    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             MAKING EPA GREAT AGAIN

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                February 7, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-01

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                 ________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     24-628 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     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 20402-001

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              AMI BERA, California
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    STEPHEN KNIGHT, California           DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia           JERRY MCNERNEY, California
    GARY PALMER, Alabama                 ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            PAUL TONKO, New York
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana         BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois               MARK TAKANO, California
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
    JIM BANKS, Indiana                   CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana

                                C O N T E N T S

                                February 7, 2017

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................     4
        Written Statement............................................     6

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
      Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................     9
        Written Statement............................................    10

                                   Witnesses:

    The Honorable Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP
        Oral Statement...............................................    11
        Written Statement............................................    14

    Dr. Kimberly White, Senior Director, Chemical Products and
      Technology, American Chemistry Council
        Oral Statement...............................................    19
        Written Statement............................................    21

    The Honorable Rush Holt, CEO, American Association for the
      Advancement of Science
        Oral Statement...............................................    30
        Written Statement............................................    32

    Dr. Richard Belzer, Independent Consultant
        Oral Statement...............................................    37
        Written Statement............................................    39

    Discussion.......................................................    52

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    The Honorable Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP..........    82

    Dr. Kimberly White, Senior Director, Chemical Products and
      Technology, American Chemistry Council.........................    88

    The Honorable Rush Holt, CEO, American Association for the
      Advancement of Science.........................................    91

    Dr. Richard Belzer, Independent Consultant.......................    95

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   102

    Documents submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................   113

    Documents submitted by Representative Randy K. Weber, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   187

    Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   190

                             MAKING EPA GREAT AGAIN

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2017

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 11:04
    a.m., in Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
    Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
    Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
    authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
        Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Making the EPA Great
    Again.'' I'll recognize myself for an opening statement and
    then the Ranking Member.
        Today, we will examine how the Environmental Protection
    Agency evaluates and uses science in its regulatory decision-
    making process.
        Sound science should be at the core of the EPA's mission.
    Legitimate science should underlie all actions at the Agency,
    from research to regulations, and be an integral part of
    justifying their actions. Unfortunately, over the last eight
    years, the EPA has pursued a political agenda, not a scientific
    one.
        Time and again, we saw the EPA under the Obama
    Administration propose regulations that would have no
    significant impact on the environment. For example, the so-
    called Clean Power Plan, proposed by the EPA last June, set
    impossible targets for carbon emissions. Yet even EPA data
    shows that this regulation would only eliminate a miniscule
    amount of global carbon emissions and would reduce sea level
    rise by only 1/100 of an inch. In fact, the EPA has proposed
    some of the most expensive and expansive and ineffective
    regulations in history.
        The rules proposed and finalized by the EPA placed heavy
    burdens on American families. Often, huge costs were shouldered
    by the taxpayer with little to show for it. And the EPA
    routinely relied on questionable science based on nonpublic
    information that could not be reproduced, a basic requirement
    of the scientific method. Americans deserve to see the science
    for themselves. If the EPA had nothing to hide, why didn't it
    make the scientific data it used for its regulations publicly
    available? What was the EPA hiding?
        The Committee conducted oversight of EPA's use of suspect
    science to justify its claims. Our hearings culminated in
    legislation that required the EPA to make its data publicly
    available.
        With the transition to a new Administration, there is now
    an opportunity to right the ship at the EPA and steer the
    Agency in the right direction. The EPA should be open and
    accountable to the American people and use legitimate science.
    Though ignored by the previous Administration, the EPA does
    have internal processes to ensure this accountability. The
    internal review process at the EPA should be restored and
    strengthened.
        The Science Advisory Board provides critical feedback to
    the EPA on its proposals, but in recent years, SAB experts have
    become nothing more than rubberstamps who approve all of the
    EPA's regulations. The EPA routinely stacks this board with
    friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants
    from the federal government. The conflict of interest here is
    clear.
        Fortunately, the EPA can once again become an agency that
    is credible and respected. Simple changes, such as eliminating
    conflicts of interests, adding more balanced perspectives, and
    being more transparent can go a long way to restoring the
    Agency's credibility.
        In recent years, the EPA has sought to regulate every facet
    of Americans' way of life. Instead, we should invest in
    research and development and let technology lead the way. Far
    too often, the EPA has deliberately used its regulatory power
    to undercut American industries and advance a misguided
    political agenda that has minimal environmental benefit. The
    new Administration has the opportunity to let technology and
    innovation protect our environment without government mandates
    that impose costly and unnecessary regulations on the American
    people. The EPA should focus on environmental policies that can
    be justified and are based on good science.
        Lastly, recent news stories report that another agency,
    NOAA, tried to deceive the American people by falsifying data
    to justify a partisan agenda. A senior scientist at NOAA has
    questioned the scientific integrity of a study written by Tom
    Karl while at NOAA that claimed that there was no stop in
    global warming from 1998 to 2013. This official has provided
    evidence that Karl ``had his thumb on the scale'' throughout
    the entire process. The Karl study was published in Science,
    the journal overseen by the American Association for the
    Advancement of Science.
        In light of this new information, AAAS and Science should
    retract the Karl study. The Committee will continue our
    investigation of NOAA's refusal to provide the Committee with
    responsive documents on this subject.
        It is clear that the Committee's investigation is
    justified. Although NOAA, AAAS, and others attempted to block
    the Committee's efforts, our goal remains to ensure that the
    scientific process funded by the American taxpayer is in fact
    open and honest.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
    the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for hers.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
    thank our witnesses for being here today. In particular, I'd
    like to thank our former colleague in the House, Dr. Rush Holt,
    a scientist, for being here to share his unique perspective.
        I would also like to welcome to the Committee our new
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I stated at our
    organizational meeting this morning it is my hope that we will
    be able to find common ground together on important issues this
    Congress.
        With that said, I'm disappointed but not really surprised
    our very first hearing of this Congress will be focused on
    attacking the Environmental Protection Agency, as was so often
    the theme of our hearings the last Congress.
        I would also note that, of the witnesses invited by the
    majority to testify today, we have a lobbyist for the industry,
    a representative from an industry trade group, and a consultant
    for the industry. That is not a panel likely to produce an
    objective examination of EPA's activities.
        The efforts by some to undermine how the EPA and other
    federal agencies use science threatens our economy, threatens
    public health, threatens the environment, threatens public
    confidence in our government. This is especially true when such
    efforts rely on biased, incomplete, and misleading information,
    alternative facts, if you will, in an attempt to advance a
    probably false narrative against EPA. Regulatory activity to
    protect public health and the environment should be supported
    by robust analyses of the best available scientific evidence.
    That is what EPA does. Policies geared toward preemptively
    limiting scientific input into the process undermine EPA's
    ability to take justifiable actions to protect the American
    public. Questioning the credibility of the scientific process,
    casting doubt on the scientific research used by EPA, or
    selectively limiting what resources--what sources of scientific
    information EPA may consider jeopardizes the effectiveness of
    the only government agency specifically tasked to protect human
    health and the environment.
        Simply put, limiting the science EPA uses only serves to
    limit the actions EPA may take to protect public health and the
    environment. I hope that my colleagues will listen today with a
    critical ear and ask themselves whether they want to support
    policies that will harm future generations instead of
    empowering them, remove public health safeguards instead of
    strengthening them, and reverse the progress made over the last
    40 years instead of working to find a constructive path
    forward.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        And I'll proceed to introduce our witnesses today. Our
    first witness is the Hon. Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at
    Bracewell. Mr. Holmstead is one of the country's leading air
    quality lawyers and heads the Environment Strategies Group at
    Bracewell. He previously served as the Assistant Administrator
    at the EPA for the Office of Air and Radiation. He also served
    on the White House staff as Associate Counsel to former
    President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Holmstead received his
    bachelor's degrees in economics and English from Brigham Young
    University and his law degree from Yale.
        Our second witness today is Dr. Kimberly White, Senior
    Director in the Chemical Products and Technology Division of
    the American Chemistry Council. For the past five years, Dr.
    White has served as a scientific advisor to industry for the
    development and execution of research to assess chemical
    hazards. She also has worked to identify emerging issues and
    trends in science policy and risk evaluation. Dr. White
    received her bachelor's and master's degrees in biology and a
    Ph.D. in environment toxicology from Texas Southern University.
        Our third witness is the Hon. Rush Holt, CEO of the
    American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Holt
    has held positions as a teacher, scientist, administrator, and
    policymaker. From 1987 to 1998 he was Assistant Director of the
    Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, a Department of Energy
    national lab. Dr. Holt served for 16 years as a Member of the
    U.S. House of Representatives representing New Jersey's 12th
    Congressional District. In Congress, he was a member of the
    Natural Resources Committee and the Education and the Workforce
    Committee. Dr. Holt received his master's degree and Ph.D. in
    physics from New York University.
        Our final witness today is Dr. Richard Belzer, independent
    consultant and former economist at the Office of Information
    and Regulatory Affairs. There, he was responsible for reviewing
    regulatory analyses prepared by the EPA, the Food and Drug
    Administration, and various components of the Departments of
    Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and the Interior. Dr. Belzer has
    been an independent consultant in regulatory policy, economics,
    and risk analysis. In addition, he is the President of
    Regulatory Checkbook and the managing editor of
    NeutralSource.org. Dr. Belzer received his bachelor's and
    master's degrees in agricultural economics from the University
    of California at Davis and his master's and Ph.D. in public
    policy from Harvard University.
        We welcome you all and appreciate your attendance today.
    And, Mr. Holmstead, we'll begin with your testimony.

             TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD,

                         PARTNER, BRACEWELL LLP

        Mr. Holmstead. Thank you very much. Good morning. As the
    Chairman mentioned, I am a partner at the law firm of
    Bracewell, LLP, but I do want to make it clear I am not
    appearing on behalf of any clients this morning. I am here to
    share my own views as a former EPA official and as someone in
    private practice, who has spent more than 25 years working with
    EPA on a range of issues.
        I want to start by saying I do believe that EPA plays a
    vital role in protecting human and the environment, but I also
    know that there are opportunities to improve the way the Agency
    operates and makes decisions.
        This morning, I would like to talk briefly about three
    reforms that would improve the way science is evaluated and
    used by the Agency. First, I would like to endorse this
    Committee's efforts to ensure that the scientific and technical
    information that is used to support regulatory decisions is
    publicly available in a manner that allows for independent
    analysis. This is where the science reform--the Secret Science
    Reform Act can make important and meaningful reforms.
        The only legitimate concern that I have heard about this
    legislation is that in some cases data that is used to support
    rulemaking might include medical or other personal information
    about specific individuals and should not be released because
    of privacy concerns. I think this is a red herring. Certainly,
    no one believes that such information should be made public,
    but I cannot imagine the case in which personal information
    about any particular individual would be needed to support the
    types of regulatory actions taken by EPA. I do understand that
    documentation used in some studies does contain personal
    information, but names, addresses, and any other identifying
    information could and must be redacted before any such
    information is made public.
        EPA would certainly incur cost to review data and ensure
    that personal information is redacted before it is made public,
    but when regulations impose billions of dollars on consumers
    and businesses, it is surely appropriate for the government to
    spend a tiny fraction of this amount to ensure that the
    scientific information used to support those regulations can be
    publicly available.
        Second, I believe it is important to reform the Science
    Advisory Board, which is generally known as the SAB, and other
    advisory groups that provide scientific and technical advice to
    EPA. Such groups are referred to as independent advisory
    committees, but the EPA Administrator appoints the members of
    these groups based on recommendations from EPA staff. Not
    surprisingly, EPA staffers tend to recommend people who share
    their views about the issues under consideration. There's no
    question that the members of the SAB and other advisory panels
    are well-qualified, but there are other scientists and
    researchers who are equally well-qualified but who do not get
    appointed because they may be more skeptical about EPA's views
    on certain important issues.
        The SAB Reform Act would help to ensure that EPA decisions
    are influenced by experts from a variety of fields and
    backgrounds that are relevant to the issues under
    consideration. By focusing on disclosure rather than
    disqualification, the SAB Reform Act would allow for a wider
    range of viewpoints while ensuring that any possible conflicts,
    financial or otherwise, are publicly disclosed.
        Third, I would ask this Committee to continue to look at
    the need to reform EPA's Integrated Risk Information System,
    which is generally known by the acronym of IRIS. The IRIS
    program evaluates specific chemicals to which the public may be
    exposed and then sets reference values that are used in a
    variety of EPA and state regulatory programs. Unfortunately,
    outside experts believe that the IRIS program often overstates
    the actual risk posed by these specific chemicals.
        EPA is inclined to be conservative in making both
    regulatory decisions and scientific conclusion. For example, if
    there are three well-conducted--I'm sorry. If there are five
    well-conducted studies finding that a substance poses very
    little risk and one that finds a higher risk, EPA will
    typically place much more weight on the one rather than the
    five. Some argue that this is appropriate and that EPA should
    always err on the side of being overly protective. But this is
    an issue for policymakers, not for scientists. When decisions
    are made based on overly conservative science, it can mislead
    the public and impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on
    society.
        As this Committee considers how to improve the way that EPA
    deals with scientific and technical issues, I hope it will
    consider potential reforms to the IRIS program as well.
        I thank you for giving me the chance to testify this
    morning, and I look forward to answering any questions that you
    may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Holmstead follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead.
        Dr. White.

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. KIMBERLY WHITE,

                            SENIOR DIRECTOR,

                   CHEMICAL PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY,

                       AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL

        Dr. White. Good morning, Chairman Smith, and Members of the
    Committee. My name is Dr. Kimberly White, a scientist with the
    American Chemistry Council. And I appreciate this opportunity
    to testify regarding EPA's use of science in its regulatory
    decision-making process.
        The business of chemistry is a critical component for
    manufacturing safe, high-quality products. ACC member companies
    and the public rely on science to spur innovation, advance
    product stewardship, and improve the assessments of chemical
    risk. Similarly, they expect high-quality science and objective
    assessment processes to underpin regulatory decisions by the
    federal government.
        ACC has long maintained that EPA chemical assessments can
    and should reflect the most up-to-date and relevant science
    regarding potential impacts to human health and the environment
    from chemical exposures. Although EPA has made efforts to
    improve its scientific approach, the actual implementation has
    been slow and often lacking. This has been fundamentally due to
    the lack of a consistent science-based framework for conducting
    chemical evaluations. In 2016, Congress passed the Lautenberg
    Chemical Safety Act or the LCSA, which provides EPA a mandate
    for use of the best-available science and a weight-of-evidence
    approach in conducting risk evaluations for both new and
    existing chemicals. Implementing these new provisions under the
    LCSA will require significant changes to EPA's scientific
    evaluation procedures.
        Unfortunately, as indicated in EPA's proposed framework
    rule for risk evaluation, EPA believes existing practices meet
    the standards of the LCSA. ACC does not support this belief and
    will continue fostering approaches to advance the technical
    quality and objectivity of scientific evaluations, particularly
    by promoting more transparency in both what science is being
    considered and how that information is interpreted.
        My oral testimony today focuses on four areas to improve
    science evaluations at EPA, and my written testimony provides
    additional detail and some specific examples.
        First, EPA should ensure that its chemical assessments
    address information needs of decision-makers and are fit for
    purpose. This includes clearly defining the scope of the
    evaluation, the methods to be used, and the utility of the
    evaluation for regulatory decisions. EPA is currently
    interpreting the LCSA as requiring the Agency to evaluate all
    uses of a chemical. However, the LCSA clearly indicates that
    EPA has discretion to select those conditions of use for its
    scope of their risk evaluation. A clear scoping step allows the
    Agency to determine if a screening-level assessment identifies
    risk sufficiently or if a more refined risk evaluation is
    needed. This approach also enables EPA to meet the stringent
    deadlines of the LCSA and focus resources on those conditions
    of use where unreasonable risk cannot be ruled out.
        Secondly, scientific evaluations must utilize transparent
    and consistent criteria for selecting the most relevant, high-
    quality science and evaluating the evidence to draw
    conclusions. It is critical that EPA rely on studies of the
    highest quality, not simply those studies that produce the
    lowest points of departure or the highest exposure estimates.
        Thirdly, EPA should employ a transparent weight-of-evidence
    framework that integrates evidence from human studies, animal
    research, and mechanistic data. The LCSA requires risk
    evaluations to integrate and assess available information on
    hazard and exposures for the conditions of use. The LCSA also
    requires EPA to make decisions using a weight-of-evidence
    approach.
        Lastly, EPA must implement an effective peer-review
    process. Peer review should be independent and objective,
    allowing for robust engagement with stakeholders to provide a
    thorough review. It should also include a quality-assurance
    process that explicitly evaluates whether peer-review
    recommendations and public comments were completely and
    adequately addressed.
        In conclusion, ensuring that up-to-date, high-quality
    science underlies EPA decision-making is critical to protecting
    human health and the environment. This can be achieved by
    consistent applications of processes throughout EPA to conduct
    risk evaluations using a weight-of-evidence process, as
    required by the LCSA.
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony, and I
    look forward to working with members of the Committee to ensure
    that high-quality science is the foundation for the Agency's
    decision-making.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. White follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. White.
        And, Dr. Holt.

               TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RUSH HOLT, CEO,

                        AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR

                       THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE

        Dr. Holt. Good morning, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
    Johnson and esteemed Members of the Committee. Thanks for the
    opportunity to testify today on behalf of the American
    Association for the Advancement of Science, the AAAS. AAAS is
    the largest general science membership society, publisher of
    the Science family of journals, and our mission is simple: to
    advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the
    world for the benefit of all people.
        The hearing today, as I understand it, is general and not
    about specific bills, so I will talk in general about the use
    of good science as a basis for policy and regulation.
        I'm pleased to note from the title of today's hearing that
    the Committee acknowledges that the EPA has been great. The
    success of EPA is really because the environment regulations of
    past decades have been based--such as the Clean Air Act--have
    been based on science. And that sets this EPA apart from a
    number of other regulatory agencies. It has worked.
        I want to state from the outset that I don't want my
    presence here to be construed as advocating for a specific
    environment legislation. I want to talk about science and the
    process by which science is conducted. It must be recognized as
    the most reliable pathway to knowledge and the best basis for
    making public policy and regulations. Science is not a
    political construct or a belief system. It provides testable,
    fundamental knowledge of the world and how things work. It's a
    set of principles dedicated to discovery and the use of
    evidence to continually test those discoveries.
        And although science gets a great deal of credit for
    advancing our understanding of the world, I think it is less
    understood for its foundational quality, humility in the face
    of evidence, and over time, when one's cherished beliefs and
    partisan ideologies and wishful thinking have turned out to be
    wanting, the scientific evidence is most likely to remain. We
    need more reverence for evidence in our policymaking. Without
    reverence for evidence and by extension evidence-based
    policymaking, our country's future is compromised.
        Science is not static. That's why the process of science
    can converge on reliable knowledge. Science does not deal in
    cut-and-dried facts, ever-immutable. Sometimes, we'll see the
    science push aside an understanding for a better, more
    verifiable understanding. That's the job of scientists through
    the scientific process, not the job of politicians second-
    guessing the scientific process.
        However attractive any of us may find our own belief at any
    time, one's odds of success are better if one goes with the
    scientifically established thinking. Scientific progress
    depends on openness, transparency, the free flow of ideas and
    people. These are principles that have helped the United States
    attract and benefit from science talent, from the Apollo
    program and exploring the far reaches of the universe, to
    advancing biomedical research for curing disease, to harnessing
    science to build a thriving high-tech sector. The United States
    has been a leader in science, in education, and in innovation.
    And the principles are the same principles that have allowed
    EPA to base their regulations on science.
        Furthermore, scientists, whether industry, academia, or
    government, must have confidence that they can conduct their
    work in an atmosphere free of intimidation and undue influence.
    Policymakers should never dictate the conclusions of a
    scientific study, and they should base policy on a review of
    relevant research and provisions of relevant studies. In other
    words, the integrity of the process must be upheld.
        During the Bush and Obama Administrations, federal agencies
    worked to develop and implement scientific integrity and access
    to date policies. This bipartisan recognition of strengthening
    the scientific integrity in federal agencies lays a good
    foundation that should not be weakened. In other words, I'm
    here to say don't try to reform the scientific process. It has
    served us well and will serve us well.
        I thank you again for the invitation to testify, and I look
    forward to working with you in this Congress.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Holt follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Holt.
        And, Dr. Belzer.

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. RICHARD BELZER,

                         INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT

        Dr. Belzer. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
    Johnson, Members of the Committee. Thank you again for the
    opportunity to testify today. My testimony is informed by 30-
    plus years of experience with environment science and
    economics, and I'm not testifying on behalf of any past or
    present client. Most of my recent consulting work has involved
    intellectual property, and I don't think that's related at all
    to EPA.
        In 1983, then-Administrator Bill Ruckelshaus wrote an
    article published in Science that ``Risk assessment at EPA must
    be based only on scientific evidence and scientific consensus.
    Nothing will erode public confidence faster than suspicion that
    policy considerations have been allowed to influence the
    assessment of risk.''
        But EPA risk assessments are chock full of policy
    considerations, so it should be no surprise that public
    confidence in the EPA has eroded, as Ruckelshaus predicted. You
    need not and should not take my word for it. In 2004, the EPA's
    science advisor published a report on the Agency's risk-
    assessment practices. The science advisor defended these
    practices as follows, ``EPA seeks to adequately protect public
    health and environmental health by ensuring that risk is not
    likely to be underestimated.''
        Now, under the Ruckelshaus principle, when asked to measure
    a mouse, EPA is not supposed to give dimensions closer to that
    of an elephant because elephants are riskier, which they are.
    The EPA's science advisor justifies mistaking mice for
    elephants because EPA is ``a health and environmental
    protective agency.'' That's a non sequitur.
        The Central Intelligence Agency is a national security
    agency. Would that justify exaggerating the risk that Iraq
    possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. But it is just as
    improper for EPA to exaggerate the human health risks of
    contaminants in drinking water, chemicals in commerce, or
    pollutants in the atmosphere.
        When any agency exaggerates risk, it undermines responsible
    regulatory decision making, and it does so three ways. First,
    it scares the public, which cannot discriminate between large
    and small risks if agencies exaggerate. Second, it undermines
    the accurate estimation of benefits from regulation.
    Exaggerated risk estimates lead to exaggerated benefit
    estimates. Third, it usurps the authority of the head of the
    Agency, who is charged by Congress with making oftentimes hard
    choices. He can't do that with unreliable information. And if
    he figures out that he's being sandbagged by his own staff and
    decides to ignore what he's being told, he will be accused of
    ignoring science.
        In my written testimony, I explain why EPA's safety
    assessments are not scientific, and I use EPA's definition of
    the reference dose, a copy of which is distributed to you, but
    here's the definition. A reference dose is an estimate with
    uncertainties spanning perhaps an order of magnitude of a daily
    oral exposure to the human population, including sensitive
    subgroups, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
    a deleterious effect during a lifetime.
        Now, an order of magnitude we understand. That's a factor
    of 10. But what is perhaps an order of magnitude? Does it mean
    less than 10, more than 10, a lot more than 10? Could it be 10?
    It could be 1,000. It could be 10,000. We don't know. What is
    an appreciable risk of a deleterious effect? How bad must an
    effect be to qualify as deleterious? What is an appreciable
    risk of experiencing such a thing? Now, these are not
    scientific terms. These are policy terms? Whose personal
    opinions inform these choices? This is a definition only a
    lawyer could love and quite possibly only a lawyer could
    justify.
        There's a great deal of interest in transparency, and I've
    highlighted the reference dose definition because almost every
    issue of transparency arises downstream of obscure definitions
    like this. Even if every other transparency issue were solved,
    the most fundamental opacities in EPA risk and safety
    assessments would remain.
        Now, probably the most effective thing Congress can do to
    improve the quality of EPA science or any agency's science is
    to require that they adhere to the principles and procedures
    set forth in OMB's Information Quality Guidelines. These
    guidelines have been available--been out for 15 years, but
    there's very little to show for it because agencies do not
    comply, and they don't comply because no one has standing in
    federal court to compel them to comply.
        I'm happy to look forward to any questions you might have
    and expand upon this at your leisure.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Belzer follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Belzer.
        Before we get to questions, I'd like to ask unanimous
    consent that the gentleman from California, Jerry McNerney, be
    allowed to participate in today's hearing. He has been selected
    to serve on the Science Committee, and his official appointment
    is imminent. So, Jerry, we welcome you back.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman. I've spent two
    terms on this Committee, so it's a great thing to be back, and
    I look forward to our work together.
        Chairman Smith. Absolutely. I thank the gentleman from
    California for his comments.
        Let me recognize myself for questions. And, Dr. White, I'll
    address my first question to you, and that is why would the EPA
    hide data that they say justifies regulations from the American
    people, and why should that data be made public? Turn on your--
    --
        Dr. White. There we go.
        Chairman Smith. Yes.
        Dr. White. Transparency in the way that EPA evaluates its
    science and what data it selects to underlie its decision-
    making is extremely important. So that information should be
    made available so that folks can actually go through and
    evaluate those scientific evaluations.
        One of the things that we do need to take into
    consideration as making that data publicly available is that
    there are adequate protections for confidential business
    information to ensure that we keep innovation and
    competitiveness available for the marketplace.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Dr. White.
        And, Mr. Holmstead, does the EPA use a biased modeling
    system to calculate and determine the benefits from its
    proposed regulations? And if so, why can that not be justified?
        Mr. Holmstead. Well, thank you for the question. I think at
    least for the last few years EPA has used methodologies that
    clearly overstate the benefits of their regulations. And I'm
    happy to submit something that would provide you a bit more
    detail, but let me just summarize very quickly. Virtually any
    air regulation that's been done over the last eight years is
    based on the benefits of a single pollutant known as PM2.5 or
    fine particles. And people are surprised when they understand
    this. EPA issues a regulation for mercury, EPA issues a
    standard for ozone, EPA issues a standard for diesel emissions,
    and yet, when you look at the underlying evaluation, EPA's
    claim is all of these things are justified because in some
    fashion EPA predicts that that will reduce levels of fine
    particles in the environment.
        There is a whole other program for regulating these
    chemicals. There's a way of evaluating them, and yet the
    benefits that EPA claims is consistent--is--I'm sorry, is
    completely inconsistent with the way they do it in this other
    program. So, again, this is an issue that probably deserves
    more than a short answer, and I'd be happy to provide that to
    you. But there's no question that EPA has started to use cost-
    benefit analysis as a way to promote its regulations rather
    than a tool that can be used to inform good regulatory
    decisions.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you for that response. And yes,
    we'll take the details and we'll make them a part of the record
    as well.
        Dr. Belzer, let me ask you about cost-benefit analysis and
    why should there be a cost-benefit analysis for all EPA
    regulations?
        Dr. Belzer. Mr. Chairman, it comes to benefit-cost I'll
    say--that would be the appropriate term, by the way--benefit-
    cost I'll say--I finished eight years as Treasurer--Secretary
    Treasurer at the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis, and so I am
    an avid defender and advocate of practice. And the reason is
    fairly simple, that it is impossible for decision-makers,
    whether in an agency or on Capitol Hill, to understand what the
    implications are of actions that are being taken without
    benefit-cost analysis. It can't be done without that.
    Otherwise, it's based on emotion, it's based on politics, based
    on cronyism. It's based on other factors.
        But--and also I would say it can't be based on science
    because science is the underpinning to the benefits assessment
    in a benefit-cost analysis. So agencies should be doing that
    all the time, and it's also cost-effective. It costs relatively
    little money to do a benefit-cost analysis, and it can save an
    enormous amount of regulatory costs and it can also
    dramatically improve the benefits of a regulation.
        I'm particularly fond of one that I managed when I was at
    OMB, which the Department of Agriculture was trying to ban a
    product, and they were going about it all--in a way that made
    no sense scientifically and economically. With help, I was able
    to change the justification for it, and they were successfully
    able to ban this product because people were dying from it.
    Without the analysis, that can't be done. That would have been
    litigated, and the Department of Agriculture would have lost.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Belzer.
        And, Dr. Holt, my last question for you. The editor-in-
    chief of your publication Science recently said ``Dr. Bates
    raises some serious concerns. After the results of any
    appropriate investigations, we will consider our options,'' and
    those options ``could include retracting that paper.''
        Dr. Bates is a well-respected scientist who was given one
    of NOAA's highest awards for developing standards for
    preserving climate data records. Are AAAS and Science committed
    to taking his allegations seriously and launching a thorough
    investigation?
        Dr. Holt. I think you're referring to the Karl paper that
    appeared in Science a couple of years ago, and the blog that
    appeared over the weekend--this past weekend by one former
    scientist Mr. Bates--Dr. Bates from NOAA. Dr. Bates said in an
    article published today the issue here is not an issue of
    tampering with data. He does not--then further it is written he
    does not believe that they manipulated the data. All he is
    doing ``is calling out a former colleague for not properly
    following agency standards.'' This is not the making of a big
    scandal. This is an internal dispute between two factions
    within an agency.
        Chairman Smith. Right. I--Dr. Holt, I've----
        Dr. Holt. There's nothing in the paper, the Karl paper,
    that, at our current analysis, suggests retraction.
        Chairman Smith. Well, I am----
        Dr. Holt. We are always looking at our papers to see
    whether there is anything----
        Chairman Smith. Dr. Holt, my time----
        Dr. Holt. --truly erroneous.
        Chairman Smith. My time is up. I encourage you to talk to
    Dr. Bates because everything that I have read that he has said
    about the Karl report suggests to me that NOAA cheated and got
    caught. They did falsify the data to exaggerate global warming.
    The Karl study cannot be replicated because, supposedly, the
    computer crashed maybe like the computer at the IRS and the
    EPA. And clearly, he suggests that the Karl study violated
    scientific integrity rules. To me, all that adds up to an
    investigation and possibly a retraction. I just simply ask you
    to look at it. It may even be a lot more serious than you
    think.
        Thank you, Dr. Holt. That concludes my questions. And the
    Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, is recognized for
    hers.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And at the
    end of my statement, I'd like to submit to the record a
    statement related to this very discussion with Dr. Bates.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection.
        Ms. Johnson. We hear a lot, Dr. Holt, of artfully crafted
    positions from nonscientists invoking science and the
    scientific process to support positions. Unfortunately, this is
    the kind of tactic that can generate confusion and doubt about
    the actual state of the scientific consensus. As a scientist
    and a former Member of Congress, how should science inform
    policymaking? And how can we as policymakers be sure that an
    agency like EPA is making agency actions based on the best
    available science? And how should we view disagreements between
    scientists over a particular study? And is it dangerous to
    assume that any such disagreement undermines the overall
    findings of such a study?
        Dr. Holt. Thank you, Representative Johnson.
        The approach is to ask whether the procedure, the process
    of science has been followed, not to second-guess the results
    or let one's dislike for an outcome lead one to challenge the
    outcome for unscientific reasons or to challenge the process
    because sometimes the results are either unclear or
    unpalatable.
        The process, as I was saying earlier, for developing
    regulations at EPA, is based on legislation that holds the
    science to be paramount. And it is I think the job of oversight
    to make sure that the processes of science are working, not to
    try to reform them or substitute other processes.
        So, for example, whether health studies that are used for
    regulations are based on something other than peer-reviewed
    scientific research, not whether different standards of
    releasing personal information should be used. It is whether
    the standards of the field are being observed. So, for example,
    the Harvard health study that was used for regulations on air
    contaminants had some data, personal information about deaths,
    about families that would not be made available on the internet
    openly. That's not to say that there's any conspiracy here of
    hiding data.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Also, as a scientist and academic, you've had the
    opportunity to help shape the educations and careers of many
    young scientists and engineers who were interested in pursuing
    careers in the STEM fields. What type of impact would
    undermining the integrity of the scientific process by casting
    doubt on the accuracy or type of data that the EPA collects
    have on future scientists in the environment and health
    professional fields? And what impacts would it have on
    scientists and engineers broadly?
        Dr. Holt. Well, I've certainly talked with scientists who
    find it uncomfortable and unattractive to work in fields where
    they feel they are constantly second-guessed by politicians and
    not in a sense allowed to operate freely in their work. That
    has a--sometimes a chilling effect, but at least it generates a
    level of discomfort that I think probably drives some
    scientists to go into areas that are maybe less relevant to
    public policy. And that of course is a real loss. We need the
    best science applied to things that effect people's health and
    livelihood.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is----
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is recognized for
    his questions.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Holmstead and Dr. White, last Congress the House passed
    one of my bills, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act. I'd
    like to visit with both of you about that body and where it
    might be improved. I'm concerned that the body has become
    perhaps an echo chamber for the EPA. Would you both agree with
    that concern? And how else would you suggest that the EPA
    better utilize the Science Advisory Board?
        Dr. White. Well, maybe I'll start.
        Mr. Lucas. Please.
        Dr. White. So, yes, the Science Advisory Board is one
    mechanism that the EPA has to conduct its peer-review process.
    As I mentioned in my comments, the peer review needs to be
    independent and objective. That means the making sure that the
    peer-review process has appropriate expertise, also the depth
    in the committee to evaluate the assessments at hand.
        There also needs to be clear balance and--in the reviews
    and the peer reviews of the people participating in that
    process. So you need to make sure that there's--if there's
    conflict of interest on the panel or if folks have actually
    made specific recommendations about a particular chemistry that
    they're evaluating on that panel, that that also is balanced in
    the review.
        What we've often seen most recently in the peer reviews
    conducted by the SAB is that EPA plays a prominent role in that
    peer-review process. So oftentimes, the conversations that are
    happening in that peer review get stymied by EPA's input during
    the peer-review process so it's not as independent as it should
    be.
        Additionally, currently in the peer-review process
    conducted under the SAB, there's not really an adequate
    opportunity for the peer-review panel to address or respond to
    peer review and public comments. And so there will be a large
    set of public comments that'll be submitted into the process
    for the peer review, and that information is often discounted
    or ignored. And there's really no volition by the peer-review
    panel or indication by the EPA that they need--that the peer
    review needs to address those public comments in any way.
        And finally, when the peer review actually generates their
    report and makes recommendations into the EPA, there's not a
    volition that the Agency has to abide by all of the
    recommendations that have been identified by that peer review.
    So there seems to lack a check-and-balance of--the peer review
    makes strong recommendations for improving the scientific
    quality of a particular assessment, but that information
    doesn't really get incorporated wholeheartedly into the final
    assessment.
        Mr. Lucas. Mr. Holmstead.
        Mr. Holmstead. I'll give just a quick answer. I do think
    it's problematic that it's the EPA Administrator, based on EPA
    staff recommendations, that make all these appointments.
    Because that's the way the process works, the folks appointed
    often have views that are consistent with the views of the EPA
    staff. And there's nothing wrong with that, but there does need
    to be additional views involved when there are other serious
    scientific points of view that are not represented on the
    panel. So I think there does need to be a way to ensure that
    there's a little more balance and that the science isn't so
    one-sided.
        I also want to just quickly make a--raise a particular
    concern. One of the subsidiary bodies underneath the SAB is
    known as the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, the CASAC.
    By statute, they are supposed to look at certain issues and
    advise the Administrator on those issues, including the CASAC
    is supposed to advise the Administrator on the adverse economic
    and energy effects of certain regulations. CASAC has refused to
    do that for many years. Finally, the CASAC Chairman said I
    understand we have that obligation; the problem is we don't
    have anybody on our committee who has expertise in that, and so
    I look to the Administrator to appoint someone. And a few days
    later the Administrator said she had no interest in appointing
    anybody to do that issue even though that's supposed to be done
    by the statute.
        And so there needs to be a way to ensure that appointments
    are actually appropriate to look at the issues that Congress
    and others asked these committees to look at.
        Mr. Lucas. Clearly, Mr. Holmstead and Dr. White, the
    general public that depends on us to analyze the results of
    these studies, that depends on the EPA to formulate policies
    based on the input from these various groups, it doesn't
    necessarily matter so much to my constituency who is in charge,
    and that changes from Administration to Administration. But the
    quality of that input needs to be something that folks can be
    reassured about back home.
        So clearly, you both described a circumstance where work
    needs to be done, and I think the Committee will work
    legislatively on that.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
        Without objection, I'd like to make a part of the record
    the entire comments by Dr. John Bates that were posted on
    February 4. The headline is ``Climate Scientist Versus Climate
    Data,'' as well as an article by Timothy D. Clark called
    ``Science, Lies, and Video-Taped Experiments.''
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Chairman Smith. And the gentlewoman from Texas is
    recognized.
        Ms. Johnson. I'd like to also place in the record Dr. Bates
    today said that there was no manipulation. I would like to
    enter this article into the record, which contains his quote.
        Chairman Smith. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Chairman Smith. And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
    Lipinski, is recognized.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Holt, I want to thank you for your work here in
    Congress previously and your work at AAAS.
        As a scientist, although some people would--I'm a social
    scientist so some people question that, but as a scientist, I
    understand the important role of science. And I think we all
    agree that science should be what guides us in making decisions
    where that is appropriate. Politics should not be what is
    trumping science.
        I want to give you an opportunity--I don't know if there
    was anything else that you wanted to add about the controversy
    with Dr. Bates because I think you--the Chairman had run out of
    time. If there was anything you wanted to add to that or----
        Dr. Holt. Thank you. Of course, I don't know the internal
    disagreement, and it quite clearly is largely an internal
    disagreement. Dr. Bates was not part of one research group that
    produced the Karl--the data that became the basis for the Karl,
    et al., paper. And he does not like the way the other group
    conducted their research.
        What's most important is not that there was an internal
    disagreement within NOAA about how to handle this but that a
    number of other studies, including one most recently in one of
    AAAS's other publications Science Advances, have replicated the
    work, have come up with the same conclusions so that, you know,
    it's--it is not profitable, considering the process of science,
    to dwell on this one internal dispute about how to handle the
    data. If the Inspector General at NOAA wants to look at that,
    that's fine.
        If there are indeed erroneous or deceptive procedures
    followed in answer--in further answer to Chairman Smith, I know
    our journals will consider retraction, but there just doesn't
    seem to be anything like that now. There's nothing that
    suggests there are problems with that work. And most
    importantly, even Mr. Bates says this does not change the
    policy-relevant conclusions about climate change. So I think
    that's most important to get out there.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And while the--Dr. Holt, while the
    EPA is generally thought of as a regulatory agency--we're
    talking about research here--we know that it's research and
    science that's led to a number of important findings such as
    the link between air pollution and cardiovascular health and
    also has led to research at EPA that's led to innovations such
    as the development of low-cost sensors for nutrient pollution
    in our nation's water. So it's important that we understand
    that part of the Agency's mission is not just to regulate but
    also do research as another way to help protect health.
        Are we not sacrificing potentially some of this important
    work by meddling in EPA's practices or cutting its budget or,
    as some in Congress have--would like to do is completely
    cutting out the EPA? What would we be losing in research--in
    research, you know, even take it away right now from research
    on climate change but other research and the developments that
    have come out of that--out of the EPA?
        Dr. Holt. I think it is very important to have a scientific
    basis for the regulation for EPA to conduct research
    intramurally, to sponsor research outside of EPA because--take
    the National Science Foundation for example. They do not--you
    know, they do basic research that ultimately may affect
    toxicology studies and so forth, but they don't do toxicology
    studies. They don't do air pollution epidemiology studies.
    Those are things that EPA can best do both with internal
    scientists in an intramural program and through external
    sponsorship. And that would include, I would argue, social
    sciences. We at the AAAS believe that empirically based answers
    to questions that can be verified are science. That includes
    social science, as well as the earth sciences and physical
    sciences.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
        And the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I'd
    like to, first of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having the
    political courage to actually look into something that
    obviously is going haywire in our country. I mean, we--there's
    obviously something wrong in the arena, the scientific arena in
    our country. We have people telling us global warming is
    causing the drought in California. Now, it's global warming is
    causing the flooding in California. And whatever malady we have
    we end up having people telling us that the amount of CO2
    that's being put into the atmosphere is the ultimate culprit.
        And then we have all of these contradicting results. And
    that's what this is all about today is whether or not there
    really was a pause in the actual increase in the temperature of
    the planet since I think 1998 I guess it was. And the fact is,
    since 1998, we have had large increases in CO2, so
    if there had been a leveling off or it actually declined in
    temperature in some areas, that would mean the CO2
    theory is wrong. Okay. That's a basic scientific area that
    needs examination and truth associated with it.
        Because there's been so many things that have been told to
    us that seem contradictory, we have every reason to be
    skeptical that our scientific community is maintaining its
    integrity. Why wouldn't it? Why would there be some sort of
    loss of integrity among America's scientific areas? Eisenhower
    warned us of that years ago. Everybody always remembers
    Eisenhower warning us, and this was exactly correct, about the
    military industrial complex. And I will tell you that I think
    his words of warning there are something we should look at
    today because today, it even threatens the well-being of our
    country.
        But he also warned us about how government contracts become
    virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity and warned us
    ``The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by
    federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money
    is ever-present and is gravely regarded.'' And just as he
    warned us against the military industrial complex, he warned us
    that our scientific--the integrity of our scientific endeavors
    could be undermined by this very same type of government
    interaction with our science community.
        And I think that you, Mr. Chairman, have been courageous in
    taking this on because there are people and very powerful
    forces at work in this world today that have their own agenda
    and are trying to justify it based on manipulating science,
    basically manipulating the people who did or did not get the
    scientific contracts to do specific research projects over the
    last 20 years. And I would hope that we'd actually call Mr.
    Bates in to testify. I hope that this is the beginning hearing
    to try to determine truth.
        What counts as truth? What counts is whether or not we have
    people whose scientific findings have actually been influenced
    by whether or not they get a government contract for research.
    And the story--there are stories of this that a number of
    scientists have come to me telling me where before a certain
    time period they were receiving government research contracts.
    Afterwards, after it became clear they didn't agree with the
    CO2 theory, no more contracts.
        Well, this is all about the integrity of science in the
    United States of America. Dr. Holt, would you like to refute
    everything I just said?
        Dr. Holt. In nine seconds, Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. That's it.
        Dr. Holt. Okay.
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman's----
        Dr. Holt. There has been no pause. It has been examined
    literally from many perspectives, and scientists are fiercely
    independent. They would resent horribly if they felt their work
    was being manipulated. It's not.
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentlewoman from--I was looking for the gentleman from
    California, Mr. Bera, who's not here. The gentlewoman from
    Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized for her questions.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
    witnesses and our former colleague, Dr. Holt, for being with us
    here today.
        I want to follow up a little bit, Dr. Holt, with the
    scientific process. I think there--I hope and believe there is
    agreement on this Committee that sound science is absolutely
    essential to good decision-making, whether it's by the EPA, any
    other administrative agency, or Members of Congress.
        So I'd like to ask you a little bit--so there's been a lot
    of criticism from opponents of EPA regulations that sometimes
    EPA gives more weight to some studies than to others. Now, some
    see that and have characterized that as showing bias or
    favoritism. Can you explain a little bit more within the
    scientific process whether that's appropriate and why that
    might be appropriate to give more weight to some studies than
    others?
        Dr. Holt. Thank you, Representative Esty.
        Some studies are extensive, longitudinal, long-range,
    comprehensive studies. Others are more superficial. Which one
    do you think would be--which ones do you think would be more
    useful for making decisions about your children's health? It is
    true that sometimes short, brief studies uncover things and
    then they should be explored.
        My--in my opening remarks I was saying if you want to be on
    the right side of any issue, you would do well to go with the
    evidence, the best understanding at the time of what it's going
    to be, not some fringe idea. Scientists are always poking
    around the periphery trying to find new understanding, but we
    shouldn't think that that is the center of gravity.
        You know, take the climate change issue we're talking about
    this morning. This is an internal dispute about a detail of how
    you might measure land temperatures or water temperatures. It
    is not a departure from the general understanding of what's
    happening to temperatures in our globe. And so some studies are
    indeed more worthy of trust and more--a better basis for sound
    regulation than others.
        Ms. Esty. I'm glad you raised some of that because I am--
    live in the State of Connecticut, and we have very high rates
    of asthma. We are downwind from many of the power plants that
    have caused real problems. And we see it in higher
    cardiopulmonary issues; we see it in asthma in children.
    There's a great deal of concern in my State that some of the
    longitudinal studies will not be allowed anymore under some of
    the proposals we're looking at in secret science, the--we
    have--the American Thoracic Society has provided some of that
    information.
        Can you explain and flesh out a little bit more--you
    referenced the longitudinal studies, and I know in my State
    there's a great deal concern because we've seen real health
    benefits from some of those changes that EPA has promulgated
    based on these kinds of studies. Can you flesh that out a
    little bit what that would mean for those studies?
        Dr. Holt. Thank you. You know, the--I guess you're
    referring more to the Secret Science Acts of previous
    Congresses. Now, I don't know what the Chairman or others will
    be proposing in this Congress, but in the past, the
    legislation, in the name of providing openness, has meant that
    certain kinds of studies could not be considered because some
    of the data in those studies--and I mentioned this Harvard
    study on atmospheric pollution--well, actually on community
    health--could not be used.
        It would also, for example, hinder fast response. For
    example, some of the data from the Freedom Industries spill on
    the Elk River in West Virginia recently--I mean, a couple of
    years ago--some of that data could not or was not publicly
    disclosable, and that hindered EPA in their response. Chairman
    Waxman at the time actually contacted the manufacturer of the
    chemical to find out what it was and--but the secret science
    research--Secret Science Act probably would have prevented that
    fast action.
        Chemically induced birth defects, no family wants the
    newspapers or the web pages to be listing information about
    their kids' birth defects. But if you're going to study birth
    defects you've got a look at actual kids and study the
    epidemiology. The Secret Science Reform Act presumably would
    have prevented that kind of necessary research.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you very much, and I see my time is
    expired.
        Chairman Smith. If the gentlewoman would yield real
    quickly, I think Dr. Holt knows as well as anybody that there's
    such a thing as redactions, and if it's personal information,
    that information can be redacted.
        I will go now to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, for
    his questions.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. White and all of you, I think we're all concerned when
    agencies promulgate rules that they say are based on sound
    data, and when they're asked to share the data, they say no,
    we're not going to tell you what the data is, you just have to
    accept our word for it.
        So, Dr. White, your written testimony you highlighted the
    peer-review process as a critical tool for insuring government
    policy is informed by sound science. I think we can all agree
    on the importance of objective peer reviews, which is why I'm
    alarmed by some of the reported problems with the current peer-
    review process at EPA and other agencies. Can you briefly
    explain why a transparent peer-review process is so important
    to ensuring the quality of scientific information?
        Dr. White. Sure. Thank you very much, Congressman, for that
    question.
        So as I mentioned, peer review is a critical piece of the
    science evaluation process. Having a third-party group of
    scientific experts evaluate and look at EPA's assessments is
    very important to establishing trust from the public. And
    making sure that you have the appropriate expertise, one, on
    that peer-review panel, that the EPA actually heeds the advice
    that they get from those peer reviewers and incorporates that
    information into their final assessment is critical. I think
    what we've seen is that that has not always been the case for
    the peer-review process and we'd like to see that change.
        Mr. Posey. Okay. Follow-up, given what you've just told us,
    should agencies strive to allow the public to incorporate
    information from peer reviews into their comments on a proposed
    rule?
        Dr. White. So the Agency definitely should take into
    consideration the public comments that it receives. One part of
    the peer-review process is getting in public comments. Those
    comments come from scientific experts that have evaluated the
    available data and provided that information into the Agency.
    Unfortunately, in some of the programs, while they get the
    information that has been provided by the public, they don't
    incorporate or respond to that information.
        Specifically, in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
    one of their processes in step five is actually a disposition
    of the public comments so actually writing down how they will
    respond or address peer review and public comments.
    Unfortunately, in the last three assessments that they put out
    they have not responded to those public comments, and so again
    this is kind of a violation of their own processes that they
    have currently in place.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Dr. White.
        Dr. Holmstead, continue on the same point. Can you discuss
    how both the scientific and rulemaking process is injured when
    interested and qualified parties are unable to comment
    meaningfully on science supporting a proposed rule?
        Mr. Holmstead. Well, thank you for your question and for
    calling me doctor. Unfortunately, I'm the only one on the panel
    here who is only a lawyer and--
        Mr. Posey. We don't need to waste time on that. Go ahead.
        Mr. Holmstead. In both policy questions and science
    questions I've certainly seen that thoughtful discussions from
    different points of view leads to better outcomes. And I just
    think it's--I think both on the regulatory side and the science
    side that EPA and the public would be better served if we
    actually had people who were well-qualified, who have different
    perspectives and different points of view, if they can try to
    resolve some of these issues instead of stacking some of these
    groups with people who share EPA's view.
        Mr. Posey. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Holmstead.
        Before my time runs out I'd just also like to thank the
    Chairman for the opportunity to explore this issue. I know a
    lot of us have been concerned about this, and a lot of our
    citizens are threatened by a torrent of bureaucratic attacks
    that they don't understand that affects their lives and their
    livelihoods every day. And, Mr. Chairman, I just again want to
    applaud you for taking this issue on.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey. Since you have a
    little time left, let me suggest to Mr. Holmstead that he seize
    on the juris doctor and start something new and go with the
    doctor.
        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized for
    questions.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, a lot of attention has been paid to the title of
    today's hearing ``Making the EPA Great Again.'' Under President
    Obama, the EPA took aggressive action to tackle climate change,
    which most scientists agree is the major threat to the planet
    and to the human race. It will not help anyone by disputing
    climate science with stories from white nationalist websites
    like Breitbart.com or tabloids like the Daily Mail.
        Scott Pruitt, the President's nominee to head the EPA, has
    sued the Agency 14 times over its effort to regulate the oil
    and gas industry and has not said whether he would recuse
    himself from ongoing cases against the EPA. This is not a
    recipe for greatness.
        The new Administration has scrubbed the EPA's website, has
    frozen its grants and contracts, has placed what amounts to a
    gag order on EPA employees, and requested names of employees
    who worked on climate change. A Trump transition official
    suggested cutting the Agency's workforce by 2/3 in a bill
    introduced by a fellow Republican will eliminate the EPA
    altogether. Mr. Chairman, this is not greatness.
        Alarming environmental disasters like revelations on the
    consequences of pesticides and cities covered in smog and
    rivers catching on fire spontaneously drove a Republican
    President, President Richard Nixon, to create the Environmental
    Protection Agency.
        And since then, the EPA's legacy has been one of great
    achievement. Among its most important accomplishments, the EPA
    banned the pesticide DDT. It significantly reduced levels of
    sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, the leading ingredients in
    acid rain. It mandated lead-free gasoline. It regulated toxic
    chemicals and established a national commitment to protecting
    our air and our water.
        The EPA's achieved so much in recent years, often over the
    misguided objections of this Committee and a Congress which has
    tried to make things worse. Mr. Chairman, Members of the fellow
    Science Committee, please, please listen to the Science
    Committee. Climate change is real and environmental problems
    can't be wished away or pretended away because they're going to
    affect us, our children, and future generations.
        This Committee should be leading the charge to protect the
    planet and our environment for future generations and instead,
    it attacks the credibility of scientists, casts doubt on
    accepted science, and makes life difficult for the people
    trying to solve urgent crises.
        The Science Committee's contribution now is like that of
    the Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned down around him.
    This is irresponsible and dangerous. It is not leadership and
    will not make the EPA or America great. In fact, I think we
    should retitle this hearing, that we keep the EPA great or
    maybe just save the EPA or protect our water.
        So with that, Dr. Holt, let me actually pose a question.
    Dr. Belzer said, and I quote from his written testimony, ``The
    EPA will strive for the highest estimate of risk that does not
    bring upon the Agency unbearable ridicule.'' How would you
    respond to Dr. Belzer's comment that they always take the most
    extreme version of risk in their calculations?
        Dr. Holt. You know, I'm not a historical scholar of EPA,
    but I can say that in the history that you touched on, because
    these--this legislation from past decades was based on science,
    it has managed to keep up with growing knowledge and improved
    understanding of human health and the effects on human health
    and on the environment of various kinds of water and
    atmospheric contaminants. And the record is very good.
        So, you know, I--I'm not a--you know, Dr. Belzer is--he is
    a scholar of benefit-cost analysis. He wants it phrased that
    way I think. I would not say that I am. But I do look at the
    results, and the results have been good.
        Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you.
        Juris Dr. Holmstead, in your testimony you wrote that
    referring to the Science Advisory Board Act that we took up in
    the last Congress, that by focusing on disclosure rather than
    disqualification that we would ensure that any potential
    conflicts, financial and otherwise, are publicly disclosed. But
    one of the objections we had to the act last time was that it
    in fact didn't do full financial disclosure. Are you aware that
    what will be intended this year will actually prompt full
    financial disclosure for people that would be appointed to that
    board?
        Mr. Holmstead. You know, I don't know anything about the
    bill that may be introduced this year, but I do believe that
    full disclosure, not only of financial conflicts but other
    financial interests, is an important part of the process. So
    again, I'm not familiar with legislation that may be
    forthcoming from this Committee, but I do think that's an
    important thing.
        Mr. Beyer. I hope you don't mind us using your testimony
    when the bill comes before us later so--thank you. Mr. Chair, I
    yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. By the way, my cap is
    going to read ``Keep the EPA Honest.'' But I appreciate the
    gentleman.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized for his
    questions.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        To my friend there from Virginia I want to say I'm not
    going to quote any of those websites that you did. I'll choose
    an article by The Hill, not necessarily known as a right-wing
    newspaper, ``Drowning by EPA Overreach,'' June the 17th of '15
    by Will Coggin. ``The EPA recently found itself in hot water.
    The New York Times revealed the Agency colluded with
    environmentalist groups in a campaign to manufacture public
    comments in favor of a new rule that expands its own power. The
    Agency's actions and the shenanigans of its environmentalist
    supporters shed light on how a bad rule can flow through a
    regulatory process,'' not exactly your right-wing publication.
        But it does point to the fact of why there's questions and
    why, with legitimate oversight, notwithstanding my friend's
    comments about this Committee was wasting its time, why we have
    a legitimate oversight role to play and we should be and that
    doesn't make us a useless Committee.
        And I applaud the Chairman on his efforts to make sure that
    we hold the EPA accountable.
        Quick, Mr. Holmstead, how did he term you? My dearest
    Holmstead? Was that what he said?
        Mr. Holmstead. Most--many people refer to me that way.
        Mr. Weber. I've got that, and I'm glad to hear you all have
    an intimacy there that few do.
        The EPA will often bury--well, let me do this. Adam Peshek
    from another publication said sometime back in 2011--actually,
    he said in an article two examples of EPA overreach that
    ``Measures taken to protect the environment are necessary and
    welcomed, but concerns for air quality should always be
    measured against the larger context of the economy and real-
    world achievability.'' So I think the fact that we're here
    having this discussion gives us pause for concern that we ought
    to be able to have these discussions and question the science.
        The EPA will often bury the cost of its regulations while
    inflating benefits. Measure what Adam Peshek said against real-
    world achievability. Do you think, Mr. Holmstead, it would
    improve regulations if EPA were more transparent in its cost-
    benefit analysis?
        Mr. Holmstead. I do believe that transparent cost-benefit
    analysis is important. I also believe it's important that the
    Agency fairly present the results because in some cases, if you
    dig into the details, you'll find that EPA has been relatively
    transparent, but the way they present their conclusions gives
    you a very different picture than----
        Mr. Weber. You can understand why, when articles come out
    from The New York Times that they've colluded with
    environmentalist groups to further their own power-making
    authority, their own rulemaking authority, that the Chairman of
    the Science Committee might have cause for concern and say we
    might ought to have some oversight of that. You'd understand
    that?
        Mr. Holmstead. No, absolutely, and I do think that was
    inappropriate. I was surprised to hear about that comment.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you. Let me move on to the next. Over the
    past eight years, based on what we just talked about, EPA has
    skewed its regulatory cost-benefit analysis to accomplish
    policy goals. Do you think this undermines public confidence in
    their analysis and could you understand why?
        Mr. Holmstead. I think that the short answer is absolutely.
    It would be better for everyone, for the public, for all of us
    in this room if there could be more confidence in some of the
    conclusions that we get from EPA and other regulatory agencies,
    and that's why I think some of the reforms that you're talking
    about are very important.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I'm going to
    go on to Dr. White.
        Dr. White, I'm concerned that the EPA has stacked its
    Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Science Advisory Committee
    with supporters, those that we talked about. The New York Times
    article said they colluded with environmentalists, for example.
    The EPA rolls out a regulation that says that it's supported by
    its scientists but no one is there to offer an opposing view,
    no one. So do you think there should be more balance on these
    advisory committees in your opinion, Dr. White?
        Dr. White. Absolutely. Balance is one of the keys that's
    important for having a peer review. You want to make sure that
    you have enough folks on the peer-review committee and that
    there's appropriate balance so that you have discussion about
    what EPA has done. If you only have one side of the story being
    told at the meeting or you only have one set of views on the
    peer-review panel, then you're not getting a full picture and
    you're not really having a robust peer review.
        Mr. Weber. So to you as a scientist, what does that say to
    you about those scientists that they really believe in an open
    and fair process or that they're pretty much consigned to just
    those who support their already predetermined analyses, for
    example?
        Dr. White. I think what it shows is that there's just not
    appropriate balance on the committee----
        Mr. Weber. Yes.
        Dr. White. --and so you really have to make sure that if
    you build a committee that only has one set of views, then
    you're likely----
        Mr. Weber. Right.
        Dr. White. --going to get a certain answer----
        Mr. Weber. You need a devil's advocate.
        Dr. White. Right.
        Mr. Weber. Yes. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber. The gentlewoman from
    Nevada, Ms. Rosen, is recognized for her questions.
        Ms. Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
    everybody here today for their thoughtful testimony on what is
    clearly a very controversial, and all slogans aside, we need to
    listen to the scientists who create a hypothesis, go through
    scientific method, come up with a conclusion. No matter who we
    have on the panel, there really is a process there and that's
    what we need to pay attention to.
        So my question is for Dr. Holt. Although we would never
    want to replicate or should we replicate natural disasters or
    manmade disasters like the Gulf oil spill, an earthquake, what
    have you, I want you to talk a little bit about how excluding
    one-time events, things that can't be repeated nor should be,
    will impact the EPA and we won't get the maximum scientific
    return if we don't study them.
        Dr. Holt. Thank you, Representative Rosen, and I'm pleased
    you've chosen to serve on this Committee.
        It's not just one-time events in the cases of emergencies,
    for example, disasters. Many studies cannot be repeated in
    exactly the same way. The populations have changed. Those
    people have grown up or moved away or the forest that you're
    studying has been overtaken by an invasive. Whatever it is, you
    sometimes cannot repeat it the same way. And the Secret Science
    Act is based--as it has previously been introduced has been
    based on a misunderstanding of how science works.
        You--the gold standard is to find other approaches to come
    up with the same conclusions. Rarely can you repeat an
    experiment in exactly the same way, and so this cry that you
    have exact data that somebody else will take and put it through
    their computer instead of your computer, yes, sometimes that
    makes sense, but what makes much more sense is that you
    approach the problem with a new perspective.
        And so that's not what the--that's not where this secret
    science legislation is heading. It's a misunderstanding of what
    it means to replicate experiments. So I think that--well,
    anyway, you've said it.
        Ms. Rosen. Well, thank you. So I guess you would say then
    that the goal of science is to take these studies, collaborate,
    innovate, and inspire the next scientist to take the foundation
    of what you have put there to look at new hypotheses and new
    ways to find solutions or analysis of a situation.
        Dr. Holt. Science doesn't make progress by doing the same
    thing over and over again. Science makes progress by looking at
    problems from new perspectives and testing it this way and that
    way and the other way and ultimately converge on an
    understanding that is more reliable than you have from one
    experiment. And that's how science works.
        It also means, of course, that the conclusions might have
    to be refined. The--you know, I know it bothers some Members of
    this Committee that sometimes they hear that different
    standards might be set. Well, yes, as the science progresses,
    you may change.
        Ms. Rosen. Where the data takes you.
        Dr. Holt. And you should change----
        Ms. Rosen. Yes.
        Dr. Holt. --but not on the basis of political whim or
    personal preference.
        Ms. Rosen. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I yield back
    my time.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Rosen.
        And the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    addressing this issue. I thank each member of the panel for
    being here today.
        I would like to just shift discussion briefly to an issue I
    think we haven't heard much about today and that's the Waters
    of the U.S. or the WOTUS rule. The EPA has consistently claimed
    that the WOTUS rule would not significantly expand its
    jurisdiction, but I look upon that claim with some skepticism
    because of what I'm hearing from my constituents in Arizona.
        And so I'm asking Mr. Holmstead, right now, do you agree
    with the EPA that the Waters of the U.S. rule is not a
    significant expansion of their jurisdiction over waters and, in
    the case of Arizona, dry wash beds?
        Mr. Holmstead. No, I think it's pretty clear that the WOTUS
    rule does significantly expand EPA's jurisdiction. They--what--
    part of their claim is that they've cast a broad net and then
    you can come in and somehow be excluded, but that process takes
    a lot of time and effort. But the jurisdiction that EPA claims
    is certainly much broader than we've seen before.
        Mr. Biggs. It seems to speak to an idea that perhaps there
    can be an institutional bias, and I would categorize it as
    something in line with something like institutional
    maintenance, and in this instance it's to regulate to expand
    jurisdiction. And I think you've just indicated that you agree
    with that perhaps maybe not that there's a bias but certainly
    the rule is. Do you see a bias there?
        Mr. Holmstead. I think institutionally, EPA--and this is
    not just EPA. I think this is regulatory agencies at federal
    and local and state levels, but that there is a tendency for
    them to want to increase their regulatory power basically
    because they want to have an opportunity to impose their own
    will on many of these choices. So I think there's no question
    that we've seen EPA expand its regulatory power or at least try
    to expand its regulatory power over the years.
        Mr. Biggs. Many manufacturers have indicated they're going
    to be impacted by this particular rule, the Waters of the U.S.
    rule. Can you explain what areas of manufacturing that might be
    impacted by this and any other anticipated results that we
    might see of WOTUS being applied to them?
        Mr. Holmstead. You know, most of the concerns that I have
    heard have been with regard to not existing manufacturing
    plants but people who want to build anything that's new,
    whether that's a transmission line or a pipeline or a new
    facility. If it turns out you want to locate whatever you're
    building in an area that's included within this broad
    definition, it becomes much, much more difficult to do that.
        Mr. Biggs. So I guess, Mr. Holmstead, to be more direct,
    we're talking really about permitting issues really become a
    major problem with this expansion of rules?
        Mr. Holmstead. Yes, that's absolutely right. The fact that
    you need government approvals to--and in some cases many
    different approvals for many different agencies I think is a
    shame. It's become very hard to build new things in this
    country, and I think that kind of permitting reform--not only
    reforming the WOTUS rule but other permitting programs to get
    them to function more efficiently would be a huge step in the
    right direction.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Biggs.
        And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is
    recognized.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Welcome back, Dr. Holt. It's nice to see you again. We
    certainly miss you on the Committee, but I very much appreciate
    the work you do with the AAAS. And before I ask my question, I
    want to make sure that all of our colleagues know about the
    event that the AAAS helps to organize each year, the Golden
    Goose Awards. This is an award that is earned by groups of
    federal hardworking researchers whose seemingly obscure
    federally funded research has led to major breakthroughs in
    national security, public health, computing, energy, and the
    environment. So it's a great annual bipartisan event and I hope
    all of our colleagues join us to support scientists and
    federally funded research.
        I want to align myself with the remarks by my colleague
    from Virginia, Mr. Beyer. Dr. Holt, as you know, our planet is
    facing the real consequence of anthropogenic climate change,
    and I'm deeply disappointed that we're not beginning this
    session focusing on how the EPA can address that critical issue
    as part of its mission to protect human health and the
    environment.
        In my home State of Oregon, the renewable energy industry
    has created thousands of jobs and is growing, and I wanted you
    to follow up on--I know Representative Esty asked you about the
    human health effects. Can you also talk about the economic
    benefits of addressing climate change?
        Dr. Holt. I know that there have been many criticisms over
    the years of the cost of environmental regulation and the cost
    of addressing climate change as one of the biggest
    environmental challenges. And most of that debate pays
    insufficient attention to the cost of not addressing it, the
    costs in lives and dollars. And that goes for climate change,
    as well as regulations restricting pollutants and other
    environmental hazards. And there's an extensive literature on
    it. It's difficult, of course, to calculate because some of the
    benefits and some of the costs are second and even third order
    and indirect.
        But it's pretty clear, I would say, that a cleaner
    environment such as we have obtained through environmental
    regulation implemented by the EPA--that a cleaner environment
    is economically better in addition to being better for human
    health.
        And for climate, you know, it remains to be seen how hard
    we're going to work to bring climate change under control and
    how expensive it will be if we don't do a good job----
        Ms. Bonamici. And I want to talk----
        Dr. Holt. --and the benefits from the industries in trying
    to do a good job.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I wanted to follow up on a
    discussion that was already brought up today about the--a piece
    of legislation that has been introduced that proposes
    abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency and basically
    like going back to the days when States would regulate clean
    air and water.
        So I know that under the Obama Administration there were
    partnerships between States and the EPA. This is something
    that's going to take federal and international solutions. Can
    you talk a little bit about what would happen going back to the
    days when there was no EPA if we let States regulate clean air
    and clean water?
        Dr. Holt. Well, Representative Beyer has touched on this.
    Rivers caught fire, people lived in levels of smog that we only
    see in China these days. Well, actually they're probably seeing
    it a little bit worse even. But the--and so my response to that
    is the regulations by and large have worked, and that's what we
    should be looking at.
        Ms. Bonamici. And, Dr. Holt, also in the 114th Congress the
    House considered legislative proposals that would've applied
    the research restrictions that are on the EPA from this so-
    called Secret Science Reform Act to research efforts at all
    agencies. If such a proposal were to become law, what would the
    effect be on the research mission not only of the EPA but our
    other federal agencies as well? And this Committee has
    jurisdiction over the NSF, for example.
        Dr. Holt. Well, there isn't an agency in the government
    that doesn't have significant science components. We at AAAS
    wrote to every one of President Trump's nominees for a Cabinet
    position, and I said in the letter ``I hope you realize that
    you are heading up a science agency.'' The Attorney General,
    yes, he would benefit by having a better understanding of
    forensic science. The Housing and Urban Development, yes, there
    is a social science and other science that is done by the
    Department but also science that must be used by the Department
    if they're going to make good decisions.
        The point is science-based policymaking is important in
    every aspect of our government. And if the scientific process,
    the free communication, the free collaboration, the ability to
    operate without intimidation is compromised anywhere, it will
    hurt our government's functioning, it will harm the economy and
    human welfare.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. My time is expired. I
    yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
        And the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Banks, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the each
    of the four of you for being here today to educate us and
    discuss ways that we can look at reevaluating the role of the
    EPA in 2017 and beyond.
        Growing up and fighting for and subsequently representing
    northeast Indiana before coming to Congress in the Indiana
    State House has made me aware of the many ways in which the
    EPA's policies impact hardworking constituents in my district
    with citizens from every walk of life, from farmers to small-
    business owners, workers, and even family members. I've heard
    from many of these constituents over the years raising concerns
    directed at the broad, burdensome, and relatively clandestine
    authority exercised by the EPA.
        So therefore, I've been a firm believer that our
    government, where authorized, should implement environmental
    policies based on sound science that focus on innovation rather
    than regulation. Sound science is the foundation of sound
    regulatory decision-making.
        So with that, I'm fortunate to have an opportunity on this
    committee--and I thank the Chairman for giving me the
    opportunity on this committee--to be a part of investigating
    and reforming the EPA's regulatory power.
        And with that, I will direct my first question to Mr.
    Holmstead. In your written testimony you highlighted the
    importance of both scientific accuracy and transparency in the
    EPA's decision-making process. On that note, should the risk
    assessment process and the cost-benefit analysis process of the
    EPA be examined and reformed to make it more scientifically
    based and objective? And with that, what should Congress's role
    be in reforming that process?
        Mr. Holmstead. I'll give you a short answer and you might
    want to ask Dr. Belzer, who really has had much more experience
    in risk assessment. I think it is appropriate for Congress to
    step in and to institute some reforms that could improve the
    process. And I want to be clear. I think EPA does a lot of very
    important, good things, but I also know from my own personal
    experience that there are some things that really do need to be
    reformed.
        We do enjoy a cleaner environment in large part because of
    EPA, but in some ways we pay a lot more than we should for the
    protection that we get. There are better ways to do these
    things, and I think that's one of the things that this
    Committee is looking at is are there better ways for EPA to do
    its job.
        Mr. Banks. Okay. Thank you. And, Dr. White, there used to
    be a time where EPA's Science Advisory Board and Clean Air
    Science Advisory Committee would issue reports with dissenting
    views. Now, it seems like those bodies just come together in a
    general consensus that almost always aligns with environmental
    or conservation groups. Do you think the EPA's Scientific
    Advisory Boards could do a better job at encouraging a broader
    or more transparent range of views?
        Dr. White. Absolutely. The process needs to be balanced. I
    mentioned that earlier in my testimony today that if you have
    balance on the committee, you're going to get dissenting views,
    and that information needs to be captured and considered by the
    Agency. That's really the value of having an open and
    independent peer-review process is so that you get a really
    robust review of EPA's evaluation of the science and what it's
    going to use to make those decisions before they are finalized.
        Mr. Banks. Okay. Thank you. And back to you, Mr. Holmstead.
    Do you think it would help if the EPA presented its regulatory
    impact analysis in a more concise or easier-to-read format?
        Mr. Holmstead. You know, I'm not quite sure how to answer
    that question because when you--sometimes when you make things
    too simple, you don't do justice to the complexities involved.
    So I agree that there's room for improvement, but again, you
    want to be sure that these documents--that this documentation
    gives people enough information so that they understand that
    things aren't always quite as black-and-white as the Agency
    would make them appear.
        Mr. Banks. And then one final question for you that you
    might or might not agree with. The EPA has historically, in my
    opinion, had a shoot-first style of regulating. The Agency
    issues a regulation before it is fully thought through whether
    it could be accomplished. How does this unnecessarily create
    burdens for businesses and manufacturers or would you agree
    that it does?
        Mr. Holmstead. Oh, sure, I mean, I think they're--I've long
    been critical of one part of the Clean Air Act that imposes a
    legal requirement on States and local governments that in many
    cases is impossible to meet. It's just not achievable. And that
    has all kinds of implications for businesses that want to
    locate there, and I just don't think it makes any sense to give
    an agency authority to mandate things without just--without
    considering whether they're achievable.
        Mr. Banks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back
    my time.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Banks.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, is recognized.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman for holding this
    hearing.
        It seems to me that the issues of contention today would be
    how science is conducted, meaning does it follow standards,
    does it follow standards that science usually follows, is it
    peer-reviewed, and is it influenced by politics or not, and, on
    the other hand, how science is used in rulemaking.
        So my first question will go to Dr. Holt. Would the Secret
    Science Reform Act ensure that science follows science
    standards that's used at the EPA?
        Dr. Holt. No, I think the problem is it's an attempt to
    substitute a different view of what is meant by openness and a
    different view of what is meant by sharing than is the standard
    in the practice of science. And my earlier plea today was
    that--I'm not saying oh, trust the scientists. I'm saying trust
    the process
        Mr. McNerney. Right.
        Dr. Holt. --and don't try to rework the process because you
    think you'll get better results because you won't.
        And with regard to the Science Advisory Committee, I mean,
    that is a Science Advisory Board. It will not function better
    by having fewer scientists on it. It is supposed to look at
    science. But in the name of balance and diversity, it--there's
    an effort to make it, well, less scientific, and that, it seems
    to me, not the way to go. That's not what the SAB is for. There
    might be other places in the Department where you bring in
    industry representatives to talk about the cost of the
    regulations to the industry, but I don't think the Science
    Advisory Board is the place to do that.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, would the Secret Science Reform Act
    lessen the influence of politics in the scientific process?
        Dr. Holt. No, I mean I think it's fundamentally
    substituting a politically originated revision of the process
    for the scientific process that has grown up over the ages.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. The second part is how science is
    used in rulemaking. My first question goes to you, Dr. Belzer.
    What are the standards used in the cost-benefit analysis? And I
    know you don't like cost-benefit. I know you like benefit-cost,
    but I'll use it anyway. What are the standards used for human
    health and human life in cost-benefit analyses?
        Dr. Belzer. We have 30 to 40 years of experience doing
    that. This is within the field of benefit-cost analysis. There
    isn't any controversy, regardless of one's political
    orientation, as to whether that ought to be done. There are
    technical arguments about how to do it, but there isn't any
    dispute in the field about whether it ought to be done and the
    effort ought to be put into doing it.
        It's the--again, think--if you think----
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I mean, what I'm asking is----
        Dr. Belzer. --of economics as a scientific field--and I
    should point out that a lot of physicists feel the same way;
    they become economists----
        Mr. McNerney. Right, but what I'm asking is what are those
    standards? How do you include human life and human health in
    cost-benefit analysis? How do you do it?
        Dr. Belzer. The standard mechanism for dealing, let's say,
    with premature mortality, which is the largest component of
    benefits for most environmental regulations, is to estimate the
    number of premature lives that are lost. And there's premature
    death and then there are--there's an extensive economic
    literature on valuing the premature death. And so that goes
    into the benefits assessment.
        And I should point out EPA is very fond of this. EPA uses
    this all the time. This is not a matter of controversy among
    economists. EPA has used this same literature to estimate the
    benefits of the Clean Air Act, and they've done so repeatedly.
    So the controversies with that had to do with things that are
    at a more technical level, not at a principal level.
        Mr. McNerney. So what is the cost or benefit of premature
    deaths?
        Dr. Belzer. I'm sorry--
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I mean, how much does it cost? What
    does a premature death cost?
        Dr. Belzer. What does it cost to----
        Mr. McNerney. Right, in your analysis.
        Dr. Belzer. I'm sorry. I'm mostly deaf, so I need clarity
    in----
        Mr. McNerney. So you say it's just a technical matter.
    Well, then----
        Dr. Belzer. Yes.
        Mr. McNerney. --what is the cost of a human life in your
    cost-benefit analysis?
        Dr. Belzer. What value--agencies differ in the values that
    they use. I believe that EPA's figure is on the order of 9 or
    10 million dollars per premature life--essentially, the value
    of saving or preventing a premature death. I think the
    Department of Transportation uses a number that's quite a bit
    lower than that. OMB provides guidance on how to do it but
    doesn't tell them what to do. And the circumstances may well
    vary so there isn't a fixed value. There are underlying
    procedures about how to estimate for a given situation, and
    those procedures are pretty much the same across agencies. But
    agencies do differ.
        Mr. McNerney. So there's leeway then?
        Dr. Belzer. There is leeway but it's not leeway in terms of
    the methods. It's leeway in terms of where the data and
    analysis lead you. This is the same principle Dr. Holt is
    talking about. Economics is a science in my view, and so we
    apply scientific tools, scientific method to developing these
    estimates.
        Mr. McNerney. The gentleman's been----
        Dr. Belzer. There are things that are hard to estimate----
        Mr. McNerney. --generous in letting me run over, so I'm
    going to yield back at this point.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. McNerney.
        The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Holt, and Dr. White, I have very high regard for your
    professions. I just want to ask you, are you saying that, for
    instance, the scientists who work on the Intergovernmental
    Panel on Climate Change for those whose work has been in regard
    to climate change should be held in high regard subject to same
    peer review of everybody else but given respect? Is that--Dr.
    White?
        Dr. White. Yes.
        Mr. Palmer. Okay. How about you, Dr. Holt?
        Dr. Holt. Yes, I think so. I'm not quite sure I understood
    your question but--
        Mr. Palmer. Well, I'm just asking if these people are----
        Dr. Holt. --the scientists who work on the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that I know
    personally I highly respect, and when I look at the work that
    has come out of that, I would say that's good science.
        Mr. Palmer. And would you say that's true of the other
    scientists that work on that? I mean, they have to be held in
    pretty high regard to be added to that panel.
        Dr. Holt. Yes.
        Mr. Palmer. Okay. I just want to introduce this for the
    record, Mr. Chairman, that there's a number of scientists who
    worked on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who now
    fiercely dispute what the panel has produced in terms of their
    projections on climate change. In fact, one of them says,
    ``Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history.
    When people come to know the truth--what the truth is, they
    will feel deceived by science and scientists.''
        So if I may, I'd like to submit that for the record.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Palmer. Dr. Belzer, there's been a lot said here about
    asthma and health as a result of human activity. I just want to
    share some things with you. From 1980 to 2012, our gross
    domestic product increased 467 percent. Vehicle miles traveled
    went up 94 percent. Populations increased 38 percent. Energy
    consumption is up 22 percent. Emissions, however, are down 50
    percent. But the interesting thing is that--and these are EPA
    stats, these are U.S. government stats--is that even though our
    air quality and water quality are demonstrably better,
    particularly air quality in regard to asthma, than they were in
    the '60s and '70s and '80s, asthma rates have exploded. Can you
    give any explanation for that?
        Dr. Belzer. I am familiar with some of that literature, and
    I suspect but don't know that one of the things that's changed
    is the definition of asthma has expanded. And if you increase
    the--if you make the definition broader, you're going to have
    more people in it. So that certainly could be part of it.
        But I do agree that this is a conundrum with declining air
    pollution that you would have increasing asthma is certainly
    contrary to the expectation and belief of many people who think
    or believe that asthma is caused by air pollution. So this is a
    problem. This is one that good science ought to be put to it,
    and we ought not to impart upon it a policy judgment first as
    to what the answer is.
        Mr. Palmer. Okay. Here's what I want to point out. First of
    all, I'm not a climate denier, as some claim. I think that it
    is caused by natural variations. I think there's enough science
    out there that indicates that that's a viable position to have.
    But also in regard to what's been said in this committee that
    it's clear, I think, from particularly what some of my
    colleagues on the other side have said that they want to link
    asthma to human activity, pollution. And in every respect--I
    mean, lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, the volatile
    organic chemicals, nitrogen dioxide, PM10, PM2.5, everything is
    down, yet they want to make it about that. And I think that's a
    misrepresentation of science, the very thing that we're trying
    to avoid here.
        And I also have an article, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter
    into the record from Scientific America to your point, Dr.
    Belzer. We don't know what causes asthma. There's everything--
    hypothesis from hygiene to obesity to sedentary lifestyles to
    more--to poor housing quality for lower-income families. So I
    really do think where we're trying to go with this committee,
    to be able to validate the science, to get the politics out of
    it is the place we need to be.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Lucas. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
        Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster,
    and the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hanabusa, are authorized to
    participate in today's hearing. They've been selected to serve
    on the Science Committee but have not officially yet been
    appointed.
        Seeing no objection, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Foster
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if it's--it's my
    understanding that just as we speak I think I'm likely to be
    officially appointed to the committee but----
        Mr. Lucas. You're right.
        Mr. Foster. Yes. So, Dr. Holt, you know something about
    Science magazine, and there was an interesting article a couple
    weeks ago entitled ``The Polluted Brain,'' which had a very
    interesting discussion of the growing evidence for the link
    between particulates that are about an order of magnitude's too
    small to be detected by normal air-quality monitoring equipment
    and dementia and Alzheimer's and had some actually rather
    alarming numbers in it. The--and as well as an honest
    discussion of the scientific uncertainty in this.
        And the potential economic impacts of this are huge. About
    roughly 1/3 of all of our Medicare spending is projected to be
    due to Alzheimer's within a couple of decades. You know, if
    Alzheimer's did not exist, there would not be long-term
    financial stress on Medicare. And so this is a--it's a huge
    issue to the extent that it is attributable to this.
        And there's also difficulty that is traditionally not--
    these are things--instead of 2.5 microns and above, these are
    200 nanometers and below. And so that there is a significant
    belief that they penetrate through the blood brain barrier and
    actually do damage to the brain. It's well-documented that they
    cause things like asthma, cancer, and recently, heart disease.
    But now, the fact that they could be responsible for a
    significant amount of that is I think a source of growing
    concern and potentially a subject that this Committee will be
    discussing a lot and the EPA should be raising.
        And so I raise it because it's sort of a prototypical
    example of how science is a moving target in environmental
    regulation. And it strikes me that there are two dangers that
    we have, one of which is that, as soon as this danger begins to
    have some scientific plausibility associated with it, large
    commercial interests will try to suppress that science. I mean,
    we saw that in cigarettes and a number of other areas.
        And so I was wondering if any of you could comment on the
    best way to prevent that from happening because there will be a
    large number of manufacturing products, consumer products, and
    so on that will be responsible for exposing people to these
    very small particulates and, you know, this may cause changes
    in the business model. And so I was wondering if you--any of
    you have comments on how to make sure that that does not happen
    in a way that happened with cigarettes. Or can't it happen
    anymore?
        Dr. Holt. Well, Representative Esty asked earlier why are
    studies some studies more creditable--credible than others?
    And, you know, one can certainly discount studies that seem to
    be driven by special interests. It's not enough to just
    disclose where your funding comes from but that at a minimum
    should be done.
        But then, as you know in the tobacco case and in some of
    the other cases, it's dependent on finding forensic evidence,
    you know, internal communications of collusion. That was
    certainly true when Henry Waxman exposed the collusion in the
    tobacco industry. So, you know, there's no easy way that I know
    of to do that.
        Mr. Foster. And Dr. Belzer, to sort of follow up on
    Representative McNerney's question about--you know, there's a
    number--I think you cited $10 million per human life or some
    number like that. How do you value one year of suffering from
    Alzheimer's? Is there a number associated with that when we do
    the cost-benefit or is it only deaths that we typically
    consider?
        Dr. Belzer. It is certainly true that much--or most of the
    research effort has gone into estimating benefits from
    mortality. The reason--logical one is that mortality is the
    worst health effect that one normally can imagine. I am
    hesitant to agree with that because Alzheimer's is one of those
    things that might well be worse for a lot of people. My mother
    endured almost 20 years of it before her death in 2012, and it
    is----
        Mr. Foster. As my mother did.
        Dr. Belzer. --but coming--but figuring out how to estimate
    it, it requires some resources to be devoted to it. I don't
    think there are any economists who would shy away from the
    effort. They would find it extremely interesting and
    challenging and would put forth the best possible objective
    effort to do so in collaboration with the neurobiologists who
    would be best equipped to help us.
        Mr. Foster. Would that effort to get to the real scientific
    and economic analysis be easier or harder if the size of the
    EPA staff was cut by factor of three?
        Dr. Belzer. I'm not sure that it has any correlation at all
    with the size of the EPA's staff.
        Mr. Lucas. The gentleman's time is expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas,
    Subcommittee Chairman Mr. Babin, for five minutes.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        Risk assessment guidelines will enable the EPA to achieve
    consistency in the conduct of chemical risk assessments and
    will help avoid manipulation of evidence and assumptions to
    achieve predetermined results. It is my understanding that
    existing risk assessments guidelines are out of date and do not
    offer critical guidance that relates to current and evolving
    risk sciences.
        It's also painfully apparent that the EPA risk assessors do
    not consistently follow all aspects of their existing
    guidelines. For example, the Science Committee's investigation
    into EPA's assessment of glyphosate found significant flaws in
    the scientific process of reregistering chemicals that warrants
    further examination.
        I believe that updated risk assessment guidelines should
    contain clear criteria for causal analysis so that there is as
    little room as possible for subjective judgment that reflects
    the policy leanings of the analyst. The guidelines should
    identify, through careful evidence integration, the conclusions
    that have the strongest scientific support.
        And I'd like to start with you, Dr. White. Do you believe
    the EPA should update and revise its risk assessment
    guidelines? Do you believe that the development of updated risk
    assessment guidelines and adherence to these guidelines will
    inject more objective scientific rigor into EPA's chemical risk
    assessments? And will that make the development of risk
    assessments more transparent?
        Dr. White. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
    Transparent and consistent framework for evaluating chemicals
    is necessary. It needs to be transparent and, like I said, it
    needs to be consistent and science-based. As the science
    changed, risk evaluations need to be updated. So do the
    processes that are used.
        I mentioned 2016 Congress passed the Lautenberg Chemical
    Safety Act, which requires the EPA to make its decisions using
    the best available science and a weight-of-evidence process.
    What that means is a weight of evidence utilizes the--all the
    available science. It clearly identifies the criteria that it
    will use to identify the available data. It evaluates the
    quality of that data.
        And I think it's important to note when we talk about the
    quality of the data, just to go back to something Dr. Holt said
    about studies funded by industry and whether they should be
    discounted, I do not feel that a study should be discounted
    solely based on the funding authority. It should be reviewed
    and evaluated based on the merits of the actual scientific
    context and the study design and the value that that
    information will provide to the assessment.
        When EPA or any other agency evaluates the available
    scientific information, it needs to determine whether or not
    they have high-quality information, looking across the board at
    all studies. One of the reasons that it's important to do a
    weight-of-evidence process is because it allows the Agency to
    look across the board at all the available evidence to evaluate
    the quality of that evidence and then use that information to
    integrate and make decisions. This is information both on
    available human data, on the animal data that might be relevant
    to human exposures, and any mechanistic data that will tell us
    about how a chemical may be acting in the body.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. And how would you suggest risk assessment
    guidelines account for uncertainties in the scientific
    evidence? When and how is it appropriate to use default
    assumptions?
        Dr. White. So when scientific information is available, so
    when we actually have human data or animal data, that
    information should be used instead of a default. When we're
    looking specifically at uncertainties, sometimes in research we
    have animal data and we may not have available human
    information. So we need to have and be able to account for how
    that animal data is relevant or not relevant to the human
    exposure incident.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. And then one last thing. Do you believe
    that exposure assessments should be included in revised risk
    assessments guidelines?
        Dr. White. Exposure is a key piece of the risk assessment
    process, so not only do you need to look at the toxicity
    information but also whether or not that toxicity is relevant
    to actual human exposures.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you very much. Would anybody else
    like to add to that?
        Dr. Holt. Mr. Babin, if I may----
        Mr. Babin. Yes.
        Dr. Holt. Well, first of all, in your first question, it
    may be true that the risk assessment guidelines need to be
    updated, but I just wanted to make sure that it didn't seem
    that I was implying that industrial research should be
    discounted on the face of it. Maybe Dr. White thought I said
    that. I don't--I certainly didn't mean that.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? With that, I will
    yield that the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Lucas. The gentleman yields back one second.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman----
        Mr. Babin. Generous.
        Mr. Lucas. --from the big First District of Kansas, Mr.
    Marshall, for five minutes.
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. My first
    question is for Dr. White.
        Dr. White, I represent the largest agriculture-producing
    Congressional district in the country, and I'm so proud that
    the air we breathe there, the waters that my children and
    grandson swim in are cleaner today than they were when I was
    growing up. As you can imagine, our farmers and ranchers
    utilize quite a range of tools, including herbicides and
    pesticides.
        And kind of a follow-up to Dr. Babin's thoughts or his
    question on glyphosate, I'm new here so I was trying to
    understand it was in a report, it was out a report, but at the
    end of the day it looked like the conclusion was glyphosate
    Roundup was not a carcinogen. It's been around since 1960 and
    somehow that was taken out of the report and I'm just trying to
    fill in a few loose ends. Why was it left out of the report or
    taken out of it?
        Dr. White. So I can't speak to exactly why it was included
    or taken out of the report, but what I will tell you is this is
    why it's so important to have a consistent framework for how
    science evaluations are conducted is that it's clear and
    transparent. You can see very clearly what processes EPA would
    have used to evaluate glyphosate, what science they used to
    make their conclusions, and it would be right there in front of
    you so there would be no question about whether or not that
    data was accurate or valid.
        Mr. Marshall. Okay. Thank you. My next question is for Dr.
    Belzer. I'm trying to understand these regulatory impact
    analyses. RIAs is another acronym for me. When they report RIAs
    to the OMB, is there any type of independent peer review before
    it's submitted?
        Dr. Belzer. I would say sometimes there is an internal peer
    review conducted by an agency, but generally, that's not the
    case. There's--basically, OMB is performing the peer review.
    And one of the problems with that from my perspective is that
    OMB doesn't disclose the results of its peer review. It works
    for the President and so its advice is proprietary to the
    President. I think that things would be a lot better if OMB
    actually disclosed its independent reviews of these documents,
    and I've advocated that since I worked there and told to mind
    my own business.
        Mr. Marshall. Do you think independent peer reviews would
    be of any help to maybe not every report but certain number of
    them randomly selected?
        Dr. Belzer. Certainly, the larger ones ought to be. I think
    that the existence of an effective peer-review process improves
    the quality of what agencies produce in--I mean, just simply
    the knowledge that you're going to be peer-reviewed goes a long
    way toward improving quality. Then, as Dr. White's pointing
    out, the panel--having a good peer-review panel is very
    helpful.
        I'm the only person here who is actually a member of a
    Science Advisory Board panel, and I know the processes at least
    for my panel how it goes on. It is a challenging enterprise
    with a panel of 15 members for typically only two might be
    knowledgeable about a given issue that's actually on the table.
        So I think the peer-review process does need to be
    restructured to make sure that there really are experts in
    individual areas and that they don't--and that they have
    intellectual diversity. I don't care at all about who they work
    for, but intellectual diversity is the key toward teasing out
    the best scientific knowledge.
        Mr. Marshall. Okay. My last question is for Mr. Holmstead.
    You look bored there. No one's asked you a question. It has to
    do with WOTUS, Waters of the U.S. I had the pleasure of sitting
    down with Senator Bob Dole six, seven months ago and had the
    conversation--he was one of the original co-authors of WOTUS,
    and of course I had to ask him, ``Well, what does navigable
    stream mean to you and what was your intention?'' And of course
    he said, ``Well, you know, there's only three navigable streams
    in Kansas, and it's very obvious what we meant.''
        And now there's concern for my farmers--that WOTUS is
    actually managing land. If you regulate water to such a great
    extent it feels like you're regulating land even though the
    Agency said it doesn't want to regulate private property. So I
    guess my question is how can the Agency deny that by expanding
    vastly the definitions of WOTUS that it's effectively limiting
    the activities that can occur on private property? I guess I'm
    trying to understand. WOTUS has expanded so much under the
    current interpretation that it's impacting private property.
        Mr. Holmstead. You know, people are--I don't think anybody
    at EPA could dispute that they're regulating private property.
    I mean, that's what it's all about. So even if you own your
    land, even if you owned your land for 100 years, if somebody
    comes in and says there's a wetland on your land, you have to
    get a permit to--and you can be prevented from using that land.
    That's why there's been so much debate and discussion over what
    really is a wetland and this most recent rule that's been
    referred to as WOTUS really does significantly expand the net,
    expand the jurisdiction that--the amount of land that's covered
    by that process.
        And I think that's inappropriate, and I also think it's
    the--well, I think it's probably illegal. But I also think this
    is an area where Congress could really step in and provide some
    guidance because this is a debate that's gone on for many, many
    years now with EPA making several stabs at trying to, you know,
    define the type of land over which EPA and the Corps should
    have jurisdiction. And that's been difficult to do, but EPA has
    tried several times and the courts have sent it back saying no,
    you've gone too far.
        And I assume that this new EPA will make another stab at
    that and try to do something that's more reasonable and that's
    more understandable for people who really do care about what is
    a wetland.
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you for being so candid.
        Mr. Lucas. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now
    turns to the Ranking Member for a unanimous consent request.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
    enter these letters, comments, and op-eds from the Asbestos
    Disease Awareness Organization, American Lung Association, the
    American Thoracic Association, and The National Environmental
    Health Association for--on their comments on EPA.
        The article--the Intercept article ``Republicans are Using
    Big Tobacco's Secret Science Playbook to Gut Health Rules,''
    and in the introduction to the record of the four peer-reviewed
    studies in the record that collaborate the findings of the NOAA
    study authored by Dr. Tom Karl and published by the Science
    magazine in 2015.
        Mr. Lucas. Seeing no objection, so ordered. The information
    will be added to the record. Thank you.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Lucas. As we conclude this hearing, I would like to
    take a moment and note I think on behalf of myself and Chairman
    Smith, to my old colleague Dr. Holt, Rush, on the issues
    involving Dr. Bates' concerns, I believe that it would be good
    for you to take the message back to the AAAS that they owe a
    fellow scientist making such claims the honor of withholding
    judgment until the matter is fully investigated. It's a very
    relevant and important issue.
        And with that, I thank the witnesses for their testimony
    and the Members for their questions. The record will remain
    open for two weeks for additional written comments and
    questions from the Members.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by The Hon. Jeffrey Holmstead

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Kimberly White

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by The Hon. Rush Holt

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Richard Belzer

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

                   Documents submitted by Committee Chairman
                                 Lamar S. Smith

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Documents submitted by Committee Ranking Member
                             Eddie Bernice Johnson

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Documents submitted by Representative Randy K. Weber

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]