Recognizing Richard Fisher on his Retirement from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015, which is the same one we spoke against last year, because it benefits no one but the industry, and it harms public health.

Last year, Dallas-Fort Worth received an ``F'' for air quality from the American Lung Association. Now, more than ever, the American people need a strong EPA to protect their right to clean air and water, and the public supports that. This includes an effective Science Advisory Board, a group whose job it is to provide the EPA with independent scientific analysis and advice.

As written, H.R. 1029 ``reforms'' EPA's Science Advisory Board for the worse. The hypothetical intent of this bill is to improve the balance of the members serving on the Board; but, in reality, the bill would make it easier for industry-affiliated representatives with a conflict of interest to serve on the Board. Experts with industry
associations are far more likely to find that the science they are asked to review will have a financial impact on their employers. Academic scientists do not have such financial conflicts of interest with the Board's advice or with the EPA's actions.

However, my Republican colleagues seem to have a fundamental distrust of scientists from our Nation's universities because H.R. 1029 puts in place a number of requirements that will likely dissuade academic scientists from serving on the Board. It is difficult to understand how anyone could object to the most knowledgeable academic scientists offering their advice and expertise to the EPA. Who would know better
whether the EPA had mischaracterized the science on an issue than the people who are leaders in their respective fields?

To be clear, I am not arguing that industry should not have representation on the EPA's Science Advisory Board, as their insight is valuable also, but I do not support weakening conflict of interest practices so more industry representatives can serve on the Board.

The bill also favors industry by tying the Board up with procedural burdens so unlimited that it is unlikely any Science Advisory Board panel could ever render an opinion in a useful period of time. I assume that that is really the point of H.R. 1029. Endless delays leave plenty of time to manufacture doubt in the science and to delay the formulation of public health regulations by the EPA. Unfortunately, that also means that the health and safety of our families, friends, and constituents will be needlessly put at risk. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1029.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source