[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 56 (Thursday, March 30, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2564-H2576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2017

  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1431) to amend the Environmental Research, Development, 
and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for Scientific 
Advisory Board member qualifications, public participation, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 233, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1431

       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 2017''.

     SEC. 2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) Independent Advice.--Section 8(a) of the Environmental 
     Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
     1978

[[Page H2565]]

     (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 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, or for which the Board has 
     evidence that it may involve, 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;
       ``(G) no registered lobbyist is appointed to the Board; and
       ``(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.
       ``(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) 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;
       ``(D) make public the list of nominees, including the 
     identity of the entities that nominated each, and shall 
     accept public comment on the nominees;
       ``(E) 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
       ``(F) 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)(E) 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, and shall be 
     published in the Federal Register grouped by common themes. 
     If multiple repetitious comments are received, only one such 
     comment shall be published along with the number of such 
     repetitious comments received. Any report made public by the 
     Board shall include written responses to significant 
     comments, including those that present an alternative 
     hypothesis-based scientific point of view, 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.

                              {time}  0915


                             General Leave

  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1431.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank Chairman Smith and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Biggs 
for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. I also 
thank my good friend, Representative

[[Page H2566]]

Peterson for, yet again, working--helping, I should say--to make this 
bill a bipartisan effort. I appreciate his willingness to sponsor this 
bill with me.
  I had the opportunity to speak in favor of this legislation when it 
passed this House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. Now, I 
come to the floor yet again to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this important reform. The SAB Reform Act was a good bill then, and it 
is a good bill now. This is a policy that is built on the values we 
should uphold regardless of which side of the political aisle we are on 
or who happens to be the President.
  H.R. 1431, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures 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 and Congress, and to review the quality and relevance of science 
EPA uses for regulations. But in recent years, shortcomings with the 
process have arisen. Opportunities for public participation have been 
limited, potential conflicts of interest have gone unchecked, and the 
ability of the Board to speak independently has been curtailed.
  If the administration 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 the EPA's advisory panels be 
fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented, the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee has identified a number of past 
problems that have undermined the panel's credibility and work product. 
These include a number of advisory members who received money from the 
EPA. At the very least, this could create the appearance of a conflict 
of interest.
  Some of the panelists have taken public and even political positions 
on issues they are advising about. For example, a lead reviewer of the 
EPA's hydraulic fracking study published an anti-fracking article 
titled, ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.'' Now, this clearly is not an 
objective viewpoint, 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.
  This bill is both pro-science, and pro-sound science. This bill is 
founded upon recommendations for reform outlined by 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. 1431 makes sound science the driving force of the Board, no 
matter who is the chief executive officer of our government.
  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. Ask your constituents 
back home if they know that.
  The public has important expertise that can't afford to be ignored 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 simply nonexistent. Instead, in the 
past, EPA has picked the Board, ignoring the knowledge, experience, and 
contributions of those 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 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.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board 
Reform Act of 2017. Like the bill we considered yesterday, the so-
called HONEST Act, H.R. 1431 is designed to harm the Environmental 
Protection Agency's ability to use science to make informed decisions.
  The bill before us today claims to reform the EPA's Science Advisory 
Board. And let's talk about what these reforms would mean.
  First, the bill establishes a series of roadblocks to prevent 
independent academic scientists from serving on the Board. It 
accomplishes this by turning the term ``conflict of interest'' on its 
head by excluding scientists who have done the most relevant research 
on the topic being considered by the Board. The bill also prohibits 
Science Advisory Board members from obtaining extramural research 
grants for 3 years after their service on the Board, which would be a 
major disincentive for scientists to serve on the panel.
  At the same time that this bill makes it much more difficult for 
academic researchers to serve on the Science Advisory Board, the bill 
also makes it much easier for corporate interests to serve. This 
is accomplished by gutting actual financial conflict-of-interest 
restrictions against industry representatives. Under this legislation, 
those industry representatives would simply have to disclose their 
financial conflicts, and they could serve on panels directly related to 
their corporate interests.

  Finally, H.R. 1431 imposes exhaustive and duplicative notice-and-
comment requirements on the Science Advisory Board. I say these 
requirements are exhaustive because, in addition to being an open-ended 
process, the Board would also have to respond in writing to any and all 
significant comments. In fact, I find it hard to believe that the 
advisory process created by this bill could ever be completed.
  Of course, that is the real purpose of this provision. It is designed 
to throw sand in the gears of the Science Advisory Board process, and 
prevent board members from ever rendering their expert advice.
  These additions are totally unnecessary. The Science Advisory Board 
already has statutorily mandated notice-and-comment obligations, and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act already applies to their activities.
  So if this bill passes, what would happen?
  As an example, I will turn to a case study from the early 1990s. At 
that time, the EPA was forming a Scientific Advisory Panel to review 
evidence of harm from secondhand tobacco smoke. Thanks to internal 
tobacco industry documents that have been made public, we now know that 
Big Tobacco made a concerted effort to stack the Scientific Advisory 
Panel with tobacco industry hacks.
  We take it for granted now that tobacco smoke is dangerous, but at 
that time, in the early nineties, Big Tobacco had succeeded in muddying 
the scientific waters around this issue by investing tens of millions 
of dollars in a coordinated attempt to defraud the American people.
  If H.R. 1431 had been in effect back then, Big Tobacco likely would 
have succeeded in co-opting the Science Advisory Board.
  What would the effects have been on public health to have had the 
EPA's science review body controlled by tobacco interests?
  That is why a number of public health and environmental interest 
groups have come out against H.R. 1431. In a letter penned by the 
American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and 
several other health groups, the effects of H.R. 1431 are summed up 
like this:
  ``In short, EPA's Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit the 
voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to respond to 
important questions, and increase the influence of industry in shaping 
EPA policy. This is not the best interest of the American public.''
  I couldn't agree more. I strongly urge Members to oppose this 
misguided bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space, 
and Technology Committee, a fellow who has worked very diligently on 
the committee for many years.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman

[[Page H2567]]

from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, the vice chairman of the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee for yielding to me, and I would also like to thank 
him for his leadership on H.R. 1431, the Environmental Protection 
Agency Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.
  This bill gives much needed transparency, fairness, and balance to 
the EPA's Science Advisory Board. These reforms will strengthen the 
public's trust of the science the EPA uses to support its regulations.
  It also allows more public participation in the EPA science review 
process, and it requires the SAB to be more responsive to the public 
and to congressional questions, inquiries, and oversight.
  Last Congress, similar legislation passed the House with bipartisan 
support. I appreciate Mr. Lucas and the ranking member of the 
Agriculture Committee, Representative Peterson, for introducing this 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I support this bill, and recommend it to my 
colleagues.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 1431 is a blatant attempt to cripple the 
important mission of the EPA by stacking the EPA Science Advisory Board 
with industry insiders.
  When Congress established the Science Advisory Board in 1978 to 
review the scientific data that informs the EPA's regulatory process, 
they did that with the requirement that the Board be balanced 
with representatives from industry and academia. The legislation we are 
considering today would skew that balance in favor of industry, with 
the intent of slowing down the EPA's regulatory process.

  With a significant respect for the vice chair from Oklahoma, it makes 
no sense to suggest that the representatives of regulated corporate 
interests, however expert, can be credibly described as ``defenders of 
scientific integrity.''
  I am particularly concerned about the double standard mandated by 
this bill. On the one hand, the bill makes it easier for industry 
representatives to serve on the Board by only requiring that they 
disclose their conflicts of interest. There is no recusal requirement 
for industry insiders, no matter how deep their financial ties may go 
or how much their industry is regulated by the EPA. But, astonishingly, 
on the other hand, the same scientists and researchers who received EPA 
research grants or contracts are automatically disqualified from 
service. Any scientists or researcher would be precluded from accepting 
any grant or contract for 3 years after their service.
  So the scientists who spent their whole career becoming the world's 
top experts on a given topic must choose between advising our public 
health or continuing their research. They can bring their knowledge to 
the EPA and give up that work or continue.
  Why oh why would we make it more difficult for the scientists and 
academic experts to participate in the Science Advisory Board while at 
the same time making it easier for industry experts to participate? Why 
would we want less science on the Science Advisory Board?
  This proposal does nothing to advance science or protect public 
health. Instead, it creates senseless hurdles, burdensome red tape for 
the Science Advisory Board, and makes it more difficult to achieve its 
mission. We need to let scientists and researchers do their jobs by 
opposing this legislation.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), a member of the Environment Subcommittee of 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, of which I am an 
original cosponsor.
  This bill intends not to deny science, but to deny manipulated 
science. This is a commonsense, good-government piece of legislation 
that will discourage ideologically based decisions by the Science 
Advisory Board and set it back on a path of making objective, science-
based conclusions as originally intended by Congress.
  Further, this bill would promote accountability within SAB, while 
also strengthening public participation, ensuring that there is a 
diverse makeup on its various boards and panels, reinforcing a strong 
system of peer-review requirements that work toward reducing conflicts 
of interest, providing ample opportunity for dissenting views by 
panelists, and, most importantly, requiring conclusions and reasonings 
be made available to the public.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a crucial piece of legislation. The rules and 
regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency have 
real-world implications on families in my State of Louisiana and, 
indeed, across the Nation.
  The current system in place allows for the EPA to set forth 
ideological, biased, and nonscience-based rules and regulations. The 
standards set forth by this bill promote the use of good science and a 
strong and open system of transparency and peer review.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1431.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, since President Trump took office, I have 
heard from hundreds of my constituents who are concerned about attacks 
by this new administration on the Environmental Protection Agency and 
the potential, long-term negative impacts on public health, clean 
water, clean air, and our Nation's work to play a leading role in 
combating climate change.
  Thelma from Lowell wrote:

       Without EPA and its mission to protect our water and air, I 
     fear that all the work done over the past 40 years will be 
     erased.

  Ingrid from Groton wrote:

       I need to be able to trust that the EPA will protect our 
     air, water, land, and health. But Scott Pruitt has worked so 
     closely with polluters, even suing the EPA more than a dozen 
     times, how can we trust that he will protect our health and 
     safety?

  And demonstrating just how personal an issue this is for many people, 
Katherine from Acton wrote to me:

       This is my first time writing a congressional 
     Representative, and I am proud to be doing so now, though my 
     motivation is less heartening. As a mother of two precocious 
     young kids, I have little time to do much beyond the 
     essentials of daily living, much less writing a letter, so I 
     assure you this one is written out of a feeling of necessity.

  She went on to say:

       Environmental pollution is real and in our backyards. It 
     contaminates our air, our water, and our land. Cleanup of 
     these pollutants is extremely difficult, if not impossible, 
     and the implications for our health are astounding.

  Unfortunately, the legislation before us today will do nothing to 
assuage the fears of my constituents and millions of others around the 
country who support independent, unbiased, science-based decisionmaking 
at the EPA, which is essential to protecting public health, clean 
water, and combating climate change.
  Instead of promoting sound science, this legislation would weaken the 
scientific expertise of the EPA's Science Advisory Board, the 
independent body that reviews scientific and technical information used 
in EPA decisionmaking and provides scientific advice to the EPA 
Administrator.
  If Congress really wants to promote sound science, I would urge 
consideration of the Scientific Integrity Act, legislation that I 
introduced along with Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas and 
Representatives Lowenthal and Tonko. Our bill will protect scientific 
research at Federal agencies from political interference and special 
interests. This legislation currently has 93 cosponsors, and it 
deserves debate in this House.
  The majority is trying to claim that the legislation before us today 
helps us achieve goals similar to those of the Scientific Integrity 
Act, but my constituents aren't fooled.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1431.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I include in the Record the following letters: a letter of support 
from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter of support 
from the American Chemistry Council, a letter

[[Page H2568]]

of support from the National Cotton Council of America, another letter 
of support from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter 
of support from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a 
letter of support from the CO2 Coalition, and a letter of 
support from the Cato Institute.

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2017.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the ``Honest and Open New 
     EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of 2017'' and the ``EPA 
     Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.'' These bills 
     would improve the transparency and reliability of scientific 
     and technical information that Federal agencies rely heavily 
     upon to support new regulatory actions.
       The HONEST Act 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 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, unbiased, and reliable.
       The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 would 
     help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which 
     directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) on key scientific and technical issues, is unbiased and 
     transparent in performing its duties. The bill would 
     establish requirements that SAB members are qualified 
     experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of bias are 
     disclosed, that the views of members--including dissenting 
     members--are available to the public, and that the public has 
     the opportunity to participate in the advisory activities of 
     the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA relies on SAB 
     reviews and studies to support new regulations, standards, 
     guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions, the actions 
     of the SAB must be transparent and accountable. This is a 
     critical safeguard to assure the public that the data Federal 
     agencies rely on is scientifically sound and unbiased.
       The HONEST Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform 
     Act would improve the transparency and trustworthiness of 
     scientific and technical reviews and information that 
     agencies, including EPA, 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 these important bills.
           Sincerely,

                                              Neil L. Bradley,

                              Senior Vice President & Chief Policy
     Officer, Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                   American Chemistry Council,

                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2017.
     Hon. Frank Lucas,
     House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Vice Chairman Lucas: On behalf of the American 
     Chemistry Council (ACC), we want to thank you for introducing 
     H.R. 1431 ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017,'' 
     to help improve the science employed by the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Agency's 
     regulatory decision making processes.
       The proposed legislation would increase the transparency 
     and public confidence in the EPA's peer review panels.
       The Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the 
     peer review process--a critical component of the scientific 
     process used by EPA in their regulatory decisions about 
     potential risks to human health or the environment. The Act 
     would make peer reviewers accountable for responding to 
     public comment, strengthen policies to address conflicts of 
     interest, ensure engagement of a wide range of perspectives 
     of qualified scientific experts in EPA's scientific peer 
     review panels and increase transparency in peer review 
     reports.
       We commend you for your leadership and commitment to 
     advance this important issue. We look forward to working with 
     you and other cosponsors for quick passage of H.R. 1431.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Cal Dooley,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                           National Cotton Council


                                                   of America,

                                   Washington, DC, March 27, 2017.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the National Cotton 
     Council, thank you and your committee for the work on the EPA 
     Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 1431) and the 
     Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017--HONEST 
     Act (H.R. 1430). We support both of these critically 
     important bills in an effort to return sound science and 
     transparency to the regulatory process that affects our 
     members and all of agriculture.
       The NCC is the central organization of the United States 
     cotton industry. Its members include growers, ginners, 
     cottonseed processors and merchandizers, merchants, 
     cooperatives, warehousers and textile manufacturers. A 
     majority of the industry is concentrated in 17 cotton-
     producing states stretching from California to Virginia. U.S. 
     cotton producers cultivate between 9 and 12 million acres of 
     cotton with production averaging 12 to 18 million 480-lb 
     bales annually. The downstream manufacturers of cotton 
     apparel and home furnishings are located in virtually every 
     state. Farms and businesses directly involved in the 
     production, distribution and processing of cotton employ more 
     than 125,000 workers and produce direct business revenue of 
     more than $21 billion. Annual cotton production is valued at 
     more than $5.5 billion at the farm gate, the point at which 
     the producer markets the crop. Accounting for the ripple 
     effect of cotton through the broader economy, direct and 
     indirect employment surpasses 280,000 workers with economic 
     activity of almost $100 billion. In addition to the cotton 
     fiber, cottonseed products are used for livestock feed, and 
     cottonseed oil is used as an ingredient in food products as 
     well as being a premium cooking oil.
       As you know, agriculture struggles with many factors in the 
     production of fiber, food, and fuel, but the regulatory 
     impact and burdens on our industry have greatly increased 
     over the last several years. In addition, we have found 
     ourselves unable to adequately defend and maintain many of 
     our crop protection products and technologies because we are 
     often unable to access the data used by federal government 
     agencies to place additional restrictions on these products 
     and technologies. We believe these two bills--H.R. 1430 and 
     H.R. 1431--will greatly improve the transparency of 
     regulatory review process. These two bills will substantially 
     enhance the role of sound science that was intended to be a 
     centerpiece of the regulatory process.
       We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in 
     Congress to get these bills enacted into law. If you have any 
     questions or need any additional information from us, please 
     have your staff contact Steve Hensley in our office.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Reece Langley,
     Vice President--Washington Operations.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce supports the ``Honest and Open New EPA 
     Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of 2017'' and the ``EPA 
     Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.'' These bills 
     would improve the transparency and reliability of scientific 
     and technical information that Federal agencies rely heavily 
     upon to support new regulatory actions.
       The HONEST Act 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 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, unbiased, and reliable.
       The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 would 
     help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which 
     directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) on key scientific and technical issues, is unbiased and 
     transparent in performing its duties. The bill would 
     establish requirements that SAB members are qualified 
     experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of bias are 
     disclosed, that the views of members--including dissenting 
     members--are available to the public, and that the public has 
     the opportunity to participate in the advisory activities of 
     the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA relies on SAB 
     reviews and studies to support new regulations, standards, 
     guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions, the actions 
     of the SAB must be transparent and accountable. This is a 
     critical safeguard to assure the public that the data Federal 
     agencies rely on is scientifically sound and unbiased.
       The HONEST Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform 
     Act would improve the transparency and trustworthiness of 
     scientific and technical reviews and information that 
     agencies, including EPA, 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 these important bills.
           Sincerely,

                                              Neil L. Bradley,

                              Senior Vice President & Chief Policy
     Officer, Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                    March 8, 2017.
     Hon. Lamar S. Smith,
     Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: The American Exploration & Production 
     Council (``AXPC'')

[[Page H2569]]

     and the Independent Petroleum Association of America strongly 
     support the enactment of both the EPA Science Advisory Board 
     Reform Act and the Honest and Open New EPA Science-Treatment 
     Act and are most grateful to you and your committee for your 
     efforts in respect of the important objectives set forth in 
     each of these pieces of proposed legislation.
       AXPC is a national trade association representing 33 of 
     America's largest and most active independent natural gas and 
     crude oil exploration and production companies, each with 
     considerable experience drilling, operating, and producing 
     oil and natural gas on federal lands. AXPC members are 
     ``independent'' in that their operations are limited to 
     exploration for and production of oil and natural gas. 
     Moreover, its members operate autonomously, unlike their 
     fully integrated counterparts, which operate in additional 
     segments of the energy business, such as downstream refining 
     and marketing. AXPC members are leaders in developing and 
     applying innovative and advanced technologies necessary to 
     explore for and produce oil and natural gas, both offshore 
     and onshore, from non-conventional sources.
       IPAA represents the thousands of independent oil and 
     natural gas explorers and producers, as well as the service 
     and supply industries that support their efforts, that will 
     most directly be impacted by the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) policy decisions to regulate methane 
     directly from the oil and natural gas sector. Independent 
     producers develop about 95 percent of American oil and 
     natural gas wells, produce 54 percent of American oil, and 
     produce 85 percent of American natural gas. Historically, 
     independent producers have invested over 150 percent of their 
     cash flow back into American oil and natural gas development 
     to find and produce more American energy. IPAA is dedicated 
     to ensuring a strong, viable American oil and natural gas 
     industry, recognizing that an adequate and secure supply of 
     energy is essential to the national economy.
       The EPA's Science Advisory Board is a critical link in the 
     EPA's policy making process and must, therefore, be unbiased 
     and motivated only to seek the best possible policy result 
     based on the best possible, publicly available, verifiable 
     data. Moreover, open, public debate must be encouraged, not 
     discouraged. The goal must be to get the best possible 
     result, which is why the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform 
     Act should be enacted.
       Science used to support or as a basis for regulations or 
     other policies should be based on publicly available 
     scientific and technical data so as to allow for and even 
     encourage independent fact finding and analysis. Transparency 
     is critical to this process. The Honest and Open New EPA 
     Science Treatment Act would accomplish this result.
       AXPC and IPAA urge passage of both of these critical pieces 
     of legislation and stand ready to assist in any way you 
     believe we might be able to add value to this process.
       Should you have any questions or require additional 
     information contact AXPC or IPAA. Thank you for your good 
     work on these and other issues.
           Very truly yours,
     V. Bruce Thompson,
       President, AXPC.
     Lee O. Fuller,
       Executive Vice President, IPAA.
                                  ____



                                                CO2 COALITION,

                                     Arlington, VA, March 8, 2017.
     House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Lamar Smith and the Committee: The CO2 
     Coalition supports the purpose and principles of the ``Honest 
     and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017'' and the 
     ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.'' We would, 
     in fact, support such principles applied on a government-wide 
     basis.
       The scientific method demands that the results of 
     scientific studies be capable of replication. While it is 
     generally up to individual scientists, journals and the 
     larger scientific community as to how the replication 
     requirement is satisfied, when it comes to science used to 
     set public policy, there can be no doubt that the relevant 
     methods and data must be publicly available for purposes of 
     replication.
       With respect to the federal government obtaining 
     independent science advice from outside advisors, it goes 
     without saying that advisory panels should not be unduly 
     influenced by members hoping to curry government favor or to 
     advance personal agendas. Panels should be truly independent 
     and unbiased. Clear and enforceable standards will help meet 
     this goal.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Happer,
     President, CO2 Coalition.
                                  ____



                                                         CATO,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.
     Hon. Lamar S. Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House 
         of Representatives.
       Dear Congressman Smith: Recently, Committee staff sent me 
     copies of two draft pieces of legislation, the ``HONEST Act'' 
     and the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017''.
       The Cato Institute interprets its tax-exempt status as 
     precluding any specific support of adoption (or 
     recommendation of rejection) for pending legislation. 
     However, I can comment on substantive aspects of such 
     legislation.
       The HONEST Act would require that regulations promulgated 
     by EPA be backed by reproducible and transparent science. In 
     the are of climate change, this will surely provoke a timely 
     inquiry as to whether the climate models that are used to 
     calculate the Social Cost of Carbon, and the justification of 
     subsequent regulations, are indeed ``science''. I would argue 
     that they are not.
       A climate model is merely a complicated mathematical 
     statement of multiple hypotheses. These include a prediction 
     of a general warming of surface temperatures, and a greater 
     warming of the tropical troposphere. All subsequent changes 
     in weather regimes--such as rainfall, winter snows, and 
     Atlantic hurricanes derive from the warming and its 
     distribution.
       As such, a reasonable test of hypothesis would be to 
     examine the performance of these models as carbon dioxide has 
     accumulated in the atmosphere, and during the period in which 
     we have multiple, independent measures of bulk atmospheric 
     global temperatures, which would be from 1979 to the present. 
     As I noted in recent (February 28) testimony, there is a 
     clear systematic failure of these models, with the central 
     estimate of warming generally twice as large as what is being 
     observed as a whole in the troposphere, and as much as seven 
     times larger than what is being observed in the tropical 
     upper troposphere.
       This, and other recent refereed publications are finally 
     beginning to detail the subjective fashion by which the 
     equilibrium climate sensitivity is being derived, argue that 
     these models do not constitute science in the classical 
     sense. It would be more appropriate to call the field 
     ``climate studies''.
       Litigation deriving from the HONEST Act is likely to 
     uncover this problem, with the likelihood that EPA's 2009 
     Endangerment Finding, which empowers subsequent regulation of 
     carbon dioxide, should be vacated because of a lack of 
     verifiable science associated with its determination.
       The other piece of legislation will open up the EPA Science 
     Advisory Board(s) to more institutional diversity and less 
     political selection.
       I hope you find my comments useful, and stand available to 
     answer any questions or provide any amplifications you may 
     desire.
           Cordially,
                                       Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D.,
                        Director, Center for the Study of Science.

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would note to the body, part of the 
challenge that we face here today on this bill is like so many 
challenges we face as Members of Congress: How do you avoid the short-
term perspective? How do you take the long view? How do you set into 
motion things that, while they might not, perhaps, give us the great 
advantage in the short-term sense that either side of the room would 
want, in the long-term, they are in the best interest of the body?
  I would remind my colleagues, the Scientific Advisory Board is 
appointed by the EPA; the EPA is managed by the Director; the Director 
is appointed by the President of the United States. If you believe that 
the work product, if you believe that the rules that have been 
generated by this in recent years reflect your perspective, I 
understand that, but nothing is ever static.
  We have recently had a change of administration. We have a change of 
direction in the leadership of the EPA. That will be reflected in all 
the appointments and the actions of the EPA.
  I implore my colleagues, we need to work in the perspective of what 
is in the long-term interest; and that long-term interest is providing 
scientific review at the SAB that our fellow citizens have confidence 
in and that will generate good rules and regulations when they have to 
be created.
  Following this course of action advocated in H.R. 1431 will not make 
my most conservative constituents happy because they want to duplicate 
what they believe my most liberal constituents have advocated for 
years, but our goal here is not to empower one or the other side in 
these perspectives to force their will upon the country. Our 
responsibility with the SAB is to create a process where we can have 
confidence in the results and where, when appropriate, the end 
resulting regulations, the rules that come from it, will be in the best 
long-term interest of the Nation as a whole.
  I know there are requirements in here that, if you have taken money 
as a scientist to do a research project from the EPA, you have to cool 
off for 3 years. But what is wrong with allowing a little separation 
between the people who take money to do the studies and then become the 
judges of other studies in the knowledge that perhaps the people who 
have done the studies will judge their studies? What is wrong with 
that?
  And the public disclosure about allowing people with knowledge and 
expertise to participate, too, if they have

[[Page H2570]]

a conflict through these disclosures, we will know. I would hope that 
whoever leads the EPA on whatever day would act in a responsible 
fashion.
  I just want, through this bill, to change the system so that the 
perception is out there that the SAB and the scientific process and the 
rulemaking that comes from it at EPA are being gained by one 
perspective or the other because that is in no one's best interest.
  I know we live in tough times and challenging times to legislate. I 
think my colleagues know, in the legislation I have worked on before, 
that I have always worked across the aisle. I have always worked with 
every perspective within this body. I have always tried to take that 
long-ball perspective. I know it is a challenging time, but think about 
that as we continue this well-meaning, good-spirited, very focused 
debate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I include in the 
Record correspondence in opposition to this bill: a letter from the 
American Lung Association, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy 
Environments, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the American 
Public Health Association, the National Medical Association, the Health 
Care Without Harm Association, the Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, and the American Thoracic Society; along with a letter 
from the Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, League of Conservation 
Voters, and Natural Resources Defense Council; as well as a letter from 
the League of Conservation Voters.

                                                   March 27, 2017.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned health and medical 
     organizations are writing to express our opposition to the 
     EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest 
     and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. Our 
     organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving 
     public health.
       Science is the bedrock of sound medical and public health 
     decision-making. The best science undergirds everything our 
     organizations do to improve health. Under the Clean Air Act, 
     EPA has long implemented a transparent and open process for 
     seeking advice from the medical and scientific community on 
     standards and measures to meet those standards. Both of these 
     bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the 
     review of complex issues and add undue industry influence 
     into EPA's decision-making process.
       As written, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would 
     make unneeded and unproductive changes that would:
       Restrict the ability of scientists to speak on issues that 
     include their own expertise;
       Block scientists who receive any EPA grants from serving on 
     the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, despite their having the 
     expertise and conducted relevant research that earned them 
     these highly competitive grants;
       Prevent the EPA Scientific Advisory Board from making 
     policy recommendations, even though EPA administrators have 
     regularly sought their advice in the past;
       Add a notice and comment component to all parts of the EPA 
     Scientific Advisory Board actions, a burdensome and 
     unnecessary requirement since their reviews of major issues 
     already include public notice and comment; and
       Reallocate membership requirements to increase the 
     influence of industry representatives on the scientific 
     advisory panels.
       In short, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit 
     the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to 
     respond to important questions, and increase the influence of 
     industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not in the best 
     interest of the American public.
       We also have concerns with the HONEST Act. This legislation 
     would limit the kinds of scientific data EPA can use as it 
     develops policy to protect the American public from 
     environmental exposures and permit violation of patient 
     confidentiality. If enacted, the legislation would:
       Allow the EPA administrator to release confidential patient 
     information to third parties, including industry;
       Bolster industry's flawed arguments to discredit research 
     that documents the adverse health effects of environmental 
     pollution; and
       Impose new standards for the publication and distribution 
     of scientific research that go beyond the robust, existing 
     requirements of many scientific journals.
       Science, developed by the respected men and women 
     scientists at colleges and universities across the United 
     States, has always been the foundation of the nation's 
     environmental policy. EPA's science-based decision-making 
     process has saved lives and led to dramatic improvements in 
     the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the 
     earth we share. All Americans have benefited from the 
     research-based scientific advice that scientists have 
     provided to EPA.
       Congress should adopt policy that fortifies our scientists, 
     not bills that undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's 
     decision-making or give polluters a disproportionate voice in 
     EPA's policy-setting process.
       We strongly urge you to oppose these bills.
           Sincerely,
     Katie Huffling, RN, CNM,
       Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.
     Harold P. Wimmer,
       National President and CEO, American Lung Association.
     Georges C. Benjamin, MD,
       Executive Director, American Public Health Association.
     Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,
       Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.
     Cary Sennett, MD, PhD, FACP,
       President & CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.
     Paul Bogart,
       Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm.
     Richard Allen Williams, MD,
       117th President, National Medical Association.
     Jeff Carter, JD,
       Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility.
                                  ____

                                                   March 29, 2017.
       Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: We are 
     writing to express our strong opposition to the draft 
     legislation, the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 
     2017'' (H.R. 1431). The bill, which would amend the 
     Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration 
     Authorization Act of 1978, would hinder the ability of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board (EPA 
     SAB) to reach timely, independent, objective, credible 
     conclusions that can form the basis of policy. While the bill 
     is not identical to previous versions of this legislation, 
     the bill would still weaken longstanding conflict-of-interest 
     considerations for industry scientists while imposing 
     unprecedented and unnecessary limitations on government-
     funded scientists, and complicating the SAB review process, 
     with no discernible benefit to EPA or the public.
       Our most serious specific concerns with the bill are 
     described below, in the order in which the provisions appear:
       P.3, lines 1-8, creating Section 8(b)(2)(C) in the 
     underlying Act, promotes inclusion of panelists with 
     financial conflicts, as long as they disclose their conflicts 
     and obtain a waiver.
       As with previous versions of this legislation, the bill 
     shifts the current presumption against including people with 
     financial conflicts on the SAB. The bill appears to 
     effectively mandate the inclusion of scientists with 
     financial conflicts, as long as the conflicts are disclosed, 
     notwithstanding the reference to one portion of existing 
     ethics law. Disclosure does not eliminate the problems that 
     can occur when someone with a conflict influences policy 
     guidance.
       Policies and practices to identify and eliminate persons 
     with financial conflicts, interests, and undue biases from 
     independent scientific advisory committees have been 
     implemented by all the federal agencies, the National Academy 
     of Sciences, and international scientific bodies such as the 
     International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World 
     Health Organization. The bill's provisions are inconsistent 
     with a set of nearly universally accepted scientific 
     principles to eliminate or limit financial conflicts. 
     Following these principles is the way agencies, the public, 
     and Congress should ensure their scientific advice is 
     credible and independent.
       Moreover, EPA already grants exemptions as needed to allow 
     scientists to participate if their expertise is required 
     despite their potential conflicts.
       P.3, line 23 to P.4, line 2, creating a Section 8(b)(2)(H) 
     in the underlying Act, establishes an arbitrary and 
     unwarranted bar on non-industry scientists who are receiving 
     grants or contracts from EPA, or who may do so in the future.
       This provision would bar participation by any academic or 
     government scientist who is currently receiving a grant or 
     under contract from EPA, and bar any Board member from 
     seeking any grant or contract from EPA for three years after 
     the end of their term on the Board. This arbitrary and 
     unwarranted limitation on current or future recipients of 
     government funding would severely limit the ability of EPA to 
     get the best, most independent scientists on its premier 
     advisory board--as well as any committees or panels of the 
     board--without any evidence that no-strings government 
     funding, such as research grants, constitute a conflict of 
     interest.
       P.6, lines 1-21, amending Section 8(c) of the underlying 
     act, expands the scope of the SAB's work, and increases the 
     burden.
       This provision broadens the scope of documents that must be 
     submitted to the SAB for review to include every risk or 
     hazard assessment proposed by the agency, a dramatic and 
     unnecessary expansion. The expansion

[[Page H2571]]

     would provide an expanded platform for the new industry-
     stacked panels envisioned by this bill to challenge proposed 
     actions by EPA, including hazard and risk assessments.
       P.8, lines 8-23 creating a Section 8(h)(4) in the 
     underlying Act, ensures endless delay, burden and red tape 
     under the guise of ``transparency.''
       This provision would give industry unlimited time to 
     present its arguments to the SAB. Industry representatives 
     already dominate proceedings because of their greater numbers 
     and resources. In addition, the requirement for the SAB to 
     respond in writing to ``significant'' public comments is 
     vague (e.g., who defines what is ``significant,'' and how?) 
     and would tie down the SAB with needless and burdensome 
     process. It also misconstrues the nature of both the SAB's 
     role and the role of public comment in the SAB process. The 
     role of the SAB is to provide its expert advice to the 
     Agency. The role of the public comments during this phase is 
     to provide informative input to the SAB as it deliberates, 
     but the final product of the SAB deliberation is advice from 
     the panel members, not an agency proposal or decision that 
     requires response to public comment. Members of the public, 
     including stakeholders, have multiple opportunities to 
     provide input directly to the agency.
       In short, the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 
     2017'' would alter the nature of the SAB, which has been 
     largely successful in providing the EPA expert review of key 
     scientific and technical questions and would encourage 
     industry conflicts in the review of scientific materials. It 
     would also pile new and burdensome requirements on the Board, 
     severely hampering its work and effectiveness. The result 
     would be to further stall and undermine important public 
     health, safety and environmental measures.
       We urge you to abandon plans to advance this legislation. 
     We would be happy to discuss our concerns with you further.
           Sincerely,
     Clean Water Action.
     Earthjustice.
     League of Conservation Voters (LCV).
     Natural Resources Defense Council.
                                  ____



                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                   Washington, DC, March 28, 2017.
     Re Oppose H.R. 1430 and H.R. 1431--Attacks on Science and 
         Public Health.

     United States House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members, 
     the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) works to turn 
     environmental values into national, state, and local 
     priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National 
     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters 
     nationwide, and the media.
       LCV urges you to vote NO on H.R. 1430 and H.R. 1431. These 
     two bills are backdoor attempts to undermine the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's ability to use science in 
     decision-making and obstruct the process for developing 
     effective public health safeguards.
       H.R. 1430, the ``HONEST Act'', would endanger public health 
     by making it extremely difficult for the EPA to use the best 
     available science. The bill contains favorable exemptions for 
     industry and would restrict the health studies that the EPA 
     is able to use by requiring that data is shared with anyone 
     willing to sign a vague confidentiality agreement. These 
     provisions would severely limit the EPA's ability to use data 
     that includes studies with confidential health information. 
     These types of studies are the basis for the best research on 
     pollution's effects on people, but include individual health 
     records that are legally required to remain confidential. 
     H.R. 1430 would cripple the EPA's ability to develop 
     effective public health safeguards by forcing them to 
     disregard the results of these studies, resulting in less 
     protective standards.
       H.R. 1431, the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 
     2017'', would undermine the ability of the Science Advisory 
     Board to provide independent, objective, and credible 
     scientific advice to the EPA. This bill would facilitate 
     greater industry influence of the Scientific Advisory Board 
     by weakening conflict-of-interest protections while 
     unnecessarily and arbitrarily limiting the participation of 
     subject experts. Additionally, new burdens imposed on the 
     Board and provisions that allow industry to significantly 
     prolong the Board's scientific review process would delay key 
     public health and environmental protections.
       These two bills would significantly undermine the EPA's 
     ability to protect public health and the environment. LCV 
     urges you to REJECT H.R. 1430 and H.R. 1431 and will consider 
     including votes on these bills in the 2017 Scorecard. If you 
     need more information, please call my office and ask to speak 
     with a member of our Government Relations team.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gene Karpinski,
                                                        President.

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, less science, more pollution--that is, 
unbelievably, the Republican plan.
  I want to just refer to what my colleague said. This is not long-ball 
time. This is emergency time where we have to deal with a worldwide 
environmental crisis, and this bill is just the latest attack on clean 
air and clean water. And as the threat of climate change becomes 
increasingly clear, Republicans are trying to reverse the progress that 
we have made to address this global challenge.
  President Trump proposed gutting the Environmental Protection Agency, 
and this week he signed an executive order to ignore the effects of 
climate change, increase drilling on Federal lands, and undo efforts to 
promote renewable energy.
  Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have voted to block environmental 
protections. Republicans are replacing President Obama's Clean Power 
Plan with, essentially, a dirty power plan that will pollute our air 
and contaminate our water and put our children and our grandchildren at 
risk. Those actions further confirm Republicans' place on the wrong 
side of history.
  It is time for America to lead, not to ignore reality. We should be 
investing in clean, job-producing energy. We should be at the forefront 
of the fight against climate change.
  My constituents and most Americans expect to drink clean water and 
breathe fresh air. They want to protect our planet for future 
generations. Republicans, today, have it backward. We need more science 
and less pollution.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and resist those attacks on 
our environment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the former chairman of the Science, Space, 
and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, have you ever had that deja vu all over 
again? Haven't we been doing this one since, what, 2013, 2014?
  I accept I have been off the committee now for 4 years; yet we are 
talking past each other. I hear the gentlewoman and some of the others 
say things. It is a 12-page bill. It hasn't changed that much in the 
last couple Congresses.
  How many of us would like to go back to the 2013 inspector general 
report that basically suggested going this direction because of the 
conflicts in these advisory committees?

                              {time}  0945

  If you really, once again--and this is sort of similar to yesterday's 
discussion--if you really care about the environment, then you really 
care about the data and the information and sort of the ethics and 
honesty of those who are both reviewing the data and giving you advice.
  So what happens when the inspector general of the EPA hands you a 
report and says: These committees, these advisory councils are rife 
with conflicts? People who are on these advisory boards are making 
money.
  Now, accept much of what we do here in Washington, D.C., if not 
almost all of it, is about the cash, and it is one of the ugly secrets 
that is not a secret, but we all pretend. It is always about the money.
  Let's try something novel. Let's actually--this was an inspector 
general's report under the Obama administration. Why wouldn't we step 
up and respect it? It was very simple.
  Hey, we need some more diversity on these advisory boards. And 
wouldn't it be wonderful if we had people advising us on air quality 
policy in non-attainment areas, or in regional interests that also 
weren't selling products, selling reports, making money off data with 
the EPA?
  I mean, if it was reversed, if it was some other agency, if this same 
set of ethical lapses was reversed, I believe the left would be 
apoplectic. But the fact of the matter is that so many of these 
individual organizations that are represented on these advisory boards, 
that are making money from the EPA, even though they are advising in 
their own behalf, happen to be friends of the left. That makes it okay.
  The ethical standards are the ethical standards. I have no concept 
how the left can oppose the concept of structured diversity.
  Why shouldn't those of us from the Southwest, where substantial 
portions

[[Page H2572]]

of my State are Native American, have a voice? Why should we allow 
people on these advisory committees who, once again, are selling 
products, selling data, making a living, making money, one step away 
from the very work they are advising on?
  It is a 12-page bill. It is not that complicated. I will make the 
argument that it makes our air, our water, the things around us safer, 
better, healthier, and it makes the way we get there sounder and more 
ethical, and we remove conflicts that right now taint the very 
decisions that are coming out of these advisory boards.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Let me thank the other side for their vigorous defense of this bill.
  I must say that I am a nurse by profession, and I appreciate the 
gains we have made for using scientific data to determine what is 
unhealthy for the people; and it really does disturb me to see these 
protections being torn apart.
  It is really unfortunate that we have spent so much time putting 
these protections of the people in place to see that, in this 
administration, they will probably fly away. Only the people of this 
Nation will be the losers, with more healthcare costs when they don't 
even want health care; more people not able to get out of dirty areas.
  I live in the State of Texas where we have seen the detriment of all 
of the lack of these protections before they came about. Scientists are 
in science because they believe in the theories that put forth the 
procedures for us to follow for the safety and protection of human 
beings.
  I regret that we are at a point this time in history where we are 
willing to throw all that away because of allowing the polluting 
companies to have more to say about policy. I regret that I have to 
stand against my colleagues that feel so strongly about getting rid of 
these protections, but I cannot sit idly by without saying that our 
Nation will not be in better shape when we take away all the 
protections for the people and their health.
  Everybody wants clean air and clean food and protections from the 
damage that a bad environment brings, and all this is is taking away 
those protections.
  I ask everyone to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the second set of 
letters which I referred to earlier.

                                           National Association of


                                                Home Builders,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the 140,000 members of 
     the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I am 
     writing to express NAHB's strong support for the Honest and 
     Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA 
     Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. These bills would 
     ensure an open and honest scientific process by allowing the 
     public access to the science that underpins regulations 
     developed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 
     ensuring that scientists advising the EPA on regulatory 
     decisions are not the same scientists receiving EPA grants.
       It is important for the EPA to use sound science in order 
     to support their rulemakings. Far too often, the EPA relies 
     on science that lacks transparency and reliability to 
     buttress their rulemakings. This is a consequence of the EPA 
     conducting their scientific review of rulemakings behind 
     closed doors. The EPA frequently ignores scientific integrity 
     by limiting public participation, excluding state and private 
     sector expertise, and pushing a specific agenda by appointing 
     scientists who are biased. In some cases, scientists that 
     have been appointed to review proposed regulations have 
     received EPA grants which the EPA disregards as a conflict of 
     interest.
       The EPA should not be able to create costly regulations 
     without being transparent, fair and open to public input when 
     considering the science behind a rulemaking. However, the EPA 
     has sacrificed the integrity of the rulemaking process by 
     using biased science to push their agenda. It is important to 
     address these shortcomings so that future rules can be 
     transparent and honest.
       For these reasons, NAHB urges the House Science, Space and 
     Technology Committee to support the Honest and Open New EPA 
     Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA Science Advisory 
     Board Reform Act of 2017, in order to bring transparency and 
     integrity to the regulatory process.
       Thank you for giving consideration to our views.
           Sincerely,
     James W. Tobin III,
       Executive Vice President & Chief Lobbyist, Government 
     Affairs and Communications Group.
                                  ____

                                                  Small Business &


                                        Entreneurship Counsel,

                                        Vienna, VA, March 7, 2017.
     Hon. Frank Lucas,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Science, Space and Technology Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith and Representative Lucas: On behalf of 
     the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) 
     and its more than 100,000 members nationwide, I am pleased to 
     voice our strong support for the ``EPA Science Advisory Board 
     Reform Act of 2017.''
       This important legislation reforms the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's (EPA's) Science Advisory Board (SAB) and 
     its subpanels by strengthening public participation, 
     improving the process for selecting expert advisors, 
     expanding transparency requirements by board members, opening 
     the board's research to public review, and limiting 
     nonscientific policy advice. The reforms proposed by the 
     legislation are especially critical given the growing impact 
     of EPA's regulations on America's small business sector, the 
     controversial science used as the basis to advance certain 
     rulemakings, and the need to ensure that sound science is 
     guiding EPA actions.
       Balance, independence and transparency are critical to 
     EPA's scientific advisory process. The bill addresses key 
     concerns with the SAB, such as placing limitations on its 
     members who receive environmental research grants, applying 
     conflict of interest standards, and ensuring balanced 
     representation on the board's membership.
       These are sensible reforms that will strengthen the SAB's 
     integrity and work, and by extension EPA's regulatory 
     process.
       SBE Council supports solutions that improve the regulatory 
     system to ensure the voice of small businesses and 
     entrepreneurs is heard and considered, that they operate and 
     compete under rational rules, and transparency throughout the 
     regulatory process. The ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform 
     Act of 2017'' is an important legislative initiative that 
     brings fairness, transparency and objectivity to the SAB and 
     EPA rulemakings.
       Please let SBE Council know how we can further support your 
     efforts to advance this important legislation into law. Thank 
     you for your leadership, and support of America's small 
     business and entrepreneurial sector.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Karen Kerrigan,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                            National Stone, Sand &


                                           Gravel Association,

                                                   Alexandria, VA.
       The National Stone Sand and Gravel Association supports 
     both The Honest and Open New Science Treatment Act of 2017 
     (HONEST Act) and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 
     2017.
       Both acts go a long way towards addressing many of the 
     current issues our industry has with regulatory science, and 
     we encourage the House Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology to mark up both pieces of legislation.
       Our association represents 100,000 jobs across the United 
     States. The regulatory burden on our workforce dramatically 
     impacts our ability to provide cost-effective materials for 
     America's roads, runways, bridges and ports. Our members 
     pride themselves on their commitment to environmental 
     stewardship and are heavily involved in sustainability and 
     reclamation in their communities.
       Federal regulations must balance industry's voice and 
     environmental and health concerns. Unfortunately, we often 
     see problems in the scientific underpinnings of regulations 
     when agencies select studies that are neither public nor 
     reproducible as the basis of new rules. This practice chips 
     away at the credibility of any regulatory action and makes it 
     difficult for industries to respect the regulatory process. 
     Our members have the right to comment on regulations and it 
     is not reasonable to ask hard working men and women of any 
     industry to trust that an agency has selected good science 
     without if an agency is not being transparent.
       Stakeholder input in the regulatory process is required 
     under federal law and valuable for the justification and the 
     implementation of rules.
       NSSGA stands ready to work with Congress to ensure that 
     industry, states and the scientific community can work 
     together openly and honestly to create regulations.
           Sincerely,

                                           Michael W. Johnson,

                                                President and CEO,
     National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.
                                  ____



                                  Portland Cement Association,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2017.
     Chairman Lamar Smith,
     The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, 
         DC.
     Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson,
     The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Bernice Johnson: The 
     Portland Cement

[[Page H2573]]

     Association (PCA) supports the EPA Science Advisory Board 
     (SAB) Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest and Open New EPA 
     Science Treatment Act (HONEST Act) of 2017. PCA is the 
     premier policy, research, education, and market intelligence 
     organization serving America's cement manufacturers. PCA 
     members represent 92 percent of U.S. cement production 
     capacity and have facilities in all 50 states. The 
     Association promotes safety, sustainability, and innovation 
     in all aspects of construction, fosters continuous 
     improvement in cement manufacturing and distribution, and 
     generally promotes economic growth and sound infrastructure 
     investment.
       PCA supports these bills because they would improve 
     fairness and transparency in the regulatory process, while 
     promoting use of the best available science. As you know, SAB 
     reform is needed to update and strengthen the scientific 
     foundation of EPA's regulatory decisions. The SAB Reform Act 
     would improve the Science Advisory Board by ensuring balance 
     among its members and providing better public access to 
     scientific information and data. SAB reform is an important 
     step toward improving EPA's regulatory process, public access 
     to information, and transparency.
       The HONEST Act would similarly improve transparency and 
     access to information. Scientists reviewing agency studies 
     and rulemakings need a fair chance to evaluate and validate 
     the studies EPA relies on in the rulemaking process. The 
     HONEST Act protects the sensitive and confidential 
     information often covered by confidentiality agreements, 
     while allowing EPA to make critical information available for 
     public comment and access. The HONEST Act follows the data 
     access requirements of many scientific journals. This level 
     of transparency and potential for peer review are critical to 
     improving regulatory decisions.
       PCA supports the Committees' efforts to improve 
     accountability, public access, and better science in the EPA 
     rulemaking process. Please feel free to contact Rachel Derby, 
     PCA's Vice President of Government Affairs, for further 
     information on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 A. Todd Johnston,
     Executive Vice President, Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                     American Farm


                                            Bureau Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chair, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Science, Space, and 
         Technology, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: Later this 
     week, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee will 
     consider legislation to provide for Scientific Advisory Board 
     (SAB) member qualifications and public participation. The 
     American Farm Bureau strongly supports this legislation and 
     pledges our commitment to work with the committee in pressing 
     for its swift consideration.
       This legislation is a priority because it reforms the SAB 
     process by strengthening public participation, improving the 
     process of selecting expert advisors, and expanding the 
     overall transparency of the SAB. While the SAB should be a 
     critical part of the scientific foundation of the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory process, 
     EPA has systematically used its authority to silence 
     dissenting scientific experts. Rather than promote fairness, 
     transparency and independence to ensure unbiased scientific 
     advice, EPA routinely has ignored its own Peer Review 
     Handbook and silenced dissenting voices on expert panels.
       This legislation seeks to reinforce the SAB process as a 
     tool that can help policymakers with complex issues while 
     preventing EPA from muzzling impartial scientific advice. 
     This legislation deserves strong, bipartisan support. We 
     applaud your leadership in this effort and will work with you 
     to ensure passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Zippy Duvall,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                    March 9, 2017.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: We are writing to express our strong 
     support for H.R. 1430, the ``Honest and Open New EPA Science 
     Treatment Act of 2017'' (HONEST Act), and H.R. 1431, the 
     ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.''
       For too long now, the Environmental Protection Agency has 
     hidden key scientific data from the public and corrupted its 
     own boards of outside science advisors. This subversion of 
     science and the regulatory process has produced costly, job-
     killing regulations of dubious-to-no merit to public health 
     and the environment.
       We welcome these bills in the names of transparent 
     government, and unbiased and balanced peer review.
           Sincerely,
     Craig Richardson,
       President, Energy & Environment Action Team (E&E Action).
     Amy Oliver Cooke,
       Executive vice president, Independence Institute.
     Kathleen Sgamma,
       President, Western Energy Alliance.

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate to my colleagues, this is a situation 
where the goal really is not to empower one perspective or one faction 
over another. The goal, ultimately, of this bill--and, yes, this did 
come out of the inspector general's report, the initial work and 
effort. The goal of the bill is to add transparency, accountability. 
The goal of the bill is to increase the American people's confidence in 
the work product that is then used by the EPA to craft the rules and 
regulations that impact every life in this country on a daily basis.
  Whatever your perspective may be, remember, the pendulum in this 
great Nation, when it comes to the executive branch, in my time, every 
8 years, has swung back and forth. Just because at the present moment 
or the past moment you think you got your perspective's way, or if 
perhaps you think with the pendulum swing now you will get your 
perspective's way, that is not what the focus should be here.
  I would also remind my colleagues, in my 23 years, I have served in 
the minority soon to be for 4\1/2\ years. But the other 18\1/2\ years, 
I have served in the majority. I have served in the majority. So when I 
step up to you and say we can do better, we can enhance the quality of 
information, we can do it in a way that the American people have more 
confidence in ultimately what goes on, and we can do it in a way that 
makes it more difficult for anyone to hijack the process, I say that 
sincerely.
  There is nothing wrong with full disclosure for everyone who can add 
to the process, who should be available for consideration. There is 
nothing wrong with a financial cooling-off between benefiting from the 
studies and analyzing someone else's studies. There is nothing wrong 
with this.
  But if you stay with the status quo, this Board and this Agency are 
in change. Get ready for 8 years of a dramatically different way of 
doing things.
  Now, maybe you are so confident that the pendulum will swing back 
again that you are willing to accept that. But as for me, I want to 
stay between the lines. I want to focus in ways that, for the long 
term, represent the best interests of this great country.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1431. I ask my 
colleagues to think about 10 or 20 years down the road. I ask my 
colleagues to put the long-term best interests of their constituents 
first.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of 
H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and urge 
my colleagues to vote in support.
  The Science Advisory Board's work is important to making sure 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.
  This legislation addresses those concerns and builds on the work done 
in the 2014 Farm Bill to create an agriculture committee under the 
Science Advisory Board. This bill is necessary to ensure the EPA takes 
into account the best information possible with input from public and 
independent stakeholders.
  H.R. 1431 will ensure a balanced and independent Science Advisory 
Board and will help alleviate some of the unintended consequences 
surrounding EPA regulations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 233, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  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. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. FOSTER. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Foster moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1431 to the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology with instructions 
     to

[[Page H2574]]

     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendments:
       Page 5, line 4, strike ``and''.
       Page 5, line 9, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 5, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(I) a Board member, during that member's term of service 
     on the Board and for a period of 3 years following the end of 
     that member's service on the Board, shall not be employed 
     with any corporate or other entity which has interests before 
     the Board.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. FOSTER. 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.
  This amendment is a commonsense and logical addition to this bill. It 
will help ensure that members of the EPA's Science Advisory Board will 
act in the best interests of the American people and our environment.
  I think that we can all agree that, now more than ever, we need 
integrity in government. And this amendment would simply prohibit any 
member of the EPA's Science Advisory Board from being employed by any 
entity, corporate or otherwise, which has interests before the Board. 
This prohibition would be in place during the member's time on the 
Board and would extend for 3 years after they leave the Board.
  My Republican colleagues have taken up this bill with the stated 
intent of protecting the scientific integrity of the EPA, and this 
amendment will go a long way to making sure that they keep their word.
  The underlying bill also includes a similar prohibition on board 
members applying for a grant or contract from the EPA during their 
service or for 3 years after. And as the chairman just said, there is 
nothing wrong with a financial cooling-off period.
  However, the authors of this bill are apparently concerned that 
members of the Board would be tempted to favor environmental concerns 
in the hopes of getting an EPA grant. Therefore, it also stands to 
reason that they should worry equally about a board member tilting the 
scales in favor of a specific industry in return for future financial 
compensation or career advancement, the classic revolving door problem.
  So what this motion to recommit does is something that I think we all 
should be able to agree is a good thing. We have seen too many people 
in the President's Cabinet who appear to have connections too close to 
the big interests they regulate rather than the interests of the 
American people.
  This amendment would ensure that no one can unduly personally profit 
from their time at the EPA, and that members are there to represent the 
interests of the American people and our environment rather than their 
own self interests.
  Finally, I would like to close by bringing up a more general question 
of why we seem to be having variations on this repetitive theme of 
whether or not we can pollute our way out of the structural and 
economic challenges that our country faces.
  Mr. Speaker, you and your party have been very successful at selling 
yourselves and your supporters on the idea that if we can just, once 
again, dump unlimited pollutants into our rivers and streams, into our 
groundwater, our food, air, lungs, our bloodstreams and those of our 
children, then everything will be great again in America.
  This week, we saw our President surrounded by earnest and hopeful 
young coal miners as he gutted environmental regulations and promised 
them that all their jobs were coming back. And then we have seen 
interviews on TV with desperate families in Appalachia using up their 
life savings to pay for training for underground coal jobs that they 
have been told will be coming back now that Donald Trump is President.
  Then we have seen interviews with coal executives quietly pointing 
out that those jobs will not come back; that it was machines and 
fundamental economic forces that took those jobs in coal country.
  The story is the same in oil country, where even as oil production 
has rebounded, the jobs and wages have not come back because of 
automation, the same way that machines took the jobs in rural America, 
manufacturing America, and increasingly middle class, white-collar 
America.

                              {time}  1000

  So until we realize that we are all in this together and that a 
fundamental restructuring of our economy is needed rather than a 
mindless retraction of the protections on environmental quality on the 
land that we will pass on to our children, then I am afraid that we are 
destined to repeat this infinite loop of marginally productive debate. 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. I claim the time in opposition to the motion, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I look at this language--and I am a farmer by 
trade; I am not an attorney; I will confess that--but the phrase ``or 
other entity'' seems to be a very broad concept. How will that affect 
people who work for research foundations at institutions of higher 
education? How will that affect entities, people who are part of so-
called think tanks in places like Washington, D.C.? I personally 
believe the language is intended more to simply turn the bill inside 
out.
  On that basis, I would ask my colleagues to reject the motion to 
recommit with instructions and to pass the underlying bill.
  But I go one step further, and I offer this in the most sincerest of 
ways: if you look at the discussion today and if you look at the 
discussion that has gone on for some time on these issues, it is almost 
as though there are those with certain perspectives who are trying to 
force their will--their perspective of what is right and wrong 
scientifically or economically or socially--on the rest of the country, 
on the rest of us, and, for that matter, on the rest of the world.
  That is why I am the author of this bill. No one entity should have 
the power by manipulating the bureaucratic process or the rulemaking 
process to enforce their definitions of everything on the rest of us. 
We have both the right and the responsibility to judge this information 
and to make decisions about what is in our enlightened self-interest, 
as the old economist would say, or in the best interest of the country 
or of society as a whole.
  That is why I want all of us--the great American people--to have 
access and some certainty about the people and the process that are 
driving everything in our world.
  Reject the motion, pass the bill, create greater transparency, 
incorporate more input, and when it is necessary to have rules and 
regulations, generate good rules and regulations so that we all have a 
chance to prosper and to live up to our potential in this country. 
Don't let the tyranny of the idealistic--whatever perspective they may 
have--drive us all into despair and destruction.
  With that, I respectfully ask my colleagues to reject this motion and 
pass the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  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.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were 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 of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189, 
nays 233, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 207]

                               YEAS--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline

[[Page H2575]]


     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Calvert
     Duffy
     Marino
     Quigley
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1029

  Messrs. FLORES, CRAWFORD, GROTHMAN, Ms. GRANGER, and Mrs. BLACKBURN 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mses. BLUNT ROCHESTER, JACKSON LEE, Messrs. HIGGINS of New York, and 
LANGEVIN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sessions was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


Announcement by Committee on Rules Regarding Amendment Process for H.R. 
  1343, Encouraging Employee Ownership Act, and H.R. 1219, Supporting 
                        America's Innovators Act

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee issued 
announcements outlining the amendment processes for two measures likely 
to come before the Rules Committee next week.
  An amendment deadline has been set for Monday, April 3, at 10 a.m., 
for the following measures:
  H.R. 1343, Encouraging Employee Ownership Act; and H.R. 1219, 
Supporting America's Innovators Act.
  The text of these measures is available on the Rules Committee 
website. Feel free to contact me or my staff if anyone has any 
questions.
  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. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. 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 229, 
noes 193, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 208]

                               AYES--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici

[[Page H2576]]


     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Calvert
     Duffy
     Marino
     Mullin
     Quigley
     Rush
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1040

  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. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes 207 and 208 I was unable 
to vote due to obligations in my congressional district. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 207, the Motion to 
Recommit, and ``yes'' on rollca11 208, related to H.R. 1431, the EPA 
Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017, which would ensure EPA 
administrator and the Science Advisory Board make public all reports 
and relevant scientific information at the same time they are received 
by members of the Science Advisory Board.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 2017, on rollcall No. 207 on 
motion to recommit with instructions, I am not recorded. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 208 on final passage of H.R. 1431, the EPA Science 
Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017, I am not recorded. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall vote Nos. 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, and 208. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye'' on votes 205 and 207. I would have 
voted ``nay'' on votes 203, 204, 206, and 208.

                          ____________________