EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, let's make this simple. The fundamental role of the
Environmental Protection Agency is to protect our Nation's environment
and to ensure that we have healthy communities for children and
families across the country. The Science Advisory Board is the body
that ensures that EPA uses the best scientific research available to
protect the environment and public health. To support this mission, we
in Congress should be working together to ensure that the best and
brightest scientists are on this Board. Instead, today's bill would
muddy the waters when they should be crystal clear.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill moves EPA away from scientific
integrity and weakens the independence of the Science Advisory Board.
First, the bill requires that all scientific and technical points be
balanced among members of the Board.

What does the term ``balanced'' mean?

Politicians should not be mandating scientific results. Science
should be determined by the experts--scientists and scientific
researchers--not by those of us in this Chamber.

Second, the bill imposes a nonscience-based hiring quota for Advisory
Board members based on employment by a State, local, or tribal
government without regard to scientific expertise.

Finally, the open public comment period in the bill would allow
regulatory opponents an endless amount of time to halt, derail,
discredit, and slow EPA actions that go against their interests.

So instead of limiting review time and providing businesses with more
certainty of how EPA regulations will affect their projects, the
underlying bill would increase delay and decrease certainty--not what
we have been trying to achieve with regulatory reform in this body up
until now. Regulatory reform isn't done through obstructing every
potential new rule. It is done, in part, by requiring agencies to
render their decisions on a schedule so that the market can move
forward. This bill would do the opposite.

My amendment will not cure all of these defects in the underlying
bill, but it makes two obvious and significant changes to promote
scientific integrity. It states simply that anyone working for a
corporation that has been convicted of a major environmental crime
should be prohibited from serving on the Science Advisory Board.

It secondly states that any person whose primary source of research
comes from these criminal corporate actors should be prohibited from
serving on the Science Advisory Board.

Mr. Speaker, for too long, we have heard that we have to choose
between supporting economic prosperity and a clean environment. The
implication is that we can't have both, but that is a false choice and
one we can't afford to make. Americans know that we deserve nothing
less than both: economic opportunity and clean air and clean water for
future generations.

My State of California added 498,000 jobs in the last year while, at
the same time, we continue to be a global leader in environmental
reforms that have provided cleaner air than at any time in the last 50
years.

I am from San Diego where scientific research, economic growth, and
environmental stewardship are not in conflict, but rather are the
subject of ongoing, sustained, bipartisan collaboration.

It should be clear to everyone that CEOs from major corporations that
are convicted of major environmental crimes have no place serving on
the Science Advisory Board and neither should biased scientists.

Vote ``yes'' on the motion, and stand with me to maintain the
integrity of the independence of the Science Advisory Board.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source