Subcommittee Democrats Call Hearing a Missed Opportunity to Learn from Witnesses About EPA’s Research Enterprise
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing entitled, “Fostering Quality Science at the EPA: The Need for Common Sense Reform.” The purpose of the hearing was to examine the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) research enterprise to meet the agency’s mission to protect public health and the environment. This is expected to be the first hearing in a series on the reorganization and reauthorization of EPA’s research activities through the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDA).
In 1976, Congress consolidated many of the funding authorizations for EPA’s research in ERDDA. The most recent reauthorization of ERDDA was on December 22, 1980 (P.L. 96-569). In this law, only FY1981 funding authorizations were provided for certain EPA research programs and activities as they existed at that point in time. Although legislation to reauthorize ERDDA beyond FY1981 has not been enacted to date, Congress has enacted targeted funding authorizations for certain research activities of EPA through amendments to other environmental laws.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), sitting in for Ranking Member Brad Miller, said in his opening statement, “Scientific research, knowledge, and technical information are fundamental to EPA’s mission and inform its standard-setting, regulatory, compliance, and enforcement functions. The agency’s scientific performance is particularly important as complex environmental issues emerge and evolve. And it is science, not partisan politics, which should guide their resolution. Unfortunately, controversy continues to surround many of the agency’s areas of responsibility. Let me be clear, there may be some legitimate concerns related to EPA’s research enterprise, but EPA is not the demonic agency that the Republican Majority has made it out to be this Congress.”
Ranking Member Brad Miller (D-NC), while Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee in the 111th Congress, issued a request to the Government Accountability Office to review the EPA’s laboratory infrastructure, staffing, and operations to determine whether they are adequate to meet current and future needs of the EPA program offices and Agency’s mission. GAO’s report, released in July 2011, recommended the following: that EPA develop a coordinated planning process for its scientific activities; appoint a top-level official with authority over all of the laboratories; improve physical and real property planning decisions; and develop a workforce planning process for all laboratories that reflects current and future needs of laboratory facilities. While these recommendations highlight areas needing attention, the report does not call into question the quality of science data and results.
Ranking Member Miller said, “When I requested the GAO report that has been a part of the discussion today I was, and still am, concerned about EPA’s agency-wide, coordinated approach to manage its research enterprise and laboratory infrastructure. As we have seen today, questioning the agency’s laboratory and research enterprise’s ability to meet program needs, will lead to some questioning the scientific product. This Congress, especially the Republican-controlled House, has been very hostile towards the EPA. During this time, where every rulemaking and the science behind your rulemakings are being questioned, we must ensure that the agency is positioned to formulate sound environmental protection policies.”
Subcommittee Democrats acknowledged that the GAO’s work and other independent evaluations have highlighted the need for the EPA to develop a coordinated planning process for its scientific activities and improve agency-wide research planning. Democratic Members stressed that any reorganization will need to be done in an orderly, well thought-out manner; with much oversight and input. They also emphasized that the failure to fully respond to these evaluations and recommendations has spanned several Administrations, not just the Obama Administration. And they noted it is imperative that with EPA’s increasing need to understand complex environmental problems, EPA must be positioned to formulate sound environmental protection policies.
Mr. Tonko said, “Today, we are presented with the perfect opportunity to show American taxpayers that not every issue needs to be polarizing or politicized. It’s an opportunity for Congress to be productive and objective. It’s also an opportunity to put our differences aside and have meaningful conversations and exchanges of ideas. We need to build upon EPA’s scientific legacy and ensure that we continue to improve our shared environment, including for future generations.”
Beyond opening statements and Democratic Members’ questions, the thrust of the hearing wound up being minimally concerned with the stated purpose of the hearing. Science Democrats were disappointed that the hearing turned into a missed opportunity for an informative hearing at which Members could learn how best to position EPA’s research and laboratories to more effectively meet program needs to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article