Johnson, Eddie B REP

===

<div>promoted to primary on sci suppr</div>

<div>

---CHAIR!!!<div><div>Science, Space, and Technology — Eddie Bernice Johnson</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>In December at an American Geophysical Union meeting, a conference of top physicists, geologists, and atmospheric scientists, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) told the gathering that climate change would be front and center for the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which she will chair.</div><div>
</div><div> Gen. William Shelton, head of the U.S. Air Force Space Command, greets House Science, Space and Technology Committee ranking member Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) before a hearing on Capitol Hill, on March 19, 2013.</div><div>Gen. William Shelton, head of the US Air Force Space Command, greets House Science, Space, and Technology Committee ranking member Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) before a hearing on Capitol Hill on March 19, 2013. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</div><div>“As we look forward to next year, with a change in leadership on the Science Committee, you can expect to see a renewed focus on climate change,” Johnson said.</div><div>
</div><div>It will be a stark shift from the tenure of her predecessor, retiring Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who has denied that humans are changing the climate and spent years subpoenaing climate scientists for research documents, emails, and correspondence. Critics, including Johnson, described the subpoenas as “harassment.”</div><div>
</div><div>Come January, Johnson said the committee will instead focus more on how federal agencies under the Trump administration are handling climate science and research matters — scrutinizing, for instance, the EPA’s ousting of science advisers and its proposals to limit the kinds of research that can be used to make regulations.</div></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div><div>=</div><div>july 2016 subpoena AG Healey MA, told to stuff it many letters rank member eddie bernice j eg p c 385, 410 of 500 re exxon:</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/11/vn/exxon-first-amended-complaint-appendix.pdf">https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/11/vn/exxon-first-amended-complaint-appendix.pdf</a></div><div>=</div></div><div>=<a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/democrats-coalesce-energy-and-climate-message-ahead-2020-election" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.natlawreview.com/article/democrats-coalesce-energy-and-climate-message-ahead-2020-election</a>Democrats Coalesce on Energy and Climate Message Ahead of 2020 Election<div id="normal-wrapper" style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="view view-content-meta view-id-content_meta view-display-id-block_2 view-dom-id-7ac16b8fb35a5ead7308846172fe7174" style="width: 737.797px;"><div class="view-content"><div class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first views-row-last"><div class="views-field views-field-created">Wednesday, July 22, 2020</div></div></div></div>In recent weeks, Democrats on the campaign trail and in Congress have moved towards a consensus message on a key campaign issue heading into the 2020 elections – climate change.  Culminating with the release of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s “<a href="https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; border: none; word-break: break-word;">Plan to Build a Modern, Sustainable Infrastructure and an Equitable Clean Energy Future</a>” (the “Biden Plan”) and originating with legislation in the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, the Democrats have now released details underpinning their most ambitious plans to date to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in the U.S. economy.  These actions shed light on how a potential Biden administration – and a Democratic Congress – might govern on the issues.The former Vice President’s campaign released his clean energy plan ahead of a climate-focused speech on July 14th in Wilmington, Delaware.  Under the Biden Plan, the federal government would invest $2 trillion over Biden’s first term in office to promote American innovation and upgrade infrastructure across all sectors that contribute to global climate change, including electric power, transportation, industry, buildings, and agriculture.  Highlights of the plan include the following:Electric Power Sector:  Achieve net-zero emissions in the power sector by 2035 by implementing an Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard (EECES) for utilities and grid operators, the most ambitious target year included in any Democratic plan to date for a net-zero emissions power sector.Electric Vehicles:  Use federal government procurement power to upgrade the 3 million vehicles in the federal fleet to electric vehicles; make public investments in 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations; and, negotiate new fuel economy standards that accelerate the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles.Buildings: Cut the carbon footprint of the national building stock by 2035; set a net-zero emissions standard for all new commercial buildings by 2030; retrofit 4 million commercial buildings and weatherize 2 million homes in four years; and, create direct cash rebates and low-cost financing to upgrade and electrify home appliances.Research and Development: Create a new Advanced Research Projects Agency on Climate (ARPA-C) focused on developing innovative technologies to achieve a 100% clean energy target; investing in research to bolster clean energy supply chains; and, leverage federal procurement to create demand for clean energy inputs.Environmental Justice:  Ensure that disadvantaged communities receive 40% of overall benefits from clean energy and energy efficiency spending; create data-driven tools to identify disadvantaged communities most threatened by climate change and pollution; and, update existing federal programs to protect environmental justice communities.The plan also includes expansive support for a clean energy workforce, a longstanding Democratic priority for an industry that has seen substantial job loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, the Biden Plan does not include any explicit near- or long-term ban on the production of fossil fuels or development of fossil fuel infrastructure, including hydraulic fracturing for natural gas – a priority as Biden seeks to win support from voters in natural gas-rich Pennsylvania in November. Biden has, however, supported a ban on fracking on federal lands.  That the progressive wing of the party is largely supportive of the Biden Plan is a notable sign of the united front Democrats are attempting to present to the voting public on this issue.The Biden Plan has its roots in, and can be seen as the natural conclusion of, two years of legislative work by the Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Since retaking the chamber after the 2018 midterms, House leadership under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) directed each of the Committees of jurisdiction to develop legislation that would reduce GHG emissions within their jurisdiction in pursuit of a net-zero emission economy by 2050.  The House also created the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis which, although it would not have any legislative authority, was tasked with developing a report detailing climate change policy recommendations to Congress across all sectors of the economy.Throughout the 116th Congress, each Committee in the House has held climate change hearings, and the House has considered or advanced broad measures in service of the 2050 goal of net-zero emissions across the economy: <ul style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1.2em;"><li class="rtejustify" style="text-align: justify;">In January, the House Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled the <a href="https://www.vnf.com/house-committee-releases-framework-for-comprehensive-climate-legislation" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; border: none; word-break: break-word;">CLEAN Future Act</a>.  The bill, which is still in draft form and has not been formally introduced, would institute a national Clean Energy Standard affecting the power sector, provisions that would lead to a requirement for zero energy-ready buildings in 2030, require EPA to implement increasingly stringent GHG emissions standards for vehicles, and authorize significant funding towards clean energy and climate objectives. In 2019, Committee leadership  also introduced and passed an infrastructure package, entitled the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr2741/BILLS-116hr2741ih.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; border: none; word-break: break-word;">Leading Infrastructure For Tomorrow's (LIFT) America Act</a> (H.R. 2741), which includes substantial authorizations for clean energy infrastructure.</li><li class="rtejustify" style="text-align: justify;">The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee also advanced a climate change-focused surface transportation bill, the <a href="https://www.vnf.com/house-democrats-unveil-broad-infrastructure-legislation" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; border: none; word-break: break-word;">Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act</a>, or the “INVEST in America Act.”</li><li class="rtejustify" style="text-align: justify;">The House Ways and Means Committee introduced the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7330?s=5&r=4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; border: none; word-break: break-word;">Growing Renewable Energy and Efficiency Now (GREEN) Act</a> (H.R. 7330), which includes a broad array of tax incentives to promote the deployment of clean energy technologies and electric or alternative fuel vehicles. </li><li class="rtejustify" style="text-align: justify;">The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has developed a series of bills focused on research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of low- and zero-carbon energy technologies.  Many of these bills have already been passed out of the Committee and there remains a chance that the House considers them as a package on the floor this fall.</li></ul>Provisions from each of these bills were incorporated into the <a href="https://www.vnf.com/update-house-of-representatives-passes-sweeping-infrastructure-bill" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; border: none; word-break: break-word;">Moving Forward Act</a> (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr2/BILLS-116hr2eh.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; border: none; word-break: break-word;">H.R. 2</a>), the $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill passed by the House on July 1.  House Democrats have argued for clean energy infrastructure spending to stimulate the U.S. economy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Moving Forward Act represents the opening position of the House in the event that the Senate passes its own infrastructure legislation.Democrats on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis also released their long-awaited report, “<a href="https://climatecrisis.house.gov/sites/climatecrisis.house.gov/files/Climate%20Crisis%20Action%20Plan.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; border: none; word-break: break-word;">Solving the Climate Crisis: The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient, and Just America</a>,” on June 30.  The 547-page report details policy recommendations for Congress to address climate change across every sector of the U.S. economy, drawing significantly from the aforementioned legislative efforts along with direct input from environmental and industry stakeholders.  Its most sweeping policy recommendations on a national scale include a Clean Energy Standard (CES), a Low Carbon Fuels Standard, and a price on carbon. It also calls for historic investments in clean energy infrastructure as well as research, development and deployment of low- and zero-carbon technologies.  Like the pledges made by the Biden campaign and those in existing House legislation, the Select Committee also emphasizes environmental justice and the creation of clean energy jobs throughout its Report.<h3 class="rtejustify" style="text-align: justify; margin: 5px 0px;">Outlook</h3>The synergies that exist between the Biden Plan, legislation introduced and considered by the House of Representatives, and the Select Committee’s report are indicative of how Democrats intend to set the agenda for dramatic action on climate change in 2021. Elements of the Biden Plan are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-propose-new-draft-to-party-platform-revealing-shifts-in-focus-since-2016/2020/07/22/e9fc9062-cbbe-11ea-bc6a-6841b28d9093_story.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; border: none; word-break: break-word;">expected to be incorporated</a> in the Democratic party platform, which is being developed for ratification by the full Democratic convention next month. In particular, the House has laid out a stark contrast on energy and climate issues relative to their colleagues in the Republican-controlled Senate, where the sole broad legislative effort focused primarily on policies that support and promote research and development of energy technologies aimed at reducing emissions.  The prospects for Senate passage of that legislation are currently unclear.Of course, the fate of any of these legislative efforts is tied to Democratic successes in November, not just for the White House but also in the Senate, where a Democratic majority will be required to bring sweeping climate change legislation to the floor. Should President Trump win reelection or if Republicans maintain the Senate majority, any action on climate change will be tempered from the ambitious plans Democrats have laid out over the past two years.   Entities involved in the energy and climate space should still be aware, however, that if Democrats are indeed able to win the White House and Senate and hold on to their majority in the House, there may be significant opportunities to pursue and shape transformative, long-lasting energy and climate policies.</div>
</div><div><div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/will-house-science-panel-need-ethical-review">https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/will-house-science-panel-need-ethical-review</a></div><div>
</div><div><header class="articleheader articleheader--inline" style="box-sizing: inherit; width: 699px;"><h1 class="articleheadline" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 1.2; font-weight: 400;">Will House Science Panel Need an Ethical Review?</h1>By <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/author/kelly-servick" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Kelly Servick</a><time style="box-sizing: inherit; white-space: nowrap; border-left: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); margin-left: 7.5px; padding-left: 7.5px;">Aug. 12, 2013 , </time>
Since U.S. House of Representatives science committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2013/08/house-panel-subpoenas-epa-air-pollution-data" style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" box-sizing="box-sizing" inherit="inherit" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none">subpoenaed the Environmental Protection Agency</a> (EPA) on 1 August for data from decades-old air pollution studies, the agency has remained silent on how it will respond. But a vehement back-and-forth has filled that silence, as the panel’s top Democrat, Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), continues to spar with Smith over the move’s wisdom. Last week, the exchange included Johnson’s suggestion that the panel might need an independent oversight board to approve its use of sensitive data—and a letter from a researcher who claims Johnson defamed him during the fierce debate over the subpoena.</header><div class="articlebody" style="box-sizing: inherit; width: 699px; overflow: hidden; overflow-wrap: break-word; min-width: 0px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(230, 230, 230); margin-top: 30px; padding-top: 30px;">Smith argues that raw data from two seminal studies linking airborne soot to higher death rates—the so-called Harvard Six Cities Study and American Cancer Society research known as Cancer Prevention Study II—should be made public for reanalysis, because they underpin costly pollution regulations. But because this data contains personal health information about participants who were promised confidentiality, Johnson and fellow Democrats argue that the subpoena violates the participants’ trust.Smith has repeatedly promised that committee staff members would handle any personal health information with care. But the wording of the subpoena, which gives EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy a 19 August deadline to present the data, has Democrats uneasy. It states that the information “may be produced in a de-identified form that removes personally identifiable information,” but also demands that these data be sufficient for independent replication of the original findings. Critics of the subpoena argue that it will be impossible for independent researchers to replicate the studies with de-identified data, meaning the committee will need to get the complete raw data, including sensitive personal information.In <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/Letter.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">a letter</a> to Chairman Smith on 6 August, Johnson said the subpoena’s wording was evidence that the Republicans intend to go after data that is not fully de-identified. And that raises a new question, she wrote: Will the committee follow the same rules as federally funded research institutions entrusted with sensitive health information about human subjects? Will it, for example, establish an institutional review board (IRB) to oversee the process and ensure it meets ethical standards?In his <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/08-08-2013%20Chairman%20Smith%20Response%20to%20Ranking%20Member%20Johnson.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">8 August response</a>, Smith reiterated that any personal health information in the subpoenaed documents would be removed before third parties saw the data, but did not respond to Johnson’s IRB question. Smith also asserts that de-identification is a simple process that should cause no delay in the EPA’s response.Not everyone is so confident. Darrell West, director of the Brookings Center for Technology Innovation, notes that data collected from smaller communities, as in the Six Cities study, can be problematic, because it might be possible to reconstruct a participant’s identity even after names and addresses are removed. Others told ScienceInsider that the question of whether the science panel would need IRB approval for holding and handling any original data isn’t easy to answer, because Congress can—and often does—exempt itself from federal regulations.There’s a chance that such issues could end up being hashed out in court, if EPA resists the subpoena. West, for one, believes that if the raw Six Cities data can’t be adequately de-identified, the committee has no legal right to request them.Meanwhile, one of the researchers who says he was denied access to the American Cancer Society data has also become involved in the fray. At the 1 August committee meeting to approve the subpoena, Smith named James Enstrom, formerly an epidemiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as an example of a legitimate scientist whose request for raw data had been unfairly turned down by the society.Johnson, however, challenged Enstrom’s credentials in her 6 August letter. Enstrom, she wrote, was a longtime tobacco industry consultant who conducted industry-funded research questioning the negative health effects of secondhand smoke and was fired by UCLA in 2012.Enstrom fired back with his own letter on 8 August, writing that he wanted “to fully refute the defamatory statements about me” and asking Johnson to “immediately withdraw” her comments. He is a past user of American Cancer Society data, he wrote, and has never been a consultant to the tobacco industry, although the industry has funded his research. He also noted that he is now involved in a wrongful termination suit against UCLA, which he claims fired him in retaliation for studies that found that fine soot particles did not cause “premature deaths” in California.</div></div><div>=</div></div><div><div></div><div>sci mag 2015</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/climate-scientist-requesting-federal-investigation-feels-heat-house-republicans">https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/climate-scientist-requesting-federal-investigation-feels-heat-house-republicans</a></div><div>
</div><div>Climate scientist requesting federal investigation feels heat from House Republicans</div><header class="articleheader articleheader--inline" style="box-sizing: inherit; width: 699px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/author/warren-cornwall" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Warren Cornwall</a><time style="box-sizing: inherit; white-space: nowrap; font-weight: 400; border-left: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); margin-left: 7.5px; padding-left: 7.5px;">Oct. 5, 2015 , 3:30 PM</time></header><div class="article__body" style="box-sizing: inherit; width: 699px; overflow: hidden; overflow-wrap: break-word; min-width: 0px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(230, 230, 230); margin-top: 30px; padding-top: 30px;">A scientist who helped organize a call for a federal investigation of the fossil fuel industry—for allegedly orchestrating a cover-up of climate change dangers—has himself become the target of a congressional probe.Last week, Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the chairman of the science panel of the House of Representatives, <a href="https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/smith-taxpayer-funded-climate-org-allegedly-seeks-criminal-penalties-skeptics" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">announced plans</a> to investigate a nonprofit research group led by climate scientist Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He is the lead signer of a letter to White House officials that urges the use of an antiracketeering law to crack down on energy firms that have funded efforts to raise doubts about climate science.In a <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/10-1-15%20CLS%20to%20Shukla.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">1 October letter</a>, Smith asked Shukla, who is director of the independent <a href="http://www.iges.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES)</a> in Rockville, Maryland, to preserve all of the “email, electronic documents, and data” that the institute has created since 2009. Smith’s panel soon may be asking for those documents, the letter suggests.The flap has its origins in calls from some climate advocates for the federal government to investigate industry-funded groups that have challenged climate science.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D–RI) discussed the idea this past May in an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-campaign-to-mislead-the-american-people/2015/05/29/04a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.538em;">opinion piece</a> for The Washington Post. He noted that federal prosecutors had used the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)—originally developed to combat organized crime and corrupt unions—to sue the tobacco industry for covering up the health effects of smoking. And he suggested they could do the same to investigate fossil fuel firms that he charged were “funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.”Last month, 20 climate scientists, led by Shukla, picked up on the idea of using RICO. In a <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20150920110942/http:/www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">1 September letter</a> to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White House science adviser John Holdren, they wrote that “if corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in book and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible.”Other signers of the RICO letter include climate researchers from George Mason as well as the University of Washington, Seattle; Rutgers University in New Jersey; the University of Maryland, College Park; and Columbia University.Shukla, a professor at George Mason, is an expert in the seasonal variability of climate, as well as how land surfaces influence climate. He helped found IGES, which has housed research projects funded with grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA, according to the group’s website.The RICO letter was “inadvertently” posted on the IGES website, <a href="http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">according to a statement posted on the institute’s domain</a> (which also notes that “[a]ll projects by IGES  were  completed  in  July  2015,  and  the  IGES  web  site  is  in  the process  of  being  decommissioned”).  The letter eventually came to the attention of outsiders, including science policy specialist Roger Pielke, Jr., of the University of Colorado, Boulder. Pielke, an active voice in debates over climate science and policy, called attention to the letter on Twitter, and also raised questions about IGES’s finances. Soon, journalists, including several associated with conservative news outlets, were writing about the letter and IGES. The Daily Caller, for example, noted that “climate scientists asking Obama to prosecute skeptics got millions from U.S. taxpayers,” <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/climate-scientists-asking-obama-to-prosecute-skeptics-gets-millions-from-u-s-taxpayers/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">in a 21 September story</a>.Smith cites that story and others in his letter, which notes that “IGES appears to be almost fully funded by taxpayer money while simultaneously participating in partisan political activity by requesting a RICO investigation of companies and organizations that disagree with the Obama administration on climate change.” Smith notes his letter was prompted, in part, by the removal of the RICO letter from IGES’s website. Smith gives Shukla until 8 October to confirm that he is conforming to the letter’s request, as well as provide his committee with a list of IGES’s current and former employees.Shukla could not be reached for an interview, but in an email to ScienceInsider expressed surprise at the storm the RICO letter has caused. “We can not believe the viciousness of attacks because we signed a letter as our civic duty with the ultimate goal of repairing our planet,” he wrote.It’s not clear what exactly Smith’s committee will be investigating. A committee spokeswoman, Laura Crist, declined to say whether the panel was looking at whether public funds were misused for political purposes, or whether IGES might have violated its nonprofit status with political activity. [OMFG vs c4's?!]The committee’s ranking Democrat, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX), said in a statement to ScienceInsider that, “since the letter contains no specific allegations, I am puzzled as to the Chairman’s intent in writing it. To be clear about my own position, I would resist any attempt to stifle the constitutionally protected right of any citizen, including the nation’s scientists, to engage in free speech without interference.”The RICO letter has also drawn the attention of Christopher Horner, an attorney and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.–based libertarian think tank that has criticized climate change research. Horner recently filed public records requests with several public universities that employ authors of the RICO letter. In a letter to the University of Texas, Austin, Horner asks for any emails over a roughly 4-month period from or to Robert Dickinson, one of the letter’s signers, containing the words “‘RICO’, racketeer, racketeering, DOJ, prosecute or prosecution.”Horner has previously tangled with scientists over records requests for their emails. He was at the center of an unsuccessful effort several years ago to obtain the correspondence of climate scientist Michael Mann during his time at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.Horner says he filed the requests to see how the scientists, as employees at public universities, were involved. “If they believe this is part of their job, we will not dispute that, but instead would like to see how the institutions were used in this innovative application of public education resources,” he wrote in an email.Dickinson, a climate modeler who studies how land surfaces interact with climate, says the RICO letter isn’t seeking to squelch individuals who question the science of climate change. His intended target is corporations.“I heard energy industry scientists talking about global warming 30 years ago. And they disappeared and the lobbyists popped up,” Dickinson says. “I don’t know if anything can be done. But it seemed to me that there's been an obvious cover-up.”The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment. The RICO letter scientists did get a letter back from Holdren, who wrote that although such legal matters were up to the Justice Department, “the Administration shares the concern expressed in the letter about the seriousness of the threat posed by climate change.”</div><div></div></div>hope: blue wave --> chair, lamar is retiring
<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/house-science-chair-retire-congress">http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/house-science-chair-retire-congress</a><div>=</div><div>ref PM holocaust secert sci</div><div><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/john-walke/political-vendetta-against-health-safeguards-founded-shocking-falsehoods">
</a></div><div><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/john-walke/political-vendetta-against-health-safeguards-founded-shocking-falsehoods">https://www.nrdc.org/experts/john-walke/political-vendetta-against-health-safeguards-founded-shocking-falsehoods</a></div><div>
</div><div><header class="post-header" style="box-sizing: inherit; position: relative;"><h1 style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 1em; margin: 20px 0px;">Political Vendetta Against Health Safeguards Founded on Shocking Falsehoods</h1><div class="byline list-reset" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(225, 225, 225);">August 01, 2013 <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/john-walke" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">John Walke</a> </div></header><div class="page-node-wrap post-content" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 1024px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0px;"><div class="l-content-full-wrap" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div style="box-sizing: inherit;">Some Congressional Republicans have mounted a feverish campaign against long-established science showing a clear causal association between fine soot pollution (PM2.5) and premature death. Their all-too-transparent agenda is to attack clean air health safeguards that are projected to <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/cgi-bin/mt/(http:/www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111221MATSimpactsfs.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">save tens of thousands of lives</a> and <a href="http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/finalria.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">avoid hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and heart attacks annually</a>, while <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2013_cb/draft_2013_cost_benefit_report.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">delivering health benefits to Americans that outweigh costs to polluters by tens of billions of dollars</a>. Republicans have <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/mercury_and_toxic_pollution_ha_1.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">failed</a> in numerous <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/extreme_dirty_air_amendments_l.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">prior attempts</a> to eliminate these safeguards legislatively.So now they have revived and ramped up a political tactic from the late 1990's that already has been discredited, when Republicans and industry lobbyists unsuccessfully challenged EPA's 1997 smog and soot standards. (Query: where were Republican members of Congress with their indignation and assaults when the George W. Bush administration relied upon these same studies and science for 8 years?)Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX ) has <a href="http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/07-22-2013%20Smith%20and%20Stewart%20to%20McCarthy.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">vowed to subpoena EPA</a> to seize confidential patient data underlying a subset of the medical studies showing this soot-death linkage. Smith took to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323829104578624562008231682.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">the pages of the Wall Street Journal </a>this week to level a fusillade of charges against EPA that was as notable for its cascade of misrepresentations and omitted facts, as it was for its vehemence.In this post I will examine some of the facts you would never know from hearing just the politicized Republican view of soot pollution, as well as crucial information that these politicians are misrepresenting, selectively misquoting and ignoring.Misrepresenting the Full Body of Scientific Evidence: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323829104578624562008231682.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">Republican lawmakers pretend</a> that the massive body of scientific evidence showing a causal association between soot pollution and mortality comes down to “secret” data from just two studies. This pretense is flat out false. The most basic investigation of public resources reveals a much broader body of scientific studies examining and reaffirming the causal association between fine soot pollution and mortality. These studies post-date the so-called "<a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">Harvard Six Cities</a>" and "<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7881654" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">American Cancer Society</a>" studies, some of them independently re-analyze the studies, and they consistently find the same causal soot-mortality relationship.<ul style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 40px 20px; padding: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: none outside; line-height: 1.68em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 16px;">In revising and updating National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter, EPA devotes an entire chapter of its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) to cataloguing and reviewing updated health effects studies, and explaining how they were incorporated into the agency's 2012 standards review. See, e.g., <a href="http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/finalria.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a> (at pp. 5-7 to 5-8 listing 5 updates from the proposed 2012 RIA; fig 5-4 at p. 5-73; pp. 5-31 to 5-35).</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: none outside; line-height: 1.68em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 16px;">In 2009, Dr. C. Arden Pope published “<a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0805646#t=article" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">Fine-Particulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States</a>,” reaffirming past studies and finding “improvements in life expectancy during the 1980s and 1990s were associated with reductions in fine-particulate pollution across the study areas, even after adjustment for various socioeconomic, demographic, and proxy variables.”</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: none outside; line-height: 1.68em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 16px;">In 2013, Dr. Andrew W. Correia published “<a href="http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Abstract/2013/01000/Effect_of_Air_Pollution_Control_on_Life_Expectancy.4.aspx" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">Effect of Air Pollution Control on Life Expectancy in the United States: An Analysis of 545 U.S. Counties for the Period from 2000 to 2007</a>.” This study found increases in mean life expectancy with decreases in PM2.5 concentrations, with stronger associations “in more urban and densely populated counties.” The study concludes that “[r]eductions in PM2.5 were associated with improvements in life expectancy for the period from 2000 to 2007. Air pollution control in the last decade has continued to have a positive impact on public health.”</li></ul>I could go on and on listing individual studies. But the first bullet above contains some of those studies for readers wishing to dive deeper than Congressman Smith has.Misrepresenting Independent Scientific Reanalysis: Congressman Smith charges in his <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323829104578624562008231682.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">Wall Street Journal op-ed</a> that the data in the Harvard and American Cancer Society studies “have not been subjected to scrutiny and analysis by independent scientists.” This is an especially outrageous falsehood.In December 2012, a seminal <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61766-8/fulltext" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">report</a> [pdf] entitled the 2010 Global Burden of Disease "<a href="http://www.healtheffects.org/International/GBD-Press-Release.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">estimate[d] over 2.1 million premature deaths and 52 million years of healthy life lost in 2010 due to ambient fine particle air pollution, fully 2/3 of the burden worldwide</a>." Drawing upon a broad body of data and studies from around the world, the report examined the risks of premature mortality linked to soot pollution and independently affirmed the results of the Harvard Six Cities study. The Global Burden of Disease researchers <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61766-8/fulltext" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">found</a> significant mortality impacts from fine particulate pollution. They concluded that “[t]he magnitude of disease burden from particulate matter is substantially higher than estimated in previous comparative risk assessment analyses.”As explained in a <a href="http://www.healtheffects.org/International/GBD-Press-Release.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">release</a> by the esteemed Health Effects Institute, a contributor to the report, "[t]he 2010 [Global Burden of Disease report] was produced by a rigorous scientific process involving over 450 global experts and led by the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington along with its partner institutions: the World Health Organization, the University of Queensland, Australia, Johns Hopkins University, and Harvard University."Similarly, in July 2000, the Health Effects Institute issued a special <a href="http://pubs.healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u=274" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">report</a> entitled “Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” The explicit goal of that study was “to conduct a rigorous and independent assessment of the findings of the Six Cities and ACS Studies of air pollution and mortality.” (p.ii) To accomplish this goal, the team of researchers had “access to the original data” once they entered into contractual agreements and a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure that confidentiality was protected. (p.4). The report concluded that “reanalyses assured the quality of the original data, replicated the original results, and tested those results against alternative risk models and analytic approaches” (pp.iii-iv).(For those unfamiliar with HEI, it is "<a href="http://www.healtheffects.org/about.htm" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">a nonprofit corporation chartered in 1980 as an independent research organization to provide high-quality, impartial, and relevant science on the health effects of air pollution.</a>" Funded jointly by the federal government and industry, it is an honest broker that has garnered widespread respect for its scientific expertise, integrity and research excellence.)EPA's <a href="http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546#Download" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">Integrated Science Assessment</a> for the PM2.5 standards explained (p. 7-95) that the Harvard and ACS studies have "undergone extensive independent reanalysis," and "were based on cohorts that were broadly representative of the U.S. population." Reviewing this assessment and the broader body of epidemiological and toxicological studies, EPA's official Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fofmpub.epa.gov%2Feims%2Feimscomm.getfile%3Fp_download_id%3D508496&ei=jYr5UY6DFpP84AOB8oHQDA&usg=AFQjCNEz02Wys1Soq5yd5_P7EzQXxiXl3Q&sig2=Wxuvid5ossa1kshY-xNWGw" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">recommended</a> “'upgrading' the causal classification for PM2.5 and total mortality to 'causal' for both the short-term and long-term time frames." CASAC further found "[t]here are epidemiological studies showing a positive association of all-cause mortality with PM2.5.”A 2010 American Heart Association <a href="http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2331.full.pdf+html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">study</a>, entitled "Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease: An Update to the Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association," concluded that "intensive independent reanalyses corroborated the original findings of both [the Harvard and ACS] studies and resulted in innovative methodological contributions that demonstrated the robustness of the results to alternative modeling approaches." "Since 2004, there have been further reanalysis of both studies."So even if the entire body of soot-mortality causation evidence did rest on the solid foundation of the Harvard and American Cancer Society studies—a cramped view that is demonstrably false—those studies have been independently and repeatedly reanalyzed and reaffirmed by other peer-reviewed scientific studies and initiatives.Misrepresenting Views of the National Academy of Sciences: Congressman Smith's op-ed took further aim at the scientific data EPA has relied upon for its clean air health standards with this oblique, abbreviated <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323829104578624562008231682.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">claim</a>: "The National Academy of Sciences declared in 2004 that the data EPA is using is of 'little use for decison-making.'"This claim is immediately puzzling, since a more recent 2010 report from EPA's Science Advisory Board, which includes members of the Academy, <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/72d4efa39e48cdb28525774500738776/%24FILE/EPA-COUNCIL-10-001-unsigned.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">concludes</a> that the soot-related mortality "benefit estimates that EPA derives for [particulate matter] are based on two well-researched and highly respected cohort studies of air pollution health effects, the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Study (ACS) Cancer Prevention Study. These are good foundations for the health benefits estimates for PM and these studies are supported by other recent studies and expert evidence gathered by the EPA project team."The puzzle is cleared up by a must-read, devastating <a href="http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/07.30.2013%20-%20Letter%20from%20Ranking%20Member%20Johnson%20to%20Chairman%20Smith%20re%20EPA%20requests.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">letter </a>to Chairman Smith from Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) that I will simply quote in relevant part:<blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 40px 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;">This is a gross mis-characterization of what the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report says. What is most remarkable about this mischaracterization is that you actually provided the original NAS document in one of your previous letters which you attached to the July 22 letter. The relevant sentence you purport to paraphrase reads in full:"Although these cohorts have provided critical evidence for long-term effects, evidence from further follow-up of these two U.S. cohorts alone will have little use for decisionmaking." (emphasis added)I assume that the mis-characterization in your July 22 letter is due to a misunderstanding between a research finding and a cohort. However, if this is a case of misunderstanding then it gives me great pause in considering the prospect of you and your staff receiving the underlying data being sought.</blockquote>An especially intemperate July 22 <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/07-22-2013%20Smith%20and%20Stewart%20to%20McCarthy.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">letter</a> from Congressman Smith to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy repeats the selectively misquoted snippet above while continuing to ignore the broader body of supportive scientific studies. Then Congressman Smith's letter actually has the gall to accuse EPA of "practice[s] border[ing] on scientific misonduct" in his own missive that commits serial violations of scientific misconduct.One could also add, as amply demonstrated above, that EPA is not relying upon these two cohorts or the Harvard and ACS studies alone in the agency's decionmaking or rulemakings.Misrepresenting With Salacious “Secrecy” Charges: The Republican political campaign against clean air health standards has settled on a "secret data" talking point that owes more to an overarching, conspiratorial political narrative to characterize the current administration (think IRS, NSA) than it does to any truth. EPA has flat out rejected this secrecy charge:<blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 40px 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;">The EPA is transparent with regard to the scientific bases of agency decision making and disagrees with assessments and your assertion that the agency relies on "secret" data in regulatory actions and of health benefits. In setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)in assessing health benefits anticipated from air pollution regulations, the EPA relies on the scientific studies that are published in the peer-reviewed literature. The EPA provides the information used in regulatory decisions, including the epidemiological studies, in the publicly available docket accompanying each rulemaking.</blockquote>As EPA already has explained to Senator David Vitter (R-LA) in <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/04-10-13%20EPA%20letter%20to%20Senator%20Vitter.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">April</a> and <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/7-9-13%20EPA%20letter%20to%20Senator%20Vitter.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">July</a>, 2013 letters that Congressman Smith's office either is unaware of or ignores:<ul style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 40px 20px; padding: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: none outside; line-height: 1.68em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 16px;">"The complete, linked set of data underlying these studies is held by the scientific researchers that conducted the relevant research, not the EPA."</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: none outside; line-height: 1.68em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 16px;">"With regard to your request for the underlying raw data from the relevant studies, the EPA has requested from the relevant researchers the research data required to be provided under the Shelby Amendment, consistent with applicable protections for private medical and similar information. As indicated in the enclosed letters, this request has been made for the two remaining studies that are the subject of your request that are subject to the Shelby Amendment."</li></ul>So why is Congressman Smith preparing to subpoena data from EPA that the agency does not have; that EPA has told Congress it does not have; and that the agency has requested from the researchers that do have the data? Who knows, but it's hard not to conclude that the House GOP subpoena enterprise is politically motivated and publicity-driven.The truth is there is a basic difference between secrecy and confidential patient data subject to confidentiality agreements. The researchers and reanalysis initiatives that committed to the confidentiality policies of the relevant research institutions, as HEI and the GBD teams did, were able to access the data.Congresswoman Johnson's <a href="http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/07.30.2013%20-%20Letter%20from%20Ranking%20Member%20Johnson%20to%20Chairman%20Smith%20re%20EPA%20requests.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">letter</a> offered a searing commentary with one possible, indeed obvious, motivation behind the Republican subpoena:<blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 40px 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;">Others may suggest that these are efforts to supply outside parties with data that they otherwise could not obtain. I would also strongly object to obtaining this data for outside parties, who would not otherwise be given access to this sensitive data. That is not our job. ....I am forced to question the scientific legitimacy of groups which cannot already obtain this data. They must not be legitimate scientists or must be untrustworthy with human research subject data, or they could simply apply to the American Cancer Society directly. I certainly don't think Congress should be obtaining confidential human research data to supply to outside groups that can't pass ethical muster, and I sincerely hope that is not the goal of this endeavor. </blockquote>The Congresswoman's letter asks the simple question: "And for what purpose?"It is noteworthy that industry attorneys challenging EPA’s various ambient air quality standards have not even bothered or deigned to waste words in their legal briefs on the salacious “secret data” charge because it is demonstrably false and lacks any legal weight. These highly capable industry attorneys know that EPA has more than enough studies, data and support in the publicly available rulemaking records to justify stronger clean air standards. And they are right, with federal courts upholding every one of EPA’s air quality standards in the face of industry lawsuits.Some Congressional Republicans have chosen to manufacture a false political controversy over the clear scientific evidence, precisely because there is no serious legal or scientific dispute about the validity of the evidence.Misrepresenting White House Statements: Congressman Smith’s op-ed also <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323829104578624562008231682.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">asserts</a> that “President Obama's Office of Management and Budget recently acknowledged that ‘significant uncertainty remains’ about the EPA's claims based on its data sets, saying that the claims ‘may be misleading’ and should be treated with caution.” This misrepresentation rivals the outrageous falseness of the independent reanalysis claim.The OMB report snippets quoted in the congressman’s op-ed were not directed at the causal association between fine soot pollution and mortality found in the Harvard and American Cancer Society studies. The <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2013_cb/draft_2013_cost_benefit_report.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">passage from the OMB report</a> (p.15) makes abundantly clear that the Congressman's selectively (mis)quoted characterizations of the report concerned entirely different issues: (1) “the ranges of benefits and costs” that OMB believed should be “treated with some caution”; and (2) “aggregating high and low-estimates” of benefits and costs that could “result in totals that may be misleading.”I suspect EPA would readily admit the uncertainties associated with the ranges, high-end and low-end estimates of avoided premature deaths, along with other health endpoints and cost projections. But this is wildly different from charging that OMB agrees with contentions that the causal association between soot and death is itself uncertain or EPA’s findings are misleading. What is shockingly misleading, instead, is the way that Congressman Smith’s op-end misrepresents the OMB report.And what of uncertainty? Scientists would be the first to acknowledge that uncertainty is a perennial feature of scientific inquiry and research. A <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10511.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">2002 National Research Council report</a>, aptly entitled “Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations,” makes the following sensible points that some politicians willfully ignore:<blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 40px 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;">Even great uncertainty does not imply that action to promote or protect public health should be delayed. Decisions about whether to act, when to act, and how aggressively to act can only be made with some understanding of the likelihood and consequences of alternative courses of action. The potential for improving decisions through research must be balanced against the public health costs incurred because of a delay in the implementation of controls. Complete certainty is an unattainable ideal. (<a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10511.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">pp.126-127</a>)There is a common misperception that a high degree of certainty is required for regulatory actions to take place to protect public health. As a result, primary health benefits analyses that more fully and accurately portray the uncertainties might not be considered useful. It is unrealistic for EPA to defer decisions until it can make them on the basis of perfect science. A careful and deliberate balancing of the benefits and costs is required, and this balancing must be informed by a fair assessment of the current levels of uncertainty and a realistic evaluation of the likely reductions in uncertainty attainable through further research. (<a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10511.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">p.148</a>)</blockquote>So even the OMB report’s statements about uncertainty in benefit-cost totals and ranges must be understood in light of the NRC’s sensible commitment to public health.Misrepresenting EPA’s Responsiveness to Congress: While this is more political theatrics than scientific insult, Congressman Smith’s <a href="http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/07-22-2013%20Smith%20and%20Stewart%20to%20McCarthy.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">recent letter</a> to EPA attempts to paint the agency as unresponsive to legitimate congressional inquiries, by cataloguing a series of correspondence to which EPA allegedly has failed to respond. The problem with this, as <a href="http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/07.30.2013%20-%20Letter%20from%20Ranking%20Member%20Johnson%20to%20Chairman%20Smith%20re%20EPA%20requests.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">Congresswoman Johnson’s letter</a> points out, is that “EPA has responded on at least two occasions with detailed information pertaining to the studies you requested.” And EPA has <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/7-9-13%20EPA%20letter%20to%20Senator%20Vitter.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">responded</a> <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/04-10-13%20EPA%20letter%20to%20Senator%20Vitter.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">separately</a> to similar inquiries by Senator Vitter leading up to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s confirmation. It’s one thing if those responses have not satisfied Congressman Smith; but it just seems petty and sensationalist to imply wrongly that the agency has not responded to earlier inquiries.This is not new, this politicized campaign against clean air health safeguards founded on attacking and misrepresenting established science. As I wrote in a June 2012 <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/incredible_quotes_by_critics_a.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">blog post</a>following a House committee hearing where I testified:<blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 40px 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;">Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), while <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/04/20/174997/barton-mercury-denier/" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">noting</a> helpfully that he was not a “medical doctor,” nonetheless asserted at a congressional hearing that there was no “medical negative” to mercury and soot pollution. He went on to claim that EPA’s numbers on premature deaths that the mercury and air toxics standards helped avoid were “pulled out of the thin air.” Unsurprisingly, real doctors at the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association and American Academy of Pediatrics wrote Barton expressing that they “<a href="http://www.lung.org/get-involved/advocate/advocacy-documents/doctors-letter-to.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">were shocked at such statements</a>.” [pdf]. These actual doctors responded to Barton’s outrageous statements as “professionals that treat patients who are impacted by lung, cardiovascular and neurological impairments” linked to air pollution. These doctors “see in the patients we treat what [] the scientific literature lets us know to expect: that air pollution makes people sick and cuts lives short.”</blockquote>The doctors’ letter included an attachment listing dozens of studies showing the “medical negatives” from soot pollution, including premature death. To my knowledge, Congressman Barton never did respond to the doctors’ letter.If Congress establishes the practice through legislation or subpoenas or political gamesmanship in which any American can expect their most private medical information to fall into the hands of lawyers and lobbyists and corporations or even the Internet, more thoughtful elected leaders will have to ask themselves how we are going to conduct these health studies in the future. Why would anyone sensibly participate in studies knowing that confidential patient data could become the play thing of politicians and industry?As Congresswoman Johnson put it in her <a href="http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/07.30.2013%20-%20Letter%20from%20Ranking%20Member%20Johnson%20to%20Chairman%20Smith%20re%20EPA%20requests.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.5s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">letter</a> to Chairman Smith: "The truth is that there is no reason to warrant violating the trust of hundreds of thousands of American citizens who volunteered their personal information to make everybody's lives better."</div></div></div></div><div>=</div><div><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/141227/republicans-war-science-just-got-frighteningly-real">https://newrepublic.com/article/141227/republicans-war-science-just-got-frighteningly-real</a></div><div><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 1.5em 0px 1.5em 200px; padding: 0px 20px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.55; vertical-align: baseline; letter-spacing: -0.1px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; flex: 0 0 66.6667%; flex-direction: column; width: 800px; max-width: 66.6667%;">n obvious solution, for those seeking to avoid such regulation, would be to prevent that science from seeing the light of day. That’s exactly what Lamar Smith, a Republican congressman from Texas, is trying to do. On Thursday, the House Science Committee passed two of Smith’s bills: <span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">The <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/SMITTX_010_xml.pdf" target="blank" rel="nofollow" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: linear-gradient(to top, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0%, rgb(255, 255, 255) 49%, rgb(0, 0, 0) 50%, rgb(0, 0, 0) 100%); background-size: 2px 2px; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-position: 0px 97.5%; text-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.05em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.05em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.09em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.075em 0px;">Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act</a><span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"> (HONEST Act) and the <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/LUCAS_002_xml.pdf" target="blank" rel="nofollow" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: linear-gradient(to top, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0%, rgb(255, 255, 255) 49%, rgb(0, 0, 0) 50%, rgb(0, 0, 0) 100%); background-size: 2px 2px; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-position: 0px 97.5%; text-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.05em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.05em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.09em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.075em 0px;">Science Advisory Board (SAB) Reform Act</a><span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">. Combined, they would significantly change how the Environmental Protection Agency uses science to create rules that protect human health.<p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 1.5em 0px 1.5em 200px; padding: 0px 20px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.55; vertical-align: baseline; letter-spacing: -0.1px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; flex: 0 0 66.6667%; flex-direction: column; width: 800px; max-width: 66.6667%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">The HONEST Act is essentially a re-brand of Smith’s notorious <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/house-passes-bill-to-stop-epa-from-using-secret-science-to-craft-pollution-rules-3fbd7320198e#.r8tb46q6c" target="blank" rel="nofollow" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: linear-gradient(to top, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0%, rgb(255, 255, 255) 49%, rgb(0, 0, 0) 50%, rgb(0, 0, 0) 100%); background-size: 2px 2px; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-position: 0px 97.5%; text-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.05em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.05em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.09em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.075em 0px;">Secret Science Reform Act</a><span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">, a bill that would have required the EPA to only use scientific studies for which all data is publicly available and the results are easily reproducible. The SAB Reform Act would change the makeup of the board that reviews the “quality and relevance” of the science that EPA uses: Scientists who receive EPA grants would be forbidden from serving, while allowing the appointment of industry-sponsored experts who have a direct interest in being regulated—so long as they disclose that interest.<p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 1.5em 0px 1.5em 200px; padding: 0px 20px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.55; vertical-align: baseline; letter-spacing: -0.1px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; flex: 0 0 66.6667%; flex-direction: column; width: 800px; max-width: 66.6667%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">In a <a href="https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/sst-committee-members-introduce-honest-and-open-new-epa-science-treatment-act-0" target="blank" rel="nofollow" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: linear-gradient(to top, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0%, rgb(255, 255, 255) 49%, rgb(0, 0, 0) 50%, rgb(0, 0, 0) 100%); background-size: 2px 2px; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-position: 0px 97.5%; text-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.05em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.05em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.09em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.075em 0px;">press release</a><span style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">, Smith said these bills would help promote “an open and honest scientific process” at the EPA. He says past regulations have been “based on hidden science” and that the SAB needs “a more balanced group of scientists to assist EPA in fulfilling its core mission.”</div><div>=</div>==<a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112015/ranking-congresswoman-defends-NOAA-climate-change-scientists-from-witch-hunt-lamar-smith">http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112015/ranking-congresswoman-defends-NOAA-climate-change-scientists-from-witch-hunt-lamar-smith</a><header class="wrap " style="box-sizing: inherit; padding: 1em 3.125em 0px; line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="page-title" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333;">Congresswoman Defends NOAA Scientists From Lamar Smith 'Witch Hunt'</h1></header><div class="wrap main-content section equal-height-processed" style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; padding: 0px 3.125em 1em; margin: 0px; line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="page-content col span_7_of_12" style="box-sizing: inherit; float: left; margin-left: 0px; width: 532.766px;"><div class="panel-pane pane-node-content" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><article id="node-41794" class="node node-article node-promoted node-content-41794 clearfix" about="/news/22112015/ranking-congresswoman-defends-NOAA-climate-change-scientists-from-witch-hunt-lamar-smith" typeof="sioc:Item foaf:Document" role="article" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><header style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em;"><div class="page-subtitle" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(108, 108, 108); line-height: 1.333; margin: 1em 0px;"><div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson sends Lamar Smith, chair of the House science committee, a blistering critique of his 'ideological crusade.'</div></div></div></div><div class="entry-meta" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><h4 class="byline" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 1em 0px 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.2; text-transform: uppercase; color: rgb(74, 74, 74); display: inline-block;"><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/author/katherine-bagley" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">BY KATHERINE BAGLEY, INSIDECLIMATE NEWS</a></h4><div class="posted-on" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(125, 125, 125); margin-top: 0.5em; text-transform: uppercase;">NOV 23, 2015</div></div></header></article></div></div></div></div>

<a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112015/ranking-congresswoman-defends-NOAA-climate-change-scientists-from-witch-hunt-lamar-smith">http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112015/ranking-congresswoman-defends-NOAA-climate-change-scientists-from-witch-hunt-lamar-smith</a>

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson delivered a blistering critique of a Republican campaign to discredit the work of federal climate scientists, branding the effort "hyper-aggressive oversight," a "fishing expedition" and an "ideological crusade."The months-long probe of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers is being led by Texas Republican Lamar Smith, chair of the House science committee. Johnson is the committee's ranking democrat."In six separate, and increasingly aggressive, letters," Johnson wrote <a href="http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/Ranking%20Member%20Johnson%20Second%20Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Smith%20on%20NOAA%20Subpoena.pdf" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none;">in a Nov. 19 letter to Smith</a>, "the only thing you accused NOAA of doing is engaging in climate science—i.e., doing their jobs." The letter charges Smith of "political posturing intended to influence public opinion" ahead of the Paris climate talks.Smith <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/Letters/112315_Johnson_Response.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">responded to Johnson </a>on Monday, calling her "characterization of the Committee’s efforts to obtain data from a government agency under its jurisdiction… inaccurate and misleading."The congressman is targeting a June 4 study by federal researchers that refutes the so-called "hiatus" in global warming. The hiatus theory—favored by climate denialists—argues warming has paused or slowed since 1998. The study was led by Tom Karl, director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information, and published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.Since July, Smith has sent NOAA letters and subpoenas asking the agency to provide "all documents and communications" related to the study. NOAA has refused to comply with Smith's requests for emails, citing the importance of confidentiality among scientists."The whole thing is really disconcerting...somebody doesn't like the result you publish and all of a sudden you have this huge hammer of a congressional subpoena hanging over your head. It has a chilling effect on scientists," said Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.In her letter, Johnson, also from Texas, criticized Smith for not explaining why he was investigating NOAA, as well as for making "sweeping indictments" to media that federal scientists manipulated data to advance President Obama's climate change agenda."In one fell swoop, you have accused a host of different individuals of wrongdoing," Johnson wrote. "You have accused NOAA's top research scientists of scientific misconduct. By extension, you have also accused the peer-reviewers at one of our nation's most prestigious academic journals,Science, of participating in this misconduct (or at least being too incompetent to notice what was going on). If that weren't enough, you are intimating a grand conspiracy between NOAA and the White House to doctor climate science to advance administration policy. Presumably this accusation extends to [NOAA] Administrator [Kathryn] Sullivan herself."And all of these indictments are conjured out of thin air, without you presenting any factual basis for these sweeping accusations—exposing this so-called 'investigation' for what it truly is: a witch hunt designed to smear the reputations of eminent scientists for partisan gain."Johnson first contacted Smith with her concerns about the investigation in October. When Smith didn't respond, she decided she needed to write him again, said Kristin Kopshever, a House science committee spokeswoman for Johnson."Over the past couple of years, the committee has had a lot of investigations," said Kopshever. It has investigated the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation, she said. In September, Smith launched an investigation of <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/07102015/climate-scientist-shukla-backlash-RICO-investigation-fossil-fuel-companies-lamar-smith-congress" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none;">Jagadish Shukla</a>, a climate scientist at George Mason University in Virginia who called for a federal probe into whether fossil fuel companies knowingly misled the public on climate change.What made her word these recent letters [to Smith] so strongly, Kopshever said, "is that he doesn't have any fact-based allegations against NOAA for wrongdoing or misuse of power or funds that would typically prompt an investigation."Smith also wrote two letters to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker urging her to pressure NOAA to cooperate with the House committee probe. The most recent one <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/11-18-15%20CLS%20to%20Pritzker.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">was sent on Nov. 18</a>. In it, Smith claimed to have whistleblower communications that show "wrongdoing." "Information provided to the Committee by whistleblowers appears to show that the Karl study was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA scientists," Smith wrote. Pritzker was out of the country last week and asked Sullivan of NOAA to respond on her behalf. "Let me assure you that I am not engaged in or associated with any 'politically correct agenda,'" Sullivan wrote in the <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/2015-11-20-commerce-noaa-response-to-chairman-smith-climate-hiatus-study.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(131, 190, 68); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">Nov. 20 letter</a>. "I have not and will not allow anyone to manipulate the science or coerce the scientists who work for me."Johnson requested that the whistleblower information be shared with Democratic members of the science committee. She called Smith's criticism that the study was "rushed" a "mild accusation"—one not serious enough to warrant a congressional investigation."The Constitution doesn't provide you with a blank check to harass research scientists with whose results you disagree," she wrote.In his response letter Monday, Smith said that asking for the source's information "in a public setting is not only harmful to the Committee’s current investigations, but may have a chilling effect on the willingness of federal employees to report waste, fraud, and abuse to the Committee in the future." Read the full letter:==

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/congressional-witch-hunt-against-noaa-scientists">http://www.alternet.org/environment/congressional-witch-hunt-against-noaa-scientists</a>

we have <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/checking_the_house_science_committees_new_subpoena_power_commentary-239722-1.html" target="_blank" style="line-height: 32px; color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">long been suspicious</a> of the House Science Committee’s expanded subpoena power. The evidence now demonstrates that the committee is using this new authority not to conduct effective oversight but to harass those who produce robust scientific analysis it refuses to accept.

The committee is harassing individuals, launching an investigation into the actions of a climate scientist who, in the <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/house-science-committee-investigations-remember-our-history-932" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">words of my colleague Andrew Rosenberg</a>, had the “temerity to express his views that fossil fuel companies should be held accountable for climate change.” Although subpoenas have not been formally issued, an investigation has begun.

he committee is now stepping up its harassment of government agencies. On October 13, the committee subpoenaed nearly seven years of internal deliberations and communications among scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including “all documents and communications” related to NOAA’s measurement of our climate.

RELATED: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/usda-silencing-its-own-scientists-bee-killing-pesticide-research" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Is the Federal Govt. Harassing and Censoring Its Own Scientists for Studying Ties Between Pesticides and Bee Deaths?</a>

“All documents and communications” would presumably include emails, preliminary drafts, peer review comments, notes,  audio recordings, and a treasure trove of other material. This would mean thousands upon thousands of records for employees to identify and go through and analyze for no clearly stated purpose.

NOAA was given two weeks to comply.

Some will say that the committee is right, that we should have access to the data. But this, of course, is not about data. The <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/noaa-global-surface-temperature-noaaglobaltemp" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">data is already public</a>. In a<a href="http://democrats.science.house.gov/letter/ranking-member-johnson-letter-chairman-smith-noaa-subpoena" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">blistering letter</a>, ranking member Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) hit the nail on the head:

However, obtaining all of the data and methods used in this study seemingly was not enough for the majority. You also demanded internal communications by NOAA scientists regarding their scientific research. NOAA, rightfully, has been reluctant to waste their time and resources, not to mention break confidence with their superb research scientists by responding to this demand…

I cannot help but note that your requests in this case echo the tactics of notable climate change skeptics, who frequently submit similar FOIA requests of climate scientists in both the federal government and in state universities. One of the most publicized occasions of harassment occurred when then-Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the American Tradition Institute (ATI) sought email communications of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann.

The <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/in-virginia-the-emperor-has-no-clothes" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">original UVA case was even worse</a>, as Mr. Cuccinelli issued Civil Investigative Demands—essentially subpoenas—under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act for this information. At the time, even some climate change skeptics <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/global-warming-open-letter-to-virginia-attorney-general-kenneth-cuccinelli" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">called his move a “witch hunt.”</a> The American Tradition Institute, whose lawyers were recently found to be <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/aug/28/digging-into-big-coals-climate-connections" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">paid by the coal industry</a>, followed with open records requests for the <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/virginia-supreme-court-unanimously-supports-academic-freedom-at-the-university-of-virginia-488" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">exact same information</a>.

According to Rep. Johnson, the House Science Committee has made no specific allegations of fraud or scientific misconduct. It’s just fishing, and in the process, harassment.

“You don’t become a biologist to get rich or powerful,” Canadian scientist <a href="http://mnr-ards.academia.edu/JayFitzsimmons" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Jay Fitzsimmons</a> told me in the wake of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/oct/21/how-science-helped-to-swing-the-canadian-election" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">this week’s Canadian election results</a>. “You become a biologist because you love nature and science. To work under a government that tries to silence scientists is pretty demoralizing.”

The same holds true in the United States. Yet Congress routinely holds the budget hostage, creating uncertainty for agency staff and extensive planning for government shutdowns <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/shutdown-charade-hurts-science-b99599810z1-336415851.html" target="_blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">even when they don’t occur</a>. It consistently asks agencies to do more with fewer resources....

==

<div>

</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

Eddie Bernice Johnson (born December 3, 1935) is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician" title="Politician" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">politician</a> from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state" title="U.S. state" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">state</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas" title="Texas" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Texas</a>, currently representing the state's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_30th_congressional_district" title="Texas's 30th congressional district" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">30th congressional district</a> in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="United States House of Representatives" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">United States House of Representatives</a>. An <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American" title="African-American" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">African-American</a>, she is the first registered nurse elected to the U.S. Congress.

<h2 style="color: black; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border: none; display: inline; line-height: 1.3; background: none;">Contents</h2>

[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#" id="togglelink" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">hide</a>] </div>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#Early_life.2C_education.2C_and_medical_career" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1 Early life, education, and medical career</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#Early_political_career" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">2 Early political career</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#U.S._House_of_Representatives" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3 U.S. House of Representatives</a>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#Elections" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.1 Elections</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#Tenure" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.2 Tenure</a>

<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-6" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#Scholarship_violations" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.2.1 Scholarship violations</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#Committees" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.3 Committees</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#Committee_assignments" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.4 Committee assignments</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-9" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#Caucus_memberships" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.5 Caucus memberships</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-10" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#References" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">4 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-11" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#External_links" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">5 External links</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Early life, education, and medical career[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Bernice_Johnson&action=edit&section=1&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Early life, education, and medical career" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>

Born and reared in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco,Texas" title="Waco, Texas" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Waco</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas" title="Texas" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Texas</a>, Johnson's first aspirations were in medicine. She could not attend college in her own state because of her race, so she left Texas and attended <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Mary%27s_College(Indiana)" title="Saint Mary's College (Indiana)" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Saint Mary's College</a> in South Bend, Indiana, where she received a diploma in nursing in 1956. She transferred to<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Christian_University" title="Texas Christian University" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Texas Christian University</a> in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Worth,Texas" title="Fort Worth, Texas" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Fort Worth, Texas</a>, from which she received a bachelor's degree in nursing. She later attended <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Methodist_University" title="Southern Methodist University" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Southern Methodist University</a> in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas,Texas" title="Dallas, Texas" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Dallas</a>, and earned an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Public_Administration" title="Master of Public Administration" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">MPA</a> in 1976.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-1" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[1]</a> She served as Chief Psychiatric Nurse at the Dallas Veterans Administration Hospital (the first African American to hold that position), and entered politics after 16 years in that position.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-2" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[2]</a>

<h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Early political career[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Bernice_Johnson&action=edit&section=2&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Early political career" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>

In 1972, as an underdog candidate running for a seat in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_of_Representatives" title="Texas House of Representatives" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Texas House</a>, Eddie Bernice Johnson won a landslide victory and became the first black woman ever elected to public office from Dallas.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-3" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a> She soon became the first woman in Texas history to lead a major Texas House committee, the Labor Committee. Johnson left the state House in 1977, when President <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter" title="Jimmy Carter" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Jimmy Carter</a> appointed her as the regional director for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Health,Education,and_Welfare" title="Department of Health, Education, and Welfare" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Department of Health, Education, and Welfare</a>, the first African American woman to hold this position.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-4" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[4]</a>

Johnson entered politics again in 1986, and was elected a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Senate" title="Texas Senate" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Texas state Senator</a>, becoming the first female and African-American from the Dallas area to hold this office since <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era" title="Reconstruction Era" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Reconstruction</a>. Her particular concerns as a Senator included health care, education, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing" title="Public housing" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">public housing</a>, racial equity,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_development" title="Economic development" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">economic development</a>, and job expansion. She served on the Finance Committee, for which she chaired the subcommittee on Health and Human Services, and on the Education Committee. Her interest in health care led her to write legislation to regulate diagnostic radiology centers, require drug testing in hospitals, prohibit discrimination against <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS" title="AIDS" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">AIDS</a> victims, improve access to health care for AIDS patients, and prohibit hospital kickbacks to doctors. As a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_discrimination_(United_States)" title="Housing discrimination (United States)" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">fair housing</a> advocate, she sponsored a bill to empower city governments to repair substandard housing at the expense of landlords, and wrote a bill to enforce prohibitions against housing discrimination.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-5" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[5]</a>

As a lawmaker, Johnson was able to bring to a public forum her fight against racism, though she faced discrimination herself in the legislature. "Being a woman and being black is perhaps a double handicap," she told the Chicago Tribune. "When you see who's in the important huddles, who's making the important decisions, it's men."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-6" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[6]</a> Johnson sponsored several bills aimed towards equity, including a bill to establish goals for the state to do business with 'socially-disadvantaged' businesses, and crafted a fair housing act aimed at toughening up fair housing laws and establishing a commission to investigate complaints of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_discrimination_(United_States)" title="Housing discrimination (United States)" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">discriminatory housing practices</a>.

In addition to her legislation, Johnson held hearings and investigated complaints. In 1989, she testified in a federal court about racism in the Dallas city government. In 1992, she formally asked the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice" title="United States Department of Justice" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Justice Department</a> to investigate harassment of local black students. That same year, she held hearings to examine discrimination charges about unfair contracting bids for the government's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider" title="Superconducting Super Collider" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Superconducting Super Collider</a>. One thing Johnson fears most about discrimination is the legacy it leaves for youth. "I am frightened to see young people who believe that a racist power structure is responsible for every negative thing that happens to them," she explained to theNew York Times. "After a point it does not matter whether these perceptions are true or false; it is the perceptions that matter."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-7" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a>

<h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">U.S. House of Representatives[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Bernice_Johnson&action=edit&section=3&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: U.S. House of Representatives" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>

<h3 style=" margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Elections<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Bernice_Johnson&action=edit&section=4&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Elections" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>

Midway through her second term in the state senate, Johnson opted to run in the Democratic primary for the newly-created 30th congressional district. She defeated Republican nominee Lucy Cain 72%-25%.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-8" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a> In 1994, she defeated Lucy Cain again 73%-26%.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-9" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[9]</a> In 1996, after her district was significantly redrawn as a result of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Vera" title="Bush v. Vera" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Bush v. Vera</a>, she won re-election to a third term with just 55% of the vote, the worst election performance of her congressional career. However, this election was held under unusual circumstances. All of the candidates in the race appeared on a single ballot regardless of party, and Johnson faced two other Democrats. Proving just how Democratic this district still was, the three Democrats tallied 73 percent of the vote between them.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-10" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[10]</a> Johnson has never faced another contest nearly that close, and has been reelected 18 more times with at least 72% of the vote. In the most recent cycle Johnson easily beat two opponents in the Democratic Primary, State Representative Barbara Mallory Caraway and lawyer Taj Clayton, gaining 70% of the vote; she went on to win the general election by a landslide, gaining almost 79% of the votes cast.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-11" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[11]</a>

<h3 style=" margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Tenure<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Bernice_Johnson&action=edit&section=5&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Tenure" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>

The 17th chair of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus" title="Congressional Black Caucus" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Congressional Black Caucus</a>, she was a leading voice in opposition to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002" title="Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002</a>. During debate on the House floor, she stated:

"I am not convinced that giving the President the authority to launch a unilateral, first-strike attack on Iraq is the appropriate course of action at this time. While I believe that under international law and under the authority of our Constitution, the United States must maintain the option to act in its own self-defense, I strongly believe that the administration has not provided evidence of an imminent threat of attack on the United States that would justify a unilateral strike. I also believe that actions alone, without exhausting peaceful options, could seriously harm global support for our war on terrorism and distract our own resources from this cause."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-12" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[12]</a>

</blockquote>

She was one of the 31 who voted in the House against counting the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College(United_States)" title="Electoral College (United States)" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">electoral votes</a> from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio" title="Ohio" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Ohio</a> in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,2004" title="United States presidential election, 2004" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">United States presidential election, 2004</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-13" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[13]</a>

In 2007, Congresswoman Johnson was appointed by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Transportation_and_Infrastructure" title="United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee</a> Chairman <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Oberstar" title="Jim Oberstar" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Jim Oberstar</a> (D-MN) to serve as Chairwoman of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Transportation_Subcommittee_on_Water_Resources_and_Environment" title="United States House Transportation Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment</a> during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress" title="110th United States Congress" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">110th</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress" title="111th United States Congress" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">111th Congresses</a>. She was the first African-American and first female in Congress to hold the position of this Subcommittee Chair. While holding the position of Subcommittee Chair, Congresswoman Johnson sponsored the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resources_Development_Act" title="Water Resources Development Act" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Water Resources Development Act</a>. She successfully secured and led Congress in overriding President Bush’s veto of it. This was the only veto override during his presidency.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-14" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[14]</a>

During the 2007 primary campaign, Johnson initially supported U.S. Senator <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards" title="John Edwards" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">John Edwards</a> for President. After his withdrawal from the race, she pledged her support as a superdelegate to<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama" title="Barack Obama" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Barack Obama</a> and her district backed Obama heavily in the 2008 election.

Recently, the Congresswoman, along with Rep. Donna Edward (D) proposed a publicly funded park on the moon to mark where the Apollo missions landed between 1969 and 1972.The Apollo Lunar Landing Legacy Act, H.R. 2617, calls for the park to be run jointly by the Department of the Interior and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-15" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[15]</a>

<h4 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 22.4px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Scholarship violations<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Bernice_Johnson&action=edit&section=6&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Scholarship violations" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h4>

In August 2010, Amy Goldson, counsel for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus_Foundation" title="Congressional Black Caucus Foundation" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Congressional Black Caucus Foundation</a>, said that Johnson violated organizational rules by awarding scholarship money to four relatives and two children of a top aide. Awards come with an anti-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism" title="Nepotism" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">nepotism</a> rule, and winners must live or study in the Congress member's district. Johnson said she "unknowingly" made a mistake in awarding the grants and would work with the foundation to rectify it.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-16" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[16]</a>

Johnson said, "I recognized the names when I saw them. And I knew that they had a need just like any other kid that would apply for one."

Soon after Johnson denied having involvement in the scholarship process, opponent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Broden" title="Stephen Broden" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Stephen Broden</a> released letters bearing Johnson's signature in which the representative requested that the scholarship check be made and sent directly to her relatives instead of to the University as would normally be procedure.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-17" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[17]</a> Subsequently, the Dallas Morning News ran an editorial questioning her changing story on the matter.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-18" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[18]</a>

<h3 style=" margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Committees<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Bernice_Johnson&action=edit&section=7&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Committees" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>

In December 2010, Congresswoman Johnson was elected as the first African-American and the first female Ranking Member of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Science,_Space_and_Technology" title="United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">House Committee on Science, Space and Technology</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-19" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[19]</a>From 2000 to 2002, she was the Ranking Member of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Science_Subcommittee_on_Research" title="United States House Science Subcommittee on Research" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Subcommittee on Research and Science Education</a>. Congresswoman Johnson been an outspoken advocate for the need to invest in<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields" title="STEM fields" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">science, technology, engineering and math</a> (STEM) education. In April, 2012 Johnson introduced the "Broadening Participation in STEM Education Act.” The “Broadening Participation in STEM Education Act” would authorize the Director of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation" title="National Science Foundation" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">National Science Foundation</a> (NSF) to award grants to increase the number of students from underrepresented minority groups receiving degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). The bill would also expand the number of faculty members from underrepresented minority groups at colleges and universities.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-20" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[20]</a>

Congresswoman Johnson is a current member of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Transportation_and_Infrastructure" title="United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee</a> and has been since being elected in 1992. She is also the highest ranking Texan on this committee. Congresswoman Johnson also presently serves on the Aviation Subcommittee, Highways and Transit Subcommittee and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.

Johnson was handily re-nominated in the Democratic primary election held on March 4, 2014. She polled 23,688 votes (69.9 percent) to former state Representative Barbara Mallory Caraway's 10,185 (30.1 percent). Caraway has also run against Johnson previously.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson#cite_note-21" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[21]</a>

<h3 style=" margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Committee assignments<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Bernice_Johnson&action=edit&section=8&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Committee assignments" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Science_and_Technology" title="United States House Committee on Science and Technology" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Committee on Science and Technology</a> (Ranking Member)

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Science_Subcommittee_on_Energy_and_Environment" title="United States House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Subcommittee on Energy and Environment</a></li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Science_Subcommittee_on_Research_and_Science_Education" title="United States House Science Subcommittee on Research and Science Education" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Subcommittee on Research and Science Education</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Transportation_and_Infrastructure" title="United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure</a>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Transportation_Subcommittee_on_Aviation" title="United States House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Subcommittee on Aviation</a></li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Transportation_Subcommittee_on_Railroads,Pipelines,and_Hazardous_Materials" title="United States House Transportation Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials</a></li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Transportation_Subcommittee_on_Water_Resources_and_Environment" title="United States House Transportation Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

<h3 style=" margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Caucus memberships<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Bernice_Johnson&action=edit&section=9&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Caucus memberships" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Congressional Arts Caucus</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus" title="Congressional Black Caucus" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Congressional Black Caucus</a></li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Congressional Tri Caucus - Founder</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;">LGBT Equality Caucus</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus" title="Congressional Progressive Caucus" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Congressional Progressive Caucus</a></li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Rare Disease Congressional Caucus</li>

</li>

</ul>

</div>

<div>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bernice_Johnson</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

</div>

</div>