have specific
work going on IRIS right now, looking at the new process. We
think, and as I think the Committee thinks, it is better to
give the EPA a little bit of opportunity to respond to the
process that they just introduced May 21st, and implement it,
and then we think it would be appropriate for you all to
request GAO, for us to take another look at IRIS down the road.
Senator Carper. You just kind of answered the last question
I was going to ask, what should we be doing differently, or to
follow on?
Mr. Stephenson. I think just holding oversight hearings
like this, keeping the hearings process going; continuing to
emphasize scientific integrity; and look at all the individual
elements of the agency process that result in good integrity at
the agency. I think we are making progress. I think we are on
the right track.
Senator Carper. OK. And my last question is, what kind of
job do you think that Senator Whitehouse is doing in chairing
this hearing today?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stephenson. An absolutely splendid job.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I think he is doing his best.
Senator Whitehouse. That may need further investigation.
Senator Carper. I have never seen him quite this good.
So thank you for joining us today.
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Senator Whitehouse, thank you for pulling
us all together.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
Thank you, Mr. Stephenson. You are excused, but with the
appreciation of the Committee for a job well done. And I think
as the Chairman said, you must feel considerable satisfaction
in seeing such swift results under this Administration of the
recommendations that GAO offered in the past. So again,
congratulations and well done.
Mr. Stephenson. It is nice to see you all use our work.
Senator Whitehouse. While the next panel is joining us, I
will add to the record of these proceedings, without objection,
a letter received from John Holdren, the Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology and the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, who overseas official
travel makes his appearance at this particular hearing
impossible, but who wrote to let us know of the importance that
the President places on this topic, and to inform us of the
important work on scientific integrity that the President has
asked the Office of Science and Technology Policy to lead, in
particular OSTP's assembly of a task force representing all
departments and agencies with what are described as
``considerable'' scientific missions.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. The task force has, in the Federal
Register, filed a notice requesting public comments on the
President's memorandum and its six guiding principles. If
anybody wishes to comment into that process, the email address
is [email protected]. And he encourages public input
so that the process of continuing to enhance transparency and
scientific integrity in this Administration can continue
forward.
And now it is my pleasure to welcome Dr. Grifo, Dr. Green
and Dr. Goldman. You seem to be narrowed in a short bandwidth
of the alphabet today. But we are delighted to have you with
us. We appreciate the work that you have done in the past, and
I turn the hearing over to you for your statements.
Dr. Grifo.
STATEMENT OF FRANCESCA GRIFO, SENIOR SCIENTIST AND DIRECTOR,
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY PROGRAM, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
Ms. Grifo. Good morning. My name is Francesca Grifo, as you
have said, and I am a Senior Scientist and Director of the
Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned
Scientists, a leading science-based non-profit working for a
healthy environment and a safer world.
Thank you, Chairman Boxer in absentia, Chairman Whitehouse,
and the Ranking Members, also in absentia, and the members of
the Committee for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is at a
crossroads. The EPA is emerging from a period where agency
science was often a casualty of political decisions made behind
closed doors. Our research documented that 889 scientists
personally experienced at least once incidence of political
interference between 2002 and 2007.
The current Administrator, Lisa Jackson, has reversed
course on many of the most egregious of these decisions and has
spoken eloquently about the central role of science and
transparency in her vision for the EPA. But as the agency faces
mounting challenges in the coming years, the urge to justify
policy decisions with tampered science will remain a constant
temptation.
We urge Administrator Jackson and Congress to go beyond
reversing bad policies from the previous Administration and to
take steps to secure the credibility of future EPA decisions.
In truth, there is no silver bullet that will forever
protect EPA science from political manipulation. Any law or
policy regime that is flexible enough to allow fact-based
decisionmaking is vulnerable to mischief by unscrupulous
policymakers. There is simply no way to watch over every data
point in its journey from scientist to policy arena.
But we can increase transparency and power scientists to
speak out in still broader reforms, and ask Congress to pay
attention to these issues when drafting legislation and in
their oversight.
Transparency means that the media has access to EPA science
and scientists. Our finding that 783 scientists disagreed or
strongly disagreed that EPA policies allow scientists to speak
freely to the news media about their findings suggests the
importance of the implementation of an agency-wide media policy
that allows scientists and researchers to freely express their
personal views with an explicit disclaimer that they are
speaking as private citizens, and not seeking to represent
official agency policy.
Public affairs officers also need to have clearly defined
and important roles, but are not gatekeepers of information.
Our analysis of 15 Federal agencies demonstrates that some
agencies are already successfully doing this.
Transparency also means that the public has a right to know
the extent of outside influence on the EPA. The EPA should
institute a transparency policy for meetings, including a
complete public record of all meetings with outside entities.
Computers now make this possible as a quick addition to the
routine of signing in when visiting a Federal agency.
Transparency can protect the integrity of EPA science, and
the EPA should take steps to ensure that science is not
manipulated in the regulatory process, specifically by
expanding the information it shares with the public about its
decisions. The EPA's rulemaking docket should contain all
scientific studies in an agency's possession related to
proposed regulation, and all official interagency
communications regarding rules under review, including those
from the White House.
The EPA should publish a summary statement discussing the
scientific basis for any regulatory decisions informed by
science.
EPA whistleblowers are the last bastion against abuses of
science. The agency scientists have a profound responsibility
to the U.S. public. To fulfill that responsibility, they need
reassurance that standing behind their scientific work will not
open them to retaliation.
The House is considering a bipartisan comprehensive
whistleblower protection bill. We strongly support that
legislation and we urge the Senate to strengthen its
whistleblower bill, S. 372, in line with House reforms. But
even before strong whistleblower protection is enacted, we hope
that Administrator Jackson will send a strong message to agency
managers now that Federal scientists who raise concerns or
expose agency misconduct should not be retaliated against.
Looking to the future, there are far-reaching reforms that
should be considered to equip the EPA for the challenges of the
21st century. To prevent political interference in EPA science
by other agencies, the EPA needs to be empowered to take the
lead on cross-cutting environmental issues. A 2002 GAO report
found merit in the idea of elevating the EPA to a Cabinet-level
agency and we concur.
Problems with monitoring and enforcement need to be
addressed by Congress and the President to ensure that the EPA
is the robust environmental agency that our Country needs. The
EPA is an organization that necessarily houses both scientific
and policymaking functions. The interaction between these two
functions can lead to interference, but is also a source of
strength and credibility for the organization.
The science and policy wings of an agency should work as if
separated by a semi-permeable membrane that ensures the flow of
scientific information and advice from scientists to
policymakers to facilitate the creation of fact-based policies,
but strongly limits how policymakers can affect agency
scientists.
Finally, in conclusion, the role for Congress. It is
vitally important that Congress continue its oversight of
agency programs and activities. Risk assessment, cost-benefit
analysis, interactions with OMB and the Federal advisory
committees have all proven fertile ground for interference in
the past, and I urge this Committee to laud Administrator
Jackson for her accomplishments, but also to exercise its
oversight authority and to remain vigilant to abuses of
science.
When considering the next generation of environmental and
public health laws, I urge Congress to take steps to ensure
that those laws make use of the best available science and use
transparency, the empowerment of scientists and other means to
increase accountability and create laws that are resistant to
political tampering.
I look forward to working with the Committee on these
issues.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Grifo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Dr. Grifo. That was a very
good summation of a very, very thorough statement. I appreciate
that you sent in the complete statement because it has a lot of
wonderful material in it, particularly some of the quotes from
the EPA scientists about the OMB interference. That was very
trenchant stuff, and thank you for summarizing it so well.
Dr. Green.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH P. GREEN, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN
ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH
Mr. Green. Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman
Boxer, Senator Inhofe, Senator Whitehouse and the Committee for
having me here today to testify about this very important
topic.
I am, as you said, Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute.
I generally like to begin with a few words of my
background. By training, I am an environmental scientist,
having received my doctoral degree in environmental science and
engineering from UCLA in 1994. I was drawn to that field
through a childhood in the San Fernando Valley, a very smoggy
area when I grew up, where I developed asthma and learned
first-hand about the hazards of air pollution.
I felt love for the environment when with my mother and I
camped in California's many State parks and out in the Mojave
Desert, where we had a placer mining claim and where the air
was clean, dry and thoroughly healthful.
In the 1970s when the oil embargo hit, I tried to set up my
own solar distillery to make fuel ethanol from surplus oranges
of my neighbors, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms wouldn't give a license to distill to a 13-year-old in
those days.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Green. I have worked at the intersection of science and
public policy since 1990 when I took an internship position as
an Environmental Policy Analyst at the now defunct Hughes
Aircraft Company, which was then headquartered in Los Angeles,
California. Both the subject of my doctoral studies and the
focus of my work involved air quality regulations then being
promulgated by the California Air Resources Board and the Air
Quality Management District of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
Subsequently, I worked at several think tanks in the United
States and Canada and my research has broadened to incorporate
climate change and energy policy analysis at State, provincial
and Federal levels.
As more and more of our Nation's public policy decisions
involve the use of complex scientific information, I think it
becomes more and more important that our policymaking
institutions make use of such information in a process that is
unbiased, open to outside review and analysis, and allows for
the airing of divergent opinion, and particularly is
deliberative enough to ensure the decisions we make are the
right ones.
As recent experience has regretfully shown, this is not
always the case. Policies intended to mitigate climate change
and conventional pollution with the use of corn ethanol, for
example, have backfired badly. Rather than reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, there is every evidence that corn ethanol has
increased them; rather than reduce conventional air pollution,
corn ethanol production has increased them, along with
polluting surface and groundwater, contaminating fish stocks
with pesticide and herbicide residues, and expanding oceanic
dead zones caused by algae which bloom when they are over-fed
by fertilizer runoff from corn agriculture.
Most of these problems were raised by nongovernmental
analysts and outside scientists before the ethanol mandates
were passed, but the policymaking process proved opaque to such
cautionary voices.
Now, warnings are coming from nongovernmental policy
analysts once again. We may see equally perverse impacts from
other forms of renewable energy being promoted at breakneck
speed through the spending of stimulus money in pending
legislation involving energy and climate change.
For example, new scientific reports are validating concerns
expressed by energy analysts that concentrated solar power
systems may have unsustainable water demand and will imperil
the fragile desert ecosystems I grew up enjoying and would like
to see for my children and grandchildren safe to enjoy as well.
Warnings that wind turbines are not environmentally benign
are also being validated as they are found to cause noise
pollution, visual blight, bird and bat kills, and potentially
harm livestock. One recent study, in fact, also has found that
mass transit systems may even produce more pollutants than the
automobiles and air travel they seek to displace.
Left and right, we are seeing failings of policymaking
bodies to listen to cautionary voices outside of their own
purview in the development of public policy that is based on
scientific information.
The President's Memoranda on Transparency and Open
Government and on Scientific Integrity are a great start, but
they can only be considered a start in the process to ensure
the information is used in the process of public policy
formation.
On the plus side, the memoranda correctly identify certain
important elements of a transparent process featuring
scientific integrity. The President is exactly right when he
says political officials should not suppress or alter
scientific or technological findings and conclusions.
It is also reassuring the President ordered to the extent
permitted by law that there should be transparency in the
preparation, identification and use of scientific and
technological information in policymaking, and I particularly
think the President's observation that public engagement
enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the
quality of decisions because knowledge is widely dispersed in
society. That is spot on.
All too often, however, I have seen an assumption that only
scientists working within Government or dependent on
governmental grants have worthwhile knowledge to inject into
public policy decisionmaking. There is, I believe, an inherent
bias against scientists in the private sector, even though
those are the people who, day in and day out in laboratories,
produce the prescription drugs and devices that save millions
and who develop the technologies that empower billions.
The same is true with regard to the President's and agency
emphasis on the peer-reviewed literature. As we have discovered
through revelations about fraud in the scientific and medical
literature, peer review is no guarantee of accuracy. Often, the
keys to publication are in the hands of those with a vested
career interest in preserving a particular theory that gained
them prestige and standing to be considered as peer reviewers.
As a recent article, ironically published in the peer-reviewed
literature, Journal of PLOS Medicine pointed out, most claimed
research findings are wrong.
The President, Congress and the regulatory agencies should
explicitly recognize there is a legitimate role for
nongovernmental independent scientific participation in the
public policy decisionmaking process in terms of personnel and
the injection of scientific research materials conducted
outside the peer-reviewed literature, but by private entities.
Many times over my career, I have seen a lack of
opportunity for consultation. I have seen massive scientific
reports issued by State and Federal Governments before
Thanksgiving weekend or just before the Christmas holidays,
with minimal time allowed for the review of 1,000-page
documents.
We may see that again in coming months where we have been
promised the passage of landmark legislation on climate change
just in time for the Independence Day holidays and most
people's summer vacation. That is not what I would call
accessibility or transparency.
The rest of my comments I will submit for the record
because I believe I am running out of time. But to conclude, it
must be always remembered that science may be able to tell us
what is, but it cannot tell us what to do. It is important that
science infuse processes, but not that we be guided or led by
science. We are not a scientocracy.
Public policy formation requires the balance of many
factors, social, economic, equity, individual rights, personal
responsibilities, and more. Openness and transparency and
scientific integrity are very important, but they are not the
only elements that are important in public policy
decisionmaking.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak, and of
course I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Goldman.
STATEMENT OF LYNN GOLDMAN, PROFESSOR AND PRINCIPAL
INVESTIGATOR, JOHNS HOPKINS NATIONAL CHILDREN'S STUDY
Ms. Goldman. Thank you, Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe in
absentia for inviting me to testify before you today.
As you know, I formerly served at the U.S. EPA in the
Clinton administration. I am a Professor at Johns Hopkins
University.
This issue of scientific integrity at the EPA is one that
is very near and dear to my heart. During the time that I was
at EPA, we worked very hard to try to get the science right to
inform regulations, to inform all of our actions, to inform the
legislation that was being undertaken by this body.
And we also worked very hard to establish peer review
practices and other mechanisms to make sure that the external
scientific community could participate as much as possible and
so that they could serve as a check, if you may, to make sure
that the science coming from EPA was completely up to date with
the science as it is occurring in academia and the rest of
society.
And I think the results of that were a number of science-
based actions that served to protect the public's health and
the environment, which is, after all, what the mission of the
EPA is all about.
Last year, I appeared before this Committee to testify
about my concerns about the changes that had been made to EPA's
integrated risk information system, or IRIS. Of course, it is a
very challenging process to completely assess the toxicity of a
chemical. It requires the engagement of scientists from very
many disciplines and the synthesis of a tremendous amount of
information.
And the peer review process is even more difficult because
you would want the peer reviewers to be very much at the
cutting edge of the science, and to be capable of being able to
review the work of EPA scientists who themselves are
extraordinarily expert in what they do.
Unfortunately, in the last Administration, actions had been
taken that undermined that process. The White House Office of
Management and Budget was in essence placed in charge of that
process. There were non-transparent processes that allowed
other agencies to intervene in that process, and even to stop
assessments of chemicals if they wanted more time to study
them. And the last word on the toxicity of the chemicals was in
the hands of the OMB.
So I personally am very happy that the EPA under Lisa
Jackson's leadership has restored the integrity of the IRIS
process, and I think that the new review process makes sense.
It is open. It is transparent. It allows everybody to play a
role, the Federal agencies as well as outside scientists, and
it allows the final authority over the contents of IRIS
listings to be in the hands of EPA, which is where it needs to
be.
As I at one point worked in a State agency, I worked for
the State of California, and I can tell you that everybody
relies on IRIS, the States, industry. It is a very, very
important resource and it is one that needs to be protected.
I have also been pleased with the changes that Lisa Jackson
has announced to the process for creating the so-called NAAQS,
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Again, there had
been some changes made in the last Administration where the so-
called staff papers that laid out the analysis of EPA
scientists were disregarded by decisionmakers, and they were
not made available to the public. They were not made available
to Congress to review. And I am happy to see that those have
now been restored to the proper place in terms of helping to
inform decisions, as well as the new determination on the part
of EPA to listen to its Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee.
I will tell you, as a member of the scientific community
now, that the disputes that were occurring between EPA and
CASAC hurt EPA terribly in terms of EPA's credibility with
independent scientists and the fact that, you know, the idea
that if you were brought to EPA to advise the EPA that your
advice would not even receive a hearing by decisionmakers, then
what would motivate you to serve as an adviser to EPA?
Because believe me, those special Government employee
assignments take a lot of time. They take you away from your
research. They take you away from your students. And the only
reason it is worth doing that is to serve the public, to feel
that you are doing something in service of EPA.
In closing, I would like to bring to your attention the
work of the bipartisan Policy Center's Science for Policy
Project, that is co-chaired by Sherwood Boehlert and by Don
Kennedy. I happen to be a member of this. This is an interim
report from this group called Improving the Use of Science in
Regulatory Policy. And it is our hope that these kinds of
reports from outside of the Government will be helpful to all
of you as you deliberate in the future.
Thank you again for inviting me to be here with you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Goldman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Dr. Goldman. I appreciate
your testimony, and I thank all of the witnesses for their
participation in this hearing.
This is the first hearing of the Oversight Committee of the
Environment and Public Works Committee. And it is a Committee
that didn't exist before. This is a joint hearing, and
obviously the Chairman, Barbara Boxer, and the Ranking Member,
Jim Inhofe, have been here during the course of the hearing,
and now you are down to the Chairman of the Subcommittee,
myself, and my distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Barrasso.
And I would love to hear the advice of the panel on what's
next. What are the two or three key things that EPA should
focus on in order to, I would say reclaim its integrity, but
let's be a little bit more technical, to reclaim processes and
protocols and standards that will protect its integrity?
Go ahead, Dr. Grifo.
Ms. Grifo. Thank you.
Two or three is hard. I have four.
Senator Whitehouse. OK.
Ms. Grifo. Can I stick in four?
Senator Whitehouse. Four is good.
Ms. Grifo. I think one of the most important things is
going to be to draft an agency-wide media policy. I mean, the
media are the route from EPA to the American people, and we
really need to have that route opened up.
The second I would say is just in general providing the
public with more information about meetings between agency
officials and outside entities. This has been another source of
problems in the past.
Senator Whitehouse. Can I stop you on the media policy just
for 1 second?
Ms. Grifo. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Just from a management point of view,
you could get into a situation in which you had an employee who
was grandstanding with the media, who was using the media to
undercut administrative authorities or create management
problems, to self-aggrandize or stray away from the topic that
they have been told to handle because they have a personal
interest in something else.
There are other motivations for going to the media than
just plain kind of whistleblowing and transparency. How do you
cope with those? How do we write a policy or pursue a standard
of oversight that allows for some degree of management of the
function of employees in talking to the media, while at the
same time assuring that that doesn't become an institutional
problem that affects scientific integrity?
Ms. Grifo. I think there are two things. One, I think you
are aware of our work, our media policy scorecard, where we
looked at 15 agencies. And in fact, there are several agencies
that do have this kind of a media policy and that hasn't
happened. It has not become a giant impediment to the work of
those agencies. So I think it can happen.
But I think the second thing is that what we are talking
about is a personal views exemption. That in other words, the
scientist cannot speak for the agency without going through all
of those normal channels that we all approve and want to see
happen.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. That is a good answer.
Ms. Grifo. But rather, you know, it is a personal views
exception. They have to stop and take off their agency hat and
put on their private citizen hat, and then of course, you know,
we do have the First Amendment, so we want to----
Senator Whitehouse. Yes. Understood. OK. I didn't want to
stop you at one because you had four.
Ms. Grifo. OK. So that was two, very quickly.
The third one I think is really about routinely disclosing
more information about the scientific basis for agency
decisions. I think there are still, you know, big issues that
are out there. I think we have a number of these issues
swirling around. When we look at the relationship between the
EPA and the Office of Management and Budget that are still, I
mean obviously we are waiting for the new directive to come out
of OMB and OIRA to tell us what its role is going to be. But I
think what is important is OIRA is a creation of Congress. OIRA
was created by Congress and Congress, you know, could limit
OIRA and do things in that regard.
And the last one, last but not least, I think we really
would like to see Lisa Jackson come out and be very clear with
her managers, because this is the level at which this is
happening. She has come out and said in a general sense to
employees, but to completely and in a focused manner address
her managers on how retaliation is just not acceptable. Because
until we have strong whistleblower protections legally enabled,
we still are going to have those issues because there is this
culture and we want to see that culture change.
So those would be my quick four.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. I will come back to it, but my time
has expired, so I will turn to the distinguished Senator from
Wyoming.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
a pleasure to work with you on this Oversight Committee. I
appreciate it. I would say so far you are the finest Chairman
that this Committee has ever had.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. Dr. Green, if I could just ask you a
couple of questions. You state in your testimony that there is
an assumption that only scientists working within Government or
dependent on Government grants really have worthwhile knowledge
to inject into public policy decisionmaking. What would you say
about scientists from environmental special interest groups?
Are they treated with more credibility?
Mr. Green. I think to a certain extent they are. They are
certainly given a place at the table more often, I think, than
those who are with either non-environmental NGOs or with
industrial or technological groups.
I think they are given the benefit of the doubt that they
are somehow unbiased and not dependent on any sources of income
that could bias their opinions. And I think that in many cases
that assumption is open to question.
Senator Barrasso. Well, do you see a reluctance by Federal
agencies, then, to hire scientists who come from the private
sector, say, as opposed to environmental special interest
groups? And how do you see that happening?
Mr. Green. I guess that would perhaps that might depend on
the Administration.
Again, there is I think a general belief that somehow being
a productive part of an industrial organization or a private
organization is a tainting thing to be, that there is some
taint to actually making things that we rely on in our daily
lives, and they are not therefore treated with the same level
of gravitas.
There is the other fact, however, which is if you are
actually doing work in laboratories for the private sector, you
are not focusing on peer-reviewed publication. And therefore,
the giant emphasis on having a long track record of peer-
reviewed publication does cut against such people who are busy
actually doing their job.
Senator Barrasso. You made a comment that I found striking.
You said that ``While science may be able to tell us what is,
it can never really tell us what to do.'' And you know, is
there any issue today where you believe that policymakers are
saying science is telling us what to do?
Mr. Green. Well, I mean, absolutely. The biggest issue of
the day, climate change, is one in which you hear this
routinely. The science says we must do X. We must achieve this
level of greenhouse gas emission reductions over this period of
time. The science tells us we must.
Well, that is not the nature of science. Science can tell
you the nature of a problem. It could tell you what impacts you
might get from a given reduction of greenhouse gases. But the
decision that that is the worthwhile or the best investment of
the funds you have at the time you have them with regard to the
other values you hold dear, such as economic growth, which also
affects health and the environment, that decision can only be
done on a multiple value assessment. It is not a dictation of
science.
But we hear this regularly, not only with regard to climate
change, but with regard to chemical exposures, air pollution.
Science tells us we must do something. As a scientist, I can
tell you I am the first one who does not want to live in a
scientocracy.
Senator Barrasso. Dr. Green, if I could go on. I talked
with Lisa Jackson about my concerns about how there is now an
energy and a climate czar with oversight over issues involving
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Interior,
Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Transportation.
I just want your thoughts on the creation of an energy and
climate czar. Is that going to help or hurt using science
correctly in developing policy?
Mr. Green. Well, as we found, czars didn't work terribly
well for Russia, so it is unclear they are going to work any
better for us. I think it actually is a very bad precedent. I
think the responsibility of the agency heads to the Senate
which confirms them is very important in terms of openness,
transparency and all of the things we have talked about today.
The fact that there is a Government agency or Government
person who says explicitly that in order to deny knowledge to
the public nothing was written down is deeply troubling, when
you talk about a decision that could lead to the loss of jobs
for tens of thousands of people, change the buying decisions
and override the buying decisions of all Americans. I find that
to be very troubling, and if that is going to be the pattern we
see with regard to energy decisionmaking as well, I think it is
still more troubling.
Senator Barrasso. And then, Dr. Green, I only have about 30
seconds left. Would you like to respond to any of the other
comments you have heard from other panelists today?
Mr. Green. Well, I think there is some general agreement
here that these are important issues, transparency, openness
and consultation. But I think without a meaningful commitment
to allowing the time for deliberation, these things are almost
all meaningless. I have had the dubious pleasure of reading the
IPCC reports on science now in their totality every 5 years.
And I can tell you, you cannot plow through a 1,000-page
document of intense scientific information over a weekend in
order to submit comments within a 15-day or 30-day comment
period.
Without a real commitment to a deliberative time period and
the end of game-playing with the release before holidays and so
forth, all of this is relatively meaningless.
Senator Barrasso. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some other additional
questions for Dr. Grifo and Dr. Goldman. Perhaps I can submit
those in writing.
Senator Whitehouse. Or we can continue to a second round?
Senator Barrasso. No, that is all right. I have an Energy
markup, so thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. All right. I wanted to follow up on a
point that our distinguished Ranking Member just made about,
and that Dr. Green also did, about the difference between, the
perceived difference between Government scientists, scientists
representing not-for-profit organizations, and scientists
representing the views of for-profit private corporations.
And I concur that it is not a given that because a
scientist worked for a private corporation, their credibility
is diminished or their integrity is subject to question. But it
does make a bright and simple guideline, and it is a bit of a
proxy, I would suggest, that may not be exactly accurate. But
the problem that I see is that within the science supported by
private for-profit corporations, we have seen over and over
situations in which the science was really deliberately twisted
for profit.
They were real low moments. They could not be characterized
by scientific integrity. Examples like the American Tobacco
Institute and its forever campaign to convince people that
tobacco was safe. The American Lead Institute and its forever
campaign to convince people that, first, lead was safe; and
second, well, OK, it is not safe, but you have to eat a flake
of lead the size of a potato chip before you are actually
harmed.
I think we have to be candid and admit that there is an
industry of bogus or questionable science that infects a part
of the private sector. And unfortunately, the private sector
has not really made any effort to distinguish the legitimate
private science from those propagandizing efforts.
And as a result, I think there is a broader taint, and
therefore people who can't pick out one thing from the other
just think, well, there is no risk of private science being
corrupt if we don't bother to look at it; if we focus more on
the NGOs who don't have the same profit motive, and if we focus
on Government scientists who don't have that motive at all.
So I would urge that one of the things we might consider in
this Committee as we go forward is trying to make some of those
distinctions between what is legitimate science and on what
occasions the science has just been degraded and turned to
industry propagandizing. And unfortunately, there are I think
at this point almost indisputable examples of that.
And I would like to ask Dr. Goldman on that point. You have
said that EPA does its best work in the sunshine. Is it enough
in terms of trying to make that distinction between legitimate
private science and private science that has been bought and
paid for to produce a particular result, the so-called
merchants of doubt? Is sunshine enough or should there be more
attention to those organizations like the American Tobacco
Institute and the American Lead Institute of the past that
frankly don't meet standards of environmental integrity or
credibility?
Ms. Goldman. Well, I would agree with you that there does
need to be more attention paid to that. And I have an
experience along those lines during the time I was at EPA
responsible for the regulation of pesticides. Apparently, we
were looking at one in particular called phosphine.
After I left EPA, people involved in the tobacco litigation
sent me a big folder about phosphine and how the tobacco
companies which were using this pesticide had put together a
group called, I think they are called the Phosphine Coalition
or some such thing. And in this folder was a letter from a
private scientific organization, a consulting firm that was
hired to support them in defending their product against EPA
and against regulation in which the firm promised not only a
certain outcome in terms of, we will evaluate this chemical and
we will come up with this number as the appropriate number to
which EPA will regulate it, but they would write a paper about
that and publish that in the scientific literature before they
had done one thing, before they had lifted a single pencil to
do a risk assessment.
And you know, reading that, I mean, is that what made my
hair curl? But it really was something I had suspected was
going on behind the scenes, but had never had proof of. And
that kind of thing just shouldn't be. And I agree with you that
industry has some responsibility to help sort this out and to
weed out some of these practices that are inconsistent with the
best of science.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, I think as you said, there is the
risk that if industry itself won't stand up to these abusive
practices and distinguish its science from them, that they will
then suffer some of that taint, which I think is unnecessary.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. [Remarks off microphone.]
Mr. Green. Yes, I would like to respond to that question. I
think you make a good point. The problem with bright lines is
that there is a side on either side of the line. Bad actors are
all around, not only in private sector, but in Government. For
the example you gave about private malfeasance, and my mother
died from smoking, so you can't say anything as bad about the
tobacco industry as I would.
But for every instance you have given, I can give another
one of Government science malfeasance: Tuskegee experiments,
radiation experiments on airmen during World War II. The
Government is no stranger to scientific malfeasance any more
than the private sector is.
I don't see grounds for giving a benefit of the doubt to
one side or the other. I see grounds for actually simply being
careful as to taking multiple inputs and filtering through them
by determining whether they are true or false, not who wrote
them, not where they were published, but whether they are true
or false.
That would be my main response to that point, which is I
think to say that the people who, as I said, develop the
prescription drugs that save lives; who develop the pesticides
and herbicides that feed people more affordably and that lead
us to crops which we can export to the world to help address
world hunger.
To say that those people are not virtuous people and that
you have an assumption that they are putting their personal
interests ahead of the health of other people's children and
their own children, I think is a somewhat scurrilous thing to
say.
Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Grifo, would you care to comment on
this discussion? You are the one person who has not been
included so far.
Ms. Grifo. Thank you.
I mean, I think what is very important here are two things:
clarity and disclosure. I mean, I think you need to be clear
about, you know, what is the context, who is it that is
speaking and those sorts of issues. But the disclosure is
critical. I mean, I think you are right. Obviously, industry
science has done a tremendous amount for the American public.
You know, we are all consumers at one level or another.
But I think what is important to remember is that we don't
want someone who is taking a large amount of money from a
company that produces a product that an advisory committee is
making a decision about. I mean that is a clear conflict of
interest, and we have to guard very closely against those.
I mean, personally we would like to see them eliminated
completely when we are talking about scientific advisory
committees. We see that industry scientists can come to the
committee, can present, can answer questions, but when it comes
to chairing or co-chairing such a committee or voting, that is
where we would see the distinction and that is where we need
the clarity.
Senator Whitehouse. And do you feel that the disclosure at
present is adequate with respect to let's divide up membership
on scientific advisory committees; submission of testimony to
scientific advisory commissions; and submission of comment to
proposed rulemakings? Are the standards adequate so that the
public and the policymakers who are reviewing that material
know who has what motivations?
Ms. Grifo. Yes, I would submit that they are not. I think
Dr. Goldman mentioned the Bipartisan Policy Center and the work
that they are doing, and they are wrestling with this issue,
and wrestling mightily with this issue. And our President,
Kevin Knobloch, is also on that steering committee.
I think, you know, what we are looking for here are true
disclosure. The two models that are out there that are
excellent are the National Academies and IARC, which is, you
know, the French, the World Health Organization. I think both
of them are models. They look at the very specific issues.
What I think we need to see, what we institutionally think
we need to see is for the Office of Government Ethics to come
in and help with some of these definitions because right now,
conflict of interest is a little bit of a murky concept, so
there is a lot of work to be done there. And there are other
reforms that we really need to consider when we look at FACA,
which is the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, I appreciate the testimony of the
witnesses. I appreciate the courtesy of my very distinguished
Ranking Member. And I thank everyone for attending this first
hearing, albeit a joint one, of the Environment and Public
Works Subcommittee on Oversight.
The record of the hearing will remain open for an
additional week if anybody seeks to add any additional
materials.
And if there is nothing further, there is nothing further,
and we are now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]