Republicans Hold Committee Markup to Pass Two Destructive EPA Bills
(Washington, DC) – Today, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a Full Committee markup of two bills aimed at preventing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from utilizing the best research to create effective regulations.
The two bills before the Committee were H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 and H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015. The markup was noticed only two days in advance while Members were still out of town. Minority Members were given very little time to propose amendments or work with the Majority on improving this legislation.
During the debate of H.R. 1030, Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said, “I want to be clear: the Secret Science Reform Act is based on a falsehood. The EPA does not use ‘secret science’ to conduct its business. Period. The EPA uses high-quality peer reviewed research from trusted scientific sources. This bill is the Majority’s attempt to prevent the EPA from using this high-quality science. Judging from the groups that endorsed this bill, it might be more accurate to state that this bill is the polluting industries’ attempt to prevent the EPA from using the best available science.” Ms. Johnson’s full statement can be found here.
Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) proposed an amendment to H.R. 1030. In offering it, she said, “Regrettably, the bill before us today is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The Secret Science Reform Act is not about transparency and accountability. It’s a dangerous attack on the power of knowledge. Supposedly, this bill prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from using ‘secret science’ to issue regulations. Supposedly, by requiring the EPA to only consider publicly available data when drafting regulations, this bill will make the EPA more transparent. Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. The public disclosure requirements in this bill only serve to undermine the EPA’s ability to protect public health without any public benefit.”
Other Democratic Members voiced several concerns and opposition to the bill. Following debate, the Chairman moved forward and Ms. Clark’s amendment was voted down and the bill then passed on a party-line vote.
During the debate on H.R. 1029, Ranking Member Johnson criticized the partisan legislation saying, “This bill seeks to ‘reform’ the Science Advisory Board by packing it with industry representatives and then tying it up with procedural burdens so unlimited that it is unlikely any SAB panel could ever render an opinion in a useful period of time. I assume that is the point of this legislation. Endless delay means we never know what harm comes from any specific chemical or pollutant. And that manufactured doubt leads to an endless delay in the formulation of public health regulations. Unfortunately, that also means that the health and safety of our families and friends will be needlessly put at risk.” Her full statement can be found here.
Two amendments to H.R. 1029, offered by Democrats, were voted down along party lines. The amendment from the Ranking Member of the Environment Subcommittee, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), attempted to remove the burdensome administrative requirements in the bill to prevent these burdens from hamstringing the EPA.
Rep. Bonamici said, “Unfortunately, this bill would cause the activity of the Science Advisory Boards to grind to a halt by establishing a mechanism for an unlimited period for public comment and response requirements - resulting in slower responses, costly delays, and increased risks to the health of every American. These kinds of needless and endless delays provide industry interests with time to halt, derail, discredit, and slow EPA actions that threaten their bottom line.”
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) proposed an amendment that would allow the SAB to focus its work on assessments that have the greatest potential for economic impact. The bill in its current form would require the SAB to perform frivolous reviews that would hamstring progress on higher priority assessments.
Each amendment had strong support from Democratic Members. After debate on the amendments, H.R. 1029 was approved on a party-line vote.
Ms. Johnson submitted several letters into the record that expressed opposition and concern for both bills from outside groups. View the letters here.
The bills were reported out of the Committee and will likely proceed to the House floor. Ranking Member Johnson and Committee Democrats will continue to strongly oppose both bills in their current form.
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article