99–006

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

2

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.

3

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 decisionmaking 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

4

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 priority appointment 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

5

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.

6

• 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 univerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:08 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR311.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR311
7

sities, 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.

8

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.’’

9

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 peerreview 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 recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:08 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR311.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR311
10

ommendation 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

11

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 privatesector 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

12

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

13

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

§ 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.

* * * * * * *

14

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.

15

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.

16

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

17

I have made on this issue. This bill is a solid, measured response to a consensusbased 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.

18

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 dediVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:08 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR311.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR311
19

cated 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 reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:08 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR311.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR311
20

viewing 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.]

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

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:]

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

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 toVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:08 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR311.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR311
44

gether 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 decisionmaking 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 underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:08 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR311.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR311
45

lying 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 inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:08 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR311.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR311
46

formed 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:]

47

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 PresiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:08 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR311.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR311
48

dent. 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 peerreview and research-planning practices are used for all of EPA’s scientific endeav- ors.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 ColVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:08 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR311.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR311
49

leges 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 you

honor 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——

50

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

51

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, HispanicServing 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.

52

[Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ