[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.''

                          ____________________