EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013

Floor Speech

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity of coming here and talking about this issue.

My relationship with the Environmental Protection Agency has been infrequent, thankfully, but it has also not necessarily been successful or positive. In an issue that dealt specifically with my hometown and county, to be very honest, the science that was used by the Environmental Protection Agency to make the decision was flawed.

The State clearly showed that it was flawed; yet that did not make a difference in their ultimate decision, which led me to believe that the decision was perhaps more politically motivated than it was scientifically motivated.

I realize this advisory board, though, is in place to try to mitigate against those circumstances taking place, but if that advisory board is going to work, it has to have the balance of input that is necessary for that.

I am frustrated that out of the 50-plus members of this board, only two have backgrounds in State and local governments and those from only specific States. This board desperately needs that kind of input from those entities that have a day-to-day working relationship with these issues.

If that is not there, if that is not remedied, then the board itself is going to be flawed, and it is not going to fulfill the purpose for which it was designed.

I fully support this bill because this advisory board has an effort and a job to fill to mitigate problems before those problems develop, and if it is not an effective board, then we should either reform it, as this bill tries to do, or we should eliminate it, but it can be reformed. It should be reformed. This is a step to actually reform it, to make sure that there is better input for better decisions to be made.

I congratulate the gentleman from my home State of Utah for coming up with a bill that solves a real problem and does it in a fair and professional way.

Source