Despite being the most densely populated state in the nation, New Jersey has undertaken significant efforts to preserve environmentally-sensitive land and open space. Unfortunately, because of these land preservation efforts, pipeline companies have looked at these preserved spaces as an appealing corridor, perfect for new natural gas pipeline construction projects.

Earlier this month, the PennEast Pipeline Company officially began the process of obtaining approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to construct a 108-mile, 36-inch diameter pipeline. I have many concerns about how the proposed PennEast pipeline will affect protected areas, open space, and the environment – concerns that are shared by local government officials, including members of the Hopewell Township Committee and Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman. Last week, I wrote to FERC to express my concerns, to request a robust public engagement process, and to ensure the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement that would consider whether or not the pipeline should be built. If the proposed pipeline is found to impact negatively the environment or the communities along the route, the project should not be allowed to proceed, or an alternative project plan should be proposed.

“A Cantankerous Press”

When Ben Bradlee became managing editor of the Washington Post in 1965, he believed, journalism was “more than a profession - it was a public good vital to our democracy.” When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers that revealed unattractive aspects of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and the New York Times was enjoined from publishing them, Bradlee and a few other editors picked up the cudgel and printed the information. In declining to enjoin those articles, District Judge Murray Gurfein wrote, “A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve…the right of the people to know.” The sense of press independence created by the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in favor of the newspapers would pave the way for the Post’s coverage of Watergate a year later.

It is this same freedom of press which I aim to protect as a cosponsor of the Free Flow of Information Act, which provides protection to reporters and their sources from the federal government in federal courts. This would allow journalists to do their jobs the way Bradlee envisioned it. 

“I Am Not a Scientist”

Recently, politicians from Speaker Boehner to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have said they are not qualified to debate the science of climate change, but that they are confident that all plans to deal with climate change would hurt jobs and our economy.

I am a scientist, but that doesn't uniquely qualify me to debate climate change. As Members of Congress, we rely on the expertise of others to inform our decision-making about many subjects in which we are not expert. With respect to climate change, I agree with the overwhelming consensus among scientists: the climate is changing largely as a result of human activities, and we can and must act now. 

Maybe politicians who are using the “not a scientist” dodge do not realize how insulting it is to scientists. It reflects a dismissive attitude toward evidence, and it uses scientists as a convenient excuse for avoiding political heat. I was on MSNBC with Steve Kornacki last weekend to discuss science, politics, and the intersection of the two.

Sincerely,

Rush Holt
Member of Congress