[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15871-15881]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2013

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 756, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 1422) to amend the Environmental Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for 
Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public participation, 
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 756, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology printed in the bill, is adopted, and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1422

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``EPA Science Advisory Board 
     Reform Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) Membership.--Section 8(b) of the Environmental 
     Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
     1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) The Board shall be composed of at least nine 
     members, one of whom shall be designated Chairman, and shall 
     meet at such times and places as may be designated by the 
     Chairman in consultation with the Administrator.
       ``(2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by 
     education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific 
     and technical information on matters referred to the Board 
     under this section. The Administrator shall select Board 
     members from nominations received as described in paragraph 
     (3) and shall ensure that--
       ``(A) the scientific and technical points of view 
     represented on and the functions to be performed by the Board 
     are fairly balanced among the members of the Board;
       ``(B) at least ten percent of the membership of the Board 
     are from State, local, or tribal governments;
       ``(C) persons with substantial and relevant expertise are 
     not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or 
     representation of entities that may have a potential interest 
     in the Board's advisory activities, so long as that interest 
     is fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public and 
     appointment to the Board complies with section 208 of title 
     18, United States Code;
       ``(D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a 
     particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member 
     having an interest in the specific party shall participate in 
     that activity;
       ``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory 
     activities that directly or indirectly involve review and 
     evaluation of their own work;
       ``(F) Board members shall be designated as special 
     Government employees; and
       ``(G) no federally registered lobbyist is appointed to the 
     Board.
       ``(3) The Administrator shall--
       ``(A) solicit public nominations for the Board by 
     publishing a notification in the Federal Register;
       ``(B) solicit nominations from relevant Federal agencies, 
     including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, 
     and Health and Human Services;
       ``(C) make public the list of nominees, including the 
     identity of the entities that nominated them, and shall 
     accept public comment on the nominees;
       ``(D) require that, upon their provisional nomination, 
     nominees shall file a written report disclosing financial 
     relationships and interests, including Environmental 
     Protection Agency grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     or other financial assistance, that are relevant to the 
     Board's advisory activities for the three-year period prior 
     to the date of their nomination, and relevant professional 
     activities and public statements for the five-year period 
     prior to the date of their nomination; and
       ``(E) make such reports public, with the exception of 
     specific dollar amounts, for each member of the Board upon 
     such member's selection.
       ``(4) Disclosure of relevant professional activities under 
     paragraph (3)(D) shall include all representational work, 
     expert testimony, and contract work as well as identifying 
     the party for which the work was done.
       ``(5) Except when specifically prohibited by law, the 
     Agency shall make all conflict of interest waivers granted to 
     members of the Board, member committees, or investigative 
     panels publicly available.
       ``(6) Any recusal agreement made by a member of the Board, 
     a member committee, or an investigative panel, or any recusal 
     known to the Agency that occurs during the course of a 
     meeting or other work of the Board, member committee, or 
     investigative panel shall promptly be made public by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(7) The terms of the members of the Board shall be three 
     years and shall be staggered so that the terms of no more 
     than one-third of the total membership of the Board shall 
     expire within a single fiscal year. No member shall serve 
     more than two terms over a ten-year period.''.
       (b) Record.--Section 8(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(c)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``risk or hazard assessment,'' after ``at 
     the time any proposed''; and
       (B) by inserting ``risk or hazard assessment,'' after ``to 
     the Board such proposed''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``risk or hazard assessment,'' after ``the 
     scientific and technical basis of the proposed''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The Board's 
     advice and comments, including dissenting views of Board 
     members, and the response of the Administrator shall be 
     included in the record with respect to any proposed risk or 
     hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, 
     or regulation and published in the Federal Register.''.
       (c) Member Committees and Investigative Panels.--Section 
     8(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(e)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following: ``These member committees and 
     investigative panels--
       ``(1) shall be constituted and operate in accordance with 
     the provisions set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     subsection (b), in subsection (h), and in subsection (i);
       ``(2) do not have authority to make decisions on behalf of 
     the Board; and
       ``(3) may not report directly to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.''.
       (d) Public Participation.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     4365) is amended by adding after subsection (g) the 
     following:
       ``(h)(1) To facilitate public participation in the advisory 
     activities of the Board, the Administrator and the Board 
     shall make public all reports and relevant scientific 
     information and shall provide materials to the public at the 
     same time as received by members of the Board.
       ``(2) Prior to conducting major advisory activities, the 
     Board shall hold a public information-gathering session to 
     discuss the state of the science related to the advisory 
     activity.
       ``(3) Prior to convening a member committee or 
     investigative panel under subsection (e) or requesting 
     scientific advice from the Board, the Administrator shall 
     accept, consider, and address public comments on questions to 
     be asked of the Board. The Board, member committees, and 
     investigative panels shall accept, consider, and address 
     public comments on such questions and shall not accept a 
     question that unduly narrows the scope of an advisory 
     activity.
       ``(4) The Administrator and the Board shall encourage 
     public comments, including oral comments and discussion 
     during the proceedings, that shall not be limited by an 
     insufficient or arbitrary time restriction. Public comments 
     shall be provided to the Board when received. The Board's 
     reports shall include written responses to significant 
     comments offered by members of the public to the Board.
       ``(5) Following Board meetings, the public shall be given 
     15 calendar days to provide additional comments for 
     consideration by the Board.''.
       (e) Operations.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) is 
     further amended by adding after subsection (h), as added by 
     subsection (d) of this section, the following:
       ``(i)(1) In carrying out its advisory activities, the Board 
     shall strive to avoid making policy determinations or 
     recommendations, and, in the event the Board feels compelled 
     to offer policy advice, shall explicitly distinguish between 
     scientific determinations and policy advice.
       ``(2) The Board shall clearly communicate uncertainties 
     associated with the scientific advice provided to the 
     Administrator.
       ``(3) The Board shall ensure that advice and comments 
     reflect the views of the members and

[[Page 15872]]

     shall encourage dissenting members to make their views known 
     to the public and the Administrator.
       ``(4) The Board shall conduct periodic reviews to ensure 
     that its advisory activities are addressing the most 
     important scientific issues affecting the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.''.

     SEC. 3. RELATION TO THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     shall be construed as supplanting the requirements of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

     SEC. 4. RELATION TO THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     shall be construed as supplanting the requirements of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed 
in part A of House Report 113-626, if offered by the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Stewart), or his designee, which shall be considered read and 
shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 1422.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Members of Congress have been asking for greater transparency from 
the EPA's Science Advisory Board for years, and the EPA Science 
Advisory Board Reform Act, we believe, addresses those concerns.
  Currently, the board is made up of 52 members appointed by the 
Administrator of the EPA to serve 3-year terms. The large majority of 
these members are affiliated with academic institutions, while private 
industry and other interested parties are unrepresented.
  The only State governments represented are California and Vermont, 
while tribal and local governments have no representation on the board. 
Under H.R. 1422, at least 10 percent of the board members will be from 
States, local governments, or tribal entities.
  The bill reinforces peer-review requirements and reduces conflicts of 
interest while providing opportunity for disinterested panelists to 
make their views known.
  The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act promises fairness, 
transparency, and independence to ensure unbiased advice is given to 
the EPA.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), and I ask unanimous consent that he 
be permitted to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1422, the EPA Science 
Advisory Board Reform Act. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Smith and Mr. 
Schweikert, for their intention to improve the EPA's Science Advisory 
Board, and I thank them for working with me on other legislation that 
passed the Science Committee in the House on a bipartisan basis. It is 
unfortunate that we could not be repeating that bipartisan 
collaboration today.
  My colleagues who support H.R. 1422 may describe this bill as an 
attempt to strengthen public participation in EPA's scientific review 
process, improve the process for selecting expert advisers, expand 
transparency requirements, and limit nonscientific policy advice within 
EPA's Science Advisory Board. All of these are good government 
principles that I agree with.
  If this bill achieved those goals, I would be here today supporting 
it. However, on close examination of its provisions, H.R. 1422 would 
not achieve these good government goals. Instead of improving the 
Science Advisory Board structure or operation, the bill before us today 
will likely limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives and 
further delay EPA's regulatory process.
  H.R. 1422 would make it easier for industry representatives to serve 
on a board, even if they have a financial conflict of interest. To be 
clear, and this is something with which I trust my Republican 
colleagues would agree, I am not opposed to industry experts 
participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer-review 
process at the EPA. In fact, their insight into processes and industry 
can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body.
  That being said, Congress should not be endorsing legislation that 
undermines longstanding ethics requirements and practices with the end 
result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on EPA's Science 
Advisory Board, and that is likely to be the result of this bill today.
  At the same time this bill eases the way for more industry members, 
the act also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the best and 
brightest from academia to serve because it would exclude from the 
board anyone who has participated in activities that were even 
indirectly reviewed by the EPA.
  This provision would disqualify some of the most qualified scientists 
because academic researchers frequently need to compete for research 
funds from the Federal Government, and that includes the EPA.
  Additionally, it appears H.R. 1422 would also significantly delay the 
work of the Science Advisory Board with new provisions that would 
require written responses to significant public comments following new 
public information-gathering sessions, a requirement that is 
duplicative because the board meetings are already open to the public 
and have time set aside for public comment. These provisions would 
simply result in more work without more resources and unlimited time to 
halt, derail, or slow EPA actions.
  Finally, this bill sets a quota for membership on the Scientific 
Advisory Board from State, local, or tribal governments, which could 
very well mean that more qualified experts would not be able to serve.
  EPA's science is tied to its mission, to protect public health and 
the environment through rational regulation. Scientific research, 
knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental to EPA's mission and 
inform its regulatory functions.
  The need for that expertise is why Congress created advisory bodies 
such as the Science Advisory Board in the first place, to provide 
independent advice on the science underpinning regulation, which in 
turn allows the EPA Administrator to make sound regulatory decisions.
  Instead of undermining the scientific advice EPA receives, we should 
be giving the Agency the tools they need to strengthen and improve the 
regulatory process with sound science.
  In closing, I want to again thank my colleagues, Mr. Stewart and Mr. 
Schweikert, for their efforts.
  This bill does not do what it needs to do. I want to quote from a 
letter I received from a coalition of organizations, including 
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Water Action, and more. The 
letter states:

       The bill shifts the current presumption against including 
     people with financial conflicts on SAB panels . . . The 
     bill's provisions are inconsistent with a set of nearly 
     universally accepted scientific principles to eliminate or 
     limit financial conflicts.

  I agree with this assessment of H.R. 1422, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in opposing this bill.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to 
also thank the ranking member, my friend from Oregon. We disagree on 
this bill, as it will become evident through this

[[Page 15873]]

debate today, but she has always been respectful and professional, and 
I appreciate that.
  The issues we are debating today are important, and the decisions we 
will make today are significant. There is a process that is broken, and 
it is through this bill that we cannot only improve that process, but 
also restore trust between the American people and the Federal 
Government.

                              {time}  1345

  If I could reemphasize what I just said, the process is broken. This 
is an opportunity for us to restore trust between the American people 
and the Federal Government that has fostered so much distrust of late.
  Established by Congress in 1978, the EPA's Science Advisory Board, or 
what we refer to as SAB, is intended to provide meaningful, balanced, 
and independent reviews of the science conducted and used by the 
Agency. Its members are selected by the EPA Administrator, and it plays 
an important role in reviewing everything from the EPA's research 
budget to individual chemical assessments.
  This panel is indispensable in critically reviewing the underlying 
science of virtually all major EPA regulatory activities. That is a 
tall order in recent years, especially given the fact that the Agency 
has pursued an overreaching, economically threatening agenda, creating 
an environment where politics and policies have taken the wheel from 
unbiased science.
  This bill contains basic, good government changes and draws upon 
noncontroversial provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee handbook, 
the EPA's own Peer Review Handbook, the National Academies' committee 
composition and conflict of interest policy, and even recommendations 
from the Science Committee testimony and other outside groups.
  It has widespread support from groups such as the National Chamber of 
Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm 
Bureau, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, the 
American Chemistry Council, the American Gas Association, Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship Council, Portland Cement Association, the 
American Forest and Paper Association, and I could go on and on with a 
long list of councils and associations that support this legislation.
  It makes important clarifying changes to the scope of SAB's purview 
and institutes commonsense reforms. I would like to emphasize this. You 
are going to hear this again and again today: commonsense reforms to 
improve transparency. How can you argue against that? It specifically 
builds upon the bipartisan agreement made to the SAB in the farm bill.
  H.R. 1422 would also facilitate meaningful public participation 
across all of the standing committees. Once again, let me emphasize 
that: it facilitates meaningful public participation. And let's be 
clear. The transparency and the public participation concerns addressed 
in this bill are not without merit.
  For example, in my own experience, during a hearing in the Science 
Committee last year, I was alarmed to hear from both SAB members and 
the chair of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and a 
State official testify that EPA's science advisers virtually never 
respond to public comments and, in many cases, they don't even read 
these public comments. Imagine the arrogance of a government committee 
that pretends to seek public comment and promises to consider those 
comments, and then to learn that they don't even read them, let alone 
consider what has been said. This bill would change that.
  This bill also provides clarity to the SAB member selection and 
disclosure process. Despite an existing requirement that these panels 
be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,'' EPA has 
systematically excluded State, local, and tribal entities and private 
sector scientists from serving as advisers.
  For example, last year EPA announced a new Hydraulic Fracturing 
Research Advisory Panel. Even though dozens of people with recent and 
direct experience with oil and gas technical developments were 
nominated, the EPA excluded nearly every one of them from serving on 
the panel.
  There are also a number of other unsettling Agency trends about how 
the EPA selects its supposedly independent advisers. For instance, 
according to the Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of 
the members of EPA's chartered SAB and Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee have directly received grants from the Agency, and that is 
only since the year 2000. These advisers served as principal or co-
investigators for EPA grants, totaling approximately $140 million. The 
EPA also frequently chooses panelists whose research is directly or 
indirectly under review.
  And finally, in addition, many of the SAB panelists have clearly 
taken sides or made public pronouncements on issues they are advising 
about. For example, roughly 40 percent of the current panel members 
reviewing the science behind upcoming EPA ozone standards have already 
made statements that the regulations should be more stringent.
  The issues identified in this bill seem to many as too specific and 
diving into the weeds, but credible peer review is critical to 
everything the EPA does. We may not be able to control all the EPA's 
regulatory overreach, but guaranteeing that there is an independent 
check whose sole focus is to provide unbiased, independent science is 
essential to the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I yield, I will place into the Record letters from various 
groups opposed to this bill, including the Union of Concerned 
Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Physicians for 
Social Responsibility, among many others.
  In addition, I will place into the Record the Administration's 
Statement of Administration Policy on the bill threatening a veto if 
the bill were to pass.

                                Union of Concerned Scientists,

                                 Cambridge, MA, November 17, 2014.
       Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists 
     strongly opposes the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 
     2013, H.R. 1422, set to be voted on by the House as early as 
     November 18. This bill will cripple the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's ability to protect public health informed 
     by the best available science.
       When he discussed his proposal last year, Rep. Chris 
     Stewart (UT) revealed the real purpose of his bill. He 
     attacked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 
     ``promulgating air quality regulations that could shut down 
     large swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled attacks 
     on the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job-
     killing climate regulations. . . .''
       This proposal will make it nearly impossible for the Board 
     to do the crucial independent evaluations of EPA scientific 
     analyses that enable the agency to protect public health. 
     This bill opens the door for more corporate influence on the 
     Board, because the bill directly stipulates that experts with 
     financial ties to corporations affected by SAB assessments 
     are ``not excluded.'' This signal likely will increase the 
     number of conflicted SAB panelists empowering companies to 
     delay the SAB's work for years, if not decades. It strikes at 
     the heart of the whole concept of independent reviews, and at 
     a time when the ability of corporations to influence policy 
     is already high.
       At the same time this bill encourages corporate experts to 
     join the SAB, it creates roadblocks for academic experts to 
     meaningfully participate by banning experts' participation in 
     ``advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve 
     review and evaluation of their own work.'' This effectively 
     turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head, with the 
     bizarre presumption that corporate experts with direct 
     financial interests are not conflicted while academics who 
     work on these issues are.
       The notion that a member of the SAB cannot participate in a 
     discussion that cites the member's own work is 
     counterproductive and goes far beyond the common-sense limits 
     imposed by the National Academies. Of course, a scientist 
     with expertise on topics the Science Advisory Board addresses 
     likely will have done peer-reviewed studies on that topic. 
     That makes the scientist's evaluation more valuable, not 
     less.
       The bill offers almost limitless opportunities for public 
     comment, opportunities that only benefit moneyed special 
     interests. For example, for each major advisory activity, the 
     Board must convene a public information-gathering session 
     ``to discuss the state of the science'' related to that 
     activity.

[[Page 15874]]

       It is possible, under this requirement, that the Board may 
     find itself repeatedly reexamining ``the state of the 
     science'' on climate change or the harmful effects of certain 
     toxins--each time it made an assessment that touched on 
     either climate change impacts or reducing air pollution.
       In addition, both the EPA, before it asks for the Board's 
     advice, and the Board itself, would be required to ``accept, 
     consider, and address'' public comments on the agency's 
     questions to the Board. As the SAB deliberates, it must also 
     encourage public comments ``that shall not be limited by an 
     insufficient or arbitrary time restriction.'' In effect, 
     these provisions turn a scientific evaluation into a public 
     hearing, even though EPA must already accept public input on 
     all its regulations.
       The Board is required to respond in writing to each 
     ``significant'' comment. In practice, it is difficult to see 
     how the Board could impose any deadlines on accepting 
     comment. Nor is it a reasonable expectation on the Board's 
     membership of pro bono experts.
       The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 
     implementing the law's mandates will cost the EPA about $2 
     million over a four-year period. These are funds that could 
     be put to much better use by a cash-strapped agency.
       This bill would not improve the work of the Board, and 
     would make it more difficult for the EPA to receive the 
     independent science advice it needs to do its work. We 
     strongly urge your opposition.
           Sincerely,
                                       Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,
             Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of 
     Concerned Scientists.
                                  ____

         BlueGreen Alliance; Center for Biological Diversity; 
           Center for Effective Government; Clean Water Action; 
           Communications Workers of America; Defenders of 
           Wildlife; Earthjustice; Environment America; 
           Environmental Defense Fund; International Union, United 
           Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers 
           of America (UAW); League of Conservation Voters; 
           Natural Resources Defense Council; Public Citizen; 
           Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC); 
           Southern Oregon Climate Action Now; Utility Workers 
           Union of America (UWUA); WE ACT for Environmental 
           Justice.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members 
     and supporters we strongly urge you to oppose the trio of 
     anti-EPA bills hitting the floor this week: the ``Secret 
     Science Reform Act of 2014'' (H.R. 4012), the ``EPA Science 
     Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013'' (H.R. 1422), and the 
     ``Promoting New Manufacturing Act'' (H.R. 4795). 
     Collectively, these misleadingly named bills would radically 
     diminish EPA's ability to protect public health. Under these 
     bills, EPA would be required to ignore significant science; 
     the Scientific Advisory Board would be required to ignore 
     conflicts of interest; and enforcement officials would be 
     required to ignore pollution emitted in violation of the law. 
     These bills are broadly written and would have damaging 
     impacts far in excess of what their sponsors will admit.
       The ``Secret Science Reform Act,'' H.R. 4012, is based on a 
     faulty premise. Its notion of ``secret science,'' based on 
     claims about studies of fine soot pollution conducted almost 
     two decades ago, is unfounded despite lengthy congressional 
     inquiries. The bill would deny EPA the ability to rely upon 
     peer-reviewed medical studies that involve commitments to 
     patient confidentiality, when the agency carries out its 
     statutory responsibilities to safeguard public health and the 
     environment. Further, this bill would effectively amend 
     numerous environmental statutes by forbidding EPA to use 
     certain kinds of studies in setting health standards. It 
     would also make it impossible for EPA to use many kinds of 
     economic models it routinely relies on because those models 
     are proprietary. This marks a radical departure from 
     longstanding practices. Its end result would be to make it 
     much more difficult to protect the public by forcing EPA to 
     ignore key scientific studies.
       H.R. 1422 would attack EPA's scientific process in a 
     different way. This bill would significantly weaken the 
     content and credibility of the Scientific Advisory Board 
     (SAB) reviews--a textbook example of making a government 
     program function poorly to the benefit of polluting 
     industries and at the expense of public health and 
     independent science. The bill will add unnecessary new 
     burdens on the SAB, distorting its mission and altering its 
     process with no benefit to EPA or the public. The worst 
     provision would mandate allowing the participation of 
     scientists with financial conflicts of interest, as long as 
     those conflicts are disclosed. This is inconsistent with a 
     set of nearly universally accepted scientific principles to 
     eliminate or limit financial conflicts. The bill also 
     significantly broadens the scope of the SAB and creates a 
     comment process that will add needless delay to the Board's 
     work. The result would be further stalling and undermining of 
     important public health, safety, and environmental 
     protections.
       Lastly, H.R. 4795 is a substantive attack on our nation's 
     right to clean air protections. It would grant amnesty from 
     national clean air health standards, create red tape and 
     cause unintended burdens to local businesses. The bill would 
     exacerbate air pollution nationwide, causing harm to public 
     health and making the jobs of state and local officials 
     harder to perform. Newly permitted industrial facilities 
     would be allowed to operate in violation of national health 
     standards, while other local businesses and local communities 
     would have to ``pick up the slack'' and be penalized for the 
     new facility's amnesty and pollution. In so doing, the bill 
     repeals a health safeguard in place for nearly 40 years under 
     the Clean Air Act, making it more difficult for states to 
     permit new facilities while also keeping their air clean.
       This legislation will obstruct the implementation and 
     enforcement of critical environmental statutes, undermine the 
     EPA's ability to consider and use science, and jeopardize 
     public health. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose these 
     bills.
           Sincerely,
       BlueGreen Alliance; Center for Biological Diversity; Center 
     for Effective Government; Clean Water Action; Communications 
     Workers of America; Defenders of Wildlife; Earthjustice; 
     Environment America; Environmental Defense Fund; 
     International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
     Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW); League of 
     Conservation Voters; Natural Resources Defense Council; 
     Public Citizen; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law 
     Center (SELC); Southern Oregon Climate Action Now; Utility 
     Workers Union of America (UWUA); WE ACT for Environmental 
     Justice.
                                  ____

                                                November 17, 2014.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned individuals and 
     organizations working on public health and science-informed 
     regulation strongly oppose H.R. 4012, the Secret Science 
     Reform Act, and H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board 
     Reform Act, up for a House vote as early as November 18.
       Both bills would severely undermine the ability of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use the best 
     available scientific evidence when making decisions regarding 
     the protection of public health and safety and the 
     environment.
       H.R. 4012, the erroneously named Secret Science Reform Act, 
     would tie the EPA's hands by restricting the information it 
     can use to develop protective regulations. The EPA could only 
     regulate based on publicly available scientific data. This 
     restriction would block the agency's use of many different 
     types of public health data, such as those for which public 
     release would violate privacy protections, or data from 
     corporations that are designated as confidential business 
     information.
       It also would restrict the use of scientific data that is 
     not ``reproducible.'' This provision seems to adopt a very 
     narrow view of scientific information solely based on 
     laboratory experiments. As major scientific societies 
     including the American Association for the Advancement of 
     Science (AAAS) have noted, such a restriction would eliminate 
     the use of most epidemiological and public health data, such 
     as those regarding the public health impacts of air 
     pollution, because these data are collected in long-term 
     studies following individuals longitudinally.
       Not only do privacy concerns arise, but such studies are 
     not inherently reproduced in the way a laboratory experiment 
     or a clinical trial may be. It would be unethical to 
     deliberately expose adults or children to air pollution 
     merely to determine whether the increased rates of asthma and 
     heart attacks caused by such exposures can be duplicated, or 
     to encourage teenagers to smoke to re-assess the toxic 
     effects of tobacco.
       H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would 
     greatly weaken the EPA's advisory process, ensuring that 
     recommendations from its independent Science Advisory Board 
     (SAB) will be dominated by corporate special interests. While 
     the bill has been improved by several amendments offered by 
     minority members of the House Science Committee, it still 
     remains unacceptable.
       This bill opens the door to increased corporate influence 
     on the Board, both by encouraging the EPA to accept more SAB 
     panelists with corporate ties, and disqualifying some of the 
     nation's leading experts.
       The bill's overly broad restriction that a member of the 
     SAB cannot participate in a discussion that cites the 
     member's own work is counterproductive, and goes far beyond 
     the common-sense limits imposed by the National Academies. Of 
     course, a scientist with expertise on topics the SAB 
     addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies and 
     other work on that topic. That makes the scientist's 
     evaluation more valuable, not less.
       Even worse, the bill requires the SAB to remain in an 
     endless loop soliciting public comment about the ``state of 
     the science'' touching on every major advisory activity it 
     undertakes and responding to nearly every comment before 
     moving forward, without being limited by any time 
     constraints. At

[[Page 15875]]

     best, the SAB will be reduced to busy work. At worst, the 
     SAB's assessments will address the concerns of corporations, 
     not the desires of citizens for science-informed regulation 
     that protects public health.
       These bills together will greatly impede the ability of 
     EPA, and potentially other agencies, to utilize the best 
     available science, independently reviewed, to inform 
     regulations crucial to public health and the environment.
       We strongly urge you to vote No on H.R. 4012 and H.R. 1422.
           Sincerely,
       Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned 
     Scientists; Annie Appleseed Project; Breast Cancer Action; 
     Center for Medical Consumers; Institute for Ethics and 
     Emerging Technologies; National Center for Health Research; 
     National Physicians Alliance; Our Bodies, Ourselves; 
     Physicians for Social Responsibility; Public Citizen; The TMJ 
     Association; Woodymatters; Susan F. Wood, PhD, Associate 
     Professor, Director, Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, The 
     George Washington University, Milken Institute School of 
     Public Health; John H. Powers, MD, Associate Clinical 
     Professor of Medicine, The George Washington University 
     School of Medicine.
                                  ____



                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 2014.
     Re Oppose H.R. 1422, H.R. 4012, and H.R. 4795: An Attack on 
         Scientific Integrity and Public Health.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters 
     (LCV) works to turn environmental values into national 
     priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National 
     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters 
     nationwide, and the media.
       LCV urges you to vote NO on H.R. 1422. H.R. 4012, and H.R. 
     4795.
       H.R. 1422, the so-called EPA Science Advisory Board Reform 
     Act would undermine the ability of the Science Advisory Board 
     to provide independent scientific advice to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA). This bill would allow industry 
     participation on the Scientific Advisory Board, while 
     preventing subject experts from being included. Additionally, 
     new burdens imposed on the Board would needlessly delay 
     necessary public health and environmental protections.
       H.R. 4012, the so-called Secret Science Reform Act of 2014 
     would endanger public health by preventing the EPA from using 
     the best available science. The bill contains favorable 
     exemptions for industry and would severely restrict the 
     health studies that the EPA is able to use by prohibiting the 
     use of peer-reviewed studies with confidential health 
     information. These types of studies are the basis for the 
     best research on pollution's effects on people. This 
     legislation cripples the EPA's ability to develop effective 
     public health safeguards.
       H.R. 4795, the so-called Promoting New Manufacturing Act is 
     an attack on clean air protections. This bill would create 
     unclear procedural requirements and loopholes that could 
     allow newly permitted industrial facilities to be exempted 
     from the most recent national air quality standards set by 
     the EPA. This legislation effectively creates amnesty for new 
     facilities while delaying the permitting process and 
     threatening public health.
       We urge you to REJECT H.R. 1422, H.R. 4012, and H.R. 4795, 
     a collective attack on scientific integrity and public 
     health. We will strongly consider including votes on these 
     bills in the 2014 Scorecard.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gene Karpinski,
     President.
                                  ____


                   Statement of Administration Policy


        H.R. 1422--EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013

         (Rep. Stewart, R-UT, and 21 cosponsor, Nov. 17, 2014)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1422, which would 
     affect the ability of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) to 
     form panels and perform its essential functions. The SAB, 
     along with other functions, reviews the quality and adequacy 
     of certain scientific and technical information used by EPA 
     or proposed as the basis for EPA regulations. Therefore, it 
     is imperative that the SAB be composed of the most 
     knowledgeable scientific and technical experts available. The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs Federal 
     advisory committees such as the SAB, provides for balanced 
     panels and subcommittees that include experts with diverse 
     backgrounds who represent wide-ranging perspectives.
       H.R. 1422 would negatively affect the appointment of 
     experts and would weaken the scientific independence and 
     integrity of the SAB. For example, the bill would impose a 
     hiring quota for SAB members based on employment by a State, 
     local, or tribal government as opposed to scientific 
     expertise. Further, it would prohibit a SAB member from 
     participating in ``advisory activities that directly or 
     indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work.'' 
     Determining the practical meaning of ``indirect'' involvement 
     will be difficult and consequently problematic to implement. 
     The provisions on appointment of experts to the SAB and 
     various other requirements could preclude the nomination of 
     scientists with significant expertise in their fields.
       H.R. 1422 also would add burdensome requirements on the SAB 
     with respect to solicitation of and response to public 
     comments, above and beyond those imposed by FACA. These new 
     requirements would saddle the SAB with workload that would 
     impair its ability to carry out its mandate. Further, H.R. 
     1422 would add an unnecessary, burdensome, and costly layer 
     of requirements for hazard and risk assessments without 
     defining the scope of these requirements and absent 
     recognition that many high profile assessments already are 
     reviewed by the SAB.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 1422, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Science 
Committee.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the 
ranking member.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory 
Board Reform Act. H.R. 1422 is a continuation of the majority's anti-
science agenda. It benefits no one but the industry, and it harms 
public health.
  The bill before us today ``reforms'' EPA's Science Advisory Board not 
for the better, but for the worse. The supposed intent of H.R. 1422 is 
to improve the process of selecting advisers to serve on the Agency's 
advisory board, but, in reality, H.R. 1422 will allow the board to be 
stacked with industry-affiliated representatives while making it more 
difficult for the experts from academia to serve on the board.
  The role of the board is to provide independent scientific analysis 
and advice to the EPA, which includes reviewing the quality and 
relevance of scientific information used as the basis for regulations.
  My Republican colleagues seem to have a fundamental distrust of 
scientists from our Nation's universities because these researchers, 
the ones with the most relevant expertise to EPA's mission of 
protecting public health, are denied the opportunity to provide EPA 
with their advice under H.R. 1422. It is difficult to understand how 
anyone could object to the most expert academics in the country being 
called on to offer their expertise to EPA. Who would know better 
whether EPA had mischaracterized the science on an issue than the 
people who are leaders in their respective fields?
  The board is supposed to be composed of experts, including those who 
may have, literally, ``written the book'' on a matter. What is the 
alternative? Should we find people to serve who are less expert?
  Equally troubling, H.R. 1422 goes out of its way to guarantee that 
industry-affiliated experts are the dominant voice on the board of 
experts. An expert with an industry association is far more likely to 
find that the science they are asked to review will have a financial 
impact on the employer. Academic scientists do not have such financial 
conflicts of interest with the board's advice or EPA's actions.
  To be clear, I am not arguing that industry should have no 
representation on EPA's Science Advisory Board. Their insight is 
valuable. But I do not support stacking the board with industry 
representatives, as would be the outcome if this bill passes.
  Another goal of H.R. 1422, as stated by our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, is to ``improve the science that goes into EPA 
regulations.'' H.R. 1422 falls shorts of that goal as well and, 
instead, weakens and delays the scientific review process, putting the 
health of every American at risk.
  As a former nurse, I cannot support legislation that endangers public 
health, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1422.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this bill came out of committee 
without a single Democratic vote.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I recognize the gentleman from Texas, I would like to respond 
briefly, if I could, to the minority

[[Page 15876]]

Member, some of her comments regarding this bill.
  The bill very clearly does not allow for the SAB to be stacked, to 
use her phrase, with the industry experts. I have the bill before me. 
It is only a couple of pages long. It is very simple. I would ask 
anyone to show me the language where it allows for the SAB to be 
stacked with industry experts.
  All we are asking is that there be some balance to those experts who 
are asked and that there, further, be transparency, and that we 
understand who is selected, why they were selected, and why others were 
excluded from this, just like, by the way, we are not asking that those 
scientists who have EPA-funded backgrounds be excluded. We are not 
saying that they are conflicted to the point where they couldn't 
participate. We recognize that they have expertise that could help in 
this process.
  But we also are asking, on the other hand, that we recognize that 
there are industry experts who are currently being excluded from this 
because of their background. Of the 51 members of the current SAB, only 
three--only three--have any industry expertise, and we are losing 
valuable insight and valuable guidance because we don't include them in 
the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems that some of the things that we are hearing 
from the opponents of the bill are that the committee is going to be 
stacked with people from industry, from the States. It is as if the 
people from industry can't be trusted, people from States can't be 
trusted.
  Then we hear the theme that there was not a single Democratic vote to 
get this bill out. It almost sounds like the Affordable Care Act to me 
where people--recent revelations are one of the proponents has said 
that Americans were too stupid to understand, so that's why the 
Affordable Care Act had to be passed, and it couldn't have transparency 
because it would never have passed Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1422. The Science 
Advisory Board, called the SAB--I guess we would say this is a ``sad 
SAB story''--was established by Congress to review the science behind 
the EPA's decisions and to advise Congress and the EPA on science and 
technical matters. Unfortunately, the SAB is no longer functioning as 
designed, without the impartiality and expertise needed to be an 
effective arbiter of EPA's use of science in its regulations.
  Why no transparency, Mr. Speaker? That is what we have got to ask. 
The American public deserves transparency. These are taxpayer dollars 
we are talking about.
  The membership of the SAB has excluded individuals from the State 
agencies and private sector. Again, I would remind us that these are 
the people who build communities and industries in neighborhoods, in 
cities, in towns, and in States.
  Can you say 10th Amendment?
  States have all the rights reserved. They are the building block. 
Communities, citizens, industry is the building block of this country. 
This is a country that has a government, not a government that has a 
country.
  So, as the EPA continues its regulatory assault on America's economy, 
it is critically important that Congress act to improve the quality of 
EPA's use of science in its decisions. This bill, this legislation, 
will do just that. It will improve the quality of SAB's membership. It 
will increase public participation in its scientific reviews. It will 
allow for dissenting opinions among its members and limit the SAB's 
activities to questions of science, not policy.

                              {time}  1400

  And I want to say thank you to Congressman Stewart and Chairman Smith 
for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. It is very 
important that we get on top of this. The American people deserve 
transparency, they deserve a seat at the table, and they deserve 
nothing less.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from 
California, I just want to respond that, certainly, we on this side of 
the aisle agree with the goal of transparency. However, transparency 
does not mean letting industry, people with a financial interest, serve 
by disclosing it. That is not what transparency means.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bera), who is not only a physician but a great member of the Science 
Committee.
  Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague 
from Oregon for her leadership on the Science Committee as well as our 
ranking member from Texas for her leadership.
  But I have to rise in opposition of H.R. 1442, the EPA Science 
Advisory Board Reform Act, and here is why: it is absolutely accurate 
that the best science and the best advice comes from multiple 
perspectives. You certainly need the perspective of industry, but you 
have to independently have that perspective of science as well.
  You need a board that is unbiased, that is unfettered, that is 
transparent, that is looking at it from the perspective of advising 
Congress and giving us the best possible advice because our sole job is 
to protect our citizens, to provide that best advice to our citizens. 
That is what the advisory board is designed to do and should do.
  But it requires a delicate balance. It can't be stacked in one 
direction or the other direction. You have to create that transparency 
that allows for vibrant, unfettered dialogue.
  And I say this as a scientist, as someone who has been on advisory 
boards.
  Now, the importance of what the EPA does and what advice they provide 
Congress is incredibly important. I will just share: I am a lifelong 
Californian. I grew up in southern California. I grew up at a time 
where I could actually see the air that I was breathing, where there 
were days that they ordered us to stay inside.
  It is through legislation, it is through working with industry, it is 
through looking at science that you cannot only both protect our 
citizens, protect our environment, but also advance industry.
  I applaud the Science Committee and Chairman Smith for taking up this 
debate. But let's do it in a way that not only is built on sound 
science, is built on evidence, but also allows multiple perspectives, 
not just from one side or the other side, not just from one group or 
another group, but creates this context where we can have vibrant 
debate, where we can get the best and most sound science, and we can 
get the best advice, which is what this group is supposed to do. They 
are supposed to advise Congress and allow us to do our job, which is to 
protect the citizens of the United States.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to some of the comments made on the other side of the aisle.
  All of us would be concerned if we thought we were getting advice 
that had been conflicted financially. I share that concern. In fact, 
that was one of the primary reasons that we wrote this bill. This bill, 
to say it again, seeks for transparency and it seeks for openness.
  If you are worried about industry experts being stacked on the SABs 
and providing biased opinion and expertise, I would ask you to give me 
an example of this. Because I can give you an example of exactly the 
opposite happening.
  I will say it once again: 60 percent of the current Members of the 
SAB have $140 million in direct government grants. Now, that is a clear 
conflict. And yet once again, we are still willing to work with that. 
We are not seeking to exclude those members; we are simply seeking for 
transparency and openness, and for that same standard to be applied to 
industry experts as well who could help us with their background and 
their expertise.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Utah (Mr. Stewart) for introducing H.R. 1442, the EPA Science Advisory 
Board Reform Act. I rise in strong support of this piece of 
legislation.
  As Mr. Stewart said, this bill will increase transparency and give 
Americans more opportunities for public

[[Page 15877]]

input and participation on Science Advisory Board activities.
  I believe this legislation builds on the progress that we have made 
on improving the Science Advisory Board.
  I represent a district where agriculture is the economic driver and a 
way of life. So it concerns me when I learned that farmers did not even 
have a seat at the table on the EPA Science Advisory Board.
  And the EPA Science Advisory Board, Mr. Speaker, considers rules that 
impact agriculture.
  By working together on the farm bill, my colleague Representative 
Peterson and I were able to ensure that farmers have a stronger voice 
when it comes to EPA regulations.
  For the first time, agriculture interests will be represented within 
the SAB. I can report that EPA has made progress in standing up this 
ag-related committee, and I believe the voices and input provided by 
farmers and producers to the EPA will make for more commonsense policy.
  H.R. 1422 will provide the public with more access to scientific 
information and more opportunities to comment on board actions.
  This legislation also ensures that State and local government 
officials would be part of the Science Advisory Board. And as my 
colleague alluded to earlier, we cannot have a Science Advisory Board 
made up primarily of individuals who receive grant funding from the 
Federal Government to make decisions that affect them.
  Again, I rise in support of this bill. I thank my colleague from 
Utah.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I am happy to yield 
4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). I also want to 
mention that not only is Mr. Holt a scientist and a great Member of 
Congress but also has been named, starting in February of 2015, the new 
CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Oregon. I rise in 
opposition to this legislation, H.R. 1422, as yet another attempt to 
gut the EPA and to reform it into an advocate for industry.
  Now, the proponents make claims that sound noble and virtuous, like 
increasing transparency and participation.
  But make no mistake: the bill is simply a way to increase the role 
and influence of special interests, to tip the scales in favor of these 
special interests, and to decrease actual scientific input into the EPA 
decisions and rulemaking.
  Let me try to explain what is wrong here. Take, for example, the 
section in this bill that limits participation of board members who 
have relevant expertise.
  Now, EPA has an advisory board whose job it is to review scientific 
and technical information being used as a basis for agency regulations. 
However, section 2 of this bill states: ``Board members may not 
participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve 
review and evaluation of their own work.''
  Now, what does that worthy-sounding clause mean? Here is how it has 
been explained to me. If the EPA board member is a leading scientist in 
a field and has published works that are well cited by other scientists 
and works that would be used to establish the scientific findings 
affecting possible regulations, that board member would be prohibited 
from reviewing any such materials before the board related to her or 
his expertise because it draws on the scientific work of that person.
  Now, I realize Congress sometimes has trouble dealing with expertise, 
but this bill is a solution in search of a problem. The EPA advisory 
board does and should use science; not industry science, not government 
science--science.
  Science works so well and provides the most reliable knowledge 
because it is based on evidence, the validity of which is determined by 
other scientists in the free exchange of information. Expertise and 
influence of a claim in science and its application shouldn't be 
determined by the highest bidder or the politically most powerful.
  The science should be allowed to operate. This restricts it or would 
restrict it if this were to become law.
  Now, to make this bill even worse, while the bill would exclude 
experts advising in areas of their expertise, it would allow people 
with corporate or special-interest bias to affect the rulemaking if 
they only state their affiliation.
  Now, while it sounds good to say you are increasing transparency, in 
reality this simply strengthens the role of special interests--biased 
interests--in the process.
  I urge all Members to carefully review the language and think about 
these implications. I think they will come to a decision to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. STEWART. Well, once again, I just have to respond to some of the 
things that the opposition is saying.
  This is essentially their argument: we think it is okay that 60 
percent of SAB members have $140 million in direct government grants, 
and we think it is okay that those same members are then allowed to 
provide their own peer review of their own work. That is okay.
  I think it is very commonsensical to realize there are inherent 
objections and inherent conflicts in allowing that sort of structure to 
continue to exist.
  It is not gutting the EPA, as was claimed, to ask to increase 
transparency. It is not gutting the EPA to ask for balance. That is all 
this bill does.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Harris), my good friend.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for 
allowing me to speak on this bill on the floor. As the body may know, 
the gentleman from Utah succeeded me as chairman of that committee. We 
had numerous hearings about the EPA Science Advisory Board. So I am 
glad that one of the results of those years of hearings was H.R. 1422, 
and I rise to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope America is watching. The opponents of this bill 
clearly and simply believe that people who work for the government know 
best.
  We have heard 60 percent of the Science Advisory Board works for the 
government. They received millions and millions of dollars in grants 
from the EPA. They work for the government. The other side wants 
America to believe that because they work for the government they know 
better.
  Mr. Speaker, I did science, and I had an academic appointment. You 
know, the joke was that people who can, do, and people who can't, 
teach; that people who don't really know how to do something end up in 
an academic institution and end up teaching. I have got to tell you, 
there was some truth to that.
  What this bill does, it says that the Scientific Advisory Board ought 
to be made up of more than just academics because that is really who 
makes up the board now. It actually ought to be made up of people who 
are in the field.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, you know that some of the corporations 
who are affected by the EPA hire the best scientists they can because 
they have to deal with the EPA, and those scientific minds, in fact, 
work in the private sector. They don't work for government.
  What is wrong with a balanced approach? The gentleman from California 
said we should be unbiased, unfettered, and transparent. That is what 
the Science Advisory Board ought to be.
  How can you be unbiased if you come up with the wrong conclusion, the 
Science Advisory Board? You are biting the hand that feeds you. Because 
60 percent of those scientists derive their grants from the EPA.
  There is no way they can be unbiased.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. STEWART. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, they are neither unbiased nor unfettered. We 
know fully and truly, as the gentleman from Texas said, because of the 
revelations of Mr. Gruber, that transparency is not a major objective 
of the administration. And I am afraid that has filtered down to the 
EPA.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1422 makes sense. The best advice is from a 
balanced

[[Page 15878]]

group of advisers. It is unbalanced at the EPA now. This bill will 
provide some balance. I encourage the body to pass H.R. 1422.

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to respond, with all due respect, to my colleagues who 
are promoting this bill and asking for balance.
  On the contrary, what this bill achieves is not balance because, as 
explained, under this bill, people who are employed by the industry 
with a financial conflict of interest can serve as long as they 
disclose their conflict.
  That is in contrast to current practice, which is biased, which is 
balanced by membership, but people with financial conflicts of interest 
do not currently serve on this Science Advisory Board.
  Just to clarify, it isn't just that people who are employed by 
industry with a financial conflict of interest will be able to serve; 
under this bill, people who receive some type of grant cannot 
participate.
  Now, just to clarify, these are not government employees. These are 
employees of research institutions, universities, who may have received 
some government grant funding. They are not employed by the government. 
They are not government employees, and that is a big distinction. They 
are not beholden to any particular government agency, so that is the 
big difference.
  I agree that we should have balance and transparency, but 
unfortunately, this bill takes us in the wrong direction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Oregon has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee, I would very quickly like to make a point. 
Once again, all we are seeking is fairness and transparency, and the 
opposition is claiming that it is okay for government-sponsored and -
granted scientists to sit on this board.
  In fact, it is okay that 60 percent of them have tens of millions of 
dollars of government funding, but it is not okay for anyone from the 
industry, and it is completely transparent how unfair that standard 
would be.
  The second point I would make is this: we are not claiming that 
either of them should be forbidden to serve on these boards. We are 
just asking that they disclose those financial agreements and let the 
American people decide, and that certainly seems to be a fair standard 
and hardly the minimum that we could ask.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my good friend.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of the legislation, 
the gentleman from Utah, for the excellent job that he has done in 
preparing this legislation and bringing it to the body.
  If you were to go with me into my district in Tennessee--19 counties, 
10,000 square miles--one of the things that you would hear in every 
community discussion is a certain amount of disdain for Federal 
agencies.
  Now, we all expect we are going to hear about not liking the IRS, but 
the number one agency in my district to dislike, to be frustrated with, 
to want to get control of, to reform is the EPA, and that is because 
whether you are a small business owner or a painter or a manufacturer 
or a farmer who is growing food to go on the table, you get hassled by 
the EPA with all sorts of frivolous and nonsensical rules and 
regulations and interpretations.
  Quite frankly, the American people are tired of it, and they look at 
us and they say, ``Tell me what you are going to do about it.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, today is a day that, yes, indeed, we can do 
something about this and a component of it, the Science Advisory 
Board--isn't it so interesting that these agencies create this tangled 
web of different boards and advisory capacities, and it is all to 
insulate their cronies, and it is all to help them shield millions of 
taxpayer dollars, money coming out of the pockets of hardworking 
taxpayers, that are going to their cronies, who are receiving these 
grants.
  The American people are saying, ``Stop it. Get it under control. Get 
a handle on this.'' This is one of the ways that we do it.
  The chairman has spoken eloquently about the membership and the 
makeup of the Science Advisory Board, the cronyism that is taking place 
there, and the need for it to stop, the ability to have these conflicts 
of interest brought out of smoke-filled rooms and moved into the 
transparency of sunlight and knowledge of the American people. It is a 
great disinfectant. It is time for it to be put on the EPA, and 
certainly, H.R. 1422 is a great way to go about that.
  We wouldn't even be here discussing this today and there would be no 
need at all for H.R. 1422 if the EPA were to follow their own peer-
review handbook, but I guess Grubergate has gone governmentwide. What 
we are seeing is they are all trying to find ways to squirrel this away 
and to hide and to not have that transparency.
  It is time to pass this legislation. It is time to bring transparency 
to the process.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEWART. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, there are three things that 
we should keep in mind. The current content or makeup of the SAB is 
somewhere between 51 and 52 members because there are some in 
transition as new members come and go. Of those, let's say, 52, only 
nine are nonuniversity background, and of those, only five and 
sometimes six represent industry.
  The industry experts have much to offer. If you don't think that, 
say, for example, with the hydraulic fracking board that that 
technology is changing rapidly, it certainly is, and we need to take 
advantage of that.
  The second thing I would say is public comment. The American people 
are smart, and the American people are those that are most affected by 
some of the standards and the rules that the EPA would suggest. We 
should listen to them, and this bill allows a process where they can be 
listened to.
  Finally, the third thing, we are requesting that 10 percent--a mere 
10 percent of these board members come from State, local, or tribal 
governments. That hardly seems like a bar that is too high to cross in 
getting input from lay States and localities.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bill before us today does undertake the laudable goal of 
improving transparency at the EPA.
  However, as I stated previously and as my colleagues mentioned, this 
bill, as written, does not accomplish that goal; instead, H.R. 1422 
will increase the influence of industry on EPA decisionmaking, 
including industry members with a financial conflict of interest, while 
reducing the role of qualified academic researchers in helping to guide 
regulatory action that is based on sound science.
  The Union of Concerned Scientists said:

       At the same time, this bill encourages corporate experts to 
     join the SAB. It creates roadblocks for academic experts to 
     meaningfully participate by banning experts' participation 
     and advising activities that directly or indirectly involve 
     review and evaluation of their own work.
       This effectively turns the idea of conflict of interest on 
     its head with the bizarre presumption that corporate experts 
     with direct financial interests are not affected, while 
     academics who work on these issues are.

  Breast Cancer Action wrote:

       This bill's overly broad restriction, that a member of the 
     SAB cannot participate in a discussion that cites the 
     member's own work, is counterproductive and goes far beyond 
     the commonsense limits imposed by the National Academies.
       Of course, a scientist with expertise on topics that SAB 
     addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies and 
     other work on that topic. That makes the scientist's 
     evaluation more valuable, not less.


[[Page 15879]]


  Mr. Speaker, we can and should work together to improve EPA's 
approach to reviewing the science underpinning regulations, but this 
legislation will only damage and delay the process and not bring us the 
transparency my colleagues seek.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEWART. Could I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop), my comrade.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity of 
coming here and talking about this issue.
  My relationship with the Environmental Protection Agency has been 
infrequent, thankfully, but it has also not necessarily been successful 
or positive. In an issue that dealt specifically with my hometown and 
county, to be very honest, the science that was used by the 
Environmental Protection Agency to make the decision was flawed.
  The State clearly showed that it was flawed; yet that did not make a 
difference in their ultimate decision, which led me to believe that the 
decision was perhaps more politically motivated than it was 
scientifically motivated.
  I realize this advisory board, though, is in place to try to mitigate 
against those circumstances taking place, but if that advisory board is 
going to work, it has to have the balance of input that is necessary 
for that.
  I am frustrated that out of the 50-plus members of this board, only 
two have backgrounds in State and local governments and those from only 
specific States. This board desperately needs that kind of input from 
those entities that have a day-to-day working relationship with these 
issues.
  If that is not there, if that is not remedied, then the board itself 
is going to be flawed, and it is not going to fulfill the purpose for 
which it was designed.
  I fully support this bill because this advisory board has an effort 
and a job to fill to mitigate problems before those problems develop, 
and if it is not an effective board, then we should either reform it, 
as this bill tries to do, or we should eliminate it, but it can be 
reformed. It should be reformed. This is a step to actually reform it, 
to make sure that there is better input for better decisions to be 
made.
  I congratulate the gentleman from my home State of Utah for coming up 
with a bill that solves a real problem and does it in a fair and 
professional way.
  Mr. STEWART. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, but 
before I do, though, I would like to enter into the Record the letters 
from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others that I mentioned in my 
previous testimony.

                                               Chamber of Commerce


                              of the United States of America,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2014.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation representing the interests of more than three 
     million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as 
     well as state and local chambers and industry associations, 
     and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending 
     America's free enterprise system, supports H.R. 1422, the 
     ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.'' This bill 
     would help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB), 
     which directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) on scientific and technical issues, is unbiased 
     and transparent in performing its duties.
       The bill would establish requirements that SAB members are 
     qualified experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of 
     bias are disclosed, that the views of members--including 
     dissenting members--are available to the public, and that the 
     public has the opportunity to participate in the advisory 
     activities of the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA 
     relies on SAB reviews and studies to support new regulations, 
     standards, guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions, 
     the actions of the SAB must be transparent and accountable. 
     This is a critical safeguard to assure the public that the 
     data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically sound and 
     unbiased.
       The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the 
     transparency and trustworthiness of scientific and technical 
     reviews that EPA relies on to justify its actions. The 
     American public must have confidence that the scientific and 
     technical data driving regulatory action can be trusted. 
     Accordingly, the Chamber supports H.R. 1422.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____



                    American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2014.
     Chairman Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing on behalf of the American 
     Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest general farm 
     organization. We have reviewed H.R. 1422, The Science 
     Advisory Board Reform Act. AFBF strongly supports this 
     legislation and is committed to working with you in pressing 
     for its swift consideration.
       The Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) should be a critical 
     part of the scientific foundation of EPA's regulatory 
     process. Rather than promoting fairness, transparency and 
     independence to ensure unbiased scientific advice, EPA has 
     failed to follow its own Peer Review Handbook and used its 
     position to silence dissenting scientific experts. A weak and 
     partial SAB undermines public trust and hurts the quality of 
     regulatory decisions. American Farm Bureau Federation 
     supports H.R. 1422 because Farmers and Ranchers deserve good 
     governance and regulations based on meaningful scientific 
     review.
       H.R. 1422 reforms the SAB process by strengthening public 
     participation, improving the process of selecting expert 
     advisors, reducing conflicts of interest and enhancing 
     transparency. The legislation draws from EPA's own Peer 
     Review Handbook and recommendations from the Bipartisan 
     Policy Center to urge sensible reforms. H.R. 1422 improves 
     the review process and makes the SAB a more useful tool in 
     regulatory decision making.
       H.R. 1422 reinforces the SAB process as a tool that can 
     help policymakers with complex issues while preventing EPA 
     from muzzling impartial scientific advice. This legislation 
     deserves strong, bipartisan support. We applaud your 
     leadership in this effort and will continue to work with you 
     to ensure passage of H.R. 1422.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                   April 10, 2013.
     Hon. Chris Stewart,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment Committee on Science, 
         Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing on behalf of the American 
     Alliance for Innovation (AAI), a large and diverse coalition 
     of trade associations representing a broad spectrum of the 
     American economy.
       It is paramount that chemicals and metals producers, 
     manufacturers, distributors, importers, users, and consumers 
     have confidence that there is a transparent federal chemical 
     management system in place that is both grounded in sound 
     science and will deliver timely safety decisions. Oversight 
     of the safe production and use of chemicals affects us all, 
     which is why we support your efforts to improve the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science Advisory 
     Board (SAB) and its committees.
       The SAB is a critical part of the EPA's quality control 
     process that was established to ensure that the Agency 
     produces credible information to help guide regulatory 
     decisions at all levels of government. We all agree, 
     therefore, that the SAB must provide meaningful, balanced, 
     and independent reviews of the science conducted and used by 
     EPA, and we support advancing your bill, H.R. 1422 (the ``EPA 
     Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013'') in this 
     Congress.
       We are encouraged to see that your legislation takes into 
     account public policy recommendations from the National 
     Academy of Sciences and the Bipartisan Policy Council, as 
     well as input that the Committee has received from numerous 
     experts and stakeholder groups. H.R. 1422 will greatly 
     enhance the current peer review process in many important 
     ways by strengthening policies to address conflicts of 
     interest, while at the same time ensuring that a wide range 
     of scientific perspectives are represented on panels. The 
     bill will also increase the utility of SAB panels by 
     improving the process for public engagement and ensuring that 
     scientific concerns are clearly addressed and communicated.
       We are committed to working with you and the Members of the 
     Science Committee to move this legislation forward, and we 
     urge all members of Congress to support its passage.
           Sincerely,
         Adhesive and Sealant Council; Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates 
           Research Council; American Architectural Manufacturers 
           Association; American Chemistry Council; American Coke 
           & Coal Chemicals Institute; American Farm Bureau 
           Federation; American Fiber Manufacturers Association; 
           American Forest & Paper Association;

[[Page 15880]]

           American Gas Association; American Road & 
           Transportation Builders Association; American Wood 
           Council; Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association; 
           Corn Refiners Association; CropLife America; Fashion 
           Jewelry & Accessories Trade Association.
         Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc.; Institute 
           of Makers of Explosives; National Association of 
           Chemical Distributors; National Association of 
           Manufacturers; National Oilseed Processors Association; 
           National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.; Nickel Institute; 
           Oregon Women In Timber; Pine Chemicals Association, 
           Inc.; Portland Cement Association; Responsible Industry 
           for a Sound Environment; The Fertilizer Institute; The 
           Vinyl Institute; Treated Wood Council.
                                  ____

                                                  Small Business &


                                     Entrepreneurship Council,

                                    Vienna, VA, November 17, 2014.
     Hon. Chris Stewart,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Stewart: The Small Business & 
     Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) is pleased to support 
     H.R. 1422, the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 
     2013.''
       H.R. 1422 reforms the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) and its subpanels by 
     strengthening public participation, improving the process for 
     selecting expert advisors, expanding transparency 
     requirements, and limiting nonscientific policy advice. The 
     reforms proposed by H.R. 1422 are especially critical given 
     the growing impact of EPA's regulations on America's small 
     business sector, and the self-serving science used as the 
     basis to advance controversial rulemakings.
       H.R. 1422 will restore balance and independence to the 
     scientific advisory process at EPA. The bill addresses key 
     concerns with the SAB, such as placing limitations on its 
     members who receive environmental research grants, applying 
     conflict of interest standards, and ensuring balance on the 
     board's membership. These are common sense reforms that will 
     strengthen SAB's integrity and work.
       SBE Council and its Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS) 
     are dedicated to reforming the regulatory system to ensure 
     small businesses and entrepreneurs operate and compete under 
     rational rules. H.R. 1422 is an important step that will 
     enable a more rationale and friendly environment for U.S. 
     entrepreneurship.
       SBE Council looks forward to working with your office to 
     advance this important piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Karen Kerrigan,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2014.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives: The National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in 
     the United States representing small and large manufacturers 
     in every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to 
     support H.R. 1422 (Rep. Stewart, UT-R), the EPA Science 
     Advisory Act of 2013. H.R. 1422 would modernize the policies 
     and procedures governing the Science Advisory Board (SAB) of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that the 
     SAB is best equipped to provide independent, transparent and 
     balanced reviews of the science the EPA uses to guide its 
     regulatory decisions.
       Manufacturers support policies that favor markets, adhere 
     to sound principles of science and risk assessment and are 
     informed by a public rulemaking process that is open and 
     inclusive. The work of the SAB, which serves a quality 
     control function for the science the EPA uses to justify new 
     regulations, must be completely neutral. Any appearance of 
     bias, however slight, could undermine the EPA's mission to 
     protect public health and welfare.
       H.R. 1422 would strengthen the SAB by limiting conflicts of 
     interest, encouraging public comment, prohibiting panel 
     members from peer reviewing their own work, and ensuring that 
     the makeup of SAB panels reflects the diversity of views 
     among federal, state, local and tribal experts. H.R. 1422 
     would implement provisions and recommendations from the 
     National Academy of Sciences, the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act, and the EPA's own peer-review handbook.
       As the costs of environmental regulations escalate, the 
     scientific justification for those regulations must be sound. 
     H.R. 1422 is a strong step in the right direction. 
     Manufacturers urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 1422.
           Sincerely,

                                               Ross Eisenberg,

                                                   Vice President,
                                      Energy and Resources Policy.

  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, thank you for considering my bill, H.R. 
1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, and I yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  To reiterate what has been said multiple times here, this legislation 
addresses how the EPA is systematically silencing voices of dissent on 
the Science Advisory Board, ignoring calls for independence and 
balanced participation, and preventing the board from responding to 
congressional requests.
  Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex 
issues. However, when inconvenient scientific conclusions are 
disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion 
becomes impossible, and that is certainly what we have seen.
  The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act addresses these 
shortcomings by strengthening public participation and public comment 
opportunities and improving the makeup of the Science Advisory Board 
and its subpanels.
  The bill reinforces peer review requirements and reduces conflicts of 
interest. It provides opportunities for the dissenting panelists to 
make their views known and requires communication of uncertainties and 
scientific findings and conclusions.
  The Science Advisory Board Reform Act promotes fairness, 
transparency, and independence to ensure unbiased scientific advice. 
Surely, that is something that we could ask for the American people. 
Surely, that is something that the opposition could support. In fact, 
surely, that is something that the White House would support.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this matter, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Chris Stewart, 
former Chairman of the Science Committee's Environment Subcommittee, 
for his hard work on this important piece of legislation. H.R. 1422, 
The Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures balanced and transparent 
review of regulatory science.
  Specifically, it strengthens the Board's independence so that the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot further its regulatory 
ambitions under the guise of science.
  Costly regulations often lead to a loss of jobs and higher 
electricity bills and gasoline prices for Americans.
  The EPA has an extensive track record of twisting the science to 
justify their actions. Behind the scenes, however, there is a review 
process that was intended to provide a critical check on the Agency's 
conclusions.
  The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was intended to provide a 
meaningful, balanced, and independent assessment of the science that 
supports the Agency's regulations. Unfortunately, this vision is not 
being realized.
  The EPA undermines the Board's independence and prevents it from 
providing advice to Congress. As a result, the valuable advice these 
experts can provide is wasted.
  At a time when the Agency is pursuing the most aggressive regulatory 
agenda in its 44 year history, it is critical that the Board function 
as intended.
  Despite the existing requirement that EPA's advisory panels be 
``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,'' the Science 
Committee has identified a number of problems that undermine the 
panel's credibility and work product. These include:
  A majority of the members of EPA's key advisory panels have received 
money from the EPA. Often the research they are reviewing is directly 
related to the money they received. This creates at least the 
appearance of a conflict of interest.
  Many of the panelists have taken very public and even political 
positions on issues they are advising about. For example, a lead 
reviewer of EPA's hydraulic fracturing study plan published an anti-
fracking article entitled ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.'' This is clearly 
not an objective viewpoint.
  Public participation is limited during most Board meetings; 
interested parties have almost no ability to comment on the scope of 
the work--and meeting records are often kept secret.
  The EPA routinely excludes private sector experts while stacking the 
review panels with individuals who will give the EPA the answer it 
wants.
  H.R. 1422 expands transparency requirements, improves the process for 
selecting expert advisors, and strengthens public participation 
requirements.
  The bill requires that uncertainties in the Agency's scientific 
conclusions be communicated and limits the SAB from providing partisan 
policy advice.
  This legislation is pro-science. It restores the SAB as an important 
defender of scientific

[[Page 15881]]

integrity. These common sense reforms will make EPA's decisions more 
credible and balanced.
  I thank the gentleman froth Utah, Mr. Stewart for his leadership on 
this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 
1422 is postponed.

                          ____________________