Joint Hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Oversight Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee - Scientific Integrity and Transparency Reforms at the Environmental Protection Agency

Statement

Chaired By: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Witnesses Panel I: Lisa Jackson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency; Panel II: John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources And Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Panel III: Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director, Scientific Integrity Program, Union Of Concerned Scientists; Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy Research; Lynn Goldman, Professor And Principal Investigator, Johns Hopkins National Children's Study Center

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: (In progress) -- by the ranking member of the full committee. And I'm the chairman of the subcommittee, and this is a joint hearing. Delighted to welcome the administrator, and very pleased to be joined by Senator Udall and Senator Voinovich.

From a point of view of logistics, I understand that Administrator Jackson has an appointment at the White House at 11:00. So you'd like to leave here a little bit after 10:30, I would think, in order to be able to be there on time. And in order to allow time for questions, I would ask that we keep our opening statements brief. And I may exercise the prerogative of the chair to cut them off at some point so that we can get to the testimony and get to the question and answer.

But I do want to thank the administrator for being here today. This is only her third appearance before the Senate, which suggests her view of the importance of the issues of scientific integrity and transparency that bring us here today. I want to thank our chairman, Senator Boxer, who will be here later in the hearing, but at the moment has responsibilities in other committees. And without Chairman Boxer, today's hearing would not have been possible.

Under the previous administration, as this committee witnessed, EPA's integrity was compromised. Science took a backseat to politics, polluters' interests came before protecting public health, and this proud agency suffered an embarrassing string of court defeats with rulings literally marking the agency's arguments.

But the winds of change have blown, and under the Obama administration science is resuming its rightful place in public policy, and EPA is reestablishing its reputation as an agency whose sole mission is to protect our health and environment. Two government-wide memoranda have gone out throughout the Obama administration directing all executive branch agencies to improve scientific integrity and achieve unprecedented levels of transparency and openness.

Within EPA, Administrator Jackson has issued agency-specific guidance on the proper role of science and transparency in agency decision-making. EPA has also begun to repair programs and protocols that undermined the proper role of science in the previous administration. Last month, Administrator Jackson overhauled the Integrated Risk Information System, known as IRIS.

IRIS assesses the toxicity of new chemicals to determine their potential risks to human health. Under the last administration IRIS was changed to a complicated, obscure, 25-step process full of unnecessary conflicts of interest and delays -- reviews were taking five or six years or more, and the Office of Management and Budget was given undue secret influence over the outcome. The overhaul restores the integrity and transparency of the IRIS system, and ensures that the majority of IRIS reviews are complete within 23 months.

Administrator Jackson has also resumed the staff white paper used to give the administrator the recommendations of EPA's expert scientists, which former Administrator Johnson had replaced with an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to a wide opinion that this was an attempt to sideline the expert opinion of agency scientists in order to favor the opinions of industries regulated by the EPA.

We applaud this great start, but there is clearly more to do. The last eight years have taught us that we need lasting reforms that permanently reestablish EPA's credibility and restore the pride of its dedicated employees who work long hours for much less money than they could be paid elsewhere with passion and dedication, because they care deeply about EPA's mission.

I hope we'll have the opportunity to discuss some of these future plans today. EPA's important mission, protecting the health of the American people and the environment that sustains us and our children, gives it sobering responsibilities. It must be, as its first administrator, William Ruckelshaus described it, an independent agency with only the critical obligation to protect and enhance the environment.

Administrator Jackson, it appears that you and your colleagues stand ready to meet these responsibilities. I welcome you. I look forward to your testimony.

And I turn to our very distinguished ranking member for his opening statement.

SEN. JAMES M. INHOFE (R-OK): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome administrator here today. And I agree with the statement that was made in an opening part of the chairman's statement that best available science is important. And I applaud you, Madame Administrator, for coming out and talking about scientific integrity and transparency as something that is going to be expected.

But I have to look and see what the record is so far, and I think transparency and openness are losing for right now. For one, I was disappointed by a recent announcement that the EPA is eliminating a policy to make the process of setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards more transparent. I was also troubled to read about the secretive process behind the administration's recent proposal for the new fuel economy standards.

According to Energy and Environment Daily, Mary Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board, and Carol Browner, quote -- this is as was quoted in the Energy and Environment Daily which I suspect you have read. It says, "quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House with auto industry officials," end quote, in an effort to conceal information used to develop the fuel economy proposal.

Nichols said that she and Browner, quote, "put nothing in writing, ever." Now, that doesn't look like transparency and openness. And this was the process on an issue of great importance. Instead of backroom dealings, EPA should be encouraging public participation at every step of the rulemaking process. Of course, openness and transparency can mean many things.

At a minimum they should mean that EPA conducts policy analysis using the best available science, and that such analysis is clear, objective, and accessible so the public can understand it. Again, measure against this standard -- I'm afraid that we've missed the mark.

To cite just one example -- in its economic analysis that the Waxman and Markey global warming bill, EPA assumes that carbon capture and storage technology will be commercially available by 2015. Considering the numerous unresolved issues surrounding CCS including liability, siting, permitting, and the viability of the technology itself, this assumption seems pretty farfetched.

Administrator Jackson, don't get me wrong. I appreciate EPA's analysis and assistance it provides in correcting legislation. I would say, however, that EPA's Waxman-Markey analysis is flawed in several important respects, including its assumptions, as I noted, about the nuclear power, CCS, as well as the availability of offsets.

It also fails to account for the impact of the bill's overlapping mandates, and the regional disparities the bill will create. In order to provide a more balanced assessment of the bill's cost, some of my colleagues and I will be sending a letter requesting the EPA -- in fact, I have the letter here right now -- that the EPA conduct a new analysis of the Waxman-Markey Bill that reflects more realistic assumptions on a range of issues.

I hope that you will commit to me today that the agency will rework its analysis and complete it by June 26th. This is the letter; it has been signed by all but two of the Republicans. They will sign it, but we haven't been able to get it signed yet. And I think it's consistent with the comments that you have made, Madame Administrator. And thank you for being here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Senator Inhofe.

Senator Udall, do you care to make an opening statement?

SEN. TOM UDALL (D-NM): Just briefly.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Appreciate the brevity.

SEN. UDALL: -- it's good we will -- I also want to hear the administrator on this very important subject. One of the things that I think struck me when I looked at this field -- in 2008 a survey of EPA scientists concluded in the survey done by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and included a report signed by thousands of scientists including several dozen Nobel Prize winners, revealed some disturbing information.

Seven hundred and eighty-three scientists responded that the EPA policies do not allow scientists to speak freely to the news media about their findings. Only 197 scientists believe that the EPA allows scientists to communicate freely with the media. Two hundred and ninety-one scientists responded they are not allowed to publish work in peer reviewed scientific journals regardless of whether it adheres to agency policies or positions.

Now, I know the EPA, under your leadership, Administrator Jackson, and the president, have made changes, and I'm looking forward to hearing about those today. I think as part of a systematic approach, I would recommend that we not limit ourselves only to the idea of the EPA fishbowl, but also to promote scientific integrity more broadly in the academic and private sector science that ultimately supports much of what EPA does through regulation.

Intimidation, retaliation, lack of funding, and political interference are not limited only to EPA, but pose problems throughout the scientific community. So my urging would be to the scientists and to the agencies that have these scientists, give us the truth. The people can handle the truth in a democracy. When we know the truth, then we can take the actions based upon sound science that will get us there. So thank you for being here today, and look forward to hearing your testimony.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Senator Udall.

Senator Voinovich, do you care to make an opening statement?

SEN. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH (R-OH): Chairman, I appreciate the fact that we're having the hearing today.

I firmly believe that EPA should be working with the best science, and that the agency's analysis and decisions should be undertaken in a balanced and transparent process. One of the problems we have as policymakers is that advocates on all sides of a debate claim that the system is rigged -- seems now for 11 years because of the fact that there is no credibility about who is giving the information.

Greater transparency should help allay some of these concerns. And of course the better information that we have, the better decisions we're able to make. In this regard I do have concern with EPA's recent evaluation of legislation passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to address climate change to help us fully understand how this bill will impact emissions and our nation's energy infrastructure and economy.

I am joining Senator Inhofe and my other colleagues in asking you to rerun an analysis of that piece of legislation. For example, the EPA assumes that nuclear power will expand by 150 percent over the lifetime of the program. This is in stark contrast to formidable challenges limiting the expansion of nuclear power, including the uncertainty in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing process, financing of the new bills, lack of human capital, and so forth.

And I am a great advocate of nuclear power as you know. The fact of the matter is that that seems to be a very ambitious number in order to meet the caps. Senator Inhofe has already talked about the issue of technology in capturing and sequestering carbon. I think you know that the Department of Energy has seven test cases right now on sequestering, and they claim that it'll take them 10 years to really evaluate those tests that they're running.

So those types of things are very, very important. As we all know, EPA's modeling is only as good as the assumptions that are built into it. And here optimistic assumptions about technology and offset availability and the lack of comprehensive analysis of the entire legislative proposal greatly constrains the potential costs of the program.

And I think that analysis of the previous cap-and-trade legislation showed significant economic hardship while providing no impact on global temperatures. The time to take a detailed look at this is right now.

The point I'm making is that the last time we had this before this committee -- first of all we didn't have enough hearings, and I'm going to ask the chairman of the committee to have some more hearings -- they had eight of them in the House, we only had two of them, and I think we need to have those hearings. But more important, there's no way that we ought to vote a bill out of this committee until we have heard from the Environmental Protection Agency as to its impact.

The last time around we didn't get the EPA analysis till after we went out of committee, we didn't get the energy information. So there's a lot of speculation about the real impact of it. So the point I'd like to make today is that you're here to talk about good science, and I think it's great.

And some of the concerns that Senator Inhofe mentioned about some of -- I don't know, two instances bothers me. I think that the acting chairman of this committee did a very good job of excoriating the last administration. I don't think that it was as bad as what he depicted to us today, in all due respect. And it's your job to make sure that, you know, four years from now somebody else isn't sitting in that chair and doing the same thing about your -- (laughs) -- Environmental Protection Agency.

So we look forward to the hearing, and we look forward to working with you. Thank you for -- also for serving in this capacity as the -- as I said when you visited me in the office, you got the toughest job in the federal government.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Senator Lautenberg, would you care to make an opening statement?

SEN. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG (D-NJ): Show me a senator that doesn't care to make --

(Laughter.)

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Given that, the chair will declare that this will be the last opening statement before we get to Administrator Jackson's testimony. If any other senators arrive, their statements will be taken for the record. In that way we get to her testimony given her schedule and the appointment she has at the White House.

SEN. : And Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have my entire statement in the record -- (laughs.)

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Without objection.

SEN. : Okay.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Senator Lautenberg.

SEN. LAUTENBERG: Thank you very much, Chairman.

And thank you, Ms. Jackson. It's always a pleasure to see you, because as I see it -- and I don't know what Senator Whitehouse said, but you always carry good news. And so I'm happy, and I hope that the discussion was frank and candid that the chairman participated in, because we've had plenty of trouble. We've had fake science all over the place. We've had people who thought one way, professional people whose minds -- no, their minds weren't changed, their words were changed.

And that's what we saw on a constant basis. From reversing global warming to creating clean energy, jobs that go with it, identifying and replacing cancer-causing chemicals, science is critical -- is the critical factor. And I know that you are a practitioner of truth as well as science, and I appreciate that very much.

Science was under attack -- under constant attack in the previous administration, which did its best to ignore, sensor, and suppress science. For example, they let political appointees in the White House delay or stop EPA risk assessments if they didn't like the outcome. We rely on those studies to tell us which chemicals may cause cancer, birth defects, or other serious health problems. But I am pleased to say, to note, that the Obama administration has already reversed some of the anti-science and anti-transparency policies of the past.

Administrator Lisa Jackson, you come from New Jersey. New Jersey -- you tell the truth even if it hurts, and this helps. Ms. Jackson reversed a policy governing risk assessments, and made it clear that science would direct them, not politics.

She issued a memo to EPA employees -- May -- and here I quote, "scientific integrity will be the backbone of" her "leadership of the agency." And we're grateful to you for that. And earlier this year, the White House directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy to create a plan doing increased scientific integrity across the entire federal government.

And I want to commend -- commend also -- commend the EPA Administrator Jackson, and the Obama administration for defending scientists and their research. And as chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over dangerous chemicals, I know that science is the foundation for protecting future generations.

For example, there are tens of thousands of chemicals on the market. And if you tested the blood of any person in this room, you'd find ample supply of industrial chemicals, including some that are known or suspected to cause cancer. Unfortunately, current law makes it difficult for the EPA to require testing chemicals, and also almost impossible for EPA to regulate these chemicals even if they're believed to be dangerous.

And that's why I plan to reintroduce my Kid-Safe Chemicals Act in the coming months. The bill will require chemical companies to prove that their products are safe before they end up in our homes and come in contact with our children. We already regulate pesticides and pharmaceuticals this way, and it's just commonsense that we do the same for chemicals that are used in consumer products.

The new term -- new tone of openness, transparency, and reliance on science is the right first step toward making our products, our homes, and our environment safe for all our families. I applaud the administration for their work. And I close with an example of a scientist that was brought in here from the Pasteur Institute in France.

And he said that -- he absolutely denied the fact that global warming was in place, because there would be more mosquitoes and more malaria if that was the case. And he hasn't examples of it. There's science on the fly if you've ever seen it. Thank you very much.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you very much.

I see that the distinguished senator from Maryland, Senator Cardin, has appeared. Before his arrival, I unfortunately took the liberty of closing the proceedings to further opening statements.

SEN. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN (D-MD): That's subject to objection also --

(Laughter.)

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: I would ask that the distinguished member --

SEN. CARDIN: I'm looking forward to hearing from the administrator. So I'll be glad to put my statement in the record.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: I would appreciate it. That's very kind.

With that and with gratitude to the senator from Maryland, Administrator Jackson, you have the floor.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

And thanks in absentia at least for now, to Chairwoman Boxer, for holding this hearing, for allowing me the honor of speaking on scientific integrity. As an engineer, someone trained in science, as a chemical engineer if not in practice everyday, it is truly an honor to be able to speak on behalf of the administration on this topic.

Also good morning to the ranking member, to all members of the committee -- it's good to see you all.

I just want to start by saying -- and I'll paraphrase my remarks, I'm sure they're in the record. But if there's only one thing that we remember, is that good science does not simply happen -- at EPA or anywhere. Good science is only assured by the rigorous and constant application of processes that have been tried in true methods of showing the best way to reach scientific consensus on any topic.

And there are many topics where opinion isn't entirely clear. Those are things like peer review, things like scrupulous adherence to transparency -- which I believe we are well on the road to not only committing to, but putting into practice at EPA. And I'd love to give examples which I'll do in my testimony.

Many of the ideas I'm going to share here this morning were in a memo that I issued just last month.

We called it Scientific Integrity: Our Compass for Environmental Protection -- we call it the Compass memo. We are driven, guided by science. It's not only the backbone, but it must be our guide. As you can see, I'm very proud of the work EPA has done.

I too have seen the surveys that Senator Udall cited that indicate that a majority of past EPA scientists have experienced what they believe is some form of political interference in their work. That has to change, and it will change. Already I sit here proud, because I believe no other agency in federal government has done as much to restore the role of science in EPA, and that focus has come from me and from my office.

It's important that career scientists know that their work will guide the policies that we make during my tenure and the tenure of the president. On March 9th, as you noted, President Obama issued a memo on scientific integrity underscoring the need for the public to trust the science and scientific process that inform public policy decisions. It provides important guideposts for our work.

And as I've said many times, while the law that EPA implements have room for policy judgments within them, the scientific findings on which these judgments must be made must be independent. They must be arrived at using well-established scientific methods, peer review, and they must be rigorous and accurate and impartial.

Policymakers must respect the expertise and independence of the agency's career scientists and independent advisors, and insist that scientific processes meet the highest standards of quality. Now, we recognize that environmental science is complex and it's multifaceted. And scientists may differ on methodology should be employed or how any particular study should be interpreted.

What I'm committed to is that kind of debate within our agency. And I'm committed to making sure that that debate receives a full airing of views, because I believe that makes final decisions that much stronger. Debate is not something that we should fear. It's actually the force to challenge us and guide us, and in New Jersey it makes us a little bit tougher --

Senior scientists must take responsibility for resolving differences using established science policies and their professional judgments. I believe actions do speak louder than words, and during my first few months as administrator we've taken several actions to bolster the scientific processes we use.

We've emphasized the importance of transparency, and we sought the Integrated Risk Information System or IRIS. The new process is more transparent but it's also timely, because timeliness is crucial to making sure that when the science comes out it's still useful to the American people and to policymakers. EPA will control the IRIS process as it has done in the past.

Once again it now controls it, and it will have final responsibility for the content of the IRIS assessments. At the end of the day, EPA will listen, take in the best scientific opinion from any sources, but it will be the arbiter about what the final decisions are. We're improving efficiency, integrity, and transparency in our programs.

Our commitment to quality, integrity, and timely public engagement was also the impetus for EPA staff to develop a science plan for our activities. We are working to develop, for example, a comprehensive human health and exposure assessment for dioxin -- the dioxin reassessment. And I've committed that that reassessment will be completed by the end of calendar year 2010.

When we speak about the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, we know they play a central role in protecting human health and the environment. And we have now reexamined our next process to ensure that we take into account the latest peer-reviewed science of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee or CASAC authorized by law to advise EPA on standards.

It's essential that the best science and the greatest transparency inform air quality standards, because we know that prevents illnesses and saves lives. Finally, the president's memorandum on scientific integrity assigns the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy the responsibility to make recommendations to achieve the highest level of integrity in the executive branch's involvement with scientific and technical processes.

EPA's active involvement will strengthen our ability to produce top quality science that meets the highest standards of integrity. I have also asked our acting science advisor, Kevin Teichman, who's here with me today, to work closely with OSTP. After OSTP issues its recommendations, I'll work closely to make sure that we are fully applying them at EPA.

The presidential memorandum on scientific integrity provides us with a unique opportunity to demonstrate our deep commitment to scientific integrity, and fulfill our obligations to the American people. I commit to seizing this opportunity in the pursuit of EPA's vital mission to protect human health and the environment. Thank you very much.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you very much, Administrator.

I count six of us present, and the -- Chairman Boxer to come, which makes seven. So if we take five minutes each, we should just about meet your schedule. And so I'd encourage my colleagues to use their five minutes wisely. Of course, I will try to stay within that knowing your scheduling demands.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Administrator Jackson, many of us view the EPA as an organization that is emerging from a terrible time, whether it's the documented experiences of EPA scientists that Union of Concerned Scientists catalogued and that Senator Udall referred to, or the decisions of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals marking agency theories in terms of Alice in Wonderland, or unprecedented challenges to the previous administrator from the professional science advisory boards, or the evaluations by GAO, or indeed the hearings of this very committee -- there is a long and very compete record of things having gone significantly wrong.

As you and I discussed when you were a candidate for this office, we talked about the processes and the institutions that can help keep EPA on the straight and narrow, and one of them is the inspector general. And throughout the difficult times that EPA experienced, we heard very little from the inspector general. We had a candidate for that position who failed to clear.

And from the very earliest moment I urged that you consider this to be a priority position, get somebody very able, and move as rapidly on this as possible. What can you tell us now about the process of appointing an inspector general for the EPA?

MS. JACKSON: Senator, it remains a priority of mine. Sometimes in the appointment process we hit a few road bumps. And I am -- we're not quite back to the drawing board, but we are now interviewing some new candidates for the position. I am optimistic that we'll be able to move along with the White House expeditiously to name a new inspector general. It is a very important -- very important position. I couldn't agree more.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Well, this will be one of many inquiries I make about it just to keep --

MS. JACKSON: I appreciate that.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: You know of my interest in this question. More generally, we had a wonderful speech delivered by our president in Normandy. And he talked about why the soldiers return to Normandy, tell their stories. And the line in his speech was -- so people don't forget. And of course he went to Buchenwald -- and also the full message of the Holocaust is that it can never be forgotten.

Now, nothing along that line happened at EPA. Things were much -- question of a whole completely different scale. But the question of "so people don't forget" that the president indicated, I think, is an important one. And I also think -- and colleagues may disagree, but I think that the things that went wrong at EPA were not only significant but also unique in the EPA's history.

It had a long history of being a proud, independent organization that irrespective of the political direction, the administration went ahead, did its job, played by the numbers, and made honest decisions. So I think the experience of the last eight years is a significant one -- was particularly bad, was particularly unique, things went wrong, and I don't think we can just forget.

And I'd like to ask you what your view is on the question of "so we don't forget," what role you think the IG might have in that, and whether there are any procedures in place within the EPA at this point to try to catalogue what took place, so that there is an agency institutional memory of this. And I think you and I share the belief that the better we remember this, the less likely it is to be repeated.

MS. JACKSON: Yes, Senator. And we also share the belief that that is a very good role for an inspector general once we have one, which is why it's such an important position. You know, we are all about looking forward at the EPA, because we have such a tremendous workload in front of us for the American people.

And yet there should be some ability for us as an agency to look at our record, the totality of it, but certainly focusing on the court decisions and some of the more egregious examples of scientists who felt that they weren't allowed to speak. And I think the inspector general could play a very strong role in doing that for the agency while still allowing the agency scientists to move forward with their agenda, which is very important as well.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Administrator.

Senator Inhofe.

SEN. INHOFE: Thank you.

First of all, I referenced this letter that we had sent to you. And I'd like to know -- we're requesting a response by June 26th. Will you do that?

MS. JACKSON: Senator, I haven't seen that letter. If it's been received at the agency, it certainly hasn't made its way to me. It sounds like you're still having it signed. I'm happy to review it.

SEN. INHOFE: No, we already sent it. Now, maybe the agency didn't get it to you. It covers five areas. And even if it had a couple of areas where you're not on it, could we just get a response by the 26th? Not expecting that every question is going to be answered but -- it's going to take more time for this or this -- just a response.

MS. JACKSON: Not knowing what it says, I commit to you that we will be timely in responding to your letter. What's today -- the 8th?

SEN. INHOFE: I don't know.

MS. JACKSON: We'll get you some response to the letter and it will be a response --

SEN. INHOFE: All right, that's good, that's good. Now I have applauded you several times. I've quoted the -- your quote when you say the American people will not trust us to protect their health and their environment if they do not trust transparency and so forth. And yet, this -- Bob Dinneen, the CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, made this statement.

He wrote -- in talking about the lack of access to the EPA's modeling he said, "The inaccessibility of these models and the lack of clear detailed documentation on how the various models and data sets were integrated appear to violate EPA's guidance regarding transparency." Would you commit to allow full access to the assumptions and the inputs that develop the modeling? Do you have any thoughts about why this statement was made?

MS. JACKSON: I don't know the gentleman. I don't want to try to get into his thought processes. What I can commit to you is that that modeling was done at the request of colleagues of yours in the House of Representatives. We were being responsive to their requests as you're asking me to be responsive to yours, and I'll certainly do that.

But I have to respect them giving us input and asking the EPA to provide a service to Congress. That is part of our job and our function, and we're happy to do it.

SEN. INHOFE: All right. That sounds good. I wasn't going to ask this question except the senator from New Jersey peaked my curiosity on something that I think it would be good to have on the record here. Science is an interesting thing, and it's one that changes from time to time.

Just as an example, many of the very top scientists throughout the world such as Claude Allegre in France and David Bellamy in U.K. and Nir Shaviv in Israel who at one time, back during the initial Kyoto years and the late '90s were very, very strong in saying that anthropogenic gases caused global warming. Those same scientists, them and about 700 other scientists have now said no, that we were wrong in the science at that time, that we thought that was true and it's no longer true.

In fact, the interesting thing I saw just last week is Sarkozy appointing Claude Allegre to be the minister, I believe, of the environment for France -- I'm not sure that's the right title -- something like that. And here's a guy that is totally on the skeptic side of the science.

I guess what I'd say is we recognize that science -- that there are interpretations, science does change, and there are lot of people who were immediately on one side, they're now on the other side -- just the recognition that science does change.

MS. JACKSON: The recognition -- I recognize that as we get more data, scientists are duty bound to constantly be reviewing it, and it may or may not change their position.

SEN. INHOFE: Very good.

MS. JACKSON: On the issue of climate science, despite the fact that 700 sounds like a large number, the vast majority of scientists who work in the field, the scientific consensus is still that anthropogenic causes are causing our climate to change. So I certainly -- and you and I have discussed this before, Senator -- recognize the need to keep an open mind and to look at information as it comes in. I am not a climate scientist by training, but I do respect the consensus that's been reached amongst them.

SEN. INHOFE: Yes, but as you say as new data comes in scientists do change. Lastly, the IRIS process that you're adopting here does overlook some steps that the previous administration was criticized for, such as OMB and others. There have been several people in the scientific community that feel that the EPA is writing the science, reviewing the science, and declaring the science.

Would you look at the -- where's that chart? Well, the OMB part is in the post-peer review in several internal EPA steps. Would you look at the chart that was used prior to that, and then respond to us in writing, for the record, which of those steps you are eliminating? Would you do that for us?

MS. JACKSON: I'm happy to do that.

SEN. INHOFE: Okay.

MS. JACKSON: And I have looked at that chart in development of the new process.

SEN. INHOFE: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: I thank the distinguished ranking member.

I note with pleasure the arrival of our chairman who has contributed so much to keeping EPA within the proper bounds of scientific integrity and transparency. She has very courteously told me to continue following the early-bird rule.

So we turn now to Senator Udall.

SEN. UDALL: Thank you.

I think it's important for the EPA and this committee to also consider the consequences of the Data Access Act and the Data Quality Act. As you probably know, Administrator Jackson, these two appropriations riders passed in 1998 and 2000. And they put federally funded science, which is either done by in-house agency scientists or academics, at a disadvantage to private sector for-profit science.

These acts give legal rights to regulated industries to file baseless attacks and delays against science supporting environmental regulation without any penalty. In principle, data access is a good thing, but due to the successful efforts of industry lobbyists, industry gets access to government and academic data being used for regulation, but not the other way around.

The data is only flowing one way -- from the researchers to industry opponents. Using these acts, in 2003 the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a challenge to withdraw the national assessment on climate change despite the fact that it was heavily peer reviewed unlike the work of the think tank. The assessment was eventually published, but only after a fight.

My question has two parts. First, in its review of scientific integrity at EPA is the Agency paying any attention to the impacts of these two acts on the scientific basis for EPA's regulatory decision- making? And second, do any ongoing reviews underway at OMB promise to reform the way that these acts are implemented?

MS. JACKSON: The Agency's review, Senator, of the impacts of those acts, I think, has been part and parcel of our work with the Office of Science and Technology Process -- Policy on implementation of the presidential memorandum on scientific integrity. So I do believe that there has been -- I'm looking for Kevin -- some discussion of that as part of that process.

And I would expect -- because it affects us agency-wide, certainly EPA is one agency where there is a potential for great effect. We've been quite vocal in that process.

SEN. UDALL: Yeah. And as you know when you pass appropriations writers, many times you don't get the full benefit of the experience of the Congress. So I hope that when you review these and look at these, that you come back to us, and come back to this committee and to the Congress with recommendations, changes to be made, to make our scientific decision making more effective, more fair, to both industry scientists, and government scientists. Because I think that's ultimately where we're going to get the very best policy. Thank you very much.

MS. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Excuse me. Senator Barrasso.

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I've a full statement, if I could please put that in the record. And then --

(Cross talk.)

SEN. BARRASSO: -- questions.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: It will be put in the record without objection.

SEN. BARRASSO: Welcome. I hope you had an enjoyable trip to Wyoming, and had a chance to see some of the great beauty of the incredible state.

MS. JACKSON: Beautiful state.

SEN. BARRASSO: Thank you.

I was looking at a New York Times article. And this is May 20th. It said, "Vow of silence key to White House-California fuel economy talks." And it starts by saying, "There was a simple rule for negotiations between the White House and California on vehicle fuel economy: Put nothing in writing." "Put nothing in writing." It goes on and talks about decisions that nothing would be put in writing, ever. And that was by Mary Nichols from California.

We're talking about fuel standards, and what was happening with -- in the two states. When they say, "Put nothing in writing, ever," it also mentioned they didn't have any group meetings in discussing these fuel standards. And this was all in regard to approving vehicle emissions standards. The -- did you participate in any of these meetings between Ms. Browner and Ms. Nichols?

MS. JACKSON: I don't think I have participated in any meeting with the two of them. Certainly EPA was integrally involved in development of those fuel emission standards and the announcement made by the president.

SEN. BARRASSO: Well, this seems to imply that the decisions were all made in meetings that you actually didn't participate in at all. And yet if you look at the Clean Air Act it says, "The administrator shall by regulation prescribe, and from time to time revise in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles, or new motor vehicle engines which in the administrator's judgment cause or contribute to air pollution which may responsibly be anticipated to endanger public welfare."

I mean, it goes on and on. But it says, "The administrator shall," not Carol Browner. Under the laws was this -- wasn't this your decision to make? It seems that Ms. Browner is the one in charge, and she has not been approved by the Senate, and not you, who are the administrator who we've confirmed to really run the Environmental Protection Agency, not an energy czar.

MS. JACKSON: I think your question actually is based on a misunderstanding of the process here. First off, these were negotiations. I've run an enforcement program. I've been involved in numerous negotiations. And negotiations demand a level of trust amongst the people around the table.

We are talking about the auto industry. We had 10 CEOs who joined the president for that announcement. We have the unions. We have the state of California. Done path-breaking work on auto emissions standards. We had EPA. We had the Department of Transportation.

Those discussions EPA participated in from a technical standpoint in order to give information on things like -- from our Ann Arbor lab, the cause or the feasibility of various types of controls and engines. But to imply that the kinds of secrecy that goes with negotiations so that people can speak freely to each other somehow is scientific -- lack of scientific integrity is just a misunderstanding --

SEN. BARRASSO: But this is a hearing on transparency. What we're dealing here is with transparency. And I want to know where the buck stops. Does it stop with you? Or does it stop with Ms. Browner? Because this talks about -- I mean, specifically the New York Times article, May 20th. "It was then that Nichols and Browner decided to keep their discussions as quite as possible, holding no group meetings." None at all. And then they quote Ms. Nichols as saying, "We put nothing in writing, ever."

CNN this week had a story on Friday about the number of czars running this administration, instead of the people that are confirmed by the Senate. I have great concerns in an administration that says we want transparency, we want to be open. We want the American people to se what exactly is going on.

What the New York Times article speaks about are secret meetings, private meetings, hidden meetings. And that you as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency were not involved in, even though it affects specifically the areas that laws of the state -- of the nation say you are to oversee.

MS. JACKSON: To state again, my staff, certainly high level members of my staff were involved in the auto task force as well as on the subcommittees that were working specifically on this particularly thorny issue.

This issue is one that demanded a cry for coordination at the White House level, because it involved two agencies of the federal government, DOT and EPA, along with a state, and 12 other states or more who had decided to join with California. And so I don't want to be left with the impression or the sound bite that somehow EPA wasn't involved in the process. We clearly were.

The negotiations that led to the path breaking agreement that the president announced took time, and they took energy. And they were handled --

(Cross talk.)

SEN. BARRASSO: So are you saying the staff was in charge then? I'm still confused by this. And I see that my time has expired. But thank you very much for your comments.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Senator Barrasso. I apologize for holding to the clock. But --

SEN. BARRASSO: It's quite all right.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: -- the administrator has an appointment at the White House, so I'm trying to get everybody a turn in before she has to leave.

SEN. BARRASSO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Senator Cardin.

SEN. CARDIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And Administrator Jackson, it's a pleasure to have you before our committee. I want to touch on a couple of issues, first, the Clean Water Act. I'm very interested as -- in effective policies concerning clean water in America.

I had the responsibility to chair the subcommittee. And it seems to me that the Supreme Court decisions on jurisdiction has made it extremely difficult for you to achieve, for us to achieve the goals set out in the Clean Water Act based upon good science information.

And I would just ask for your help -- I know we've talked about this before -- in giving us the strategy so that we can allow science to dictate to our policies in this country, at least advise us as to what we should be doing on clean water. We have tremendous interest in my state, as you know, with the Chesapeake Bay. And I think this is important throughout our country. And just urge your attention to a strategy that will allow us to return to good science in helping us develop the policies for clean water in this nation.

MS. JACKSON: I'm happy to do that, Senator.

SEN. CARDIN: Thank you.

I want to turn your attention to mountaintop removal in coal. Senator Alexander and I have filed a legislation in regards to this as one of the most destructive practices in the world for extracting minerals. It is controlled not only by the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act, but also 404 permits under the EPA. So you have a direct interest in this area.

And I think it's pretty intuitive that drinking ground water in not healthy for you, as it gets darker and darker. But we now have some empirical evidence on health results of communities that are affected by this mountaintop mining. And we just urge you to be -- to get us the best science information possible so that we can make the right decisions. I know that there is lot of interest involved here. But public health dictates that we take action.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you, Senator. I don't want to eat up all your time. But thank you for giving me just a minute to address that.

I think that those who are most concerned about this issue probably do have a valid concern that EPA can be more transparent in the review processes it uses to adjudge the potential clean water impacts of these projects. Once again, EPA's role here is to look at what impacts these projects potentially have on water quality. And the law says there can be no significant degradation.

And I think it's valid for people to say, "What does that mean? And how are you judging that?" So the commitment I'd like to make to you is that we will get better information out there and increase the transparency of our process so that people don't have to guess what it is EPA is thinking, or what our scientists are using to make judgments on any particular permit.

SEN. CARDIN: That's fair enough. That will be one. We want to see transparency. We want the information to be made available as we want to make the best judgments based upon the information that's available. And I think in this area of mountaintop mining it's going to become obvious. But we need transparency in the process.

Later, on the third panel, distinguished person from Maryland will be testifying once again before our committee, Dr. Lynn Goldman. And I welcome her to the committee. Professor of environmental health sciences, Johns Hopkins University. She testified last year before our committee and talked a little bit about some of the problems of the previous administration.

The specific issue I want to talk about is a comment made in that statement that I -- where she indicated that such concerns about changes that have been made in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, IRIS, that open the door for interference by federal agencies like the Department of Defense who are responsible for waste cleanup in communities and -- have an interest in delaying action.

I just want to use my last 50 seconds I have left just to compliment you and your agency for the manner in which you have worked with the Department of Defense. We are making progress in Maryland as a result of cooperation now between agencies. And I just -- that's good news. And I just really wanted to compliment the early action of you your agency in trying to work out differences with other federal agencies so that communities can get the benefit of cleanup where it's needed. And we're making progress now at Fort Meade that was not made before. So thank you very much.

MS. JACKSON: Well, and thank you for your advocacy on behalf of the people of Maryland.

SEN. CARDIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: The distinguished senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg.

SEN. LAUTENBERG: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It shifts very transparently, that's -- (laughs) -- but always good chairman on this committee, because this committee is driven by truth and candor, and that's the way we want to do it. Certainly that's the manner that you've adopted, and we appreciate it greatly.

You know, I introduced the Kid Safe Chemicals Act, and it would force companies to conduct some of its studies on the safety of the chemicals. Would that help ease your task in monitoring what's going on there?

MS. JACKSON: The work you've already done, Senator, on leading the charge to ask tough questions about the Toxic Substances Control Act about who should be responsible for getting the best data to EPA, and about EPA's role is extremely important. EPA hasn't taken, but I hope will soon take on behalf of the administration, a formal position on the legislation. But I think there is much to applaud in the idea that the American people are ready, and I think maybe even hungry, to know that the government is ramping up its attention to the evaluation of chemicals before they end up in products that are used by our children or by our families.

SEN. LAUTENBERG: You know, I wrote a law that's referred to in its simplest form. It's the right to know. And it mimicked, if I can -- may say, what was law in New Jersey. And people had a right to know. And it was very helpful to us even though it had little or no penalty, except public knowledge. And it worked wonders.

And this is something that the past administration has continued to chip away at and see if we could reduce that requirement. Well, we don't want that to happen.

In 2006 and '07 the EPA completed only four chemical risk assessments, despite of backlog of more than 70 chemicals. In fact, 69 percent of outgoing assessments have been in progress for more than five years. What might you do to speed up the pace of risk assessment at EPA and maintain it while you're maintaining the qualities and the standard that you've set?

MS. JACKSON: The risk assessment process at EPA is -- was previously taking, I don't know, close to 10 years, if you looked at how long it was taking to get some assessments out. We've now committed to a new IRIS process that would take about 23 months, Senator.

And our idea there is that you can invite rigorous public discussion, you can invite all kinds of input, including input from fellow agencies like the Department of Defense. But it will be on the record. Everyone will be able to see those comments. And EPA will control the final decision.

And the reason that's important is to ensure that we don't end up in endless debates back and forth at the expense of Americans' health while they wait, and wait, and wait for somebody in the federal government. And it's really EPA's role to do it, to speak on risk of any particular chemical.

SEN. LAUTENBERG: What I would ask you about is a question about Superfund then. You're intimately knowledgeable about what he pace of Superfund cleanup has done. And I picked up kind of management of the law from Governor Florio, Jim Florio, who wrote the Superfund law in 1980.

And we had -- we were -- it took us a long time to learn how to do the job properly. It took a long time to get people trained. We've always managed, in my view, to get loyal and competent people in positions of importance in the government. I find the commitment to the work is far more binding than that which I found in the private sector. What do you think we might be able to do pace wise if we could re-instate the polluter pace obligation?

MS. JACKSON: Well, reinstatement of that obligation obviously is the first step, because it means a constant study stream of a known amount of money to these clean ups. One of the things that has happened over the past year is this kind of, you know, giving different sites allowances and trying to figure out what's the minimum amount necessary to keep the cleanup going.

But I know you and Chairman Boxer have asked some very hard questions that I haven't yet fully answered, about expressing your frustration with the pace of cleanups, the number of construction completions going down, and finding ways to see that number rise. It's back to the levels we saw even 10 years ago.

And so I'm committed to trying to find those answers. I don't have them today. I did commit to the chairman that we would do that work. And Mathy Stanislaus, thanks to the committee, and your confirmation, as the full Senate has started, actually, I believe yesterday, as head of the Superfund program, head of OSWER, and that is certainly one of his charges.

We have to be creative and innovative. But we need to keep these cleanups moving. And I can tell you going around the country now and having events at -- with Recovery Act money and seeing the joy, the literal joy in communities when you come back to them and say, not only are we back with the little money, we're back with enough money to change the cleanup schedule, I could do that all day long. I wish that was my only job.

SEN. LAUTENBERG: Thanks very much. I just closed, if I might take one second.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Time has -- senator's time has expired.

SEN. LAUTENBERG: Cruel behavior.

(Laughter.)

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: It is. But it's 10:31. The administrator has to get to the White House. And I will ask her if she could give five minutes to the chairman.

MS. JACKSON: Absolutely.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: We will then conclude.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): Okay. Because of time I just want to say that I will be submitting my questions to you for the record, some of them are follow up on Senator Lautenberg's questions.

But I just feel I want to respond to Senator Barrasso and his anxiety over your not doing enough -- if that's what he was trying to say -- and say that I don't think in all my years I have ever encountered an administrator who hit the ground running the way you did. And thanks to this president for getting this appointment right. And I'll just a few examples.

Air testing near schools; you've promised you'd do it, you started it right away, so that we can know if our kids are being exposed to toxic. Investigating the coal ash waste nation wide, we're working very closely because we're very concerned about disasters waiting to happen all over this country. And we're working on that.

You hired an expert on children's health, reporting directly to you. And we've had meetings in my office about how to do more. And I -- Senator Lautenberg, even though he is chasing it, not being able to talk a little longer, I want him to know how proud I am of him in his work to protect kids. And this kids' safety law is essential. And as chairman, I commit myself to moving on this.

I think Senator Whitehouse's new chairmanship for oversight is being proven that this was a great decision of this committee, because he will be working directly with you as well. You also announced the review of the waiver. And that set off, you know, frankly the negotiations that Senator Barrasso criticized.

Why is the party of know criticizing the fact that we resolved an enormous dispute between the federal government and 19 states, or let's say 18 states, that were very upset that they couldn't do more on fighting global warming through vehicle emissions? And the fact that -- of course you were at the table, but this did require the White House, because as you pointed out, there were so many parties involved, the DOT, the EPA, the autos, the -- all the states.

And you know, we should say hurray, because now these lawsuits are being dropped. And yes, maybe they were -- not a lot was put in writing, maybe there was a concern because there were a lot of lawsuits out there. The fact is we should be very pleased. And of course your work on the endangerment finding, the proposed one, that I think is leading us to hopefully a way to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. The IRIS risk analysis process that you've changed.

So I just want to say, you know, I could not be more pleased. And then, I'm going to, in my last two minutes just make a couple of statements from my opening statement. Science has clearly been under siege when you took the reigns, from clean air, to perchlorate, to children's health. I believe decisions that should be based on science were based on politics. And the polluters were running the show.

This is my opinion. And I'd be glad to go toe to toe with anybody who thinks differently. You know, that's why the whole IRIS program was so derailed, because we put the polluters at the table. And the fact is, it's the EPA's job to clean up the environment. It's not the Environmental Pollution Agency, it's the Environmental Protection Agency. And I am so proud of the work you're doing.

And I also want to thank Senator Inhofe in -- he is in there out there somewhere, because when it came to giving you the staff -- not the staff -- the political appointees that you need, and -- that the president has sent down, he has been most cooperative. And we were able to get Gina McCarthy through after a little bit of a fuss and a fight. We've got some of the others done, Tom Strickland.

And I have to say that Senator Inhofe has not been obstructionist and I appreciate it so much.

So I just want to thank you, Administrator, for your openness, your honesty. You just come and you look us all in the eye regardless of whether you agree with us. You tell us what you think. You're also willing to take -- to have an open mind for all of us.

And what more could we ask from you? But I just wanted to counter Senator Barrasso's -- if you heard him and didn't know you, you'd think he was talking about somebody else. You couldn't be stronger or more assertive in implementing your responsibilities under the law.

And I want to thank again Senator Whitehouse for working with me to create this subcommittee, because this oversight is essential. You've got so many issues on your plate, and so many, frankly, you know, dangerous problems that you're dealing with, problems that have been neglected. So we'll work with you in the future, as we have, going into this. And I'm very proud of the work you're doing. And I thank you.

Senator.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: On that happy note the administrator is excused for her engagement at the White House. I thank her very much for her attendance and her testimony. And hope I have not caused too much anxiety on the part of her staff who urgently are signaling that she needs to be on the way.

SEN. BOXER: Will you tell the president we all want you to have more input? Tell him that Senator Barrasso is very worried, and he should listen to you.

MS. JACKSON: (Laughs.) I will. But he will say, "What more? How much more can I possibly give you?" And, you know, just to have that second -- Senator Barrasso is gone, and I'm sorry to hear that. But, you know, I just want to say for the record, of course EPA was there. We were hands on at the table to take Mary Nichols' quote. And we both know. Or someone should, you know, ask her what she meant.

But certainly EPA was integrally involved in this groundbreaking -- and I agree with you. I don't know how you get bad news out of that announcement. That announcement took every single constituency who might be worried, and said this is a good thing for us, for our businesses, for our unions, for the American people.

So I just think that that process is an example of how EPA's science came to the fore, and how our experts, and our people who work so hard got an opportunity to see a happy day. No one was happier than those scientists on that day. So thank you very much madam chair.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: The next panel consists of John B. Stephenson, the director, Natural Resources & Environment of the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Director Stephenson, welcome.

MR. STEPHENSON: Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, and other members who are here, I'm pleased to be here today to discuss the importance of scientific integrity and transparency at the EPA. My statement is based on our past work on both EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, and EPA's federal advisory committees and their use, such as the Science Advisory Board.

Our work last year on IRIS, as you remember, which is a database that contains the Agency's scientific position on the potential human health effects of more than 540 chemicals, identified significant concerns about both the lack of transparency in the process, and the resulting effect on the credibility and integrity of these assessments.

We noted that the consequences of these problems were very serious because IRIS assessments after all are the cornerstone of EPA's ability to ensure scientifically sound environmental decisions, policies, and regulations. We also found that the timeframes for completing assessments were unacceptably long, often taking over a decade to complete.

In many cases assessments became obsolete before they could be finalized. And we're stuck in the endless loop of assessment and reassessment. Last year we identified -- we testified before this committee about EPA's lack of progress in streamlining IRIS, and our frustration in its lack of response to our recommendations.

Indeed, the process that EPA unveiled in April 2008, a year ago, was a step backwards, and worst than the one it replaced. As a result of this serious and seemingly intractable problem, we added IRIS to GAO's January 2009 report on government-wide high risk areas needing increased attention by executive agencies and the Congress.

Today I am pleased to report that while it is too soon to offer a blanket endorsement, the new IRIS process introduced by EPA on May 21st of this year appears to be a step in the right direction. In particular we are pleased that the new IRIS process, if managed effectively will be largely responsive to the recommendations we made in our March 2008 report.

First, the process will be managed by EPA, rather than OMB, as the former process was. Second, it addresses a key transparency concern by expressly requiring that all written comments provided by other federal agencies on draft IRIS assessments be part of the public record.

Third, the new process streamlines the previous one by consolidating and eliminating several steps. Most importantly the step under which the federal agencies could have IRIS assessments suspended in order to conduct additional research. A step which would have defeated the intent of basing IRIS assessment on the best available science. And fourth, a request for an increase of $5 million and 10 additional staff positions will help ensure that more resources are allocated to the IRIS program to meet user needs. Of course, the ultimate success of IRIS will depend upon how effectively EPA implements the new process.

While these changes reflect the significant improvement that can help EPA restore the integrity and productivity of this critical program, we believe additional clarification is needed for some elements of the new process. Specifically, it is not clear whether significant agreements reached among the federal agencies during interagency consultation meetings will be documented in the public record, nor is it clear to us why comments from other federal agencies cannot be solicited at the time the initial draft is sent to independent peer reviewers and the public.

These changes would enhance transparency, further reduce the overall assessment timeframes, and provide greater assurance that the draft had not been inappropriately biased by policy considerations of agencies affected by the outcome, such as the Department of Defense, and Energy. Finally, it is unclear whether or how OMB or other White House offices will be involved in the new process.

Switching gears a bit, I would like to briefly summarize our work on EPA's scientific advisory committees, and offer some cautions about how they are formed and used. EPA currently has 24 separate federal advisory committees that help ensure scientific integrity by providing advice and expert peer review. We have made a number of recommendations to EPA to improve the independence and credibility of peer review panels convened by the Science Advisory Board, one of EPA's largest and most prominent federal advisory committees.

EPA implemented our recommendations, enhancing its assurance that relevant conflicts of interest are identified and addressed, and that the committees are balanced in terms of points of view. However, we believe that wider use of these same policies and procedures by EPA's other scientific advisory committees could help more broadly ensure that committee work is not jeopardized by allegations of conflicts of interest or bias.

We also believe that there are opportunities for EPA to use its scientific advisory committee, such as the Children's Health Advisory Protection Committee, more effectively and proactively then they have in the past.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the summary of my statement. I'll be happy to answer questions that you or other members of the committee may have.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, very much, Director.

Let me first tell you how much we appreciate the work that you did back in, I guess, 2008 on the original IRIS process, which as GAO found, lent itself to interference, perhaps even capture. And was not consistent with the transparency that one expects for this type of determination, where the life and health of Americans will be at stake. So it was good work, and we appreciate it. And I'm delighted that you've come back to review the remedy. And I think that the recommendations that you make for EPA are very helpful on that.

I'd like to follow up a little bit on this question of the advisory -- Science Advisory Boards. You've indicated a distinction between two methodologies, one is a, sort of, representative methodology where you get an industry scientist and somebody else. And they've become proxies for different interest groups. And the other is a process whereby you try to get people who are the best scientists, and you bring them in to give their best judgment. And those are two different approaches.

When Administrator Johnson was in charge, we often heard that where there was some uncertainty, or where there was some doubt, that created a range of reasonable decision making for the administrator, and he could therefore decide based on the doubt to air, say towards the industry side of the equation. It strikes me that there is a circularity here.

If you use the representative model, bringing in scientists who would ordinarily have a conflict of interest, but are exempted from conflict of interest rules in order to provide the industry point of view. And they conflict with the legitimate science or with the environmental science point of view. By using that representative mechanism you have created doubt in your science advisory panel.

And now you're in a position to say, uh-huh, there is doubt about the science from the scientific advisory panel, and therefore I now have authority not to go where the science would ordinarily dictate. And it seems that there is almost a feedback loop between the administrator's discretion to avoid the science based on doubt and uncertainty, which you referred to over and over again in hearings, and the doubt and uncertainly that is inherently created when you have this turn into kind of a mini legislative body instead of a pure science body. Would you comment on that?

MR. STEPHENSON: Yeah, I think both roles are appropriate. I mean, you want representative -- scientific advisory committees to represent special groups, industry or whatever. That's appropriate. But you also want a set of advisory committees that are advising the government, they're special government employees, if you will, on the integrity and the science.

And our only caution is that you shouldn't confuse the two types of groups, and you should use them appropriately. We think as a general rule that having stronger conflict of interest policies and procedures for assigning the members, for selecting the members of those committees are nevertheless still important.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you.

Senator Inhofe.

SEN. INHOFE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I -- you had stated in your opening statement, Mr. Director, that this -- the IRIS approach now is to step in the right direction. And I noticed that Chairman Boxer and I have -- both have the same chart. This is one that's put together of the revised IRIS process, post April 10th of '08. Now, we're supposedly streamlining the way it assesses the health effects of chemicals. The EPA is removing some of the steps of the Integrated Risk Information System review process. That's what we're talking about here, some of the steps.

Now, it looks like a busy chart, looks like a lot of steps. Probably a lot of them I would find it not necessary. But EPA specifically is cutting back internal EPA review. It's cutting back peer review, cutting back OMB review, cutting back the international partner review. Now, if they're cutting back all of these why do you say that's a step in the right direction?

MR. STEPHENSON: Well, I don't think they're cutting them out entirely, in our view. And this is a preliminary view. They've consolidated some of those assessments that the other federal agencies will provide.

(Cross talk.)

SEN. INHOFE: -- specifically this -- look at the OMB interagency review and the revised assessment, post-peer review, where were they combined with something else to preserve the integrity of their review?

MR. STEPHENSON: Well, in our view they could consolidate the Agency input as well as the industry input and any other stakeholder input at the same time and consider those, and do it in a very public way. All the research and information provided by the federal agencies as well as any other stakeholder could be considered at that time.

SEN. INHOFE: So you're saying that there is OMB interagency review now in this revised IRIS system that's in place today?

MR. STEPHENSON: Well, what we're saying is, it's not clear how the White House offices will be involved in this particular process. And we think that needs to be clarified, and that needs to be strengthened. We are certainly not against Agency input to the IRIS process. It just should be scientific research. The same as any other stakeholder should be, it should be in the public, very transparent, and --

SEN. INHOFE: Well, okay. Let's -- yeah, I would like to have -- ask the same thing of you, that I did the administrator, that you would submit in writing, you know, for the record, which of these steps that were in this chart that were -- that you have seen and have worked with, that are eliminated or combined, and where they are combined. Would you do that?

MR. STEPHENSON: We will be happy to do that.

SEN. INHOFE: Okay. Some comments were made by Senator Whitehouse about the science. He referred to industry science and environmental science. Is it your effort and -- or your -- I think we're all interested in having both sciences --

MR. STEPHENSON: Absolutely.

SEN. INHOFE: -- if there are conflicting sciences. Would it be your wish, whether it's on a scientific advisory board, or elsewhere, to have equal input if we are characterizing by either environmental or industry? My personal feeling is there shouldn't be a difference. Science should be science. It should be blind to industry and environment.

MR. STEPHENSON: I absolutely agree. IRIS is supposed to be a collection and synthesis of the available science on a given chemical at a given time, and certainly everybody has research and science that is relevant to that. I don't make a distinction between industry science and environmental science.

SEN. INHOFE: But if some of the scientists come from an association or an industry that could be -- made appear to be prejudiced, would you make the effort to have the other side also?

MR. STEPHENSON: Absolutely, that's written out in the scientific advisory committee rules that you should have all point of view equally represented.

SEN. INHOFE: All right, thank you very much.

MR. STEPHENSON: Certainly.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Chairman Boxer.

SEN. BOXER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: How unusual for me to be able to call on you.

SEN. BOXER: Well, thank you very much. I greatly appreciate it.

Let me just say to GAO and to you personally Mr. Stevenson, a great big thank you for the work that you did. Because when I called you in here, and we found out what was going on, there was some grave concern. And I don't disagree with anything Senator Inhofe said, but that's not what was going on over there.

And this is what the process was when you took a look at it -- by the way this is only part of it -- because here it says, "Federal agencies identified mission critical chemicals." And if no new studies they can go to step 14. Step 14 isn't even on here, because they didn't have space for it. So there is more.

And then over here it says, "Public listening session for comment on draft assessment announced in FRN in step 17A, and that's not even on this particular sheet. So what was going on over there?

If I could just say what I would have entitled this thing is, how to kill scientific risk assessment. That's what I think was going on. They were killing it. They were killing it by dint of the process. They were killing it by inviting the polluters to the table. That's not what this is. I want to protect my little baby grandson from getting cancer, from a lot of chemicals that are out there. I know we all feel the same way.

So, therefore, I want a system based on science not based on politics, not based on having the polluter at the table. Of course, they can argue that their chemical is safe. We saw the makers of arsenic say that their -- they would -- their chemical was safe. So they're all going to say it's safe.

Well, now we have a new assessment. It's understandable to people, it's streamlined which I would think the other side would like. And the question that Senator Inhofe asked was fine. He said how do we get the other agencies in? It's right here in step 6B, EPA- led Interagency Scientific Discussion. And, therefore, they are going to listen. But EPA will lead it. They're not going to let these other folks lead. So let me ask you a couple of questions in my remaining time.

Do you think in general -- and I get your specific criticisms of EPA, and I think they have to address them. But do you think in general that the most recent changes help to ensure a transparency when developing IRIS assessments and the changes ensure that EPA controls the development of such assessments rather than having the polluters control?

MR. STEPHENSON: Well, we're GAO so we're naturally skeptical and we reserve judgment and to see how it's implemented, we think that's very important.

SEN. BOXER: Well --

MR. STEPHENSON: But in general it does allow for all of the research considered in the IRIS process to be publicly available equally.

SEN. BOXER: Good.

MR. STEPHENSON: Whether it's an agency, or an industry, or any other environmental group.

SEN. BOXER: Good. And of course, it has to be implemented right? And in your own report here which the chairman has handed me, the IRIS reforms, if implemented effectively, will represent significant improvements. Among other things, they restore EPA's control of the process and increase transparency. So that -- but your hesitation is that it's got to be implemented in the right way, correct?

MR. STEPHENSON: Correct.

SEN. BOXER: Okay. That said --

MR. STEPHENSON: And we do say it does go towards implementing most of the recommendations that we made in our April 2008 report.

SEN. BOXER: How long --

MR. STEPHENSON: We just haven't done a full analysis of it.

SEN. BOXER: How long will you need till we call you back to let us know if you think they are implementing it effectively? Will it take six months, a year, because we want to stay on top of it through this Oversight Subcommittee?

MR. STEPHENSON: We want to see what kind of progress they make on the first problematic assessments. So if some chemicals that have been in the process for over a decade, maybe they have been in a decade for very good reasons, but in general we want to see if the administrator can meet her commitment of 23 months --

SEN. BOXER: So --

MR. STEPHENSON: -- on average, for an assessment.

SEN. BOXER: So when should we have --

MR. STEPHENSON: I would say at least a year.

SEN. BOXER: We'll have you back in a year to see what the progress is.

Senator Whitehouse, I hope that you will do this in a year.

Now, the last question. In your opinion, how important is it to ensure that scientific panels base their decisions on the best available science not other considerations? Could agencies improve their methods for ensuring the use of the best available science?

MR. STEPHENSON: Absolutely. We think that there's many EPA advisory committees, and as I said, they serve multiple purposes. The best available of science is for the FACA committee; that's an important goal. And we've noted in the past that EPA can use these advisory committees more effectively and proactively than they have in the past. So we will be watching that as well.

SEN. BOXER: Okay. Let me say finally, again, you know, there's a lot of times you do a lot of reports and nothing much happens. And I don't like that. This time a lot has happened and implementation is the key, but you have to feel good that you made a big change happen here in the IRIS program. So I just want to thank you.

MR. STEPHENSON: Thank you. That's our job.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: And now finally the distinguished and very patient senator from Delaware, Senator Carper.

SEN. THOMAS R. CARPER (D-DE): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stephenson, welcome. It's good to see you. Thank you for joining us today and for the work that you and your colleagues at GAO do. As you know, the EPA's Integrated Risk Information Program and its database contain the EPA's scientific position on the potential human health effect of exposure to, I believe, more than 540 chemicals.

And you stated before that the -- that this system has received an increase in funds and resources, but we still have some ways to go to have all the information we need in order to fully understand the true human health impacts of certain chemicals. I'm concerned that the missing data in IRIS will delay the air toxic -- will delay air toxic policy decisions.

And first of all, let me just ask you, just talk with us about is there a better way to collect this information? What are some of the options? How are we collecting that information now? How might we collect it more prudently in the future?

MR. STEPHENSON: Of course, assessments of air toxins are also some of those 540 that you mentioned. And what we said in our 2008 report is that early planning could really help if EPA on a two or even a three-year window out could identify along with the program offices within EPA the assessments that were vitally needed to implement the Air Toxics Program and other Clean Air Act programs.

We think that would go a long way to informing the research community what was going to be needed such that it would be available when the IRIS assessment on that particular chemical started. We think that would go a long way towards streamlining and making more efficient the overall assessment of all chemicals including air toxins.

SEN. CARPER: Now when you -- who would you share that notion with?

MR. STEPHENSON: We actually recommended that in our 2008 report on IRIS. And early planning can really help in that regard. We had, I think, 15 or 20 recommendations in that report for improving the then IRIS process.

SEN. CARPER: And who would EPA has responded to those recommendations in that report?

MR. STEPHENSON: They haven't been responded to specifically in detail. There is a 60-day requirement for all federal agencies to respond to GAO recommendations and provide that information to the Congress as well. And we haven't done as good a follow-up on that as we have. We're in the process of doing that now to see exactly what has been done towards each of those recommendations.

SEN. CARPER: Has the 60-day clock already run?

MR. STEPHENSON: Oh, yes. That was the April 2008 report.

SEN. CARPER: Well, we're coming up on 460-day clock.

All right, okay. Of the other recommendations that were included, did you say 20?

MR. STEPHENSON: I'm doing it by recollection, but there were a lot.

SEN. CARPER: But what were some of the most important ones? You may have said this already, but I just --

MR. STEPHENSON: Well, early planning, we highlighted the need for transparency. We don't have objections to anybody providing research for EPA to consider on a given chemical. We just think it should be very transparent. The research should be publicly available for the whole scientific community to look at. We offered lots of opportunities for streamlining the process, eliminating what we thought is redundant steps or unnecessary steps. So they went the whole gamut of what we call the "broken system" back a year ago.

SEN. CARPER: I presume that there's been an informal dialogue back and forth with -- between GAO and EPA over the last year. Is that true on these points?

MR. STEPHENSON: Somewhat. I mean, we don't have specific work going on IRIS right now. Looking at the new process, we've -- we think and as I think the committee thinks it's better to give the EPA a little bit of opportunity to respond to the process that they just introduced, May the 21st, and implement it. And then we think it would be appropriate for you all to request GAO for us to take another look at IRIS down the road.

SEN. CARPER: You just kind of answered the last question I was going to ask. What should we be doing differently or to follow-on?

MR. STEPHENSON: I think just holding oversight hearings like this, keeping the hearings process going -- continuing to emphasize scientific integrity and look at all the individual elements of the agency process that result in good integrity at the agency. I think we're making progress. I think we're on the right track.

SEN. CARPER: Okay. And my last question is what kind of job do you think that Senator Whitehouse is doing in chairing this hearing today?

(Laughter.)

MR. STEPHENSON: An absolutely splendid job.

(Laughter.)

SEN. CARPER: I think he's at his best --

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Now that may need further investigation.

SEN. CARPER: I've never seen him quite this good so thank you for joining us today.

MR. STEPHENSON: Thank you.

SEN. CARPER: Senator Whitehouse, thank you for pulling this all together.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you very much, Senator Carper.

Thank you, Mr. Stephenson, you are excused, but with the appreciation of the committee for a job well done and I think as the Chairman said you must feel considerable satisfaction in seeing such swift results under this administration of the recommendations that GAO offered in the past. So again, congratulations and well done.

MR. STEPHENSON: It's nice to see you all use our work.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Now while the next panel is joining us, I will add to the record of these proceedings, without objection, a letter received from John Holdren, the assistant to the president for science and technology and the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy whose overseas official travel makes his appearance at this particular hearing impossible, but who wrote to let us know of the importance that the president places on this topic, and to inform us of the important work on scientific integrity that the president has asked the Office of Science and Technology Policy to lead, in particular, OSTP's assembly of a taskforce representing all departments and agencies with what are described as considerable scientific missions.

The taskforce has in the federal register filed a notice requesting public comments on the president's memorandum and its six guiding principles. If anybody wishes to comment into that process, the e-mail address is scientificintegrity, all one word, scientificintegrity@ostp.gov. And he encourages public input so that the process of continuing to enhance transparency and scientific integrity in this administration can continue forward.

And now it is my pleasure to welcome Dr. Grifo, Dr. Green, and Dr. Goldman. We seem to be narrowed in a very short bandwidth of the alphabet today. But we are delighted to have you with us. We appreciate the work that you have done in the past and I turn the hearing over to you for your statements.

Dr. Grifo.

MS. GRIFO: Good morning. My name is Francesca Grifo as you've said and I'm a senior scientist and director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Thank you Chairmen Boxer in absentia, Chairman Whitehouse, and the ranking member, also in absentia, and the members of the committee for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is at a crossroads. The EPA is emerging from a period where agency science was often a casualty of political decisions made behind closed doors. Our research documented that 889 scientists personally experienced at least one incidence of political interference between 2002 and 2007.

The current administrator, Lisa Jackson, has reversed course on many of the most egregious of these decisions and has spoken eloquently about the central role of science and transparency in her vision for the EPA. But as the agency faces mounting challenges in the coming years and the urge to justify policy decisions with tampered science will remain a constant temptation.

We urge Administrator Jackson and Congress to go beyond reversing bad policies from the previous administration and to take steps to secure the credibility of future EPA decisions. In truth, there is no silver bullet that will forever protect EPA science from political manipulation. Any law or policy regime that is flexible enough to allow fact-based decision making is vulnerable to mischief by unscrupulous policy makers.

There is simply no way to watch over every data point in its journey from scientists to policy arena.

But we can increase transparency, empower scientists to speak out, instill broader reforms, and ask Congress to pay attention to these issues when drafting legislation and in their oversight. Transparency means that the media has access to EPA science and scientists.

Our finding that 783 scientists disagreed or strongly disagreed that EPA policies allow scientists to speak freely to the news media about their findings suggest the importance of the implementation of an agency-wide media policy that allows scientists and researchers to freely express their personal views with an explicit disclaimer that they are speaking as private citizens and not seeking to represent official agency policy.

Public affairs officers also need to have clearly defined and important roles, but are not gatekeepers of information. Our analysis of 15 federal agencies demonstrates that some agencies are already successfully doing this. Transparency also means that the public has a right to know the extent of outside influence on the EPA.

The EPA should institute a transparency policy for meetings including a complete public record of all meetings with outside entities. Computers now make this possible as a quick addition to the routine of signing in when visiting a federal agency.

Transparency can protect the integrity of EPA science and the EPA should take steps to ensure that science is not manipulated in a regulatory process specifically by expanding the information it shares with the public about its decisions. The EPA's rulemaking docket should contain all scientific studies in an agency's possession related to proposed regulation, and all official interagency communications regarding rules under review, including those from the White House.

The EPA should publish a summary statement discussing the scientific basis for any regulatory decisions informed by science. EPA whistleblowers are the last bastion against abuses of science. The agency scientists have a profound responsibility to the U.S. public. To fulfill that responsibility they need reassurance that standing behind their scientific work will not open them to retaliation.

The House is considering a bipartisan comprehensive whistleblower protection bill. We strongly support that legislation, and we urge the Senate to strengthen its whistleblower bill, S. 372, in line with House reforms. But even before strong whistleblower protection is enacted, we hope that Administrator Jackson will send a strong message to agency managers now that federal scientists who raise concerns or expose agency misconduct should not be retaliated against.

Future reforms. Looking to the future, there are far-reaching reforms that should be considered to equip the EPA for the challenges of the 21st century. To prevent political interference in EPA science by other agencies, the EPA needs to be empowered to take the lead on cross-cutting environmental issues. And a 2002 GAO report found merit in the idea of elevating the EPA to a cabinet-level agency and we concur.

Problems with monitoring and enforcement need to be addressed by Congress and the president to ensure that the EPA is the robust environmental agency that our country needs. The EPA is an organization that necessarily houses both scientific and policy-making functions. The interaction between these two functions can lead to interference, but is also a source of strength and credibility for the organization.

The science and policy wings of an agency should work as if separated by a semi-permeable membrane that ensures the flow of scientific information and advice from scientists to policy makers, to facilitate the creation of fact-based policies, but strongly limits how policy makers can affect agency scientists.

Finally, in conclusion, the role for Congress, it is vitally important that Congress continue its oversight of agency programs and activities. Risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, interactions with OMB, and the federal advisory committees have all proven fertile ground for interference in the past.

And I urge this committee to laud Administrator Jackson for her accomplishments, but also to exercise its oversight authority and to remain vigilant to abuses of science. When considering the next generation of environmental and public health laws, I urge Congress to take steps to ensure that those laws make use of the best available science and use transparency, the empowerment of scientists, and other means to increase accountability, and create laws that are resistant to political tampering. I look forward to working with the committee on these issues. Thank you.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Dr. Grifo. That was a very good summation of a very, very thorough statement. I appreciate that you've sent in the complete statement because it has a lot of wonderful material in it, particularly some of the quotes from the EPA scientists about the OMB interference. That was very trenchant stuff and thank you for summarizing it so well.

Dr. Green.

MR. GREEN: Good morning. I'd like to thank Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, Senator Whitehouse, and the committee for having me here today to testify about this very important topic. I am, as you said, Kenneth Green, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

I generally like to begin with a few words of my background. By training, I am an environmental scientist, having received my doctoral degree in environmental science and engineering from UCLA in 1994. I was drawn to that field through a childhood in the San Fernando Valley, a very smoggy area when I grew up, where I developed asthma, and learned firsthand about the hazards of air pollution.

I developed a love for the environment when, with my mother, I'd camp in California's many state parks, and out in the Mojave Desert, where we had a placer mining claim, and where the air was clean, dry, and thoroughly healthful. In the 1970s, when the oil embargo hit, I tried to set up my own solar distillery to make fuel ethanol from surplus oranges of my neighbors, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms wouldn't give a license to distill to a 13-year-old in those days.

I worked at the intersection of science and public policy since 1990, when I took an internship position as an environmental policy analyst at the now defunct Hughes Aircraft Company, which was then headquartered in Los Angeles, California. Both, the subject of my doctoral studies and the focus of my work, involved air quality regulations then being promulgated by the California Air Resources Board and the Air Quality Management District of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Subsequently, I worked at several think tanks in the United States and Canada, and research -- my research has broadened to incorporate climate change and energy policy analysis at the state, provincial, and federal levels. As more and more of our nation's public policy decisions involve the use of complex scientific information, I think, it becomes more and more important that our policymaking institutions make use of such information in a process that's unbiased, open to outside review and analysis, and allows for the airing of divergent opinion, and particularly, is deliberative enough to ensure that the decisions we make are the right ones.

As recent experience has regretfully shown, this is not always the case. Policies intended to mitigate climate change and conventional pollution with the use of corn-ethanol, for example, have backfired badly. Rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there's every evidence that corn-ethanol has increased them. Rather than reduce conventional air pollution, corn-ethanol production has increased them. Along with polluting surface and ground water, contaminating fish stocks with pesticide and herbicide residues, and expanding oceanic dead-zones caused by algae which bloom when they are over-fed by fertilizer run-off from corn agriculture.

Most of these problems were raised by non-governmental analysts and outside scientists before the ethanol mandates were passed, but the policymaking process proved opaque to such cautionary voices. Now, warnings are coming from non-governmental policy analysts once again that we may see equally perverse impacts from other forms of renewable energy being promoted at breakneck speed through the spending of stimulus money, and pending legislation involving energy and climate change.

For example, new scientific reports are validating concerns expressed by energy analysts that concentrated solar power systems may have unsustainable water demand and will imperil the fragile desert ecosystems I grew up enjoying and would like to see for my children and grandchildren safe to enjoy as well.

Warnings that wind turbines are not environmentally benign are also being validated as they are found to cause noise pollution, visual blight, bird and bat kills, and potentially harm livestock. One recent study, in fact, also has found that mass transit systems may produce more pollutants than the automobiles and air travel they seek to displace. Left and right, we are seeing failings of policymaking bodies to listen to cautionary voices outside of their own purview in the development of public policy that is based on scientific information.

The president's memoranda on Transparency and Open Government and on Scientific Integrity are a great start, but they can only be considered a start in the process to ensure the information is used in the process of public policy formation. On the plus side, the memoranda correctly identifies certain important elements of a transparent process featuring scientific integrity. The president is exactly correct when he says, "political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions."

It is also reassuring the president orders "To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking." And I particularly think the president's observation that "Public engagement enhances the government's effectiveness and improves the quality of decisions because knowledge is widely disbursed in society," that is spot on.

All too often, however, I've seen an assumption that only scientists working within government or dependent on governmental grants have worthwhile knowledge to inject into public policy decision-making. There is, I believe, an inherent bias against scientists in the private sector, even though those are the people who, day in and day out, in their laboratories, produce the prescription drugs and devices that save millions, and who develop the technologies that empower billions.

The same is true with regard to the president's and the agency emphasis on the peer-reviewed literature. As we have discovered through revelations about fraud in the scientific and medical literature, peer-review is no guarantee of accuracy. Often, the keys to publication are in the hands of those with a vested career interest in preserving a particular theory that gained them prestige and standing to be considered as peer-reviewers. As a recent article ironically published in the peer-reviewed literature, journal PLoS Medicine pointed out "most claimed research findings are wrong."

The president, Congress, and the regulatory agencies should explicitly recognize that there is a legitimate role for non- governmental, independent scientific participation in the public policy decision-making process in terms of personnel, and the injection of scientific research materials conducted outside the peer- reviewed literature, but by private entities.

Many times over my career, I have seen a lack of opportunity for consultation. I've seen massive scientific reports issued by state and federal governments before a Thanksgiving weekend, or just before the Christmas holidays, with minimal time allowed for the review of 1,000-page documents. We may see that again in coming months, when we're going to see the passage of -- we've been promised the passage of landmark legislation on climate change, just in time for the Independence Day holiday, and most people's summer vacation. That is not what I would call accessibility or transparency.

The rest of my comments I will submit for the record because I believe I'm running out of time. But to conclude, it must be always remembered that science may be able to tell us "what is," but it cannot tell us "what to do." It's important that science infuse processes, but not that we be guided or led by science. We're not a "scientocracy." Public policy formation requires the balance of many factors, social, economic, ethics, equity, individual rights, personal responsibilities, and more.

Openness and transparency, and scientific integrity are very important, but they are not the only elements that are important in public policy decision-making. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak and of course I look forward to your questions.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Dr. Goldman.

DR. GOLDMAN: (Off mike.) Thank you, Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, in absentia, for inviting me to testify before you today. As you know I formerly served at the U.S. EPA in the Clinton administration. I'm now a professor at Johns Hopkins University. This issue of scientific integrity at the EPA is one that's very near and dear to my heart.

During the time that I was at EPA, we worked very hard to try to get the science right, to inform regulations, to inform all of our actions, to inform the legislation that was being undertaken by this body. And we also worked very hard to establish peer review processes and other mechanisms to make sure that the external scientific community could participate as much as possible and so that they could serve as a check, if you may, to make sure that the science coming from EPA was completely up to date with the science that is -- as it's occurring in an academia and rest of society.

And I think the results of that were a number of science-based actions that served to protect the public's health and the environment which is after all what the mission of the EPA is all about. Last year, I appeared before this committee to testify about my concerns about the changes that had been made to EPA's Integrated Risk Information System or IRIS. And, of course, it's a very challenging process to completely assess the toxicity of a chemical.

It requires the engagement of scientists from very many disciplines and the synthesis of a tremendous amount of information. And the peer review process is even more difficult because you would want the peer reviewers to be very much at the cutting edge of the science and to be capable of being able to review the work of EPA scientists who themselves are extraordinarily expert in what they do.

Unfortunately, in the last administration actions had been taken that undermine that process. The White House Office of Management and Budget was, in essence, placed in charge of that process. There were non transparent processes that allowed other agencies to intervene in that process and even to stop assessments of chemicals if they wanted more time to study them. And the last word on the toxicity of the chemicals was in the hands of the OMB.

So I personally am very happy that the EPA under Lisa Jackson's leadership has restored the integrity of the IRIS process and I think that the new review process makes sense. It's open, it's transparent, it allows everybody to play a role, the federal agencies as well as outside scientists, and it allows the final authority over the contents of IRIS listings to be in the hands of EPA which is where it needs to be.

As I, at one point, worked in a state agency, I worked for the State of California and I can tell you that everybody relies on IRIS. The states, industry, it is very, very important resource and it's one that needs to be protected. I've also been pleased with the changes that Lisa Jackson has announced to the process for creating the so called "NAAQ," the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Again, there had been some changes made in the last administration where the so called "staff papers" that laid out the analysis of EPA scientists were disregarded by decision makers. And they were not made available to the public. They were not made available to Congress to review. And I'm happy to see that those have now been restored to the proper place in terms of helping to and form decisions as well as the new determination on the part of EPA to listen to its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

And I will tell you as a member of the scientific community now that the disputes that were occurring between EPA and CASAC hurt EPA terribly in terms of EPA's credibility with independent scientists and the fact that the idea that if you were brought to EPA to advice the EPA that your advice would not even receive a hearing by decision makers then what would motivate you to serve as an advisor to EPA.

Because believe me, those special government employee assignments take a lot of time, they take you away from your research, they take you away from your students. And the only reason it's worth doing that is to serve the public, to feel that you're doing something in service of EPA.

In closing, I would like to bring to your attention the work of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Science for Policy Project that's co- chaired by Sherwood Boehlert and by Don Kennedy. I happen to be a member of this. This is an interim report from this group called "Improving the use of Science in Regulatory Policy." And it is our hope that these kinds of reports from outside of the government will be helpful to all of you as you deliberate in the future. Thank you, again, for inviting me to be here with you.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Dr. Goldman. I appreciate your testimony and I thank all of the witnesses for their participation in this hearing. This is the first hearing of the Oversight Committee of Environment & Public Works Committee, and it is a committee that didn't exist before.

This is a joint hearing, and obviously the chairman, Barbara Boxer, and the ranking member, Jim Inhofe, have been here during the course of the hearing, and now you're down to the chairman of the subcommittee, myself, and my distinguished ranking member, Senator Barrasso. And I would love to hear the advice of the panel on what next.

What are the two or three key things that EPA should focus on, in order to, I would say reclaim its integrity -- but let's be a little bit more technical -- to reclaim processes and protocols and standards that will protect its integrity.

Go ahead, Dr. Grifo.

MS. GRIFO: Two or three is hard, I have four.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Okay.

MS. GRIFO: Can I say four?

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Four is good.

MS. GRIFO: I think one of the most important things is going to be the draft, an agency-wide media policy. I mean, the media are the route from EPA to the American people, and we really need to have that route opened up.

The second, I would say, is just in general, providing the public with more information about meetings between agency officials and outside entities. This has been another source of problems in --

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Can I stop you on the media policy just for one second?

MS. GRIFO: Uh-huh.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Just from a management point of view, you could get into a situation in which you had an employee who was grandstanding with the media, who was using the media to undercut administrative authorities or create management problems to self- aggrandize or stray away from the topic that they've been told to handle because they have a personal interest in something else.

There are other motivations for going to the media than just playing kind of whistle-blowing and transparency. How do you cope with those, how do we write a policy or pursue a standard of oversight that allows for some degree of management of the function of employees in talking to the media, while at the same time assuring that that doesn't become an institutional problem that affects scientific integrity?

MS. GRIFO: I think there are two things. One, I think you're aware of our work on media policy scorecard, where we looked at 15 agencies. And in fact there are several agencies that do have this kind of a media policy, and that hasn't happened. It has not become a giant impediment to the work of those agencies.

So I think it can't happen. But I think the second thing is that what we're talking about is a personal exception that in other words, the scientists cannot speak for the agency without going through all of those normal channels that we all approve and want to see happen.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Okay, that's okay.

MS. GRIFO: But rather, it's a personal views exception. They have to stop and take off their agency hat and put on their private citizen hat. And then of course, you know, we do have the first amendment. So we want to --

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Yeah, understood. Okay, I didn't want to stop you --

MS. GRIFO: Okay, so that was two. Very quickly, the third one, I think, is really about routinely disclosing more information about the scientific basis for agency decisions. I think there are still, you know, big issues that are out there. I think we have a number of these issues swirling around.

When we look at the relationship between the EPA and the Office of Management and Budget that are still -- I mean, obviously we're waiting for the new directive to come out of OMB and OIRA to tell us what its role is going to be. But I think what's important is OIRA is a creation of Congress. OIRA was created by Congress, and Congress could limit OIRA and do things in that regard.

And the last one, last but not least, I think we really would like to see Lisa Jackson come out and be very clear with her managers because this is the level at which this is happening -- she has come out and said in a general sense to employees -- but to completely and in a focused manner address her managers on how retaliation is just not acceptable.

Because until we have strong whistleblower protections legally enabled, we still are going to have those issues because there is this culture and we want to see that culture change. So there would be my quick four.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Okay, I'll come back to it. But my time has expired. So I'll turn to the distinguished senator from Wyoming.

SEN. BARRASSO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to work with you on this oversight committee, I appreciated it. I would say so far you are the finest chairman that this committee has ever had --

(Laughter.)

SEN. BARRASSO: And a marvelous job.

Dr. Green, if I could just ask you a couple of questions. And you state in your testimony that there is an assumption that only scientists working within government or dependant on government grants really have worthwhile knowledge to inject into public policy decision-making. And what would you say about scientists from environmental special interests groups; are they treated with more credibility?

MR. GREEN: I think to a certain extent they are. They're certainly given a place at the table more often, I think, than those who are with either non-environmental NGOs or with industrial or technological groups. I think they're given the benefit of the doubt that they are somehow unbiased and not dependant on standing sources of income that could bias their opinions. And I think that in many cases that assumption is open to question.

SEN. BARRASSO: Do you see reluctance by federal agencies to hire scientists who come from the private sector, say, as opposed to environmental special interest groups, and how do you see that happening here?

MR. GREEN: I guess that would perhaps -- that might depend on the administration. I think there is -- again, there is, I think, a general belief that somehow being a productive part of an industrial organization or a private organization is a tainting thing to be, that there are some taints -- and actually making things that we rely in on in our daily lives, and they are not therefore treated with the same level of gravitas.

The other one -- there is other fact however, which is if you're actually doing work in laboratories for the private sector, you're not focusing on peer-reviewed publication. And therefore the giant emphasis on having a long track record of peer-reviewed publication does cut against such people who are busy actually doing their job.

SEN. BARRASSO: Okay. You made a comment that I found striking, and you said, well, science maybe able to tell us what is, it can never really tell us what to do. And you know, is there any issue today where you believe that policymakers are saying science is telling us what to do?

MR. GREEN: Well, I mean absolutely. The biggest issue of the day, the climate change, is one on which you hear this routinely. The science says we must do x, we must achieve this level of greenhouse gas emission reductions over this period of time. The science tells us we must -- well that's not the nature of science.

Science can tell you the nature of a problem; it could tell you what impacts you might get from a given reduction of greenhouse gases. But the decision that that is the worthwhile or the best investment of the funds you have at the time you have them, with regard to the other values you hold dear, such as economic growth, which also affects health and the environment; that decision can only done based on a multiple value assessment.

It's not a dictation of science. And we hear this regularly, not only with regard to climate change, but with regard to chemical exposures, air pollution, and science tells us we must do something. And as a scientist, I can tell you I'm the first one who does not want to live in a scientocracy.

SEN. BARRASSO: Dr. Green, the way you'd go on, we'd now -- I'd talked with Lisa Jackson about my concerns about there is no one -- energy and a climate czar who has an oversight over issues involving the Environmental Protection Agency, the secretary of Interior, secretary of Energy, secretary of Transportation. I just want your thoughts on the creation of an energy and climate czar. Is that going to help or hurt using science correctly in developing policy?

MR. GREEN: Well, as we found, czars didn't work terribly well for Russia, so it's unclear they're going to work any better for us. I think it actually is a very bad precedent. I think the responsibility of the agency heads to the Senate which confirms them, is very important in terms of openness, transparency, and all of the things that we've talked about today.

The fact that there is a government agency or government person, who says explicitly that in order to deny knowledge to the public nothing was written down, is deeply troubling. When you talk about a decision that could lead to the loss of jobs for tens of thousands of people, change the buying decisions and override the buying decisions of all Americans, I find that to be very troubling, and if that's going to be the pattern we see with regard to energy decision-making as well, I think it's still more troubling.

SEN. BARRASSO: And then, Dr. Green, I only have about 30 seconds left. You'd like to respond to any of the other comments from other panelists today that you'd like to respond to?

MR. GREEN: Well, I think there's some general agreement here that these are important issues; transparency, openness, and consultation. But I think without a meaningful commitment to allowing the time for deliberation, these things are almost all meaningless.

I have had the dubious pleasure of reading the IPCC reports on ScienceNOW in their totality every five years, and I can tell you, you cannot plow through a 1000-page document of intense scientific information over a weekend, in order to submit comments within a 15- day or 30-day comment period. Without a real commitment to a deliberative time period and the end of game-playing with a release before holidays and so forth, all of this is relatively meaningless.

SEN. BARRASSO: Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some additional questions I'd have to refer to Dr. Goldman; perhaps I could submit those in writing.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Or we can continue it into the second --

SEN. BARRASSO: Oh, that's all right. I got energy markups, so thank you, Chairman.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: All right. I wanted to follow-up on a point that our distinguished ranking member just made about the -- and that Dr. Green also did about the difference between -- the perceived difference between government scientists, scientists representing not- for-profit organizations, and scientists representing the views of for-profit private corporations.

And I concur that it is not a given that because the scientists worked for a private corporation their credibility is diminished or their integrity is subject to question. But it does make a great and simple guideline. And it's a bit of a proxy, I would suggest, that may not be exactly accurate.

But the problem that I see is that within the science reported by private for-profit corporations, we've seen over and over situations in which the science was really deliberately twisted for profit. There were real low moments that could not be characterized by scientific integrity; examples like the American Tobacco Institute and its "for ever" campaign to convince people that tobacco was safe.

Or the American Lead Institute, and its for ever campaign to convince people that first lead was safe, and second, well, okay, it's not safe, but you'd have to eat a flake of lead the size of a potato chip before you're actually harmed.

I think we have to be candid and admit that there is an industry of bogus or questionable science that infects a part of the private sector. And unfortunately, the private sector has not really made any effort to distinguish the legitimate private science from those propagandizing efforts.

And as a result, I think there is a broader tape and therefore people who can't pick out one thing from the other just think, well, there's no risk of private science being corrupt if we don't bother to look at it; if we focus more on the NGOs who don't have the same profit motive, and if we focus on government scientists who don't have that motive at all.

So I would urge that one of things we might consider this committee as we go forward is trying to make some of those distinctions between what is legitimate science and on what occasions the science has just been degraded and turned to industry propagandizing. And unfortunately there are, I think, at this point almost indisputable examples of that.

And I'd like to ask Dr. Goldman on that point. You said that EPA does its best to work in the sunshine. Is it enough in terms of trying to make that distinction between legitimate private science and private science that has been bought and paid for to produce this particular result, the so-called merchants of doubt?

Is sunshine enough or should there be more attention to those organizations like the American Tobacco Institute and the American Lead Institute of the past that frankly don't meet standards of environmental integrity or credibility?

MS. GOLDMAN: Oh, I would agree with you that there does need to be more attention paid to that, and I have an experience along those lines.

During the time I was at EPA, responsible for the regulation of pesticides, apparently we were looking at one in particular called phosphine.

After I left EPA, people involved in the tobacco litigation sent me a big folder about phosphine, and how the tobacco companies which were using this pesticide had put together a group called -- I think they called the Phosphine Coalition or some such thing.

And in this folder was a letter from a private scientific organization and consulting firm that was hired to support them in defending their product against EPA and against regulation, in which the firm promised not only a certain outcome in terms of, we will evaluate this chemical and we'll come up with this number as the appropriate number to which EPA will regulate it, that they would write a paper about that and publish that in the scientific literature; before they had one thing, before they had lifted a single pencil to do a risk assessment.

And you know, reading that -- I mean it's not what made my hair curl. But it really was -- it was something I had suspected was going on behind the scenes, but I'd never had proof of, and that kind of thing just shouldn't be. And I agree with you that industry has some responsibility to help sort this out, and to weed out some of this practices that are inconsistent with the best of science.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Yeah, I think as you said, there's the risk that if industry itself won't stand up to these abusive practices and distinguish its science from them that they will then suffer some of that taint, which I think is unnecessary.

Senator Barrasso.

MR. GREEN: Yes, I would like to respond to that question. I think it's -- you make a good point. The problem with bright lines is that there is two sides on -- there is a side on either side of the line. That actors are all around, not only in private sector but in government. For the examples you gave about private malfeasance -- and my mother died from smoking, so you can't say anything as bad about the tobacco industry as I would.

But for every instance you've given, I can give another one of government science malfeasance. Tuskegee experiments, radiation experiments on airmen during World War II; the government is no stranger to scientific malfeasance anymore than the private sector is.

I don't see grounds for giving a benefit of the doubt to one side or the other; I see grounds for actually simply being careful as to taking multiple inputs and filtering through them as -- by determining whether they are true or false. Not who wrote them, not where they were published, but whether they were true or false.

That would be main response to that point, which is I think, to say that the people who -- developed the prescription drugs saved lives, who developed the pesticides and herbicides that feed people more affordably, and that lead us to crops which you can export to the world to solve world -- to help address world hunger; to say that those people are not virtuous people, and that you have an assumption that they're putting their personal interest ahead of the health of other people's children and their own children, I think, is a somewhat scurrilous thing to say. Thank you.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Dr. Grifo, would you care to comment on this discussion? You're the one person who has not been included in this so far.

MS. GRIFO: Thank you. I mean, I think what's very important here are two things; clarity and disclosure. I mean, I think you need to be clear about, you know, what is the context, who is that's speaking and those sorts of issues. But the disclosure is critical. I mean, I think you're right. Obviously, industry science has done a tremendous amount for the American public. You know, we are all consumers at one level or another.

But I think what's important to remember is that we don't want someone who is taking a large amount of money from a company that produces a product that an advisory committee is making a decision about. I mean, that is a clear conflict of interest and we have to guard very closely against those. I mean, personally, we'd like to see them eliminated completely.

When we're talking about scientific advisory committees, we see that industry scientists can come to the committee; can present, can answer questions, but when it comes to chairing or cochairing such a committee or voting, that's where we would see the distinction, and that's where we need the clarity.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: And do you feel that the disclosure, at present, is adequate with respect to let's divide up membership on scientific advisory committees, submission of testimony to scientific advisory commissions, and submissions of comment to proposed rulemakings? Are the standards adequate so that the public and the policymakers who are reviewing that material know who has what motivations?

MS. GRIFO: Yeah, I would submit that they're not. I think Dr. Goldman mentioned the bipartisan policy center and the work that they're doing, and they are wrestling with this issue and wrestling mightily with this issue, and our executive, our president, Kevin Knobloch is also on that steering committee.

I think, you know, what we are looking for here are true disclosures. The two models that are out there that are excellent are the National Academies and IARC, you know, French -- the World Health Organization. I think both of them are models. They look at the very specific issues.

What I think we need to -- what we institutionally think we need to see is for the Office of Government Ethics to come in and help with some of these definitions because right now, conflict of interest is a little bit of a murky concept. So there's a lot of work to be done there, and there are other reforms that we really need to consider when we look at FACA, which is the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Well, I appreciate the testimony of the witnesses, I appreciate the courtesy of my very distinguished ranking member, and I thank everyone for attending this first hearing, albeit a joint one, of the Environmental Public Works Subcommittee on Oversight.

The record of the hearing will remain open for an additional week, if anybody seeks to add any additional materials. And if there's nothing further, we are now adjourned. (Sounds gavel.)

END.

Source