GovernmentExecutive.com

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee launched into its oversight role Tuesday with a hearing on potential administration interference in communicating the results of federal scientific work.

The hearing - the committee's first in this session of Congress -- focused largely on a bipartisan investigation into allegations that the White House Council on Environmental Quality has suppressed the findings of government climate scientists. Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Tom Davis, R-Va., now the chairman and ranking member respectively, initiated the review during the last Congress.

The investigation focused in part on records surrounding a 2003 Environmental Protection Agency report, and how the draft report was edited by the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. The committee sought those materials in July 2006 under federal sunshine laws, Waxman said. Most records have not been provided to the committee, he said, but staffers were given the chance to view some of the materials without retaining copies.

Waxman reported that according to staffers' notes, the White House made numerous, significant edits to the EPA document. Officials from the president's Office of Science and Technology Policy suggested that a discussion of human health and ecological impacts of climate change be deleted, he said, and OMB officials urged that EPA add "balance" to the climate section, prompting that "global climate change has beneficial effects as well as adverse impacts."

Phillip Cooney, who was chief of staff at the president's Council on Environmental Quality when the report was prepared and previously had been a petroleum lobbyist, softened language on the consequences of climate change, the staffers told Waxman, and deleted a reference to a National Research Council finding that human activities are causing global temperatures to rise.

EPA officials eventually determined that they had three options on how to handle the White House edits, according to committee staffers. First, EPA could accept all the edits and risk facing "severe criticism from the science and environmental community for poorly representing the science." Officials noted that the edited version of the report "provide[d] specific text to attack" and could have resulted in prolonged criticism of the agency.

The second option was to cut the climate change section out of the report, which would have exposed the agency to criticism as well. Third, they said, the administrator could have fought the White House direction that no further changes would be considered and tried to find compromise language.

Officials ultimately decided to take the second path, removing the climate change discussion entirely, Waxman said. No administration officials testified at the hearing.

During the hearing, lawmakers also focused on testimony by Drew Shindell, a climate researcher with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies who said political interference had hindered the communication of his findings, and Rick Piltz, a former senior associate with the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, who resigned in protest in 2005 after 10 years working on government climate change research.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said the political censorship of scientific results represented a waste of taxpayer dollars. "We as a nation invest millions of dollars every year in science ... and that's why it's essential" that taxpayers have full access to the results of that research, he said.

Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of the Scientific Integrity Program for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy group, presented the results of a survey of 1,630 top climate scientists at seven agencies responsible for most federal climate research: NASA; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; EPA; the Energy, Defense and Agriculture departments; and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Of the 279 federal scientists who responded, 73 percent said they perceived inappropriate interference with climate science research in the past five years, while 58 percent said they had personally experienced such interference and 43 percent said they perceived or had experienced changes to documents that altered the meaning of scientific findings.

Numerous lawmakers expressed concern over the data and emphasized that scientific research should be independent of political influences.

Some also extended their concern to non-climate issues. Van Hollen, who represents the district where the National Institutes of Health is located, said a researcher with the National Institute of Mental Health had been denied permission to testify at a hearing shortly before it was held. Rep. Christopher Murphy, D-Conn., raised concerns that Food and Drug Administration scientists had been subject to interference based on commercial interests in the products being regulated.

The Union of Concerned Scientists issued its survey results as part of a report, prepared along with the Government Accountability Project watchdog group, on political interference in federal climate science. The report also included a model media policy, based partly on policies published by NASA and NOAA and designed to alleviate concerns about censorship and scientific suppression.

The model policy would assure scientists and other employees the right to speak in a personal capacity so long as they clearly indicate that they are not representing the agency, and make "reasonable use of agency time and resources ... comparable with what would be allowed on other personal matters."

The model policy also would allow staff to meet with the media without a public affairs officer present, as long as the meeting is later described to appropriate officials, and would allow scientists to review materials developed by public affairs officials to ensure scientific accuracy.

COMMENTS

• Not claiming to be a political pundit, I must admit I herald from the days of “Kennedy’s Camelot,” always hoping for a “kinder and gentler world.” Even so, I also admit to a more pragmatic outlook; I am from Missouri and often ask to be shown proof, facts, and figures. So, despite my personal beliefs (I try to avoid the terms “rants and raves”), I did read State of Fear. And I must admit I did appreciate Michael's “facts.” I checked into a number of his assertions and assumptions, and felt he had a case for consideration. But I must also admit that even academia has its agendas. So saying, I acknowledge being a fence rider on the issue of human influence in global warming. Yes, the fact of global warming is acknowledged by everyone, but many still avoid admitting man’s own hand in the mix. From the vanishing of the mammoth to the melting of the polar ice, the questions are “How much is our fault?,” “What will happen?,” and "What must we do?" But as the doctors have proclaimed, “First, do no harm.” I believe that our government must stand as a leader; despite their obvious tendency to yield to the loudest special interest groups. And the criticality of that second question should indicate we must error on the side of caution. I am not wise enough to balance foreign and domestic policies, but I know I would like my children’s children to be able to walk with their faces in the sun. I ask again, “Big Brother,” do not shield me from the facts. Please, let me even know the questions. Tip off. GovExec.com reader Posted February 5, 2007 10:26 AM
• The only "experts in the field" that Bush is interested in hearing from are those in the oil field. Of course, they aren't going to do anything that would take money from their pockets, like research for alternate energy sources. Why do you think war profiteering is all the rage with these folks? They don't care about the environment because they can afford to live anywhere and move anytime. They never suffer the consequences of their actions. And, if anyone trusts the government to regulate the safety of a nuclear power plant, given the mess they've made of this world already, I hope you have a good supply of 7 billion SFP sun block. GovExec.com reader Posted February 2, 2007 10:12 AM
• Tip, If you need and want the "real" scoop you need to look outside of government! Government is only interested in two things - get re-elected and get more money! They are destroying the American economy in this effort and no one is looking at the results. Global warming has been around for decades and there has been plenty of supporting work to foster the concept but the science on the topic is faulty at best and out right bias. I believe there is global warming but where are the Congressional laws to get nuclear power started - if we start today it will take about ten years to get a plant online! Nuclear power would eliminate air pollution (increase radioactive pollution) and reduce our need for oil. Likewise, were are the Congressional laws that mandate autos average 30 mpg or do not sell in the USA? Cannot do this because it would get rid of the rich peoples SUVs except for the foreign hybrids that already get that mileage. Congress is yelling foul but they are not doing anything either other than what gets them re-elected and provides more money for their friends. taxpayer Posted February 2, 2007 7:04 AM