EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015
Floor Speech
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act.
I want to start by thanking my colleagues, Mr. Lucas and Chairman Smith, for their intention to improve the EPA's Science Advisory Board, and I especially want to thank Chairman Smith for working with me on other legislation that passed the Science Committee and the House on a bipartisan basis.
Members and staff on both sides of the aisle worked tirelessly last week and, in fact, since the last Congress toward a bipartisan bill about the Science Advisory Board that accommodated much, if not all, of the fundamental principles shared by both Democrats and Republicans.
Unfortunately, we were not able to reach agreement on some very critical provisions by this date. Accordingly, I will be urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill before us today.
This bill has not changed meaningfully since we considered it last year, and I stand here today with the same concerns I raised last Congress. My colleagues who support H.R. 1029 may describe this bill as an attempt to strengthen public participation in EPA's scientific review process, improve the process for selecting expert advisers, expand transparency requirements, and limit nonscientific policy advice within the EPA's Science Advisory Board.
All of these are good government principles that I agree with, and if this bill or the bill we considered last year achieved these goals, I would be here ready to support it, but H.R. 1029 would not achieve these good government goals.
Instead of improving the Science Advisory Board structure or operation, the bill will limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives and allow seemingly endless delays in EPA's regulatory process.
H.R. 1029 would make it easier for industry representatives to serve on the Board, even if they have a financial conflict of interest. To be clear, I am not opposed to industry experts participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer review process at the EPA. Their insight into processes and industry conduct can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body.
That being said, Congress should not be endorsing legislation that undermines longstanding ethics requirements and practices with the end result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on EPA's Science Advisory Board, and this is likely to be the result of the adoption of this bill.
This bill conflates bias with financial conflicts of interest, and it assumes that a simple disclosure will prevent a material interest in an outcome from coloring the judgment and actions of a Board member. Congress should not be supporting legislation that undermines longstanding ethics requirements and practices that have worked well to ensure fairness and the balance of views on all Federal advisory committees.
Another troubling element of H.R. 1029 is that it would significantly delay the work of the Science Advisory Board. The Board should absolutely seek public comment on the science it is reviewing, and, if necessary, it should extend the duration of the public comment period to ensure that interested parties have ample opportunity to submit their views. With this, we agree.
However, H.R. 1029 takes this process to the extreme by creating unnecessary burdens, including a loophole that could keep the Board from ending the public comment period and that could require that the Board provide written responses to a significant number of comments it receives. H.R. 1029 distorts the important public participation process to create what amounts to an endless appeals process that will provide those who disagree with the EPA an effective tool to halt, derail, or slow the Agency's rulemaking.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, our government's ability to protect public health is at stake when we consider legislation like the bill before us today. Unfortunately, we do not have to look far to see the impacts of these kinds of delay tactics. Articles published last year by the Center for Public Integrity chronicle efforts to slow down and to undermine the EPA's efforts to keep arsenic out of drinking water and benzene out of American workplaces. When we prevent the EPA from taking timely action to protect the public from known poisons and cancer-causing agents, we are putting lives at risk.
The EPA's science is tied to its mission--to protect public health and the environment through rational regulation. Scientific research, knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental to the EPA's mission and inform its regulatory functions. The need for that expertise is why Congress created advisory bodies such as the Science Advisory Board in the first place--to provide independent advice on the science underpinning regulation, which, in turn, allows the EPA Administrator to make sound regulatory decisions. Instead of undermining the scientific advice the EPA receives, we should be giving the Agency the tools it needs to strengthen and improve the regulatory process with sound science.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I mentioned the letters that were entered into the Record. Frequently, here in Congress, we talk about government efficiency and getting things to work better, and I just want to read what the Center for Medical Consumers said about H.R. 1029:
The bill requires the Science Advisory Board to remain in an endless loop of soliciting public comment about the state of the science, touching on every major advisory activity it undertakes and responding to nearly every comment before moving forward, without being limited by any time constraints.
Also, the National Physicians Alliance noted:
This bill's overly broad restriction on Science Advisory Board members with subject matter expertise is equally counterproductive and goes far beyond the commonsense limits imposed by the National Academies, and the language in the bill is so vague that it raises many questions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that the National Center for Health Research is concerned. They ask: What happens if a scientist relies on expertise that is not specifically permitted in the bill? Will there be legal ramifications? Clearly, scientific experts will think twice before joining the Science Advisory Board if it means they will have to consult their lawyers before they give advice.
Mr. Chairman, there is some ambiguous language in this. We can do a better job making sure that the Science Advisory Board functions in an efficient way that actually helps inform their decisions. I suggest that we get back to the table, rather than pass this bill today, and find strong legislation that improves the Science Advisory Board.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the bill before us today does undertake the laudable goal of improving transparency at the Environmental Protection Agency; however, as I stated previously, the bill, as written, does not accomplish this goal. I worked on this bill in the last Congress; and there were a lot of recommendations that were made, when we had hearings on this bill in the last Congress, where we could all agree--recommendations that the industry supports, that academia supports, and that scientists support. We should be taking those recommendations and adding them to this bill, working together to find a bill that will improve the Science Advisory Board.
I want to clarify to my colleagues, we have no objection with industry representation on the Science Advisory Board. That is not the point. What happens under this bill, however, is that financial conflict of interest is conflated with bias, and we could have industry representation with a significant financial interest. That is not the direction we should be going in. Of course, industry people have expertise, as do scientists who work in academia.
Again, we can and should work together to improve the EPA's approach to reviewing the science underpinning regulations, but this legislation is not the answer. This bill will only damage and delay the process, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would have a negative effect on the participation of the Nation's best scientists, punishing them for providing invaluable expert advice to the EPA.
This amendment would penalize scientists who have received any grant from the EPA by precluding them from serving on the EPA's Science Advisory Board, a Board that is charged with providing the most sound and reliable scientific advice to the EPA; yet it is those very scientists who have received EPA grants who are often the very best in their field.
Why would we pass an amendment that limits our Nation's most qualified experts from reviewing EPA actions?
By precluding these scientists from serving on the Board, it could greatly diminish the pool of eligible, qualified experts who can serve on the Science Advisory Board and, more importantly, serve the Nation. This amendment essentially guarantees that the EPA will not receive the best advice from the best scientists. I can't fathom why we would do that.
Of additional concern is a draconian provision in the amendment that prohibits a Board member from applying for an EPA grant or contract for 3 years after serving on the Board.
I don't understand how or why we can legislate against someone applying for a grant. Three years without the ability to apply for a grant from one of our Federal research agencies can arrest the careers of our Nation's best and brightest minds.
Furthermore, the amendment isn't even clear on how limited people are from applying and where they can apply. Why would we agree to an amendment that is constraining our Nation's ability to develop and foster scientific knowledge?
This kind of ban is punitive, and it would force researchers to choose between public service and their own research. It makes no sense in any other area of government, and it makes no sense here.
We want and need the best and brightest Americans serving our national interests everywhere, and we should never entertain the idea of punishing experts for providing valuable and needed public service.
I cannot support or recommend support for any amendment that has a punitive effect on the best and brightest scientific minds in the country, and I cannot support an amendment that would limit the Environmental Protection Agency from considering the full and complete spectrum of expertise for membership to their Science Advisory Board.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment would cause the EPA to be precluded from getting some of the best science. The amendment says that a Board member shall have no current grants or contracts from the Environmental Protection Agency and shall not apply for a grant or a contract for 3 years following the end of that member's service on the Board.
Mr. Chairman, that would cause serious problems. It is a vaguely worded amendment. I would be concerned about inhibiting people from even applying for grants. We need to do everything we can to support our bright scientists. This would preclude them from serving.
We should vote against this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I mentioned during general debate on H.R. 1029, I am not opposed to--in fact, I support legislation that will improve the EPA's Science Advisory Board. It is something I have been committed to since we had hearings in the last Congress, something we haven't had in this Congress. We didn't even have a markup on this bill.
For the most part, I agree with the goals of H.R. 1029 and recognize the need to increase transparency in the selection of Board members and to promote public participation in the Board's review process.
That being said, not all of the provisions included in H.R. 1029 will actually improve the Science Advisory Board. In fact, some of the provisions in the bill distort common practices for eliminating or limiting financial conflicts of interest.
Another provision turns the valuable and necessary process of soliciting public comments into a tool for the endless delay of public health protections.
Over the past week, my staff has worked tirelessly with majority staff in an attempt to find common ground and move forward with a bill that is worthy of broad bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, a compromise could not be reached on some of the key problem areas of this bill. However, because I agree with the goals of H.R. 1029--but not with the execution of those goals in the text of this bill--I am offering an amendment that will truly improve the Science Advisory Board.
This amendment draws on nonpartisan recommendations from the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Keystone Policy Center, and the Government Accountability Office that will lead to greater transparency in the selection of Board members and restore confidence in the scientific advice offered by the Board.
My substitute amendment would require EPA to release a formal memorandum detailing--among other things--the charge to the Board, including the specific questions the Board is tasked with addressing.
It would require the EPA to make available online the professional credentials of each person nominated to the Board, including any source of research funding dating back 2 years. It also outlines the disclosure requirements for every nominee.
Finally, my amendment requires the EPA to solicit public comment on the nominees, the candidates selected, and the advisory activities of the Board, including specific scientific or technical information for the Board to consider.
These changes encompass the core principles that both Republicans and Democrats have agreed should be followed in EPA's Science Advisory Board.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, based on nonpartisan recommendations of experts, and move forward with a bill that makes positive changes to the EPA's Science Advisory Board. My amendment will improve transparency in membership balance, promote public participation without endlessly delaying EPA action or skewing the membership of the board toward conflicted parties.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I want to first correct a misstatement that I made. I meant to say we did not have a subcommittee markup. We did have a full committee markup. However, we did not have any hearings this Congress on this very important issue.
I want to just add to what my good colleague, Mr. Lucas, said a couple of times about how this is a work in progress. If it is a work in progress, Mr. Chairman, I submit that we shouldn't be here quite yet today. We should continue to work together on this because there are a lot of goals that we agree on.
If it is a work in progress, why are we on the floor voting today?
Mr. Chairman, I submit that this substitute amendment does more to improve the transparency to get to the goals that everyone agrees we need on the Science Advisory Board. I submit that it is a better approach. However, I would prefer that we continue to work, and then bring the bill up for a vote.
I am an optimist too, Mr. Lucas, and I could get it done.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for working with me on other legislation.
I do want to point out that if there is something that isn't in the amendment, as my colleague noted, we have to keep in mind that the Science Advisory Boards are already covered by the Federal Advisory Committee Act that governs Federal advisory committees just like the Science Advisory Board and helps provide for balanced panels and subcommittees that include experts with diverse backgrounds who represent wide-ranging perspectives. So we need to look at this policy in conjunction with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
I do want to point out that the underlying bill, H.R. 1029, makes it harder for qualified scientists to serve but makes it easier for industry representatives to serve, even when they have a financial conflict of interest.
My amendment in the nature of a substitute levels the playing field and is a better approach.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source