Providing For Consideration of H.R. 1422, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013; Providing For Consideration of H.R. 4012, Secret Science Reform Act of 2014

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 756 provides for the consideration of three important pieces of legislation to create a more transparent and accountable Environmental Protection Agency, one that works in an open manner for all of America. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each of the three bills contained within the rule. Further, amendments were made in order for each of the three bills for a total of five amendments from Members of both parties.

Mr. Speaker, the first bill contained in this rule, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, brings greater accountability and greater oversight to the board of appointed advisors which the EPA uses to review the scientific bases for its official actions. Created in the late 1970s, the Science Advisory Board was intended to be a check on the EPA in order to ensure that the Agency's math and the Agency's statistics were all in order before it promulgated rules or regulations.

In fact, the original authorization for the board made clear that the Science Advisory Board was to report both to the EPA and to Congress on its findings. However, over the course of the past several decades since its inception, the Science Advisory Board has become little more than a rubberstamp for whatever the EPA Administrator wishes to accomplish, with the board members being handpicked by the Administrator, likely being chosen primarily on the basis that they hold the same environmental worldview as whoever the head of the EPA happens to be at any given point in time.

The bill before us would provide for a more balanced representation on the Science Advisory Board, setting out parameters regarding whom the Administrator can choose and ensuring that State and local governments have representation on the board so that they are not simply relegated to environmental activists, which, unfortunately, has been the case for some time now.

Indeed, current regulations exclude industry experts from serving on the Science Advisory Board, but not officials from environmental advocacy groups. The new regulations are necessary to ensure against any appearance of impropriety on the board.

This legislation becomes even more critical when one considers the numerous regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency is currently contemplating, which could have significant impacts upon the Nation's economy.

From proposed carbon regulations to ratcheting down ozone regulations, the Science Advisory Board has been tasked with reviewing the science that will back up some of the most expensive rules in the Environmental Protection Agency's history.

It is critical the American people have confidence in what their Federal Government is doing and confidence that it is justified. I fear that, absent any significant reform to the EPA's process, that is currently not the case.

The second bill contained in this rule, H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act, is also intended to make the Environmental Protection Agency's rulemaking process more transparent, a goal that at one time was supposedly shared by the President.

The legislation states that the Environmental Protection Agency may take official action on an environmental regulation only if it has identified all scientific and technical information upon which the Agency has relied for that particular action, and further, it must use only publicly available studies and can thus be independently peer reviewed. This would bring the EPA's process in line with how many scientific journals operate when they publish peer-reviewed studies.

Further, the bill is prospective and will not interfere with any previously-enacted rules or regulations by the EPA. To address concerns expressed during the Science Committee's consideration of the bill, the legislation spells out that nothing in these requirements would jeopardize any privacy concerns with scientific studies.

The CDC has successfully made its studies available without exposing any of its test subjects' personal information, and the EPA should have no problem similarly complying with these requirements.

Finally, H.R. 4795, the Promoting New Manufacturing Act, the third bill included in the rule before us today, provides for greater transparency and would cut much of the red tape surrounding the permitting process for manufacturers attempting to comply with the Clean Air Act's requirements.

It would require the EPA to publish guidance on how companies may more efficiently obtain construction permits and navigate what is often a lengthy and arduous process.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are waking up to how much of the United States economy is subject to the EPA and its regulations, from carbon dioxide to ozone, and people are rightly anxious over how these new and, in some cases, unprecedented rules will affect consumers' wallets.

It is reasonable and expeditious to ensure that the science upon which the EPA is relying to craft its regulations will be transparent and available to all and not just a select few who the EPA deems worthy to see its work products.

Even the congressional committees who are charged with legitimate oversight over EPA's actions have had difficulty in obtaining basic scientific justifications for its actions over the past few years. The bills before us today will begin the process of making the EPA accountable to the very constituency the Agency claims to be protecting, the American people.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote "yes'' on the rule and `"yes'' on the underlying bills, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Source