U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–998 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–38 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY 

PANELS AND PROCESSES AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 543, THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE 

MANAGEMENT, AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 20, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT, 

AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 20, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Rounds, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota .................... 1 

Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts .......... 3 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 9 

WITNESSES 

McClellan, Roger O., Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis .... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Hadzi-Antich, Ted, Senior Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation .................. 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Gomez, Alfredo, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Yosie, Terry, President and CEO, World Environment Center ........................... 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Faber, Scott, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Environmental 

Working Group ..................................................................................................... 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANELS AND PROCESSES AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 543, THE 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT 

OF 2015 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT, 

AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Mike Rounds (chairman of the 

subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Rounds, Crapo, Boozman, Fischer, Inhofe, 

Markey, and Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator ROUNDS. Good morning, everyone. 

The Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, 

Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight is meeting today to 

conduct an oversight hearing on Scientific Advisory Panels and 

Processes at the Environmental Protection Agency and Legislative 

Hearing on S. 543, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015. 

The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with developing 

environmental regulations that impact every American in every 

State across the entire Country. These regulations affect the water 

we drink, the air we breathe and the land we use. 

The EPA has affirmed science is to be ‘‘the backbone of EPA decisionmaking.’’ The Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which are made up of scientific experts, are to supply the EPA with independent scientific and technical advice on a wide range of topics, from hydraulic fracturing, 

to ozone emissions, to stream and wetland connectivity. The EPA 

is to rely on this advice to assist them in crafting and issuing appropriate environmental regulations. 

Unfortunately, in recent years EPA regulations have been driven 

not by science but by politics. The EPA has not submitted critical 

agency science or technical information to the Science Advisory 

Board for review prior to implementing major regulations such as 
2 

greenhouse gas rules for cars and trucks, new source performance 

standards for coal-fired power plants, and ozone regulations, despite statutory authority to do so. 

Rather than allowing the science to drive the regulations, the 

EPA is carrying out the Administration’s political agenda through 

regulations with questionable science supporting them. For example, at an Environment and Public Works subcommittee hearing 

yesterday, we heard testimony that the EPA focused on the wrong 

issues when requesting the SAB to review an EPA-led study that 

became a scientific foundation for the overly burdensome Waters of 

the U.S. Rule that is due out in the near future. EPA, to achieve 

its goal of expanding jurisdiction, made the science fit into their 

preplanned agenda and the result will be a tremendous example of 

Federal overreach. 

In addition, due to not using proper science to begin with, as reported yesterday by the New York Times, the EPA engaged in its 

own lobbying campaign, under a questionable legal basis, to garner 

support for this rule. 

Despite the fact that the SAB is to be an independent body that 

provides independent advice to the EPA, many SAB members are 

receiving EPA grants, which not only lends itself to conflict of interest issues, but also ties the hands of SAB members who may not 

be inclined to provide dissenting views or disagree with agency 

science. 

When members do disagree with EPA science, there is little opportunity for members to express dissenting views. We have also 

seen many instances in which members of these boards are reviewing their own scientific work without recusing themselves. 

This diminishes any possibility that these boards will offer a 

truly impartial opinion regarding the validity of the science EPA is 

relying on. For example, a recent CASAC review showed that 21 

of 25 panelists had their own work cited by the EPA and meeting 

minutes did not note a single recusal. 

Further, there is little opportunity for public participation or 

comments in these scientific reviews and there is minimal State, 

local and tribal representation on these boards. The 47-member 

chartered SAB includes only three members from two States—California and Vermont. Additionally, the panels tasked with advising 

the EPA on hydraulic fracturing and water body connectivity did 

not include representatives from any States. 

As a result of these reviews, the EPA implements regulations 

that affect the entire Country, yet there is minimal State participation on these boards and when there is, the vast majority of the 

Country remains unrepresented. 

S. 543, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015, aims to 

address these problems by inserting more transparency and accountability in the SAB process. If passed, it will allow for more 

public participation in the SAB review process, more accountability 

for the members of the board, and provide for more transparency 

for Congress and the public regarding the science behind EPA regulations. 

The EPA should rely on the most up-to-date and sound science 

as the foundation for every regulation implemented by the agency. 

It is vital that this scientific review process be done in a trans-
3 

parent manner, undertaken by experts who can provide an impartial and independent opinion, and with sufficient representation by 

those who would be affected by these regulations. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with 

us today and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

I would like to recognize my friend, Senator Markey, for a 5- 

minute opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling today’s hearing to discuss EPA scientific advisory panels and 

scientific processes. 

I would like to start by embarking on a little scientific journey 

through time without the help of quantum mechanics. In the 17th 

century, Galileo proved that the sun, not the earth, was at the center of the solar system. This revelation was, to put it mildly, not 

welcomed by society. Galileo was tried and convicted of heresy and 

sentenced to life under house arrest. 

In 1992, more than 350 years later, after Galileo’s condemnation, 

Pope John Paul II acquitted the father of science from his erroneous conviction. 

Similarly, in the 19th century, Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution and was condemned for his findings. In 2008, in 

honor of Darwin’s 200th birthday, the Church of England issued an 

apology saying that ‘‘when a big new idea emerges which changes 

the way people look at the world, it is easy to feel that every bold 

idea, every certainty is under attack and then to do battle against 

the new insights.’’ 

History’s shoot-the-messenger approach to scientific discovery 

has evolved over time. Now political scientists in Washington are 

experimenting with new ways to use science as a weapon to thwart 

actions to protect public health and the environment. 

In this century for example, my staff wrote a report on how the 

Bush administration dismissed academic experts from serving on 

the Center for Disease Control Scientific Advisory Panel charged 

with recommending safe blood lead levels for infants and replaced 

them with expert witnesses for the lead and paint industries. 

A wide range of the regulations that keep us safe, from the food 

we eat to the technology we use to the air that we breathe, requires 

scientific guidance. In 1978, Congress created EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board to provide just that. 

Unfortunately, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 

will cripple the scientific process at the EPA. Quite simply, this bill 

is a solution in search of a problem. For example, EPA currently 

reviews potential financial conflicts of interest for board members 

privately, the same way that it is done for most of the Federal advisory committees. 

This bill requires that board members’ personal financial information, which could include information in their tax returns or information about their family’s finances be made publicly available. 

Some say this is a needed transparency measure but I note this 

provision could result in the mandatory public disclosure of more 

information than even United States Senators are required to 
4 

make. This provision will have a chilling effect on the participation 

of qualified scientists. 

The bill would also require that the board provide written response to public comments it receives on its work. Since current 

law prevents the board from considering any public comments 

without holding a public meeting, the board could be forced into indefinite public meetings to address comments which then generate 

more public comments that require more public meetings without 

ever getting to finish their scientific report. 

This bill also changes the board’s membership. Currently, membership is based solely on scientific expertise. The bill would require EPA to consider where experts work, not just what they 

know. 

I would also like to note that the committee marked up S. 544, 

the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, before even holding a hearing on the topic and over the objections of every Democrat on the 

committee. 

In any credible scientific process, the conclusions are made after 

you do the experiment, so the committee got it exactly backward. 

Let us not get it backward with EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board as 

well. 

We might not agree on the regulations that EPA proposes, but 

we should all be able to agree that the scientists should be free to 

provide advice without onerous requirements and restrictions. 

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that letters from the Union of 

Concerned Scientists and the American Lung Association be included in the record. 

Senator ROUNDS. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

Senator MARKEY. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Senator Markey. We appreciate 

your sharing of your thoughts. 

I would now like to recognize Senator Boozman for a statement 

on his legislation, S. 543, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act 

of 2015. 

Senator Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Chairman Rounds and Ranking 

Member Markey, very much for holding this hearing. 

Thank you for being here to testify and participate with your 

comments. 

Senator Manchin could not join us today. He and I introduced 

the Science Advisory Board Reform Act earlier this year. However, 

rather than provide an individual statement, I would like to read 

a joint statement that Senator Manchin and I prepared together. 

Again, I want to thank Senator Manchin and his staff. They 

work very, very hard to solve problems on a bipartisan basis. 

With that, we believe that work to conserve the environment and 

protect human health should be science-based. Science is a vital 

tool to inform policymakers. When science is used to justify environmental policy, it must be verifiable and developed through an 

open and well structured process. 

For these reasons, we have introduced the Science and Advisory 

Order Format. Our legislation will make modest improvements to 

the EPA science and advisory process. Our bill provides limited reforms. We hope our efforts will achieve further bipartisan support. 

That certainly is our goal. 

S. 543 takes the following modest steps. First, it increases transparency. Specifically, it allows the public to submit comments on 

Science Advisory Board activities through an open process. 

Second, our bill enables expanded board reviews, particularly of 

the risk or hazard assessments that are important to determine 

which potential regulations are needed most. 

Third, our bill also standardizes the SAB member selection process. Specifically, the standardized process is based on structures 

that are laid out in the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the EPA’s 

Peer Review Handbook and the National Academy’s Policy on Committee Composition and Balancing Conflicts of Interest. 

Fourth, our bill also ensures that any dissenting views on review 

panels are not silenced. 

Fifth, our bill limits non-scientific policy advice from the Science 

Advisory Board. 

Finally, it increases SAB disclosures in an effort to reduce conflicts of interest. 

The bottom line is that the EPA, at times, provides for excellent 

scientific reviews. Other times, there are gaps in the process. 

Sometimes the review process is entirely bypassed or ignored. 

We believe that enabling public comments and protecting dissenting views is important to make sure that the board becomes 

aware of its own blind spots. Standardizing the process will ensure 
10 

that excellent scientific reviews are reinforced and consistently carried out. 

We believe the principles behind these reforms can be broadly 

supported. We are open to suggestions on how the bill can be improved. We want the final product to draw substantial support 

from both Democrats and Republicans because we are simply working to improve the process. 

In fact, we have already accepted some criticisms and made 

changes. An earlier version prohibited board members from participating in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involved review or evaluation of their own work. 

This provision was criticized as too broad since many items before the board are highly technical. Since prohibiting participation 

by certain members could create blind spots, we have amended the 

current version to allow such board members to participate as long 

as they fully disclose their involvement in the underlying work and 

as long as the work has been externally peer-reviewed. 

This is an example of our determination to work in good faith 

and to make this bill as good as it can be. We hope our colleagues 

in both parties will be willing to engage in this legislation process 

so that we can advance a final bipartisan bill to the President’s 

desk that can be signed into law. 

Whether we are dealing with a Republican Administration or a 

Democratic Administration, many Americans feel uncertain that 

the regulatory process involves an adequately credible scientific review. We would all benefit from reforms to increase the credibility 

of the process. 

On one final note, we strongly believe the Science Advisory 

Board is made up of highly dedicated, hardworking and skilled scientists. They provide their expertise to the EPA and provide a vital 

service to the public. Their work is often thankless. 

Our legislation is intended to help these dedicated professionals 

perform their vital tasks independently and to improve the credibility of the agency. 

With that, we thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for today’s hearing and we look forward to considering the testimony of 

the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Our witnesses joining us for today’s hearing are: Dr. Roger O. 

McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis; 

Ted Hadzi-Antich, Senior Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation; 

Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Dr. Terry Yosie, 

President & CEO, World Environment Center; and Scott Faber, 

Vice President, Government Affairs, Environmental Working 

Group. 

Now we will turn to our first witness, Mr. Roger McClellan, for 

5 minutes. Mr. McClellan, you may begin. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, let me interrupt for a moment 

to say a special welcome to Dr. McClellan. The last time he was 

here was when I had your job and I was sitting there as chairman 

of this subcommittee. It was in 1997. Welcome back. 
11 

STATEMENT OF ROGER O. McCLELLAN, ADVISOR, 

TOXICOLOGY AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. 

Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the invitation to present my views on the importance of independent scientific advice to inform policy decisions to 

the Environmental Protection Agency and the importance of an efficient and effective Science Advisory Board. 

I request that my complete written testimony be entered in the 

record as though read in its entirety. 

By way of background, I have had a multifaceted career focusing 

on conduct and management of what I call issue resolving scientific 

research. A major portion of my career was spent providing leadership for two organizations, one funded primarily by the Federal 

Government and the second funded primarily by the chemical industry. 

Recently, I have served as an advisory to public and private organizations on issues related to the impact of air quality on health. 

Throughout my career, I have served on numerous advisory committees for government agencies, academic institutions, private organizations, including service on more than two dozen EPA committees. The independent views I relate today draw on that experience. Let me summarize my views. 

First, sound, independent, scientific advice from competent scientists outside of organization is critical to the successful functioning of any science-based enterprise operating in the public or 

private sector, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

The EPA Science Advisory Board is a primary vehicle for the 

agency to obtain that kind of independent, scientific advice. 

Two, the EPA’s approach to creating and using scientific advisory 

committees and panels has continued to change over the 45-plus 

year history of the agency. Yet, I see numerous opportunities for 

further improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Science 

Advisory Board. 

Three, the scientific basis for all major EPA policies and regulations should be reviewed by the SAB. However, the SAB’s mission 

should be sufficiently broad that it has the authority, which it 

should exercise from time to time, to offer scientific advice on 

issues identified by the SAB independent of requests from the 

agency. 

Four, while scientific knowledge should inform all of EPA’s policies and regulations, it should be recognized by scientists, policymakers, legislators and the public that policies and regulations are 

ultimately policy judgments. They are often not dictated by the 

science alone but rather informed by it as there is often a range 

of justifiable policy decisions the regulator can make. 

Five, the agency should strive to obtain the best possible evaluation of the strengths and the weaknesses of the scientific evidence 

relating to the issue at hand and should avoid placing undue emphasis and pressure on seeking consensus. 

In my opinion, consensus is a social phenomenon grounded in 

ideology and is not always well suited to dealing with scientific 

issues. 
12 

Sixth, selection for service on the SAB or as a consultant should 

be based on the scientific credentials of the nominees without respect to their potential views or the policy or regulatory outcome 

on the issue being addressed. To date, the agency has focused on 

recruiting academic scientists and left untapped a large, large pool 

of highly competent individuals employed in the private sector. 

Seven, all SAB activities should be transparent and open to the 

diverse public. The SAB does play a vital role in providing a forum 

for the public. 

Eight, further improvements in EPA’s advisory committee process should be built on a broad review of past EPA advisory committee activities and operations, both successes and failures. 

Nine is the identification of best practices used by EPA, as well 

as other public and private organizations, a review of how the 

agency uses advice and input from the public and careful attention 

to how SAB members and consultants are appointed. 

All processes should be transparent and individuals appointed 

based on their scientific credentials and the absence of any bias as 

to the potential policy or regulatory outcome of the issue at hand. 

In my opinion, the proposed legislation is a positive step in the 

right direction to enhance EPA’s SAB role in ensuring the quality 

of scientific information used to inform EPA’s policies and regulations that impact the well being of every American. 

It is most important that changes resulting from legislation and 

equally important, that more rigorous EPA management focus on 

ensuring the transparency of the process that provides sound scientific advice to inform policy decisions and regulations with meaningful participation from all sectors of the U.S. economy. 

I will be pleased to address any questions or comments later in 

the session. 

Thank you very much for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClellan follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Dr. McClellan. 

Now, we will hear from Mr. Ted Hadzi-Antich. You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF TED HADZI-ANTICH, SENIOR STAFF 

ATTORNEY, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 

Mr. HADZI-ANTICH. Thank you. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members 

of the subcommittee. 

My name is Ted Hadzi-Antich. I am a senior attorney with the 

Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting individual liberty, property rights, and a balanced approach 

to environmental regulation. 

I have been practicing environmental law for about 40 years. I 

have a good understanding of EPA’s regulatory policies, including, 

for purposes of this testimony, EPA’s interaction with the Science 

Advisory Board. 

In my view, EPA is not using the board effectively, efficiently, or 

even wisely. Congress enacted the SAB organic statute in the 

1970s to deal with public criticism that EPA’s regulatory proposals 

lacked scientific and technical credibility. It created the board to 

provide an expert peer review looking at the science undergirding 

regulatory proposals by EPA. 

Under the current statute, certain regulatory proposals must be 

submitted by EPA to the board for peer review, but the board, 

itself, has no responsibility to respond in any particular way to any 

particular regulatory proposal. 

This issue really came to a head, in my view, starting in 2009 

when EPA promulgated the first suite of greenhouse gas emission 

regulations under the Clean Air Act, including emission regulations 

for carbon dioxide. 

Carbon dioxide is a ubiquitous natural substance. It is everywhere and it is in everything. When EPA started regulating carbon 

dioxide, it opened the door for Federal regulation of everything, everywhere in the Nation. That is a tremendous power for a Federal 

administrative agency to have. 

The first suite of EPA regulations was promulgated without any 

input from the Science Advisory Board. As a matter of fact, EPA 

did not even submit the proposed rules to the Science Advisory 

Board to receive their review and comment. 

After promulgating those regulations, EPA took the position that 

it does not have to submit any proposed rule to the Science Advisory Board unless there is an independent Federal statute other 

than the SAB organic statute that requires EPA to submit a regulatory proposal to another Federal agency as part of interagency 

interaction, and then only if, with regard to regulations under the 

Clean Air Act, there is a substantial likelihood that the regulation 

would have been significantly changed, if SAB were given the opportunity to review it. 

These two policy decisions by the EPA, which add a veneer to the 

SAB organic statute, especially in the context of important regulations like carbon dioxide emissions, really undercut the very purpose of the SAB peer review requirement. 
26 

I think S. 543 goes a long way to deal with these situations. My 

recommendation is to consider three overarching issues in connection with the SAB review process. 

One, every proposed regulation that EPA is required to publish 

in the Federal Register under the Administrative Procedures Act 

should be required to be submitted to the SAB for peer review. 

Two, when EPA fails to comply with the SAB submittal requirement, that failure should be judicially reviewable under the standard provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. 

Three, with regard to the most important regulations governing 

the Nation as a whole, such as carbon dioxide, which impacts not 

only the national economy but pretty much every aspect of the national life, with regard to those regulations, SAB should be given 

the duty to respond in some appropriate way to the proposed regulation. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hadzi-Antich follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. HadziAntich. We appreciate your testimony. 

Our next witness is Mr. Alfredo Gomez from GAO. Mr. Gomez, 

you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF ALFREDO GOMEZ, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you, Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member 

Markey and members of the subcommittee. 

Good morning. I am pleased to be here today to discuss two Federal advisory bodies that review the scientific and technical basis 

for EPA decisionmaking. These are EPA’s Science Advisory Board, 

which, as already noted, is authorized to review the adequacy of 

the scientific and technical basis of EPA’s proposed regulations and 

the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which provides independent advice to EPA on air quality criteria. 

My statement today summarizes preliminary observations from 

our ongoing work on which we plan to complete and issue a report 

in June 2015. I will focus on two main areas. 

The first area is EPA’s process for responding to congressional 

requests to the SAB and two, the extent to which CASAC has provided advice related to air quality standards. 

The Environmental Research Development and Demonstration 

Authorization Act of 1978 requires the SAB to provide the EPA Administrator with scientific advice and to also provide scientific advice to designated congressional committees when requested. 

CASAC is required to provide advice to the EPA Administrator 

with regard to EPA’s national ambient air quality standards. The 

Clean Air Act requires EPA to set and periodically review and revise the air quality standards for certain air pollutants. 

As Federal advisory committees, both the SAB and CASAC are 

subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The head of each 

agency that uses Federal advisory committees is responsible for exercising certain controls over those committees. 

For example, the EPA Administrator is responsible for establishing administrative guidelines and management controls that 

apply to all of the agency’s advisory committees and for appointing 

a designated Federal officer for each advisory committee. 

As required by FACA, the SAB and CASAC operate under charters that include information on their objectives, scope of activities 

and the officials to whom they report. 

Regarding the first area of our study, our preliminary observations indicate that EPA’s policies and procedures for processing 

congressional requests to the SAB do not ensure compliance with 

ERDDAA because the procedures are incomplete. 

While these documents provide some direction for how EPA and 

the SAB are to process requests from congressional committees, the 

documents do not clearly outline how the EPA Administrator, the 

SAB staff office and members of the SAB panel are to handle a congressional committee’s request for advice from the SAB. 

EPA’s policies and procedures lack clarity. Specifically, they do 

not clearly acknowledge that the SAB must provide scientific advice when requested by select congressional committees, nor state 
31 

which of two offices should process the request. Finally, they do not 

clearly establish procedures for determining questions the SAB 

would answer. 

Second, regarding the extent to which CASAC has provided advice related to air quality standards, our preliminary observations 

indicate CASAC has provided certain types of advice related to the 

review of national ambient air quality standards. 

According to a senior EPA official, CASAC has carried out its 

role in reviewing the air quality criteria and the air quality standards as required by the Clean Air Act. However, CASAC has never 

provided advice on adverse social, economic or energy effects of 

strategies to implement the air quality standards. 

This is, in part, because, according to the law, air quality standards are to be based on public health and welfare criteria rather 

than on the social, economic or energy effects. In addition, EPA has 

never asked CASAC to do such a review. 

In summary, EPA has developed additional policy documents to 

try to help clarify how to process congressional requests to the SAB 

but some questions remain about that process that could affect the 

SAB’s compliance with ERDDAA. 

Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Markey and members of the 

subcommittee, this completes my statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gomez follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Gomez. 

We will now hear from our next witness, Dr. Terry Yosie. Dr. 

Yosie, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY YOSIE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, WORLD 

ENVIRONMENT CENTER 

Mr. YOSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today on the issue of the management of scientific advisory 

panels at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

I appear today in a personal capacity as my employer, the World 

Environment Center, is a non-profit organization that conducts no 

advocacy activities. 

My comments today will reflect several career experiences. From 

1981 through 1988, I served as the Director of EPA’s Science Advisory Board during the Administration of Ronald Reagan. I later 

served as Vice President for Health and Environment at the American Petroleum Institute and also as Vice President for Environment, Health, Safety and Security at the American Chemistry 

Council. 

Effective management of scientific advisory processes at EPA 

should embody several important principles. These principles include the following. 

The advice provided by scientific advisory committees should 

only be advisory in nature. In practice, this means that advisory 

committee reports should be explicitly taken into account during 

the policymaking process but they are not binding. 

Second, appointments to scientific advisory panels should be 

made on the basis of merit rather than institutional affiliation or 

quotas. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan vetoed legislation that 

would have undermined this principle by requiring that appointments to EPA’s Science Advisory Board be based on representation 

of specific interests rather than scientific merit. 

If I may quote President Reagan, ‘‘this requirement runs counter 

to the basic premise of modern scientific thought as an objective 

undertaking. The purpose of the Science Advisory Board is to apply 

the universally accepted principles of scientific peer review to the 

research conclusions that will form the basis for EPA regulations, 

a function that must remain above interest group politics.’’ 

I believe that President Reagan’s words echo across the decades 

and are directly relevant to the discussion we are having today. 

Third, scientists can never answer all of the scientific questions, 

but they can and must help policymakers focus on the important 

scientific questions. 

Fourth, most potential conflict of interest issues can be resolved 

by an appropriate level of transparency, but not all of them. I personally would take a dim view of any scientist who refuses to disclose the source of his or her research funding or who believes 

there is no conflict issue in reviewing one’s own published work 

that may have an important bearing in a risk assessment. 

On the other hand, I believe that scientists from industry, environmental groups and other institutions have important expertise 

that needs to be represented on scientific advisory panels. So long 

as no single interest group has disproportionate representation on 

an advisory committee and has representatives that qualify for ap-
49 

pointment based on merit, I believe the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s requirement for ‘‘balanced points of view’’ can be effectively met. 

Fifth, priorities for peer review panels should remain focused on 

research and scientific assessment. 

Sixth, scientists are under no obligation to serve on scientific advisory panels. Adding further non-scientific responsibilities to peer 

review panels will make the recruitment of qualified, independent 

scientists even more difficult. 

With these principles in mind, I have several specific comments 

to offer regarding S. 543. They include the following. 

Section 2(B) states that ‘‘at least 10 percent of the membership 

of the board are from State, local or tribal governments.’’ This is 

similar to a provision that was the basis for President Reagan’s 

veto of similar legislation in 1982. 

The proposed legislation substitutes a quota for merit as the 

basis for a significant percentage of advisory committee appointments. In practice, this will distort the peer review process. 

Section 3(D) of S. 543 requires the filing of a ‘‘written report disclosing financial relationships and interests’’ including EPA grants 

and contracts. This is appropriate but in addition, it is important 

not only to disclose EPA grants, but also grants or contracts supported by other Federal agencies, private industry or other institutions. 

The proposed legislation would also require that public comments 

during Science Advisory Board reviews ‘‘shall not be limited by an 

insufficient or arbitrary time restrictions.’’ By providing for unlimited time for public comments, S. 543 creates the perverse incentive 

of driving scientific advisory panels away from their focus on the 

underlying science and toward a role of referee among competing 

interest groups. I believe this provision of S. 543 should be removed. 

In summary, as I reviewed the provisions of this bill, I am having a tremendous case of de ́ja` vu that recalls my experience as Director of the Science Advisory Board during President Ronald Reagan’s administration. 

Then, as now, Congress proposed legislation that substituted 

quotas for scientific merit in the appointment of advisory committee members. Then, as now, proposed legislation would add burdensome new requirements to the operation of scientific advisory 

panels that compete with and diminish their ability to focus on 

their core purpose which is to provide independent evaluation of 

the quality of research and the scientific basis of proposed criteria, 

risk assessments and proposed standards. 

Mr. Chairman, enactment of this proposed legislation will waste 

taxpayer dollars and further divert the focus away from the critical 

need of ensuring that scientific advisory panels advising the EPA 

deliver qualified, timely and effective scientific advice. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I will be pleased to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yosie follows:] 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Dr. Yosie. 

Our next witness is Mr. Scott Faber. Mr. Faber, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT FABER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 

Mr. FABER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

By providing independent advice to the EPA Administrator, the 

Science Advisory Board has played a unique role in environmental 

protection for more than three decades. It is important to remember that the SAB is primarily focused on technical issues, not policy issues, and does not make risk management or regulatory decisions. 

Its role is limited to offering advice on the scientific and technical 

basis upon which the agency makes its risk management and regulatory decisions. The SAB makes recommendations that are 

grounded in science, not politics. 

We are concerned that S. 543 could inject politics and in some 

cases, delay into the Board’s scientific and technical deliberations. 

First, S. 543 would place the affiliation of potential Board members ahead of their scientific qualifications by establishing a quota 

for representatives of State, local and tribal governments. SAB 

members are called upon to provide their technical and professional 

expertise, not to represent the views of any particular agency or organization. By creating such a quota system, S. 543 could undermine the integrity of the SAB and the original intent of Congress. 

Second, S. 543 would allow the appointment of Board members 

who have potential financial conflicts of interest, so long as those 

interests are disclosed. Under current law, EPA carefully evaluates 

the potential conflicts of interest of all Board members in accordance with FACA, which does permits waivers in some cases, and 

with the ethics requirements of FACA. 

Like the quota system described in Section 2(b)(2)(B) of S. 543, 

a provision permitting Board members with conflicts would undermine the integrity, and potentially the impartiality, of SAB reviews. 

Third, S. 543 would discourage qualified experts from agreeing to 

serve on the Board. In particular, Section 2(b)(3)(D) would have a 

chilling effect on participation by requiring public disclosure of SAB 

members’ private financial information. 

Fourth, S. 543 would create significant new and unnecessary 

burdens on the Board. In particular, S. 543 would require the SAB 

to provide written responses to all public comments, which in some 

cases can number more than 100,000 comments. 

In addition, S. 543 would extend the public comment period beyond a Board meeting, even though FACA prevents the board from 

considering such comments without holding yet another public 

meeting. 

This could create an endless cycle of meetings and comments 

that would ultimately impede and delay the Board’s ability to provide the Administrator with its scientific and technical advice. 

I am sure that the advocates for S. 543 intended this bill to increase transparency, empower scientists, avoid conflicts of interest 

and enhance the Board’s scientific integrity. How, FACA already 
56 

provides important safeguards that prevent these conflicts of interest and ensure public access and input to the SAB’s deliberations. 

In summary, we are concerned the provisions of S. 543 would undermine the SAB’s scientific integrity by making Board membership subject to organizational affiliation rather than merit; by increasing, not reducing, financial conflicts of interest; and by creating a needless cycle of meetings and comments that will only 

serve to delay action. 

Like S. 544, the so-called Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, we 

are concerned that S. 543 could delay and ultimately deny to EPA 

the ability to improve air and water quality for all Americans. 

In particular, S. 544 would sharply limit the science EPA can 

rely on by prohibiting the use of studies based on private health 

data, proprietary models and confidential business information. 

S. 544 would also prohibit the use of long-term studies, workplace exposure studies, oil and chemical spill studies, and other research that is difficult or impractical to ‘‘reproduce’’ but that provides critical information about health effects. 

What is more, S. 544 creates a troubling double standard by restricting the use of such studies in actions designed to protect public health but permitting them in actions that benefit industry, 

such as permit approvals and chemical registrations. 

Taken together, we are concerned these bills would needlessly 

limit EPA’s ability to rely upon basic science and needlessly limit 

the agency’s ability to subject scientific and technical questions to 

review by the Science Advisory Board. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faber follows:] 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Faber. 

The Senators will now each have 5 minutes for questions. I will 

begin. 

Mr. Gomez, under ERDDAA, the Science Advisory Board is required to be responsive to congressional requests for scientific advice. You note that the EPA does not have documented procedures 

for reviewing congressional requests. 

When Congress submits requests to the SAB, the SAB should acknowledge the request and reply that the EPA will provide a response. 

How does this lack of a clear process and reliance on EPA to respond to Congress affect the SAB’s ability to provide Congress with 

an independent response to their request? 

Mr. GOMEZ. The SAB is required under ERDDAA to provide scientific advice to congressional committees that request it. As you 

noted, we said in my statement that EPA does not have complete 

procedures and it is not clear exactly how who should do it or 

which office. 

We also in our report have a graphic that shows what the status 

is of these two requests that have come through. In one case, EPA’s 

office did acknowledge the receipt of the request and then 7 months 

later, it also noted the remaining questions that had not been answered. 

There were 14 questions in total in the initial response. Three 

were answered. EPA then said there was a previous report that 

had addressed some of the themes of that request. That is not complete yet, so EPA has noted that if there are other questions, it will 

have to wait until one of the draft reports EPA is doing is completed before the SAB can take up that question. 

Senator ROUNDS. Part of our role here in an oversight capacity 

is to find ways in which the EPA could perhaps do a better job of 

being more transparent with their dealings with the Science Advisory Board. 

Do you have any recommendations with regards to how that 

process should work when we have requests such as from Congress 

where the EPA is literally the location where we will get the data 

back but the request is to the SAB? Can you talk about that a little 

bit? Is there a process that needs to be fixed? 

Mr. GOMEZ. Definitely, it is very much about transparency. What 

we found is that when a request comes over, it was not clear who 

was to respond. In one case, it was the SAB staff office. In another 

case, it was EPA’s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Relations. 

We are looking to really make it clear, make the procedures clear 

in terms of how EPA is supposed to respond. EPA, under FACA, 

is required to manage the agenda of the SAB. We want that to be 

clear so that everyone can see who responds and what questions 

the SAB should take. 

EPA also has the ability to not only prioritize the requests, but 

also to sequence them so that it can provide a response because it 

is required under ERDDAA to do so. 

Senator ROUNDS. You note that there have been two formal requests from Congress asking for advice from the SAB. These were 

both made approximately 2 years ago. Both of them have to deal 
62 

with issues relevant to the committee today, hydraulic fracturing 

and the soon to be released WOTUS Rule. 

My concern is that we are being confronted with these issues 

today, yet the SAB has not given Congress the relevant information were requested to investigate these issues in the first place. 

How do EPA regulations impact the ability of the SAB to respond 

to Congress in a timely manner? Are there specific guidelines and 

rules under which the EPA currently operates that restrict the 

SAB from being able to come back and provide that independent 

information? 

Mr. GOMEZ. With regards to the issue of timeframes, there is no 

requirement under ERDDAA that the SAB respond by a certain 

time. EPA, through FACA, is allowed to set the agendas and to 

prioritize what the SAB will take up. It can sequence those requests. 

To the extent that EPA has to balance the requests that it provides to the SAB, the charge questions that it provides, and then 

requests from Congress, as you have noted, can affect the timeliness of the response. That is something EPA has to balance. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Yosie, in your testimony, you said this bill ‘‘will waste taxpayer dollars and will further divert the focus away from the critical need of ensuring that scientific panels advising the EPA delivery qualified, timely and effective scientific advice.’’ 

You were the director of EPA’s Science Advisory Board from 1981 

to 1988 during the Reagan administration. You made reference to 

this bill. But when President Reagan vetoed a similar bill in 1982, 

didn’t his veto statement compare the premise of the bill to a Stalinist term called Lysenkoism, in which science is manipulated to 

reach a predetermined ideologically based conclusion? 

Mr. YOSIE. The term to which you are referring, Lysenkoism, refers to a gentleman by that name who was Joseph Stalin’s advisor 

who substituted Soviet ideology for replacing ordinary, well understood laws about biology and so forth. 

That terminology was used in the Reagan White House press release vetoing the bill that I referred to in my testimony. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, by unanimous consent, I would 

like to put President Reagan’s veto statement in the record. 

Senator ROUNDS. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

This bill requires that 10 percent of Board members be from 

State, local and tribal governments. The Scientific Advisory Board 

does highly specialized work. For example, the Board is reviewing 

the safety of trimethylbenzene which is a byproduct of the petroleum refining process and ethylene oxide, which is used in the production of industrial chemicals. 

Might EPA have to select Board applicants who do not have the 

necessary scientific expertise if it has to meet quotas for certain 

types of applicants? 

Mr. YOSIE. There are several comments I would make on that, 

Senator Markey. 

One is that if there is a 10 percent quota to have people from 

States, local governments or tribal areas represented on advisory 

committees, and if those representatives do not have the sufficient 

scientific understanding of the issues in review, that would require 

the Science Advisory Board to then probably add another 10 percent to the size of the advisory committee to compensate for the 

lack of expertise. 

To me that is not a theoretical exercise. I will give you a concrete 

example. During the Reagan administration, I was responsible for 

organizing the peer review of the risk assessment related to stratospheric ozone depletion, a serious global challenge. In fact, it was 

one of the most successful environmental agreements that had ever 

been implemented in history. 

Many of the compounds that were implicated in stratospheric 

ozone were called chlorofluorocarbons. They were phased out. 

There is now a substitute generation of compounds that are also 

now under review for health and environmental risks. 

As I look at the universe of the scientific community that has expertise in stratospheric ozone substitute chemicals, I am very skeptical that State or local governments or tribal areas are going to 

have the requisite knowledge on those issues. 

That is not to say that those organizations cannot be or should 

not be represented on many other important scientific reviews. 

Fracking is a good example of that. I think there are clearly a lot 

of State and local issues dealing with ozone standard development 

and State and local governments have technical experts on those 

matters. 

My concern is that by implementing an across the board quota 

for every single advisory panel of the Science Advisory Board, you 

will end up disproportionately increasing the size committee, adding people who do not understand the science and I think that is 

not a useful exercise in using taxpayer dollars. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Yosie. 

Mr. Gomez, in GAO’s opinion, did the EPA’s Scientific Advisory 

Board comply with the law in its response to the House Science 

Committee’s request? 

Mr. GOMEZ. EPA has not completed the response. It is required 

under ERDDAA to respond to the congressional committees. We 

have to wait and see. 

As I noted earlier, there is a partial response. EPA has indicated 

that it will address the questions in the future. We will have to 
75 

wait and see. There are only two requests that have been sent 

through. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROUNDS. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I remember so well because I was there and would like to just 

review for a moment the chronology. First of all, we all remember 

Climategate. That came in November. Just a matter of hours after 

Climategate, which totally trashed the credibility of the IPCC, in 

fact there are several quotes. The London Telegraph called this 

perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time. I could read a 

lot of others but I do not have time to do that. 

That is what happened and right after that is when the Director, 

Lisa Jackson, in this very room when I asked her, you are going 

to have an endangerment finding and it has to be based on science. 

What science will you use? She said, the IPCC. I have all that in 

a transcript. 

It was kind of interesting because that was a matter of just 

hours after this scandal took place. With that in mind, Mr. HadziAntich, in 2010, I requested an Inspector General investigation into 

the EPA’s endangerment finding, what I just now described, the 

agency’s basis for all of the climate regulation. This is the basis we 

have been working with. 

The IG reported the EPA did not follow proper peer review procedures and should have sent the findings to the SAB for review. 

Why do you suppose the SAB did not review the endangerment 

finding? Do you have any thoughts? 

Mr. HADZI-ANTICH. Senator, that is the $64,000 question. When 

EPA promulgated the endangerment finding that carbon dioxide 

and other greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health and 

welfare, it did so without any input from the Science Advisory 

Board. 

Again, this was a regulation of national importance because carbon dioxide is everywhere and in everything. The EPA has never 

explained why it did not send such an important finding to the 

SAB before promulgating the regulation. 

Senator INHOFE. I have to stop you there. You have answered the 

question and I appreciate it very much. 

You probably agree with the statement made by Dr. Richard 

Lindzen of MIT when he said the regulation of carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you regulate carbon, you regulate life itself. Do you 

agree with that? 

Mr. HADZI-ANTICH. I do, indeed, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Gomez, based on your review of the SAB’s 

organic statute, if Congress requested that the SAB review the 

endangerment finding or any of the climate regulations, does the 

SAB have an obligation to respond to Congress, yes or no? 

Mr. GOMEZ. The short answer is yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Dr. McClellan, on the subject of hydraulic fracturing review, there are zero State and local experts for the 46- 

member chartered SAB. There are only 3 from States. Two of them 

are from California and one peer from Vermont. 
76 

A large part of the Country is under-represented in reference to 

geographic diversity. Can you talk about how EPA selects members 

and why it seems that well qualified experts were excluded from 

the panel? 

We are talking about the hydraulic fracturing panel and I am the 

right one to ask that question because in my State of Oklahoma 

in 1948, they had the first hydraulic fracturing in Duncan, Oklahoma, the makeup of the committee. 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. The question is? 

Senator INHOFE. The question is, can you talk about how the 

EPA selects members and why it seems that well qualified experts 

like us are under-represented? 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I would say there is no clarity to the process 

by which individuals were selected and it is obvious that States 

and regions of the Country where clearly hydraulic fracturing was 

used and is being used, there are knowledgeable people, knowledgeable scientists and engineers of the process. 

I have no idea why the EPA did not take advantage of the opportunity to consider individuals from those areas with the requisite 

knowledge. 

Senator INHOFE. Dr. McClellan, you heard what I asked Mr. 

Hadzi-Antich in terms of why do you suppose they would use, for 

the science to back up the request that was made, the IPCC just 

hours after the disclosure of Climategate and the scandal they 

went through? 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I think that was a clear negligence on the part 

of EPA senior officials in their failure to utilize the SAB. I would 

say during the time period that I served on the SAB, if we had 

knowledge of that, we would have ‘‘volunteered’’ our services. We 

would have requested the authority to proceed with organizing a 

committee to address that important issue. 

That is why I emphasized the importance of SAB independently 

having the ability to identify issues that need to be addressed. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

I am going to go back to Ranking Member Markey for 5 minutes 

and then I will move to Senator Boozman. 

Senator INHOFE. Is this a second round we are starting? 

Senator ROUNDS. Yes, but I will allow the Ranking Member to 

go first. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Just for the record, the endangerment finding was made by the 

Bush administration, Administrator Johnson, back in 2008. It was 

not actually accepted by Dick Cheney but that was the finding that 

was made. 

The ultimate endangerment finding was based upon the National 

Academy of Sciences, the IPCC, other peer review sources and it 

was actually upheld in court, just so we get that out there. The 

original decision was made by the Bush administration. 

I also want to make it clear as well that is consistent with decision made by Ronald Reagan back in 1982 in vetoing the bill that 

you referred to, Dr. Yosie. 
77 

Mr. Faber, is it true that currently whenever the Scientific Advisory Board wants to respond to a public comment in writing, it has 

to convene a public meeting? 

Mr. FABER. That is right, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. The Scientific Advisory Board Reform Act of 

2015 would require that the Board provide written responses to 

public comments it receives on its work. Is it true that if the Scientific Advisor Board is forced to respond in writing to every significant comment it receives, it will have to keep convening public 

meetings until the public stops sending comments and as a result, 

that is, in theory, something that could drag on forever? 

Mr. FABER. That is correct, Senator. It would create a significant 

disincentive for SAB members to participate if they had to respond 

to thousands and thousands of public comments. 

Senator MARKEY. Is it also true that during any rulemaking 

process that uses Scientific Advisory Board information the EPA 

would have to respond in writing to any public comment at that 

time so that the public will have ample opportunity to weigh as 

well? 

Mr. FABER. That is right, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Gomez, your testimony said the Science 

Advisory Board must respond to any congressional request from 

the specified committees. Taken to the extreme, could a committee 

submit an unlimited number of requests to the SAB without regard 

to the amount of money appropriated by Congress for scientific 

analysis? Would that pose a constitutional problem? 

Mr. GOMEZ. That is a possibility. That is something that could 

happen. EPA, under FACA, is allowed to set the agenda, to set the 

priorities, to sequence the work and to try to balance the work from 

the congressional committees and also from EPA. We view it as 

sort of mediating what may be coming from congressional committees. 

Senator MARKEY. Taken to an extreme, Mr. Faber, it could result 

in paralysis? 

Mr. FABER. Absolutely, you could significantly drain EPA and 

SAB resources depending on the types and number of requests that 

would come from Congress. 

Senator MARKEY. Dr. Yosie, you said in your testimony, the 

training and careers of scientists does not prepare them to offer 

specific insight or expertise concerning non-scientific factors. 

Do you disagree that the Scientific Advisory Board should be providing scientific advice to EPA and not advice on non-scientific topics? Do you all agree with that? Dr. McClellan? 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Yes, I think science only and stay out of the 

policy arena. 

Mr. HADZI-ANTICH. Yes. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Yes. 

Mr. YOSIE. Yes. 

Mr. FABER. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. This bill requires SAB members to make their 

personal financial information public, introduces a substantially 

new work law by requiring written responses to public comments 

and prioritizes quotas over scientific merit for membership. 
78 

I would like each of you to answer yes or no. Do you agree that 

this bill could discourage scientists from participating in scientific 

advisory boards, lead to long delays in the release of SAB reports 

and prevent EPA from being able to select the best scientists to 

serve on these panels? Mr. Faber. 

Mr. FABER. Yes. 

Mr. YOSIE. Yes. 

Mr. GOMEZ. We do not take a position on pending bills. 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I do not believe so, sir, no. The requirements 

in place now are not really remarkably different from that. I can 

say that I take a hard look every time I am asked to serve on a 

Federal advisory committee as to what I have to disclose with regard to my personal financial matters and those of my wife. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROUNDS. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ranking Member, the Senator from Massachusetts, raised some 

concerns about the bill. I hope we can work in good faith. 

The examples you mentioned concerning the world being flat and 

things like that, I think it is important to remember that the people who were blocking that were the establishment or the people 

in power. 

All we are trying to do with this bill is make sure good science 

is represented and that we have the complete mix of science rather 

than those in power, whether this President or the next President. 

We cannot do anything about past Presidents but again, just making sure that we have a good frame work so that everybody is represented. 

There has been talk about disclosure. The bill only requires financial disclosure of items related to the work on the SAB, not private financial information. Again, this is something that we can 

work on and make some adjustments or whatever. 

I do think there is a level of disclosure that needs to be required 

so that we will know where the people are coming from. 

Dr. Yosie, you mentioned the fact of State representation and the 

situation that we are going to have people not qualified. This is an 

effort to make sure our States in situations where these things 

have tremendous impact on them, that their scientists, the people 

in situations like that, have representation on the Board. 

Again, we can look at numbers and percentages. Ours is actually 

less. I believe on the Clean Air Science Advisory, one in seven is 

required to be from the States. This is something not new. 

As the graph demonstrated, right now I think we have a situation where the States are not always represented. Certainly we can 

find good people from the States that do have the qualifications. 

Again, we would be willing to work with the particular numbers. 

Can you respond to that? 

Mr. YOSIE. I have several brief comments. 

One is certainly during my time as Science Advisory Board Director we routinely had representatives of State and local governments, and in some cases, tribal areas represented on scientific advisory panels. 
79 

The specific example that you referred to, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, has a statutory requirement that a 

State representative be included. In that specific instance, it is appropriate because of the ambient air quality standards review process the committee is responsible for reviewing the scientific content 

for. The States have a lot of strength on science in that particular 

matter. 

My particular concern was not to have a blanket requirement because the Science Advisory Board conducts dozens of scientific reviews every single fiscal year and not all of them are applicable to 

the expertise that you would find in a State, local or tribal area. 

Certainly, we had a number of State, local and tribal representatives and certainly more than just two States. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I appreciate that. I think the graph illustrates. 

Again, we are trying to figure out how to do that? When you 

were in charge, you were able to do that. How do we do that such 

that we make sure there is representation? We would be quite willing to work with anyone in that regard. 

Mr. Hadzi-Antich, we appreciate your suggestions. I guess the 

question I have is do you agree that the reforms in our bill could 

sometimes result in a more robust regulatory action while at other 

times those reforms could lead to scaling back of proposals? 

I say that because, again, we are trying to get a bill that operates in good faith and gets the science out there. Would you agree 

theoretically we could have a more robust enforcement in some 

areas and less robust than currently? 

Mr. HADZI-ANTICH. If this answers your question, I think it is 

important to have more robust enforcement. Right now there are 

all sorts of obstacles to judicial review of EPA’s interaction with the 

Science Advisory Board. 

The easy fix for that would simply be to make EPA’s interactions 

judicially reviewable under the current procedure set forth in the 

APA. It would make it clearer for EPA, for the SAB and for the 

general public. 

Senator BOOZMAN. And not bypass the SAB? 

Mr. HADZI-ANTICH. Exactly. 

Senator BOOZMAN. That seems to be the theme of your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROUNDS. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to my good friend 

from Massachusetts. I recognize that he was not a member of the 

U.S. Senate in December 2009. That was right after the scandal 

came out. 

When I talk about the scandal, the endangerment finding on 

which the decision was made has to be science. We asked Lisa 

Jackson, then Director of the EPA, what science she was going to 

rely on, so it has nothing to do with what might have happened 

or not happened in 2008 or the Bush administration. 

I asked her, you are going to come out with an endangerment 

finding. I remember that time because I was getting ready to go 

to Copenhagen as a one-man truth squad, as I recall at that time, 

and I did. 
80 

I said, you have to base your endangerment finding on science. 

What science will you use? I had the transcript and all this. It was 

going to be the IPCC. 

Let me ask one question of you, Mr. Hadzi-Antich. Does it make 

sense when you have a scandal, I quoted the Guardian saying pretending this is not a real crisis is not going to make it go away. 

The Daily Telegraph noted the scandal could well be the most serious scandal in scientific history. The Atlantic Magazine said the 

stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. 

Why do you think, knowing this, after these accusations were 

made all over the world, not just here in the United States, but primarily most of them in western Europe, they would use that board 

and their science to come up with their endangerment finding? 

Mr. HADZI-ANTICH. I personally do not see any reasonable rationale for that, especially in light of those disclosures. I do not see any 

reason for not having submitted the endangerment finding to the 

Science Advisory Board for peer review. 

Senator INHOFE. I think the IG agrees with you because in a 

speech on the floor shortly after that, I said, in the IG report on 

the endangerment finding ‘‘the IG confirms the endangerment finding was rushed, biased and flawed.’’ Again, it was in this very committee hearing that she made the decision that was what she was 

going to use on which to base her science. 

I do not have anything else. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Markey, go ahead. Then I will finish up with closing remarks. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me ask a question of the Chair. Senator 

Markey and I are very close friends. We can go back and forth for 

a long period of time. We have to determine who is going to get 

the last word. 

Senator MARKEY. You can have the last word. The Majority always has the last word. 

Senator INHOFE. That is a great idea. 

Senator MARKEY. The reason that I know that is that I used to 

be in the Majority. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me ask, did you like it better? 

Senator MARKEY. Honestly, my mother always said the most important question in life is answering the question of compared to 

what, so yes. This is not as good. 

Senator ROUNDS. Being the chairman is best because I still get 

the last word. 

Senator MARKEY. I remember December 2009 very well. I remember it because then I was the chairman, I was in the Majority. 

I was the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. 

Senator Inhofe and I actually debated his perspective on CNBC, 

on Fox and we went on show after show debating his position and 

my own position back then. I would actually contend though that 

science has not been questioned fundamentally and that the planet 

is dangerously warming. Last year was the warmest year ever recorded. 

Actually, off the coast of Massachusetts in January of this year, 

we had temperature readings of 21 degrees above normal in our 
81 

ocean, which to a certain explains why we had 110 inches of snow 

and Anchorage, Alaska only had 20 inches of snow this year. They 

actually had to truck in snow to start the Iditarod dog race this 

year because of that warming of the Arctic and the change in the 

flow of the cold air coming down and hitting the warm, warm ocean 

off the Atlantic, off Massachusetts. 

This is just further corroboration of the accuracy of the finding 

that the planet is warming and that there are consequences for the 

planet. At the end of the day, the question is, do we want to make 

sure the scientific process does stay intact and that there is integrity to it? 

I would just ask you, Dr. Yosie, what would be the implications 

from your perspective if all of the scientists were required to have 

their income tax returns made public? What would be the level of 

success you would have in recruiting scientists to do this work? 

Mr. YOSIE. You would always get some scientists who would volunteer to serve on panels. Those would not necessarily be those 

who have the most esteemed qualifications and training for the review you are seeking to organization. 

Senator MARKEY. I tend to agree with you. I think we have to 

be very careful as we wade into this area. I think it is absolutely 

imperative that we do have the best scientists and that we also 

make sure they are properly vetted as well but that there is a certain confidentiality to their own personal records or else I think we 

will have a significant discouragement factor that will limit the full 

pool of the best scientists that we have in the United States to be 

giving advice to the Federal Government. 

I think that is true whether it is a Democratic or Republican 

President. We want the best people to be volunteering but we also 

have to protect them from being turned into political pin ̃ atas. If 

they are willing to serve, I do not think personal attacks upon their 

integrity should be a part of this process. 

I would just say that from my perspective, I think this is a highly illuminating hearing. I think moving forward, we should just exercise great caution so that we do not create a discouragement to 

the best and brightest participating in a very important public 

process. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I appreciate that, Senator Markey. We really 

would be very willing to work with you in that regard. Certainly, 

we do not want that to happen either. 

Dr. Yosie, you do agree though that financial disclosure of items 

related to their work on the SAB should be disclosed? 

Mr. YOSIE. That is important to maintaining the integrity of the 

process. 

Senator BOOZMAN. That is truly what we are trying to do. That 

should not dampen anybody from serving. That probably will 

dampen some from serving, but that is probably an appropriate 

damper. 

Mr. YOSIE. It is a judgment call. I think we want to do a thorough vetting of people who are under consideration for appoint-
82 

ment to these panels, but I think being overly intrusive in terms 

of stock portfolios or income tax returns, I think is an abuse. 

I think you will see highly qualified and talented scientists who 

run away from wanting to be appointed to such processes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. We hope we can work with all of you on this 

and again, get a product that is good in the sense that we have integrity with the process. That really is the key so that we do not 

prevent some of the things you mentioned earlier. 

Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have done this so often now, I do not need notes. 

I can remember in one of our debates, going from memory, approximately every 30 to 40 years we do have changes in patterns. 

In 1895 was the first time they started using the term global 

warming because things got warming for a 30-year period from 

1895 to about 1918. Then we went into a cooling period. That 

lasted until 1945. You are talking about approximately the same 

length of time. 

They actually used another ice age. I remember even the covers 

of magazines like Newsweek and others, each time this happened, 

they came up with Alaska polar bears dying and all these things. 

Then they completely reversed it when another 30-year trend 

comes. 

In 1945, that was the year of the greatest surge of CO2 at that 

time that had been recorded, right after World War II. That precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period that lasted until 

about 1975. We know what has happened since that time. 

Climate is always changing. We understand that. The other day 

on the floor, I made that point when Senator Whitehouse had an 

amendment. I said, yes, I agree with the amendment because the 

amendment was saying climate is changing. Everyone understands 

that. 

The issue here, though, was, in order for them to do what they 

wanted to do on this massive change, keep in mind this was not 

always Democrats because the first bill introduced was the 

McCain-Lieberman bill. The last time I checked, Lieberman was an 

Independent and McCain was a Republican. That was in 2002 and 

they reintroduced in 2005. 

It has been reintroduced and my good friend from Massachusetts 

has had a bill and some came over from the House when he was 

in the House and some did not. Nonetheless, people are getting 

kind of worn out on this and all the hysteria that the world is coming to an end and the fact this has been going on for a long period 

throughout recorded history. 

Now we have a situation where the public is saying, we are not 

as interested as we were. The last Gallup poll was about 3 weeks 

ago. Of the environmental concerns, global warming was next to 

the last. Going from memory, I think it was out of 40 concerns. 

That used to be No. 1 or No. 2. 

I think there has been a lot of doubt. The American people are 

looking at this. Confession is good for the soul. I say to my friend, 

Senator Markey, back when this first started, I assumed everything was correct until in your State of Massachusetts, Dr. Richard 
83 

Lindzen, an MIT professor came out with the quote I gave about 

regulation of carbon is regulating life. He established some doubt. 

On the Senate floor, I talked about that and scientists started 

calling and saying why they were rejected from participation in the 

IPCC. It is on the record. I talked about this 10 years ago. 

Now we have the situation where in December 2009, the Administrator of the EPA, knowing she had to rely on some science to 

come up with an endangerment finding, which President Obama 

wanted it to happen, I asked her at that time on what science she 

was going to base it and that was the IPCC. 

Again, I will not repeat all of these things. I have 40-some criticisms on Climategate associated with that, trashing the science of 

IPCC. It does not serve any useful purpose to repeat that at this 

time. 

That is the only thing I was trying to get across. It was based 

on science that I think was flawed science. Many of the scientists 

agreed with me. 

Senator MARKEY. Would the Senator yield? 

Senator INHOFE. Sure, I will yield. 

Senator MARKEY. I agree with you that confession is good for the 

soul. It took 350 years for the Catholic Church to go to confession. 

Finally, Pope John Paul II pardoned Galileo which was great news 

in the Catholic Church that finally confession had taken place. 

The good news is now that Pope Francis, a Jesuit, who is a 

chemist, is going to issue an encyclical on climate change. He is 

convinced of the science so we have come a long way as a church, 

especially when they name a Jesuit as the Pope who was a chemist. 

I think there is increasingly going to be that linkage. 

Senator INHOFE. What is the question? 

Senator ROUNDS. Actually, the amount of time you could yield to 

him has now expired. 

Senator MARKEY. I have found in the Senate that many questions actually come in the form of answers when Senators are 

speaking. 

I thank the Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me say that I genuinely have a love for this 

guy. It is the hypocrites that I do not like. He is not a hypocrite, 

he really believes this stuff. 

Senator ROUNDS. It is nice to be the Chairman because I get the 

last word. 

If there is anything I think comes from a discussion like this 

where there are not a lot of people here, but those who are, clearly 

have an interest in working and solving problems. 

There was a term used today that I think we could all learn 

from. I believe the term was Lysenkoism. If there is one thing we 

all agree on, it is that we do not want Lysenkoism. You will find 

there are folks right now who will look at what has happened at 

the EPA and there is a question of whether or not they have actually used the Science Advisory Board appropriately in the manner 

in which everyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent, wanted 

it done in the first place. 

If you want credibility and trust in government, you have to be 

able to look at the independent science advisors, trust them, trust 
84 

they come from multiple facets of life with a great deal of experience. 

Senator Boozman has proposed a bill in which he wants to 

spread that out. He wants it across the Country. He is frustrated 

because what he sees right now is it does not appear as though 

with an open process, people are trusting the science is being utilized and accessed the way it was intended in the first place. 

The question is whether or not those individuals who serve on 

it are being picked in a fair manner. Those are valid questions and 

are something I believe an oversight committee has the ability and 

responsibility to ask the questions. 

We ask the question because neither Republicans nor Democrats 

want Lysenkoism. The word of the day, Lysenkoism, is something 

I think we can all agree is something we do not want when it 

comes to the EPA or any other agency of the Federal Government 

creating laws, regulations or otherwise influencing the average 

lives of American citizens. 

With that, I do have some additions to the record. I ask unanimous consent to submit two additional statements for the record, 

a statement from the American Chemistry Council and a statement 

from the Council of State Governments West. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

[The referenced statements follow:] 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

Senator ROUNDS. Once again, I would like to thank our witnesses 

for taking the time to be with us today. I would also like to thank 

my colleagues who attended this hearing for their thoughts and 

their questions. 

The record of this hearing will be open for 2 weeks which brings 

us to Wednesday, June 3, 2015. 

With that, Ranking Member Markey, thank you. Thank you 

other members for your participation today. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ