Statement of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson - Senate Hearing on TSCA Chemical Control Reform

Thanks for sharing.

These are very high minded princples, but at they say the "deveil is in the details".
I wonder if the head of the EPA has any practical tools or methods for weighting risk?

I wonder if we should be concenred about accountability for the EPA and decsisions the head makes. I recal how the head of the FDA didn't like breast implants drove companies into brankrupcy, woman going through operations to have them removed, and making many lawyers rich because he didn;t feel he had enough data about their safety. Is this the authority we want the head of the EPA to have?

EPA has nothing to do with FDA and breast implants. And "the head of the FDA didn't like breast implants" is not an accurate statement at all.

EPA has been in charge of regulating chemicals since TSCA was enacted in 1976. Clearly they have the expertise and the experience necessary to continue to do the job in the future. The impetus for the "modernization" is to make the law more responsive to changes in technology, the realities of what chemicals are actually still being produced, and to give EPA the legal tools to better protect human health and the environment.

Jack E.,
The EPA had absolutely nothing to do with the FDA actions.
However, as best I can tell they are both government agencies that regulate the country based on science. They have responsibility for determining hazard, exposure, and risk. They both claim to have the best of intentions. That are operated under similar structures. I offered the FDA as an example where the head of a regulatory agency claimed best intentions disregarded science to fulfill his intentions. And just as the FDA has no formal accountability, similarly neither does the EPA.
Aside from criminal actions what accountability system are you aware of that the government agencies or their employees are held to?

David K.,
I apologize for any confusion. I had presumed that when I referenced the FDA that I was making it clear that I did not directly associate the actions with the EPA. However, unless you are aware of some statutory requirements for administrative or legislative control that is different and unique to EPA then the actions taken by the head of the FDA are the type of actions that could also be taken by the head of the EPA.
As hypothetical example if there were some highly “reputable” scientific group that claim the hazards of a chemical were so severe that it should be ban no matter the benefit or what the exposure, presuming they did not keep the raw data for others to verify, and the head of the EPA on that public statement prevented the use of the chemical [which seems possible with the current governmental structure] then the whims of a government official could actually distort all of the principles presented by the current head of the EPA.
Just as the head of the FDA claimed his good intentions in protecting the woman and disregarded science so could the head of the EPA.
I agree the EPA has the expertise and experience of over thirty years of regulations. I am not so sure that the current head of the EPA has that same experience or respect for the organizational experience to be restricted from letting good intentions over riding established science.
I believe in the value of regulations both as a way to capture the best available information at that moment in time and as a means to hold industry accountable. I would have much more confidence if with those principles the EPA reports to hold so dear that they would also offer a mechanism for the agency to be held accountable for their actions.

And just as the FDA has no formal accountability, similarly neither does the EPA.

Your premise is absolutely false. Of course they have formal accountability, as does every single government agency. Besides having to follow the laws enacted by Congress, agencies often are required to testify to congressional oversight committees, which is what this article is about. They also have to follow the procedures of the APA, follow formal rulemaking procedures, including responding to all comments, and respond to lawsuits from all sides who feel they have gone to far...or not far enough. They also have to follow the rules of science, and often have outside expert advisory groups to provide input.

And the list goes on.

David K.,

Where can I go to review the APA procedures? I must admit I can't recall hearing of the APA, what does it stand for?

Can you tell me who in the Congress has a full appreciation of the science and the scientific process that the head of the EPA should be following? If the political leaders of the Congress like the intentioins of the EPA, what chance do you feel they will take action against the EPA?

Can the "responding to comments" mean that they have take actions the comments point to or can they simply say they heard them and ignore them? As far as lawsuits go, who has the funds to take on the government forf what may be a pricinciple with no measurable benefits to he litigants? How long can the lawsuits take to come to final decision, will the head of the EPA even be around?
By contrast, if a company violates an EPA regulation they can be fined daily and the people resposnible cna be sent to jail even if the sceince demonstrates the actions did no harm.

Since I haven't read the APA yet, describe to me what are the immediate or long-term conseqeunces (personal) for the head of the EPA if their actions don't conform?

Administrative Procedures Act

David K.,
Thank you for the APA link. I have made a cursory review (to keep my comments timely) and saved it for future reference.
As best I can tell the APA seems focus on the management of records and inter-agency relationships managing information, public notice of those agency meetings, and the public protocol for rule making.
The only accountability has to do with records requests and violation of a court order, which could lead to contempt. However, it did seem that that if an Executive Order were applied to the denial of records than that would exempt the agency and employees from the contempt. It seems to be like the President extending executive privilege to his social secretary over how guesses are handled at a state dinner.
It does seem that even that part of the issue only has to do with the records in possession of an agency. As an example a public comment could be made claiming to be based on scientific facts and yet the agency does not necessarily have to request (nor can compel) the data demonstrating the scientific facts so they would not have to provide the data even if they used that public statement as part of the basis for their decision on rule making.
I must have overlooked the part about accountability for the fair and reasonable process for developing risk assessment criteria and full and proper application of such protocol.
It reads as long as the head of an agency provides public notice and requested information (excluding that deemed not necessary by the President or that shared with an agency such as the CIA which could claim it secret) then they have no accountability. I hope I am wrong and that you can point out in how the APA applies to more than records management and public notices.

As I've already discussed, the APA is only one aspect. And as I've also already discussed, one of the rationales for modernizing TSCA is that the current law does not give EPA much power to request the data it needs to do an adequate assessment. The goal of any new law is to correct the deficiencies of the current law and provide sufficient authority to EPA to require the correct amount of data.

The current law does not require any company putting a new chemical on the market to provide sufficient data, and therefore the EPA is in a position of estimating much of the information it uses to determine safety. And any "existing" chemical grandfathered onto the Inventory at the time of the enactment of TSCA had no health and safety data available. For all but a handful, no assessment of health and safety has been done on these existing chemicals in the 30 years since being listed.

All stakeholders agree on the general principles offered for a new law. Congress is holding a series of hearings to gather input from all of these stakeholder so that they can define a modernization that does a better job of protecting human health and the environment while considering the ability of industry to provide relevant data.

David K.,
It seems you have a narrower focus than I do, you focus on giving the EPA more power, I believe they need appropriate authority with a balance of accountability.

The EPA claims new principles to explain their desire for a new TSCA. Did head of the EPA include in her comments that give examples of where their lack of authority to gather specific data had jeopardized public safety?

Back to my point about accountability, I will agree that the APA creates a process for document accountability, that is good. I know you feel a process is something to be trusted; you regularly used the “scientific process” as an effective example. I would like to marry the two, create process using the APA as a model for a method of accountability of those in government that have authority to make policy and direct agency actions. I am one that supports a balance of authority with a personal and immediate consequence for the use of that authority. If you want the head of the EPA to have the power to demand data and to have the authority to make the final decisions on chemicals then why not also make them accountable for their actions?
I support a revised TSCA, but why not include accountability in the new law that reauthorizes and modifies TSCA?

It seems you have a narrower focus than I do, you focus on giving the EPA more power, I believe they need appropriate authority with a balance of accountability.

Your interpretation is inaccurate and incomplete.

The EPA claims new principles to explain their desire for a new TSCA.

All stakeholders - EPA, industry, NGOs, etc. - agree there is a need for "a new TSCA."

Did head of the EPA include in her comments that give examples of where their lack of authority to gather specific data had jeopardized public safety?

Again, there is wide agreement on this. As I have been documenting in my series.

I would like to marry the two, create process using the APA as a model for a method of accountability of those in government that have authority to make policy and direct agency actions.

The APA is a process.

If you want the head of the EPA to have the power to demand data and to have the authority to make the final decisions on chemicals then why not also make them accountable for their actions?

There already is accountability, as I have already noted. Any new law would again stipulate the mechanisms for accountability.

I support a revised TSCA, but why not include accountability in the new law that reauthorizes and modifies TSCA?

Why would you think there is no accountability? There is, always has been, and always will be.

David K.,
The only accountablity you have indicated is the APA which as best I can tell only focuses on the management of documents and the public notification of the development of regulations and fromal meeting with other government agencies. Please point to the particluar paragraphs of the APA that addresses accountablity for adminstrative actions outside these areas.

I apologize for my misinterpreatation of your point position. As I said you have not mentioned anything about hwo the EPA could aor should develop protocols to apply directly apply these principles nor a means it the law is effective in addressing the principles, or that you have any concerns or interest in accountability for agency actions.

If you are unsure of how these principles could be included in the new TSCA, I would be very interested in discussing them. Iw ould also be interested in discussion how the agency could be required to report on their perforamnce and practices much as regulated organizations have to. We could discuss a verification/validation process to ensure that they are held to a similar standard of practice and performance as they the agency does other organization.

A summary of TSCA and EPA can be found here. There are many links to other related useful information, including how they write regulations, the authority given to them by the law itself, how they enforce the regulations, etc. Any questions you have can be answered here.

David K.,
Thank you for the link, I have saved it for future reference.

I did review the APA which describes the process for rule making, public notice, proposed regulation, public comment, final rule with preamble and appendices, period for public petitioning of the agency on the regulation. However, aside from the APA there isn't much on practices or actions and agency accountability.

I had hope you would want to discussion the principles and how they could be made in to metrics for the regulation, or how you thought a risk assessment process could be included in the regulation, or even why you had more trust in the government than you do in all of the organization they regulated.

I have learned that effective protocols have requirements of all parties, those whose practices are directly affected by the rules and those who have responsibility for/own the protocols to be accountable for their roles.

I am not sure you believe that there is any real risks to the actions of EPA head or staff could make that they should be accountable for other than what is covered by APA.
I believe in the EPA’s RMP regulation there is a requirement that applicable facilities have to develop three worst case scenarios (including detail technical information) for the chemicals they have at their facility and communicate them to the local public. I wonder what you would think of having all of the worst case scenarios for all of the facilities in the US posted on the EPA website.

All stakeholders - industry, government, advocacy, and academic - are in agreement that TSCA needs to be modernized. As this and my other articles note, hearings are being held to get input from all parties so that they can determine what is needed in the new law.

David K.,

I want to make it clear I am in full support of governemnt regulations, of the EPA, and of the revision of TSCA. I am also in agreement with the philosophical principles that the head of the EPA has put into testimony.

I simply believe that there should be a balance in the regulations and laws. The head of the EPA wants extensive power in the new TSCA then why shouldn;t there be some form of accountablity. Think of it a measn to force a pause in a rush to any actions.

As I mentioned how the head of the EPA using the RMP was rushing to put all the information about potential catastrophic scenarios on the web, easy access to all. I wonder why there shouldn't be some mechanism built into the law to tempter the power of the head of the EPA in TSCA? I seems to me deciding whether a chemcial is allowed or not, especially historic ones, is significant power.

I simply believe that there should be a balance in the regulations and laws.

Why do you assume there isn't?

why shouldn;t there be some form of accountablity.

Why do you assume there isn't?

I wonder why there shouldn't be some mechanism built into the law to tempter the power of the head of the EPA in TSCA?

Why do you assume there isn't?

In short, you assume a straw man then argue against it. But your initial assumptions aren't accurate. There are balances, there is accountability, there are provisions to "temper the power of the head of the EPA."

Furthermore, the whole concept of "the power of the head of the EPA" is fallacious. You seem to think that the head of the EPA can just make up any rules or issue edicts on a whim. The EPA, and all other agencies, have to follow the law and make decisions consistent with their mandate and their authority as stipulated by Congress in the authorizing legislation. There are specific procedures that must be followed (e.g., those stipulated in the APA), and stakeholders have the right to sue if they feel anything done by the agencies is in error or outside their authority. And stakeholders on both ends of the political spectrum (and everywhere in the middle) commonly make use of that right.

In fact, the GHG endangerment finding was the result of a lawsuit in which the Supreme Court required EPA to make a determination. They did so, and followed all the rules including addressing nearly 400,000 public comments on the proposal.

David K.,
The RMP scenario was no “strawman”, it was real and the EPA head was justifying it based on the RMP regulation’s requirement to provide the (3) worst case scenario information to the public. You may not feel they should have been accountable for their efforts to make such information accessible to everyone around the world, but I do.
The only indication you have offered of accountability is APA, which is focused on records management. I believe that is valuable, but it does seem narrow. If a company or individual is accountable for their action not just how they handle records then I feel the regulating agencies should have a comparable accountability. The EPA can hold a company including the CEO accountable for their actions. Why not establish a comparable mechanism for government agencies including the EPA?
I did not say they could make up rules, APA describes how the process must be documented not accountability for how it is implemented. However, they do have a lot of latitude in how they apply the information formally provided in the process and the information they gather external to the process.
It always amazes me how these agencies so driven by science and disciplined risk assessments make their major pronouncement in such a timely manner with political events that align with the actions or wishes of the President (both against and in support of Presidents).
When I was working for a former employer, which was and still is highly respected in the regulatory community, I learned that there was always value in a systemic means to interrupt actions and determine that they weren’t being driven by the emotions, the political pressures, any number of things of the moment that were more about the people and not necessarily about policies and procedures. I had seen it work very effectively there, and I have seen the opportunities where the government would have benefited from such mechanisms.
It sounds like you have had a very special experience with the government where you have not seen how people in positions with associated power have ever distort the process and use the rules in a way that at least was not in the spirit if not to the letter of the regulation. I have seen it happen a few times, some for very ultraistic reasons, others for personal satisfaction, and still others simply because they had no check on their thinking.

I asume there isn't a mechanism (aside from APA) becuase no one has pointed it out, and as best I can tell there have been many attorneys over the30 odd years of the EPA trying to find some.

You may not feel they should have been accountable for their efforts to make such information accessible to everyone around the world, but I do.

As always, Duane, you completely ignore all information and stick with your straw man (and it IS a straw man) that there is no accountability.

David K.,
I apologize, this is obviously a personal limitation.

I believe that people come and go and that the best way to make an orgainzation sustainable is by developing processes that establish orgnaizational memory. In that manner independent of the moment and the individual there is both a consistancy. A critical part of ensuring a trusted consistency is a systemic mechanism of accountablity.

Just as I support governemtn regualtions of private industry so do I believe such should be applied to all organizations. Not only does EPA and other regualtory agencies establish the rules (with public input) so do they have a means to determine the comformance to the rules, with legal consequences. That seems to have proven very effective.

The govenrment doesn;t appear to have a similar system. You have pointed to the APA. I see that as establishing a the criteria for practices, but it doesn;t have a formal process for determining conformance. I do not believe that the randomness of discovery of actions or the randomenss of a "communities" reaction to the undercovered practices.

We need clear and concise expectations, a well defined mechanism to determine the actoins and their effectivenss to achieve the expectatoins, and an asured conseaqeunce for non-conformance.

I have seen too many times that the reactions to people's actions are affected by the perception of the individual, the means can be disregard by a passion for the ends, timing of the knowledge, and who are in a position for influence.

You may call this a "strawman", I call it one of my foundation princples.

Interesting that someone felt the need to give Lisa Jackson's statement to Congress a 1. I wonder if that is due to disagreement with the principles offered (which are pretty much in line with the prinicples offered by industry and NGOs), or if they had another reason.

Thank you, David. This is always interesting to know and you are proving to be a wonderful resource of information. Hope she gets results.

Glad to be of service.

good.

David K.,
I am struggling with the latest pronouncement by the head of the EPA. She rules that CO2 is a significant risk to people and will take actions to reduce the risk by forcing the reduction of CO2 emissions. As you purport this is based on good science and risk assessment.
A White House spokesperson last night or early this morning told a group of reporters on the record that that this was a power move to pressure the Congress to vote for cap & trade. He explained that if the Congress didn’t vote for cap & trade then the EPA would take actions that were much more severe and they would further impair the economic recovery.
If as you believe that the head of EPA and the agency in total is driven by the science then why would there be a difference in actions based on what the Congress does, especially if the EPA actions would have a greater impact on reducing CO2 emissions? It would seem to me that if they are using good science then the EPA would take the most aggressive actions to reduce CO2 emissions as soon as possible rather then way for Congress’s administrative controls to have an effect.

The EPA did what science dictated it do. Congress doesn't always do that. EPA is taking action based on the current authorities it has. Whether Congress extends that authority is up to them. The current EPA authority is limited; it cannot initiate a cap-and-trade on its own, nor a carbon tax, nor feebates, nor other policies that have wider ramifications and involve many parts of government outside of EPA. So EPA is working within the authority they have. I suspect they hope Congress will take further action beyond that which EPA is capable.

David K.,
Since the head of the EPA has not said what she will do I can’t tell whether it will be based on science or politics. However, the White House spokesperson claimed that if the Congress doesn’t pass the cap & trade then the EPA actions will be severe. He also said if they do pass the cap & trade she (head of EPA) won’t have to take such those actions. That sure sounds like the White House is willing to prevent the EPA “science” driven actions if they get the political actions they want. I have not heard the EPA denying the White House interpretation of what will be done based on the head of the EPA’s proclamation on CO2.
I recognize how strongly you believe in the purity of science and the scientific process, it does seem that at least at the EPA that politics holds sway of actions they can take. I expect whichever way the EPA acts the head will explain it as within the authority of the office. I wonder if you have ever heard the head of such an agency describe their actions were outside their authority?

I wonder if you have ever heard the head of such an agency describe their actions were outside their authority?

I wonder if you know what authority the head of an agency has to take action?

If anyone on any side feels that an Agency has gone beyond their authority then they are not shy about suing the Agency...and having their Congressman use their oversight authority...and all of this is documented in the public.

Perhaps if you sign up for their announcement list serves you can become more informed about topics that interest you.

David K.,
Let me tempor your trust in the legal system. First there is the financial threshold that a person or organization must overcome before starting the legal process. Aside from the US government (who a liticant would be taking on) which has unlimited funds all palntiffs need to determine if the cost justifies the benefit. At best if they win after years of litigation what will they have gained? It maybe more coseffective to invest their moneys in accomodating the agency actions.

There is the political implications. If a orgnaization or individual feels their reputations is important are they willing to risk it by suing the govenrnment. If a company wants to be precieved as "green", what do think thing the media and others would do if they sued the EPA? Look at how the media and the "green" community treat those who disagree on "global warming".

As far as political leverage, first you need to have a Congressional representative that is concerned about you, your position, their negocaitions on other issues at the time, and what you/your cause would do for them in that moment.

As fro the authority of the head of the EPA, they can choose to inspect and cite and presue the any regualted facility. If they aren;t successful they can submit an infromal or formal complin to another governemtn agency to take similar actions. They can interpret regulations in any manner they want and until they have enforced that against an organization of sufficeint size and resources (after they may have had developed a history of such enforcements) they will have change the regulation. As an example, an agency can write a letter of interpreation to a facility that letter can not be challenged by competitors of that facility because they have no legal standing (the letter only is applicable to who requeested it). However, that then becomes a foundation for the legal community until it is challenged and even then the agency can drage it out for years.

It maybe conveniet to subscribe to the legal and political process, but in reality it is at best a chancy accountablity.

Using your example of relying on your Congressman; what if your facility is in the San Fransico distirct of Pelosi and you want to challenge the EPA on their latest proinouncement of CO2 being a pollutant. What chance do you think you would get for Pelosi's support/interceding?

I maybe naive, but that doesn't make me gullable.

Let me tempor your trust in the legal system.

I never said I have trust in the legal system.

First there is the financial threshold that a person or organization must overcome before starting the legal process...It maybe more coseffective to invest their moneys in accomodating the agency actions.

Hogwash. Industry and the large environmental advocacy groups sue EPA and other Agencies all the time. One sues because they think regulations are too stringent; the other because they are not stringent enough. Which is why EPA and other Agencies have to document everything voluminously before, during, and after any major action taken.

If a orgnaization or individual feels their reputations is important are they willing to risk it by suing the govenrnment. If a company wants to be precieved as "green", what do think thing the media and others would do if they sued the EPA?

You think industry won't sue if they feel that they have been unfairly treated? They won't sue if they think that regulations will cost them billions of dollars in business or costs to comply? They won't sue if they think they are right? Please. They sue all the time. They spend millions each year doing exactly that...and millions more on lobbying before laws and regulations are passed to avoid regulation.

As fro the authority of the head of the EPA, they can choose to inspect and cite and presue the any regualted facility. If they aren;t successful they can submit an infromal or formal complin to another governemtn agency to take similar actions.

Huh?

It maybe conveniet to subscribe to the legal and political process, but in reality it is at best a chancy accountablity.

And you would suggest? [Note: Be sure they don't already do it before listing some "accountability" they don't already have.]

Using your example of relying on your Congressman;

What chance would you have in any district? EPA made its assessment based on the science. If a company has a facility in California than it has to show how the science doesn't support the CO2 assessment. Not to mention that most companies have corporate offices and other facilities in other districts and states, all of whom have congressmen. Throw in the fact that virtually every company is a member of some trade association (or several) who have offices in Washington DC and Sacramento whose job it is to lobby congress. In other words, any industry company any where has lobbying representation.

I maybe naive, but that doesn't make me gullable.

I never said you were gullible.

David K.,
First I must apologize for using the phrase “trust in the legal system”, it would have been more accurate to say ‘confidence that the legal process would work the way you expect it.’ I trust our legal system and you trust it, it has proven fair and effective for our country and more specifically for environmental regulatory process.
“Industry and the large environmental advocacy groups sue EPA and other Agencies all the time.” That is accurate, but that doesn’t mean they or all of those organizations have the best interests of our society at the center of their legal decisions. Even they have limited resources. I have seen how people can be too close to an issue and miss the impact of regulatory language or they can see how to accommodate an agencies’ action, and not pursue an issue that maybe justify legal action. The court also has to feel that the plaintiff has standing; the regulation/action must have apparent and direct impact, before the courts will allow the case to proceed.
“You think industry won't sue if they feel that they have been unfairly treated?” Yes, and yes to the following questions. We only hear of those cases go to court. We will not hear of the discussions on whether to go to court and surely not of those that don’t go. Look at who has gone to court, how many of them have gone to court only once, how are the case distributed between the large organizations and the small within industry (do you think the smaller are less impacted?), and is there an element of the balance sheet and funds available? Many companies spend to build an image, they must decide what potential to their image is if they sue, it can affect their image investment. You may feel everything should be done purely on the basis of what people think is right and wrong, but it is people and they must weigh many factors that you or I may not think of when they decide what to do.
“Huh?” Bad writing, the head of an agency has the authority to choose who and when to inspect, how aggressively to inspect, to draw in other agencies to inspect, how to pursue or defend challenges to findings, etc. All of which need not be justified to a third party.
As for accountability, I don’t know enough to specify one, I am not currently knowledgeable nor would have ever considered myself knowledgeable in the EPA regulations or EPA management process, I have had some peripheral contact many many years ago. So what I offer is what I have learned in other aspects of an employer’s practices and responses to agencies actions. With a bit of discussion we could create the outline for a systemic approach to accountability. First there needs to be an identification of each element or factor that goes into a agency policy or practices decision that has sufficient impact to warrant public scrutiny. The agency would need to develop a policy/protocol describing how each element would be addressed by the agency including the roles of those making the policy decisions or implementing the protocols. The agency would then develop a mechanism to regularly assess the practice and their conformance to the protocols, including a report of findings. There would then be a third party established to periodically assess the agency to verify their conformance to the policies/protocols. Finally there should be established consequences for nonconformance and a mechanism for appeal of findings. The consequences should be of sufficient nature to discourage future violations. Assessment protocol should include a set of measurement to demonstrate the effectiveness of the actions and policies. A simple example would be the risk assessment process; it should have a detailed description of the minimum data to be gathered, a weighting process that is open for public scrutiny, a log of the use/application of the process, a verification process to ensure the risk process is current and accurate, etc. The agency internal assessments of the process/protocols should be annual with the third party assessments randomly but not longer than four years.
“What chance would you have in any district?” So your suggestion of people at a facility turning to their Congressman was simply a red herring because there never is a case where the EPA has ever taken actions that would be lost in court.
“I never said you were gullible.” No, but when you suggest that the politicians are a viable means of accountability for an agency head such as of the EPA especially, thus you are suggesting a gullibility on my part.

So your suggestion of people at a facility turning to their Congressman was simply a red herring because there never is a case where the EPA has ever taken actions that would be lost in court.

I said no such thing. In fact, I explained ways that companies have ample lobbyist representation even if they live in districts that are very liberal as you suggest.

No, but when you suggest that the politicians are a viable means of accountability for an agency head such as of the EPA especially, thus you are suggesting a gullibility on my part.

Again, I never said either of those things. Perhaps you should reread my comments because you seem to have missed the meaning of everything I said already.

David K.,
“...and having their Congressman use their oversight authority...” 12/13, 9:23am
“What chance would you have in any district? EPA made its assessment based on the science. If a company has a facility in California than it has to show how the science doesn't support the CO2 assessment.” 12/14, 3:49am
The first remark suggest to me that you feel a local Congressman can and would exert authority over an agency for justice even if it went against the agency and the Congressman political agenda.
The second remark suggest to me that you feel that the agencies and the people who are reliant on science are somehow pure and above politics thus the agency will never exceed their authority or abuse the science for political reasons. By my experience that has proven to be wishful thinking.
Putting the two remarks together lead me to believe that you feel there has never been nor ever will be a decision by the agency that would be outside their authority and be political rather than pure science thus there never would be a justification/need for a Congressman to exert any oversight authority. That is how I got to the “red herring” comment.
As for a company in California having to prove the science, it is easier to simply leave the state or at least not invest any more in that state (or the country). I think that might be happening.

I ma not sure about your situation and if you have ever had a conversation about how and why a company acts on govenrment regulation especially newly offered ones. If you can ask them about some of the dynamics. I will offer you one that I was made aware of several years ago. The decision turned on the term petitioning.