[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]