Steven Holt: “I thank my good friend from Oregon. I rise in opposition to this legislation, H.R. 1422, as yet another attempt to gut…”

“I thank my good friend from Oregon. I rise in opposition to this legislation, H.R. 1422, as yet another attempt to gut the EPA and to reform it into an advocate for industry. Now, the proponents make claims that sound noble and virtuous, like increasing transparency and participation. But make no mistake: the bill is simply a way to increase the role and influence of special interests, to tip the scales in favor of these special interests, and to decrease actual scientific input into the EPA decisions and rulemaking. Let me try to explain what is wrong here. Take, for example, the section in this bill that limits participation of board members who have relevant expertise. Now, EPA has an advisory board whose job it is to review scientific and technical information being used as a basis for agency regulations. However, section 2 of this bill states: ``Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work.'' Now, what does that worthy-sounding clause mean? Here is how it has been explained to me. If the EPA board member is a leading scientist in a field and has published works that are well cited by other scientists and works that would be used to establish the scientific findings affecting possible regulations, that board member would be prohibited from reviewing any such materials before the board related to her or his expertise because it draws on the scientific work of that person.…”