Skip to primary navigation Skip to content
February 03, 2012

Subcommittee Holds Second Day of Hearings on EPA’s R&D Activities with More Balanced Panel

(Washington, DC) - Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held the second day of the second hearing in a series of hearings on the reorganization and reauthorization of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) research activities through the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDA).  The hearing was entitled, “Fostering Quality Science at the EPA:  Perspectives on Common Sense Reform – Day II.” 

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. 

The first hearing of this series was intended to serve as an opportunity to evaluate EPA’s research enterprise, but instead the discussion focused on hydraulic fracturing. The second hearing was intended to inform the subcommittee on structural and substantive concerns of external stakeholders related to EPA’s research activities, but the witness panel was primarily made up of representatives from right-wing think tanks.  Due to concerns expressed by Democrats that the first two hearings of this series did not provide the kind of substantial record needed to reauthorize ERDDA, an important and ambitious piece of legislation, the Majority agreed to hear from a wider range of witnesses by extending the second hearing to another day.

Ranking Member Brad Miller (D-NC) said in his opening statement, “I am pleased to see that we have some panelists with the experience and knowledge required to address in detail critical improvements that can make EPA’s research enterprise more effective, efficient, and transparent.  At the least, this is not just a panel of witnesses armed only with talking points and flailing criticism meant to undermine or dismantle the one agency charged with protecting our citizens and the environment from unlawful pollution…I approach this task hoping to work with my Republican counterparts in pursuing reforms that will lead to better research practices that help EPA accomplish its mission.  While we will not always agree on the best way to do that, I am not interested in restructuring EPA to take the only environmental cop off the beat.”

He continued, “EPA’s scientific research is increasingly important as we seek to understand and address more complex environmental issues that continue to emerge and evolve…But there are legitimate concerns related to EPA’s research infrastructure and processes that are complex, and we have to approach this process in a well-thought out and planned manner.”  Mr. Miller further clarified, “Scientific research, knowledge, and technical information are fundamental to EPA’s mission to inform its standard-setting, regulatory, compliance, and enforcement functions...[S]cience should inform and support the decisions we make.  And most important, we all have an ultimate responsibility to do everything we can to ensure that everyone continues to enjoy a decent quality life.”