Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and my friend, the chairman of the committee. We often agree on things in the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, but there are times when our disagreements are huge, and this is one of those…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and my friend, the chairman of the committee.
We often agree on things in the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, but there are times when our disagreements are huge, and this is one of those times.
So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1430. We have seen this bill in the last Congress, when it was called the Secret Science Reform Act. It was a lousy bill then, and it is still a lousy bill today.
Let's start with the name of this bill, Mr. Speaker, the HONEST Act, but it really should be called the dishonest act. That is because this bill improperly describes what is going on at the EPA, which is looking to protect our environment from extreme weather events that we have in Colorado, throughout the country, and around the world.
The EPA is working to protect our clean air and our clean water, and has demonstrably improved our communities and the health of America since 1970.
I wish I could say these attacks today and tomorrow on the EPA and scientific research are isolated, but unfortunately they are not. Earlier today, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a hearing on climate science. I was astonished at what I heard from the majority Republican Party calling into question whether climate change is happening, and whether it is caused by humans. All this serves is to attack scientific research and jeopardize the progress we have made to combat climate change and protect our communities.
Just yesterday, President Trump issued an executive order to further roll back progress that we have made over the last 8 years. The executive order tries to dismantle the Clean Power Plan and many other important protections from the Obama administration which were worked on based on the best available science and through an open and deliberate process, gathering millions of comments along the way. The fact is, investing in clean energy and reducing emissions is good for our national security, good for our environment, and good for jobs.
I believe we can do both--improve our energy independence and create good-paying jobs--at the same time. Colorado has been a leader in reducing harmful emissions, improving energy efficiency, and investing in clean energy, and we have realized substantial economic benefits for Colorado through innovation, research and development, and the creation of good-paying jobs.
Mr. Speaker, we need to do better. This House and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee need to take their heads out of the sand and stop ignoring what is going on across the country and across the world.
I urge all my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter dated March 8, 2017, from the American Geophysical Union.
American Geophysical Union,
March 8, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: On behalf
of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its more than
60,000 members, I am writing to express concerns about the
Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (HONEST
Act) and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.
We encourage you and your colleagues to take additional time
to evaluate the unintended consequences of these bills before
the bills move forward.
Although we appreciate the HONEST Act's protections for
confidential information, we remain concerned about several
provisions in the bill. For example, requirements in the bill
for the use of ``best available science,'' ``data,'' and
``reproducible'' do not have uniform applications across all
disciplines.
With respect to reproducibility of research, some
scientific research involves longitudinal studies that are so
large and of great duration that they could not realistically
be reproduced. The same may be true for scientific data from
a one-time event (e.g., Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill)
where the data is gathered in real time. We're concerned that
in these situations the EPA could be constrained from using
important or relevant research in making decisions.
The legislation could also impose costs on recipients of
federal research grants where the research results are
expected to be ``relied on to support a covered action.'' The
bill is not clear on whether it is the EPA's or the research
institution's responsibility to cover the costs associated
with sharing and archiving this information.
We are also troubled by the implications of the EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act. As an organization that represents
scientists from broad backgrounds and expertise, we
appreciate the attempt to ensure a diverse panel of
scientific knowledge and perspectives, and support the bill's
goal of increasing accountability and transparency for
scientific advisors. However, because the bill would exclude
some scientists with substantial expertise in their fields
from the Science Advisory Board (SAB), the SAB would suffer
from the exclusion of valuable insight. The purpose of the
SAB is to review the quality and robustness of scientific
data that informs EPA's regulatory process. It is imperative
that the SAB comprise the most expert, independent scientists
and technical advisors to best fulfill that mission.
AGU looks forward to working with you on these critical
issues in the future.
With best wishes,
Lexi Shultz,
Director of Public Affairs,
American Geophysical Union.