[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1678-H1694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2015
General Leave
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1029.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mooney of West Virginia). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 138 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1029.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1404
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1029) 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, with Mr. Yoder in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to thank Chairman Smith and former Environment
Subcommittee Chairs Harris, Stewart, and Schweikert for their hard work
on this important piece of legislation. I also want to thank my friend
Representative Peterson for making this bill a bipartisan effort. I
appreciate his willingness to sponsor this bill with me.
This is a good government bill. It reflects the values we should
uphold, regardless of which side of the political aisle we are on.
In western Oklahoma, we are no strangers to regulatory overreach from
the Environmental Protection Agency. Farmers, ranchers, and small
businesses often find themselves the target of burdensome and simply
inefficient regulations.
These regulations range from something as specific as farm fuel tank
requirements to vastly prohibitive restrictions on electric power
plants that power our homes.
Government intrusion into America's energy and agricultural sectors
reverberate into our everyday lives in the form of higher food prices
or higher monthly energy bills. Stagnant wages and underemployment have
only exacerbated the problem for families trying to make ends meet.
The science behind EPA regulations is as important as the money they
siphon from our economy. Science and data are invaluable tools in
helping us navigate complex policy issues, and when the economic cost
of these regulations reaches into tens of millions of dollars, we need
to get it right.
H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures that
the best experts are free to undertake a balanced and open review of
regulatory science.
The Board was established to provide scientific advice to the EPA, to
Congress, and to review the quality and relevance of the science that
EPA uses for regulations, but in recent years, shortcomings from the
process, unfortunately, have arisen.
Opportunities for public participation are limited, an imbalance of
viewpoints has been allowed to grow, potential conflicts of interest
have gone unchecked, and the ability of the Board to speak
independently seemingly has been curtailed. If the EPA undermines the
Board's independence or prevents it from providing advice to Congress,
the valuable advice these experts can provide is wasted.
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 we fear undermine
the panel's credibility and work product.
These include:
A number of advisory members have received money from the EPA. This
could create an appearance of a conflict of interest.
Some of the panelists have taken public and even political positions
on issues they are advising the Board about. For example, a lead
reviewer of
[[Page H1679]]
the EPA's hydraulic fracturing study published an antifracking article
entitled: ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.'' Now, clearly, this is not an
objective point of view and should be publicly disclosed.
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 incomplete and hard to obtain.
The EPA routinely excludes State, local, and tribal experts while
stacking the review panels with individuals who will give the EPA the
answer it wants.
This bill is both proscience and pro-sound science. This bill is
founded upon recommendations for reform outlined in the National
Academy of Sciences and the EPA's Peer Review Handbook. This bill
ensures that the Board is balanced, transparent, and independent, all
of which will help prevent the SAB from being manipulated by any group.
H.R. 1029 liberates the Board from EPA--some would say tyranny, but I
would prefer to think it empowers the Board to listen to outside
expertise. This viewpoint is consistent with the basic ideals of our
democracy.
Subject areas such as risk and hazardous assessments often involve
the examination and evaluation of some of the most complicated
scientific and technical information. These assessments are precisely
where the Board's expertise is most needed. The decision to review
remains in the hands of the Board, and the EPA must respect the
independence of the Board's opportunity to review.
Perhaps, most importantly, this bill seeks to increase public
participation that benefits all stakeholders. Currently, valuable
opportunities for diverse perspectives are limited. The Federal
Government does not have a monopoly on the truth.
The public has important expertise that we can't afford to ignore in
a democracy. State, local, tribal, and private sectors have a long
history of qualified scientific experts. Their contributions should be
taken seriously.
Unfortunately, the history of the SAB shows that private sector
representation is often lacking or nonexistent; instead, the EPA picks
the Board--ignoring the knowledge, expertise, and contributions of
these experts.
This bill ensures that qualified experts are not excluded simply due
to their affiliation. This will add value and credibility to future
Board reviews.
Mr. Peterson and I recognize the important role that science should
play in our policy debates and provides safeguards to give the public
confidence in science. It restores the independent Science Advisory
Board as a defender of scientific integrity and will help restore
credibility and trust in a Federal agency that has lost much of it.
Disagreements on scientific conclusions shouldn't occur on the House
floor, and this legislation will help ensure that the best experts are
free to undertake an open review of the EPA's regulatory science.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board
Reform Act.
I want to start by thanking my colleagues, Mr. Lucas and Chairman
Smith, for their intention to improve the EPA's Science Advisory Board,
and I especially want to thank Chairman Smith for working with me on
other legislation that passed the Science Committee and the House on a
bipartisan basis.
Members and staff on both sides of the aisle worked tirelessly last
week and, in fact, since the last Congress toward a bipartisan bill
about the Science Advisory Board that accommodated much, if not all, of
the fundamental principles shared by both Democrats and Republicans.
Unfortunately, we were not able to reach agreement on some very
critical provisions by this date. Accordingly, I will be urging my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill before us today.
This bill has not changed meaningfully since we considered it last
year, and I stand here today with the same concerns I raised last
Congress. My colleagues who support H.R. 1029 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 the EPA's Science Advisory Board.
All of these are good government principles that I agree with, and if
this bill or the bill we considered last year achieved these goals, I
would be here ready to support it, but H.R. 1029 would not achieve
these good government goals.
Instead of improving the Science Advisory Board structure or
operation, the bill will limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA
receives and allow seemingly endless delays in EPA's regulatory
process.
H.R. 1029 would make it easier for industry representatives to serve
on the Board, even if they have a financial conflict of interest. To be
clear, I am not opposed to industry experts participating on the
Science Advisory Board or in the peer review process at the EPA. Their
insight into processes and industry conduct 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 this is likely to be the result of the adoption of
this bill.
{time} 1415
This bill conflates bias with financial conflicts of interest, and it
assumes that a simple disclosure will prevent a material interest in an
outcome from coloring the judgment and actions of a Board member.
Congress should not be supporting legislation that undermines
longstanding ethics requirements and practices that have worked well to
ensure fairness and the balance of views on all Federal advisory
committees.
Another troubling element of H.R. 1029 is that it would significantly
delay the work of the Science Advisory Board. The Board should
absolutely seek public comment on the science it is reviewing, and, if
necessary, it should extend the duration of the public comment period
to ensure that interested parties have ample opportunity to submit
their views. With this, we agree.
However, H.R. 1029 takes this process to the extreme by creating
unnecessary burdens, including a loophole that could keep the Board
from ending the public comment period and that could require that the
Board provide written responses to a significant number of comments it
receives. H.R. 1029 distorts the important public participation process
to create what amounts to an endless appeals process that will provide
those who disagree with the EPA an effective tool to halt, derail, or
slow the Agency's rulemaking.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record several letters from
organizations that have similar concerns with H.R. 1029, including the
Union of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Defense Fund, the
National Center for Health Research, the Center for Medical Consumers,
the National Physicians Alliance, and others.
March 16, 2015.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We are writing to express our
opposition to H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of
2015, and H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform
Act of 2015. Our organizations are dedicated to saving lives
and improving public health.
Science is the bedrock of sound regulatory decision making.
The best science underscores everything our organizations do
to improve health. We strongly believe in a transparent and
open regulatory process. A vital element of research is
patient confidentiality. Physicians and researchers have
earned the trust of their patients by steadfastly maintaining
patient confidentiality. Patient confidentiality is a clear
legal and ethical obligation.
The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 will compel the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to either ignore the best
science by prohibiting the agency from considering peer-
reviewed research that is based on confidential patient
information or force EPA to publicly release confidential
patient information, which would violate federal law. This is
an untenable outcome that would completely undermine the
ability of the EPA to perform its responsibilities under the
Clean Air Act and myriad other federal laws. The legislation
will not improve EPA's actions; rather, it will stifle public
health protections.
[[Page H1680]]
The kind of information disclosure envisioned in this
legislation exceeds that required by peer-reviewed journals.
We believe much of the intent of this legislation is already
achieved through the current peer-review process required by
all academic journals. The vast majority of peer-reviewed
journals require manuscript authors to register any trial
using human subjects with clinicaltrials.gov. This public
registry collects key information on the study population,
research goals and methods that allow outside reviewers and
scientists to either challenge or attempt to reproduce study
results. Additionally, the peer-review process and
publication of results invites the broader scientific
community to debate study findings. Trial registry and
manuscript publications are only part of the process by which
scientific endeavors operate in a transparent environment.
Private organizations, public charities, research
universities, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
corporations and many other entities conduct medical
research. Many of these organizations compile large
longitudinal data sets that track patients over a period of
time. These data serve as the basis of many studies that
permit epidemiologists to track disease and risk factor
information for large patient populations.
The published peer-reviewed information from such data
often inform regulatory decision making at the EPA and other
federal agencies as well as future research. Not only do
these data inform regulatory action, they help inform efforts
to educate the public about the magnitude of a disease, risk
factors and steps individuals can take to improve their
health. In order for EPA to set the most appropriate
standards, it must be informed by the best information.
Understanding the impact of air pollution on human health
and the magnitude of harm caused by pollution at specific
levels helps the agency meet its obligations under the Clean
Air Act. Absent these data, it is unclear upon what basis the
agency could make sound decisions.
H.R. 1029, The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2015 will also undermine the scientific basis for EPA policy,
specifically by compromising the integrity of the panel that
reviews that science. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is
composed of independent scientific and technical experts who
are tasked with evaluating the science and providing advice
that EPA uses to inform its decision making. The current law
provides for balanced panels and experts with diverse
backgrounds.
This legislation would impose a hiring quota on the SAB
that would require ten percent of members to be selected for
qualifications other than their scientific expertise. This
bill will compromise not only the scientific integrity of the
SAB, but also its independence, as the quota would open the
door for representatives of the regulated industries to serve
on the board.
Further, the bill will also, in some cases, prohibit SAB
members from participating when their own research is
involved--even indirectly. This requirement could block
participation of the ``best and the brightest'' researchers
in a particular field at the very time their expertise is
needed to accurately inform the regulatory process.
Finally, the SAB is currently governed by the Federal
Advisory Committee Act and already has a public comment
system in place. H.R. 1029 would add on the burdensome
requirement that the SAB respond to individual comments in
writing, a requirement that could be so time-consuming as to
render the board unable to carry out its function.
We urge the U.S. House of Representatives to stand up for
sound science and public health protections, and vote NO on
both H.R. 1030 and H.R. 1029.
Sincerely,
Harold Wimmer,
National President & CEO, American Lung Association,
Georges C. Benjamin, MD,
Executive Director, American Public Health Association,
Jeffrey Levi, PhD,
Executive Director, Trust for America's Health,
Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,
Executive Director, American Thoracic Society,
Tonya Winders,
President & CEO, Allergy & Asthma Network.
____
March 16, 2015.
Dear Representative, On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters we strongly urge you to oppose the ``Secret
Science Reform Act of 2015'' (HR), the ``EPA Science Advisory
Board Reform Act of 2015''. 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 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.
Science Advisory Board bill would attack EPA's scientific
process in a different way. 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 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
burdens on the SAB, distorting its mission and altering its
process with no benefit to EPA or the public. 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.
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 Effective Government;
Clean Water Action; Defenders of Wildlife;
Earthjustice; Environmental Defense Fund; Friends of
the Earth; Greenpeace; League of Conservation Voters;
Natural Resources Defense Council; Physicians for
Social Responsibility; Sierra Club; Union of Concerned
Scientists.
____
March 2, 2015.
Dear Representative: The undersigned individuals and
organizations working on public health and science-informed
regulation strongly oppose the H.R. 1029 the EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 and H.R. 1030, the Secret
Science Reform Act of 2015, to be considered by the House of
Representatives this week.
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.
When very similar bills were up for a vote in the House
last November, the Administration issued veto threats for
both bills. The Administration stated that the Secret Science
Reform Act would ``greatly impede the EPA's ability to use
science to protect public health and the environment,'' and
warned that the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would
``weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the
SAB.''
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.
The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would greatly
weaken the EPA's advisory process, making it far more likely
that recommendations from its independent Science Advisory
Board (SAB) will be dominated by corporate special interests.
This bill opens the door to increased corporate influence on
the Board, by encouraging the EPA to accept more SAB
panelists with corporate ties.
The bill's overly broad restriction on SAB members with
subject-matter expertise is
[[Page H1681]]
equally counterproductive, and goes far beyond the common-
sense limits imposed by the National Academies. Unlike the
2014 bill, the 2015 bill does appear to permit SAB experts
with published, peer-reviewed research, to address those
topics on which they have credentials, provided that their
expertise is publicly disclosed. But the language in the bill
is so vague that it raises many questions. Generally, experts
have developed their knowledge base over time, and not purely
through peer-reviewed publications. How is an expert supposed
to make that distinction? What happens if a scientist relies
on expertise that is not specifically permitted in the bill?
Will there be legal ramifications? Clearly, scientific
experts will think twice before joining the SAB if it means
they will have to consult their lawyers before they give
advice.
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 The Secret Science
Reform Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act.
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; Jacobs Institute
of Women's Health; National Center for Health Research;
National Physicians Alliance; Our Bodies Ourselves;
Public Citizen; Woodymatters; John H. Powers, MD,
Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine; The George
Washington University School of Medicine; University of
Maryland School of Medicine.
____
Union of Concerned Scientists,
March 2, 2015.
Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists
strongly opposes H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board
Reform Act of 2015, set to be voted on by the House of
Representatives this week. This bill would greatly impede the
Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect public
health informed by the best available science.
Last November, when a similar bill was up before the House,
the Administration threatened a veto. The Administration
noted that the 2014 bill ``would negatively affect the
appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific
independence and integrity of the SAB.'' That observation
continues to hold true for the 2015 version.
This proposal would 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 fully
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.
Unlike the 2014 bill, the 2015 bill does appear to permit
SAB experts with published, peer-reviewed research, to
address those topics on which they have credentials, provided
that their expertise is publicly disclosed. But the language
in the bill is so vague that it raises many questions.
Generally, experts have developed their knowledge base over
time, and not purely through peer-reviewed publications. How
is an academic scientist supposed to make that distinction?
What happens if a scientist relies on expertise that is not
specifically permitted in the bill? Will there be legal
ramifications? Clearly, scientific experts will think twice
before joining the SAB if it means they will have to consult
their lawyers before they give advice.
While hamstringing experts, 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.
Last year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
estimated that implementing the law's mandates would 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.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, our government's ability to protect
public health is at stake when we consider legislation like the bill
before us today. Unfortunately, we do not have to look far to see the
impacts of these kinds of delay tactics. Articles published last year
by the Center for Public Integrity chronicle efforts to slow down and
to undermine the EPA's efforts to keep arsenic out of drinking water
and benzene out of American workplaces. When we prevent the EPA from
taking timely action to protect the public from known poisons and
cancer-causing agents, we are putting lives at risk.
The 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 the 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 the EPA receives, we should be giving the Agency the
tools it needs to strengthen and improve the regulatory process with
sound science.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me, once again, in
opposing this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters from the
American Farm Bureau, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and from other
entities that are in support of H.R. 1029.
March 2, 2015.
Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the American Farm Bureau
Federation (AFBF), the nation's largest general farm
organization, I am writing in support of H.R. 1029, the EPA
Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015. AFBF strongly
supports this legislation and is committed to working with
you in pressing for its swift consideration.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) is intended to review the
scientific basis for EPA regulatory decisions, but
shortcomings have become clear including limited public
participation, EPA interference with expert advice, and
potential conflicts of interest.
H.R. 1029 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. 1029 would make
the SAB a more robust tool that in the future would impact
the development
[[Page H1682]]
of flawed EPA action such as the recent WOWS proposed rule.
American Farm Bureau Federation supports H.R. 1029 because
farmers and ranchers deserve good governance and regulations
based on meaningful scientific review.
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. 1029.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
____
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
Washington, DC, February 26, 2015.
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. 1029, the
``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015,'' and H.R.
1030, the ``Secret Science Reform Act of 2015.''
H.R. 1029 would help ensure that the Science Advisory Board
(SAB), which directly counsels the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency on scientific and technical issues, is
unbiased and transparent in performing its duties. This 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.
H.R. 1030 would improve the transparency and reliability of
scientific and technical information that federal agencies
rely heavily upon by to support new regulatory actions. This
bill is designed to ensure that the studies and data federal
agencies cite when they write new regulations, standards,
guidance, assessments of risk--or take other regulatory
action--are clearly identified and made available for public
review. Additionally, information must be sufficiently
transparent to allow study findings to be reproduced and
validated. This is a critical safeguard to assure the public
that the data federal agencies rely on is scientifically
sound and unbiased.
These bills would improve the transparency and
trustworthiness of scientific and technical information
agencies rely on to justify regulatory actions that can
significantly affect society. The American public must have
confidence that the scientific and technical data driving
regulatory action can be trusted. Accordingly, the Chamber
supports H.R. 1029 and H.R. 1030.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten,
Executive Vice President Government Affairs.
____
The Center for
Regulatory Solutions,
Feb. 25, 2015.
[Press Release]
CRS Welcomes Bipartisan Efforts To Make EPA Science More Transparent
Washington, DC.--Yesterday, Congressional leaders from both
parties announced bold steps to rein in the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), which has been imposing costs and
red tape on American small businesses, all while refusing to
disclose the science the agency uses to justify their
mandates. The Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS) applauded
two bills that were introduced on February 24, which
specifically target EPA's long standing failure to be
transparent regarding the science behind the agency's ozone
regulation. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee
has scheduled votes on both bills for this afternoon.
``Today I applaud Republican and Democratic leaders in
Congress for introducing legislation designed to ensure EPA
is transparent with the American public when it comes to
their justification for imposing costly regulations,'' CRS
President Karen Kerrigan stated. ``The ozone rule could be
EPA's most expensive rule in history. Given the enormity of
the costs and impact of this regulation, why shouldn't the
EPA be transparent with Congress and the American people
about the science used to justify their decisions? Sadly, it
appears that small businesses and their workforce may be
picking up the tab for the Obama EPA's costly, secret, and
political agenda.''
Background
The timing of these bills could not be better as EPA is
hard at work crafting the most expensive regulation ever
promulgated by the agency, the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone, to be issued in late 2015. EPA
itself estimated Ozone NAAQS would cost the economy as much
as $90 billion annually, but other estimates put the price
tag closer to $270 billion annually and as much as $3.4
trillion from 2017 to 2040. The proposed regulation is so
far-reaching in its impact that President Obama put the rule
on hold in 2011 out of fear it would hurt his reelection
chances and the economy.
The Administration contends the health benefits would far
outweigh the costs--but here's the catch--EPA calculates the
benefits based on hidden science. If enacted, the legislation
would stop EPA from relying on secret science to justify new
job killing regulations and would allow independent
scientists the opportunity to examine EPA's claims.
The first bill, the ``Secret Science Reform Act'' was
introduced by Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and House
Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith
(R-Texas). The bill is necessary because EPA has repeatedly
refused to comply with Congressional requests to publicly
disclose the data from two important health studies.These
aren't just any studies. They are the taxpayer-funded
``Havard Six Cities Study'' and the ``Cancer Prevention
Study'' (including recent updates), which relied on data that
remains inaccessible to the public. This means other
scientists, independent from the EPA, are unable to verify
the studies' conclusions. Accordingly--we are left to simply
trust EPA that its benefits claims are based on reality.
In addition, Senator John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Joe Manchin
(D-W.V.) introduced bipartisan legislation called the
``Science Advisory Board Reform Act'' to promote fairness,
transparency, and independence within EPA's science advisory
boards so that EPA relies only on unbiased scientific advice.
This is important because as CRS previously pointed out the
Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) recommended EPA
set more burdensome standards for ozone, while ignoring the
legal requirement to report on the costs of implementing
stricter standards. Ignoring a $90 billion annual price tag
is no mere oversight. Rather it clearly demonstrates CASAC's
pro regulatory bias.
CRS strongly supports both legislative efforts, which would
allow needed insight into the science behind costly
regulations that have a real impact on the daily lives of
Americans across the country, and the survivability and
competitiveness of small businesses. As a survey conducted by
CRS found last year, 72 percent of Americans believe that
regulations are created ``in a closed, secretive process.''
Moving forward with this important legislation would be a
significant step toward addressing that disconnect and
promoting transparency.
____
American Composites Manufacturers Association,
Arlington, VA, February 27, 2015.
Re Please support H.R. 1029, The EPA Science Advisory Board
Reform Act.
Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the approximately
3,000 small and medium-sized U.S. companies that manufacture
composite products such as wind turbine blades, pollution
control equipment, auto and truck components, rebar for
highway bridges, and recreational boats, I write in support
of H.R. 1029, The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2015.
EPA's reviews of the environmental and health effects
possibly associated with exposure to industrial chemicals,
including the substances used by composites manufacturers,
can help manufacturers protect the health of employees and
plant communities. But if EPA's chemical health risk
assessments are not based on careful and thorough reviews of
quality scientific data, the viability of manufacturers can
be compromised without providing any public health benefit.
H.R. 1029 will make several changes to improve the
effectiveness of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) as it
assesses and provides feedback to EPA on the quality of its
chemical health reviews. The legislation will increase the
ability of informed stakeholders to provide information to
the SAB, and allow what may be the minority views of
individual SAB members to be considered by EPA as it revises
draft chemical assessments.
These and the other reforms required under H.R. 1029 will
improve both the scientific quality of EPA reviews and the
public's confidence in EPA's chemical assessment process.
These improvements will in turn improve the ability of our
industry's small business owners and plant managers to rely
on EPA assessments to guide the adoption of health-protective
measures for workers and plant neighbors.
Thank you for your support of good science and the
composites industry.
Sincerely,
Tom Dobbins,
President,
____
American Fuel & Petrochemical
Manufacturers,
Washington, DC, March 16, 2015.
Re Letter in Support of H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory
Board Reform Act of 2015 and H.R. 1030, the Secret
Science Reform Act of 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), a
national trade association representing more than 400
companies, including a majority of all U.S. refiners and
petrochemical manufacturers, would like to express its
support for the passage of H.R. 1029, the EPA Science
Advisory
[[Page H1683]]
Board Reform Act of 2015 and H.R. 1030, the Secret Science
Reform Act of 2015. These two measures would provide more
clarity on how decisions are reached by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and bring more transparency to the
science that supports EPA regulations.
The United States is on the verge of a manufacturing
renaissance due to a surge in oil and natural gas production
that will strengthen U.S. energy security, create jobs and
grow the economy. However, the manufacturing renaissance is
being threatened by overly burdensome regulations from the
EPA. While AFPM supports commonsense regulations, there is a
severe lack of transparency in EPA's science and advisory
panels, which serve as the basis for new regulations. This
lack of transparency is making it more difficult for
manufacturers to capitalize on America's abundance of
economical and reliable energy.
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is charged with
reviewing the scientific foundation of EPA regulatory
decisions and advising EPA on science and technology related
matters. Currently, SAB's practice of determining panels is
conducted behind closed doors by EPA SAB staff. This practice
has created a conflict of interest, which has resulted in the
panel embedding their own policy views in their science
recommendations, as well as peer reviewing their own work.
The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act brings much needed
reform to the SAB by strengthening public participation and
public comment opportunities, improving the make-up of the
SAB, requiring opportunities for dissenting panelists to
express their opinions, and limiting non-scientific policy
advice and recommendations.
Moreover, the research and data used by EPA to support new
regulations is currently not available to the public.
Congress and outside groups should be able to review health
benefit claims by the EPA for new Clean Air Act regulations
in order to determine if the science supports the high cost
of many of these new regulations. The Secret Science Reform
Act looks to bring greater transparency to EPA's research and
data. EPA would be prohibited from issuing regulations unless
all scientific and technical information relied upon is
specifically identified, and would be required to make
information publicly available for independent analysis.
We believe it is imperative that EPA use high quality
science and provide more clarity and transparency on how
decisions are made. This will only strengthen EPA's value and
utility for ensuring public safety, and credibility among
manufacturers. Improving the scientific quality and sharing
of information, as well as the composition of the SAB is
critical to fostering a regulatory environment that will
allow manufacturers to develop safe and cost-effective
products on which Americans depend for everyday life.
Therefore, AFPM supports and urges immediate passage of
H.R. 1029 and H.R. 1030. It is critical that Congress pass
legislation that brings more transparency to the science and
advisory panels that supports EPA regulations.
Sincerely,
Charles T. Drevna,
President.
____
Portland Cement Association,
Washington, DC, March 2, 2015.
Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space and Technology, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: The Portland Cement Association (PCA)
appreciates your leadership in promoting public policies that
encourage transparency and the use of sound science in the
federal regulatory process. PCA represents 27 U.S. cement
companies operating 82 manufacturing plants in 35 states.
Collectively, these companies account for approximately 80%
of domestic cement-making capacity, with distribution centers
in all 50 states.
America's cement manufacturers comply with a broad spectrum
of federal and state environmental rules. Policies that
promote an open, predictable and credible regulatory process
help balance goals that we all share: a clean environment and
a healthy economy. To that end, PCA supports the passage of
H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, and H.R.
1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015.
H.R. 1030 would ensure that EPA bases its rules on publicly
available, verifiable information. H.R. 1029 would strengthen
the transparency and public participation requirements for
the scientific panels that review EPA's regulatory science.
These two bills provide a common sense framework for greater
transparency, accountability and integrity in the science
that supports EPA's rules.
PCA looks forward to working with you and members of the
Committee to move these important bills forward. If you have
questions or need more information, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely yours,
James G. Toscas,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the House Agriculture
Committee.
Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 1029,
the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote
in support of this bill.
The Science Advisory Board's work is important in making sure that
the EPA considers all scientific information when writing regulations
that will impact American farmers, families, and small businesses.
Unfortunately, concerns have been raised about the current review
process.
In listening to the debate, people need to understand that this is
merely an advisory board, that these folks are not the ones who are
making the decisions. I would argue that, if there is one thing that
the EPA needs, it is sound advice, and they wouldn't get themselves
into all of this trouble that they continue to get themselves into over
water in the U.S. and every other thing that you can name. We have got
a business in my district that has complied with everything they have
asked. It did a 90 percent reduction in emissions from its outside wood
furnaces, and now the EPA has come with a regulation that will put them
out of business and cost 250 jobs in my district, and it is just on and
on.
I think that it would be good for the EPA to get advice from people
whom, maybe, they aren't listening to. Under the current process, it is
just not working. They are, I think, only hearing from one side of
these arguments. I don't know what people are afraid of, as you are
going to have advice coming from people who actually know what is going
on with some of these issues, and I think that is a good thing.
This legislation addresses those concerns, and it builds on the work
that we did in the 2014 farm bill. I think this bill is necessary, as I
said, to make sure that there is the right kind of input in the EPA. I
don't know if it is going to solve all of the problems, but it will
help ensure a more balanced and independent Science Advisory Board, and
it will help alleviate some of the unintended consequences that are
surrounding current EPA regulations, so I encourage my colleagues'
support.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking
member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
opposition to H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2015, which is the same one we spoke against last year, because it
benefits no one but the industry, and it harms public health.
Last year, Dallas-Fort Worth received an ``F'' for air quality from
the American Lung Association. Now, more than ever, the American people
need a strong EPA to protect their right to clean air and water, and
the public supports that. This includes an effective Science Advisory
Board, a group whose job it is to provide the EPA with independent
scientific analysis and advice.
As written, H.R. 1029 ``reforms'' EPA's Science Advisory Board for
the worse. The hypothetical intent of this bill is to improve the
balance of the members serving on the Board; but, in reality, the bill
would make it easier for industry-affiliated representatives with a
conflict of interest to serve on the Board. Experts with industry
associations are far more likely to find that the science they are
asked to review will have a financial impact on their employers.
Academic scientists do not have such financial conflicts of interest
with the Board's advice or with the EPA's actions.
However, my Republican colleagues seem to have a fundamental distrust
of scientists from our Nation's universities because H.R. 1029 puts in
place a number of requirements that will likely dissuade academic
scientists from serving on the Board. It is difficult to understand how
anyone could object to the most knowledgeable academic scientists
offering their advice and expertise to the EPA. Who would know better
whether the EPA had mischaracterized the science on an issue than the
people who are leaders in their respective fields?
To be clear, I am not arguing that industry should not have
representation on the EPA's Science Advisory Board, as their insight is
valuable also, but I do not support weakening conflict of interest
practices so more industry representatives can serve on the Board.
[[Page H1684]]
The bill also favors industry by tying the Board up with procedural
burdens so unlimited that it is unlikely any Science Advisory Board
panel could ever render an opinion in a useful period of time. I assume
that that is really the point of H.R. 1029. Endless delays leave plenty
of time to manufacture doubt in the science and to delay the
formulation of public health regulations by the EPA. Unfortunately,
that also means that the health and safety of our families, friends,
and constituents will be needlessly put at risk. I strongly urge my
colleagues to oppose H.R. 1029.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, the
vice chairman of the Science Committee, for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, Americans expect the review of regulatory science to be
balanced and transparent. H.R. 1029, the Science Advisory Board Reform
Act, ensures scientists get the opportunity to provide unbiased,
independent advice to the Environmental Protection Agency and to
Congress.
I thank Congressman Lucas and the ranking member of the Agriculture
Committee, Collin Peterson, for their initiative on this issue.
This bill strengthens the EPA Science Advisory Board's independence
so that the administration cannot manipulate science to further its
political agenda.
Hardworking American families are hit hard by costly regulations,
whether it is through lost jobs or higher electric bills and gasoline
prices, and the EPA has been known to twist science to justify its
actions. Behind the scenes, however, there is a review process that was
intended to provide a critical check on the EPA's conclusions. The EPA
Science Advisory Board was created to provide a meaningful, balanced,
and independent assessment of the science that supports the EPA's
regulations. Unfortunately, this goal is not being realized.
The EPA frequently undermines the SAB's independence and prevents it
from being able to provide advice to Congress. As a result, the
valuable advice these experts can provide is wasted, and the truth is
silenced. The public's right to know must be protected in a democracy.
As the EPA now seeks to pursue the most aggressive regulatory agenda in
its 44-year history, it is critical that the SAB be able to give
unbiased advice. The more regulations the EPA creates, the more we need
the involvement of an open and transparent Science Advisory Board. This
bill simply gives independent experts an opportunity to review the
science and provide advice.
We all know that the Federal Government doesn't have a monopoly on
the truth, so it is important to get the public's take on regulations.
The bill does not create an unlimited public comment period, but the
public does have a right to know what the Federal Government is doing
to them. H.R. 1029 expands transparency requirements, improves the
process for selecting expert advisers, and strengthens public
participation requirements.
This bipartisan legislation restores the independent Board as an
important defender of scientific integrity. Its commonsense reforms
will help make the EPA's decisions more credible and more balanced.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for their leadership on
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I mentioned the letters that were entered into the Record.
Frequently, here in Congress, we talk about government efficiency and
getting things to work better, and I just want to read what the Center
for Medical Consumers said about H.R. 1029:
The bill requires the Science Advisory Board to remain in
an endless loop of 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.
Also, the National Physicians Alliance noted:
This bill's overly broad restriction on Science Advisory
Board members with subject matter expertise is equally
counterproductive and goes far beyond the commonsense limits
imposed by the National Academies, and the language in the
bill is so vague that it raises many questions.
Mr. Chairman, we can do better than this. We need to get back to the
table and work together so that we have a bill that actually improves
the Science Advisory Board.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to another outstanding
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in strong support of H.R. 1029,
the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015.
The Science Advisory Board was established by Congress to review the
science behind the EPA's decisions and to advise Congress and the EPA
on scientific and technical matters. Unfortunately, the SAB is no
longer functioning as designed as it is without the impartiality and
expertise needed to be an effective arbiter of the EPA's use of science
and its regulations. For example, the membership of the SAB has
excluded individuals from State or local governments. Yet these are the
folks who are often the closest to the impacts that the regulations
have on job creators across America.
As the EPA continues its regulatory assault on America's economy, it
is critically important that Congress act to improve the quality of the
EPA's use of science in its decisions. This legislation will do just
that. It will improve the quality of the SAB's membership, increase
public participation in its scientific reviews, allow for dissenting
opinions among members, and it requires that the SAB communicate
uncertainties in its findings and conclusions.
{time} 1430
Mr. Chair, I am an air-conditioning contractor. As such, we are
licensed by the TDLR in Texas. Mr. Chair, I want someone on that board
that understands the air-conditioning business, that has business
background.
It is sad, Mr. Chair, we are supposed to be a country that has a
government, not a government that has a country. Opponents of this bill
act like business people cannot be trusted to help their own
government. They say they have a conflict of interest. That just gets
all over me.
Business folks, whom I call the salt of the earth, they invest money
in businesses; they create jobs; they take risks; they build families
and communities--and they can't be trusted? They can use their
expertise to serve our community and our country. I would even offer
that they are a form of a renewable resource.
Mr. Chair, it is high time for this bill to pass and put some common
sense and transparency in the process.
I thank Congressman Lucas and Chairman Smith for bringing this
important legislation to the floor today.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that the
National Center for Health Research is concerned. They ask: What
happens if a scientist relies on expertise that is not specifically
permitted in the bill? Will there be legal ramifications? Clearly,
scientific experts will think twice before joining the Science Advisory
Board if it means they will have to consult their lawyers before they
give advice.
Mr. Chairman, there is some ambiguous language in this. We can do a
better job making sure that the Science Advisory Board functions in an
efficient way that actually helps inform their decisions. I suggest
that we get back to the table, rather than pass this bill today, and
find strong legislation that improves the Science Advisory Board.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire about the time remaining
between the two sides?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining,
and the gentlewoman from Oregon has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LUCAS. I would note to the gentlelady, at the present time I do
not have any additional speakers, so whenever you are prepared to
close, I believe I have the right to close ultimately.
[[Page H1685]]
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the bill before us today does undertake
the laudable goal of improving transparency at the Environmental
Protection Agency; however, as I stated previously, the bill, as
written, does not accomplish this goal. I worked on this bill in the
last Congress; and there were a lot of recommendations that were made,
when we had hearings on this bill in the last Congress, where we could
all agree--recommendations that the industry supports, that academia
supports, and that scientists support. We should be taking those
recommendations and adding them to this bill, working together to find
a bill that will improve the Science Advisory Board.
I want to clarify to my colleagues, we have no objection with
industry representation on the Science Advisory Board. That is not the
point. What happens under this bill, however, is that financial
conflict of interest is conflated with bias, and we could have industry
representation with a significant financial interest. That is not the
direction we should be going in. Of course, industry people have
expertise, as do scientists who work in academia.
Again, we can and should work together to improve the EPA's approach
to reviewing the science underpinning regulations, but this legislation
is not the answer. This bill will only damage and delay the process,
and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I would apologize to the gentlelady. I was
just informed that the majority floor leader would like to speak for 1
minute.
I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority floor leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work.
Mr. Chair, there is a wise saying that one of the best assets of a
good leader is a good adviser. Nobody can know everything, and advisers
step in to give opinions and provide different perspectives for those
who have to make decisions.
History is filled with people or groups that failed because they
never had their assumptions challenged. Unfortunately, the same failure
can be seen in our own government.
Back in 1978, Congress created the EPA Science Advisory Board to
provide independent scientific advice to the administration. Sadly, the
independence has been compromised. Over the years, the Science Advisory
Board has silenced voices of dissent, limited public participation in
its decisions, and has shown potential conflict of interest. In fact,
over half of the Board members have taken grant money from the EPA, the
very Agency they are supposed to provide impartial analysis to. This
isn't chump change.
Since 2000, Board members have received roughly $140 million in
taxpayer money from the EPA grants according to the Congressional
Research Service, and the research they are reviewing is often directly
related to the money they received. This isn't transparent; this isn't
accountable, and this isn't right.
Today we will consider a bill to set things right. We aren't telling
the Science Advisory Board what to say; we aren't telling the EPA what
to do, but we are demanding that the Board be transparent and
independent, as it was originally intended.
True science demands clarity and impartiality. The Science Advisory
Board lacks both, and that needs to change.
I thank the gentleman for his work, bringing transparency,
accountability, and efficiency back to the Science Advisory Board.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
close.
Mr. Chairman, we have listened to several points of view on different
perspectives today. I think the majority floor leader and the chairman
of the committee and a number of my colleagues did an outstanding job
of explaining why this bill is necessary, why it is appropriate.
I will acknowledge to my colleague from Oregon that this is a work in
progress, that clearly there are still things that need to be examined,
addressed, looked at, and perfected over the course of the legislative
session before, ultimately, this is signed into law.
But the underlying principles, an entity like the Environmental
Protection Agency, which has such tremendous influence and control over
our everyday lives--whether you are a farmer, rancher, business person,
just a citizen, such tremendous control through their authority and
their rulemaking process over our lives--it is important, and it is the
very reason that Congress established the Scientific Advisory Board in
1978, it is important to have a knowledgeable group look over their
shoulder to verify their facts, to understand the process they are
going through in order that, ultimately, that rulemaking process is
something that is based on sound science and is something that is
appropriate.
Now, in the bill we simply say that, in effect, anyone with knowledge
and expertise should be able to participate. We ask for full
disclosure. If you have an economic interest, whether it is doing
scientific research or in any related business, fully disclose your
background. That presently is not going on. So that is an improvement.
That is an enhancement.
We explicitly ask that public input be allowed, that it be
encouraged. There is nothing wrong with that. There are a lot of really
bright people around this country who have great understanding of the
issues that affect their day-to-day lives and should be able to share
that.
Can the Board stop the Environmental Protection Agency from doing
something? It is an advisory board. Their power is not in being able to
stop an action of the EPA, but their power is making them justify the
action that they are proposing to take, to justify the science that
leads to that action. There is nothing wrong with that. There is
absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I suppose the bottom line is this: We live in an extremely cynical
time. Surprisingly, there is distrust even of the United States
Congress and all Federal institutions, I am afraid. This bill is an
effort to take a step in the direction of restoring that faith and
confidence. Call it enhanced transparency if you want; call it openness
if you want; call it just making sure we all know where the money is
going and where the money is coming from. Whatever you want to call it,
this is a bill that tries to move us in the direction of not only
better regulations when we must have regulations, but better science to
justify those regulations and the confidence of all of our fellow
citizens.
I simply ask, Mr. Chairman, when the opportunity avails--I know we
will have several good amendments to discuss shortly--that my
colleagues support H.R. 1029, and we move this process forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, printed in the bill,
it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-10. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 1029
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 2015''.
SEC. 2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.
(a) Independent Advice.--Section 8(a) of the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of
1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365(a)) is amended by inserting
``independently'' after ``Advisory Board which shall''.
(b) 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.
``(2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by
education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific
and technical information on
[[Page H1686]]
matters referred to the Board under this section. The
Administrator 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 or
evaluation of their own work, unless fully disclosed to the
public and the work has been externally peer-reviewed;
``(F) Board members shall be designated as special
Government employees; and
``(G) no 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,
the Interior, and Health and Human Services;
``(C) make public the list of nominees, including the
identity of the entities that nominated each, 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.''.
(c) Record.--Section 8(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(c))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``or draft risk or hazard assessment,''
after ``at the time any proposed'';
(B) by striking ``formal''; and
(C) by inserting ``or draft risk or hazard assessment,''
after ``to the Board such proposed''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``or draft 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.''.
(d) Member Committees and Investigative Panels.--Section
8(e)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(e)(1)(A)) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``These member committees
and investigative panels--
``(i) 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);
``(ii) do not have authority to make decisions on behalf of
the Board; and
``(iii) may not report directly to the Environmental
Protection Agency.''.
(e) Public Participation.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
4365) is amended by amending subsection (h) to read as
follows:
``(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.''.
(f) Operations.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) is
further amended by amending subsection (i) to read as
follows:
``(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 or Congress.
``(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,
the Administrator, and Congress.
``(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.
``(5) The Board shall be fully and timely responsive to
Congress.''.
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 CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House
Report 114-37. Each such amendment shall be considered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grayson
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part A of House Report 114-37.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 22, insert ``, or for which the Board has
evidence that it may involve,'' after ``involving''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to enhance some of the
good government language that already exists in this bill. Page 2 of
this bill, beginning on line 21, details the instances in which a Board
member must recuse himself from an EPA Science Advisory Board advisory
activity. As currently written, a Board member must recuse himself only
when he has an interest in a specific party that is involved in the
matter being addressed by the advisory activity. I feel that this
language must be broadened. I thank the chairman for working with me
toward this end.
Let's say that the Chemical Assessment Advisory Standing Committee
wishes to engage in an advisory activity on a specific chemical
compound. Now let's say that only one university in the country,
perhaps the University of Florida, performs research on this compound
and receives a sizable amount of Federal funds to do so. Under the
current language, any representative from that university that serves
on the committee should recuse himself from participating in the
advisory activity.
The amendment that I am offering would broaden the category of
persons who must recuse themselves. My amendment would require persons
for whom the Board has received evidence that an advisory activity may
involve
[[Page H1687]]
them to recuse themselves. Under my proposed amendment language, a drug
company like Pfizer, seeking to produce drugs utilizing the chemical
compound subject to an advisory committee activity, could be excluded
from participating as well.
I think it would be highly unfair that an entity such as the
University of Florida could be excluded from an advisory activity and
not a corporation like Pfizer if there is reason to believe that it
would be directly engaged in activities utilizing the science upon
which the Board seeks to advise.
Clearly, we should encourage the most qualified persons in various
scientific fields to participate on the committees that compose the
EPA's Science Advisory Board. What we should not do, however, is to
allow persons to participate in advisory actions that may directly
impact their own bottom lines.
Existing language in this bill, I believe, partially addresses our
goal of preventing conflicts of interest, but accepting this Grayson
amendment would go much further toward accomplishing our common joint
goal of preventing conflicts of interest. To that end, I urge support
for my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oklahoma is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
for his amendment that would clarify the bill's safeguards against
conflicts of interest. I appreciate his attention to detail, continued
engagement with this bill, and look forward to his support.
H.R. 1029 seeks balance and transparency in the makeup and
composition of the Science Advisory Board. Financial conflicts of
interest are specifically prohibited, and that would clarify the
intent.
In addition to language already in the bill preventing conflicted
individuals from participating, the bill requires disclosure. Although
disclosure itself may not prevent all bias, the consumers of the
Science Advisory Board's product--the EPA, and the American people--
will be better informed if they have all the facts.
I want to thank my colleague from Florida for his constructive
amendment to this bipartisan bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1445
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McKinley
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part A of House Report 114-37.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 7, strike ``and'' at the end of subparagraph
(F).
Page 3, line 9, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 3, after line 9, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) a Board member shall have no current grants or
contracts from the Environmental Protection Agency and shall
not apply for a grant or contract for 3 years following the
end of that member's service on the Board.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It ensures that
members of the Science Advisory Board do not receive grants from the
EPA or enter into contracts with the EPA. Additionally, this amendment
prohibits Science Advisory Board members from receiving EPA funds for 3
years after the individual is no longer a Board member.
This amendment--and this bill--is about fairness and transparency.
Members of the Science Advisory Board should be independent and
impartial. They should not be swayed by the possibility of receiving
funds from the EPA for their work.
Just as Members of Congress are banned from lobbying for a period of
time after leaving office, members of the Science Advisory Board should
be barred from receiving grants after they leave the board. Board
members should not make a decision based on a promise from the EPA that
he or she will benefit financially after they leave the Board.
The role of the Science Advisory Board should be to provide
independent scientific advice to the Agency. This amendment will ensure
the Board is truly independent. American families who bear the impact
of the EPA's regulations deserve to know that the regulations are based
on sound science, not on any other agenda.
I encourage all my colleagues to support fairness and transparency by
supporting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would have a negative effect on the
participation of the Nation's best scientists, punishing them for
providing invaluable expert advice to the EPA.
This amendment would penalize scientists who have received any grant
from the EPA by precluding them from serving on the EPA's Science
Advisory Board, a Board that is charged with providing the most sound
and reliable scientific advice to the EPA; yet it is those very
scientists who have received EPA grants who are often the very best in
their field.
Why would we pass an amendment that limits our Nation's most
qualified experts from reviewing EPA actions?
By precluding these scientists from serving on the Board, it could
greatly diminish the pool of eligible, qualified experts who can serve
on the Science Advisory Board and, more importantly, serve the Nation.
This amendment essentially guarantees that the EPA will not receive the
best advice from the best scientists. I can't fathom why we would do
that.
Of additional concern is a draconian provision in the amendment that
prohibits a Board member from applying for an EPA grant or contract for
3 years after serving on the Board.
I don't understand how or why we can legislate against someone
applying for a grant. Three years without the ability to apply for a
grant from one of our Federal research agencies can arrest the careers
of our Nation's best and brightest minds.
Furthermore, the amendment isn't even clear on how limited people are
from applying and where they can apply. Why would we agree to an
amendment that is constraining our Nation's ability to develop and
foster scientific knowledge?
This kind of ban is punitive, and it would force researchers to
choose between public service and their own research. It makes no sense
in any other area of government, and it makes no sense here.
We want and need the best and brightest Americans serving our
national interests everywhere, and we should never entertain the idea
of punishing experts for providing valuable and needed public service.
I cannot support or recommend support for any amendment that has a
punitive effect on the best and brightest scientific minds in the
country, and I cannot support an amendment that would limit the
Environmental Protection Agency from considering the full and complete
spectrum of expertise for membership to their Science Advisory Board.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia.
I, too, want the best and brightest. That is why the core principle
of the bill is on disclosure, make sure we know where the money goes.
Mr. McKinley is taking this to the next point in this focus on
following the
[[Page H1688]]
money. I appreciate where he is coming from.
I said earlier to my colleague from Oregon that this is a work in
progress. We will see, ultimately, what the final version is; but if
you believe that the money should be followed, if you believe we should
know where the dollars are and if that impacts the science, then,
clearly, Mr. McKinley is on the right path.
I am voting with him. It is a work in progress.
Mr. McKINLEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment would cause the EPA
to be precluded from getting some of the best science. The amendment
says that a Board member shall have no current grants or contracts from
the Environmental Protection Agency and shall not apply for a grant or
a contract for 3 years following the end of that member's service on
the Board.
Mr. Chairman, that would cause serious problems. It is a vaguely
worded amendment. I would be concerned about inhibiting people from
even applying for grants. We need to do everything we can to support
our bright scientists. This would preclude them from serving.
We should vote against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Polis
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part A of House Report 114-37.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 17, through page 4, line 5, redesignate
subparagraphs (C) through (E) as subparagraphs (D) through
(F), respectively.
Page 3, after line 16, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) solicit nominations from--
``(i) institutions of higher education (as defined in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a))); and
``(ii) scientific and research institutions based in work
relevant to that of the Board;
Page 4, line 9, strike ``paragraph (3)(D)'' and insert
``paragraph (3)(E)''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that I
believe really strikes at the heart of the issues that were raised by
the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, and that is the need for
sound, objective, and transparent decisionmaking by our Federal
agencies.
I think we all recognize how important it is to bring in outside
experts to inform Agency policies and protocols. Not only does this
allow the engagement of Americans who are practicing in their fields
into a process that will impact their livelihoods, it also ensures that
the Federal Government can reach out to access the very best scientific
knowledge, including experts with a depth and variety of knowledge that
we wouldn't have access to through our own internal resources.
With the EPA's Science Advisory Board in particular, that means an
independent review of technical information that is used to ground
Agency proposals and regulations. The efforts of this bill to seek
relevant expertise outside the Agency, however, without this amendment,
are limited by its failure to include academics, science, and research-
based institutions in its solicitations for Board membership.
That is what this amendment corrects. Not to specifically solicit
Board membership in these fields, as we do in others, would be a huge
mistake on our part.
Institutions within my district alone house some leading global
experts in public and environmental health. Joe Ryan--a current member
of the EPA's Science Advisory Board and a professor of environment,
engineering, and applied sciences at CU Boulder--leads his field in the
study of ecological, health, economic, and sociologic impacts of
natural gas development on surrounding communities.
Professor Ryan's work is data driven, thorough, strongly objective,
and would be of great help to policymakers, as is the work of James
White, an institution at CU Boulder since he started the INSTAAR Stable
Isotope Lab back in 1989.
Since its opening, Professor White and the INSTAAR Stable Isotope Lab
have produced groundbreaking evidence regarding the rapidity of shifts
in climate change and their origins in internal planetary adjustments.
Without the work of professors like Joe Ryan and James White, we
would be decades behind in our understanding of environmental science
and public health priorities, and the work of the EPA would suffer as a
result.
In April of last year, Colorado State University professor Diana Wall
was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a prestigious
group of global thinkers. Professor Wall pioneered our understanding of
soil biodiversity. As a result, it drew global praise for its
unprecedented findings.
Professor George Wittemyer, also at CSU, recently produced the first
verifiable estimation of the impacts of the ongoing ivory crisis on
Africa's elephant populations. His findings, subsequently distributed
and utilized globally, amount to significant breakthroughs in the
field.
These professors, like these and many others, are critical to
progress not only within the realm of their academic interests, but
throughout the daily lives of American families in helping to prevent
the eroding of our public health and our global environment. That is
what the amendment I offer today is all about.
By soliciting the input of academics and research scientists who base
their work on independent and transparent aims, we advance the
expertise of the EPA and ensure that a variety of decisionmaking
information is available.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment,
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oklahoma is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado
for his amendment that would complement the provisions in the bill
ensuring a public nomination process and seeking greater balance. I
appreciate the gentleman's efforts to improve this bipartisan bill and
look forward to its support as we move forward.
I am proud of our Nation's institutions of higher learning that house
some of the greatest minds in the world. Students, professors, and
researchers circle the globe to come join our coveted academic
community. It is important that the EPA reach out to universities and
research institutions to find a balanced and diverse set of experts to
serve on the Board.
I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for his constructive
amendment to this bipartisan bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the wealth of support that has
been shown for this amendment, and I hope that we are able to
accomplish this amendment. I am thrilled to have the support of the
gentleman from Oklahoma.
To the extent that it is within our power, it is this body's
responsibility to ensure our Federal partners are receiving the very
best available objective information. My amendment will allow
information that has its repository in our institutions of higher
education to be able to serve as advisers for the EPA.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Bonamici
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part A of House Report 114-37.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page H1689]]
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``EPA Science Advisory Board
Improvement Act of 2015''.
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, as established in subsection (a), shall
be composed of at least 9 members, 1 of whom shall be
designated Chair, and shall meet at such times and places as
may be designated by the Chair of the Board, in consultation
with the Administrator.
``(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 ensure that--
``(A) the Board is fairly balanced in its membership in
terms of the points of view represented and the functions to
be performed;
``(B) no Board member shall participate in an advisory
activity of the Board involving a particular matter or
specific party which the Board member has a direct or
predictable financial interest;
``(C) no Board member is a registered lobbyist, or has
served as a registered lobbyist within a 4-year period prior
to nomination to the Board; and
``(D) Board members shall be designated as special
Government employees.
``(3) The Administrator shall--
``(A) solicit public nominations for the Board by
publishing a notification in the Federal Register;
``(B) make public the list of nominees, including--
``(i) the identity of the entities that nominated each
nominee; and
``(ii) the professional credentials of each nominee,
including relevant expertise and experience, as well as the
sources of research funding and professional activities such
as representational work, expert testimony, and contract work
dating back 2 years;
``(C) solicit public comment on the nominees;
``(D) develop, and make publically available, a formal
memorandum describing each advisory activity to be undertaken
by the Board which shall include--
``(i) the charge to the Board, including an explanation of
the scope of issues to be addressed by the Board and the
formal statement of questions posed to the Board;
``(ii) the ethics rules, if applicable, that would apply to
Board members; and
``(iii) other information relied on to support the
selection of panel members; and
``(E) require that, upon their provisional nomination,
nominees shall be required to complete a written form
disclosing information related to financial relationships and
interests that may, or could be predicted to, be relevant to
the Board's advisory activities, and relevant professional
activities and public statements, for the 2-year period prior
to the date of their nomination, in a manner sufficient for
the Administrator to assess the independence and points of
view of the candidates.''.
(b) Public Participation and Transparency.--Section 8(h) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(h)) is amended to read as follows:
``(h)(1) The Board shall make every effort, consistent with
applicable law, including section 552 of title 5, United
States Code (commonly known as the `Freedom of Information
Act') and section 552a of title 5, United States Code
(commonly known as the `Privacy Act'), to maximize public
participation and transparency, including making the
scientific and technical advice of the Board and any
committees or investigative panels of the Board publicly
available in electronic form on the website of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
``(2) The Administrator and the Board shall encourage and
solicit public comments on the advisory activities of Board,
including written and oral comments, especially comments that
provide specific scientific or technical information or
analysis for the Board to consider, or comments related to
the clarity or accuracy of the recommendations being
considered by the Board.
``(3) The Administrator shall specify the areas of
expertise being sought and make every effort to solicit
candidate recommendations from the public, and solicit public
comments on candidates selected.''.
(c) Operations.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(j)(1) In carrying out its advisory activities, the Board
shall strive to avoid making policy determinations or
recommendations, and, in the event the Board determines that
it would be appropriate or useful to offer policy advice,
shall explicitly distinguish between scientific
determinations and policy advice.
``(2) While recognizing that consensus recommendations and
conclusions are the most useful to the Administrator and
Congress, the Board shall ensure the views of all Board
members, including dissenting views, are adequately
incorporated into reports and recommendations from the
Board.''.
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 CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As I mentioned during general debate on H.R. 1029, I am not opposed
to--in fact, I support legislation that will improve the EPA's Science
Advisory Board. It is something I have been committed to since we had
hearings in the last Congress, something we haven't had in this
Congress. We didn't even have a markup on this bill.
For the most part, I agree with the goals of H.R. 1029 and recognize
the need to increase transparency in the selection of Board members and
to promote public participation in the Board's review process.
That being said, not all of the provisions included in H.R. 1029 will
actually improve the Science Advisory Board. In fact, some of the
provisions in the bill distort common practices for eliminating or
limiting financial conflicts of interest.
Another provision turns the valuable and necessary process of
soliciting public comments into a tool for the endless delay of public
health protections.
Over the past week, my staff has worked tirelessly with majority
staff in an attempt to find common ground and move forward with a bill
that is worthy of broad bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, a compromise could not be reached on some of the key
problem areas of this bill. However, because I agree with the goals of
H.R. 1029--but not with the execution of those goals in the text of
this bill--I am offering an amendment that will truly improve the
Science Advisory Board.
This amendment draws on nonpartisan recommendations from the
Bipartisan Policy Center, the Keystone Policy Center, and the
Government Accountability Office that will lead to greater transparency
in the selection of Board members and restore confidence in the
scientific advice offered by the Board.
My substitute amendment would require EPA to release a formal
memorandum detailing--among other things--the charge to the Board,
including the specific questions the Board is tasked with addressing.
It would require the EPA to make available online the professional
credentials of each person nominated to the Board, including any source
of research funding dating back 2 years. It also outlines the
disclosure requirements for every nominee.
Finally, my amendment requires the EPA to solicit public comment on
the nominees, the candidates selected, and the advisory activities of
the Board, including specific scientific or technical information for
the Board to consider.
{time} 1500
These changes encompass the core principles that both Republicans and
Democrats have agreed should be followed in EPA's Science Advisory
Board.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, based on nonpartisan
recommendations of experts, and move forward with a bill that makes
positive changes to the EPA's Science Advisory Board. My amendment will
improve transparency in membership balance, promote public
participation without endlessly delaying EPA action or skewing the
membership of the board toward conflicted parties.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have said it numerous times, and I will repeat once again, this is
a work in progress. This is a bill that is so important to the future
of the country, so
[[Page H1690]]
important to how we address the scientific issues of our day, that this
must proceed forward.
In the markup the other day, I think we had something like four
amendments. We have had and accepted several amendments today. I would
assume that if ultimately our friends in that other body are able to
take action, that we will wind up, once again, working on the
differences between the two bills. So there are a number of
opportunities to refine and improve even this piece of legislation.
But that said, the fundamental principles are still there. We need to
pass a bill to continue the process on H.R. 1029 that addresses
transparency, that opens the process up to the public, that opens the
process up to all individuals who have the scientific knowledge, the
ability to contribute to this oversight group.
That is why I prefer the disclosure route. Let us all know who makes
what off of what, and then we will base their objectivity on that.
Again, the Science Advisory Board looks over the shoulder of the EPA.
They can't stop the EPA from doing anything. But the power of their
analysis, which is only as good as the information that EPA shares with
them, their ability to review that will determine just how much support
there will be across the country, whatever the ultimate rule is.
I know my colleague from Oregon works in good faith, and I respect
that greatly. And just as she and her staff have worked with the
committee and the committee staff, I suspect we will continue to work
together.
Ultimately, can we come up with a document that we can all agree
with?
I am a person of great optimism, and I think we should try. But on
this day, an amendment that basically, from my perspective, takes away
virtually all of the key points that the bill attempts to achieve, on
this day, at this moment, I cannot support that, and I have to,
respectfully, ask my colleagues to turn down this amendment, to
hopefully then advance the bill so that we can ultimately get to that
final document.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I want to first correct a misstatement
that I made. I meant to say we did not have a subcommittee markup. We
did have a full committee markup. However, we did not have any hearings
this Congress on this very important issue.
I want to just add to what my good colleague, Mr. Lucas, said a
couple of times about how this is a work in progress. If it is a work
in progress, Mr. Chairman, I submit that we shouldn't be here quite yet
today. We should continue to work together on this because there are a
lot of goals that we agree on.
If it is a work in progress, why are we on the floor voting today?
Mr. Chairman, I submit that this substitute amendment does more to
improve the transparency to get to the goals that everyone agrees we
need on the Science Advisory Board. I submit that it is a better
approach. However, I would prefer that we continue to work, and then
bring the bill up for a vote.
I am an optimist too, Mr. Lucas, and I could get it done.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a very senior and knowledgeable member of
the House Science Committee.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me just note that there has been
some laudable cooperation in the Science Committee this year, which I
deeply appreciate. And the gentlelady and I have actually cosponsored
some very needed legislation.
I think this particular bill does demonstrate, however, that as much
as we can try to work together, that there are some fundamental
differences between the two parties here in Congress dealing with
scientific issues.
It is much to the chagrin of many of us to see--I have been a Member
of Congress now since 1989--that the integrity of America's, and
especially our Federal Government's, science programs has been brought
into question by what appears to be a very cynical manipulation of the
sciences by various elements in our government and within the political
system who would like to manipulate science for their own benefit.
Let me just say that we need to take the steps to ensure to the
American people that integrity is being restored to the scientific
process, especially those scientific processes in which the Federal
Government is involved.
This amendment, the reason why I would be opposed to it, it goes in
the opposite direction than what this bill was intended to do. The bill
was intended to try to create a higher level of trust, that there is an
integrity within the science situation here with the EPA Science
Advisory Board.
This amendment would allow individuals to peer-review their own work,
for example, and without any disclosure requirements. That means an
individual could be paid by the EPA to write a chapter for a science
project and then also serve as a reviewer for that project.
The amendment does not require, for example, disclosure of conflict
of interest waivers and recusal agreements. So we need to make sure
that these types of activities are well documented and that we know
exactly what needs to be done so the public can feel confident that
when you have an advisory board for the EPA which actually passes
regulations and controls over our lives, that the science behind those
proclamations and those mandates by the EPA are made on solid science,
rather than on people who perhaps have conflicts of interest and other
such problems in coming to a scientifically-based decision, rather than
a decision and a recommendation that serves special interests or serves
someone's own personal interests.
So I would ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
But like the chairman states, this is a work in progress. Maybe we can
come up with some language that both sides will appreciate. Thank you
very much.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for
working with me on other legislation.
I do want to point out that if there is something that isn't in the
amendment, as my colleague noted, we have to keep in mind that the
Science Advisory Boards are already covered by the Federal Advisory
Committee Act that governs Federal advisory committees just like the
Science Advisory Board and helps provide for balanced panels and
subcommittees that include experts with diverse backgrounds who
represent wide-ranging perspectives. So we need to look at this policy
in conjunction with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
I do want to point out that the underlying bill, H.R. 1029, makes it
harder for qualified scientists to serve but makes it easier for
industry representatives to serve, even when they have a financial
conflict of interest.
My amendment in the nature of a substitute levels the playing field
and is a better approach.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, just to mention to the gentlelady, I have no
additional speakers, and I believe I have the right to close.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
simply to note that I think we have had a very good discussion today. I
think we have raised a lot of relevant points. We have covered a lot of
ground and some good amendments. We have worked our way through this
process. This is a step in the great legislative effort that ultimately
leads to good legislation.
Some of my freshman colleagues might not be aware of this, but
recently I was involved in a process that took 2\1/2\ years to
ultimately come up with a bill. I hope that not every piece of
legislation requires 2\1/2\ years to accomplish, but I would say this:
regular order, respecting the input of all Members, both sides of the
aisle, both ends of the Chamber, ultimately leads to a better
legislative product to the benefit of everyone.
And I think we are once again embarking on that effort, so I
respectfully ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and pass the
underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
[[Page H1691]]
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McKinley
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
McKinley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 175, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 119]
AYES--242
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--175
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Granger
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Rogers (AL)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Cartwright
Graves (MO)
Hinojosa
Hudson
Lummis
Payne
Roskam
Rush
Sanford
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Speier
Welch
Young (AK)
{time} 1538
Messrs. CAPUANO and ROGERS of Alabama changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas and STEWART changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Reed) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, Chair of the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1029) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 138, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion To Recommit
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. PETERS. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Peters moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1029 to the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendment:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 5. PROTECTING TAXPAYERS FROM SCIENCE PROMOTED BY
POLLUTING COMPANIES.
No person shall be a member of the Science Advisory Board
if--
(1) such person is the CEO of a corporation convicted of
major environmental crimes, including the release of toxic
pollutants into safe drinking water, refusal to clean up
Superfund waste sites, or violations from the release of air
pollutants that endanger human health and safety; or
(2) the primary source of research funds for such person
comes from corporations or individuals convicted of major
environmental crimes, including the release of toxic
pollutants into safe drinking water, refusal to clean up
Superfund waste sites, or violations from the release of air
pollutants that endanger human health and safety.
Mr. PETERS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
[[Page H1692]]
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, let's make this simple. The fundamental role of the
Environmental Protection Agency is to protect our Nation's environment
and to ensure that we have healthy communities for children and
families across the country. The Science Advisory Board is the body
that ensures that EPA uses the best scientific research available to
protect the environment and public health. To support this mission, we
in Congress should be working together to ensure that the best and
brightest scientists are on this Board. Instead, today's bill would
muddy the waters when they should be crystal clear.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill moves EPA away from scientific
integrity and weakens the independence of the Science Advisory Board.
First, the bill requires that all scientific and technical points be
balanced among members of the Board.
What does the term ``balanced'' mean?
Politicians should not be mandating scientific results. Science
should be determined by the experts--scientists and scientific
researchers--not by those of us in this Chamber.
Second, the bill imposes a nonscience-based hiring quota for Advisory
Board members based on employment by a State, local, or tribal
government without regard to scientific expertise.
Finally, the open public comment period in the bill would allow
regulatory opponents an endless amount of time to halt, derail,
discredit, and slow EPA actions that go against their interests.
So instead of limiting review time and providing businesses with more
certainty of how EPA regulations will affect their projects, the
underlying bill would increase delay and decrease certainty--not what
we have been trying to achieve with regulatory reform in this body up
until now. Regulatory reform isn't done through obstructing every
potential new rule. It is done, in part, by requiring agencies to
render their decisions on a schedule so that the market can move
forward. This bill would do the opposite.
{time} 1545
My amendment will not cure all of these defects in the underlying
bill, but it makes two obvious and significant changes to promote
scientific integrity. It states simply that anyone working for a
corporation that has been convicted of a major environmental crime
should be prohibited from serving on the Science Advisory Board.
It secondly states that any person whose primary source of research
comes from these criminal corporate actors should be prohibited from
serving on the Science Advisory Board.
Mr. Speaker, for too long, we have heard that we have to choose
between supporting economic prosperity and a clean environment. The
implication is that we can't have both, but that is a false choice and
one we can't afford to make. Americans know that we deserve nothing
less than both: economic opportunity and clean air and clean water for
future generations.
My State of California added 498,000 jobs in the last year while, at
the same time, we continue to be a global leader in environmental
reforms that have provided cleaner air than at any time in the last 50
years.
I am from San Diego where scientific research, economic growth, and
environmental stewardship are not in conflict, but rather are the
subject of ongoing, sustained, bipartisan collaboration.
It should be clear to everyone that CEOs from major corporations that
are convicted of major environmental crimes have no place serving on
the Science Advisory Board and neither should biased scientists.
Vote ``yes'' on the motion, and stand with me to maintain the
integrity of the independence of the Science Advisory Board.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is
withdrawn.
Mr. LUCAS. I claim the time in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, at one point today, one of the upperclassman
walked by and said, ``You again,'' referencing my working on a piece of
legislation on this floor.
For the freshmen, you might not understand the relevance of that, but
in the last session and the session before, I and Mr. Peterson--my
colleague on this bill--and the members of the Ag Committee worked for
2\1/2\ years to pass a piece of legislation that should have taken 6
months.
Now, why is that relevant in our discussion about H.R. 1029? It is
relevant because when I give you my word as the primary author of the
bill that I will work with both sides of the Chamber, that I will work
with all perspectives, that this is a work in progress, you can take
that for exactly what it means.
Now, why H.R. 1029 in the very first place? One of the classic
problems that we all face in our town meetings, that we face in our
interaction with citizens across this country, is a mistrust of the
Federal Government, of Congress, of the other body, of the
administration, of the institutions.
Now, how do you overcome mistrust when it is engrained as deeply as
it is right now? You increase transparency, you open the process up,
you make sure that everyone understands every part of the process.
That is what the Science Advisory Board was all about when it was
created in 1978--have someone look over the shoulder of the people who
are picking the scientists, who put the science together. That is the
justification for all these rules.
The majority floor leader noted in recent times $140 million spent on
this research, real money. Some might argue it is done in a closed
show; some might argue it is done without the input of everyone.
H.R. 1029 is an effort to open that up. H.R. 1029 is an effort to
increase the transparency, to restore confidence to the process. The
EPA needs that just as badly as this institution does.
Now, to the motion to recommit, in particular, it is pretty good,
pretty impressive, pretty crafty, but remember, the director of the EPA
appoints the Board members. Surely, the director, especially with the
additional disclosure requirements in the bill, will show the kind of
judgment and prudence that is necessary--surely, surely.
That said, my friends, this is a work in progress, but it is an
effort to turn around a problem that is greater than just one science
board, one agency. It is an effort to address a problem that faces the
entire Federal Government.
With that, my friends, I ask you turn down this motion to recommit.
You pass the underlying bill, you let us continue to work and try and
do something for the benefit of everyone.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 237, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 120]
AYES--179
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
[[Page H1693]]
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--237
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--16
Cartwright
Graves (MO)
Hinojosa
Hudson
Lummis
Murphy (FL)
Payne
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rush
Sanford
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Welch
Young (AK)
{time} 1557
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Boustany was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Moment of Silence in Memory of the Louisiana National Guard Crash
Victims
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to commemorate
the loss of 11 outstanding servicemen, including four members of the
Louisiana National Guard, as a result of a helicopter training accident
off the coast of Florida.
From the Louisiana National Guard's 1st Assault Helicopter Battalion,
244th Aviation Regiment based in Hammond, Louisiana, we lost Chief
Warrant Officer George Wayne Griffin, Jr.; Chief Warrant Officer George
David Strother; Staff Sergeant Lance Bergeron; and Staff Sergeant
Thomas Florich.
From the United States Marines, based at Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, we lost Captain Stanford Henry Shaw, III; Master Sergeant
Thomas Saunders; Staff Sergeant Marcus S. Bawol; Staff Sergeant Trevor
P. Blaylock; Staff Sergeant Liam A. Flynn; Staff Sergeant Kerry Michael
Kemp; and Staff Sergeant Andrew C. Seif.
Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join us in a moment of silence
on behalf of these servicemen.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236,
noes 181, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 121]
AYES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
[[Page H1694]]
NOES--181
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Cartwright
Duffy
Graves (MO)
Hinojosa
Hudson
Lummis
Payne
Roskam
Rush
Sanford
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Welch
Young (AK)
{time} 1607
Mr. COHEN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Personal Explanation
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Tuesday, March
17, 2015, due to the attendance of a funeral for a close friend. Had I
been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No.
116: Previous Question on H. Res. 138--Rule providing for consideration
of H.R. 1029--EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 and
consideration of H.R. 1030--Secret Science Reform Act of 2015: ``yea;''
rollcall No. 117: Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1029--EPA
Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 and consideration of H.R.
1030--Secret Science Reform Act of 2015: ``yea;'' rollcall No. 118:
H.R. 1191--Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders
Act: ``yea;'' rollcall No. 119: McKinley Amendment: ``yea;'' rollcall
No. 120: Motion to recommit H.R. 1029 with instructions: ``nay;''
rollcall No. 121: H.R. 1029--EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2015: ``yea.''
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote Nos. 116, 117, 118, 119,
and 121, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted `yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 120, I was unavoidably detained. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________