Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 51 (Tuesday, April 30, 2002)

[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.

____________________