[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 51 (Tuesday, April 30, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1702-H1705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    STRENGTHENING SCIENCE AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACT

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 64) to provide for the establishment of the position of 
Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 64

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening Science at the 
     Environmental Protection Agency Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     the Agency;
       (2) the term ``Agency'' means the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (3) the term ``Deputy'' means the Deputy Administrator for 
     Science and Technology appointed under section 4; and
       (4) the term ``research'' means research, development, and 
     demonstration.

     SEC. 3. RESEARCH MISSION OF AGENCY.

       Conducting, sponsoring, and evaluating environmental 
     science and technology research shall be a central mission of 
     the Agency. The results of such research shall be used to 
     help initiate, formulate, and carry out the Agency's agenda, 
     and the Agency shall seek to increase the public's 
     understanding of environmental science and technology by 
     making those research results available to the public.

     SEC. 4. DEPUTY.

       (a) Appointment.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, a Deputy Administrator 
     for Science and Technology, who shall coordinate and oversee 
     the science and technology activities of the Agency and 
     ensure that Agency decisions are informed by the results of 
     appropriate and relevant research.
       (b) Responsibilities.--The Deputy shall--
       (1) provide advice to the Administrator regarding science 
     and technology issues and their relationship to Agency 
     policies, procedures, and decisions;
       (2) participate in developing the Agency's strategic plans 
     and policies and review the science and technology aspects of 
     those plans and policies;
       (3) coordinate the acquisition and compilation of relevant 
     science and technology information available from academic 
     sources, government agencies, and the private sector;
       (4) develop and oversee guidelines for the dissemination of 
     research results conducted, sponsored, or cited by the Agency 
     to the public, including historically black colleges and 
     universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, minority 
     communities, and rural communities; and
       (5) develop and oversee guidelines for peer review of 
     science and technology research.
       (c) Qualifications.--An individual appointed under 
     subsection (a) shall be a person who has an outstanding 
     science and technology background, including research 
     accomplishments, scientific reputation, and public policy 
     experience.
       (d) Consultation.--Before appointing an individual under 
     subsection (a), the President shall consult with the National 
     Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the 
     Science Advisory Board of the Agency, and other appropriate 
     scientific organizations.
       (e) Compensation.--The Deputy shall be compensated at the 
     rate provided for level III of the Executive Schedule 
     pursuant to section 5314 of title 5, United States Code.
       (f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.''.

     SEC. 5. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Title and Term.--There shall be an Assistant 
     Administrator for Research and Development of the Agency, who 
     shall also have the title of Chief Scientist of the Agency. 
     Appointments to such position made after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act shall be for a term of 5 years unless 
     sooner removed by the President.
       (b) Qualifications.--An individual appointed under 
     subsection (a) shall be a person who has an outstanding 
     science and technology background, including research 
     accomplishments, scientific reputation, and experience in 
     leading a research and development organization.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) 
will each control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).


                             General Leave

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

[[Page H1703]]

may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 64, the bill now under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 64, the Strengthening 
Science at the Environmental Protection Agency Act.
  Time and time again I have heard my colleagues say, ``What I really 
want is the use of sound science at the EPA.'' The perception of how 
EPA decision-makers use science in their regulatory actions seems to 
fall into two camps: One view comes from the regulated community who 
claims that controversial decisions have ignored the underlying 
science. The other view comes from environmental and public advocacy 
communities who claim that the Agency ignores the underlying science 
while letting the regulated community unduly influence the process.
  While these constituency may forever disagree on controversial 
decisions, one theme is common to both camps and to Members of Congress 
and the Judiciary, they doubt that the EPA uses science appropriately 
in its regulatory decisions.
  How should the EPA use science? Is science simply a cudgel used to 
win a court battle? Is it simply an afterthought to the regulatory 
process? No. Rather, science should be at the beginning, middle, and 
end of the agency's decision-making process. It should infuse every 
issue from the beginning of discussions on that issue.
  Several independent reviews have concluded that there are significant 
problems with the way science is used within the EPA's decision-making 
structure. These reviews include expert panels of scientists 
commissioned by the Congress, the EPA, the MITRE Corporation, and the 
National Academy of Public Administration. The latest and most 
influential review, the National Academy of Sciences' 2000 report 
concluded: ``The importance of science in EPA's decision-making process 
should be no less than that afforded to legal considerations. Just as 
the advice of the Agency's general counsel is relied upon by the 
administrator to determine whether a proposed action is legal, an 
appropriately qualified and adequately empowered scientific official is 
needed to attest to the administrator and the Nation that the proposed 
action is scientific.''
  H.R. 64 provides for that qualified scientific official. This 
legislation would establish a new Deputy Administrator for Science and 
Technology to serve as an advocate for, and reviewer of, sciences at 
the most senior levels of the Agency. Second, the legislation would 
convert the position of the Assistant Administrator of the Office of 
Research and Development to a set term and give that position the title 
of Chief Scientist for the Agency.
  The Deputy Administrator position will bring a much-needed change to 
the culture of the EPA and ensure that science has a higher profile in 
the Agency's decision-making process. This person would not only be 
accountable to the administrator for improving and overseeing science 
at the Agency, but would also be accountable to the Congress. This 
relationship would bolster Congress' confidence in the appropriate role 
of science at the EPA and, therefore, in regulatory decisions.
  The Deputy Administrator is also needed to coordinate research 
between the regulatory and scientific arms of the Agency. A common 
problem with trying to ensure that science is involved throughout the 
regulatory process is that the head of the scientific arm of the 
Agency, the Assistant Administrator for ORD, shares the same rank as 
the heads of the regulatory offices. The authors of the Academy report 
argued since the new Deputy would rank higher than the existing 
Associate Administrators, this person could foster research 
relationships between the Office of Research and Development and the 
regulatory offices.
  While this first objective of H.R. 64 is intended to increase the 
political impact that science has at the Agency, the second objective, 
to establish a set term for the Associate Administrator of the Office 
of Research and Development, seeks to decrease political pressures on 
this office. Although the political aspect of the Associate 
Administrator's job often receives attention, the most important 
aspects of the job are not political. Since the Deputy Administrator 
could bear many of the political pressures inside the Agency, the 
Associate Administrator could focus his or her role as the Agency's 
chief scientist on inspiring and supervising a world class scientific 
organization.
  Before I close, let me mention that this legislation has garnered 
support from a wide array of outside groups. It has received backing 
from prestigious scientific groups such as the American Chemical 
Society, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the Society 
of Toxicology; from business groups, including the National Association 
of Manufacturers and the Business Roundtable; and from universities and 
other interested parties, including the National Association of State 
universities and Land Grant Colleges, and members of EPA's Scientific 
Advisory Board.
  The time has come to strengthen science at the EPA. Congress can act 
now by passing H.R. 64.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 64, a bill that will 
strengthen the use of science at the Environmental Protection Agency. I 
am proud to cosponsor this legislation.
  The chairman has done a great job of describing the bill. I would 
like to make just a few additional points. H.R. 64 will ensure that 
science plays its proper role at the EPA, providing the basis for sound 
regulations that do not unduly impede economic development while 
protecting our environment.
  The bill creates the new position of Deputy Administrator for Science 
and Technology. It also makes the Assistant Administrator for the 
Office of Research and Development a 5-year position, much like the 
directors of the NIH and the National Science Foundation.
  There is another important section that clarifies that research is 
integral to the mission of EPA to protect human health and the 
environment.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, the bill is supported by a wide array of business and 
scientific organizations. I believe the Committee on Science has 
crafted a good bill that will help ensure that the best and most recent 
science is considered when the administrator makes regulatory 
decisions.
  Ultimately, it will be up to the EPA administrator to listen to the 
scientists, but this bill will provide the experts with an opportunity 
to present their findings in a timely fashion. There are concerns both 
from the administration and environmental groups that this bill might 
create yet another layer of bureaucracy at the agency. This conceivably 
could occur by giving the deputy administrator a veto over regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) whether he agrees or disagrees with that view, and whether he 
would be willing to work with me and others to address continuing 
concerns within the bill?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to continue to work with the 
gentleman on these issues.
  I would like to comment that the issue of creating another layer of 
bureaucracy has been raised by other Members, and that is totally 
false. It does not create another layer of bureaucracy, it creates two 
positions side by side in the same layer, and I believe it is an 
appropriate role for the science administrator to have an equal status 
with the administrator who runs the rest of the agency.
  That is the real objective of this bill, to have science at a higher 
level, and I do not consider that an additional layer of bureaucracy; 
but I am pleased to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the clarification, and concur 
with the gentleman's position.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for 
his outstanding work on this bill and his

[[Page H1704]]

leadership of our committee. I also thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers) for his work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee 
on Science, and also express my appreciation for his work on this 
issue.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to Members that this 
measure is brought forward by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), 
a doctor, a distinguished scientist in his own right, who is providing 
invaluable service to the Committee on Science. He and another 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), are a dynamic duo who have worked 
tirelessly to advance this bill to the point where we have it on the 
floor today under the Suspension Calendar, which is reserved for 
noncontroversial measures. This is noncontroversial.
  No Member in their right mind can come up with any logical reason why 
we should not have a chief scientist in the Environmental Protection 
Agency. No one in their right mind can come up with any reason why we 
should not have, as this bill provides, a deputy administrator for 
science and technology. We are in an institution and in a town where 
people love to say that they favor science-based decision-making. Some 
of those people favor it as long as it is politically convenient. When 
the conclusion of the scientist is not politically convenient, they 
look elsewhere. There will be no escaping what this bill does, and its 
intent. We want to have the best possible scientific guidance for the 
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and we want the 
Environmental Protection Agency to give the administration and Congress 
the best possible advice that is based on sound science.
  If we have that, I am convinced we can continue to go forward in a 
very responsible way to deal with such issues as global climate change.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for 
his work on this, and the dedicated work of the staff on both sides of 
the aisle. The Committee on Science has an outstanding staff. I think 
it is second to none, very capable individuals, individuals with 
advanced degrees in various science disciplines, and that serves us all 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to pay attention to what we are doing 
here today, and I would expect unanimous support for this very worthy 
bill.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his 
leadership on this issue.
  I think the words which have been spoken are particularly 
instructive. As a member of the Committee on Science for a number of 
years, and having oversight over the Environmental Protection Agency, 
this legislation that provides for an administrator for science and 
technology emphasizes the partnership between what the agency does and 
science.
  Everything that we have had the opportunity to investigate in the 
Committee on Science permeates the words ``science and technology,'' 
and particularly over these last years we have been utilizing the 
concept of technology: Technology and weather, technology in the 
science of pollution and clean air, technology as it relates to 
education, technology as it relates to the whole concept of keeping our 
communities safer and cleaner. So in order to provide greater advice to 
the administration and to ensure that the Environmental Protection 
Agency is an agency that is strengthened with science, I believe this 
legislation is the right direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that as this legislation moves, we will be able 
to implement the position very quickly because I am seeing with the 
changing focus on the utilization of science and technology, the 
greater need for that expertise, expertise to the Congress and to the 
administration. It is my pleasure to add my support to this legislation 
because it strengthens the Environmental Protection Agency upon which 
we rely greatly as well as our local communities, and it gives the 
insight that is necessary to make the process of the environment and 
science holistic.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who has worked so hard on 
science issues, particularly the need to recruit women and minorities 
into science.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) for yielding me this time, and offer my commendation to the 
chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), 
and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Barcia), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for this 
piece of legislation that comes before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in support and as 
a proud cosponsor of H.R. 64, the Strengthening Science at the 
Environmental Protection Agency Act. This bill makes important changes 
to the administrative structure at the EPA, establishing for the first 
time a clear chain of command for EPA science, and a dedicated office 
responsible for maintaining the highest possible standards.
  With this bill, the House Committee on Science continues its mission 
to advance common sense bipartisan legislation that directly confronts 
deficiencies in our scientific enterprise. I am proud of our work 
together, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Baird) for upholding that tradition in bringing the bill before us 
today.
  Recent reviews of the Environmental Protection Agency have rated the 
quality of the science high. As individuals, the dedicated men and 
women of the EPA are doing their jobs with the professionalism and 
integrity we have come to expect, and have every right to demand. They 
should be proud of their efforts.
  Unfortunately, these same reviews have been critical of the 
organization and focus of the research. The work is piecemeal, and not 
always directly applicable. The overall mission is unclear, and 
important areas are unsupported. We clearly need a more top-down 
approach, and this bill provides one.
  Sound science requires strong leadership. Administrator Whitman has 
made a commitment to improve oversight of the S&T initiatives at EPA, 
and I applaud her efforts to conduct a thorough review of her agency. 
She has the will, and it is time for Congress to provide the way. This 
bill would create a deputy administrator for science and technology, 
and provide a clear mandate for the coordination and oversight of 
research activities. It also provides a chief scientist for the agency 
to provide guidance and perspective. These improvements are sorely 
needed.
  Two years ago, the National Research Council issued a comprehensive 
review of EPA, and specifically called for the offices created by this 
legislation. In that review, the NRC highlighted the growing concerns 
about EPA science. They found the quality of work extremely high, but 
the perception low. The committee unanimously judged the lack of a top 
science official a major contributor, calling this state a ``formula 
for poor scientific credibility outside the agency.'' This is simply 
not acceptable.
  The EPA's work is too important to suffer from poor perception. A 
regulatory agency cannot function without the public's trust. As the 
agency with primary oversight of the Nation's environment, the 
scientific basis for EPA's regulatory decisions must be beyond 
reproach. We will always have debates over trade-offs between 
environmental and economic prosperity, between fair use and 
exploitation, and too much regulation and not enough. We cannot afford 
to have debates about the science. It must be reliable, timely and 
sound.
  No corporation is run without a head and no enterprise succeeds 
without a leader. The EPA needs a clear hierarchy and a dedicated 
office to oversee the science portfolio and take responsibility for its 
focus and direction. The

[[Page H1705]]

importance of the work requires it. The impact of the decisions demand 
it, and the American people deserve no less. I urge Members to support 
H.R. 64.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 64, the 
Strengthening Science at the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 
legislation that will ensure that science plays a proper role at the 
Environmental Protection Agency. We must be sure that science will 
serve as the basis for sound regulations that do not unduly impede 
economic development.
  I want to thank Congressman Sherwood Boehlert and Vernon Ehlers who 
worked closely with myself and Congressman Ralph Hall to craft a truly 
bipartisan piece of legislation. This legislation addresses 
recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences and will do 
much to improve the quality of science at the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  This legislation emphasizes that research is integral to the mission 
of EPA to protect human health and the environment.
  The creation of a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology 
will ensure that science has an equal seat at the table when important 
decisions are made. Any regulation issued by the EPA must be based on 
the best scientific information available. I believe that the elevated 
status of this new position will ensure this is the case.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 64.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation sponsored by my good friend and colleague from Michigan, 
Mr. Ehlers.
  This legislation, which establishes a Deputy Administrator for 
Science and Technology at the Environmental Protection Agency, fulfills 
a recommendation made in a report of the National Academy of Sciences. 
It is intended to give science a more visible role at EPA and to ensure 
a sound foundation for science at the agency.
  As many in this body know, there is a widespread perception that 
politics more than science influences regulatory decisions at EPA. This 
bill addresses this problem, but it is only the beginning.
  There needs to be a real change in the culture at EPA. Many have 
asked whether it is appropriate to have a regulatory body conducting 
and overseeing the science used to support its regulatory 
determinations. It seems to me that there is an inherent conflict of 
interest in such an arrangement. Even when EPA science is sound, there 
is an inescapable perception that the regulatory decision drove the 
science, not the other way around. This bill is a good start at raising 
the profile and centrality of science at EPA.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership on 
this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 64.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 64, the 
Strengthening Science at the Environmental Protection Agency Act.
  In a report published in June of 2000, the National Academy of 
Sciences recommended the restructuring of the EPA's science programs to 
strengthen the role that science plays in the decision-making process. 
The National Academy's recommendations call for the establishment of a 
Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology and an appointment for 
the position of Assistant Administrator for Research and Development.
  I am pleased that Mr. Ehlers introduced H.R. 64, which will make 
these recommendations a reality. Protection of our environment is 
dependent on science both to assess problems and to develop solutions. 
This bill enhances the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency 
to include conducting, sponsoring, and evaluating environmental science 
and technology research. The agency will then use the results of this 
research to carry out the EPA's agenda with regard to protecting the 
environment.
  With this shift to a more science-based decision-making process at 
the Environmental Protection Agency, it only makes sense that the 
people who oversee science and technology at the EPA should be well-
respected researchers who understand the scientific process. This bill 
directs the President to appoint a Deputy Administrator for Science and 
Technology and an Assistant Administrator for Research and Development 
(or Chief Scientist) who both have outstanding backgrounds, including 
research accomplishments, scientific reputation and leadership 
experience.
  Although I support this effort, I wanted to sound one cautionary 
note. As we pass this bill, we will need to monitor its implementation 
carefully. We want to make sure that our direction that EPA has a 
Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology and an appointment for 
the position of Assistant Administrator for Research and Development 
not be distorted by anyone with a political agenda. We want to make 
sure the people who fill these new positions at EPA are truly 
scientists, not politicians intent on using junk science or biased 
science to fulfill a political agenda. That is equally true for pro-
industry and pro-environmental positions.
  All too often in the environmental arena we see decisionmaking being 
dictated by a reliance on studies created or funded by industry. In 
many instances, we don't have access to the raw data underlying these 
studies. As any scientist will tell you, this is a perversion of the 
peer review process that is the basis of all good science. We have also 
seen groups make wild claims that have no basis in scientific analysis.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 64 is a well-intentioned bill and a step forward to 
see that our decisions are guided by the best available data. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 64, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________