Hill Heat

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, for most of its nearly four-decade history, Americans could look to the Environmental Protection Agency for independent leadership, grounded in science and the rule of law. It was an agency whose sole mission was to protect our environment and our health.

At its founding, EPA’s first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, stated unequivocally, and I quote: “EPA is an independent agency. It has no obligation to promote agriculture or commerce; only the critical obligation to protect and enhance the environment.”

During the tenure of Administrator Stephen Johnson, we have seen that clear mission darkened by the shadowy handiwork of the Bush White House, trampling on science, ignoring the facts, flouting the law, kneeling before industry polluters, defying Congress and the courts, and all in the service of rank and venal purposes.

Under Administrator Johnson, EPA is an agency in distress, in dishonor, and in bad hands. Events last week have shed new light on the extent of the damage done to this great agency, but the evidence of Mr. Johnson’s dismal record has been growing for many months.

The charges are serious, and fall in three separate categories: his repeated decisions putting the interests of corporate polluters before science and the law, on questions critical to the protection of our environment and the health of the American people; his deliberate actions to degrade the procedures and institutional safeguards that sustain the agency; and his apparent dishonesty in testimony before Congress.

The particulars, Madam President, are these:

Count one: on pollution from ozone. The EPA under Administrator Johnson departed from the consistent recommendations of agency scientists, public health officials, and the agency’s own scientific advisory committees, and instead set an ozone standard that favored polluters.

The standard he set was inadequate to protect the public, especially children and the elderly, from the harmful effects of ozone pollution, from asthma and lung disease.

Indeed it was so inadequate that EPA’s own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) took the unique step of writing to the Administrator to state that they “do not endorse the new primary ozone standard as being sufficiently protective of the public health” and that the EPA’s decision “fail[ed] to satisfy the explicit stipulations of the Clean Air Act that you ensure an adequate margin of safety for all individuals, including sensitive populations.”

Setting this inadequate standard, against the evidence, was a dereliction of Administrator Johnson’s duty to the agency he leads, and of EPA’s duty to protect the health of the American people.

Count two: on pollution from lead. Administrator Johnson has proposed a standard that fails to sufficiently strengthen the regulation aimed at limiting exposure to lead pollution.

Lead has poisoned tens of thousands of children in Rhode Island, and many more all over the country. Both an independent scientific review panel and EPA’s own scientific staff recommended a lead standard of no greater than 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter, yet Administrator Johnson proposed a range of 0.1 to 0.5 micrograms.

Mr. Johnson further diluted even that lax standard by using what public health advocates have labeled “statistical trickery,” allowing polluters a longer period of time over which to average the amount of lead they discharge into the air.

Again, by not adequately protecting children from lead, Administrator Johnson was derelict in his duty to his agency.

Count three: on pollution from soot, technically called “particulate matter,” Administrator Johnson bowed to pressure from industry and failed to strengthen a decade-old standard limiting particulate matter pollution from smokestacks.

Again, the agency’s own scientific advisory committees had called for a tougher standard to protect public health. Again, Administrator Johnson yielded to polluters. Again, Administrator Johnson failed in his duty to the agency he leads.

Count four: on vehicle tailpipe emissions, Administrator Johnson denied a waiver that would have allowed the state of California, my state of Rhode Island, and many other states to enact strict restrictions on global warming pollution from automobiles.

EPA staff indicated in briefing materials that “we don’t believe there are any good arguments against granting the waiver.” EPA lawyers cautioned that all of the arguments against granting the waiver were “likely to lose in court.” Yet Administrator Johnson issued an unprecedented denial of the waiver.

I will separately discuss my grave concerns about the Administrator’s testimony on this matter (I believe he has lied to us), but for this purpose now, looking only at the substantive outcome, in ignoring the law, the dictates of science, the recommendations of his regulatory and legal staff, the role of Congress, the wishes of the states, and the welfare of the American people, Administrator Johnson failed again in his duty to the agency he leads.

Count five: on global warming pollution, in defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. E.P.A., Administrator Johnson has failed to take action after the Court’s ruling that EPA has the authority, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that pollute our air.

It is now nearly 18 months since the Court’s decision, and the EPA has shown no indication it will act before President Bush leaves office. In ignoring a ruling of this nation’s highest court empowering him to act on a matter important to the public health of Americans, Administrator Johnson again failed in his duty to the agency he leads.

But it was not enough for Administrator Johnson to rule for the polluters on pollutant after pollutant.

Administrator Johnson has also systematically dismantled institutional safeguards and processes that protect his agency’s integrity and guide its mission.

Jonathan Cannon, who served at EPA during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton administrations, warns of “extreme friction within the agency and institutional damage … demoralizing the legal staff, and … further separating staff from the political leadership at the agency.” We saw similar sabotage of institutional safeguards in the Gonzales Department of Justice, and this institutional damage raises four further charges:

Count six: on the question of the Agency’s legal integrity, under Administrator Johnson, the EPA offered legal arguments for its insufficient standards so shallow they provoked ridicule by the courts that heard them. When EPA tried to defend its weak mercury “cap and trade” system, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals – hardly a liberal bench – accused the agency of employing the “logic of the Queen of Hearts” in attempting to evade the intent of Congress and the clear meaning of the Clean Air Act.

The same court said EPA’s argument under the Clean Air Act allowing power companies to avoid upgrading their pollution control technologies made sense only in “a Humpty Dumpty world.” In adopting Wonderland legal analysis that contravenes the clear will of Congress and embarrasses his agency before the courts, Administrator Johnson failed in his duty to uphold the mission of the agency he leads.

Count seven: on the integrity of EPA’s scientific advisory boards, Administrator Johnson did not just ignore their recommendations. He willingly allowed those panels to be infiltrated by the very industries they are meant to regulate and control.

For example, an employee of Exxon Mobil served on the panel to assess the carcinogenicity of ethyl oxide – a chemical manufactured by Exxon Mobil.

Another scientist received research support from Dow Agro and served on that panel, even though ethyl oxide is also manufactured by Dow Agro.

A scientist whose research was funded by American Cyanamid and CYTEC sits on the EPA panel on acrylamide – which is manufactured by American Cyanamid and marketed by CYTEC. EPA didn’t see any conflict of interest.

By way of contrast, at the beck and call of the American Chemistry Council, an industry lobby group, Administrator Johnson removed Dr. Deborah Rice, a prominent toxicologist, from a scientific review board investigating chemicals used in common plastic goods.

The industry argued that she had a conflict of interest. Incredibly, the conflict of interest was that, at a public hearing in Maine as a representative of the state’s government, she had stated her professional opinion regarding the dangers associated with these chemicals, and the industry didn’t like her professional opinion.

Not only was Dr. Rice removed, but in a particularly Orwellian maneuver, the fact that she had ever been on the panel was stricken from the advisory committee’s records.

In packing EPA’s scientific panels to please industry polluters, Administrator Johnson is guilty of a particularly chilling dereliction of his duty to the agency he leads.

Count eight: a report issued on April 23 by the Union of Concerned Scientists, entitled “Interference at the EPA,” uncovered widespread political influence in EPA decisions. The report found that 60 percent of EPA career scientists surveyed had personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years.

The report documented, among other things, that many EPA scientists have been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter information from EPA science documents, or have had their work edited in a manner that resulted in changes to their scientific findings.

The survey also revealed that EPA scientists have often objected to, or resigned or removed themselves from, EPA projects because of pressure to change scientific findings.

Allowing this corrosive political influence to persist among the career scientists at EPA is yet another dereliction of Administrator Johnson’s duty to the agency he leads.

Count nine: Administrator Johnson has twisted the very administrative procedures of EPA, to allow the White House Office of Management and Budget secret influence over agency decisionmaking.

For example, the IRIS process for determining the toxicity of chemicals allows OMB three separate chances to exert its dark influence, at the beginning, in the middle, and again at the end. In the words of the GAO, this process is “inconsistent with the principle of sound science that relies on, among other things, transparency.”

This is not just a potential concern. The current chair of EPA’s clean air scientific advisory panel has testified that the ozone standard was “[set]…by fiat behind closed doors,” that the entire agency scientific process was “for naught,” that “the OMB and the White House set the standard, even though theoretically it was set by the EPA Administrator,” and that as a result, “Willful ignorance triumphed over sound science.” That is her testimony.

In manipulating his agency processes to let willful ignorance triumph over sound science, Administrator Johnson has again been derelict in his duties to this once-proud agency.

The third and final category of charges relates to Johnson’s relationship to Congress. In defiance of his charge under the Constitution of the United States, Administrator Johnson has personally and repeatedly refused to cooperate with Congress in our efforts to conduct proper oversight of the executive branch.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has repeatedly requested documents in connection with EPA’s denial of the California waiver and its failure adequately to regulate ozone pollution, in an effort to determine whether the White House improperly influenced these decisions.

Administrator Johnson has rebuffed these requests. He has repeatedly declined to appear before the EPW Committee to explain his agency’s policies, and when he has appeared, he has resorted to canned, stock, evasive answers in response to legitimate questions about political influence infiltrating his agency.

Just last week, he refused to appear before the Judiciary Committee, on which I also serve, for a hearing to look further into his failure to cooperate with Congress and provide documents and other information we have sought.

And in what is perhaps the gravest matter of all, I believe the Administrator deliberately and repeatedly lied to Congress, creating a false picture of the process that led to EPA’s denial of the California waiver, in order to obscure the role of the White House in influencing his decision.

Today, Senator Boxer and I have sent a letter to Attorney General Mukasey, asking him to investigate whether Administrator Johnson gave false and misleading statements, whether he lied to Congress, whether he committed perjury, and whether he obstructed Congress’s investigation into the process that led to the denial of the California waiver request. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and its attached recitation be made part of the record as an exhibit to these remarks.

Madam President, there is more. These are not isolated counts, but signs of an agency corrupted in every place the shadowy influence of the Bush White House can reach.

Administrator Johnson forced the resignation of EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Midwest, Mary Gade, who was locked in a struggle with corporate polluter Dow Chemical Co. The circumstances are highly suspicious. Now, Administrator Johnson has replaced Ms. Gade with a former attorney for the automobile industry, whose record on behalf of the environment has been described as “horrible.”

The EPA under Administrator Johnson has reduced the reporting burdens on industries that release toxic chemicals into our land, sea and air.

It has weakened enforcement and monitoring by opening fewer criminal investigations, filing fewer lawsuits, and levying fewer fines against corporate polluters.

It has failed to protect agency employees who pointed out problems, reported legal violations, or attempted to correct factual misrepresentations made by their superiors, and has fostered an atmosphere where agency scientists fear reprisals.

And in the face of widespread criticism that his agency is in crisis, and that he is a pawn of the White House and its allies in polluting industries, Administrator Johnson’s only response is to label those concerned – many of whom are dedicated career employees of his agency – as “yammering critics.” A man after Spiro Agnew’s own heart.

The EPA has a vital mission. When this great agency is weakened and its work subverted by political interference, there is a great cost to this country.

When EPA scientists and career employees become discouraged as their voices go unheard, there is a great cost to our country.

When the people of America lose faith that the Environmental Protection Agency can live up to its name, there is a great cost to our country.

And when those who were chosen to serve this country instead serve themselves, their political allies, and their patrons, there is a great and lasting cost to this country. It is a failure of integrity, and that is a failure we can no longer afford.

We demand integrity – democracy demands integrity – of our public officials, not just because integrity is an abstract moral good, but because democracy fails without it.

Integrity sustains our democracy in at least three ways.

The first is integrity to the truth. In government, when the facts are clear enough for responsible people to act, it is a failure of integrity to fail to confront those facts. As the late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, famously said, “You are entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts.”

America has traditionally been characterized by candid and practical assessment of the facts, a can-do attitude about responding to those facts, and bold decision-making to find our way through those facts. Practical, can-do, optimistic, realistic – that’s the American way.

When government doesn’t face the truth about the facts, it will almost certainly fail to meet the demands of the moment and fail to serve the interests of our people. That is what is happening now at EPA. They simply won’t face facts plain to any responsible person.

But facts are stubborn things. They do not yield to ideology or influence. They do not care about your politics. Unanswered, they stand, getting worse, and eventually the piper must be paid.

If facts aren’t candidly, realistically, and responsibly faced, not only will the problem get worse, but the very capacity of government to address problems candidly, realistically, and responsibly will itself degrade when not put to use. So there are ugly, lasting consequences when government officials fail at their obligation to meet the truth head on.

Another integrity is to honesty. As failures of truth have a harsh cost in government, so do failures in honesty.

I have sworn in new Assistant United States Attorneys. I have sworn in new state Assistant Attorneys General. I have presided at nomination hearings.

Every time, I have seen the same thing – a little spark of fire; a moral fire sparked when someone makes a choice to earn less money than they could otherwise, to work a lot harder than they would otherwise, to dare greater challenges than they might otherwise, all in order to serve a larger purpose, to serve an ideal, to serve America.

This spark of fire inspires young men and women to tackle problems that may seem unmanageable. This spark of fire keeps people at their desks late into the night when others have gone home to their families. This spark of fire brings idealism and principle to decisions, and illuminates a moral path in the complexities of government.

The value in government of that spark of fire, burning in the hearts of a thousand men and women – our real thousand points of light – is immeasurable. EPA is sustained by that spark of fire.

But this spark of fire is quenched in the toxic atmosphere of dishonesty when guiding principles are “help your friends,” “please your patron,” “dodge your responsibilities,” and “fudge the truth.” Dishonesty and idealism do not cohabit.

The third integrity is competence. This is a vital integrity. If we are to address the present and looming problems a new administration will have to solve—a war without end in Iraq, an economy in a sickening slide, a broken health care system, a country divided into two increasingly separate Americas, a public education system that is failing, the dangerous weight of an alarming national debt, foreign policies that have unhinged us from responsible world opinion, bickering and irresolution on problems like immigration and global warming – we must see competence as a core integrity.

We must demand competence of government officials as a bare minimum, a core necessity. Unfortunately, as one discouraged official has complained, “In the Bush administration, loyalty is the new competence.”

Madam President, Administrator Stephen Johnson is a failure in all these dimensions.

From everything we have seen, Administrator Johnson has done the bidding of the Bush Administration and its political allies without hesitation or question.

He has tried to cover up his dereliction of duty with evasive and discreditable testimony; he has acted without regard for the law or the determinations of the courts; he has damaged the mission, the morale, and the integrity of his great department; and he has betrayed his solemn duty to Americans who depend on him to protect their health, particularly our very youngest and our very oldest, those whose vulnerability is greatest.

Administrator Johnson suggests a man who has every intention of driving his agency onto the rocks, of undermining and despoiling it, of leaving America’s environment and America’s people without an honest advocate in their federal government.

This behavior not only degrades his once-great agency – it drives the dagger of dishonesty deep in the very vitals of American democracy.

The American people cannot accept such a person in a position of such great responsibility. I am sorry it has come to this, but I call on Administrator Johnson to resign his position.

I yield the floor.

2:06 The chair recognizes Dana Rohrabacher.

Rohrabacher: If ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. There is ample evidence of prominent scientists complaining that they have not been able to get grants if they question the quote global warming consensus.

What I see happening more and more in the debate over global warming is people not answering the questions from prominent scientists – there are hundreds on my website – there is a dismissal of the public debate. That is about as arrogant and anti-scientific as there is.

There have been consensuses in the past that have been dead wrong, and one or two scientists that haven’t been getting the grants that advance the science.

What people are doing. Just challenge who’s paying for your research. (He accidentally started to say “illegal immigration” instead of “global warming”.)

100 times more funding on the pro-global warming side than on those people trying to disprove that theory.

I’ve been hearing about the consensus for ten years even as I hear more and more about people getting cut out. These are not people, these are people who are the heads of scientific departments. The head of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute. People are influenced by the lure of getting government grants.

This hearing is looking in the wrong direction for scientists pressured to do the wrong thing.

2:12 Gordon: I know that gravity and global warming are pretty well established. There’s 100% certainty there is global warming. It seems there’s a new industry in town to create doubt where there is none to provide a hook for special interests.

2:13 Baird I have concerns about the possible misuse of science on all sides. I’ve seen industry hire hired guns and I’ve seen environmental groups do the same. As a scientist myself, I take this very seriously.

2:14: The chair introduces the panel.

2:16 Sheldon Rampton The power that science wields in modern society is that is able to create knowledge as reliable as any human endeavor. Its prestige makes it an attractive target, however. Advertising, public relations, and lobbying form what should be called a modern propaganda industry.

PR firms use a “third party” technique. The client is the first party, the audience the second party. It helps to use a third party that seems independent. “Put your words in someone else’s mouth.” Scientists, doctors are very useful third party spokesmen. In public policy debates it can be used to minimize or exaggerate dangers.

The tobacco industry is well known for its manipulation of science. The first clear link between smoking and lung cancer was found in the 1950s. A few years ago documents showed a campaign to plant letters in scientific journals, paying scientists to put their names on the letters. The industry’s law firms did the actual drafting of the letters.

As the WSJ reported, many of the articles under the byline of prominent academics are written by drug company ghostwriters.

Area after area: Air quality, water quality, product safety, nutrition. The manipulation of science inevitably has a corrupting influence on science itself.

McCarthy I was the co-chair of IPCC Working Group 2 in 2001; the president-elect of the AAAS, on the board of UCS, the Alexander Agassi professor at Harvard University. I will show how Exxon-funded efforts have distorted the record on climate change.

In 2005 the academies of science in the G8 plus China, India, and Brazil put out a statement: The science of climate change is now clear enough that nations should take immediate action.

How is then that the non-scientific organizations and a few individuals are able to cast doubt?

Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air documents how Exxon has adopted the tobacco industry’s tactics and some of the same organizations and people to confuse the public on global warming science.

Atmosphere of Pressure shows how federal scientists have felt the pressure of political interference.

I congratulate the House for passing legislation to extend whistleblower protections to scientists. Scientists should not be subject to undue restrictions on media access.

Congress needs to recognize Exxon-Mobil’s disinformation campaign for what it is and avoid being influenced by the protestations of a few individuals funded by the campaign.

2:30 Maassarani As lead investigator I conducted more than 40 interviews with scientists and officials, and reviewed 1000s of FOIA documents, and more than 100 published articles and Congressional documents. The control restricted interviews and press releases. A NOAA scientist complained that media requests dropped from 2-3 a week to 2-3 a month. A NASA scientist’s release was edited to minimize its impact. Some scientists have given up trying to issue press releases or have media contacts.

Restrictive policies and practices are characterized by inconsistencies on criteria and who is responsible. Directives, off the record, are enforced by low-level political appointees.

Their effect has been to misrepresent and underrepresent knowledge of federal climate change scientists.

GAP asks Congress to strengthen its oversight functions to ensure that independent science is the basis of policy making.

2:35 Kueter He talks very fast. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions. Discussing these different interpretations is not confusing the public. There’s a group of people wearing Exxpose Exxon shirts behind him. Conclusions drawn from incomplete science represent personal preference. The media’s role is to report, not to judge. Claims that this confuses rather than informs presupposes a foresight that does not exist.

Dr. Happer when in the Clinton-Gore administration questioned the VP’s position on global warming and the ozone layer and was summarily dismissed.

Our opinions long predate any support of corporations.

The UCS report single us out for close scrutiny. It fails to challenge the substance our work. The pursuit of federal funding can create pressure to conform to current beliefs.

Whose work is funded is less relevant than the quality of their work.

2:41 Miller Rampton, is this campaign what you’re talking about?

Rampton Exxon-Mobil is just one company. In the 1990s, the coal/gas industry created Information Council for the Environment’s goal was to reposition global warming as theory, not fact. They reuse the same scientists and people to make there seem as if there’s a huge amount of debate when there’s not.

2:43 Miller Scientists think truth exists and it’s their job to find it. PR people think truth may be created or at least shaped. Could you describe what the harm is in thinking that way?

McCarthy Truth is not a certainty. If anyone alleges we know the details of climate change with any certainty, we should question that. The representation of a contrary view, especially those supported by industry, have represented as facts information that are not part of the scientific record.

2:44 Miller A joke is that administrators hate having scientists on faculty panels because when you change the information they change their positions.

McCarthy If you go back 20 years ago or so it was difficult to find a consensus that the globe was warming; 10 years later it was hard to find statements that people were definitively causing it. If anyone could find the consensus wrong you’d have Nobel Prizes all over the place.

2:46 Miller How well does Rampton’s model fit what you found in your report?

Maasarani Rampton described one end of the construction of the debate. What we have in the government is the deconstruction of statements of the mainstream scientists.

2:48 Rohrabacher When I made a joke about dinosaur farts it was presented as my opinion. It shows you how dishonest this debate has come. When we talk about this “consensus” this is what I’m talking about.

Let me note I have a few statements. The Dutch Meteorological guy. Richard Lindzen. Antonio Esperenza lost their funding.

William Happer (he’s pronouncing it “Harper”) was fired by Al Gore because he was skeptical of the global warming theory.

Timothy Ball. “It’s one of the greatest deceptions in the history of science.”

William Grey. “I had NOAA money for 30 years. When Gore started directing some of the environmental stuff, I couldn’t get any money.”

These are examples of the suppression.

There are hundreds of such scientists. They’re getting cut off from their research. Yet we’re complaining about someone’s press release being edited.

Nobody suggests there isn’t some kind of warming going on in the planet. There has been a change. That’s because over a 150 years there’s been a one degree change in the temperature. They had started that change at the end of the mini-Ice Age. We have had many many changes in the temperature of the earth. Those cycles were caused by solar activity, probably the same one going on right now. Probably as important, if not more important, than human activity.

Why is the temperature going up on Mars? Is that because of all the human-like activity going on in Mars? I don’t think so.

I consider myself open-minded on this. I’m never going to tell someone I’m not going to listen to someone’s arguments. We have blaming Exxon for it. I applaud the young people wearing their t-shirts for participating. There are a lot of interest groups that manipulate people. I think it’s good for the debate.

2:56 Baird This is not just about climate change. I believe the evidence about climate change is quite compelling. It’s reall about the distortion of science. I believe this administration has put undue stress on federal agencies. I share the broad concern about the distortion of scientific policy. Reproductive health, federal advisory committees.

Mr. Rampton, your points about the power given to scientists cut both ways.

Are there standards in the scientific community about one must do before signing on to a public letter? Can someone just sign on?

2:59 Rampton Essentially no.

Baird Are you equally concerned by people signing on to either side of the issue?

Rampton I think scientists have every right to talk about whatever they want. I think scientists think because they are expert in a field they think they can speak with equal authority on other issues.

3:01 Baird I think Science Magazine rushed articles to press to influence public policy.

3:02 McCarthy The AAAS should always be concerned by their reputation. Three years ago the UCS first becoming aware of the abuses of our federal agencies first issued a report. The Union worked a great deal to make sure was a very crisp document. The first sixty people were not just random people. Winners of the the National Medal of Science, former presidential advisors, heads of major research institutions. Noone said “I won’t sign it” because it was wrong. It was vetted very carefully.

Any effort to rush something without the process with the scientific body would be irresponsible.

Baird When your report came out we held rump hearings because the chairman would not let us hold hearings.

3:05 Rothman What do you recommend to prevent the abuse of federal scientists by the government?

Kueter Transparency. Require that peer-reviewed studies have data archived for scrutiny by independent researchers. Use devil’s advocates that don’t necessarily agree with the consensus on an issue.

Rothman I’m more concerned about the twisting or censoring of scientific opinion.

Maasarani We have an extensive list of recommendations. Clear and transparent media policies that can require prior notifications but that eliminates the need for required pre-approval, routing, drafting of anticipated questions and answers, and to reaffirm the personal views exception.

McCarthy I congratulated Congress on the whistleblower act. Scientists should be able to reject a document that changes the meaning of their intent.

Rampton Medical journals have dealt with a fairly similar problem. Whatever a scientist finds they should be able to publish or announce their findings regardless of what is found.

3:11 Miller The tobacco industry knew before federal researchers the adverse effects of smoking. A month ago William Brennan testified the Bush Administration accepted the AAS finding and the IPCC report. What are we to believe?

Maasarani It’s going to be more and more difficult to hold the position the Bush administration held earlier. Perhaps that’s what you’re getting at here.

McCarthy It is a puzzle. In the spring of 2001 when Bush announced he would no longer honor his campaign announcement to regulate carbon it came just after the third report of the IPCC and asked the AAAS to look at the report. The US delegation to the IPCC is formed by the State Department. Even though things are being said, at the level the work was being done there’s a different story.

3:16 Rohrabacher The GAP report while it has the innuendoes we have heard today lacks specific charges. We can make innuendoes all we want and we can ignore the things that are very blatant on the other side of the aisle.

For example, James Hansen, Mr. Hansen complained his press releases were being manipulated. Last week in a Senate hearing he acknowledged he had been interviewed 14,000 times on global warming. Maybe it was 1000 times. This is what I saw in the press. That doesn’t indicate there’s some suppression going on. There’s some guy who thinks his opinions are more important than anyone else’s, who thinks he’s speaking for NASA.

I’d like to remind everybody when people don’t have the right kind of science to back things up. The first incident I had like this 19 years ago Al Gore sat right there. He demanded the president declare an ozone emergency. Guess what. A week later they found out it was a misreading of instruments from a Piper Cub airplane.

I’ll end it with a question. Are there or are there not, you keep mentioning the consensus, there’s warming on Mars, instead of confronting arguments, do you agree there are a significant number of scientists who are not part of the consensus?

Miller: We are gloriously past the time, but a brief answer.

McCarthy: There is a range of views on these issues. The IPCC is a very conservative process. Could it be the sun? You can ask that question. The solar variability as best estimated is about 1/10th the 2 watts per square meter of insulation we’ve accumulated. So there’s no paper. That’s the way the science proceeds. If anyone could find such solar variability that would be included.

Kueter: I point to the uncertainties in the IPCC reports. That should be the issue.

Maasarani: I’d like to correct some misstatements. Press releases were edited to downplay science. 14,000 interviews was a misstatement. That was 14,000 google hits. We’ve seen these problems emerging in the recent past. We believe that one incident of political manipulation of science is unacceptable.

3:26 Miller: Rohrabacher pointed out gaps in the report. I was impressed how far you could get with FOIA.

Maasarani: NASA got back to us with their media policy and that’s it. EPA was nonresponsive. It’s beyond me how they would have no responsive documents. NOAA: we had scientists give us documents directly that they sent up to the FOIA response that never got to us.

3:29 Baird: Two ethical questions. I used to teach a statistics and methods of science, and history of science course. If a scientist secretly submits research, should a supervisor be restricted by the law from blocking that?

3:32 Rohrabacher: I was a professional journalist.

3:33 Baird:* What if the supervisor says it can’t go through?

Rohrabacher: I think it should all be open.

Rothman: It’s Dr. Baird’s time.

Baird: I’m aware of cases where scientists could not put their name on a study. Now the converse, if a supervisor recognizes flaws in a study.

McCarthy: It’s not unusual for scientists to have their reports reviewed in house. There are corrective measures.

Baird: Once the study is published it gets printed thousands of times.

3:37 Rothman: Can the panel give me at least three examples of problems that have taken place in this administration?

Maasarani: A confidential source positioned in the public affairs office. This person was told “You make him be quiet, stop him from speaking to the public.” This person was summoned to the politically appointed supervisor’s office.

McCarthy: 21% of respondents experienced pressure to drop “climate change” or similar words. 58% personally experienced interference at least once in the last 5 years.

Kueter: We haven’t analyzed this administration.

Rothman: You’re more of a historian, then.

Kueter: I’m a public policy analyst. This book does take a historical look.

3:42 Rohrabacher: I’m dismayed you couldn’t come up with any examples. Give me names. Give me the examples. Give me three examples. Send them to my office.

Rothman Do you deny the results of the UCS report?

Rohrabacher: I do. When you ask scientists, do you want a higher budget for global warming? Sure, I think it’s really discriminatory against our group of people that there isn’t a higher budget.

I would never suggest we overlook suppression by this administration. If you have evidence specifically.

Maasarani They’re unnamed for a reason.

Rohrabacher There would be someone who would be willing to say something now. There’s always someone willing to say something anonymously.

Maasarani Tom Knudsen has had media requests denied. Weatherall has had press releases squashed.

Rohrabacher: They were denied press release? That’s not suppression at all.

Maasarani: They were press releases announcing important research.

Rohrabacher: Important research according to that researcher.

Maasarani: These were announcing publications of peer-reviewed research.

Rohrabacher: You’re ignoring that the lead scientist from the Department of Energy was sacked by Al Gore.

3:49 McCarthy We’re talking about much more than squashing of press releases. To make references that someone fired years ago, or a Dutch or Italian scientist didn’t get their funding. My last four funding proposals were denied. I’m not claiming there’s some kind of political process. I can’t think of any time there was any policy by a foundation that this is the kind of research we should be supporting. Scientists don’t get research trying to prove something.

Rothman: Is there any evidence there was a conspiracy or effort at the highest levels of the administration to censor work?

Maasarani: It depends how do you define a conspiracy. White House offices are sending these signals through political appointees. In some clear instances to suppress communications by scientists. I’m not prepared to call this a conspiracy. Certainly there’s something going on.

Kueter: Your colleages posted the deposition of Phil Cooney. I suggest you take the time to read that document. Quite plainly the coordination doesn’t exist.

Rothman: Do you have any reason to question the statements of the other panelists?

Kueter: I have not reviewed their reports for that purpose.

3:54 Rothman: I look forward to looking at your recommendations. The hearing is adjourned.