Ralph Norman

We must ensure integrity in both scientific and political processes.

Unfortunately, it seems that my Democratic colleagues are intent on politicizing scientific integrity.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

No one is proposing we eliminate those panels or the critical input they provide to the Agency.

It is clear to me that EPA leadership followed the direction of the law as they worked to restore balance to this critical committee.

Why are we limiting this hearing when so many more panels fall within the Science Committee's jurisdiction?

It is critical that we review advisory committees to ensure their alignment with the current needs and mission of each agency.

I think it's important to note that President Reagan issued a memorandum similar to this in 1985, and President Clinton issued an executive order in 1993 requiring the exact same one-third elimination as President Trump.

The purpose of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is clear: committees should be fairly balanced in expertise and points of view.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be using this opportunity as a thinly veiled cover to simply attack the EPA and this Administration's effort to improve the selection process.

Unfortunately, this hearing is less of a discussion, rather than just another example of partisan politics, unfortunately.

This is not a partisan issue. This is something all of us want, Democrats and Republicans alike.

I sincerely want to thank all the panelists, particularly ones that have, I assume, preexisting conditions, for taking the time to come here.

This is about the integrity of our Nation.

I cannot believe it is the America this Congress wishes to leave, and I cannot believe that this is the legacy that any of you want for your public service.

That being said, I look forward to a thoughtful and bipartisan discussion today of how we can improve the security of America's election systems now, and in the future.

I think broad guidelines are better, and leaving specific decisions are better in the hands of the State.

I do believe that it's important to remember the differences between different States.

To me, it appears that these election administration provisions are a Federal overreach that really encroach upon the function of State and local election administrators.

There is no doubt that there is a need for improved security of our elections - we know that at least 21 states were targeted by foreign state actors prior to the 2016 U.S. election.

The Science Committee has a crucial role to play in the consideration of any legislation that truly aims to improve the security of America's election systems.

I'm disappointed but, you know, quite frankly I'm not surprised, as this is just another in a long list of political stunts by leadership's sudden decision to move H.R. 2722.

I would be remiss today if I didn't take the opportunity to highlight how partisan politics on the part of the House Democrat leadership has once again failed to proceed through regular order.

I would just say, this is a return on investment. This is a good investment that will save this country a lot of money with its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by…

If you get a good education and you work hard, you can do a lot.