[House Report 107-311]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-311

======================================================================



 
    STRENGTHENING SCIENCE AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACT

                                _______
                                

 November 30, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Boehlert, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany H.R. 64]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 64) to provide for the establishment of the position of 
Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................1
  II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................3
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................3
  IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................5
   V. Committee Actions...............................................6
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................7
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Section)........................7
VIII. Committee Views.................................................8
  IX. Cost Estimate..................................................10
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................11
  XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........12
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............12
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........12
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................13
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................13
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................13
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........13
XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........13

 XIX. Committee Recommendations......................................14
  XX. Comments on Legislation........................................14
 XXI. Proceedings of Subcommittee Markup.............................16
XXII. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup...........................34

                              I. Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening Science at the 
Environmental Protection Agency Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  For purposes of this Act--
          (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the 
        Agency;
          (2) the term ``Agency'' means the Environmental Protection 
        Agency;
          (3) the term ``Deputy'' means the Deputy Administrator for 
        Science and Technology appointed under section 4; and
          (4) the term ``research'' means research, development, and 
        demonstration.

SEC. 3. RESEARCH MISSION OF AGENCY.

  Conducting, sponsoring, and evaluating environmental science and 
technology research shall be a central mission of the Agency. The 
results of such research shall be used to help initiate, formulate, and 
carry out the Agency's agenda, and the Agency shall seek to increase 
the public's understanding of environmental science and technology by 
making those research results available to the public.

SEC. 4. DEPUTY.

  (a) Appointment.--The President shall appoint, by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate, a Deputy Administrator for Science and 
Technology, who shall coordinate and oversee the science and technology 
activities of the Agency and ensure that Agency decisions are informed 
by the results of appropriate and relevant research.
  (b) Responsibilities.--The Deputy shall--
          (1) provide advice to the Administrator regarding science and 
        technology issues and their relationship to Agency policies, 
        procedures, and decisions;
          (2) participate in developing the Agency's strategic plans 
        and policies and review the science and technology aspects of 
        those plans and policies;
          (3) coordinate the acquisition and compilation of relevant 
        science and technology information available from academic 
        sources, government agencies, and the private sector;
          (4) develop and oversee guidelines for the dissemination of 
        research results conducted, sponsored, or cited by the Agency 
        to the public, including historically black colleges and 
        universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, minority 
        communities, and rural communities; and
          (5) develop and oversee guidelines for peer review of science 
        and technology research.
  (c) Qualifications.--An individual appointed under subsection (a) 
shall be a person who has an outstanding science and technology 
background, including research accomplishments, scientific reputation, 
and public policy experience.
  (d) Consultation.--Before appointing an individual under subsection 
(a), the President shall consult with the National Academy of Sciences, 
the National Academy of Engineering, the Science Advisory Board of the 
Agency, and other appropriate scientific organizations.
  (e) Compensation.--The Deputy shall be compensated at the rate 
provided for level III of the Executive Schedule pursuant to section 
5314 of title 5, United States Code.
  (f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5314 of title 5, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency.''.

SEC. 5. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

  (a) Title and Term.--There shall be an Assistant Administrator for 
Research and Development of the Agency, who shall also have the title 
of Chief Scientist of the Agency. Appointments to such position made 
after the date of the enactment of this Act shall be for a term of 5 
years unless sooner removed by the President.
  (b) Qualifications.--An individual appointed under subsection (a) 
shall be a person who has an outstanding science and technology 
background, including research accomplishments, scientific reputation, 
and experience in leading a research and development organization.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 64 is to provide for the establishment 
of the position of Deputy Administrator for Science and 
Technology of the Environmental Protection Agency. The 
legislation would also set a fixed term for the Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Research and Development and 
give this position the additional title of ``Chief Scientists'' 
of the Agency.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible 
for protecting environmental health and safety through 
environmental regulation, enforcement, and remediation. To 
carry out its mission, the EPA is organized into 13 offices in 
Washington, D.C. and 10 regional offices. Assistant 
Administrators (AA) head 9 of the 13 regulatory, science, and 
information offices. The AAs are of equal rank and report to 
the Deputy Administrator and the Administrator of the Agency.
    While the EPA's mission is largely regulatory, the Agency 
does carry out a broad scientific research agenda to support 
regulatory decisions. The Office of Research and Development 
(ORD) is the scientific arm of the Agency primarily responsible 
for carrying out this agenda. ORD conducts intramural research 
and administers an extramural research program to support the 
Agency's decision-making process. However, the Agency's 
regulatory offices also conduct various research efforts on 
issues specific to their mission.
    Expert panels commissioned by the EPA and Congress have 
reviewed the EPA's science programs and have recommended 
structural and management changes to strengthen the role 
science plays in the decision-making process. In general, the 
reports (which are described in more detail below) have 
concluded that the Agency needs to establish top-level 
scientific leadership to better coordinate science within the 
Agency and create a culture that fosters the use of science as 
a basis for regulatory action. The current structure has led to 
budget disputes, overlapping research, and decisions where 
scientific input was incorporated too late in the regulatory 
process. These key obstacles need to be addressed if the EPA is 
to have a strong science-based regulatory decision-making 
process.
    In 1992, the EPA commissioned an expert panel of scientists 
to identify how the Agency could improve the scientific 
foundation for policy and program decisions. The report, 
Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions 
found that the credibility of environmental regulatory 
decision-making rests on how science is incorporated in the 
process. Specifically, the report found, ``The science advice 
function--that is, the process of ensuring that policy 
decisions are informed by a clear understanding of the relevant 
science--is not well defined or coherently organized within the 
EPA.'' (page 5) To remedy this problem the authors recommended 
that the Administrator should appoint a ``science advisor'' to 
ensure that credible science guides the Agency's decision-
making process.
    In the 1995 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development Appropriations Act, Congress directed the EPA 
to obtain an independent review of the overall structure and 
management of EPA's research program and evaluate scientific 
peer-review procedures used by the Agency. The National Academy 
of Sciences released four reports in response to this charge. 
The final report, Strengthening Science at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency: Research-Management and Peer-
Review Practices, was released in June 2000. Its findings serve 
as the basis for this legislation.
    The primary recommendation of the 2000 Academy report 
called for the establishment of a new Deputy Administrator for 
Science and Technology. This proposal built upon the 
recommendation of the earlier report to establish a ``science 
advisor'' to the Administrator, and a recommendation from the 
Academy's interim report in 1995 that called for the AA for ORD 
to serve as the Agency's top science official. However, in the 
2000 report, the Academy found that this step alone was 
insufficient. The panel clearly stated that the only way to 
effectively address problems raised in the various studies was 
to establish top-level scientific leadership at the Agency.
    According to the Academy report, a new Deputy for Science 
and Technology is needed to serve as an advocate for science 
within upper management at the Agency and is needed to 
coordinate research among the regulatory and scientific arms of 
the Agency. The authors argued that since the new Deputy would 
rank higher than the existing AAs, this person could foster 
research relationships between ORD and the Agency's regulatory 
offices. The report found the AA for ORD could not establish 
effective relationships because this person did not have 
agency-wide scientific authority. Furthermore, past efforts to 
develop and oversee an agency-wide inventory of scientific 
activities have had limited success because there is no central 
science-policy authority to administer this work. The report 
found that a new Deputy Administrator for Science and 
Technology would have the appropriate authority to ensure that 
the best possible peer-review and research-planning practices 
are used for all of the Agency's scientific endeavors.
    Most significantly, the Academy report concluded that the 
new position would elevate the role of science in the decision-
making process. The Administrator could draw on the expert 
advice of the Deputy when deciding how to proceed with the 
regulatory process. The Academy concluded, ``The importance of 
science in EPA decision-making process should be no less than 
that afforded to legal considerations. Just as the advice of 
the agency's general counsel is relied upon by the 
administrator to determine whether a proposed action is legal, 
an appropriately qualified and adequately empowered scientific 
official is needed to attest to the administrator and the 
nation that the proposed action is scientific.'' (page 130)
    The report also recommended that the AA for ORD be turned 
into a six-year appointed position to help ensure greater 
continuity in long-term research programs. The tenure of an AA 
at ORD averages two to three years and is typically a lower 
priorityappointment in new administrations. Under the current 
political appointment model, this position changes at least as often as 
the Administration changes. The Academy report noted that frequently 
changing goals, priorities, practices, structure or funding are 
particularly disruptive to research organizations because of the long-
term nature of research activities. Research endeavors cannot be easily 
stopped and then started again without significantly hurting 
productivity. According to the report, a longer tenure for the AA would 
help insulate the office during changes in the Administration, thereby 
providing more continuity for research conducted at the Agency.
    While the first recommendation, to establish a Deputy 
Administrator for Science and Technology, is intended to 
increase the political clout that science has at the Agency, 
the second recommendation seeks to decrease political pressures 
on the AA for ORD. The report notes, ``Although the political 
aspect of the Assistant Administrator's job often receives 
considerable attention, the most important aspects of the job 
are not political.'' (page 132) Since the new Deputy could bear 
many of the political pressures inside the Agency, the AA for 
ORD could refocus his or her role as the Chief Scientist of the 
EPA.
    The report captured the challenge that the EPA's science 
mission faces in the future and the need to strengthen science 
at the Agency by saying, ``In the three decades since the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency was created, great progress has 
been achieved in cleaning the nation's worst and most obvious 
environmental pollution problems. Belching smokestacks and raw-
sewage discharges are now scarce, and air pollution alerts and 
beach closing are more rare. EPA deserves a significant share 
of the credit for the accomplishments, but some of the most 
difficult and challenging tasks remain. Many past illusions 
about simple and easy solutions to environmental problems have 
been replaced by greater realization that environmental 
protection is a complicated and challenging mission.'' (page 
23)

                        IV. Summary of Hearings


March 29, 2001--H.R. 64: A proposal to Strengthen Science at the 
        Environmental Protection Agency

    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on H.R. 
64. The legislation would codify two of the primary 
recommendations of the recently released National Research 
Council report titled Strengthening Science at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Ray Loehr, a Professor of 
Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, and a 
member of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on 
Research and Peer Review in EPA; (2) Dr. Bill Glaze, a 
Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering and the 
Director of the Carolina Environmental Program at the 
University of North Carolina, and Chairman of the EPA's Science 
Advisory Board; and (3) Mr. Rick Blum, a Policy Analyst at OMB 
Watch.
    Dr. Loehr testified in support of H.R. 64, which he said 
would elevate science considerations to parity with legal 
considerations in EPA decision-making processes. He noted that:
     The bill would provide for better coordination of 
scientific information within the agency by separating the 
management of research programs from the management of the use 
of science and engineering knowledge in the regulatory process.
     Extending the Assistant Administrator for the 
Office of Research and Development's term to six years would 
create more stability and strategic leadership for ORD science.
     The National Research Council's report on 
strengthening science at the EPA outlines the science 
coordination problems that H.R. 64 would solve.
    Dr. Glaze also testified in support of H.R. 64. He said 
that it would send a ``strong signal that we plan to make 
science a stronger and more integral part of the EPA.'' He also 
said that it would help the agency prepare to handle difficult 
environmental problems of the future and take advantage of new 
science in new fields. He emphasized that:
     Placing a person of high scientific reputation 
into the new Deputy Administrator position would positively 
affect the quality of decisions being made, guide the agency 
towards a stronger role in setting the environmental and 
technology agenda of the country, and begin to shift the EPA's 
culture toward a greater emphasis on using science in decision 
making.
     Under the structure proposed in H.R. 64, the 
Assistant Administrator of ORD could better manage the science 
apparatus, serve as a better liaison with other agencies and 
other program offices within EPA, and thus promote better 
science upon which to make decisions.
     These organizational changes would lead the agency 
to think more carefully about its use of emerging sciences 
(genomics, proteomics, etc.).
    Mr. Blum argued that H.R. 64 could ``help overcome 
shortcomings in EPA's efforts to collect high-quality, timely 
information.'' He also mentioned that the new Deputy 
Administrator position could play a useful role in establishing 
good data collection practices within the Agency. But he was 
concerned that:
     There would be significant overlap between the 
roles of the new Deputy Administrator and the strengthened 
Assistant Administrator for ORD and those of the recently 
formed Environmental Information Office (EIO).
     Neither ORD nor EIO would have appropriate 
authority to ensure that their recommendations are carried out 
in the program offices.
     The new Deputy Administrator's emphasis on science 
and technology, rather than information management and public 
access, might lead the agency to choose inaction if there is 
any level of uncertainty in the science.

                          V. Committee Actions

    Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers introduced H.R. 64 on January 
3, 2001. On March 29, 2001, the Environment, Technology, and 
Standards Subcommittee held a hearing on this bill.
    The Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards 
met on May 17, 2001, to consider the bill. Subcommittee 
Chairman Vernon Ehlers and Ranking Member James Barcia offered 
a manager's amendment, which was adopted by voice vote. The 
Subcommittee favorably reported the bill, H.R. 64, as a single 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by voice vote.
    On October 3, 2001, the Science Committee considered H.R. 
64. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee offered an amendment that 
sought to clarify that the guidelines for the dissemination of 
research results, as called for in the legislation, should 
include dissemination to the public, historically black 
colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, and 
other minority and rural communities. Chairman Boehlert offered 
a second-degree amendment to the amendment to further clarify 
the intent of Congresswoman Jackson-Lee's amendment, which was 
adopted. The Committee then adopted Congresswoman Jackson-Lee's 
amendment, as amended.
    The Committee favorably reported the bill as amended, by 
voice vote, and authorized the staff to make technical and 
conforming changes as necessary.

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    There are three major provisions of the bill:
           The legislation establishes a research 
        mission for the Agency. While the EPA conducts an 
        extensive extramural and intramural research program, 
        the Agency has been seen as having a regulatory mission 
        not a scientific one. This provision would make 
        environmental research one of the central missions of 
        the Agency;
           The legislation establishes a Deputy 
        Director for Science and Technology, equal in rank to 
        the current Deputy Administrator and reporting directly 
        to the Administrator. The new Deputy would be 
        responsible for coordinating scientific research among 
        the scientific and regulatory arms of the Agency and 
        ensuring that sound science informs regulatory 
        decisions; and
           The legislation sets a term of five years 
        for the head of the Office of Research and Development 
        (ORD) at EPA, providing more continuity in the 
        scientific work of the Agency across administrations, 
        and enabling the head of ORD to focus on the science 
        conducted at the Agency. The legislation also gives 
        this person the additional title of ``Chief Scientist'' 
        to reflect the oversight this position has over 
        scientific and peer-review activities at the Agency.

     VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Section)/Committee Views


Section 1. Short title

    This Act is named the ``Strengthening Science at the 
Environmental Protection Agency Act''.

Section 2. Definitions

    Four terms are defined for purposes of the Act: 
``Administrator'', ``Agency'', ``Deputy'', and ``research''.

Section 3. Research mission of Agency

    The Agency shall carry out science and technology research 
to support its mission. The results of this research shall be 
used to help initiate, formulate, and carry out the Agency's 
agenda. The Agency shall disseminate this information to help 
increase the public's awareness and understanding of 
environmental science and technology research conducted by the 
agency.

Section 4. Deputy

    The President shall appoint, with advice and consent of the 
Senate, a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology at 
the EPA. This person shall coordinate and oversee the science 
and technology activities of the Agency and ensure that Agency 
decisions are informed by the results of appropriate and 
relevant research. The Deputy is specifically responsible for:
           Providing advice to the Administrator 
        regarding science and technology issues and their 
        relationships to Agency policies, procedures, and 
        decisions;
           Participating in developing the Agency's 
        strategic plans and policies and reviewing the science 
        and technology aspects of those plans and policies;
           Coordinating the acquisition and compilation 
        of relevant science and technology information 
        available from various sources;
           Developing and overseeing the guidelines for 
        the dissemination of research conducted, sponsored, or 
        cited by the Agency to the public including 
        historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-
        serving institutions, minority communities and rural 
        communities; and
           Developing and overseeing guidelines for 
        peer review in the Agency.
    An individual seeking appointment to this position shall 
have, among other things, an outstanding science and technology 
background.
    The new Deputy shall be compensated at level III of the 
Executive Schedule.
    The President shall consult with the National Academy of 
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Science 
Advisory Board of the EPA, and other appropriate scientific 
organizations when seeking an individual for this position.

Section 5. Assistant Administrator for Research and Development

    One of the statutorily designated Assistant Administrators 
shall be designated as the Assistant Administrator for Research 
and Development, and shall also have the title of Chief 
Scientist of the EPA. The individual appointed under this 
section shall serve for a term of five years, unless sooner 
removed by the President.
    An individual seeking appointment to this position shall 
have, among other things, an outstanding science and technology 
background.

                         VIII. Committee Views


Section 3. Research mission of Agency

    When President Nixon established the EPA through executive 
action (Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970), he recognized the 
need for a science mission at the Agency. The reorganization 
statement said that one of the roles of EPA would include ``the 
conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution and on 
methods and equipment for controlling it, the gathering of 
information on pollution, and the use of this information in 
strengthening environmental protection programs and 
recommending policy changes.''
    The Committee notes that while the EPA has always carried 
out a research agenda, Congress has never made this a central 
mission of the Agency. It is the Committee's view that science 
must serve as a foundation for regulatory decision-making, and 
that the Agency should conduct world-class research to help 
initiate, formulate, and carry out the Agency's agenda.

Section 4. Deputy

    Several studies have found that the EPA needs to strengthen 
the role that science plays in the regulatory decision-making 
process. Scientific and technical knowledge should not be used 
as a mere adjunct to the regulatory system; rather, science 
should be used at the beginning, middle, and end of the 
Agency's decision-making process. Science can help the 
Administrator make informed decisions about, among other 
things, the relative risks of environmental threats, whether or 
not the Agency needs to address certain threats, and how to 
allocate resources to address possible threats.
    The Committee expects that the new Deputy Administrator for 
Science and Technology will help strengthen the role that 
science plays in EPA's decision-making process by demanding 
rigorous, balanced, peer reviewed, and transparent scientific 
analysis throughout the entire regulatory process. The new 
Deputy should foster a culture within the EPA where science is 
used as a foundation for regulatory decisions. The Committee 
expects that the new Deputy will coordinate and oversee all 
scientific activities of the Agency, foster cooperation on 
scientific endeavors among the regulatory and scientific arms 
of the Agency, and promote the use of the best possible peer-
review and research-planning practices. The Committee also 
expects that the new Deputy Administrator will advise the 
Administrator and Congress regarding the relative risks of new 
and emerging environmental threats and assist the Administrator 
and Congress in deciding which areas should become priorities 
for regulatory action.
    One of the key responsibilities of the new Deputy will be 
to oversee the peer-review guidelines of the Agency and update 
them as necessary. The Committee is aware that the EPA Science 
Advisory Board (SAB), the National Academy of Sciences, and the 
General Accounting Office have conducted independent 
assessments of the Agency's peer-review program and provided 
recommendations for strengthening the process. The Committee 
believes that the new Deputy should ensure a strong peer-review 
process within EPA. The new Deputy should report back to the 
Committee by September 30, 2002 on what reforms the Agency has 
made to the peer-review process, and what further steps the 
Agency contemplates are necessary in order to have a strong 
peer-review program.
    The Committee is aware that EPA's Science Advisory Board 
and the National Academy of Sciences have expressed specific 
concern about potential conflicts of interest on the part of 
peer-review leaders because current agency policy allows the 
same individual to be a project manager for the development of 
a particular work product as well as the peer-review leader for 
the same work. The SAB and the Academy recommended that the 
Agency strengthen the scientific peer-review process by more 
strictly separating the management of the work product being 
reviewed from the management of the peer review of that work. 
The Committee agrees with this recommendation and expects that 
the Agency will take the necessary steps to ensure greater 
independence of peer reviews.
    It is the Committee's view that the President should 
consult with the National Academy of Sciences, the National 
Academy of Engineering, the SAB of the EPA, and other 
appropriate scientific organizations when seeking a candidate 
to serve as Deputy. However, this role should be advisory and 
does not give these entities authority over this selection.
    The Committee agrees with the Academy's recommendation that 
this person should have an outstanding scientific and technical 
background. This would include,among other attributes, 
extensive research experience and accomplishments, experience in public 
forums, and the respect of scientific peers.

Section 5. Assistant Administrator for Research and Development

    Conducting a world-class intramural and extramural research 
program is a critical component of understanding how to protect 
the environment. The AA for ORD is responsible for providing 
strong leadership and guidance in developing this program. The 
Committee expects that the newly designated Chief Scientist of 
the EPA will assist the new Deputy in coordinating and 
overseeing the scientific activities of both ORD and the 
regulatory arms of the Agency. The Chief Scientist should also 
continually review the Agency's science portfolio to help 
inform regulators about the most up-to-date research results 
regarding potential environmental threats. The Committee also 
expects that this person will ensure that cutting-edge 
environmental and health research conducted inside the Agency, 
as well as from outside sources such as universities, other 
federal agencies, and international governments, is 
incorporated into the Agency's understanding of the 
environment.
    It is the Committee's view that this person should have an 
outstanding scientific and technical background. This would 
include, among other attributes, extensive research experience 
and accomplishments, experience in public forums, experience in 
managing a scientific organization, and the respect of 
scientific peers.

                           IX. Cost Estimate

    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report accompanying each bill or joint 
resolution of a public character to contain: (1) an estimate, 
made by such committee, of the costs which would be incurred in 
carrying out such bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year 
in which it is reported, and in each of the five fiscal years 
following such fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of 
any program authorized by such bill or joint resolution, if 
less than five years); (2) a comparison of the estimate of 
costs described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph made by 
such committee with an estimate of such costs made by any 
Government agency and submitted to such committee; and (3) when 
practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level 
for the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate 
levels under current law. However, House Rule XIII, clause 
3(d)(3)(B) provides that this requirement does not apply when a 
cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted 
prior to the filing of the report and included in the report 
pursuant to the House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). A cost 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to 
the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and 
is included in Section X of this report pursuant to House Rule 
XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report that accompanies a measure 
providing new budget authority (other than continuing 
appropriations), new spending authority, or new credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures to 
contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and, when practicable with 
respect to estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of 
the total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or 
programs) to the appropriate levels under current law. H.R. 64 
does not contain any new budget authority credit authority, 
credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. 
Assuming that the sums authorized under the bill are 
appropriated, H.R. 64 does authorize additional discretionary 
spending, as described in the Congressional Budget Office 
report on the bill, which is contained in Section X of this 
report.

              X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 16, 2001.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 64 the 
Strengthening Science at the Environmental Protection Agency 
Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. 
Mehlman.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 64--Strengthening Science at the Environmental Protection Agency 
        Act

    Summary: CBO estimates that implementing this legislation 
would cost about $10 million over the next five years, assuming 
appropriation of the necessary amounts. The bill would not 
affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply. H.R. 64 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect the 
budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For this 
estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted near the 
beginning of fiscal year 2002, that estimated funding will be 
appropriated each year, and that outlays will occur at rates 
for similar activities. The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 
64 is shown in the following table. The cost of this 
legislation falls within budget function 300 (natural resources 
and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2002     2003     2004     2005     2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated authorization level......................................        2        2        2        2        2
Estimated outlays..................................................        2        2        2        2        2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: Enacting H.R. 64 would establish two new 
positions at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). One 
position would be for the Deputy Administrator for Science and 
Technology, who would be responsible for coordinating and 
overseeing the science and technology activities of EPA and for 
ensuring that decisions are made using appropriate scientific 
research. The other position would be for the Assistant 
Administrator for Research and Development. Individuals for 
both positions would be appointed by the President with the 
advice and consent of the Senate.
    Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 64 would cost about $2 million a year. This 
funding would cover salaries and expenses of 12 new staff 
positions associated with the work assigned to the new 
positions that would be created under the legislation. During 
the first year phase-in of these new staff, certain one-time 
costs are expected for contractor support for special studies 
and analyses, furniture, and computer equipment.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 64 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susanne S. Mehlman; 
impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Elyse Goldman; 
impact on the private sector: Jean Talarico.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 64 contains no unfunded mandates.

         XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report to include oversight findings 
and recommendations required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of Rule 
X. The Committee on Science's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

      XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(4) of House Rule XIII, the goals 
of H.R. 64 are to strengthen the role that science plays in 
regulatory decision-making at the EPA, establish a Deputy 
Administrator for Science and Technology, and provide more 
continuity for the position of AA for ORD during changes in 
administration.
    Section 4 of this Act, establishes a Deputy Administrator 
for Science and Technology responsible for coordinating 
scientific research between the scientific and regulatory arms 
of the Agency and ensuring that science is a basis for 
regulatory decisions. It is the performance objective of this 
section that the EPA should use science to identify the most 
important sources of risk to human health and the environment 
as well as the best means to detect, abate, and avoid 
environmental problems. Achieving this objective will allow the 
new Deputy to advise the Administrator on the best ways to 
establish priorities, policies and deployment of resources.

                XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the House of Representatives 
requires each report of a committee on a bill or joint 
resolution of a public character to include a statement citing 
the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution 
to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 
grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 64.

                XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 64 does not establish, nor authorize the establishment 
of, any advisory committee.

                 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 64 does not release to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

      XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or 
tribal law.

      XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

              SECTION 5314 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE


Sec. 5314. Positions at level III

    Level III of the Executive Schedule applies to the 
following positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay 
shall be the rate determined with respect to such level under 
chapter 11 of title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this 
title:
          Solicitor General of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology of 
        the Environmental Protection Agency.

                     XIX. Committee Recommendations

    On October 3, 2001, a quorum being present, the Committee 
on Science favorably reported the Strengthening Science at the 
Environmental Protection Agency Act, by voice vote, and 
recommends its enactment.

                      XX. Comments on Legislation

                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                                  Washington, DC, November 2, 2001.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for agreeing to work with me 
to strengthen the role of science and the use of science at the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill recently 
approved by your Committee, H.R. 64, contains several 
provisions that will promote many of our common goals, 
including the recruitment of a world-class scientist to lead 
the agency's efforts to bring better science into all of its 
programs. I also recognize that the ideas on scientific 
leadership in H.R. 64 are drawn from a report of the National 
Academy of Sciences.
    I am concerned, however, that the bill also includes 
provisions which are unnecessary and would make inappropriate 
staffing decisions. A statutory directive to create a new 
position of Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology 
would create another layer of bureaucratic review and, rather 
than promoting the role of science in every EPA program office, 
it would suggest that the responsibility for sound science 
resides somewhere other than in each program office.
    Sharing your belief that the agency needs to make better 
use of sound science in its regulatory process, I established a 
Task Force shortly after arriving at EPA to review current 
internal requirements for the rule-making process and to make 
recommendations to me on needed improvements. The Task Force 
found that the existing system for writing regulations--the 
Action Development Process--was basically sound, but 
improvement could be made in several areas.
    One recommendation of the Task Force to ensure that science 
plays a more prominent role in Agency decision-making was 
appointment of an EPA Science Advisor to provide leadership in 
establishing specific mechanisms for ensuring that sound 
science plays a prominent role in regulatory decisions. I have 
accepted the Task Force recommendation and have announced my 
intention to appoint an EPA Science Advisor.
    Again, I appreciate your leadership and the opportunity to 
work with you to promote sound science at EPA and to identify 
effective ways to recruit first-rate scientific leadership to 
the agency.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection to the submission of this report to Congress from 
the standpoint of the President's program.
            Sincerely yours,
                                    Christine Todd Whitman,
                                                     Administrator.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                  Washington, DC, October 25, 2001.
Hon. Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 
        Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
    Dear Administrator Whitman: I am writing to request the 
Administration's position on H.R. 64, the Strengthening Science 
at the Environmental Protection Agency Act.
    On October 3, 2001 the Science Committee favorably approved 
the bill by a voice vote. Like you, I am interested in ensuring 
that science at the EPA is well coordinated and integrated into 
the Agency's mission. I request that you transmit to us as soon 
as possible your position on the bill along with details of any 
administrative plans you may have to increase the role that 
science plays in the Agency's decision-making process.
    Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I look 
forward to working with you on this legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                         Sherwood Boehlert,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

    The Committee has also received letters of support for the 
legislation from the following groups:
    American Chemical Society.
    National Association of Manufacturers.
    The Business Roundtable.
    American Industrial Hygiene Association.
    American Society of Agronomy.
    American Society of Animal Science.
    American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
    Crop Science Society of America.
    Entomological Society of America.
    Health Physics Society.
    Soil Science Society of America.
    National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 
Colleges.
    Copper & Brass Fabricators Council.
    American Analytical Laboratories.
    National Association of Chemical Distributors.
    American Society for Microbiology.
    The Society of Toxicology.
    The American Phytopathological Society.
    American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society.
    National Association of Metal Finishers.
    Metal Finishing Suppliers Association.
    Association Connecting Electronics Industries.

              XXI. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup


proceedings of the markup on h.r. 64, to provide for the establishment 
 of the position of deputy administrator for science and technology of 
 the environmental protection agency, and for other purposes, held by 
  the subcommittee on environment, technology, and standards, may 17, 
                                  2001

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:45 a.m., in 
room 2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon 
Ehlers (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Chairman Ehlers. The Subcommittee is in order. Pursuant to 
notice, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and 
Standards is meeting today to consider the following measure: 
H.R. 64, a bill to provide for the establishment of the 
position of Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes.
    I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the 
Committee at any point and without objection, this is so 
ordered.
    I will proceed with opening remarks and then we will 
recognize Mr. Barcia for his remarks. I want to welcome the 
Members and the public to the first mark-up of our 
Subcommittee, which I am also pleased to note, is the very 
first mark-up the Science Committee has held this Congress.
    [Statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]

              Opening Statement of Chairman Vernon Ehlers

    I want to welcome the Members and the public to the first 
markup of our Subcommittee, which, I am proud to say, is also 
the very first markup the Science Committee has held this 
Congress.
    Today we will mark-up H.R. 64, legislation which will 
strengthen the role that science plays in the Environmental 
Protection Agency's decision-making process. This legislation 
is based on recommendations made to Congress in a National 
Research Council (NRC) report and on numerous other studies 
calling for strengthening science at the EPA. The Subcommittee 
held a hearing on the NRC report last year, and held another 
hearing on March 29 of this year, specifically on H.R. 64.
    We used the comments from the Committee's hearings and from 
other interested parties in drafting the bipartisan substitute 
amendment that I will be offering with the Ranking Member, Mr. 
Barcia. I am pleased Mr. Barcia and I were able to continue our 
long-standing tradition, which dates all the way back to our 
days as junior members of the Michigan State House, of working 
together to craft bipartisan legislation.
    In addition to the bipartisan support this legislation has 
inside of the Committee, it also has broad support from various 
representatives of local government, business organizations and 
the scientific community. The Subcommittee has thus far 
received letters of support from:
    The American Chemical Society;
    The Business Roundtable;
    The National Association of Manufacturers;
    The Health Physics Society;
    The American Society of Mechanical Engineers;
    The Entomological Society of America;
    The American Society for Animal Science;
    The American Society of Agronomy;
    The Crop Science Society of America;
    The Soil Science Society of America;
    The American Industrial Hygiene Association; and
    The New York University School of Medicine.
    I will also note that I have received numerous comments in 
support of the legislation from my congressional colleagues as 
well as from audiences at various speeches I have made on this 
issue. This bill is a solid, measured response to a consensus-
based call for strengthening science at the EPA.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement at the hearing we 
held on H.R. 64, I am very interested in working with Governor 
Whitman on this legislation. Congress can show the American 
public we are serious about improving science at the EPA by 
quickly passing this legislation. I look forward to today's 
markup and to working with all interested parties to enact this 
legislation into law.

    Chairman Ehlers. Today we will mark-up H.R. 64, legislation 
which will strengthen the role that science plays in the 
Environmental Protection Agency decision-making process. This 
legislation is based on recommendations made to Congress in a 
National Research Council report and on other numerous studies 
calling for strengthening science at the EPA. The Subcommittee 
held a hearing on the NRC report last year, and held another 
hearing on March 29 of this year, specifically on H.R. 64.
    We used the comments from the Committee's hearings and from 
other interested parties in drafting the bipartisan substitute 
amendment that I will be offering with the Ranking Member, Mr. 
Barcia. I am pleased Mr. Barcia and I were able to continue our 
long-standing tradition, which dates all the way back to our 
days as members of the Michigan State House and Senate, of 
working together to craft bipartisan legislation.
    In addition to the bipartisan support this legislation has 
inside of the Committee, it also had broad support from various 
representatives of local government, business organizations, 
and the scientific community. The Subcommittee has thus far 
received letters of support from the American Chemical Society, 
The Business Roundtable, The National Association of 
Manufacturers, The Health Physics Society, The American Society 
of Mechanical Engineers, The Entomological Society of America, 
the American Society for Animal Science, The American Society 
of Agronomy, The Crop Science Society of America, The Soil 
Science Society of America, The American Industrial Hygiene 
Association, and The New York University School of Medicine.
    I would also note that just within the last two days I have 
been contacted by several other agencies or organizations 
indicating their support, and letters from them will be 
forthcoming.
    In addition, I also note that I have received numerous 
comments in support of the legislation from my congressional 
colleagues as well as from audiences at various speeches I have 
made on this issue. This bill is a solid, measured response to 
a consensus-based call for strengthening science at the EPA.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement at the hearing we 
held on H.R. 64, I am very interested in working with Governor 
Whitman on this legislation. Congress can show the American 
public we are serious about improving science at the EPA by 
quickly passing this legislation. I look forward to today's 
mark-up and to working with all interested parties to enact 
this legislation into law.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Barcia, the Ranking Minority 
Member of the Subcommittee, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Barcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased the 
Environment Technology and Standards Subcommittee is the first 
of the subcommittees to hold a mark-up in this session. And 
that you, my friend from Michigan, are building upon the strong 
record that this Subcommittee has as being one of the most 
active and productive in the Congress.
    H.R. 64, the strengthening science at the Environmental 
Protection Agency Act, will ensure that science plays a proper 
role at the Environmental Protection Agency. We must be sure 
that science will serve as the basis for sound regulations that 
do not unduly impede economic development.
    In particular, I appreciate the willingness, Mr. Chairman, 
of yourself to work with me on our bipartisan substitute. The 
amendment in the nature of a substitute addresses 
recommendations made by the National Academy of Science Report, 
as well as witnesses who have appeared before this Committee. 
One important addition to the original bill is Section 3, the 
Research Mission of Agency. This section emphasizes that 
research is integral to the mission of EPA to protect human 
health and the environment. The amendment also clarifies the 
duties of the new position at the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
    The creation of a Deputy Administrator for Science and 
Technology will ensure that science has an equal seat at the 
table when important decisions are made. Any regulation issued 
by the EPA must be based on the best scientific information 
available. I hope that the elevated status of this new position 
will ensure that this is the case.
    Again, I commend the Chairman for holding this mark-up and 
look forward to assisting him as H.R. 64 advances through the 
legislative process. Thank you.
    [Statement of Mr. Barcia follows:]

               Opening Statement of Hon. James A. Barcia

    Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Environment, Technology 
and Standards Subcommittee is the first of the subcommittees to 
hold a markup in this session and that Chairman Ehlers is 
building upon the strong record this subcommittee has as being 
one of the most active and productive in the Congress.
    H.R. 64, the Strengthening Science at the Environmental 
Protection Agency Act, will ensure that science plays a proper 
role at the Environmental Protection Agency. We must be sure 
that science will serve as the basis for sound regulations that 
do not unduly impede economic development.
    In particular, I appreciate the willingness of my friend 
and colleague from Michigan to work with me on our bipartisan 
substitute. The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
addresses recommendations made by the National Academy of 
Science report, as well as witnesses who have appeared before 
this committee.
    One important addition to the original bill is section 3, 
the Research Mission of Agency. This section emphasizes that 
research is integral to the mission of EPA to protect human 
health and the environment. The amendment also clarifies the 
duties of the new position at the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
    The creation of a Deputy Administrator for Science and 
Technology will ensure that science has an equal seat at the 
table when important decisions are made. Any regulation issued 
by the EPA must be based on the best scientific information 
available. I hope that the elevated status of this new position 
will ensure this is the case.
    Again, I commend the Chairman for holding this mark-up and 
look forward to assisting him as H.R. 64 advances through the 
legislative process.

    Chairman Ehlers. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. 
Without objection, all members--other members may place opening 
statements in the record.
    [Statement of Mrs. Morella follows:]

                Opening Statement of Hon. Connie Morella

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing and for 
marking up this important legislation on strengthening the 
science at the Environmental Protection Agency. As issues which 
effect our environment become more technical and 
interdisciplinary in nature, it is critical that we have 
focused and coherent policies based on sound science. I can 
think of no better way to assure this than to have a dedicated 
deputy administrator assume full responsibility for infusing 
science into all decisions at the EPA.
    No one can seriously question the need for a stronger focus 
on science. With the environment fallout of MTBE's last year 
and the recent controversy over arsenic, there is a real sense 
that regulators at the EPA are rudderless, creating rules 
devoid of available science. While this impression is largely 
unfair, it nevertheless exists and undermines the confidence of 
the American people in the value and rationality of 
environmental regulations issued by the EPA.
    People are asking very reasonable questions about some 
recent EPA guidelines. Some question the need for their 
existence while others stress that they don't go far enough. 
All too frequently, the EPA doesn't have a good response to 
either of them. Given the magnitude of the costs involved, 
economically and environmentally, this situation is 
unacceptable.
    I don't mean to bash the EPA and I am on record as 
supporting many of its efforts. It is a good agency with 
dedicated individuals doing a difficult job. And I want to help 
them any way I can. That is why this markup and hearing are so 
important. A dedicated office at the EPA will go a long way 
toward providing sound science for EPA decisions and 
communicating the scientific rationale behind the policies to 
the American people. In addition, it will provide a champion 
for research and development when budget talks come around.
    On that note, I am anxious to hear what the distinguished 
panelist thinks about the current budget and the direction the 
EPA is taking under the new administration. I would hope they 
would honestly discuss both its merits as well as its 
deficiencies and offer ideas as to how we can strengthen the 
EPA for the protection and well being of the American people.

    Chairman Ehlers. We will now consider H.R. 64, a bill to 
provide for the establishment of the position of Deputy 
Administrator for Science and Technology of the EPA, and for 
other purposes.
    I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read 
and open to amendment at any point. Hearing no objection, so 
ordered.
    Amending the bill--we will move to the first amendment on 
the roster, which is an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by myself and Mr. Barcia. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Ms. Derr. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
64 offered by Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Barcia. Strike all after the 
enacting clause and insert the following: Section 1----
    Chairman Ehlers. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize myself 
for 5 minutes to explain this bipartisan amendment.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, this amendment has 
been worked out with the minority and Mr. Barcia has agreed to 
co-sponsor it. The amendment makes several changes to the 
underlying legislation in order to clarify and address some of 
the concerns we have heard from interested parties. First, we 
have added a short title and definition section to the 
legislation. If this amendment is adopted, the legislation will 
be known as the ``Strengthening Science at the Environmental 
Protection Agency Act.''
    Second, we have clarified the role of science at the EPA, 
and the duties of the new Deputy for Science and Technology. 
The amendment clearly outlines the responsibilities that this 
new deputy would have in regards to improving the role of 
science in the decision-making process at the EPA.
    Third, we have changed the length of the term of the 
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and 
Development from the 6 years, that is in the original 
legislation, to 5 years. And we have included language to help 
give the new administration flexibility while still providing 
continuity for the head of this office.
    Lastly, we have removed the sense of Congress language that 
was in the last section of the bill for right now. I will say 
that there are many important concepts in that section that we 
will be reviewing as this legislation moves through Congress, 
and as we write the Committee report on this legislation.
    This is a summary of the major changes to the legislation. 
I believe this bipartisan amendment will improve the 
legislation, and I urge the Members to support it. I now yield 
to Mr. Barcia for any comments he may have on the amendment.
    Mr. Barcia. Mr. Chairman, my opening statement will suffice 
as my comments on the substitute. But if it is appropriate at 
this time, I would move the adoption of the amendment.
    Chairman Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Barcia. Is there any 
further discussion? If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. 
All in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The aye's have it and 
the amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any other--further amendments to the bill? 
Hearing none, the question is on the bill H.R. 64 as amended. 
All those in favor will say aye. All those opposed will say no. 
In the opinion of the Chair, the aye's have it.
    I now turn to Mr. Barcia for another motion.
    Mr. Barcia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee 
favorably report H.R. 64 as amended to the full Committee, and 
that the Chairman take all such necessary steps to bring the 
bill before the full Committee for consideration. Further, I 
ask unanimous consent that the staff be instructed to make all 
necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill.
    Chairman Ehlers. The Committee has heard the motion. Those 
in favor will say aye. Those opposed say, no. The aye's have it 
and the motion is agreed to. Without objection, the motion to 
reconsider is laid upon the table. And the Chair notes the 
presence of a reporting quorum.
    This concludes our Subcommittee mark-up. We will now move 
onto the next item on our agenda, which is a hearing on EPA's 
Science and Technology Budget for the fiscal year 2002.
    I thank you all for attending the mark-up. And we will 
reshuffle here and begin the hearing very shortly.
    [Whereupon, at 9:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
    
    
             XXII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup


  proceedings of the markup on h.r. 64, strengthening science at the 
environmental protection agency act, held by the committee on science, 
                            october 3, 2001

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 
Boehlert (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman Boehlert. The meeting will come to order. First of 
all, let me start by doing something no politician likes to do. 
I want to apologize to my colleagues for inconveniencing them 
and all of you for delaying somewhat. It is 17 after. We were 
due to start at 10:00, and I pride myself on punctuality. But 
we have got a major piece of legislation, the Farm Bill, coming 
on the Floor today and tomorrow, and I was deeply engaged in 
some very important deliberations on that bill. So with that 
apology to all my colleagues and to the audience, let us start 
this meeting.
    Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science is meeting 
today to consider the following measure, H.R. 64, Strengthening 
Science at the Environmental Protection Agency. I ask unanimous 
consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point 
and, without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent 
that the substitute to H.R. 64, as adopted by the Subcommittee 
on Environment, Technology, and Standards, on May 17, 2001, be 
considered as original text for the purpose of the markup at 
Full Committee today. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    The Committee now considers H.R. 64. I will now recognize 
Mr. Hall for any--will, I will let Mr. Hall go first.
    [The information, including H.R. 64 follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Ehlers. Okay.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I thank you for 
holding the markup. I think anything this Committee can do to 
improve the science that is used by the Agency to make rules is 
always welcome. And I think Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member 
Barcia have a very good bill that we can--most of us can 
support and help ensure that the most recent science is 
considered when the Administrator has to make regulatory 
decisions.
    Ultimately, it is going to be up to the Administrator to 
listen to the scientists, but this bill is going to provide 
them with an opportunity to make their case, and I like that. I 
have some questions about it. And I guess one question is 
whether or not we have, as a Committee, officially asked the 
EPA for its views on H.R. 64. That would have some influence on 
how I voted. A lot of times if I know how the EPA is going, I 
know which direction I want to go.
    We--it might be good if we knew for a fact that 
Administrator Whitman was opposed to this bill. And if the 
Administrator is, I would like to know that, and I may be 
harder for it than I thought I was. And if you can help me 
clear up that little understanding, I would appreciate it. If 
you can't, I would understand. But if we can obtain the views 
of the EPA before reporting the bills to the House, I would 
like that. And I yield back my time to the very capable 
Chairman. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. Well, we have every intention of 
continuing our consultation with the Environmental Protection 
Agency. We don't yet have an official position from EPA. We 
would anticipate one being forthcoming. We know there are some 
differences of opinion as we approach this issue, which won't 
surprise you. But I want to move ahead now with the assurance 
to you and everyone that we certainly will get the views of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    Mr. Hall. That is good.
    Chairman Boehlert. Okay. Let me also say--I am going to 
utter three words that everybody likes to hear from the Chair. 
I will be brief. I would simply point out that this bill won 
unanimous support in Subcommittee and that it would implement 
the well thought out recommendations of a panel put together by 
the National Academy of Sciences. Moreover, the goal of the 
bill is one with which no one disagrees. In the words of the 
Academy, ``Strengthening Science at the Environmental 
Protection Agency.''
    I expect the bill to move through this Committee with all 
due speed. We will continue to work with the Administration as 
the bills moves to the floor to allay any concerns EPA or any 
member might have.
    So I want to thank Congressmen Ehlers and Barcia for their 
excellent work, particularly thank them both for working so 
well--it is a Michigan duo here--in bringing forward a revised 
version of H.R. 64. And I would urge its approval. I will now 
recognize Dr. Ehlers for any opening remarks he may care to 
make.
    [Statement of Mr. Boehlert follows:]

              Opening Statement of Hon. Sherwood Boehlert

    I will keep my remarks about this bill quite brief, both to 
expedite this mark-up and to allow its author, Dr. Ehlers, a 
chance to lay out its provisions and virtues.
    I will simply point out that this bill won unanimous 
support in Subcommittee and that it would implement the well 
thought out recommendations of a panel put together by the 
National Academy of Sciences. Moreover, the goal of the bill is 
one with which no one disagrees--in the words of the Academy: 
``Strengthening Science at the Environmental Protection 
Agency.''
    I expect the bill to move through this Committee with 
alacrity. We will continue to work with the Administration as 
the bill moves to the floor to allay any concerns EPA may have.
    So I want to thank Congressmen Ehlers and Barcia for their 
excellent work in bringing forward a revised version of H.R. 
64, and I urge its approval.

    Mr. Ehlers. I want to thank Chairman Boehlert for 
recognizing me and thank him and Ranking member Hall for 
bringing this legislation before the Committee today. I 
appreciate their continued leadership on science and science 
policy issues. I have heard from virtually all of my colleagues 
during my years here--we have to strengthen science at the EPA. 
And this is our chance to do it.
    Science and environmental regulation go hand in hand. When 
appropriately applied, science can help initiate and reform the 
regulatory decision-making process. In fact, it provides a 
critical foundation for environmental regulations. While the 
EPA is tasked with protecting our environment, the Agency is 
not inherently a scientific one. Since EPA was created, the 
Agency has struggled with the appropriate way to apply relevant 
research to the regulatory decision-making process.
    I first addressed this issue in the review of our National 
Science Policy that I prepared in 1998 for this very Committee, 
a document which was later approved by both the Committee and 
the House of Representatives. The recommendation in that report 
that received the most favorable public response was that 
science be used differently in the regulatory and judicial 
processes. It should not be used in an adversarial fashion in 
the courts and should not be used as a mere adjunct to the 
regulatory system. Rather, science should be used at the 
beginning, middle, and end of an agency's decision-making 
process. Science can help us make informed decisions about the 
relative risks of a threat, whether or not we need to address 
it, and about how to allocate resources to address a threat.
    The Environmental Protection Agency has reached a similar 
conclusion in various internal reports over the past decade. In 
1992, the EPA issued a report titled, ``Safeguarding the 
Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions,'' which found 
that the process of ensuring that policy decisions are informed 
by a clear understanding of the relevant science is not well 
defined or coherently organized within the EPA. And that was a 
very relevant bit of self-criticism. The authors of the report 
then went on to recommend that the Administrator should appoint 
a science advisor to address this problem. Eight years and 
several similar reports later, the National Research Council 
also weighed in and issued a report which further refined this 
idea by calling for EPA to establish a Deputy Administrator for 
Science and Technology.
    It is finally time for Congress to heed all of the reports 
and address this problem, and I am pleased that Chairman 
Boehlert is doing so by moving H.R. 64 through the Science 
Committee.
    I also want to thank Chairman Boehlert, Ranking member 
Hall, and the Ranking member of any Subcommittee, Mr. Barcia, 
for helping craft a bipartisan amendment that we unanimously 
adopted at the Subcommittee, and that is what is before us 
today.
    The amendment in the nature of a substitute that was 
adopted in the Subcommittee makes several changes to improve 
the underlying legislation. The amendment establishes a new 
Deputy Director for Science and Technology. It also clarifies 
the role of science at the EPA and the duties of a new Deputy 
for Science and Technology.
    The amendment clearly outlines the responsibilities that 
this new Deputy would have in regards to improving the role of 
science in the decision-making process at the EPA. The new 
Deputy would also be an expert science advisor for the 
Administrator when deciding how to move forward with the 
regulatory process. Finally, we have changed the length of the 
term of the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research 
and Development, from the 6 years in the original legislation, 
and changed it to 5 years.
    Before I close, let me mention the broad support this 
legislation has garnered from a wide array of outside groups. I 
have received support from prestigious scientific groups, such 
as, the American Chemical Society, the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers, and The Society of Toxicology; from 
business groups, including the National Association of 
Manufacturers and the Business Roundtable; and university and 
other interested parties, including the National Association of 
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, as well as some 
members of EPA's Scientific Advisory Board. And these are just 
a few of the groups supporting this legislation. Before each of 
the Committee members should be a list of all the groups that 
have endorsed this.
    I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
legislation. I am looking forward to working with the 
Administration and my colleagues when bringing this legislation 
before the House of Representatives and eventually the Senate. 
And I want to also give a special commendation to Mr. Barcia, 
who I mentioned before. He and I have worked very hard on all 
the legislation in that Subcommittee. We have been able to 
achieve good bipartisan rapport and we have produced a number 
of bills that have come out of that Subcommittee and I 
certainly appreciate his help in all of these issues. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Vernon J. Ehlers

    I want to thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall 
for bringing this legislation before the Committee today. I 
appreciate their continued leadership on science and science 
policy issues.
    Science and environmental regulation go hand in hand. When 
appropriately applied, science can help initiate and inform the 
regulatory decision-making process. In fact, it provides a 
critical foundation for environmental regulations. While the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with protecting 
our environment, the Agency is not inherently a scientific one. 
Since EPA was created the Agency has struggled with the 
appropriate way to apply relevant research to the regulatory 
decision-making process.
    I addressed this issued in the review of our National 
Science Policy that I prepared in 1998 for the House Science 
Committee. The recommendation in that report that received the 
most favorable public response was that science be used 
differently in the regulatory and judicial process. It should 
not be used in an adversarial fashion in the courts and should 
not be used as a mere adjunct to the regulatory system; rather, 
science should be used at the beginning, middle and end of an 
agency's decision-making process. Science can help us make 
informed decisions about the relative risks of a threat, 
whether or not we need to address it, and about how to allocate 
resources to address a threat.
    The Environmental Protection Agency has reached a similar 
conclusion in various internal reports over the past decade. In 
1992, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report 
titled: ``Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible 
Decisions,'' which found that ``the process of ensuring that 
policy decisions are informed by a clear understanding of the 
relevant science is not well defined or coherently organized 
within the EPA.'' The authors of the report then went on to 
recommend that the Administrator should appoint a ``science 
advisor'' to address this problem. Eight years and several 
similar reports later, the National Research Council issued a 
report which further refined this idea by calling for EPA to 
establish a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology.
    It is finally time for Congress to heed all of these 
reports and address this problem, and I am pleased that 
Chairman Boehlert is doing so by moving H.R. 64 through the 
Science Committee.
    I want to thank Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Hall, and 
the Ranking Member of my Subcommittee, Mr. Barcia, for helping 
craft a bipartisan amendment that we unanimously adopted at the 
Subcommittee and is before us today.
    The amendment in the nature of a substitute that was 
adopted in the Subcommittee makes several changes to improve 
the underlying legislation. The amendment, like the underlying 
legislation, establishes a new Deputy Director for Science and 
Technology. It also clarifies the role of science at the EPA, 
and the duties of a new Deputy for Science and Technology. The 
amendment clearly outlines the responsibilities that this new 
Deputy would have in regards to improving the role of science 
in the decision-making process at the EPA. The new Deputy would 
also be an expert science advisor for the Administrator when 
deciding how to move forward with the regulatory process. 
Finally, we have changed the length of the term of the 
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and 
Development, from the six years that is in the original 
legislation, to five years.
    Before I close, let me mention the broad support this 
legislation has garnered from a wide array of outside groups. I 
have received support from prestigious scientific groups such 
as, the American Chemical Society, the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers, and The Society of Toxicology; from 
business groups including the National Association of 
Manufacturers and the Business Roundtable; and university and 
other interested parties including the National Association of 
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and some Members of 
EPA's Scientific Advisory Board. And these are just a few of 
the groups supporting this legislation.
    I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
legislation, and I am looking forward to working with the 
Administration and my colleagues when bringing this legislation 
before the House of Representatives.
                                ------                                  


    Organizations who have written letters in support of H.R. 
64, the Strengthening Science at the Environmental Protection 
Agency Act:
    American Chemical Society.
    National Association of Manufacturers.
    The Business Roundtable.
    American Industrial Hygiene Association.
    American Society of Agronomy.
    American Society of Animal Science.
    American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
    Crop Science Society of America.
    Entomological Society of America.
    Health Physics Society.
    Soil Science Society of America.
    National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 
Colleges.
    Copper & Brass Fabricators Council.
    American Analytical Laboratories.
    National Association of Chemical Distributors.
    American Society for Microbiology.
    The Society of Toxicology.
    The American Phytopathological Society.
    American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society.
    National Association of Metal Finishers.
    Metal Finishing Suppliers Association.
    Association Connecting Electronics Industries.

    Chairman Boehlert. Well, thank you, Dr. Ehlers. And I, too, 
wish to commend Mr. Barcia for working so well with you. You 
are a good team and you have produced a very good product. 
Without objection, all members may place opening statements in 
the record at this point.
    [Statements of Mr. Smith, Mr. Hall, and Mrs. Morella 
follow:]

                  Opening Statement of Hon. Nick Smith

    I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for 
recognizing that good science must be the foundation of the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy decisions and for 
the need to strengthen science at the EPA.
    Although the EPA is primarily a regulatory agency, 
decisions about environmental protection must be based on 
sound, peer-reviewed scientific data and risk assessments. 
Unfortunately, the EPA's science has often been weak, 
inefficient, ineffectual and sometimes just plain ignored in 
regulatory decisions. The Office of Research and Development 
(ORD), the science-arm of EPA has been plagued by poor 
management, scientific work of varying quality, redundancy and 
the willingness of EPA to fit science to policy rather than 
make policy based on sound science.
    I applaud Chairman Ehler's effort to give science a voice 
in decision-making by creating a Deputy Administrator for 
Science and Technology with agency-wide responsibility for 
overseeing the S&T activities of the agency and ensuring these 
activities are properly peer reviewed, published, and applied 
to policy decisions. It is especially critical for the EPA to 
increase their commitments to peer-review to ensure high-
quality and reliable technical information for policy and 
regulatory decision making. I am pleased that this legislation 
has incorporated my ideas for ensuring this.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman for bringing forward this 
legislation and for supporting our efforts to improve the 
scientific base for environmental regulation.
                                ------                                


                  Opening Statement of Hon. Ralph Hall

    Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate your holding this mark-up today on H.R. 64. It 
is no secret that I have at times been highly critical of the 
way in which EPA runs its regulatory program. Anything this 
committee can do to improve the science that is used by the 
Agency to make rules is welcome.
    I believe Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Barcia have 
carted a good bill that will help ensure that the best and most 
recent science is considered when the Administrator must make 
regulatory decisions. Ultimately, it will be up to the 
Administrator to listen to the scientists, but this bill will 
provide them with an opportunity to make their case.
    I do have one question for the Chairman. Chairman Boehlert, 
it is my understanding that the Committee has not officially 
asked the EPA for its views on H.R. 64, although I understand 
that EPA is not supportive of the bill in its current form. It 
would make it easier for me to support the bill if I knew for a 
fact that Administrator Whitman was opposed.
    Can you tell me if my understandings are correct? If so, 
will the Chairman attempt to obtain the views of EPA before 
reporting the bill to the House?
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for those assurances and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
                                ------                                


               Prepared Statement of Hon. Connie Morella

    Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see that today H.R. 64--the 
Strengthening Science at the Environmental Protection Agency 
Act will be voted on by the Full Committee.
    I fully endorse this legislation.
    A lot of thought was given to crafting this bill, and 
toward improving our science and technology programs at the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    I remember earlier this year when the House Subcommittee on 
Environment, Technology, and Standards held a hearing and 
received testimony on this legislation.
    I commend my good friend and colleague Chairman Ehlers for 
introduction of this bill.
    H.R. 64 codifies two primary recommendations of the 
recently released National Research Council (NRC) report titled 
Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency. Congress requested the NRC report in the Fiscal Year 
1995 VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report.
    The legislation requires the President to appoint a Deputy 
Administrator for Science and Technology of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. The new Deputy Administrator will be 
responsible for the overall scientific and technical foundation 
of the EPA's decisions.
    Second, the legislation sets a five-year term for the 
Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and 
Development (ORD), to serve at the pleasure of the President. 
It also gives the Assistant Administrator of the ORD the 
additional title of ``Chief Scientist of the Environmental 
Protection Agency.''
    It is my hope that the new Deputy will be an advocate for 
science within upper management at EPA, and play a strong role 
in coordinating research among the offices. Since the new 
Deputy would rank higher than the existing Assistant 
Administrators, this person could effectively coordinate 
research relationships between the Agency's scientific and 
regulatory arms.
    This new Deputy will also have the authority to ensure the 
best possible peer-review and research-planning practices are 
used for all of EPA's scientific endeavors.
    Thank you.

    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered as read and open to amendment at any point. I ask 
the Members to proceed with the amendments in the order of the 
roster. And the first amendment on the roster is the amendment 
offered by Congresswoman Jackson-Lee. And just let me say what 
my hope and expectation is.
    As you all know, from the fine work we did on a bipartisan 
basis, on the math/science partnership, I mean everybody on 
this Committee has their fingerprints on that very good bill. 
And Ms. Jackson-Lee is one who was a leader there. I would ask 
that she offer her amendment, speak to her amendment so we all 
can better understand it. Then I would hope that she would 
withdraw it with the understanding from the Chair that we will 
continue as we have been right along, working at a bipartisan 
basis, make sure we fully understand the full implications of 
the amendment, and then think in terms of having report 
language that would address the subject matter. I would hope 
that what would be the case, but it is up to Ms. Jackson-Lee. 
The Chair recognizes Ms. Jackson-Lee for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. I thank the Chair very much. I am hoping 
that I may be able to answer the concerns of the Chair. I hope 
the amendment is being passed out to--is the amendment----
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee [continuing]. Thank you. I have an 
amendment at the desk. I am sorry.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 64, offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee 
of Texas. On page 3, line 3, strike, ``by the Agency,'' and 
replace with, ``by the Agency,''.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. Ms. Jackson-Lee is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First 
of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Ehlers, and, of course, Mr. Barcia, for the leadership on this 
issue. I was reading through the statement of the proponent of 
this legislation dealing with the purpose and reason for it and 
the emphasis on the importance of science at the EPA is 
overwhelming.
    Many of us throughout our tenure on this Committee have 
emphasized the expansion of this whole issue of technology and 
science to institutions and communities that have been 
underserved. There is no doubt that we have documented the 
underserved communities that involved Historically Black 
Colleges, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, minority communities, 
and rural communities.
    This is a simple amendment and it simply adds emphasis on 
ensuring that the information is received by Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, 
minority communities, and rural communities. I believe it is an 
expansive amendment and I regret greatly the request of the 
Chairman. But let me try to respond to the Chairman's concerns.
    We have substantial jurisdictions over institutions of 
higher education through our NSF jurisdictions, so that keeps 
this within our parameters and jurisdiction. Likewise, we have 
been successful in passing a number of amendments and bills 
that wisely have focused on the underserved communities, such 
as the Morella bill, and, as well, this does not amend any 
statute in any other committee which would lend itself to 
jurisdiction.
    In my inquiry to the parliamentarian on this particular 
language, the parliamentarian has said that there is no problem 
adding this language to the bill for the bill then to be 
subjected to other Committee jurisdiction. So this is a 
modified version. It only says emphasis on ensuring that 
information is received by Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, minority 
communities, and rural communities.
    I am frequently in meetings with Members of our--the 
Congressional Members from rural communities who are always 
emphasizing the need to translate information to their 
communities. If we are putting in place a new Administrator who 
will have new duties, I certainly believe that it would not, in 
any way, either inhibit, diminish, or disadvantage anyone else 
by ensuring that information is disseminated to these 
documented, underserved communities.
    I would ask my colleagues to see the spirit in which I am 
offering it and to know that I made every effort to ensure that 
there would be no obstacles to Mr. Ehlers' legislation by 
adding this language, that we would not expand the 
jurisdiction. Rural communities need information. Constantly, 
we are looking for ways to expand, them understanding. And with 
this overhanging issue of biowarfare and other issues, I think 
any time we can acknowledge the greater need for information to 
these particular groups that culturally serve a lot of 
different Americans, I think we are doing the right thing. I 
would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Are you finished? And----
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert [continuing]. Do you--are you determined 
to proceed with seeking a vote on the amendment, or would 
youhonor the request from the Chair that you withdraw it and we work to 
get the language and report language----
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Boehlert [continuing]. I would be glad to.
    Mr. Hall. It seems that her language is only a reassuring 
language and almost prefatory in nature. And it seemed like 
something that you all really could work out if you would give 
her some assurance time-wise as to when it would be worked out. 
Would that be before it goes to Rules or before it goes out of 
here to----
    Chairman Boehlert. By all means, before it goes to Rules. 
And we work it within the family before we go to these other 
guys.
    Mr. Hall [continuing]. I represent Texas College, and it is 
probably the oldest black college in the southwest. And their 
short of receiving information. And this--I think this would be 
helpful to them. And, of course, I have some rural communities 
in northeast Texas. And I think it is a good amendment. I 
don't----
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Hall, let me ask--I think we have 
had some consultation with Dr. Ehlers----
    Mr. Hall. All right.
    Chairman Boehlert [continuing]. And staff and everything. 
Let me ask Ms. Jackson-Lee. You have the language of the 
amendment before you. If we make this slight modification, see 
if it would be acceptable. On page 3, line 3, strike, ``by the 
Agency,'' and replace with, ``by the Agency to the public, 
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 
Hispanic-Serving Institutions, minority communities, and rural 
communities.'' So it is, ``To the public, including,'' and not 
just exclusive. So we would just add after ``by the Agency to 
the public, including,'' and then it accommodates all the 
groups you want to accommodate. And I think it is the will of 
the Committee we want to accommodate.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Mr. Chairman, I am reading this and I am--
believe that this will work. I am trying to look at the action 
verb. Could you just give me one moment?
    Chairman Boehlert. Sure.
    Mr. Hall. It seems like this just includes some of my poor 
white universities over there in east Texas. And that is what 
you have added.
    Chairman Boehlert. We are always trying to accommodate your 
people.
    Mr. Baca. Mr. Chairman, if I can, I would like to speak in 
reference to supporting the motion and I am going to wait for 
her to look at it to see if she would. But I do----
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. I would yield to the gentleman and then I 
will respond, Mr. Chairman, if that is okay.
    Chairman Boehlert. By all means.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. You are recognized.
    Mr. Baca. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do believe 
that we have the responsibility to disseminate information. And 
I think it is important, as we look at the growth in the 
population of our country right now. And the amendments are 
simple, whether we accept the additional amendment. I think it 
is important that we disseminate information, not only to black 
colleges, but Hispanic-Serving Institutions that I see growth--
the numbers that are growing throughout. As we see more and 
more of our students that are going into these institutions, we 
want to make sure that they have the same kind of information 
as everybody else, along with minority communities and rural 
communities.
    We have the responsibility in the form of education to 
educate our public and that they receive the information. And I 
would be inclined to support the amendment and I will wait and 
yield back to the person coming back----
    Chairman Boehlert. And let the Chair stress, I couldn't 
agree more with the general thrust of the amendment, as you 
well know, and with your excellent intervention. And I think we 
have got it all worked out. Ms. Jackson-Lee.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the proponent 
of the legislation and the Chairman and certainly the Ranking 
Member. Yes. This is where--this is what we would like to have. 
We want to ensure--and I thank Mr. Baca, as well. He comes from 
an area that has an enormously diverse community. It is very 
important to get information
    And might I conclude my sentence simply by saying, Mr. 
Chairman, this goes right to, I hope what we will be doing in 
the next couple of weeks. We wish we weren't doing it, but I 
hope we will be looking into bioterrorism. All of this is based 
upon getting information to the public, and these institutions 
are able to convey it through certain segments of our community 
that otherwise would not get it. And so I would accept this 
language. Mr. Baca.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson-Lee. 
Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Well, Mr. Chairman, as the sponsor of the bill, 
I just want to say I am very pleased to accept the amendment as 
modified by you. Clearly, this is--we want to have the 
information go to the Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and all of the 
minority and rural communities. There is no question about 
that. And by calling attention to this, we are probably 
improving the bill. So I am pleased to accept the amendment as 
modified.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. So just let me read 
the amendment as amended. On page 3, line 3, strike, ``by the 
Agency,'' and replace with, ``by the Agency to the public, 
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 
Hispanic-Serving Institutions, minority communities, and rural 
communities.'' All those in favor of the amendment as amended, 
say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. And now the base 
amendment. All in favor say aye. Thank you very much. That is 
the spirit of cooperation that is so evident----
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Boehlert [continuing]. In all our endeavors on 
this Committee. Are there any further amendments? Hearing none, 
the question is on the bill, H.R. 64, Strengthening Science at 
the Environmental Protection Agency, as amended. All those in 
favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. It is the opinion of the 
Chair the ayes have it. And I now recognize Mr. Hall to offer 
an amendment--a motion.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably 
report H.R. 64, as amended, to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, 
I move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative 
report and make necessary technical and conforming changes and 
that the Chairman take all the necessary steps to bring this 
bill before the House for consideration. I yield back my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Chair notes the presence of a 
reporting quorum. The question is on the motion to report the 
bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by 
saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it, and the 
bill is favorably reported.
    I move that members have two subsequent calendar days in 
which to submit supplemental minority or additional views on 
the measure. I move pursuant to Clause I of Rule 22 of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives that the Committee 
authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be 
necessary in the House to go to the conference with the Senate 
on the bill. With that, our business is concluded. The hearing 
is adjourned. Good show.
    [Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                
