[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 141 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H8050-H8060]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2013
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 756, I call
up the bill (H.R. 1422) to amend the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for
Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public participation,
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 756, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology printed in the bill, is adopted, and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1422
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 ``EPA Science Advisory Board
Reform Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.
(a) Membership.--Section 8(b) of the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of
1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) The Board shall be composed of at least nine
members, one of whom shall be designated Chairman, and shall
meet at such times and places as may be designated by the
Chairman in consultation with the Administrator.
[[Page H8051]]
``(2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by
education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific
and technical information on matters referred to the Board
under this section. The Administrator shall select Board
members from nominations received as described in paragraph
(3) and shall ensure that--
``(A) the scientific and technical points of view
represented on and the functions to be performed by the Board
are fairly balanced among the members of the Board;
``(B) at least ten percent of the membership of the Board
are from State, local, or tribal governments;
``(C) persons with substantial and relevant expertise are
not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or
representation of entities that may have a potential interest
in the Board's advisory activities, so long as that interest
is fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public and
appointment to the Board complies with section 208 of title
18, United States Code;
``(D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a
particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member
having an interest in the specific party shall participate in
that activity;
``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review and
evaluation of their own work;
``(F) Board members shall be designated as special
Government employees; and
``(G) no federally registered lobbyist is appointed to the
Board.
``(3) The Administrator shall--
``(A) solicit public nominations for the Board by
publishing a notification in the Federal Register;
``(B) solicit nominations from relevant Federal agencies,
including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy,
and Health and Human Services;
``(C) make public the list of nominees, including the
identity of the entities that nominated them, and shall
accept public comment on the nominees;
``(D) require that, upon their provisional nomination,
nominees shall file a written report disclosing financial
relationships and interests, including Environmental
Protection Agency grants, contracts, cooperative agreements,
or other financial assistance, that are relevant to the
Board's advisory activities for the three-year period prior
to the date of their nomination, and relevant professional
activities and public statements for the five-year period
prior to the date of their nomination; and
``(E) make such reports public, with the exception of
specific dollar amounts, for each member of the Board upon
such member's selection.
``(4) Disclosure of relevant professional activities under
paragraph (3)(D) shall include all representational work,
expert testimony, and contract work as well as identifying
the party for which the work was done.
``(5) Except when specifically prohibited by law, the
Agency shall make all conflict of interest waivers granted to
members of the Board, member committees, or investigative
panels publicly available.
``(6) Any recusal agreement made by a member of the Board,
a member committee, or an investigative panel, or any recusal
known to the Agency that occurs during the course of a
meeting or other work of the Board, member committee, or
investigative panel shall promptly be made public by the
Administrator.
``(7) The terms of the members of the Board shall be three
years and shall be staggered so that the terms of no more
than one-third of the total membership of the Board shall
expire within a single fiscal year. No member shall serve
more than two terms over a ten-year period.''.
(b) Record.--Section 8(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(c))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``risk or hazard assessment,'' after ``at
the time any proposed''; and
(B) by inserting ``risk or hazard assessment,'' after ``to
the Board such proposed''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``risk or hazard assessment,'' after ``the
scientific and technical basis of the proposed''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The Board's
advice and comments, including dissenting views of Board
members, and the response of the Administrator shall be
included in the record with respect to any proposed risk or
hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation,
or regulation and published in the Federal Register.''.
(c) Member Committees and Investigative Panels.--Section
8(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(e)) is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``These member committees and
investigative panels--
``(1) shall be constituted and operate in accordance with
the provisions set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (b), in subsection (h), and in subsection (i);
``(2) do not have authority to make decisions on behalf of
the Board; and
``(3) may not report directly to the Environmental
Protection Agency.''.
(d) Public Participation.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
4365) is amended by adding after subsection (g) the
following:
``(h)(1) To facilitate public participation in the advisory
activities of the Board, the Administrator and the Board
shall make public all reports and relevant scientific
information and shall provide materials to the public at the
same time as received by members of the Board.
``(2) Prior to conducting major advisory activities, the
Board shall hold a public information-gathering session to
discuss the state of the science related to the advisory
activity.
``(3) Prior to convening a member committee or
investigative panel under subsection (e) or requesting
scientific advice from the Board, the Administrator shall
accept, consider, and address public comments on questions to
be asked of the Board. The Board, member committees, and
investigative panels shall accept, consider, and address
public comments on such questions and shall not accept a
question that unduly narrows the scope of an advisory
activity.
``(4) The Administrator and the Board shall encourage
public comments, including oral comments and discussion
during the proceedings, that shall not be limited by an
insufficient or arbitrary time restriction. Public comments
shall be provided to the Board when received. The Board's
reports shall include written responses to significant
comments offered by members of the public to the Board.
``(5) Following Board meetings, the public shall be given
15 calendar days to provide additional comments for
consideration by the Board.''.
(e) Operations.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) is
further amended by adding after subsection (h), as added by
subsection (d) of this section, the following:
``(i)(1) In carrying out its advisory activities, the Board
shall strive to avoid making policy determinations or
recommendations, and, in the event the Board feels compelled
to offer policy advice, shall explicitly distinguish between
scientific determinations and policy advice.
``(2) The Board shall clearly communicate uncertainties
associated with the scientific advice provided to the
Administrator.
``(3) The Board shall ensure that advice and comments
reflect the views of the members and shall encourage
dissenting members to make their views known to the public
and the Administrator.
``(4) The Board shall conduct periodic reviews to ensure
that its advisory activities are addressing the most
important scientific issues affecting the Environmental
Protection Agency.''.
SEC. 3. RELATION TO THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed as supplanting the requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
SEC. 4. RELATION TO THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed as supplanting the requirements of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed
in part A of House Report 113-626, if offered by the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Stewart), or his designee, which shall be considered read and
shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
General Leave
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 1422.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Members of Congress have been asking for greater transparency from
the EPA's Science Advisory Board for years, and the EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act, we believe, addresses those concerns.
Currently, the board is made up of 52 members appointed by the
Administrator of the EPA to serve 3-year terms. The large majority of
these members are affiliated with academic institutions, while private
industry and other interested parties are unrepresented.
The only State governments represented are California and Vermont,
while tribal and local governments have no representation on the board.
Under H.R. 1422, at least 10 percent of the board members will be from
States, local governments, or tribal entities.
The bill reinforces peer-review requirements and reduces conflicts of
interest while providing opportunity for disinterested panelists to
make their views known.
The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act promises fairness,
transparency, and independence to ensure unbiased advice is given to
the EPA.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), and I ask unanimous consent that he
be permitted to control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
[[Page H8052]]
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1422, the EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Smith and Mr.
Schweikert, for their intention to improve the EPA's Science Advisory
Board, and I thank them for working with me on other legislation that
passed the Science Committee in the House on a bipartisan basis. It is
unfortunate that we could not be repeating that bipartisan
collaboration today.
My colleagues who support H.R. 1422 may describe this bill as an
attempt to strengthen public participation in EPA's scientific review
process, improve the process for selecting expert advisers, expand
transparency requirements, and limit nonscientific policy advice within
EPA's Science Advisory Board. All of these are good government
principles that I agree with.
If this bill achieved those goals, I would be here today supporting
it. However, on close examination of its provisions, H.R. 1422 would
not achieve these good government goals. Instead of improving the
Science Advisory Board structure or operation, the bill before us today
will likely limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives and
further delay EPA's regulatory process.
H.R. 1422 would make it easier for industry representatives to serve
on a board, even if they have a financial conflict of interest. To be
clear, and this is something with which I trust my Republican
colleagues would agree, I am not opposed to industry experts
participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer-review
process at the EPA. In fact, their insight into processes and industry
can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body.
That being said, Congress should not be endorsing legislation that
undermines longstanding ethics requirements and practices with the end
result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on EPA's Science
Advisory Board, and that is likely to be the result of this bill today.
At the same time this bill eases the way for more industry members,
the act also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the best and
brightest from academia to serve because it would exclude from the
board anyone who has participated in activities that were even
indirectly reviewed by the EPA.
This provision would disqualify some of the most qualified scientists
because academic researchers frequently need to compete for research
funds from the Federal Government, and that includes the EPA.
Additionally, it appears H.R. 1422 would also significantly delay the
work of the Science Advisory Board with new provisions that would
require written responses to significant public comments following new
public information-gathering sessions, a requirement that is
duplicative because the board meetings are already open to the public
and have time set aside for public comment. These provisions would
simply result in more work without more resources and unlimited time to
halt, derail, or slow EPA actions.
Finally, this bill sets a quota for membership on the Scientific
Advisory Board from State, local, or tribal governments, which could
very well mean that more qualified experts would not be able to serve.
EPA's science is tied to its mission, to protect public health and
the environment through rational regulation. Scientific research,
knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental to EPA's mission and
inform its regulatory functions.
The need for that expertise is why Congress created advisory bodies
such as the Science Advisory Board in the first place, to provide
independent advice on the science underpinning regulation, which in
turn allows the EPA Administrator to make sound regulatory decisions.
Instead of undermining the scientific advice EPA receives, we should
be giving the Agency the tools they need to strengthen and improve the
regulatory process with sound science.
In closing, I want to again thank my colleagues, Mr. Stewart and Mr.
Schweikert, for their efforts.
This bill does not do what it needs to do. I want to quote from a
letter I received from a coalition of organizations, including
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Water Action, and more. The
letter states:
The bill shifts the current presumption against including
people with financial conflicts on SAB panels . . . The
bill's provisions are inconsistent with a set of nearly
universally accepted scientific principles to eliminate or
limit financial conflicts.
I agree with this assessment of H.R. 1422, and I urge my colleagues
to join me in opposing this bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to
also thank the ranking member, my friend from Oregon. We disagree on
this bill, as it will become evident through this debate today, but she
has always been respectful and professional, and I appreciate that.
The issues we are debating today are important, and the decisions we
will make today are significant. There is a process that is broken, and
it is through this bill that we cannot only improve that process, but
also restore trust between the American people and the Federal
Government.
{time} 1345
If I could reemphasize what I just said, the process is broken. This
is an opportunity for us to restore trust between the American people
and the Federal Government that has fostered so much distrust of late.
Established by Congress in 1978, the EPA's Science Advisory Board, or
what we refer to as SAB, is intended to provide meaningful, balanced,
and independent reviews of the science conducted and used by the
Agency. Its members are selected by the EPA Administrator, and it plays
an important role in reviewing everything from the EPA's research
budget to individual chemical assessments.
This panel is indispensable in critically reviewing the underlying
science of virtually all major EPA regulatory activities. That is a
tall order in recent years, especially given the fact that the Agency
has pursued an overreaching, economically threatening agenda, creating
an environment where politics and policies have taken the wheel from
unbiased science.
This bill contains basic, good government changes and draws upon
noncontroversial provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee handbook,
the EPA's own Peer Review Handbook, the National Academies' committee
composition and conflict of interest policy, and even recommendations
from the Science Committee testimony and other outside groups.
It has widespread support from groups such as the National Chamber of
Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm
Bureau, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, the
American Chemistry Council, the American Gas Association, Small
Business and Entrepreneurship Council, Portland Cement Association, the
American Forest and Paper Association, and I could go on and on with a
long list of councils and associations that support this legislation.
It makes important clarifying changes to the scope of SAB's purview
and institutes commonsense reforms. I would like to emphasize this. You
are going to hear this again and again today: commonsense reforms to
improve transparency. How can you argue against that? It specifically
builds upon the bipartisan agreement made to the SAB in the farm bill.
H.R. 1422 would also facilitate meaningful public participation
across all of the standing committees. Once again, let me emphasize
that: it facilitates meaningful public participation. And let's be
clear. The transparency and the public participation concerns addressed
in this bill are not without merit.
For example, in my own experience, during a hearing in the Science
Committee last year, I was alarmed to hear from both SAB members and
the chair of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and a
State official testify that EPA's science advisers virtually never
respond to public comments and, in many cases, they don't even read
these public comments. Imagine the arrogance of a government committee
that pretends to seek public
[[Page H8053]]
comment and promises to consider those comments, and then to learn that
they don't even read them, let alone consider what has been said. This
bill would change that.
This bill also provides clarity to the SAB member selection and
disclosure process. Despite an existing requirement that these panels
be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,'' EPA has
systematically excluded State, local, and tribal entities and private
sector scientists from serving as advisers.
For example, last year EPA announced a new Hydraulic Fracturing
Research Advisory Panel. Even though dozens of people with recent and
direct experience with oil and gas technical developments were
nominated, the EPA excluded nearly every one of them from serving on
the panel.
There are also a number of other unsettling Agency trends about how
the EPA selects its supposedly independent advisers. For instance,
according to the Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of
the members of EPA's chartered SAB and Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee have directly received grants from the Agency, and that is
only since the year 2000. These advisers served as principal or co-
investigators for EPA grants, totaling approximately $140 million. The
EPA also frequently chooses panelists whose research is directly or
indirectly under review.
And finally, in addition, many of the SAB panelists have clearly
taken sides or made public pronouncements on issues they are advising
about. For example, roughly 40 percent of the current panel members
reviewing the science behind upcoming EPA ozone standards have already
made statements that the regulations should be more stringent.
The issues identified in this bill seem to many as too specific and
diving into the weeds, but credible peer review is critical to
everything the EPA does. We may not be able to control all the EPA's
regulatory overreach, but guaranteeing that there is an independent
check whose sole focus is to provide unbiased, independent science is
essential to the process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I yield, I will place into the Record letters from various
groups opposed to this bill, including the Union of Concerned
Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Physicians for
Social Responsibility, among many others.
In addition, I will place into the Record the Administration's
Statement of Administration Policy on the bill threatening a veto if
the bill were to pass.
Union of Concerned Scientists,
Cambridge, MA, November 17, 2014.
Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists
strongly opposes the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2013, H.R. 1422, set to be voted on by the House as early as
November 18. This bill will cripple the Environmental
Protection Agency's ability to protect public health informed
by the best available science.
When he discussed his proposal last year, Rep. Chris
Stewart (UT) revealed the real purpose of his bill. He
attacked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
``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. . . .''
This proposal will make it nearly impossible for the Board
to do the crucial independent evaluations of EPA scientific
analyses that enable the agency to protect public health.
This bill opens the door for more corporate influence on the
Board, because the bill directly stipulates that experts with
financial ties to corporations affected by SAB assessments
are ``not excluded.'' This signal likely will increase the
number of conflicted SAB panelists empowering companies to
delay the SAB's work for years, if not decades. It strikes at
the heart of the whole concept of independent reviews, and at
a time when the ability of corporations to influence policy
is already high.
At the same time this bill encourages corporate experts to
join the SAB, it creates roadblocks for academic experts to
meaningfully participate by banning experts' participation in
``advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve
review and evaluation of their own work.'' This effectively
turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head, with the
bizarre presumption that corporate experts with direct
financial interests are not conflicted while academics who
work on these issues are.
The notion that a member of the SAB cannot participate in a
discussion that cites the member's own work is
counterproductive and goes far beyond the common-sense limits
imposed by the National Academies. Of course, a scientist
with expertise on topics the Science Advisory Board addresses
likely will have done peer-reviewed studies on that topic.
That makes the scientist's evaluation more valuable, not
less.
The bill offers almost limitless opportunities for public
comment, opportunities that only benefit moneyed special
interests. For example, for each major advisory activity, the
Board must convene a public information-gathering session
``to discuss the state of the science'' related to that
activity.
It is possible, under this requirement, that the Board may
find itself repeatedly reexamining ``the state of the
science'' on climate change or the harmful effects of certain
toxins--each time it made an assessment that touched on
either climate change impacts or reducing air pollution.
In addition, both the EPA, before it asks for the Board's
advice, and the Board itself, would be required to ``accept,
consider, and address'' public comments on the agency's
questions to the Board. As the SAB deliberates, it must also
encourage public comments ``that shall not be limited by an
insufficient or arbitrary time restriction.'' In effect,
these provisions turn a scientific evaluation into a public
hearing, even though EPA must already accept public input on
all its regulations.
The Board is required to respond in writing to each
``significant'' comment. In practice, it is difficult to see
how the Board could impose any deadlines on accepting
comment. Nor is it a reasonable expectation on the Board's
membership of pro bono experts.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that
implementing the law's mandates will cost the EPA about $2
million over a four-year period. These are funds that could
be put to much better use by a cash-strapped agency.
This bill would not improve the work of the Board, and
would make it more difficult for the EPA to receive the
independent science advice it needs to do its work. We
strongly urge your opposition.
Sincerely,
Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,
Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of
Concerned Scientists.
____
BlueGreen Alliance; Center for Biological Diversity;
Center for Effective Government; Clean Water Action;
Communications Workers of America; Defenders of
Wildlife; Earthjustice; Environment America;
Environmental Defense Fund; International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW); League of Conservation Voters;
Natural Resources Defense Council; Public Citizen;
Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC);
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now; Utility Workers
Union of America (UWUA); WE ACT for Environmental
Justice.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters we strongly urge you to oppose the trio of
anti-EPA bills hitting the floor this week: the ``Secret
Science Reform Act of 2014'' (H.R. 4012), the ``EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013'' (H.R. 1422), and the
``Promoting New Manufacturing Act'' (H.R. 4795).
Collectively, these misleadingly named bills would radically
diminish EPA's ability to protect public health. Under these
bills, EPA would be required to ignore significant science;
the Scientific Advisory Board would be required to ignore
conflicts of interest; and enforcement officials would be
required to ignore pollution emitted in violation of the law.
These bills are broadly written and would have damaging
impacts far in excess of what their sponsors will admit.
The ``Secret Science Reform Act,'' H.R. 4012, is based on a
faulty premise. Its notion of ``secret science,'' based on
claims about studies of fine soot pollution conducted almost
two decades ago, is unfounded despite lengthy congressional
inquiries. The bill would deny EPA the ability to rely upon
peer-reviewed medical studies that involve commitments to
patient confidentiality, when the agency carries out its
statutory responsibilities to safeguard public health and the
environment. Further, this bill would effectively amend
numerous environmental statutes by forbidding EPA to use
certain kinds of studies in setting health standards. It
would also make it impossible for EPA to use many kinds of
economic models it routinely relies on because those models
are proprietary. This marks a radical departure from
longstanding practices. Its end result would be to make it
much more difficult to protect the public by forcing EPA to
ignore key scientific studies.
H.R. 1422 would attack EPA's scientific process in a
different way. This bill would significantly weaken the
content and credibility of the Scientific Advisory Board
(SAB) reviews--a textbook example of making a government
program function poorly to the benefit of polluting
industries and at the expense of public health and
independent science. The bill will add unnecessary new
[[Page H8054]]
burdens on the SAB, distorting its mission and altering its
process with no benefit to EPA or the public. The worst
provision would mandate allowing the participation of
scientists with financial conflicts of interest, as long as
those conflicts are disclosed. This is inconsistent with a
set of nearly universally accepted scientific principles to
eliminate or limit financial conflicts. The bill also
significantly broadens the scope of the SAB and creates a
comment process that will add needless delay to the Board's
work. The result would be further stalling and undermining of
important public health, safety, and environmental
protections.
Lastly, H.R. 4795 is a substantive attack on our nation's
right to clean air protections. It would grant amnesty from
national clean air health standards, create red tape and
cause unintended burdens to local businesses. The bill would
exacerbate air pollution nationwide, causing harm to public
health and making the jobs of state and local officials
harder to perform. Newly permitted industrial facilities
would be allowed to operate in violation of national health
standards, while other local businesses and local communities
would have to ``pick up the slack'' and be penalized for the
new facility's amnesty and pollution. In so doing, the bill
repeals a health safeguard in place for nearly 40 years under
the Clean Air Act, making it more difficult for states to
permit new facilities while also keeping their air clean.
This legislation will obstruct the implementation and
enforcement of critical environmental statutes, undermine the
EPA's ability to consider and use science, and jeopardize
public health. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose these
bills.
Sincerely,
BlueGreen Alliance; Center for Biological Diversity; Center
for Effective Government; Clean Water Action; Communications
Workers of America; Defenders of Wildlife; Earthjustice;
Environment America; Environmental Defense Fund;
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW); League of
Conservation Voters; Natural Resources Defense Council;
Public Citizen; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law
Center (SELC); Southern Oregon Climate Action Now; Utility
Workers Union of America (UWUA); WE ACT for Environmental
Justice.
____
November 17, 2014.
Dear Representative: The undersigned individuals and
organizations working on public health and science-informed
regulation strongly oppose H.R. 4012, the Secret Science
Reform Act, and H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board
Reform Act, up for a House vote as early as November 18.
Both bills would severely undermine the ability of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use the best
available scientific evidence when making decisions regarding
the protection of public health and safety and the
environment.
H.R. 4012, the erroneously named Secret Science Reform Act,
would tie the EPA's hands by restricting the information it
can use to develop protective regulations. The EPA could only
regulate based on publicly available scientific data. This
restriction would block the agency's use of many different
types of public health data, such as those for which public
release would violate privacy protections, or data from
corporations that are designated as confidential business
information.
It also would restrict the use of scientific data that is
not ``reproducible.'' This provision seems to adopt a very
narrow view of scientific information solely based on
laboratory experiments. As major scientific societies
including the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) have noted, such a restriction would eliminate
the use of most epidemiological and public health data, such
as those regarding the public health impacts of air
pollution, because these data are collected in long-term
studies following individuals longitudinally.
Not only do privacy concerns arise, but such studies are
not inherently reproduced in the way a laboratory experiment
or a clinical trial may be. It would be unethical to
deliberately expose adults or children to air pollution
merely to determine whether the increased rates of asthma and
heart attacks caused by such exposures can be duplicated, or
to encourage teenagers to smoke to re-assess the toxic
effects of tobacco.
H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would
greatly weaken the EPA's advisory process, ensuring that
recommendations from its independent Science Advisory Board
(SAB) will be dominated by corporate special interests. While
the bill has been improved by several amendments offered by
minority members of the House Science Committee, it still
remains unacceptable.
This bill opens the door to increased corporate influence
on the Board, both by encouraging the EPA to accept more SAB
panelists with corporate ties, and disqualifying some of the
nation's leading experts.
The bill's overly broad restriction that a member of the
SAB cannot participate in a discussion that cites the
member's own work is counterproductive, and goes far beyond
the common-sense limits imposed by the National Academies. Of
course, a scientist with expertise on topics the SAB
addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies and
other work on that topic. That makes the scientist's
evaluation more valuable, not less.
Even worse, the bill requires the SAB to remain in an
endless loop soliciting public comment about the ``state of
the science'' touching on every major advisory activity it
undertakes and responding to nearly every comment before
moving forward, without being limited by any time
constraints. At best, the SAB will be reduced to busy work.
At worst, the SAB's assessments will address the concerns of
corporations, not the desires of citizens for science-
informed regulation that protects public health.
These bills together will greatly impede the ability of
EPA, and potentially other agencies, to utilize the best
available science, independently reviewed, to inform
regulations crucial to public health and the environment.
We strongly urge you to vote No on H.R. 4012 and H.R. 1422.
Sincerely,
Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned
Scientists; Annie Appleseed Project; Breast Cancer Action;
Center for Medical Consumers; Institute for Ethics and
Emerging Technologies; National Center for Health Research;
National Physicians Alliance; Our Bodies, Ourselves;
Physicians for Social Responsibility; Public Citizen; The TMJ
Association; Woodymatters; Susan F. Wood, PhD, Associate
Professor, Director, Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, The
George Washington University, Milken Institute School of
Public Health; John H. Powers, MD, Associate Clinical
Professor of Medicine, The George Washington University
School of Medicine.
____
League of Conservation Voters,
Washington, DC, November 17, 2014.
Re Oppose H.R. 1422, H.R. 4012, and H.R. 4795: An Attack on
Scientific Integrity and Public Health.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters
(LCV) works to turn environmental values into national
priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National
Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of
members of Congress on environmental legislation. The
Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters
nationwide, and the media.
LCV urges you to vote NO on H.R. 1422. H.R. 4012, and H.R.
4795.
H.R. 1422, the so-called EPA Science Advisory Board Reform
Act would undermine the ability of the Science Advisory Board
to provide independent scientific advice to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). This bill would allow industry
participation on the Scientific Advisory Board, while
preventing subject experts from being included. Additionally,
new burdens imposed on the Board would needlessly delay
necessary public health and environmental protections.
H.R. 4012, the so-called Secret Science Reform Act of 2014
would endanger public health by preventing the EPA from using
the best available science. The bill contains favorable
exemptions for industry and would severely restrict the
health studies that the EPA is able to use by prohibiting the
use of peer-reviewed studies with confidential health
information. These types of studies are the basis for the
best research on pollution's effects on people. This
legislation cripples the EPA's ability to develop effective
public health safeguards.
H.R. 4795, the so-called Promoting New Manufacturing Act is
an attack on clean air protections. This bill would create
unclear procedural requirements and loopholes that could
allow newly permitted industrial facilities to be exempted
from the most recent national air quality standards set by
the EPA. This legislation effectively creates amnesty for new
facilities while delaying the permitting process and
threatening public health.
We urge you to REJECT H.R. 1422, H.R. 4012, and H.R. 4795,
a collective attack on scientific integrity and public
health. We will strongly consider including votes on these
bills in the 2014 Scorecard.
Sincerely,
Gene Karpinski,
President.
____
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 1422--EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013
(Rep. Stewart, R-UT, and 21 cosponsor, Nov. 17, 2014)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1422, which would
affect the ability of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) to
form panels and perform its essential functions. The SAB,
along with other functions, reviews the quality and adequacy
of certain scientific and technical information used by EPA
or proposed as the basis for EPA regulations. Therefore, it
is imperative that the SAB be composed of the most
knowledgeable scientific and technical experts available. The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs Federal
advisory committees such as the SAB, provides for balanced
panels and subcommittees that include experts with diverse
backgrounds who represent wide-ranging perspectives.
H.R. 1422 would negatively affect the appointment of
experts and would weaken the scientific independence and
integrity of the
[[Page H8055]]
SAB. For example, the bill would impose a hiring quota for
SAB members based on employment by a State, local, or tribal
government as opposed to scientific expertise. Further, it
would prohibit a SAB member from participating in ``advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review and
evaluation of their own work.'' Determining the practical
meaning of ``indirect'' involvement will be difficult and
consequently problematic to implement. The provisions on
appointment of experts to the SAB and various other
requirements could preclude the nomination of scientists with
significant expertise in their fields.
H.R. 1422 also would add burdensome requirements on the SAB
with respect to solicitation of and response to public
comments, above and beyond those imposed by FACA. These new
requirements would saddle the SAB with workload that would
impair its ability to carry out its mandate. Further, H.R.
1422 would add an unnecessary, burdensome, and costly layer
of requirements for hazard and risk assessments without
defining the scope of these requirements and absent
recognition that many high profile assessments already are
reviewed by the SAB.
If the President were presented with H.R. 1422, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Science
Committee.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the
ranking member.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory
Board Reform Act. H.R. 1422 is a continuation of the majority's anti-
science agenda. It benefits no one but the industry, and it harms
public health.
The bill before us today ``reforms'' EPA's Science Advisory Board not
for the better, but for the worse. The supposed intent of H.R. 1422 is
to improve the process of selecting advisers to serve on the Agency's
advisory board, but, in reality, H.R. 1422 will allow the board to be
stacked with industry-affiliated representatives while making it more
difficult for the experts from academia to serve on the board.
The role of the board is to provide independent scientific analysis
and advice to the EPA, which includes reviewing the quality and
relevance of scientific information used as the basis for regulations.
My Republican colleagues seem to have a fundamental distrust of
scientists from our Nation's universities because these researchers,
the ones with the most relevant expertise to EPA's mission of
protecting public health, are denied the opportunity to provide EPA
with their advice under H.R. 1422. It is difficult to understand how
anyone could object to the most expert academics in the country being
called on to offer their expertise to EPA. Who would know better
whether EPA had mischaracterized the science on an issue than the
people who are leaders in their respective fields?
The board is supposed to be composed of experts, including those who
may have, literally, ``written the book'' on a matter. What is the
alternative? Should we find people to serve who are less expert?
Equally troubling, H.R. 1422 goes out of its way to guarantee that
industry-affiliated experts are the dominant voice on the board of
experts. An expert with an industry association is far more likely to
find that the science they are asked to review will have a financial
impact on the employer. Academic scientists do not have such financial
conflicts of interest with the board's advice or EPA's actions.
To be clear, I am not arguing that industry should have no
representation on EPA's Science Advisory Board. Their insight is
valuable. But I do not support stacking the board with industry
representatives, as would be the outcome if this bill passes.
Another goal of H.R. 1422, as stated by our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, is to ``improve the science that goes into EPA
regulations.'' H.R. 1422 falls shorts of that goal as well and,
instead, weakens and delays the scientific review process, putting the
health of every American at risk.
As a former nurse, I cannot support legislation that endangers public
health, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1422.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this bill came out of committee
without a single Democratic vote.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I recognize the gentleman from Texas, I would like to respond
briefly, if I could, to the minority Member, some of her comments
regarding this bill.
The bill very clearly does not allow for the SAB to be stacked, to
use her phrase, with the industry experts. I have the bill before me.
It is only a couple of pages long. It is very simple. I would ask
anyone to show me the language where it allows for the SAB to be
stacked with industry experts.
All we are asking is that there be some balance to those experts who
are asked and that there, further, be transparency, and that we
understand who is selected, why they were selected, and why others were
excluded from this, just like, by the way, we are not asking that those
scientists who have EPA-funded backgrounds be excluded. We are not
saying that they are conflicted to the point where they couldn't
participate. We recognize that they have expertise that could help in
this process.
But we also are asking, on the other hand, that we recognize that
there are industry experts who are currently being excluded from this
because of their background. Of the 51 members of the current SAB, only
three--only three--have any industry expertise, and we are losing
valuable insight and valuable guidance because we don't include them in
the process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, it seems that some of the things that we are hearing
from the opponents of the bill are that the committee is going to be
stacked with people from industry, from the States. It is as if the
people from industry can't be trusted, people from States can't be
trusted.
Then we hear the theme that there was not a single Democratic vote to
get this bill out. It almost sounds like the Affordable Care Act to me
where people--recent revelations are one of the proponents has said
that Americans were too stupid to understand, so that's why the
Affordable Care Act had to be passed, and it couldn't have transparency
because it would never have passed Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1422. The Science
Advisory Board, called the SAB--I guess we would say this is a ``sad
SAB story''--was established by Congress to review the science behind
the EPA's decisions and to advise Congress and the EPA on science and
technical matters. Unfortunately, the SAB is no longer functioning as
designed, without the impartiality and expertise needed to be an
effective arbiter of EPA's use of science in its regulations.
Why no transparency, Mr. Speaker? That is what we have got to ask.
The American public deserves transparency. These are taxpayer dollars
we are talking about.
The membership of the SAB has excluded individuals from the State
agencies and private sector. Again, I would remind us that these are
the people who build communities and industries in neighborhoods, in
cities, in towns, and in States.
Can you say 10th Amendment?
States have all the rights reserved. They are the building block.
Communities, citizens, industry is the building block of this country.
This is a country that has a government, not a government that has a
country.
So, as the EPA continues its regulatory assault on America's economy,
it is critically important that Congress act to improve the quality of
EPA's use of science in its decisions. This bill, this legislation,
will do just that. It will improve the quality of SAB's membership. It
will increase public participation in its scientific reviews. It will
allow for dissenting opinions among its members and limit the SAB's
activities to questions of science, not policy.
{time} 1400
And I want to say thank you to Congressman Stewart and Chairman Smith
for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. It is very
important that we get on top of this. The American people deserve
transparency, they deserve a seat at the table, and they deserve
nothing less.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from
California, I just want to respond that, certainly, we on this side of
the aisle agree with
[[Page H8056]]
the goal of transparency. However, transparency does not mean letting
industry, people with a financial interest, serve by disclosing it.
That is not what transparency means.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Bera), who is not only a physician but a great member of the Science
Committee.
Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague
from Oregon for her leadership on the Science Committee as well as our
ranking member from Texas for her leadership.
But I have to rise in opposition of H.R. 1442, the EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act, and here is why: it is absolutely accurate
that the best science and the best advice comes from multiple
perspectives. You certainly need the perspective of industry, but you
have to independently have that perspective of science as well.
You need a board that is unbiased, that is unfettered, that is
transparent, that is looking at it from the perspective of advising
Congress and giving us the best possible advice because our sole job is
to protect our citizens, to provide that best advice to our citizens.
That is what the advisory board is designed to do and should do.
But it requires a delicate balance. It can't be stacked in one
direction or the other direction. You have to create that transparency
that allows for vibrant, unfettered dialogue.
And I say this as a scientist, as someone who has been on advisory
boards.
Now, the importance of what the EPA does and what advice they provide
Congress is incredibly important. I will just share: I am a lifelong
Californian. I grew up in southern California. I grew up at a time
where I could actually see the air that I was breathing, where there
were days that they ordered us to stay inside.
It is through legislation, it is through working with industry, it is
through looking at science that you cannot only both protect our
citizens, protect our environment, but also advance industry.
I applaud the Science Committee and Chairman Smith for taking up this
debate. But let's do it in a way that not only is built on sound
science, is built on evidence, but also allows multiple perspectives,
not just from one side or the other side, not just from one group or
another group, but creates this context where we can have vibrant
debate, where we can get the best and most sound science, and we can
get the best advice, which is what this group is supposed to do. They
are supposed to advise Congress and allow us to do our job, which is to
protect the citizens of the United States.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to some of the comments made on the other side of the aisle.
All of us would be concerned if we thought we were getting advice
that had been conflicted financially. I share that concern. In fact,
that was one of the primary reasons that we wrote this bill. This bill,
to say it again, seeks for transparency and it seeks for openness.
If you are worried about industry experts being stacked on the SABs
and providing biased opinion and expertise, I would ask you to give me
an example of this. Because I can give you an example of exactly the
opposite happening.
I will say it once again: 60 percent of the current Members of the
SAB have $140 million in direct government grants. Now, that is a clear
conflict. And yet once again, we are still willing to work with that.
We are not seeking to exclude those members; we are simply seeking for
transparency and openness, and for that same standard to be applied to
industry experts as well who could help us with their background and
their expertise.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Utah (Mr. Stewart) for introducing H.R. 1442, the EPA Science Advisory
Board Reform Act. I rise in strong support of this piece of
legislation.
As Mr. Stewart said, this bill will increase transparency and give
Americans more opportunities for public input and participation on
Science Advisory Board activities.
I believe this legislation builds on the progress that we have made
on improving the Science Advisory Board.
I represent a district where agriculture is the economic driver and a
way of life. So it concerns me when I learned that farmers did not even
have a seat at the table on the EPA Science Advisory Board.
And the EPA Science Advisory Board, Mr. Speaker, considers rules that
impact agriculture.
By working together on the farm bill, my colleague Representative
Peterson and I were able to ensure that farmers have a stronger voice
when it comes to EPA regulations.
For the first time, agriculture interests will be represented within
the SAB. I can report that EPA has made progress in standing up this
ag-related committee, and I believe the voices and input provided by
farmers and producers to the EPA will make for more commonsense policy.
H.R. 1422 will provide the public with more access to scientific
information and more opportunities to comment on board actions.
This legislation also ensures that State and local government
officials would be part of the Science Advisory Board. And as my
colleague alluded to earlier, we cannot have a Science Advisory Board
made up primarily of individuals who receive grant funding from the
Federal Government to make decisions that affect them.
Again, I rise in support of this bill. I thank my colleague from
Utah.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I am happy to yield
4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). I also want to
mention that not only is Mr. Holt a scientist and a great Member of
Congress but also has been named, starting in February of 2015, the new
CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Oregon. I rise in
opposition to this legislation, H.R. 1422, as yet another attempt to
gut the EPA and to reform it into an advocate for industry.
Now, the proponents make claims that sound noble and virtuous, like
increasing transparency and participation.
But make no mistake: the bill is simply a way to increase the role
and influence of special interests, to tip the scales in favor of these
special interests, and to decrease actual scientific input into the EPA
decisions and rulemaking.
Let me try to explain what is wrong here. Take, for example, the
section in this bill that limits participation of board members who
have relevant expertise.
Now, EPA has an advisory board whose job it is to review scientific
and technical information being used as a basis for agency regulations.
However, section 2 of this bill states: ``Board members may not
participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve
review and evaluation of their own work.''
Now, what does that worthy-sounding clause mean? Here is how it has
been explained to me. If the EPA board member is a leading scientist in
a field and has published works that are well cited by other scientists
and works that would be used to establish the scientific findings
affecting possible regulations, that board member would be prohibited
from reviewing any such materials before the board related to her or
his expertise because it draws on the scientific work of that person.
Now, I realize Congress sometimes has trouble dealing with expertise,
but this bill is a solution in search of a problem. The EPA advisory
board does and should use science; not industry science, not government
science--science.
Science works so well and provides the most reliable knowledge
because it is based on evidence, the validity of which is determined by
other scientists in the free exchange of information. Expertise and
influence of a claim in science and its application shouldn't be
determined by the highest bidder or the politically most powerful.
The science should be allowed to operate. This restricts it or would
restrict it if this were to become law.
Now, to make this bill even worse, while the bill would exclude
experts advising in areas of their expertise, it would allow people
with corporate or special-interest bias to affect the rulemaking if
they only state their affiliation.
Now, while it sounds good to say you are increasing transparency, in
reality
[[Page H8057]]
this simply strengthens the role of special interests--biased
interests--in the process.
I urge all Members to carefully review the language and think about
these implications. I think they will come to a decision to vote
``no.''
Mr. STEWART. Well, once again, I just have to respond to some of the
things that the opposition is saying.
This is essentially their argument: we think it is okay that 60
percent of SAB members have $140 million in direct government grants,
and we think it is okay that those same members are then allowed to
provide their own peer review of their own work. That is okay.
I think it is very commonsensical to realize there are inherent
objections and inherent conflicts in allowing that sort of structure to
continue to exist.
It is not gutting the EPA, as was claimed, to ask to increase
transparency. It is not gutting the EPA to ask for balance. That is all
this bill does.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Harris), my good friend.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for
allowing me to speak on this bill on the floor. As the body may know,
the gentleman from Utah succeeded me as chairman of that committee. We
had numerous hearings about the EPA Science Advisory Board. So I am
glad that one of the results of those years of hearings was H.R. 1422,
and I rise to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I hope America is watching. The opponents of this bill
clearly and simply believe that people who work for the government know
best.
We have heard 60 percent of the Science Advisory Board works for the
government. They received millions and millions of dollars in grants
from the EPA. They work for the government. The other side wants
America to believe that because they work for the government they know
better.
Mr. Speaker, I did science, and I had an academic appointment. You
know, the joke was that people who can, do, and people who can't,
teach; that people who don't really know how to do something end up in
an academic institution and end up teaching. I have got to tell you,
there was some truth to that.
What this bill does, it says that the Scientific Advisory Board ought
to be made up of more than just academics because that is really who
makes up the board now. It actually ought to be made up of people who
are in the field.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, you know that some of the corporations
who are affected by the EPA hire the best scientists they can because
they have to deal with the EPA, and those scientific minds, in fact,
work in the private sector. They don't work for government.
What is wrong with a balanced approach? The gentleman from California
said we should be unbiased, unfettered, and transparent. That is what
the Science Advisory Board ought to be.
How can you be unbiased if you come up with the wrong conclusion, the
Science Advisory Board? You are biting the hand that feeds you. Because
60 percent of those scientists derive their grants from the EPA.
There is no way they can be unbiased.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. STEWART. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, they are neither unbiased nor unfettered. We
know fully and truly, as the gentleman from Texas said, because of the
revelations of Mr. Gruber, that transparency is not a major objective
of the administration. And I am afraid that has filtered down to the
EPA.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1422 makes sense. The best advice is from a
balanced group of advisers. It is unbalanced at the EPA now. This bill
will provide some balance. I encourage the body to pass H.R. 1422.
{time} 1415
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to respond, with all due respect, to my colleagues who
are promoting this bill and asking for balance.
On the contrary, what this bill achieves is not balance because, as
explained, under this bill, people who are employed by the industry
with a financial conflict of interest can serve as long as they
disclose their conflict.
That is in contrast to current practice, which is biased, which is
balanced by membership, but people with financial conflicts of interest
do not currently serve on this Science Advisory Board.
Just to clarify, it isn't just that people who are employed by
industry with a financial conflict of interest will be able to serve;
under this bill, people who receive some type of grant cannot
participate.
Now, just to clarify, these are not government employees. These are
employees of research institutions, universities, who may have received
some government grant funding. They are not employed by the government.
They are not government employees, and that is a big distinction. They
are not beholden to any particular government agency, so that is the
big difference.
I agree that we should have balance and transparency, but
unfortunately, this bill takes us in the wrong direction.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 11 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Oregon has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, the
gentlewoman from Tennessee, I would very quickly like to make a point.
Once again, all we are seeking is fairness and transparency, and the
opposition is claiming that it is okay for government-sponsored and -
granted scientists to sit on this board.
In fact, it is okay that 60 percent of them have tens of millions of
dollars of government funding, but it is not okay for anyone from the
industry, and it is completely transparent how unfair that standard
would be.
The second point I would make is this: we are not claiming that
either of them should be forbidden to serve on these boards. We are
just asking that they disclose those financial agreements and let the
American people decide, and that certainly seems to be a fair standard
and hardly the minimum that we could ask.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my good friend.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of the legislation,
the gentleman from Utah, for the excellent job that he has done in
preparing this legislation and bringing it to the body.
If you were to go with me into my district in Tennessee--19 counties,
10,000 square miles--one of the things that you would hear in every
community discussion is a certain amount of disdain for Federal
agencies.
Now, we all expect we are going to hear about not liking the IRS, but
the number one agency in my district to dislike, to be frustrated with,
to want to get control of, to reform is the EPA, and that is because
whether you are a small business owner or a painter or a manufacturer
or a farmer who is growing food to go on the table, you get hassled by
the EPA with all sorts of frivolous and nonsensical rules and
regulations and interpretations.
Quite frankly, the American people are tired of it, and they look at
us and they say, ``Tell me what you are going to do about it.''
Now, Mr. Speaker, today is a day that, yes, indeed, we can do
something about this and a component of it, the Science Advisory
Board--isn't it so interesting that these agencies create this tangled
web of different boards and advisory capacities, and it is all to
insulate their cronies, and it is all to help them shield millions of
taxpayer dollars, money coming out of the pockets of hardworking
taxpayers, that are going to their cronies, who are receiving these
grants.
The American people are saying, ``Stop it. Get it under control. Get
a handle on this.'' This is one of the ways that we do it.
The chairman has spoken eloquently about the membership and the
makeup of the Science Advisory Board, the cronyism that is taking place
there, and the need for it to stop, the ability to have these conflicts
of interest brought out of smoke-filled rooms and moved
[[Page H8058]]
into the transparency of sunlight and knowledge of the American people.
It is a great disinfectant. It is time for it to be put on the EPA, and
certainly, H.R. 1422 is a great way to go about that.
We wouldn't even be here discussing this today and there would be no
need at all for H.R. 1422 if the EPA were to follow their own peer-
review handbook, but I guess Grubergate has gone governmentwide. What
we are seeing is they are all trying to find ways to squirrel this away
and to hide and to not have that transparency.
It is time to pass this legislation. It is time to bring transparency
to the process.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STEWART. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, there are three things that
we should keep in mind. The current content or makeup of the SAB is
somewhere between 51 and 52 members because there are some in
transition as new members come and go. Of those, let's say, 52, only
nine are nonuniversity background, and of those, only five and
sometimes six represent industry.
The industry experts have much to offer. If you don't think that,
say, for example, with the hydraulic fracking board that that
technology is changing rapidly, it certainly is, and we need to take
advantage of that.
The second thing I would say is public comment. The American people
are smart, and the American people are those that are most affected by
some of the standards and the rules that the EPA would suggest. We
should listen to them, and this bill allows a process where they can be
listened to.
Finally, the third thing, we are requesting that 10 percent--a mere
10 percent of these board members come from State, local, or tribal
governments. That hardly seems like a bar that is too high to cross in
getting input from lay States and localities.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The bill before us today does undertake the laudable goal of
improving transparency at the EPA.
However, as I stated previously and as my colleagues mentioned, this
bill, as written, does not accomplish that goal; instead, H.R. 1422
will increase the influence of industry on EPA decisionmaking,
including industry members with a financial conflict of interest, while
reducing the role of qualified academic researchers in helping to guide
regulatory action that is based on sound science.
The Union of Concerned Scientists said:
At the same time, this bill encourages corporate experts to
join the SAB. It creates roadblocks for academic experts
to meaningfully participate by banning experts'
participation and advising activities that directly or
indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own
work.
This effectively turns the idea of conflict of interest on
its head with the bizarre presumption that corporate experts
with direct financial interests are not affected, while
academics who work on these issues are.
Breast Cancer Action wrote:
This bill's overly broad restriction, that a member of the
SAB cannot participate in a discussion that cites the
member's own work, is counterproductive and goes far beyond
the commonsense limits imposed by the National Academies.
Of course, a scientist with expertise on topics that SAB
addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies and
other work on that topic. That makes the scientist's
evaluation more valuable, not less.
Mr. Speaker, we can and should work together to improve EPA's
approach to reviewing the science underpinning regulations, but this
legislation will only damage and delay the process and not bring us the
transparency my colleagues seek.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. STEWART. Could I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Bishop), my comrade.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity of
coming here and talking about this issue.
My relationship with the Environmental Protection Agency has been
infrequent, thankfully, but it has also not necessarily been successful
or positive. In an issue that dealt specifically with my hometown and
county, to be very honest, the science that was used by the
Environmental Protection Agency to make the decision was flawed.
The State clearly showed that it was flawed; yet that did not make a
difference in their ultimate decision, which led me to believe that the
decision was perhaps more politically motivated than it was
scientifically motivated.
I realize this advisory board, though, is in place to try to mitigate
against those circumstances taking place, but if that advisory board is
going to work, it has to have the balance of input that is necessary
for that.
I am frustrated that out of the 50-plus members of this board, only
two have backgrounds in State and local governments and those from only
specific States. This board desperately needs that kind of input from
those entities that have a day-to-day working relationship with these
issues.
If that is not there, if that is not remedied, then the board itself
is going to be flawed, and it is not going to fulfill the purpose for
which it was designed.
I fully support this bill because this advisory board has an effort
and a job to fill to mitigate problems before those problems develop,
and if it is not an effective board, then we should either reform it,
as this bill tries to do, or we should eliminate it, but it can be
reformed. It should be reformed. This is a step to actually reform it,
to make sure that there is better input for better decisions to be
made.
I congratulate the gentleman from my home State of Utah for coming up
with a bill that solves a real problem and does it in a fair and
professional way.
Mr. STEWART. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, but
before I do, though, I would like to enter into the Record the letters
from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others that I mentioned in my
previous testimony.
Chamber of Commerce
of the United States of America,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2014.
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than three
million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as
well as state and local chambers and industry associations,
and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending
America's free enterprise system, supports H.R. 1422, the
``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.'' This bill
would help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB),
which directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on scientific and technical issues, is unbiased
and transparent in performing its duties.
The bill would establish requirements that SAB members are
qualified experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of
bias are disclosed, that the views of members--including
dissenting members--are available to the public, and that the
public has the opportunity to participate in the advisory
activities of the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA
relies on SAB reviews and studies to support new regulations,
standards, guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions,
the actions of the SAB must be transparent and accountable.
This is a critical safeguard to assure the public that the
data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically sound and
unbiased.
The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the
transparency and trustworthiness of scientific and technical
reviews that EPA relies on to justify its actions. The
American public must have confidence that the scientific and
technical data driving regulatory action can be trusted.
Accordingly, the Chamber supports H.R. 1422.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
____
American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2014.
Chairman Lamar Smith,
Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing on behalf of the American
Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest general farm
organization. We have reviewed H.R. 1422, The Science
Advisory Board Reform Act. AFBF strongly supports this
legislation and is committed to working with you in pressing
for its swift consideration.
The Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) should be a critical
part of the scientific foundation of EPA's regulatory
process. Rather than promoting fairness, transparency and
independence to ensure unbiased
[[Page H8059]]
scientific advice, EPA has failed to follow its own Peer
Review Handbook and used its position to silence dissenting
scientific experts. A weak and partial SAB undermines public
trust and hurts the quality of regulatory decisions. American
Farm Bureau Federation supports H.R. 1422 because Farmers and
Ranchers deserve good governance and regulations based on
meaningful scientific review.
H.R. 1422 reforms the SAB process by strengthening public
participation, improving the process of selecting expert
advisors, reducing conflicts of interest and enhancing
transparency. The legislation draws from EPA's own Peer
Review Handbook and recommendations from the Bipartisan
Policy Center to urge sensible reforms. H.R. 1422 improves
the review process and makes the SAB a more useful tool in
regulatory decision making.
H.R. 1422 reinforces the SAB process as a tool that can
help policymakers with complex issues while preventing EPA
from muzzling impartial scientific advice. This legislation
deserves strong, bipartisan support. We applaud your
leadership in this effort and will continue to work with you
to ensure passage of H.R. 1422.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
____
April 10, 2013.
Hon. Chris Stewart,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing on behalf of the American
Alliance for Innovation (AAI), a large and diverse coalition
of trade associations representing a broad spectrum of the
American economy.
It is paramount that chemicals and metals producers,
manufacturers, distributors, importers, users, and consumers
have confidence that there is a transparent federal chemical
management system in place that is both grounded in sound
science and will deliver timely safety decisions. Oversight
of the safe production and use of chemicals affects us all,
which is why we support your efforts to improve the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) and its committees.
The SAB is a critical part of the EPA's quality control
process that was established to ensure that the Agency
produces credible information to help guide regulatory
decisions at all levels of government. We all agree,
therefore, that the SAB must provide meaningful, balanced,
and independent reviews of the science conducted and used by
EPA, and we support advancing your bill, H.R. 1422 (the ``EPA
Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013'') in this
Congress.
We are encouraged to see that your legislation takes into
account public policy recommendations from the National
Academy of Sciences and the Bipartisan Policy Council, as
well as input that the Committee has received from numerous
experts and stakeholder groups. H.R. 1422 will greatly
enhance the current peer review process in many important
ways by strengthening policies to address conflicts of
interest, while at the same time ensuring that a wide range
of scientific perspectives are represented on panels. The
bill will also increase the utility of SAB panels by
improving the process for public engagement and ensuring that
scientific concerns are clearly addressed and communicated.
We are committed to working with you and the Members of the
Science Committee to move this legislation forward, and we
urge all members of Congress to support its passage.
Sincerely,
Adhesive and Sealant Council; Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates
Research Council; American Architectural Manufacturers
Association; American Chemistry Council; American Coke
& Coal Chemicals Institute; American Farm Bureau
Federation; American Fiber Manufacturers Association;
American Forest & Paper Association; American Gas
Association; American Road & Transportation Builders
Association; American Wood Council; Automotive
Aftermarket Industry Association; Corn Refiners
Association; CropLife America; Fashion Jewelry &
Accessories Trade Association.
Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc.; Institute
of Makers of Explosives; National Association of
Chemical Distributors; National Association of
Manufacturers; National Oilseed Processors Association;
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.; Nickel Institute;
Oregon Women In Timber; Pine Chemicals Association,
Inc.; Portland Cement Association; Responsible Industry
for a Sound Environment; The Fertilizer Institute; The
Vinyl Institute; Treated Wood Council.
____
Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council,
Vienna, VA, November 17, 2014.
Hon. Chris Stewart,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Stewart: The Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) is pleased to support
H.R. 1422, the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2013.''
H.R. 1422 reforms the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) and its subpanels by
strengthening public participation, improving the process for
selecting expert advisors, expanding transparency
requirements, and limiting nonscientific policy advice. The
reforms proposed by H.R. 1422 are especially critical given
the growing impact of EPA's regulations on America's small
business sector, and the self-serving science used as the
basis to advance controversial rulemakings.
H.R. 1422 will restore balance and independence to the
scientific advisory process at EPA. The bill addresses key
concerns with the SAB, such as placing limitations on its
members who receive environmental research grants, applying
conflict of interest standards, and ensuring balance on the
board's membership. These are common sense reforms that will
strengthen SAB's integrity and work.
SBE Council and its Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS)
are dedicated to reforming the regulatory system to ensure
small businesses and entrepreneurs operate and compete under
rational rules. H.R. 1422 is an important step that will
enable a more rationale and friendly environment for U.S.
entrepreneurship.
SBE Council looks forward to working with your office to
advance this important piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Karen Kerrigan,
President & CEO.
____
National Association of
Manufacturers,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2014.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: The National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in
the United States representing small and large manufacturers
in every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to
support H.R. 1422 (Rep. Stewart, UT-R), the EPA Science
Advisory Act of 2013. H.R. 1422 would modernize the policies
and procedures governing the Science Advisory Board (SAB) of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that the
SAB is best equipped to provide independent, transparent and
balanced reviews of the science the EPA uses to guide its
regulatory decisions.
Manufacturers support policies that favor markets, adhere
to sound principles of science and risk assessment and are
informed by a public rulemaking process that is open and
inclusive. The work of the SAB, which serves a quality
control function for the science the EPA uses to justify new
regulations, must be completely neutral. Any appearance of
bias, however slight, could undermine the EPA's mission to
protect public health and welfare.
H.R. 1422 would strengthen the SAB by limiting conflicts of
interest, encouraging public comment, prohibiting panel
members from peer reviewing their own work, and ensuring that
the makeup of SAB panels reflects the diversity of views
among federal, state, local and tribal experts. H.R. 1422
would implement provisions and recommendations from the
National Academy of Sciences, the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, and the EPA's own peer-review handbook.
As the costs of environmental regulations escalate, the
scientific justification for those regulations must be sound.
H.R 1422 is a strong step in the right direction.
Manufacturers urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 1422.
Sincerely,
Ross Eisenberg,
Vice President,
Energy and Resources Policy.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, thank you for considering my bill, H.R.
1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, and I yield
myself the balance of my time.
To reiterate what has been said multiple times here, this legislation
addresses how the EPA is systematically silencing voices of dissent on
the Science Advisory Board, ignoring calls for independence and
balanced participation, and preventing the board from responding to
congressional requests.
Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex
issues. However, when inconvenient scientific conclusions are
disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion
becomes impossible, and that is certainly what we have seen.
The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act addresses these
shortcomings by strengthening public participation and public comment
opportunities and improving the makeup of the Science Advisory Board
and its subpanels.
The bill reinforces peer review requirements and reduces conflicts of
interest. It provides opportunities for the dissenting panelists to
make their views known and requires communication of uncertainties and
scientific findings and conclusions.
The Science Advisory Board Reform Act promotes fairness,
transparency, and independence to ensure unbiased scientific advice.
Surely, that is something that we could ask for the American people.
Surely, that is something
[[Page H8060]]
that the opposition could support. In fact, surely, that is something
that the White House would support.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this matter,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Chris Stewart,
former Chairman of the Science Committee's Environment Subcommittee,
for his hard work on this important piece of legislation. H.R. 1422,
The Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures balanced and transparent
review of regulatory science.
Specifically, it strengthens the Board's independence so that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot further its regulatory
ambitions under the guise of science.
Costly regulations often lead to a loss of jobs and higher
electricity bills and gasoline prices for Americans.
The EPA has an extensive track record of twisting the science to
justify their actions. Behind the scenes, however, there is a review
process that was intended to provide a critical check on the Agency's
conclusions.
The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was intended to provide a
meaningful, balanced, and independent assessment of the science that
supports the Agency's regulations. Unfortunately, this vision is not
being realized.
The EPA undermines the Board's independence and prevents it from
providing advice to Congress. As a result, the valuable advice these
experts can provide is wasted.
At a time when the Agency is pursuing the most aggressive regulatory
agenda in its 44 year history, it is critical that the Board function
as intended.
Despite the existing requirement that EPA's advisory panels be
``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,'' the Science
Committee has identified a number of problems that undermine the
panel's credibility and work product. These include:
A majority of the members of EPA's key advisory panels have received
money from the EPA. Often the research they are reviewing is directly
related to the money they received. This creates at least the
appearance of a conflict of interest.
Many of the panelists have taken very public and even political
positions 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 is clearly
not an objective viewpoint.
Public participation is limited during most Board meetings;
interested parties have almost no ability to comment on the scope of
the work--and meeting records are often kept secret.
The EPA routinely excludes private sector experts while stacking the
review panels with individuals who will give the EPA the answer it
wants.
H.R. 1422 expands transparency requirements, improves the process for
selecting expert advisors, and strengthens public participation
requirements.
The bill requires that uncertainties in the Agency's scientific
conclusions be communicated and limits the SAB from providing partisan
policy advice.
This legislation is pro-science. It restores the SAB as an important
defender of scientific integrity. These common sense reforms will make
EPA's decisions more credible and balanced.
I thank the gentleman froth Utah, Mr. Stewart for his leadership on
this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R.
1422 is postponed.
____________________