    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          IMPROVING EPA'S SCIENTIFIC

                               ADVISORY PROCESSES
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2013

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-15

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    80-348                    WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 ZOE LOFGREN, California
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
        Wisconsin                        DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ERIC SWALWELL, California
    PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia               DAN MAFFEI, New York
    STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             SCOTT PETERS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               DEREK KILMER, Washington
    STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas                AMI BERA, California
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
    CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming              MARC VEASEY, Texas
    DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona            JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              MARK TAKANO, California
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           VACANCY
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
    RANDY WEBER, Texas
    CHRIS STEWART, Utah
    VACANCY
                                     ------

                          Subcommittee on Environment

                        HON. CHRIS STEWART, Utah, Chair
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
        Wisconsin                        JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              MARC VEASEY, Texas
    PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia               MARK TAKANO, California
    RANDY WEBER, Texas                   ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
                                         EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

                                C O N T E N T S

                           Wednesday, March 20, 2013

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Chris Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................     9
        Written Statement............................................    10

    Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
      Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    12
        Written Statement............................................    13

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Chief Toxicologist, Texas Commission on
      Environmental Quality
        Oral Statement...............................................    15
        Written Statement............................................    18

    Dr. Roger McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk
      Analysis
        Oral Statement...............................................    21
        Written Statement............................................    23

    Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Science Policy Fellow,
      Union of Concerned Scientists
        Oral Statement...............................................    36
        Written Statement............................................    38

    Discussion.......................................................    52

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Chief Toxicologist, Texas Commission on
      Environmental Quality..........................................    70

    Dr. Roger McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk
      Analysis.......................................................    75

    Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Science Policy Fellow,
      Union of Concerned Scientists..................................    78

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Letters sent to the Committee by various groups and individuals
      expressing their concerns about the provisions in the bill
      submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici...................    80

    Congressional Research Service Memorandum on EPA Grants to
      Members of Selected EPA Advisory Committees submitted by
      Representative Dana Rohrabacher................................    82

    Thank you letter and Questions sent to Dr. Grifo from the
      Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight hearing on October
      13, 2011, for the hearing titled, ``The Endangered Species Act:
      Reviewing the Nexus of Science and Policy,'' submitted by
      Representative Paul Bourn......................................    92

    George T. Wolff, The Changing NAAQS Review Process, submitted by
      Dr. Michael Honeycutt..........................................    96

    EPA Evalualion Report submitted by Dr. Michael Honeycutt.........   108

    GSA Federal Advisory Committee Membership Balance Plan submitted
      by Dr. Michael Honeycutt.......................................   130

                 IMPROVING EPA'S SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PROCESSES

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2013

                      House of Representatives,
                                    Subcommittee on Environment
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Chris
    Stewart [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.007

        Chairman Stewart. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee
    on Environment will come to order.
        Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Improving EPA's
    Scientific Advisory Processes.'' In front of you are packets
    containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth-in-
    testimony disclosures of today's witnesses. I would now like to
    recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
        Welcome once again to this morning's hearing on the
    Environmental Subcommittee entitled ``EPA's Scientific Advisory
    Processes.'' Former President Ronald Reagan famously said that
    ``the government's view of the economy should be summed up in a
    few short phrases: if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,
    regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'' The EPA's
    agency needs no introduction as a primary executor of the
    regulatory part of this formula.
        Whether it is fostering air-quality regulations that could
    shut down large swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled
    attacks on the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job-
    killing climate regulations that will have no impact on the
    climate, EPA's reputation as a lightning rod for controversy is
    well known here in Washington and throughout the country.
        Less well known and understood, however, is the underlying
    regulatory science and scientific advisory mechanisms that the
    Agency uses to justify its aggressive regulatory approach. The
    purpose of today's hearing is to examine these processes with a
    particular focus on draft legislation to reform the EPA's
    Science Advisory Board, or SAB. Established by Congress in
    1978, the SAB is intended to provide meaningful, balanced, and
    independent reviews of the science conducted and used by the
    Agency. Unfortunately, this vision often goes unrealized in
    actual practice. I would like to note just a few examples here.
        Despite a statutory requirement that EPA's advisory panels
    be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,''
    the Agency routinely excludes private sector expertise while
    stacking these panels with individuals likely to support EPA's
    perspective. It is no surprise that EPA finalized a regulation
    on power plants in late 2011 that even the Agency admitted
    would cost $11 billion a year. EPA had prevented virtually all
    industry scientists from participating in the review of the
    underlying science.
        Similarly, this Committee received testimony stating that,
    in the case of an SAB panel asked to examine EPA's hydraulic
    fracking research, all 22 members had ``no experience in
    hydraulic fracturing and no understanding of current industry
    practices,'' this in an industry whose technology is rapidly
    changing with significant improvements incorporated into their
    processes nearly every day. Even worse, the Agency appears
    ready to double-down on this anti-business attitude I summarily
    dismissing on the ground private sector experts in the next
    fracking science review.
        Meanwhile, there are unsettling Agency trends about how EPA
    selects its supposedly independent advisers. According to the
    Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of the
    members of EPA's chartered SAB and Clean Air Scientific
    Advisory Committee, also known as CASAC, have directly received
    grants from the Agency since 2000. These advisors served as
    principal and co-investigators in EPA grant totaling roughly
    $140 million.
        EPA frequently chooses panelists whose research is directly
    or indirectly under review. During a recent review of EPA air-
    quality science, 21 of the 25 panelists had their work cited by
    the EPA and the Chair of the panel was footnoted more than 80
    times.
        Many of the panelists have clearly taken sides are made
    public pronouncements on issues they advise about. For example,
    a lead reviewer of EPA's hydraulic fracking study published in
    anti-fracking article entitled ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.''
        This hardly sounds like a recipe for a critical or balanced
    examination. Yet EPA routinely touts the work of its
    independent science advisors in promoting and defending its
    controversial regulatory agenda. The record is clear: the SAB
    is ripe for improvement.
        Accordingly, we will discuss draft legislation that would
    address these concerns--the EPA Science Advisory Board Perform
    Act of 2013. This language is similar to the bill introduced in
    the 112 Congress by then-Chairman Ralph Hall. The draft bill
    would reform the SAB and its subpanels by expanding
    transparency requirements, improving the process for selecting
    expert advisers, strengthening public participation, and
    limiting non-scientific policy advice.
        The concepts contained in this proposed legislation did not
    arise out of thin air; rather, they are principles that came
    from the EPA's own Peer Review Handbook, the National
    Academies' Conflict-of-Interest Policy, existing Federal ethics
    requirements on Special Government Employees, and
    recommendations from past Science Committee testimony and other
    outside groups.
        Let me conclude by making this important point: if the EPA
    scientific process is viewed as being biased less or than
    willing to consider every point of view, their credibility
    suffers. This serves neither the EPA, American businesses, nor
    American citizens. Independent, balanced, and transparent
    review of EPA science offers a critical check on the Agency
    that frequently views the world through its regulatory lens.
    Commonsense reforms that improve scientific advice should make
    EPA's regulatory end-products more credible, and I look forward
    to our witnesses' unique perspective on these issues.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from
    Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for an opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart

        Welcome to this morning's hearing of the Environment Subcommittee
    entitled Improving EPA's Scientific Advisory Processes.
        Former President Ronald Reagan famously said that ``government's
    view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it
    moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving,
    subsidize it.'' The Environmental Protection Agency needs no
    introduction as the primary executor of the regulatory part of this
    formula.
        Whether it is promulgating air quality regulations that could shut
    down large swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled attacks on the
    safety of hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job-killing climate
    regulations that will have no impact on the climate, EPA's reputation
    as a lightning rod for controversy is well known here in Washington and
    throughout the country.
        Less well known and understood, however, is the underlying
    regulatory science and scientific advisory mechanisms that the Agency
    uses to justify its aggressive regulatory approach. The purpose of
    today's hearing is to examine those processes, with a particular focus
    on draft legislation to reform the EPA's Science Advisory Board, or
    SAB.
        Established by Congress in 1978, the SAB is intended to provide
    meaningful, balanced, and independent reviews of the science conducted
    and used by the Agency. Unfortunately, this vision often goes
    unrealized in practice. I would like to note just a few examples:

          Despite a statutory requirement that EPA's advisory
    panels be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented'' the
    Agency routinely excludes private sector expertise while stacking these
    panels with individuals likely to support EPA's perspective. It is no
    surprise that EPA finalized a regulation on power plants in late 2011
    that even the Agency admitted would cost $11 billion a year; EPA had
    prevented virtually all industry scientists from participating in the
    review of the underlying science.

          Similarly, this Committee received testimony stating
    that, in the case of an SAB panel asked to examine EPA's hydraulic
    fracturing research, all 22 members had ``no experience in hydraulic
    fracturing and no understanding of current industry practices.'' This,
    in an industry whose technology is rapidly changing, with significant
    improvements incorporated into their process nearly every day. Even
    worse, the Agency appears ready to double-down on this anti-business
    attitude by summarily dismissing on-the-ground private sector experts
    in its next fracking science review.

    Meanwhile, there are unsettling Agency trends about how EPA selects its
    supposedly-independent advisors:

          According to the Congressional Research Service, almost
    60 percent of the members of EPA's chartered SAB and the Clean Air
    Scientific Advisory Committee (also known as ``CASAC'') have directly
    received grants from the Agency since 2000. These advisors served as
    principal or co-investigators for EPA grants totaling roughly $140
    million dollars.

          EPA frequently chooses panelists whose research is
    directly or indirectly under review. During a recent review of EPA air
    quality science, 21 of the 25 panelists had their work cited by EPA and
    the Chair of the panel was footnoted more than 80 times.

          Many of the panelists have clearly taken sides or made
    public pronouncements on issues they are advising about. For example, a
    lead reviewer of EPA's hydraulic fracturing study plan published an
    anti-fracking article entitled ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.''

        This hardly sounds like a recipe for a critical or balanced
    examination. Yet EPA routinely touts the work of its ``independent
    science advisors'' in promoting and defending its controversial
    regulatory agenda. The record is clear: the SAB is ripe for
    improvement.
        Accordingly, we will discuss draft legislation that would address
    these concerns-the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013. This
    language is similar to a bill introduced in the 112th Congress by then-
    Chairman Ralph Hall. The draft bill would reform the SAB and its sub-
    panels by expanding transparency requirements, improving the process
    for selecting expert advisors, strengthening public participation, and
    limiting non-scientific policy advice.
        The concepts contained in this proposed legislation did not arise
    out of thin air; rather, they are principles that come from EPA's own
    Peer Review Handbook, the National Academies' Conflict-Of-Interest
    Policy, existing federal ethics requirements on Special Government
    Employees, and recommendations from past Science Committee testimony
    and other outside groups.
        Let me conclude by making this important point: If the EPA
    scientific process is viewed as being biased, or less than willing to
    consider every point of view, their credibility suffers. This serves
    neither the EPA, American businesses nor American citizens.
        Independent, balanced, and transparent review of EPA science offers
    a critical check for an Agency that frequently views the world through
    its regulatory lenses. Common sense reforms that improve scientific
    advice should make EPA's regulatory end-products more credible, and I
    look forward to our witnesses unique perspectives on these issues.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Today, the Subcommittee meets for a hearing on the quality
    of the science being used by the Environmental Protection
    Agency. When I first read the title of the hearing, ``Improving
    EPA's Scientific Advisory Process,'' I felt encouraged that
    this would be an opportunity to explore areas of bipartisan
    agreement on how to improve an important Federal agency. I am
    sure that my colleagues agree that if and when there are
    problems in a government entity for which the mission is to
    protect public health and the environment, we should be
    steadfast in identifying any problem and work together to find
    meaningful solutions.
        According to the hearing charter, the purpose of this
    hearing is to receive independent scientific advice and
    testimony on draft legislation that seeks to strengthen public
    participation, improve the process for selecting expert
    advisers, expand transparency requirements, and limit
    nonscientific policy advice within the EPA's scientific
    advisory process. All of these are good government principles
    that I support.
        Like many of my colleagues on the panel, I have heard from
    constituents who are frustrated with EPA decisions, EPA
    processes, or both. Many of those constituents tell me that
    what they need from the EPA is consistency and efficiency. On
    closer examination of the discussion draft of the bill,
    however, I noted that the provisions will not improve the
    Science Advisory Board structure or operation but instead would
    likely limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives.
    These provisions appear to tie the EPA's hands by denying the
    Agency access to a vast pool of our country's most expert
    scientists and researchers in environmental science and health.
        Last Congress, there was a very similar bill introduced,
    only the prior version contained a provision that would have
    resulted in many, if not most, scientists from academic
    institutions being eliminated from the EPA's Science Advisory
    Boards and being replaced by industry-funded experts. I am glad
    to see that my colleagues in the majority have eliminated that
    provision in this current draft.
        Although that provision is no longer there, other parts of
    the draft bill appear to do the same thing. By eroding
    requirements that are in place under the Ethics in Government
    Act and by creating an unnecessary legal conundrum because of
    inconsistencies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA,
    under which thousands of Boards, including EPA's Science
    Advisory Boards, operate and have operated since inception.
        To be clear on one point--and I trust that this is an area
    where my Republican colleagues and I agree--I am not opposed to
    industry-funded experts participating on Scientific Advisory
    Boards or in the peer-review process at the EPA. Their expert
    insight into processes and industry conduct can provide
    valuable guidance to an advisory body. That said, the Science,
    Space, and Technology Committee in the House of Representatives
    should not be putting forth legislation that undermines ethics
    requirements and other requirements that have governed
    thousands of advisory boards through the Executive Branch since
    1972 with the end result being an overrepresentation of
    industry voices on the Science Advisory Boards.
        EPA's science is tied to a mission, a mission to protect
    public health through environmental regulation. Scientific
    research, knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental to
    EPA's mission and inform its regulatory functions. That need
    for expertise is exactly why Congress created advisory boards
    such as the Science Advisory Board, to provide independent
    advice on the science, which in turn allows the EPA
    Administrator to make sound regulatory decisions.
        I hope that instead of undermining the scientific advice
    EPA receives, we build upon EPA's scientific legacy. I hope we
    don't spend our time condemning American scientists and
    researchers simply because they are affiliated with research
    universities. And I want to note that under existing law
    scientists already recuse themselves from activities that
    directly or indirectly relate to finding decisions that are--
    that affect them, besides suggesting that American scientists
    and researchers are adversaries of good science is not good for
    our country.
        Before yielding back, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter
    into the record several letters sent to the Committee by
    various groups and individuals expressing their concerns about
    provisions in the bill. These letters are from concerned
    citizens, science, and environmental organizations, and
    individuals within the scientific research community around the
    country. I look forward to the testimony today and the
    questions. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici

        Thank you, Chairman Stewart. Today the Subcommittee meets again for
    a hearing on the quality of the science being used by the Environmental
    Protection Agency. When I first read the title of this hearing,
    ``Improving EPA's Scientific Advisory Process,'' I felt encouraged that
    this would be an opportunity to explore areas of bipartisan agreement
    on how to improve an important federal agency. I am sure my colleagues
    agree that, if and where there are problems in a government entity for
    which the mission is to protect public health and the environment, we
    should be steadfast in identifying any problem and work together to
    find meaningful solutions.
        According to the hearing charter, the purpose of this hearing is to
    receive independent scientific advice and testimony on draft
    legislation that seeks to strengthen public participation; improve the
    process for selecting expert advisors; expand transparency
    requirements; and limit non-scientific policy advice within the EPA
    scientific advisory process. All of these are good government
    principles that I support. Like many of my colleagues on this panel, I
    have heard from constituents who are frustrated with EPA decisions, EPA
    processes, or both. Many of those constituents tell me that what they
    need from EPA is consistency and efficiency.
        On closer examination of the discussion draft of the bill, however,
    I noted provisions that will not improve the Science Advisory Board
    structure or operation, but that instead would likely limit the quality
    of scientific advice the EPA receives. These provisions appear to tie
    the EPA's hands by denying the agency access to a vast pool of our
    country's most expert scientists and researchers in environmental
    science and health
        Last Congress, there was a very similar bill introduced, only the
    prior version contained a provision that would have resulted in many if
    not most scientists from academic institutions being eliminated from
    the EPA's Scientific Advisory Boards and being replaced by industry-
    funded experts. I am glad to see that my Republican colleagues have
    eliminated that provision in this current draft. Although that
    provision is no longer there, other parts of the draft bill appear to
    do the same thing by eroding requirements that are in place under the
    Ethics in Government Act, and by creating an unnecessary legal
    conundrum because of inconsistencies with the Federal Advisory
    Committee Act (FACA), under which thousands of boards, including the
    EPA's Scientific Advisory Boards, operate and have operated since
    inception.
        To be clear on one point--and I trust that this is an area where my
    Republican colleagues and I agree: I am not opposed to industry-funded
    experts participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer
    review process at the EPA. Their expert insight into processes and
    industry conduct can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body.
    That said, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee in the House of
    Representatives should not be putting forth legislation that undermines
    ethics requirements and other requirements that have governed thousands
    of advisory boards throughout the executive branch since 1972, with the
    end result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on Science
    Advisory Boards.
        EPA's science is tied to a mission to protect public health through
    environmental regulation. Scientific research, knowledge, and technical
    expertise are fundamental to EPA's mission and inform its regulatory
    functions. That need for expertise is why Congress created advisory
    bodies such as the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to provide independent
    advice on the science, which in turn allows the EPA Administrator to
    make sound regulatory decisions.
        I hope that, instead of undermining the scientific advice EPA
    receives, we build upon EPA's scientific legacy. I hope that we don't
    spend our time today condemning American scientists and researchers
    simply because they are affiliated with a research university. And I
    want to note that scientists already recuse themselves from activities
    that directly or indirectly relate to finding decisions that affect
    them. Besides, suggesting that American scientists and researchers are
    adversaries of good science is not good for our country.
        Before yielding back, I would like to enter into the record letters
    sent to the Committee by various groups and individuals expressing
    their concerns about the provisions in the bill. These letters are from
    concerned citizens, science and environmental organizations, and
    individuals within the scientific research community around the
    country.

        Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
        Regarding your request for submitting your letters, without
    objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Chairman Stewart. I would note that not all of these
    letters from environmentalists mention concerns in H.R. 6564
    that may not be relevant to the discussion draft considered
    today, which I think you pointed out in your opening statement.
        If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
    statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
    point.
        At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. And
    before I do, thank you for taking the opportunity and being
    with us today. Thank you for your service to your country and
    for your expertise in this matter.
        Our first witness is Dr. Michael Honeycutt, the Chief
    Toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
    He has been employed by Texas Commission on Environmental
    Quality since 1996 and has managed the division of 14
    toxicologists since 2003. His responsibilities include
    overseeing health affects, reviews of the air permit
    applications, overseeing the review of the results of Ambient
    Air Monitoring Projects, and overseeing the reviews of Human
    Health Risk Assessments for hazardous waste sites.
        Our second witness is Dr. Roger McClellan, an Advisor of
    Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis. Dr. McClellan has
    served as an Advisor to numerous public and private
    organizations. He has served on the Senior Advisory Committees
    for eight Federal agencies, he is the past Chairman of the
    Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, the Environmental
    Health Committee, Research Strategies Advisory Committee, and a
    member of the Executive Committee Science Advisory Board, U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency. He received his doctorate from
    Washington State University in 1960.
        Our final witness today is Dr. Francesca Grifo, a Senior
    Scientist and Senior Policy Fellow at the Union of Concerned
    Scientists. Dr. Grifo came to UCS in 2005 from Columbia
    University where she directed the Center for Environmental
    Research and Conservation Graduate Policy Workshop and ran the
    Science Teachers Environmental Education Program. Prior to
    that, she was Director of the Center for Biodiversity and
    Conservation and a Curator at the Hall of Biodiversity at the
    American Museum of Natural History in New York. Dr. Grifo
    earned her doctorate in botany from Cornell University.
        It is clear that all of these witnesses have great
    expertise and background that could lend to this subject. As
    our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to five
    minutes, after which the Members of the Committee will have
    five minutes to each ask questions.
        I now recognize Dr. Honeycutt for five minutes for his
    testimony.

                  TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL HONEYCUTT,

                          CHIEF TOXICOLOGIST,

               TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

        Dr. Honeycutt. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of
    the Committee. My name is Dr. Michael Honeycutt. I am Director
    of the Toxicology Division at the Texas Commission on
    Environmental Quality. I thank you for this opportunity to
    testify.
        A few years ago, I attended a scientific meeting in North
    Carolina where I struck up a conversation with a scientist who
    had been a member of the lead Clean Air Science Advisory
    Committee, or CASAC. I gave him my view on EPA's lowering of
    the lead standard in 2008 and he told me that he wished he had
    known this information when they were deliberating the lead
    standard and asked why I hadn't made comments. I told him that
    I had submitted written comments and he replied we don't read
    the written comments. You have to go to the public meetings to
    make your case in person.
        Why bother going through the pretense of having written
    comments to the CASAC if you are not going to read them? Oral
    testimony at the CASAC meetings is limited to three or five
    minutes, hardly enough time to present a thorough argument.
    This illustrates the need for EPA's advisory panels to be
    balanced. Having balanced panels brings all the information
    into consideration which reduces ``group think'' and leads to
    better policy decisions.
        In the past, the CASAC has been relatively well-balanced in
    terms of expertise and range of opinions. However, in recent
    years the trend has been towards inclusion of more
    epidemiologists from academia at the exclusion of other areas
    of expertise such as toxicologists and risk assessors with
    little or no representation of well-qualified scientists from
    states and industry. This is perhaps the results of a
    misunderstanding of the role of scientists play in these
    organizations together with a misplaced perception of potential
    conflicts of interest.
        I went to school with and have worked with many scientists
    who now work for industry. I know their companies did not ask
    them to check their ethics and morals at the door when they
    took their jobs in industry. Given that academicians bring
    their own biases into the CASAC, there is no reason to believe
    that well-qualified experts from state agencies, consulting
    firms, or industry would be disproportionately biased.
        One concern that is often raised when deciding to exclude
    certain parties in the process of EPA peer review is bias due
    to sources of funding. I believe that receiving funding from
    the EPA in the form of research grants can also be seen as a
    potential source of bias. Under the current system, the EPA can
    select who it wishes to fund, choose key studies to support
    regulatory decisions, place the authors of those studies on the
    CASAC, and then ask their opinion on the resulting analysis and
    policy. Clearly, this poses a potential conflict of interest,
    even if the study authors recuse themselves from discussions
    which directly addresses their own work.
        We would instead propose a more balanced approach such as
    that employed by the nonprofit organization Toxicological
    Excellence in Risk Assessment, or TERA. TERA believes, and we
    concur, that an objective evaluation by independent experts
    with a variety of viewpoints is critical to the credibility of
    any peer review. TERA strives to include a range of
    perspectives on each panel, including diverse professional
    affiliations. The evaluation of real or perceived bias or
    conflict of interest is an important consideration for both
    peer review and consultation panels and every effort is made to
    avoid conflicts of interest and biases that would prevent a
    panel member from giving an independent opinion on the subject.
        TERA's Conflict of Interest Policy identifies the following
    situations as examples of those that would create a real or
    perceived conflicts of interest: working for an organization
    that sponsors or contributes to the document to be reviewed,
    having direct personal financial investments benefiting from
    the outcome of the review, or authoring or providing
    significant comments on the document being reviewed.
        The TERA Conflict of Interest Policy also discusses bias.
    For these reviews, the term bias means a predisposition towards
    the subject matter under consideration that could influence the
    candidates of viewpoint. Examples of bias would be situations
    in which a candidate: as previously taken a public position on
    the subjects to be discussed or is affiliated with an industry,
    governmental, public interest, or other group with a partiality
    regarding the subjects to be discussed.
        As you can see from these examples, such potential
    conflicts or biases could apply equally to academicians as they
    may to scientists from industry or any other organization.
    Therefore, it is our belief that there is a need for
    reconsideration of current conflict-of-interest policies
    regarding EPA advisory panels. There is also much improvement
    needed with regards to a balanced peer review that incorporates
    numerous perspectives and areas of expertise. We believe that
    these changes will result in a stronger peer review process in
    ultimately better policy decisions.
        The measures outlined in the bill are common sense and
    already in use by other groups such as the National Academy of
    Sciences and TERA. You will hear others testify that EPA has
    ample guidance on conflict of interest, bias, and balance. The
    problem is they don't consistently follow it.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today
    and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Honeycutt follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.010

        Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Dr. Honeycutt.
        Dr. McClellan?

               TESTIMONY OF DR. ROGER MCCLELLAN, ADVISOR,

               TOXICOLOGY AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS

        Dr. McClellan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
    Subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to share my views
    with you on approaches to ``Improving EPA's Scientific Advisory
    Processes.'' I requested my written comments be entered into
    the record in their entirety.
        I applaud the Subcommittee for holding a hearing on this
    important topic. The receipt of sound scientific advice from
    scientists and engineers outside of EPA is of paramount
    importance to the Agency fulfilling its mandated
    responsibilities for protection of human health and the
    environment. The comments I offer today draw on 50 years of
    experience offering advice to public and private organizations,
    as well as my receipt of advice as a scientist and research
    manager.
        My service as a Scientific Advisor to the EPA began with
    the creation of the Agency. The new EPA included an
    Environmental Radiation Program previously located in U.S.
    Public Health Service. The transfer of the program to EPA
    included transfer of the environmental radiation exposure
    advisory committee that I would soon chair. Last summer, I
    provided advice to the Agency on its Multi-Pollutant Air
    Quality Program.
        During the intervening 40 years, I have served as a member
    of SABs, Executive Committee, and on numerous specific
    committees, including service as Chair of the Clean Air
    Scientific Advisory Committee, it is clear from the amount of
    time that I have spent in those activities now measured in
    years that I think they are of great value to the Agency.
    Moreover, I think the advisory committee activities can be
    improved to substantially enhance their value to the EPA, to
    the Nation, and to the participants. The changes in legislation
    proposed by the Subcommittee are a small step in the right
    direction. However, more is needed.
        I suggest that we start with a comprehensive coordinated
    internal and external review of all of EPA's advisory
    committees across all of its offices and programs and their
    linkage to relevant authorizing legislation and the Federal
    Advisory Committee Act.
        Second, the review should focus on the purpose of each
    advisory activity and the efficiency and effectiveness of the
    past activities and how they can be further enhanced.
        Three, the review should consider how the advisory process
    can be broadened to beyond the current focus on using advisors
    and consultants selected from a small portion of the scientific
    community to include individuals drawn from a national pool of
    talent, including those employed in the private sector.
        Four, the review should consider how best to structure
    future advisory activities so they focus on obtaining
    scientific advice unfettered by any ideological linkage to how
    the advice may advance the Agency's current policy or political
    goals.
        Five, the review should also focus on how to enhance public
    participation and transparency in the nomination and selection
    of advisors and consultants, because this is a very blurred
    boundary, including EPA's internal processes for selecting
    those individuals. This review should include what I call the
    aspects of the selection process carried out behind the doors
    of the Administrator's office.
        Six, the reviews should consider the role of Science
    Advisory Committees in addressing charge questions addressed
    and developed by the Agency staff, which typically have
    preordained answers versus obtaining advice generated by
    committee members based on their broad view of scientific
    issues and science.
        Seven, special attention should be given to recent actions
    to select members of the Hydraulic Fracking Impact and
    Polychlorinated Biphenyl Review Committees. Nominees for both
    committees represent a much-needed broader cross-section of
    scientific talent then customarily considered for appointment
    to EPA committees. I urge the Agency to select the best
    qualified individuals from that broad talent pool, including
    knowledgeable scientists and engineers employed in the private
    sector.
        In summary, critical review of EPA's scientific advisory
    process will identify ways to enhance the advisory process that
    will improve EPA's ability to protect human health and the
    environment now and in the future.
        I will be pleased to address any questions you may have.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to appear at this hearing
    addressing an extremely important topic. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. McClellan follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.023

        Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Dr. McClellan.
        Ma'am, Dr. Grifo.

                   TESTIMONY OF DR. FRANCESCA GRIFO,

              SENIOR SCIENTIST AND SCIENCE POLICY FELLOW,

                     UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

        Dr. Grifo. Good morning, Chairman Stuart and Ranking Member
    Bonamici. Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns
    regarding the proposed amendments to the ERDDA, or the
    Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration
    Authorization Act of 1978. The changes described in the
    amendments I believe would slow down the work of the EPA's
    Science Advisory Board--which I will refer to as SAB--remove
    long-standing and widely accepted practices for dealing with
    conflicts of interest, and reduce expertise.
        Congress articulated broad requirements for balance,
    independence, and transparency in the Federal Advisory
    Committee Act. FACA instructs agencies to ensure committees
    will not be inappropriately influenced by special interests.
    Currently, all the members of EPA's SAB are appointed as
    Special Government Employees and subject to most of the
    government's ethics rules. They are required to report
    information about income, activities, assets, liabilities--it
    is quite a long list--and to answer questions regarding causes
    for impartiality and previous involvement and public statements
    on issues under consideration.
        Conflict of interest applies to financial interest; bias
    applies to intellectually or ideologically motivated points of
    view. They are different. Conflict of interest should be
    eliminated. Bias should be managed by appointing a committee
    such that a balance of perspectives is achieved except for when
    a perspective is far from the mainstream or the individual is
    unable to consider other points of view. It is important to
    collect sufficient information from candidates and obtain
    public input so that the designated Federal officials can make
    their best determinations on these issues.
        On to a couple of provisions in the discussion draft.
    Inserting risk or hazard assessment in ERDDA expands the scope
    of the SAB's work to potentially include every risk or hazard
    assessment proposed by the Agency. This would overwhelm already
    limited resources and delay assessments. When these assessments
    can, when necessary, be reviewed by other means, why add this?
        Holding a public information gathering session before major
    advisory activities to discuss the state of related science
    will consume time and resources. Since the SAB meetings are
    open to the public with time set aside for their oral comments,
    the Board accepts the written comments and will be discussing
    the state of the science, what value does this add?
        Requiring SAB to respond in writing to public comments is a
    burden and distraction given that special interests could
    arrange to have thousands and thousands of comments submitted
    every week. Since committees read and respond to written public
    comments in the final report content and to oral comments
    during the proceedings, what does this add?
        If persons affiliated with entities that may have a
    potential interest in the Board's activities are not excluded
    from the Board but simply required to fully disclose the
    conflict, the objectivity of an advisory committee and the
    public's trust and the advice rendered are irrevocably damaged.
    Scientists are not immune to influence by their financial
    prospects conflicted experts can influence panel decisions by
    their voting, by dominating the discussion, and by pressuring
    other panelists. Disclosure of individual and institutional
    financial relationships is a critical but limited first step.
    Disclosure does not resolve or eliminate conflicts. When a
    scientist has irreplaceable expertise but has a conflict, that
    expert can be invited to present to the committee without
    serving on the committee.
        The provision requiring that at least ten percent of the
    membership of the Board be from state, local, or tribal
    governments sounds like stakeholder representation and could be
    interpreted to mean that these members of the SAB would be
    appointed as representatives rather than Special Government
    Employees and they would not be subject to most of the
    government ethics rules and hence able to serve without
    disclosure of conflicts of interest. There are reports from the
    Government Accountability Office, Bipartisan Policy Center, and
    Keystone all state that members of committees that consider
    scientific and technical issues should be appointed as Special
    Government Employees.
        If experts cannot participate in the advisory activities
    that potentially involve review of their own work, even if
    their work is one of hundreds of studies under consideration,
    some specialized experts would be disqualified. Standard
    practice among Federal agencies and the National Academies is
    to recuse scientists from peer review of their own work but
    allow those scientists to serve on the committee.
        Just a couple of--four quick recommendations. The
    Bipartisan Policy Center report and Keystone report have
    extensive recommendations so I am just going to go through four
    that I believe are critical. All Federal scientific advisory
    panels and subcommittees, including those put together or
    managed by contractors, should be subject to FACA and have all
    members appointed as special government employees.
        The goal of agencies should--two, the goal of agencies
    should be to appoint only panelists who do not have conflict of
    interest. This is reinforced in the Bipartisan Policy Center
    report as well as the Keystone report. And agencies should
    select panel members based on their expertise and on their
    ability to contribute to the panel deliberations without
    conflict of interest or undue bias, again, Bipartisan Policy
    Committee and Keystone.
        Waivers should be publicly available and only issued as
    rare, temporary exceptions, and panelists with waivers should
    not be allowed to serve in leadership positions.
        And finally, panel chairs should remind panelists at every
    meeting to disclose new or previously undisclosed information
    relevant to determining conflict of interest or bias.
        Thank you and I will be happy to answer questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Grifo follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.037

        Chairman Stewart. Once again, I would like to thank the
    witnesses for being available for questioning today and we look
    forward to hearing your responses to some of our concerns.
        Committee rules limit questioning to five minute rounds
    alternating between Republicans and Democratic Members of the
    Subcommittee. After all Subcommittee Members have asked
    questions, I ask unanimous consent to recognize Committee
    Members not on the Subcommittee.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        The Subcommittee Chair recognizes himself for five minutes
    to begin questioning.
        I would like to kind of put this in historical perspective
    to get a larger view if we could. And let me begin with some
    things that I think will be just very easy to answer. I think
    we agree that it is important that our Scientific Advisory
    Panels be viewed as being fair and unbiased. That is the
    outcome that we are looking for here. We all would agree with
    that. That serves the American people, and frankly, it serves
    the EPA as well. And this shouldn't be a partisan issue and I
    don't think that it is a partisan issue.
        And I think I would ask you, do you believe that the EPA's
    Boards, in the view of the public but also in the view of those
    entities in which they regulate, are they now viewed as being
    unbiased and arbitrary? Anyone who would like to just voice an
    opinion on that?
        Dr. McClellan. Let me start by saying I certainly endorse
    your issue in terms of starting with a bipartisanship. As I
    look around the room at the portraits here, I think I testified
    before a number of those fine persons and both parties. So it
    is not a partisan issue, and I would further say that I have
    known many--hundreds of individuals who have served EPA in
    Advisory Committees. They are very talented individuals, and if
    you do the job well, it takes a lot of time.
        Having said that, I don't think that the Committee has
    approached science always with a fair and balanced view. I
    think on many occasions individuals stumbled over their
    understanding of the science and the relationship to the
    policy. They are very quick to jump into the policy arena and
    advocate a lower standard or a specific nature of the standard
    which goes well beyond the issue of the science. So I think
    that distinction, it needs to be done better.
        Chairman Stewart. Well, let me ask the question
    differently. I am asking something really quite simple, and
    that is that you think there is a growing perception, a growing
    concern among the public and among those entities that are
    regulated that the panels may not be as unbiased as we hoped
    they would be? That is a yes or no. Do you think there is a
    growing concern of that?
        Dr. McClellan. Yes, there is.
        Chairman Stewart. Yes----
        Dr. McClellan. It is at all levels.
        Chairman Stewart. Okay.
        Dr. McClellan. I would say that goes from blue-collar
    workers that I meet in a mine or out in a fracking site in
    Wyoming to executives in----
        Chairman Stewart. Okay. So a wide range. And Dr. Honeycutt,
    you seem to indicate yes. And Dr. Grifo?
        Dr. Grifo. Respectfully disagree.
        Chairman Stewart. Okay. I would like to come back to that
    if I could, and I will. And then maybe just assuming that there
    is a growing perception problem, is this something that is
    relatively new? Ten years ago or 20 years ago was there more
    trust in this process? Did the people and the regulated
    agencies--did they feel like the advisory panels or advisory
    boards were giving better recommendations? Or is this something
    that has evolved in--you know, in more recent time? Again, a
    brief answer if you could because I would like to come back to
    you, Dr. Grifo, if we could.
        Dr. McClellan. This is an issue that has really been there
    from the beginning. In my written testimony I recount my
    service as Chair of the ad hoc committee to review the first
    lead criteria document. So----
        Chairman Stewart. So you think it has been a problem for a
    while?
        Dr. McClellan. It has been a problem for a long period of
    time and a central part of the issue is mixing up science which
    should inform but not dictate policy. They are different.
        Chairman Stewart. Okay. Dr. Honeycutt, would you agree or
    disagree?
        Dr. Honeycutt. I would mainly agree with what you are
    saying.
        Chairman Stewart. Okay. And either way, I think it is
    appropriate to recognize that there is a problem whether it has
    been recent or long-standing. It is time that we recognize that
    and try to address it through this legislation.
        And Dr. Grifo, you respectfully disagreed. Would you expand
    on that a little bit?
        Dr. Grifo. I think we have a disagreement over the nature
    of the problem and the details, and I think we will probably
    get into that. I mean I am not going to sit here and say that
    every advisory committee is perfect. You know, they are not.
    But I do believe that they are--my problems with them are in a
    different direction than yours, I suspect.
        Chairman Stewart. Okay. And that is fair. But I think we
    can agree that this process could be improved?
        Dr. Grifo. Always.
        Chairman Stewart. Always, yes. There are concerns, whether
    they are recent or whether they are long-standing, there are
    concerns, and in my opinion, it is a growing concern having
    some background in this industry, in one industry that is
    regulated heavily by the EPA that there is a growing perception
    problem, and that is why this legislation is meaningful. That
    is why this is a great opportunity to address that because,
    once again, everyone is better served if there is a perception
    that this process is fair and that it listens to all opinions
    and all voices. I would like to pursue that, and maybe I will
    individually with you, but alas, my time is up.
        So I will now turn to the time over to, again, the Ranking
    Minority Member.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairman Stewart. And
    thank you all for your testimony and for your years of work.
        One of the things that I have heard frequently here in
    Congress is that we don't need new laws; we just need to
    enforce what we have. So Dr. Honeycutt, in your testimony you
    said that you will hear others testify that EPA has ample
    guidance on conflict of interest, bias, and balance. The
    problem is they don't consistently follow it. So I am glad you
    recognize that or identify that as an issue.
        As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I do hear from
    constituents who questioned the regulations and rules being
    promulgated by the EPA, and central to their concerns is the
    slow pace with which regulations are developed, implemented,
    and processes seem to slow down. And that is a concern that is
    expressed about other Federal agencies as well.
        Because we hear so often in this era of what seems to be
    governing from one crisis to the next, what we are looking for
    is certainty in the communities, certainly the business
    community was to have certainty and stability to promote
    growth. So in that context, Dr. Grifo, based on your expertise
    and studying this issue, would the changes to EPA's Science
    Advisory Board under the legislation we are discussing today
    expedite or improve the EPA's process and receiving independent
    scientific advice?
        Dr. Grifo. In the amendments there are one or two things
    that I think are actually helpful, but I think the vast
    majority would have the long-term effect of slowing us down.
    And I think as you have rightly said, whether you are coming
    from a business perspective or, you know, a constituent-other-
    regular-people perspective, slowdown isn't good. I mean
    slowdown means that, you know, the regulations are slower, the
    health impacts continue, and so on, but it also means
    uncertainty for business and it also means that, you know,
    things happen. I mean if we don't do this right you end up with
    products on the market that are tainted or, you know,
    problematic, and that is not good for business either. So
    getting it right and doing it in a timely fashion is what I
    think we are all after.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. And I know in your
    testimony you talked about one of the issues was this need to
    respond in writing to public comment, and I think you have
    effectively identified some of the problems that could come
    with that.
        And I wanted to ask another question too. When a draft bill
    was introduced in the last Congress, it included the provision
    that would have limited the input of academic scientists to
    just ten percent of advisory panels, and I mentioned that is
    not in this current version of the bill. It is unclear why it
    was taken out, but this provision could be placed back in at
    some time. So I wonder if you could explain for the Committee
    what the impact of the science at the EPA would be if that
    were--type of provision were included in the final bill?
        Dr. Grifo. I think what is important--and we are
    conflating--are conflict of interest and bias. I think that
    what we need to really look at is getting committees that have
    no conflict of interest or very minimal and as a rare exception
    as the National Academies suggest. And really, you know, it is
    not about industry or not industry. It is about bias and
    conflict of interest. And I think we are going to find people
    with bias and conflicts in industry and in academia. And I
    think the point of submitting a lot of information, the point
    of having opportunities for public comment is to be able to
    allow the agencies--and there are really amazing people at the
    agencies that spend enormous amounts of time doing the
    screening to get it right, to get the combination that is
    correct.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. To your knowledge did either the
    Keystone Center or the Bipartisan Policy Center reports
    specifically recommend that there be more people from industry
    on advisory panels at the cost of reducing or eliminating some
    of the academic government-funded scientists?
        Dr. Grifo. No, absolutely not. And I should say, you know,
    it was rather an amazing and wonderful experience to be on the
    Keystone, that research integrity roundtable, because it was
    folks from academia, we had people from Baird, Dow, DuPont,
    American Chemistry Council, and when we sat around those tables
    and had those extended conversations--and we met off and on for
    18 months--we agreed. We came together on the things that are
    in there. In the same way with the Bipartisan Policy Center,
    the name Bipartisan----
        Ms. Bonamici. Right.
        Dr. Grifo. --Policy suggests a broad input. And in fact, if
    you look at the list of those participants, they came from
    across the spectrum. And what we all agreed on was--I mean in
    both of these reports is that what is important is really
    looking at bias so that you get a balanced panel, conflict of
    interest so that you get a panel that minimizes or eliminates
    those conflicts.
        Ms. Bonamici. And just to follow up then, are the conflict-
    of-interest principles laid out in the draft bill we are
    discussing based on the recommendations of Keystone or the
    Bipartisan Policy Center?
        Dr. Grifo. No.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. And I yield back. Thank
    you.
        Chairman Stewart. Thank you.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
    thank you for holding this very thought-provoking hearing
    today.
        I would like to just read something from Dwight Eisenhower
    in his farewell address. Most people remember Eisenhower's
    admonition about the military-industrial complex, but they
    ignore what Eisenhower spent much more time warning us about in
    his farewell address, and I will read this portion of it. ``The
    prospect of domination of the Nation's scholars by Federal
    employment project allocations and the power of money is ever-
    present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding
    scientific research and discovery in respect, we should, we
    must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public
    policy itself could become the captive of a scientific
    technological elites.''
        That is Dwight Eisenhower. Now, we almost never hear that
    quote but we hear the military-industrial complex all the time.
    I think that Eisenhower was a man of vision and a patriot in
    both of the areas where he warned us about. And in terms of
    what he was warning us about there, as I just read, the
    Congressional Research Service has done in the report, which
    you opened in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I would
    like to submit at this point that entire report for the record
    of this hearing.
        Chairman Stewart. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. What the report found is that almost
    60 percent of the members of EPA's chartered SAB and CASAC,
    that is 34 of the 58 members, have directly received National
    Center for Environmental Research Grants from the Agency since
    2000. These advisors served as principal or co-investigators
    for EPA grants totaling roughly $140 million.
        Now, what, unfortunately, we hear in situations like this,
    and we have talked about expertise and it can also be bias.
    Expertise is biased if those experts are from the private
    sector, but if those experts receive their experience by
    getting government grants and are part of government studies
    which have put them part of this elite that Eisenhower warned
    us about, now, that is a positive thing. All of a sudden that
    becomes experience.
        And I think that we have got to pay attention to this
    because bias can result in cliques that are formed among people
    who make sure people in the clique get the research grants and
    are part of the system that determines public policy, which is
    exactly what Eisenhower was warning us against.
        The research, of course, that we are talking about,
    example: four of seven members of the Clean Air Scientific
    Advisory Committee, which reviewed the EPA's Final Particulate
    Matter on the National Standards, have received million-dollar-
    plus EPA grants related to particulate matter since 2010. Now,
    if that isn't bias, I don't know. It is one thing to be able to
    have the scientific knowledge to judge what is going on, but to
    have already participated in research, that indicates a bias
    and something we need to address. And I would hope--and maybe I
    will. Doctor, maybe we should give you a chance to comment on
    what I have just stated, because obviously I am aiming this at
    the EPA.
        Dr. Grifo. Happy to, sir.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Dr. Grifo. I think again that is not what I am saying. Bias
    matters; conflict of interest matters. Those are the things we
    need to examine. There are very well-equipped experienced folks
    in the agencies spending inordinate amount of time examining
    those things and coming to the best decisions they can with the
    guidance from the Office of Government Ethics, the General
    Services Administration, all those folks that are working on
    this. And I think what we are talking about are not necessarily
    including or excluding people because of the institutions that
    they work for. It is about what they turn in on those forms.
    And those forms are extraordinarily extensive. I mean if
    anything, they are--you know, they are very burdensome and
    long.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. But we do----
        Dr. Grifo. But it is the information that we need in order
    to bury carefully make those determinations.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, Mr. Chairman--and obviously, the
    report that has been given to us by the Congressional Research
    indicates that we--that there are people who are in the clique
    who are getting these grants and then getting the jobs. And
    Eisenhower warned us about this, and quite frankly, we have
    seen evidence of that in a number of areas, especially in
    fracking and these other things that you mentioned.
        Thank you very much for the hearing today.
        Chairman Stewart. Yes, thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Now, we turn to Ms. Edwards.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to
    say, first, I had the privilege as the former Ranking Member of
    the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee--and I can recall
    well the numerous questions about EPA's scientific integrity,
    and specifically, the concerns about the scientific advisory
    processes. And while I understand the concerns and those
    expressed by the witnesses today, I think the aims of the draft
    bill that is in front of us with it, it is not really clear to
    me that this bill and the sort of recommended changes espoused
    by Dr. Honeycutt and Dr. McClellan would actually create the
    kind of improvements to the process that the bipartisan group,
    the Keystone group identified as recommended changes to address
    directly address the concerns that you have just expressed.
        Dr. McClellan, I want to ask you because you have served on
    advisory boards before, and so I am curious, did you have the
    occasion in your service to read all of the comments that were
    submitted in addition to the testimony that you heard when--
    during your service?
        Dr. McClellan. As you have noted, I served on numerous
    committees. Committees that we are specifically focusing on
    here in terms of public input are those that come under the
    Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which I chaired. I can
    assure you that I read every public comment that came forward.
    I am disappointed I cannot say that for many of my colleagues.
        Ms. Edwards. But did you have----
        Dr. McClellan. I also--
        Ms. Edwards. Let me just--because I just have a limited
    amount of time. You served on those committees. You read all of
    the comments. Did you feel a need to respond to every single
    comment that was submitted to you even though you considered it
    in your service?
        Dr. McClellan. There weren't many of those comments that
    deserved comment from the Agency as it proceeded with its
    rulemaking process.
        Ms. Edwards. Dr. Grifo----
        Dr. McClellan. It has done that in some cases. In many
    cases I think the Agency is deficient in responding. I think
    the Agency and the Committee frequently dismisses public
    comments to provide a three minute or a five minute comment
    period on very important matters is not sufficient. That is not
    engaging the public.
        Ms. Edwards. So I am a little bit unclear. Dr. Grifo, I
    wonder if you can tell me in the work that you did coming up
    with--on these panels coming up with recommendations, do you
    believe that it is feasible given the level of work and the
    speed with which sometimes industry actually wants the
    stability and wants the Agency to operate that it would be
    possible with 17 full-time employees to respond to every single
    comment or even the significant ones? And is it your experience
    in reviewing these matters that there are times when comment is
    submitted and at a staff level it is reviewed and factors into
    the decision-making and the process whether or not it is
    actually responded to or whether or not anyone was even
    listening during the hearings?
        Dr. Grifo. You know, in anticipation of today I did a
    little bit of a survey calling several colleagues that serve
    regularly on panels, as you do, sir. And in fact, you know,
    they do look at them. I mean they do read them. They do take
    them seriously. And, you know, if they don't appear in the
    final report is because the consensus of the Committee was that
    it wasn't appropriate for them to be in that final report.
        So I think what is important here is that those public
    comments do come in and that there is an opportunity for the
    panel members to read them. But the written response could
    literally bring everything to a stop. Thousands and thousands
    and thousands of comments could be submitted on a weekly basis
    and there is no way there would ever be time to do anything
    else.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you. And then I want to ask you actually
    about the process a little bit and this idea of conflicts of
    interest because it is possible to have conflicts of interest
    that are fully disclosed or analyzed and still participate
    effectively in a process, isn't that true?
        Dr. Grifo. We currently have a system of waivers where
    waivers are actually given out so that people with conflicts
    may continue to serve. And one of the great things that came
    out of Dr. Holden's memo is this notion that all of those
    waivers should be made public.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you. And then lastly, let me just, you
    know, just say for the record. I mean there are plenty of times
    when a person has a conflict or some kind of interest and they
    have an expertise that is necessary, and it becomes necessary
    to involve them in the process and make sure that there is
    transparency in that disclosure and evaluation and move forward
    with the kind of assessments we need.
        And with that, my time is expired.
        Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
        So we now turn to Dr. Broun.
        Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Committee rules state that ``Members of the Committee
    or Subcommittee have two weeks from the date of the hearing to
    submit additional questions in writing for the record to be
    answered by witnesses who have appeared in person. The letters
    of transmission and your responses thereto shall be printed in
    the hearing record.'' Dr. Grifo, you testified in front of the
    Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight on October the
    13th, 2011, for a hearing titled ``The Endangered Species Act:
    Reviewing the Nexus of Science and Policy.'' November 16, 2011
    you were sent questions for the record and asked for responses
    within two weeks. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I asked for a
    unanimous consent to enter into the record at this point the
    letter, as well as the questions sent to Dr. Grifo.
        Chairman Stewart. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Broun. Thank you. Despite multiple reminders from
    Committee staff, we still have not received your answers for a
    year-and-a-half. Why did you ignore the Committee's questions?
        Dr. Grifo. I sent them. I will look into why you don't have
    them.
        Mr. Broun. We have not received them and I am not sure that
    I can--well, if you say you sent them, I would like to have
    proof of that.
        Dr. Grifo. Absolutely.
        Mr. Broun. What date did you send those, Dr. Grifo?
        Dr. Grifo. I don't know. I would have to go back and look.
    I know they were late. It was not within the two weeks. I will
    clearly tell you that. But it was within a month, and I know I
    sent them. I will have to go back and look at the record.
        Mr. Broun. Well, we have not received those and I am not
    sure----
        Dr. Grifo. Well, then, we need to clear that up, sir.
        Mr. Broun. Okay. Well, why should this Committee believe
    that you would respond to Member's questions if the Committee
    staff has reminded you over and over again? And this is the
    first time I have heard as a Chairman of that Committee that
    you sent the answers. Why should we accept any thought that you
    will respond to the Committee's questions today?
        Dr. Grifo. Because I have testified dozens of times and I
    have Respondent on all of those occasions.
        Mr. Broun. Well, you have an even----
        Dr. Grifo. And I will have to look into this one and find
    out what happened, sir.
        Mr. Broun. Well, Dr. Grifo, you have--even in spite of the
    Committee staff asking you over and over again, this is the
    first time we have heard.
        When you testified on October 13, you were under oath at
    that time and you indicated a willingness to respond to those
    questions. You say that you have. I think you failed to do so
    frankly. Why should we believe anything that you say?
        Dr. Grifo. Because I am telling you that you can look at
    the record for other hearings and you will see that I have
    responded, and I will look into this and see what happened.
        Mr. Broun. Well, I certainly hope so.
        Dr. Honeycutt and Dr. McClellan, Dr. Grifo believes that
    the process of panelists recusing themselves from review
    proceedings if their work is being discussed. She believes
    that, that the panelists should recuse themselves. Do you
    believe this practice of self-recusal actually works, Dr.
    Honeycutt?
        Dr. Honeycutt. No, sir. In fact, we have seen that not
    happen with the ozone case specifically--or especially.
    Actually, at the last CASAC public meeting, two study authors
    of the two studies that were the basis of the standard did
    recuse themselves at the last panel meeting, but previous panel
    meetings and they did not.
        Mr. Broun. Dr. McClellan?
        Dr. McClellan. No, I would certainly agree that it has been
    inconsistent in the manner of which that has been done. Dr.
    Honeycutt is correct and I was in attendance at that last
    meeting. Those two authors did take special effort at that
    time. It was clear that there was some change underway in terms
    of the Agency.
        Mr. Broun. Do either of you have suggestions of how we
    should do the recusal process if a panelist's work is being
    discussed?
        Dr. Honeycutt. Well, actually, in my opinion, they
    shouldn't have been on the panel in the first place.
        Mr. Broun. Okay.
        Dr. Honeycutt. There were only two studies that were the
    basis of the standard and there are dozens of scientists that
    could have been chosen to be on the panel. And it makes no
    sense to me why you would have those study authors on the
    panel.
        Mr. Broun. So a better selection process.
        Dr. McClellan?
        Dr. McClellan. I would agree with Dr. Honeycutt statement
    there. In terms of that particular situation, there were a
    broad group of scientists that could have served and it was
    probably inappropriate because of the very clear and central
    role of those individuals. Unfortunately, the situation was one
    in which the individual who was serving as Chair of CASAC was
    one of the authors in question. So he was put into a very
    difficult position.
        Mr. Broun. Well, thank you, gentlemen. My time is about up
    and I just want to say that I know when I talk to constituents
    and Georgia about the scientific integrity of EPA, I see a
    tremendous disgust and disbelief in the scientific integrity of
    EPA.
        Mr. Chairman, with that I will yield back.
        Chairman Stewart. Sir, thank you, Dr. Broun.
        Mr. Weber?
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am going to start with you, Dr. Grifo. I believe you
    stated--well, let me say a couple things first. I heard it said
    one time that all scientists are only convinced of one thing,
    and that is that every scientist before them was wrong. Excuse
    me. They can't always agree. In fact, to Vice Chairman
    Stewart's first question, is there a perceived problem with the
    EPA? I think 66-2/3 of you agree and 33-1/3 disagree, case in
    point.
        Dr. Grifo, I think you stated that any panel member should
    be ``Special Government Employees.'' Is that accurate?
        Dr. Grifo. For this particular Science Advisory Board, yes.
        Mr. Weber. Yes, ma'am. Do you contend that only Special
    Government Employees can be unbiased?
        Dr. Grifo. No, sir. I contend that only Special Government
    Employees have full examinations for conflict of interest.
        Mr. Weber. So what you are saying is that normal people,
    not that Special Government Employees aren't normal, and we
    could debate that, are not able to be unbiased. And I want to
    specifically hone in on industry here. Would you agree with the
    statement that most American entrepreneurs want a good clean
    environment for themselves, their families, their employees,
    indeed their customers? I mean after all, the longer a customer
    lives, the more products they can buy. That sounds kind of
    selfish, doesn't it? Do you agree, disagree with that?
        Dr. Grifo. I agree that. You know, I can only answer that
    in one way, as a mom. And I think that, you know, there are
    moms across this country that care deeply about the health and
    safety of their children.
        Mr. Weber. Well, and that is very commendable. I am not a
    mom but I am a dad and I got 3 kids and 4-1/2 grandkids. And do
    you have any grandchildren?
        Dr. Grifo. No. Do I look that old?
        Mr. Weber. I highly recommend them.
        Dr. Grifo. Good.
        Mr. Weber. Just as long as they are EPA-certified. I will
    say that they do have emissions when they are babies though and
    so you might want to take that into account.
        Dr. Grifo. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Weber. I own a business, and air-conditioning business,
    where we dealt with the EPA over Freon issues, and I can tell
    you as a father and a grandfather, industry has a vested
    interest in making sure that we have the best product, the best
    environment----
        Dr. Grifo. Um-hum.
        Mr. Weber. --and I think that for us to be able to weigh in
    on fracking and some of the other issues that seem to be of
    some concern, we need industry experts, those who have
    demonstrated by their lives, their time, their investment in
    terms of money, blood, sweat, and tears that they care about
    this country, they care about the environment. I have been to
    many chemical factories with a lot of my colleagues when I was
    in the state legislature and I would have to say that
    industry--because of that dirty word profit motive--doesn't
    want emissions, doesn't want accidents, doesn't want spells.
    They want to do it the safest, cleanest, best way because it is
    the most profitable. Would you object? I mean do you agree that
    we are horribly underrepresented by industry on this council,
    in the EPA on this panel?
        Dr. Grifo. Every Scientific Advisory Committee under FACA
    must submit a charter. In that charter they have to describe
    what the committee is going to be doing and what balance means
    for that committee. That is what is important is that, you
    know, the folks who were putting the folks--people on that
    panel actually look at that charter, follow that charter.
        I believe somebody submitted for the record the General
    Service Administration's requirements for plans for a balance
    committee and how that works. I support all of that and----
        Mr. Weber. My time is running out here. I just want to make
    the point that I believe we are.
        Dr. McClellan, how about you? And then we will go to Dr.
    Honeycutt.
        Dr. McClellan. Yeah, I--let me put it in sharp focus for
    you. In preparation for this hearing I went to the EPA's
    website and the Science Advisory Board. I looked through the
    participants on that, and as best I could tally them up in
    terms of, you know, where they came from----
        Mr. Weber. Industry experience?
        Dr. McClellan. I looked at these 110 members of the seven
    standing committees. Eighty-seven of those were from academic
    institutions. There was one individual from a company that
    makes products. I looked----
        Mr. Weber. And let's go on to Dr.----
        Dr. McClellan. --at the chartered SAB, something close to
    50 individuals. They were four to one----
        Mr. Weber. You are making my point. Let me run over to Dr.
    Honeycutt real quick. Thank you.
        Dr. Honeycutt. Yes, sir, I agree with you.
        Mr. Weber. Yes, well, boy, he is short and to the point.
        Well, unfortunately, not every EPA representative does us--
    we don't get the luxury of having a video or he has gone out
    and talked about crucifying industry like the former Regional 6
    EPA Administrator did, so we are not always fortunate to have
    that kind of biased out there. So it does exist. And I
    appreciate your comments. My time is expired.
        Mr. Vice Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Stewart. Yes, Mr. Weber. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes the former Chairman, Mr. Hall.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I really thank you
    for holding this hearing and the manner in which you have
    conducted it and your statements. The draft legislation being
    discussed today is a bill I think partially based on a bill I
    had introduced last year too late to get out of rules, but EPA
    Science Advisory Board Reform Act. I certainly look forward to
    your leadership on this because it is imperative that EPA's
    regulatory science be judged by truly independent experts.
        According to the EPA's Peer Review Handbook, the choice of
    peer review should be based primarily upon reviewers'
    expertise, knowledge, skills, and experience. And we have heard
    Dr. Grifo talked of that. And I want to ask her some questions
    in a minute. But according to EPA's Peer Review Handbook,
    choice of peer reviewers should be so based and should include
    specialists from multiple disciplines. Similarly, the National
    Academy of Sciences found that it may be important to have an
    industrial perspective because of the individual's particular
    knowledge and experience are often vital and you could say are
    testimony.
        Dr.--let me see who I want to get to next. I may just go
    directly to Dr. Grifo. You understand that one of the roles of
    an advisory committee is, as you said, to provide consensus
    among various identified interests or stakeholders, your
    statement, right?
        Dr. Grifo. My statement was that----
        Mr. Hall. Was that part of your statement?
        Dr. Grifo. That--if they are appointed as representatives
    but not necessarily for every advisory.
        Mr. Hall. No, I didn't ask you that. I just asked you if
    your statement was it should be among various identified
    interests or stakeholders? Yes or no?
        Dr. Grifo. No.
        Mr. Hall. Good. Then are you going to write and correct
    your statements before, as you have had to do probably many
    times?
        Dr. Grifo. What my statement said was that there are two
    ways that people can be appointed. One is as Special Government
    Employees, which comes with the government ethics rules, most
    of them. The other way they can be appointed is as a
    representative. I did not say whether one should be one or the
    other. What I did say----
        Mr. Hall. All right. Let me stop you there. I think I have
    heard all I want to hear from you. Do you think there is merit
    in acknowledging or making public any dissenting or minority
    opinions much like a court hearing? Do you think that is
    important? Yes or no?
        Dr. Grifo. There are different kinds of----
        Mr. Hall. A yes----
        Dr. Grifo. --advisory committees.
        Mr. Hall. --give me a yes or a no.
        Dr. Grifo. I can't give you a yes or no. It is more complex
    than that.
        Mr. Hall. I didn't think you really could. All that time
    that you were with the research roundtable, did you tell them
    about the court opinion that was given for aluminum against the
    EPA? Did you mention that to them? Now, you were there with
    them I think 18 months. You surely got around to discussing
    something like that. How important is a court hearing, a court
    ruling, not something the EPA or the President has directed or
    the Nazis trying to put on people? That is not what you want.
    We are looking for science from people that will give us true
    science. I don't find you doing that. I am glad my time is
    almost over.
        Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Chairman Hall.
        Some of us have expressed interest in follow-up questions
    with maybe a brief second round, and I think we would like to
    do that if we could.
        I would like to begin then, and go back to an example that
    I alluded to, although only quickly in my opening statements,
    and that is it is an example of, I think, one of the concerns
    that we have in this. As one of the members of EPA's SAB panel
    tasked to reviewing the Agency's hydraulic fracturing study,
    Dr. Jerald Schnoor published an article entitled ``Regulate,
    Baby, Regulate,'' which characterizes a relationship between
    government regulators and the oil and gas industry as ``cozy
    and sometimes corrupt.''
        Now, I would like to turn this just a little bit and then
    get your reaction to it. What is the title of the book had been
    something like Drill, Baby, Drill and the quote that I
    described characterized the relationship between regulators and
    environmental groups as being cozy and corrupt? Do you think if
    someone had taken that, that they would have been allowed to
    continue to serve or, as he was, allowed to serve on subsequent
    boards in that industry? Do you think that would have happened?
    Dr. Honeycutt?
        Dr. Honeycutt. I wouldn't think so.
        Chairman Stewart. Yes?
        Dr. McClellan. I think it is very unlikely. The original
    question, there is an element of the door tends to swing one
    direction there.
        Chairman Stewart. Yes.
        Dr. McClellan. That individual clearly never would have
    made it there. But they probably would not have made it there
    because they may have owned stock in the company. They may have
    been an independent driller.
        Chairman Stewart. Yes.
        Dr. McClellan. So it is--the point is well made.
        Chairman Stewart. Probably not. And Dr. Grifo, I would be
    particularly interested in yours. I mean if someone had made
    the statements as I described them, you know, Drill, Baby,
    Drill, and they described that relationship between, you know,
    environmental groups and regulators, would you have been
    comfortable allowing that person to continue to serve on the
    boards?
        Dr. Grifo. It would have depended on the overall balance of
    the committee. You don't, you know, eliminated conflict of
    interest, balance, bias. If you have people who you believe can
    take part in an open conversation, you want them there and you
    want to balance that point of view. You don't want to
    eliminate.
        Chairman Stewart. And I agree with you actually. And I
    think that is a great point that, you know, you can have people
    with perceived biases as long as they are balanced. Although I
    do think that you reach a threshold, and it may have been
    reached and some comment like that that would have excluded
    that opinion. I mean again if someone had said describe the
    relationship between regulators and environmental groups as
    cozy and corrupt, I think that perhaps is a threshold that even
    excepting bias or prejudices in the panel would have made so
    many people uncomfortable with a preconceived notion, I think
    it would have made many of us uncomfortable. And yet, the
    doctor continued to serve on subsequent boards.
        And I think that is just an example of a problem that we
    hope to address in this revised legislation from the former
    Chairman that we are happy to carry over from, you know, the
    previous Congress.
        Yes?
        Dr. Grifo. I just think that the pieces and hear that talk
    about making public the list ahead of time and allowing people
    to know who is going to be appointed are critical to looking at
    that balance issue. I think that is really important.
        Chairman Stewart. Well, and I agree with you. And, you
    know, along with that and in a separate area is this--and you
    have addressed this, although I don't think we have addressed
    it as strongly as I would have liked to, and that was this idea
    that it is okay for some of these members to have direct
    financial ties through grants or other financial, you know,
    financial vehicles that the government uses, and yet we are so
    readily exclude those who have financial ties to the industry.
    And agreeing with you, Dr. Grifo, as long as they are revealed,
    as long as the ethics of this are clear. I think that we can
    clearly bring in more balance.
        And Dr. McClellan, as you indicated in your previous answer
    to a question, you know, some 100 members on one panel and only
    one from the industry. And final point I will make and then I
    will yield time, the fracking industry is an industry, if we
    think IT as being an industry that is very dynamic and has
    great changes, it is nothing compared with the technological
    advances we are seeing and fracking. I mean these processes are
    changing every day, every week. And if you are not reaching out
    to these industry experts and asking for their input to these,
    if you are talking to someone who hasn't been in industry for a
    few months let alone a few years, then you are not getting the
    appropriate response from them because the technology has
    passed them by.
        Thank you again for your time today. And I now yield to the
    Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairman Stewart.
        I want to start by saying that witnesses here today are all
    professionals with years of experience and deserve to be
    treated as such regardless of whether we agree or disagree with
    their positions. So I just wanted to state that for the record
    and I hope that the other Members will respect that as well.
        I want to clarify something that came up in Mr. Weber's
    question. Dr. Grifo, in your written testimony this is very
    clear, but I am concerned about the record. I want to make sure
    that it is clear for those just listening as well. When you
    talked about how everyone on one of the EPA's SABs should be a
    Special Government Employee, I am concerned that some people
    thought that that meant that it could only mean somebody who
    was employed by the government and not an industry person. But
    your written testimony makes clear that when a member of a
    committee is--that is created to provide independent advice is
    appointed as a Special Government Employee, that is a specific
    term that requires that they comply with the government ethics
    rules.
        So I want to clarify that for the record and perhaps, Dr.
    Grifo, if you could explain a little bit about what that means
    to be a Special Government Employee to really make clear what
    the requirements are and clarify that it does include people
    from industry. If they are appointed as a Special Government
    Employee, that doesn't mean you exclude industry people.
        Dr. Grifo. Absolutely. To be--it is just a way of
    appointing people to government employee--to advisory
    committees. It is a term that refers to the number of days per
    year that they work and so on. It is just--it is a piece of the
    bureaucracy.
        But I think the other thing that is important is that, you
    know, academia does not mean no experience with industry. I
    think our academic world and the corporate world are
    increasingly interdigitated, and so to put someone in this
    pile, or this pile, it becomes a little bit artificial because
    I think we cross those piles on a regular basis.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Dr. Grifo. And just
    again to clarify that Special Government Employee does include
    people from industry----
        Dr. Grifo. Absolutely.
        Ms. Bonamici. --it simply means that they need to comply
    with the government ethics rules, which I happen to think is a
    good thing.
        Dr. Grifo. Absolutely.
        Ms. Bonamici. So thank you all for your testimony.
        And I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have certainly
    identified several areas where we agree, and I look forward to
    working with you and getting the input of the other Members and
    hope we can come up with some meaningful policy that improves
    the process.
        Chairman Stewart. Yes, thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
        And then we now turn once again to Dr. Broun.
        Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Grifo stated that
    the provisions requiring that the scientific and technical
    points of view represented by fairly balanced is unnecessary
    because it is already included in the Federal Advisory
    Committee Act. However, Dr. Honeycutt, Dr. McClellan, would you
    agree that it is important for the points of view represented
    on advisory panels such as the SAB be balanced? Yes or no?
        Dr. Honeycutt. Yes.
        Mr. Broun. Dr. McClellan?
        Dr. McClellan. Absolutely. And let me elaborate just a bit.
        Mr. Broun. I have got just a little bit of time and you
    like to talk a lot, so I just needed a yes or no right there. I
    appreciate it. If you can collaborate in your written response
    if you would.
        Do you believe that EPA's current advisory panels such as
    the SAB or the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee are
    balanced in terms of the points of view represented, Dr.
    Honeycutt?
        Dr. Honeycutt. No, sir.
        Mr. Broun. Dr. McClellan?
        Dr. McClellan. No.
        Mr. Broun. Dr. Grifo?
        Dr. Grifo. It depends on the panel.
        Mr. Broun. I asked yes or no.
        Dr. Grifo. I can't answer it that way. I am sorry.
        Mr. Broun. Okay. Nine members of the 2011 CASAC panel to
    review PM2.5 has signed a public letter which expressed
    dissatisfaction with the current standard, as well as a strong
    opinion of what the standard should be. This means that 40
    percent of the review panel is of the same opinion as to the
    advisory work that they are tasked with. Would you say this
    represents an adequate balance of opinion, Dr. Honeycutt?
        Dr. Honeycutt. No, sir.
        Mr. Broun. McClellan?
        Dr. McClellan. No, they fail to distinguish between the
    science and the policy they were advocating.
        Mr. Broun. Okay. Dr. Grifo?
        Dr. Grifo. No comment. I am not that familiar with that
    particular panel. I would have to look at it.
        Mr. Broun. Well, Dr. Grifo, the SAB's 2011 mercury panel is
    comprised of 17 academics, three state regulatory members, one
    from USGS and one private sector industry representative. You
    said that the panels should be balanced. Would you say that
    this is a fairly balanced panel?
        Dr. Grifo. We don't have the information that the folks
    putting that panel together had about the specific backgrounds
    and details of those individuals.
        Mr. Broun. Well, I am not asking about----
        Dr. Grifo. They made a determination----
        Mr. Broun. --their background. I just----
        Dr. Grifo. --that it was balanced. Again----
        Mr. Broun. --told you, Ms.----
        Dr. Grifo. --the label of academia, the label of industry,
    they are intermixed. People go back and forth between those
    realms. What is important is that you look at it, look at the
    charter for the committee and make sure that it is balanced. On
    that, sir, we can agree.
        Mr. Broun. Well, I think it should be balanced. If those
    academics are going to be promoting whatever their academic
    bias might be, three state regulatory members, one from USGS,
    and only one from the private sector, this is not balanced. And
    I think we can all agree we need balance, we need scientific
    integrity, and frankly, I don't see that.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Stewart. Yes, thank you, Dr. Broun.
        Well, with that we conclude our hearing today. I would like
    to thank once again the witnesses for your valuable testimony
    as well as to the Members for their questions.
        The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
    comments and written questions from the Members. And we ask the
    witnesses to respond to these written questions in a timely
    fashion.
        Well, again, with our gratitude, the witnesses are excused
    and this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Dr. Michael Honeycutt
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.042

    Responses by Dr. Roger McClellan
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.045

    Responses by Dr. Francesca Grifo
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.046

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

                Letters sent to the Committee by various groups
                and individuals expressing their concerns about
                    the provisions in the bill submitted by
                        Representative Suzanne Bonamici

            Congressional Research Service Memorandum on EPA Grants
                 to Members of Selected EPA Advisory Committees
                  submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher

           Thank you letter and Questions sent to Dr. Grifo from the
      Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight hearing on October 13,
                                     2011,
        for the hearing titled, ``The Endangered Species Act: Reviewing
      the Nexus of Science and Policy,'' submitted by Representative Paul
                                     Bourn

              George T. Wolff, The Changing NAAQS Review Process,
                       submitted by Dr. Michael Honeycutt
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.058

            EPA Evalualion Report submitted by Dr. Michael Honeycutt
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.080

             GSA Federal Advisory Committee Membership Balance Plan
                       submitted by Dr. Michael Honeycutt
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.084