U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

80–553PDF 2013

IMPROVING EPA’S SCIENTIFIC 

ADVISORY PROCESSES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2013 

Serial No. 113–15 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. CHRIS STEWART, Utah, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Chris Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Chief Toxicologist, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Dr. Roger McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Science Policy Fellow, Union of 

Concerned Scientists 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 38 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 52 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Chief Toxicologist, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ..................................................................................................... 70 

Dr. Roger McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis ... 75 

Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Science Policy Fellow, Union of 

Concerned Scientists ............................................................................................ 78 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Letters sent to the Committee by various groups and individuals expressing 

their concerns about the provisions in the bill submitted by Representative 

Suzanne Bonamici ................................................................................................ 80 

Congressional Research Service Memorandum on EPA Grants to Members 

of Selected EPA Advisory Committees submitted by Representative Dana 

Rohrabacher .......................................................................................................... 82 

Thank you letter and Questions sent to Dr. Grifo from the Subcommittee 

on Investigations and Oversight hearing on October 13, 2011, for the hearing titled, ‘‘The Endangered Species Act: Reviewing the Nexus of Science 

and Policy,’’ submitted by Representative Paul Bourn ..................................... 92 
Page

IV 

George T. Wolff, The Changing NAAQS Review Process, submitted by Dr. 

Michael Honeycutt ............................................................................................... 96 

EPA Evalualion Report submitted by Dr. Michael Honeycutt ............................ 108 

GSA Federal Advisory Committee Membership Balance Plan submitted by 

Dr. Michael Honeycutt ......................................................................................... 130 
(1) 

IMPROVING EPA’S SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY 

PROCESSES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Chris Stewart 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

Chairman STEWART. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee 

on Environment will come to order. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Improving EPA’s Scientific 

Advisory Processes.’’ In front of you are packets containing the 

written testimony, biographies, and truth-in-testimony disclosures 

of today’s witnesses. I would now like to recognize myself for five 

minutes for an opening statement. 

Welcome once again to this morning’s hearing on the Environmental Subcommittee entitled ‘‘EPA’s Scientific Advisory Processes.’’ Former President Ronald Reagan famously said that ‘‘the 

government’s view of the economy should be summed up in a few 

short phrases: if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. 

And if it stops moving, subsidize it.’’ The EPA’s agency needs no 

introduction as a primary executor of the regulatory part of this 

formula. 

Whether it is fostering air-quality regulations that could shut 

down large swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled attacks 

on the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job-killing climate 

regulations that will have no impact on the climate, EPA’s reputation as a lightning rod for controversy is well known here in Washington and throughout the country. 

Less well known and understood, however, is the underlying regulatory science and scientific advisory mechanisms that the Agency 

uses to justify its aggressive regulatory approach. The purpose of 

today’s hearing is to examine these processes with a particular 

focus on draft legislation to reform the EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board, or SAB. Established by Congress in 1978, the SAB is intended to provide meaningful, balanced, and independent reviews 

of the science conducted and used by the Agency. Unfortunately, 

this vision often goes unrealized in actual practice. I would like to 

note just a few examples here. 

Despite a statutory requirement that EPA’s advisory panels be 

‘‘fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,’’ the Agency 

routinely excludes private sector expertise while stacking these 

panels with individuals likely to support EPA’s perspective. It is no 

surprise that EPA finalized a regulation on power plants in late 

2011 that even the Agency admitted would cost $11 billion a year. 

EPA had prevented virtually all industry scientists from participating in the review of the underlying science. 

Similarly, this Committee received testimony stating that, in the 

case of an SAB panel asked to examine EPA’s hydraulic fracking 

research, all 22 members had ‘‘no experience in hydraulic fracturing and no understanding of current industry practices,’’ this in 

an industry whose technology is rapidly changing with significant 

improvements incorporated into their processes nearly every day. 

Even worse, the Agency appears ready to double-down on this antibusiness attitude I summarily dismissing on the ground private 

sector experts in the next fracking science review. 

Meanwhile, there are unsettling Agency trends about how EPA 

selects its supposedly independent advisers. According to the Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of the members of 

EPA’s chartered SAB and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, 

also known as CASAC, have directly received grants from the 
10 

Agency since 2000. These advisors served as principal and co-investigators in EPA grant totaling roughly $140 million. 

EPA frequently chooses panelists whose research is directly or 

indirectly under review. During a recent review of EPA air-quality 

science, 21 of the 25 panelists had their work cited by the EPA and 

the Chair of the panel was footnoted more than 80 times. 

Many of the panelists have clearly taken sides are made public 

pronouncements on issues they advise about. For example, a lead 

reviewer of EPA’s hydraulic fracking study published in antifracking article entitled ‘‘Regulate, Baby, Regulate.’’ 

This hardly sounds like a recipe for a critical or balanced examination. Yet EPA routinely touts the work of its independent 

science advisors in promoting and defending its controversial regulatory agenda. The record is clear: the SAB is ripe for improvement. 

Accordingly, we will discuss draft legislation that would address 

these concerns—the EPA Science Advisory Board Perform Act of 

2013. This language is similar to the bill introduced in the 112 

Congress by then-Chairman Ralph Hall. The draft bill would reform the SAB and its subpanels by expanding transparency requirements, improving the process for selecting expert advisers, 

strengthening public participation, and limiting non-scientific policy advice. 

The concepts contained in this proposed legislation did not arise 

out of thin air; rather, they are principles that came from the 

EPA’s own Peer Review Handbook, the National Academies’ Conflict-of-Interest Policy, existing Federal ethics requirements on Special Government Employees, and recommendations from past 

Science Committee testimony and other outside groups. 

Let me conclude by making this important point: if the EPA scientific process is viewed as being biased less or than willing to consider every point of view, their credibility suffers. This serves neither the EPA, American businesses, nor American citizens. Independent, balanced, and transparent review of EPA science offers a 

critical check on the Agency that frequently views the world 

through its regulatory lens. Commonsense reforms that improve 

scientific advice should make EPA’s regulatory end-products more 

credible, and I look forward to our witnesses’ unique perspective on 

these issues. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN CHRIS STEWART

Welcome to this morning’s hearing of the Environment Subcommittee entitled Improving EPA’s Scientific Advisory Processes. 

Former President Ronald Reagan famously said that ‘‘government’s view of the 

economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps 

moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.’’ The Environmental Protection Agency needs no introduction as the primary executor of the regulatory part 

of this formula. 

Whether it is promulgating air quality regulations that could shut down large 

swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled attacks on the safety of hydraulic 

fracturing, or pursuing job-killing climate regulations that will have no impact on 

the climate, EPA’s reputation as a lightning rod for controversy is well known here 

in Washington and throughout the country. 
11 

Less well known and understood, however, is the underlying regulatory science 

and scientific advisory mechanisms that the Agency uses to justify its aggressive 

regulatory approach. The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine those processes, 

with a particular focus on draft legislation to reform the EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board, or SAB. 

Established by Congress in 1978, the SAB is intended to provide meaningful, balanced, and independent reviews of the science conducted and used by the Agency. 

Unfortunately, this vision often goes unrealized in practice. I would like to note just 

a few examples: 

• Despite a statutory requirement that EPA’s advisory panels be ‘‘fairly balanced 

in terms of point of view represented’’ the Agency routinely excludes private sector expertise while stacking these panels with individuals likely to support 

EPA’s perspective. It is no surprise that EPA finalized a regulation on power 

plants in late 2011 that even the Agency admitted would cost $11 billion a year; 

EPA had prevented virtually all industry scientists from participating in the review of the underlying science. 

• Similarly, this Committee received testimony stating that, in the case of an 

SAB panel asked to examine EPA’s hydraulic fracturing research, all 22 members had ‘‘no experience in hydraulic fracturing and no understanding of current 

industry practices.’’ This, in an industry whose technology is rapidly changing, 

with significant improvements incorporated into their process nearly every day. 

Even worse, the Agency appears ready to double-down on this anti-business attitude by summarily dismissing on-the-ground private sector experts in its next 

fracking science review. 

Meanwhile, there are unsettling Agency trends about how EPA selects its supposedly-independent advisors: 

• According to the Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of the members of EPA’s chartered SAB and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

(also known as ‘‘CASAC’’) have directly received grants from the Agency since 

2000. These advisors served as principal or co-investigators for EPA grants totaling roughly $140 million dollars. 

• EPA frequently chooses panelists whose research is directly or indirectly under 

review. During a recent review of EPA air quality science, 21 of the 25 panelists 

had their work cited by EPA and the Chair of the panel was footnoted more 

than 80 times. 

• Many of the panelists have clearly taken sides or made public pronouncements 

on issues they are advising about. For example, a lead reviewer of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study plan published an anti-fracking article entitled ‘‘Regulate, Baby, Regulate.’’ 

This hardly sounds like a recipe for a critical or balanced examination. Yet EPA 

routinely touts the work of its ‘‘independent science advisors’’ in promoting and defending its controversial regulatory agenda. The record is clear: the SAB is ripe for 

improvement. 

Accordingly, we will discuss draft legislation that would address these concernsthe EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013. This language is similar to 

a bill introduced in the 112th Congress by then-Chairman Ralph Hall. The draft bill 

would reform the SAB and its sub-panels by expanding transparency requirements, 

improving the process for selecting expert advisors, strengthening public participation, and limiting non-scientific policy advice. 

The concepts contained in this proposed legislation did not arise out of thin air; 

rather, they are principles that come from EPA’s own Peer Review Handbook, the 

National Academies’ Conflict-Of-Interest Policy, existing federal ethics requirements 

on Special Government Employees, and recommendations from past Science Committee testimony and other outside groups. 

Let me conclude by making this important point: If the EPA scientific process is 

viewed as being biased, or less than willing to consider every point of view, their 

credibility suffers. This serves neither the EPA, American businesses nor American 

citizens. 

Independent, balanced, and transparent review of EPA science offers a critical 

check for an Agency that frequently views the world through its regulatory lenses. 

Common sense reforms that improve scientific advice should make EPA’s regulatory 

end-products more credible, and I look forward to our witnesses unique perspectives 

on these issues. 
12 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Today, the Subcommittee meets for a hearing on the quality of 

the science being used by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

When I first read the title of the hearing, ‘‘Improving EPA’s Scientific Advisory Process,’’ I felt encouraged that this would be an 

opportunity to explore areas of bipartisan agreement on how to improve an important Federal agency. I am sure that my colleagues 

agree that if and when there are problems in a government entity 

for which the mission is to protect public health and the environment, we should be steadfast in identifying any problem and work 

together to find meaningful solutions. 

According to the hearing charter, the purpose of this hearing is 

to receive independent scientific advice and testimony on draft legislation that seeks to strengthen public participation, improve the 

process for selecting expert advisers, expand transparency requirements, and limit nonscientific policy advice within the EPA’s scientific advisory process. All of these are good government principles 

that I support. 

Like many of my colleagues on the panel, I have heard from constituents who are frustrated with EPA decisions, EPA processes, or 

both. Many of those constituents tell me that what they need from 

the EPA is consistency and efficiency. On closer examination of the 

discussion draft of the bill, however, I noted that the provisions 

will not improve the Science Advisory Board structure or operation 

but instead would likely limit the quality of scientific advice the 

EPA receives. These provisions appear to tie the EPA’s hands by 

denying the Agency access to a vast pool of our country’s most expert scientists and researchers in environmental science and 

health. 

Last Congress, there was a very similar bill introduced, only the 

prior version contained a provision that would have resulted in 

many, if not most, scientists from academic institutions being 

eliminated from the EPA’s Science Advisory Boards and being replaced by industry-funded experts. I am glad to see that my colleagues in the majority have eliminated that provision in this current draft. 

Although that provision is no longer there, other parts of the 

draft bill appear to do the same thing. By eroding requirements 

that are in place under the Ethics in Government Act and by creating an unnecessary legal conundrum because of inconsistencies 

with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA, under which 

thousands of Boards, including EPA’s Science Advisory Boards, operate and have operated since inception. 

To be clear on one point—and I trust that this is an area where 

my Republican colleagues and I agree—I am not opposed to industry-funded experts participating on Scientific Advisory Boards or in 

the peer-review process at the EPA. Their expert insight into processes and industry conduct can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body. That said, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee in the House of Representatives should not be putting forth 

legislation that undermines ethics requirements and other requirements that have governed thousands of advisory boards through 

the Executive Branch since 1972 with the end result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on the Science Advisory Boards. 
13 

EPA’s science is tied to a mission, a mission to protect public 

health through environmental regulation. Scientific research, 

knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental to EPA’s mission and inform its regulatory functions. That need for expertise is 

exactly why Congress created advisory boards such as the Science 

Advisory Board, to provide independent advice on the science, 

which in turn allows the EPA Administrator to make sound regulatory decisions. 

I hope that instead of undermining the scientific advice EPA receives, we build upon EPA’s scientific legacy. I hope we don’t spend 

our time condemning American scientists and researchers simply 

because they are affiliated with research universities. And I want 

to note that under existing law scientists already recuse themselves from activities that directly or indirectly relate to finding decisions that are—that affect them, besides suggesting that American scientists and researchers are adversaries of good science is 

not good for our country. 

Before yielding back, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into 

the record several letters sent to the Committee by various groups 

and individuals expressing their concerns about provisions in the 

bill. These letters are from concerned citizens, science, and environmental organizations, and individuals within the scientific research 

community around the country. I look forward to the testimony 

today and the questions. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER SUZANNE BONAMICI

Thank you, Chairman Stewart. Today the Subcommittee meets again for a hearing on the quality of the science being used by the Environmental Protection Agency. When I first read the title of this hearing, ‘‘Improving EPA’s Scientific Advisory 

Process,’’ I felt encouraged that this would be an opportunity to explore areas of bipartisan agreement on how to improve an important federal agency. I am sure my 

colleagues agree that, if and where there are problems in a government entity for 

which the mission is to protect public health and the environment, we should be 

steadfast in identifying any problem and work together to find meaningful solutions. 

According to the hearing charter, the purpose of this hearing is to receive independent scientific advice and testimony on draft legislation that seeks to strengthen 

public participation; improve the process for selecting expert advisors; expand transparency requirements; and limit non-scientific policy advice within the EPA scientific advisory process. All of these are good government principles that I support. 

Like many of my colleagues on this panel, I have heard from constituents who are 

frustrated with EPA decisions, EPA processes, or both. Many of those constituents 

tell me that what they need from EPA is consistency and efficiency. 

On closer examination of the discussion draft of the bill, however, I noted provisions that will not improve the Science Advisory Board structure or operation, but 

that instead would likely limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives. 

These provisions appear to tie the EPA’s hands by denying the agency access to a 

vast pool of our country’s most expert scientists and researchers in environmental 

science and health 

Last Congress, there was a very similar bill introduced, only the prior version contained a provision that would have resulted in many if not most scientists from academic institutions being eliminated from the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Boards and 

being replaced by industry-funded experts. I am glad to see that my Republican colleagues have eliminated that provision in this current draft. Although that provision 

is no longer there, other parts of the draft bill appear to do the same thing by eroding requirements that are in place under the Ethics in Government Act, and by creating an unnecessary legal conundrum because of inconsistencies with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), under which thousands of boards, including the 

EPA’s Scientific Advisory Boards, operate and have operated since inception. 
14 

To be clear on one point—and I trust that this is an area where my Republican 

colleagues and I agree: I am not opposed to industry-funded experts participating 

on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer review process at the EPA. Their expert insight into processes and industry conduct can provide valuable guidance to 

an advisory body. That said, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee in the 

House of Representatives should not be putting forth legislation that undermines 

ethics requirements and other requirements that have governed thousands of advisory boards throughout the executive branch since 1972, with the end result being 

an overrepresentation of industry voices on Science Advisory Boards. 

EPA’s science is tied to a mission to protect public health through environmental 

regulation. Scientific research, knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental 

to EPA’s mission and inform its regulatory functions. That need for expertise is why 

Congress created advisory bodies such as the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to provide independent advice on the science, which in turn allows the EPA Administrator 

to make sound regulatory decisions. 

I hope that, instead of undermining the scientific advice EPA receives, we build 

upon EPA’s scientific legacy. I hope that we don’t spend our time today condemning 

American scientists and researchers simply because they are affiliated with a research university. And I want to note that scientists already recuse themselves from 

activities that directly or indirectly relate to finding decisions that affect them. Besides, suggesting that American scientists and researchers are adversaries of good 

science is not good for our country. 

Before yielding back, I would like to enter into the record letters sent to the Committee by various groups and individuals expressing their concerns about the provisions in the bill. These letters are from concerned citizens, science and environmental organizations, and individuals within the scientific research community 

around the country. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

Regarding your request for submitting your letters, without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman STEWART. I would note that not all of these letters 

from environmentalists mention concerns in H.R. 6564 that may 

not be relevant to the discussion draft considered today, which I 

think you pointed out in your opening statement. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. And before 

I do, thank you for taking the opportunity and being with us today. 

Thank you for your service to your country and for your expertise 

in this matter. 

Our first witness is Dr. Michael Honeycutt, the Chief Toxicologist 

for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. He has been 

employed by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality since 

1996 and has managed the division of 14 toxicologists since 2003. 

His responsibilities include overseeing health affects, reviews of the 

air permit applications, overseeing the review of the results of Ambient Air Monitoring Projects, and overseeing the reviews of 

Human Health Risk Assessments for hazardous waste sites. 

Our second witness is Dr. Roger McClellan, an Advisor of Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis. Dr. McClellan has served 

as an Advisor to numerous public and private organizations. He 

has served on the Senior Advisory Committees for eight Federal 

agencies, he is the past Chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, the Environmental Health Committee, Research 

Strategies Advisory Committee, and a member of the Executive 

Committee Science Advisory Board, U.S. Environmental Protection 
15 

Agency. He received his doctorate from Washington State University in 1960. 

Our final witness today is Dr. Francesca Grifo, a Senior Scientist 

and Senior Policy Fellow at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. 

Grifo came to UCS in 2005 from Columbia University where she 

directed the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation 

Graduate Policy Workshop and ran the Science Teachers Environmental Education Program. Prior to that, she was Director of the 

Center for Biodiversity and Conservation and a Curator at the Hall 

of Biodiversity at the American Museum of Natural History in New 

York. Dr. Grifo earned her doctorate in botany from Cornell University. 

It is clear that all of these witnesses have great expertise and 

background that could lend to this subject. As our witnesses should 

know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes, after which the 

Members of the Committee will have five minutes to each ask 

questions. 

I now recognize Dr. Honeycutt for five minutes for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL HONEYCUTT, 

CHIEF TOXICOLOGIST, 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Dr. HONEYCUTT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Committee. My name is Dr. Michael Honeycutt. I am Director 

of the Toxicology Division at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. I thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

A few years ago, I attended a scientific meeting in North Carolina where I struck up a conversation with a scientist who had 

been a member of the lead Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, 

or CASAC. I gave him my view on EPA’s lowering of the lead 

standard in 2008 and he told me that he wished he had known this 

information when they were deliberating the lead standard and 

asked why I hadn’t made comments. I told him that I had submitted written comments and he replied we don’t read the written 

comments. You have to go to the public meetings to make your case 

in person. 

Why bother going through the pretense of having written comments to the CASAC if you are not going to read them? Oral testimony at the CASAC meetings is limited to three or five minutes, 

hardly enough time to present a thorough argument. This illustrates the need for EPA’s advisory panels to be balanced. Having 

balanced panels brings all the information into consideration which 

reduces ‘‘group think’’ and leads to better policy decisions. 

In the past, the CASAC has been relatively well-balanced in 

terms of expertise and range of opinions. However, in recent years 

the trend has been towards inclusion of more epidemiologists from 

academia at the exclusion of other areas of expertise such as toxicologists and risk assessors with little or no representation of wellqualified scientists from states and industry. This is perhaps the 

results of a misunderstanding of the role of scientists play in these 

organizations together with a misplaced perception of potential conflicts of interest. 

I went to school with and have worked with many scientists who 

now work for industry. I know their companies did not ask them 
16 

to check their ethics and morals at the door when they took their 

jobs in industry. Given that academicians bring their own biases 

into the CASAC, there is no reason to believe that well-qualified 

experts from state agencies, consulting firms, or industry would be 

disproportionately biased. 

One concern that is often raised when deciding to exclude certain 

parties in the process of EPA peer review is bias due to sources of 

funding. I believe that receiving funding from the EPA in the form 

of research grants can also be seen as a potential source of bias. 

Under the current system, the EPA can select who it wishes to 

fund, choose key studies to support regulatory decisions, place the 

authors of those studies on the CASAC, and then ask their opinion 

on the resulting analysis and policy. Clearly, this poses a potential 

conflict of interest, even if the study authors recuse themselves 

from discussions which directly addresses their own work. 

We would instead propose a more balanced approach such as 

that employed by the nonprofit organization Toxicological Excellence in Risk Assessment, or TERA. TERA believes, and we concur, 

that an objective evaluation by independent experts with a variety 

of viewpoints is critical to the credibility of any peer review. TERA 

strives to include a range of perspectives on each panel, including 

diverse professional affiliations. The evaluation of real or perceived 

bias or conflict of interest is an important consideration for both 

peer review and consultation panels and every effort is made to 

avoid conflicts of interest and biases that would prevent a panel 

member from giving an independent opinion on the subject. 

TERA’s Conflict of Interest Policy identifies the following situations as examples of those that would create a real or perceived 

conflicts of interest: working for an organization that sponsors or 

contributes to the document to be reviewed, having direct personal 

financial investments benefiting from the outcome of the review, or 

authoring or providing significant comments on the document being 

reviewed. 

The TERA Conflict of Interest Policy also discusses bias. For 

these reviews, the term bias means a predisposition towards the 

subject matter under consideration that could influence the candidates of viewpoint. Examples of bias would be situations in which 

a candidate: as previously taken a public position on the subjects 

to be discussed or is affiliated with an industry, governmental, public interest, or other group with a partiality regarding the subjects 

to be discussed. 

As you can see from these examples, such potential conflicts or 

biases could apply equally to academicians as they may to scientists from industry or any other organization. Therefore, it is our 

belief that there is a need for reconsideration of current conflict-ofinterest policies regarding EPA advisory panels. There is also much 

improvement needed with regards to a balanced peer review that 

incorporates numerous perspectives and areas of expertise. We believe that these changes will result in a stronger peer review process in ultimately better policy decisions. 

The measures outlined in the bill are common sense and already 

in use by other groups such as the National Academy of Sciences 

and TERA. You will hear others testify that EPA has ample guid-
17 

ance on conflict of interest, bias, and balance. The problem is they 

don’t consistently follow it. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today and 

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Honeycutt follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Dr. Honeycutt. 

Dr. McClellan? 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ROGER MCCLELLAN, ADVISOR, 

TOXICOLOGY AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to share my views with 

you on approaches to ‘‘Improving EPA’s Scientific Advisory Processes.’’ I requested my written comments be entered into the record 

in their entirety. 

I applaud the Subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important topic. The receipt of sound scientific advice from scientists and 

engineers outside of EPA is of paramount importance to the Agency 

fulfilling its mandated responsibilities for protection of human 

health and the environment. The comments I offer today draw on 

50 years of experience offering advice to public and private organizations, as well as my receipt of advice as a scientist and research 

manager. 

My service as a Scientific Advisor to the EPA began with the creation of the Agency. The new EPA included an Environmental Radiation Program previously located in U.S. Public Health Service. 

The transfer of the program to EPA included transfer of the environmental radiation exposure advisory committee that I would soon 

chair. Last summer, I provided advice to the Agency on its MultiPollutant Air Quality Program. 

During the intervening 40 years, I have served as a member of 

SABs, Executive Committee, and on numerous specific committees, 

including service as Chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee, it is clear from the amount of time that I have spent 

in those activities now measured in years that I think they are of 

great value to the Agency. Moreover, I think the advisory committee activities can be improved to substantially enhance their 

value to the EPA, to the Nation, and to the participants. The 

changes in legislation proposed by the Subcommittee are a small 

step in the right direction. However, more is needed. 

I suggest that we start with a comprehensive coordinated internal and external review of all of EPA’s advisory committees across 

all of its offices and programs and their linkage to relevant authorizing legislation and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

Second, the review should focus on the purpose of each advisory 

activity and the efficiency and effectiveness of the past activities 

and how they can be further enhanced. 

Three, the review should consider how the advisory process can 

be broadened to beyond the current focus on using advisors and 

consultants selected from a small portion of the scientific community to include individuals drawn from a national pool of talent, including those employed in the private sector. 

Four, the review should consider how best to structure future advisory activities so they focus on obtaining scientific advice unfettered by any ideological linkage to how the advice may advance the 

Agency’s current policy or political goals. 

Five, the review should also focus on how to enhance public participation and transparency in the nomination and selection of advisors and consultants, because this is a very blurred boundary, in-
22 

cluding EPA’s internal processes for selecting those individuals. 

This review should include what I call the aspects of the selection 

process carried out behind the doors of the Administrator’s office. 

Six, the reviews should consider the role of Science Advisory 

Committees in addressing charge questions addressed and developed by the Agency staff, which typically have preordained answers 

versus obtaining advice generated by committee members based on 

their broad view of scientific issues and science. 

Seven, special attention should be given to recent actions to select members of the Hydraulic Fracking Impact and Polychlorinated Biphenyl Review Committees. Nominees for both committees represent a much-needed broader cross-section of scientific 

talent then customarily considered for appointment to EPA committees. I urge the Agency to select the best qualified individuals 

from that broad talent pool, including knowledgeable scientists and 

engineers employed in the private sector. 

In summary, critical review of EPA’s scientific advisory process 

will identify ways to enhance the advisory process that will improve EPA’s ability to protect human health and the environment 

now and in the future. 

I will be pleased to address any questions you may have. Thank 

you again for the opportunity to appear at this hearing addressing 

an extremely important topic. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. McClellan follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Dr. McClellan. 

Ma’am, Dr. Grifo. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. FRANCESCA GRIFO, 

SENIOR SCIENTIST AND SCIENCE POLICY FELLOW, 

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 

Dr. GRIFO. Good morning, Chairman Stuart and Ranking Member Bonamici. Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns 

regarding the proposed amendments to the ERDDA, or the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978. The changes described in the amendments I believe would slow down the work of the EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board—which I will refer to as SAB—remove long-standing and 

widely accepted practices for dealing with conflicts of interest, and 

reduce expertise. 

Congress articulated broad requirements for balance, independence, and transparency in the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

FACA instructs agencies to ensure committees will not be inappropriately influenced by special interests. Currently, all the members 

of EPA’s SAB are appointed as Special Government Employees and 

subject to most of the government’s ethics rules. They are required 

to report information about income, activities, assets, liabilities—it 

is quite a long list—and to answer questions regarding causes for 

impartiality and previous involvement and public statements on 

issues under consideration. 

Conflict of interest applies to financial interest; bias applies to 

intellectually or ideologically motivated points of view. They are 

different. Conflict of interest should be eliminated. Bias should be 

managed by appointing a committee such that a balance of perspectives is achieved except for when a perspective is far from the 

mainstream or the individual is unable to consider other points of 

view. It is important to collect sufficient information from candidates and obtain public input so that the designated Federal officials can make their best determinations on these issues. 

On to a couple of provisions in the discussion draft. Inserting 

risk or hazard assessment in ERDDA expands the scope of the 

SAB’s work to potentially include every risk or hazard assessment 

proposed by the Agency. This would overwhelm already limited resources and delay assessments. When these assessments can, when 

necessary, be reviewed by other means, why add this? 

Holding a public information gathering session before major advisory activities to discuss the state of related science will consume 

time and resources. Since the SAB meetings are open to the public 

with time set aside for their oral comments, the Board accepts the 

written comments and will be discussing the state of the science, 

what value does this add? 

Requiring SAB to respond in writing to public comments is a 

burden and distraction given that special interests could arrange to 

have thousands and thousands of comments submitted every week. 

Since committees read and respond to written public comments in 

the final report content and to oral comments during the proceedings, what does this add? 

If persons affiliated with entities that may have a potential interest in the Board’s activities are not excluded from the Board but 
37 

simply required to fully disclose the conflict, the objectivity of an 

advisory committee and the public’s trust and the advice rendered 

are irrevocably damaged. Scientists are not immune to influence by 

their financial prospects conflicted experts can influence panel decisions by their voting, by dominating the discussion, and by pressuring other panelists. Disclosure of individual and institutional financial relationships is a critical but limited first step. Disclosure 

does not resolve or eliminate conflicts. When a scientist has irreplaceable expertise but has a conflict, that expert can be invited to 

present to the committee without serving on the committee. 

The provision requiring that at least ten percent of the membership of the Board be from state, local, or tribal governments sounds 

like stakeholder representation and could be interpreted to mean 

that these members of the SAB would be appointed as representatives rather than Special Government Employees and they would 

not be subject to most of the government ethics rules and hence 

able to serve without disclosure of conflicts of interest. There are 

reports from the Government Accountability Office, Bipartisan Policy Center, and Keystone all state that members of committees that 

consider scientific and technical issues should be appointed as Special Government Employees. 

If experts cannot participate in the advisory activities that potentially involve review of their own work, even if their work is one 

of hundreds of studies under consideration, some specialized experts would be disqualified. Standard practice among Federal agencies and the National Academies is to recuse scientists from peer 

review of their own work but allow those scientists to serve on the 

committee. 

Just a couple of—four quick recommendations. The Bipartisan 

Policy Center report and Keystone report have extensive recommendations so I am just going to go through four that I believe 

are critical. All Federal scientific advisory panels and subcommittees, including those put together or managed by contractors, 

should be subject to FACA and have all members appointed as special government employees. 

The goal of agencies should—two, the goal of agencies should be 

to appoint only panelists who do not have conflict of interest. This 

is reinforced in the Bipartisan Policy Center report as well as the 

Keystone report. And agencies should select panel members based 

on their expertise and on their ability to contribute to the panel deliberations without conflict of interest or undue bias, again, Bipartisan Policy Committee and Keystone. 

Waivers should be publicly available and only issued as rare, 

temporary exceptions, and panelists with waivers should not be allowed to serve in leadership positions. 

And finally, panel chairs should remind panelists at every meeting to disclose new or previously undisclosed information relevant 

to determining conflict of interest or bias. 

Thank you and I will be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Grifo follows:] 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

Chairman STEWART. Once again, I would like to thank the witnesses for being available for questioning today and we look forward to hearing your responses to some of our concerns. 

Committee rules limit questioning to five minute rounds alternating between Republicans and Democratic Members of the Subcommittee. After all Subcommittee Members have asked questions, 

I ask unanimous consent to recognize Committee Members not on 

the Subcommittee. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The Subcommittee Chair recognizes himself for five minutes to 

begin questioning. 

I would like to kind of put this in historical perspective to get 

a larger view if we could. And let me begin with some things that 

I think will be just very easy to answer. I think we agree that it 

is important that our Scientific Advisory Panels be viewed as being 

fair and unbiased. That is the outcome that we are looking for 

here. We all would agree with that. That serves the American people, and frankly, it serves the EPA as well. And this shouldn’t be 

a partisan issue and I don’t think that it is a partisan issue. 

And I think I would ask you, do you believe that the EPA’s 

Boards, in the view of the public but also in the view of those entities in which they regulate, are they now viewed as being unbiased 

and arbitrary? Anyone who would like to just voice an opinion on 

that? 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. Let me start by saying I certainly endorse your 

issue in terms of starting with a bipartisanship. As I look around 

the room at the portraits here, I think I testified before a number 

of those fine persons and both parties. So it is not a partisan issue, 

and I would further say that I have known many—hundreds of individuals who have served EPA in Advisory Committees. They are 

very talented individuals, and if you do the job well, it takes a lot 

of time. 

Having said that, I don’t think that the Committee has approached science always with a fair and balanced view. I think on 

many occasions individuals stumbled over their understanding of 

the science and the relationship to the policy. They are very quick 

to jump into the policy arena and advocate a lower standard or a 

specific nature of the standard which goes well beyond the issue of 

the science. So I think that distinction, it needs to be done better. 

Chairman STEWART. Well, let me ask the question differently. I 

am asking something really quite simple, and that is that you 

think there is a growing perception, a growing concern among the 

public and among those entities that are regulated that the panels 

may not be as unbiased as we hoped they would be? That is a yes 

or no. Do you think there is a growing concern of that? 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. Yes, there is. 

Chairman STEWART. Yes—— 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. It is at all levels. 

Chairman STEWART. Okay. 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. I would say that goes from blue-collar workers 

that I meet in a mine or out in a fracking site in Wyoming to executives in—— 

Chairman STEWART. Okay. So a wide range. And Dr. Honeycutt, 

you seem to indicate yes. And Dr. Grifo? 
53 

Dr. GRIFO. Respectfully disagree. 

Chairman STEWART. Okay. I would like to come back to that if 

I could, and I will. And then maybe just assuming that there is a 

growing perception problem, is this something that is relatively 

new? Ten years ago or 20 years ago was there more trust in this 

process? Did the people and the regulated agencies—did they feel 

like the advisory panels or advisory boards were giving better recommendations? Or is this something that has evolved in—you 

know, in more recent time? Again, a brief answer if you could because I would like to come back to you, Dr. Grifo, if we could. 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. This is an issue that has really been there from 

the beginning. In my written testimony I recount my service as 

Chair of the ad hoc committee to review the first lead criteria document. So—— 

Chairman STEWART. So you think it has been a problem for a 

while? 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. It has been a problem for a long period of time 

and a central part of the issue is mixing up science which should 

inform but not dictate policy. They are different. 

Chairman STEWART. Okay. Dr. Honeycutt, would you agree or 

disagree? 

Dr. HONEYCUTT. I would mainly agree with what you are saying. 

Chairman STEWART. Okay. And either way, I think it is appropriate to recognize that there is a problem whether it has been recent or long-standing. It is time that we recognize that and try to 

address it through this legislation. 

And Dr. Grifo, you respectfully disagreed. Would you expand on 

that a little bit? 

Dr. GRIFO. I think we have a disagreement over the nature of the 

problem and the details, and I think we will probably get into that. 

I mean I am not going to sit here and say that every advisory committee is perfect. You know, they are not. But I do believe that 

they are—my problems with them are in a different direction than 

yours, I suspect. 

Chairman STEWART. Okay. And that is fair. But I think we can 

agree that this process could be improved? 

Dr. GRIFO. Always. 

Chairman STEWART. Always, yes. There are concerns, whether 

they are recent or whether they are long-standing, there are concerns, and in my opinion, it is a growing concern having some 

background in this industry, in one industry that is regulated 

heavily by the EPA that there is a growing perception problem, and 

that is why this legislation is meaningful. That is why this is a 

great opportunity to address that because, once again, everyone is 

better served if there is a perception that this process is fair and 

that it listens to all opinions and all voices. I would like to pursue 

that, and maybe I will individually with you, but alas, my time is 

up. 

So I will now turn to the time over to, again, the Ranking Minority Member. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Chairman Stewart. And 

thank you all for your testimony and for your years of work. 

One of the things that I have heard frequently here in Congress 

is that we don’t need new laws; we just need to enforce what we 
54 

have. So Dr. Honeycutt, in your testimony you said that you will 

hear others testify that EPA has ample guidance on conflict of interest, bias, and balance. The problem is they don’t consistently follow it. So I am glad you recognize that or identify that as an issue. 

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I do hear from constituents who questioned the regulations and rules being promulgated 

by the EPA, and central to their concerns is the slow pace with 

which regulations are developed, implemented, and processes seem 

to slow down. And that is a concern that is expressed about other 

Federal agencies as well. 

Because we hear so often in this era of what seems to be governing from one crisis to the next, what we are looking for is certainty in the communities, certainly the business community was 

to have certainty and stability to promote growth. So in that context, Dr. Grifo, based on your expertise and studying this issue, 

would the changes to EPA’s Science Advisory Board under the legislation we are discussing today expedite or improve the EPA’s 

process and receiving independent scientific advice? 

Dr. GRIFO. In the amendments there are one or two things that 

I think are actually helpful, but I think the vast majority would 

have the long-term effect of slowing us down. And I think as you 

have rightly said, whether you are coming from a business perspective or, you know, a constituent-other-regular-people perspective, 

slowdown isn’t good. I mean slowdown means that, you know, the 

regulations are slower, the health impacts continue, and so on, but 

it also means uncertainty for business and it also means that, you 

know, things happen. I mean if we don’t do this right you end up 

with products on the market that are tainted or, you know, problematic, and that is not good for business either. So getting it right 

and doing it in a timely fashion is what I think we are all after. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. And I know in your testimony you talked about one of the issues was this need to respond 

in writing to public comment, and I think you have effectively identified some of the problems that could come with that. 

And I wanted to ask another question too. When a draft bill was 

introduced in the last Congress, it included the provision that 

would have limited the input of academic scientists to just ten percent of advisory panels, and I mentioned that is not in this current 

version of the bill. It is unclear why it was taken out, but this provision could be placed back in at some time. So I wonder if you 

could explain for the Committee what the impact of the science at 

the EPA would be if that were—type of provision were included in 

the final bill? 

Dr. GRIFO. I think what is important—and we are conflating— 

are conflict of interest and bias. I think that what we need to really 

look at is getting committees that have no conflict of interest or 

very minimal and as a rare exception as the National Academies 

suggest. And really, you know, it is not about industry or not industry. It is about bias and conflict of interest. And I think we are 

going to find people with bias and conflicts in industry and in academia. And I think the point of submitting a lot of information, the 

point of having opportunities for public comment is to be able to 

allow the agencies—and there are really amazing people at the 
55 

agencies that spend enormous amounts of time doing the screening 

to get it right, to get the combination that is correct. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. To your knowledge did either the 

Keystone Center or the Bipartisan Policy Center reports specifically recommend that there be more people from industry on advisory panels at the cost of reducing or eliminating some of the academic government-funded scientists? 

Dr. GRIFO. No, absolutely not. And I should say, you know, it 

was rather an amazing and wonderful experience to be on the Keystone, that research integrity roundtable, because it was folks from 

academia, we had people from Baird, Dow, DuPont, American 

Chemistry Council, and when we sat around those tables and had 

those extended conversations—and we met off and on for 18 

months—we agreed. We came together on the things that are in 

there. In the same way with the Bipartisan Policy Center, the 

name Bipartisan—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. 

Dr. GRIFO. —Policy suggests a broad input. And in fact, if you 

look at the list of those participants, they came from across the 

spectrum. And what we all agreed on was—I mean in both of these 

reports is that what is important is really looking at bias so that 

you get a balanced panel, conflict of interest so that you get a panel 

that minimizes or eliminates those conflicts. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And just to follow up then, are the conflict-of-interest principles laid out in the draft bill we are discussing based 

on the recommendations of Keystone or the Bipartisan Policy Center? 

Dr. GRIFO. No. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. And I yield back. Thank 

you. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

thank you for holding this very thought-provoking hearing today. 

I would like to just read something from Dwight Eisenhower in 

his farewell address. Most people remember Eisenhower’s admonition about the military-industrial complex, but they ignore what 

Eisenhower spent much more time warning us about in his farewell address, and I will read this portion of it. ‘‘The prospect of 

domination of the Nation’s scholars by Federal employment project 

allocations and the power of money is ever-present and is gravely 

to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in 

respect, we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite 

danger that public policy itself could become the captive of a scientific technological elites.’’ 

That is Dwight Eisenhower. Now, we almost never hear that 

quote but we hear the military-industrial complex all the time. I 

think that Eisenhower was a man of vision and a patriot in both 

of the areas where he warned us about. And in terms of what he 

was warning us about there, as I just read, the Congressional Research Service has done in the report, which you opened in your 

opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit at this 

point that entire report for the record of this hearing. 

Chairman STEWART. Without objection. 
56 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. What the report found is that almost 

60 percent of the members of EPA’s chartered SAB and CASAC, 

that is 34 of the 58 members, have directly received National Center for Environmental Research Grants from the Agency since 

2000. These advisors served as principal or co-investigators for 

EPA grants totaling roughly $140 million. 

Now, what, unfortunately, we hear in situations like this, and we 

have talked about expertise and it can also be bias. Expertise is biased if those experts are from the private sector, but if those experts receive their experience by getting government grants and 

are part of government studies which have put them part of this 

elite that Eisenhower warned us about, now, that is a positive 

thing. All of a sudden that becomes experience. 

And I think that we have got to pay attention to this because 

bias can result in cliques that are formed among people who make 

sure people in the clique get the research grants and are part of 

the system that determines public policy, which is exactly what Eisenhower was warning us against. 

The research, of course, that we are talking about, example: four 

of seven members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, 

which reviewed the EPA’s Final Particulate Matter on the National 

Standards, have received million-dollar-plus EPA grants related to 

particulate matter since 2010. Now, if that isn’t bias, I don’t know. 

It is one thing to be able to have the scientific knowledge to judge 

what is going on, but to have already participated in research, that 

indicates a bias and something we need to address. And I would 

hope—and maybe I will. Doctor, maybe we should give you a 

chance to comment on what I have just stated, because obviously 

I am aiming this at the EPA. 

Dr. GRIFO. Happy to, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Dr. GRIFO. I think again that is not what I am saying. Bias matters; conflict of interest matters. Those are the things we need to 

examine. There are very well-equipped experienced folks in the 

agencies spending inordinate amount of time examining those 

things and coming to the best decisions they can with the guidance 

from the Office of Government Ethics, the General Services Administration, all those folks that are working on this. And I think what 

we are talking about are not necessarily including or excluding people because of the institutions that they work for. It is about what 

they turn in on those forms. And those forms are extraordinarily 

extensive. I mean if anything, they are—you know, they are very 

burdensome and long. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But we do—— 

Dr. GRIFO. But it is the information that we need in order to 

bury carefully make those determinations. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, Mr. Chairman—and obviously, the report that has been given to us by the Congressional Research indicates that we—that there are people who are in the clique who are 

getting these grants and then getting the jobs. And Eisenhower 

warned us about this, and quite frankly, we have seen evidence of 

that in a number of areas, especially in fracking and these other 

things that you mentioned. 
57 

Thank you very much for the hearing today. 

Chairman STEWART. Yes, thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Now, we turn to Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to say, 

first, I had the privilege as the former Ranking Member of the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee—and I can recall well the 

numerous questions about EPA’s scientific integrity, and specifically, the concerns about the scientific advisory processes. And 

while I understand the concerns and those expressed by the witnesses today, I think the aims of the draft bill that is in front of 

us with it, it is not really clear to me that this bill and the sort 

of recommended changes espoused by Dr. Honeycutt and Dr. 

McClellan would actually create the kind of improvements to the 

process that the bipartisan group, the Keystone group identified as 

recommended changes to address directly address the concerns that 

you have just expressed. 

Dr. McClellan, I want to ask you because you have served on advisory boards before, and so I am curious, did you have the occasion in your service to read all of the comments that were submitted in addition to the testimony that you heard when—during 

your service? 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. As you have noted, I served on numerous committees. Committees that we are specifically focusing on here in 

terms of public input are those that come under the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which I chaired. I can assure you that 

I read every public comment that came forward. I am disappointed 

I cannot say that for many of my colleagues. 

Ms. EDWARDS. But did you have—— 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. I also— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Let me just—because I just have a limited amount 

of time. You served on those committees. You read all of the comments. Did you feel a need to respond to every single comment that 

was submitted to you even though you considered it in your service? 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. There weren’t many of those comments that deserved comment from the Agency as it proceeded with its rulemaking process. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Dr. Grifo—— 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. It has done that in some cases. In many cases 

I think the Agency is deficient in responding. I think the Agency 

and the Committee frequently dismisses public comments to provide a three minute or a five minute comment period on very important matters is not sufficient. That is not engaging the public. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So I am a little bit unclear. Dr. Grifo, I wonder 

if you can tell me in the work that you did coming up with—on 

these panels coming up with recommendations, do you believe that 

it is feasible given the level of work and the speed with which 

sometimes industry actually wants the stability and wants the 

Agency to operate that it would be possible with 17 full-time employees to respond to every single comment or even the significant 

ones? And is it your experience in reviewing these matters that 

there are times when comment is submitted and at a staff level it 

is reviewed and factors into the decision-making and the process 
58 

whether or not it is actually responded to or whether or not anyone 

was even listening during the hearings? 

Dr. GRIFO. You know, in anticipation of today I did a little bit 

of a survey calling several colleagues that serve regularly on panels, as you do, sir. And in fact, you know, they do look at them. 

I mean they do read them. They do take them seriously. And, you 

know, if they don’t appear in the final report is because the consensus of the Committee was that it wasn’t appropriate for them 

to be in that final report. 

So I think what is important here is that those public comments 

do come in and that there is an opportunity for the panel members 

to read them. But the written response could literally bring everything to a stop. Thousands and thousands and thousands of comments could be submitted on a weekly basis and there is no way 

there would ever be time to do anything else. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And then I want to ask you actually 

about the process a little bit and this idea of conflicts of interest 

because it is possible to have conflicts of interest that are fully disclosed or analyzed and still participate effectively in a process, isn’t 

that true? 

Dr. GRIFO. We currently have a system of waivers where waivers 

are actually given out so that people with conflicts may continue 

to serve. And one of the great things that came out of Dr. Holden’s 

memo is this notion that all of those waivers should be made public. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And then lastly, let me just, you 

know, just say for the record. I mean there are plenty of times 

when a person has a conflict or some kind of interest and they have 

an expertise that is necessary, and it becomes necessary to involve 

them in the process and make sure that there is transparency in 

that disclosure and evaluation and move forward with the kind of 

assessments we need. 

And with that, my time is expired. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

So we now turn to Dr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Committee rules state that ‘‘Members of the Committee or 

Subcommittee have two weeks from the date of the hearing to submit additional questions in writing for the record to be answered 

by witnesses who have appeared in person. The letters of transmission and your responses thereto shall be printed in the hearing 

record.’’ Dr. Grifo, you testified in front of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight on October the 13th, 2011, for a hearing 

titled ‘‘The Endangered Species Act: Reviewing the Nexus of 

Science and Policy.’’ November 16, 2011 you were sent questions 

for the record and asked for responses within two weeks. In fact, 

Mr. Chairman, I asked for a unanimous consent to enter into the 

record at this point the letter, as well as the questions sent to Dr. 

Grifo. 

Chairman STEWART. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you. Despite multiple reminders from Committee staff, we still have not received your answers for a year-anda-half. Why did you ignore the Committee’s questions? 
59 

Dr. GRIFO. I sent them. I will look into why you don’t have them. 

Mr. BROUN. We have not received them and I am not sure that 

I can—well, if you say you sent them, I would like to have proof 

of that. 

Dr. GRIFO. Absolutely. 

Mr. BROUN. What date did you send those, Dr. Grifo? 

Dr. GRIFO. I don’t know. I would have to go back and look. I 

know they were late. It was not within the two weeks. I will clearly 

tell you that. But it was within a month, and I know I sent them. 

I will have to go back and look at the record. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, we have not received those and I am not 

sure—— 

Dr. GRIFO. Well, then, we need to clear that up, sir. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. Well, why should this Committee believe that 

you would respond to Member’s questions if the Committee staff 

has reminded you over and over again? And this is the first time 

I have heard as a Chairman of that Committee that you sent the 

answers. Why should we accept any thought that you will respond 

to the Committee’s questions today? 

Dr. GRIFO. Because I have testified dozens of times and I have 

Respondent on all of those occasions. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, you have an even—— 

Dr. GRIFO. And I will have to look into this one and find out 

what happened, sir. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, Dr. Grifo, you have—even in spite of the Committee staff asking you over and over again, this is the first time 

we have heard. 

When you testified on October 13, you were under oath at that 

time and you indicated a willingness to respond to those questions. 

You say that you have. I think you failed to do so frankly. Why 

should we believe anything that you say? 

Dr. GRIFO. Because I am telling you that you can look at the 

record for other hearings and you will see that I have responded, 

and I will look into this and see what happened. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I certainly hope so. 

Dr. Honeycutt and Dr. McClellan, Dr. Grifo believes that the 

process of panelists recusing themselves from review proceedings if 

their work is being discussed. She believes that, that the panelists 

should recuse themselves. Do you believe this practice of selfrecusal actually works, Dr. Honeycutt? 

Dr. HONEYCUTT. No, sir. In fact, we have seen that not happen 

with the ozone case specifically—or especially. Actually, at the last 

CASAC public meeting, two study authors of the two studies that 

were the basis of the standard did recuse themselves at the last 

panel meeting, but previous panel meetings and they did not. 

Mr. BROUN. Dr. McClellan? 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. No, I would certainly agree that it has been inconsistent in the manner of which that has been done. Dr. 

Honeycutt is correct and I was in attendance at that last meeting. 

Those two authors did take special effort at that time. It was clear 

that there was some change underway in terms of the Agency. 

Mr. BROUN. Do either of you have suggestions of how we should 

do the recusal process if a panelist’s work is being discussed? 
60 

Dr. HONEYCUTT. Well, actually, in my opinion, they shouldn’t 

have been on the panel in the first place. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. 

Dr. HONEYCUTT. There were only two studies that were the basis 

of the standard and there are dozens of scientists that could have 

been chosen to be on the panel. And it makes no sense to me why 

you would have those study authors on the panel. 

Mr. BROUN. So a better selection process. 

Dr. McClellan? 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. I would agree with Dr. Honeycutt statement 

there. In terms of that particular situation, there were a broad 

group of scientists that could have served and it was probably inappropriate because of the very clear and central role of those individuals. Unfortunately, the situation was one in which the individual 

who was serving as Chair of CASAC was one of the authors in 

question. So he was put into a very difficult position. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, thank you, gentlemen. My time is about up 

and I just want to say that I know when I talk to constituents and 

Georgia about the scientific integrity of EPA, I see a tremendous 

disgust and disbelief in the scientific integrity of EPA. 

Mr. Chairman, with that I will yield back. 

Chairman STEWART. Sir, thank you, Dr. Broun. 

Mr. Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to start with you, Dr. Grifo. I believe you stated— 

well, let me say a couple things first. I heard it said one time that 

all scientists are only convinced of one thing, and that is that every 

scientist before them was wrong. Excuse me. They can’t always 

agree. In fact, to Vice Chairman Stewart’s first question, is there 

a perceived problem with the EPA? I think 66–2/3 of you agree and 

33–1/3 disagree, case in point. 

Dr. Grifo, I think you stated that any panel member should be 

‘‘Special Government Employees.’’ Is that accurate? 

Dr. GRIFO. For this particular Science Advisory Board, yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, ma’am. Do you contend that only Special Government Employees can be unbiased? 

Dr. GRIFO. No, sir. I contend that only Special Government Employees have full examinations for conflict of interest. 

Mr. WEBER. So what you are saying is that normal people, not 

that Special Government Employees aren’t normal, and we could 

debate that, are not able to be unbiased. And I want to specifically 

hone in on industry here. Would you agree with the statement that 

most American entrepreneurs want a good clean environment for 

themselves, their families, their employees, indeed their customers? 

I mean after all, the longer a customer lives, the more products 

they can buy. That sounds kind of selfish, doesn’t it? Do you agree, 

disagree with that? 

Dr. GRIFO. I agree that. You know, I can only answer that in one 

way, as a mom. And I think that, you know, there are moms across 

this country that care deeply about the health and safety of their 

children. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, and that is very commendable. I am not a 

mom but I am a dad and I got 3 kids and 4–1/2 grandkids. And 

do you have any grandchildren? 
61 

Dr. GRIFO. No. Do I look that old? 

Mr. WEBER. I highly recommend them. 

Dr. GRIFO. Good. 

Mr. WEBER. Just as long as they are EPA-certified. I will say 

that they do have emissions when they are babies though and so 

you might want to take that into account. 

Dr. GRIFO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. I own a business, and air-conditioning business, 

where we dealt with the EPA over Freon issues, and I can tell you 

as a father and a grandfather, industry has a vested interest in 

making sure that we have the best product, the best environment—— 

Dr. GRIFO. Um-hum. 

Mr. WEBER. —and I think that for us to be able to weigh in on 

fracking and some of the other issues that seem to be of some concern, we need industry experts, those who have demonstrated by 

their lives, their time, their investment in terms of money, blood, 

sweat, and tears that they care about this country, they care about 

the environment. I have been to many chemical factories with a lot 

of my colleagues when I was in the state legislature and I would 

have to say that industry—because of that dirty word profit motive—doesn’t want emissions, doesn’t want accidents, doesn’t want 

spells. They want to do it the safest, cleanest, best way because it 

is the most profitable. Would you object? I mean do you agree that 

we are horribly underrepresented by industry on this council, in 

the EPA on this panel? 

Dr. GRIFO. Every Scientific Advisory Committee under FACA 

must submit a charter. In that charter they have to describe what 

the committee is going to be doing and what balance means for 

that committee. That is what is important is that, you know, the 

folks who were putting the folks—people on that panel actually 

look at that charter, follow that charter. 

I believe somebody submitted for the record the General Service 

Administration’s requirements for plans for a balance committee 

and how that works. I support all of that and—— 

Mr. WEBER. My time is running out here. I just want to make 

the point that I believe we are. 

Dr. McClellan, how about you? And then we will go to Dr. 

Honeycutt. 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. Yeah, I—let me put it in sharp focus for you. 

In preparation for this hearing I went to the EPA’s website and the 

Science Advisory Board. I looked through the participants on that, 

and as best I could tally them up in terms of, you know, where 

they came from—— 

Mr. WEBER. Industry experience? 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. I looked at these 110 members of the seven 

standing committees. Eighty-seven of those were from academic institutions. There was one individual from a company that makes 

products. I looked—— 

Mr. WEBER. And let’s go on to Dr.—— 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. —at the chartered SAB, something close to 50 

individuals. They were four to one—— 

Mr. WEBER. You are making my point. Let me run over to Dr. 

Honeycutt real quick. Thank you. 
62 

Dr. HONEYCUTT. Yes, sir, I agree with you. 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, well, boy, he is short and to the point. 

Well, unfortunately, not every EPA representative does us—we 

don’t get the luxury of having a video or he has gone out and 

talked about crucifying industry like the former Regional 6 EPA 

Administrator did, so we are not always fortunate to have that 

kind of biased out there. So it does exist. And I appreciate your 

comments. My time is expired. 

Mr. Vice Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman STEWART. Yes, Mr. Weber. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the former Chairman, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I really thank you 

for holding this hearing and the manner in which you have conducted it and your statements. The draft legislation being discussed today is a bill I think partially based on a bill I had introduced last year too late to get out of rules, but EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. I certainly look forward to your leadership 

on this because it is imperative that EPA’s regulatory science be 

judged by truly independent experts. 

According to the EPA’s Peer Review Handbook, the choice of peer 

review should be based primarily upon reviewers’ expertise, knowledge, skills, and experience. And we have heard Dr. Grifo talked 

of that. And I want to ask her some questions in a minute. But according to EPA’s Peer Review Handbook, choice of peer reviewers 

should be so based and should include specialists from multiple disciplines. Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences found that it 

may be important to have an industrial perspective because of the 

individual’s particular knowledge and experience are often vital 

and you could say are testimony. 

Dr.—let me see who I want to get to next. I may just go directly 

to Dr. Grifo. You understand that one of the roles of an advisory 

committee is, as you said, to provide consensus among various 

identified interests or stakeholders, your statement, right? 

Dr. GRIFO. My statement was that—— 

Mr. HALL. Was that part of your statement? 

Dr. GRIFO. That—if they are appointed as representatives but 

not necessarily for every advisory. 

Mr. HALL. No, I didn’t ask you that. I just asked you if your 

statement was it should be among various identified interests or 

stakeholders? Yes or no? 

Dr. GRIFO. No. 

Mr. HALL. Good. Then are you going to write and correct your 

statements before, as you have had to do probably many times? 

Dr. GRIFO. What my statement said was that there are two ways 

that people can be appointed. One is as Special Government Employees, which comes with the government ethics rules, most of 

them. The other way they can be appointed is as a representative. 

I did not say whether one should be one or the other. What I did 

say—— 

Mr. HALL. All right. Let me stop you there. I think I have heard 

all I want to hear from you. Do you think there is merit in acknowledging or making public any dissenting or minority opinions 

much like a court hearing? Do you think that is important? Yes or 

no? 
63 

Dr. GRIFO. There are different kinds of—— 

Mr. HALL. A yes—— 

Dr. GRIFO. —advisory committees. 

Mr. HALL. —give me a yes or a no. 

Dr. GRIFO. I can’t give you a yes or no. It is more complex than 

that. 

Mr. HALL. I didn’t think you really could. All that time that you 

were with the research roundtable, did you tell them about the 

court opinion that was given for aluminum against the EPA? Did 

you mention that to them? Now, you were there with them I think 

18 months. You surely got around to discussing something like 

that. How important is a court hearing, a court ruling, not something the EPA or the President has directed or the Nazis trying to 

put on people? That is not what you want. We are looking for 

science from people that will give us true science. I don’t find you 

doing that. I am glad my time is almost over. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Chairman Hall. 

Some of us have expressed interest in follow-up questions with 

maybe a brief second round, and I think we would like to do that 

if we could. 

I would like to begin then, and go back to an example that I alluded to, although only quickly in my opening statements, and that 

is it is an example of, I think, one of the concerns that we have 

in this. As one of the members of EPA’s SAB panel tasked to reviewing the Agency’s hydraulic fracturing study, Dr. Jerald 

Schnoor published an article entitled ‘‘Regulate, Baby, Regulate,’’ 

which characterizes a relationship between government regulators 

and the oil and gas industry as ‘‘cozy and sometimes corrupt.’’ 

Now, I would like to turn this just a little bit and then get your 

reaction to it. What is the title of the book had been something like 

Drill, Baby, Drill and the quote that I described characterized the 

relationship between regulators and environmental groups as being 

cozy and corrupt? Do you think if someone had taken that, that 

they would have been allowed to continue to serve or, as he was, 

allowed to serve on subsequent boards in that industry? Do you 

think that would have happened? Dr. Honeycutt? 

Dr. HONEYCUTT. I wouldn’t think so. 

Chairman STEWART. Yes? 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. I think it is very unlikely. The original question, there is an element of the door tends to swing one direction 

there. 

Chairman STEWART. Yes. 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. That individual clearly never would have made 

it there. But they probably would not have made it there because 

they may have owned stock in the company. They may have been 

an independent driller. 

Chairman STEWART. Yes. 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. So it is—the point is well made. 

Chairman STEWART. Probably not. And Dr. Grifo, I would be particularly interested in yours. I mean if someone had made the 

statements as I described them, you know, Drill, Baby, Drill, and 

they described that relationship between, you know, environmental 

groups and regulators, would you have been comfortable allowing 

that person to continue to serve on the boards? 
64 

Dr. GRIFO. It would have depended on the overall balance of the 

committee. You don’t, you know, eliminated conflict of interest, balance, bias. If you have people who you believe can take part in an 

open conversation, you want them there and you want to balance 

that point of view. You don’t want to eliminate. 

Chairman STEWART. And I agree with you actually. And I think 

that is a great point that, you know, you can have people with perceived biases as long as they are balanced. Although I do think 

that you reach a threshold, and it may have been reached and 

some comment like that that would have excluded that opinion. I 

mean again if someone had said describe the relationship between 

regulators and environmental groups as cozy and corrupt, I think 

that perhaps is a threshold that even excepting bias or prejudices 

in the panel would have made so many people uncomfortable with 

a preconceived notion, I think it would have made many of us uncomfortable. And yet, the doctor continued to serve on subsequent 

boards. 

And I think that is just an example of a problem that we hope 

to address in this revised legislation from the former Chairman 

that we are happy to carry over from, you know, the previous Congress. 

Yes? 

Dr. GRIFO. I just think that the pieces and hear that talk about 

making public the list ahead of time and allowing people to know 

who is going to be appointed are critical to looking at that balance 

issue. I think that is really important. 

Chairman STEWART. Well, and I agree with you. And, you know, 

along with that and in a separate area is this—and you have addressed this, although I don’t think we have addressed it as strongly as I would have liked to, and that was this idea that it is okay 

for some of these members to have direct financial ties through 

grants or other financial, you know, financial vehicles that the government uses, and yet we are so readily exclude those who have 

financial ties to the industry. And agreeing with you, Dr. Grifo, as 

long as they are revealed, as long as the ethics of this are clear. 

I think that we can clearly bring in more balance. 

And Dr. McClellan, as you indicated in your previous answer to 

a question, you know, some 100 members on one panel and only 

one from the industry. And final point I will make and then I will 

yield time, the fracking industry is an industry, if we think IT as 

being an industry that is very dynamic and has great changes, it 

is nothing compared with the technological advances we are seeing 

and fracking. I mean these processes are changing every day, every 

week. And if you are not reaching out to these industry experts and 

asking for their input to these, if you are talking to someone who 

hasn’t been in industry for a few months let alone a few years, 

then you are not getting the appropriate response from them because the technology has passed them by. 

Thank you again for your time today. And I now yield to the 

Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Chairman Stewart. 

I want to start by saying that witnesses here today are all professionals with years of experience and deserve to be treated as 

such regardless of whether we agree or disagree with their posi-
65 

tions. So I just wanted to state that for the record and I hope that 

the other Members will respect that as well. 

I want to clarify something that came up in Mr. Weber’s question. Dr. Grifo, in your written testimony this is very clear, but I 

am concerned about the record. I want to make sure that it is clear 

for those just listening as well. When you talked about how everyone on one of the EPA’s SABs should be a Special Government Employee, I am concerned that some people thought that that meant 

that it could only mean somebody who was employed by the government and not an industry person. But your written testimony 

makes clear that when a member of a committee is—that is created 

to provide independent advice is appointed as a Special Government Employee, that is a specific term that requires that they comply with the government ethics rules. 

So I want to clarify that for the record and perhaps, Dr. Grifo, 

if you could explain a little bit about what that means to be a Special Government Employee to really make clear what the requirements are and clarify that it does include people from industry. If 

they are appointed as a Special Government Employee, that doesn’t 

mean you exclude industry people. 

Dr. GRIFO. Absolutely. To be—it is just a way of appointing people to government employee—to advisory committees. It is a term 

that refers to the number of days per year that they work and so 

on. It is just—it is a piece of the bureaucracy. 

But I think the other thing that is important is that, you know, 

academia does not mean no experience with industry. I think our 

academic world and the corporate world are increasingly 

interdigitated, and so to put someone in this pile, or this pile, it 

becomes a little bit artificial because I think we cross those piles 

on a regular basis. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Dr. Grifo. And just again 

to clarify that Special Government Employee does include people 

from industry—— 

Dr. GRIFO. Absolutely. 

Ms. BONAMICI. —it simply means that they need to comply with 

the government ethics rules, which I happen to think is a good 

thing. 

Dr. GRIFO. Absolutely. 

Ms. BONAMICI. So thank you all for your testimony. 

And I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have certainly identified 

several areas where we agree, and I look forward to working with 

you and getting the input of the other Members and hope we can 

come up with some meaningful policy that improves the process. 

Chairman STEWART. Yes, thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

And then we now turn once again to Dr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Grifo stated that the 

provisions requiring that the scientific and technical points of view 

represented by fairly balanced is unnecessary because it is already 

included in the Federal Advisory Committee Act. However, Dr. 

Honeycutt, Dr. McClellan, would you agree that it is important for 

the points of view represented on advisory panels such as the SAB 

be balanced? Yes or no? 

Dr. HONEYCUTT. Yes. 

Mr. BROUN. Dr. McClellan? 
66 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. Absolutely. And let me elaborate just a bit. 

Mr. BROUN. I have got just a little bit of time and you like to 

talk a lot, so I just needed a yes or no right there. I appreciate it. 

If you can collaborate in your written response if you would. 

Do you believe that EPA’s current advisory panels such as the 

SAB or the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee are balanced in 

terms of the points of view represented, Dr. Honeycutt? 

Dr. HONEYCUTT. No, sir. 

Mr. BROUN. Dr. McClellan? 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. No. 

Mr. BROUN. Dr. Grifo? 

Dr. GRIFO. It depends on the panel. 

Mr. BROUN. I asked yes or no. 

Dr. GRIFO. I can’t answer it that way. I am sorry. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. Nine members of the 2011 CASAC panel to 

review PM2.5 has signed a public letter which expressed dissatisfaction with the current standard, as well as a strong opinion 

of what the standard should be. This means that 40 percent of the 

review panel is of the same opinion as to the advisory work that 

they are tasked with. Would you say this represents an adequate 

balance of opinion, Dr. Honeycutt? 

Dr. HONEYCUTT. No, sir. 

Mr. BROUN. McClellan? 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. No, they fail to distinguish between the science 

and the policy they were advocating. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. Dr. Grifo? 

Dr. GRIFO. No comment. I am not that familiar with that particular panel. I would have to look at it. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, Dr. Grifo, the SAB’s 2011 mercury panel is 

comprised of 17 academics, three state regulatory members, one 

from USGS and one private sector industry representative. You 

said that the panels should be balanced. Would you say that this 

is a fairly balanced panel? 

Dr. GRIFO. We don’t have the information that the folks putting 

that panel together had about the specific backgrounds and details 

of those individuals. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I am not asking about—— 

Dr. GRIFO. They made a determination—— 

Mr. BROUN. —their background. I just—— 

Dr. GRIFO. —that it was balanced. Again—— 

Mr. BROUN. —told you, Ms.—— 

Dr. GRIFO. —the label of academia, the label of industry, they 

are intermixed. People go back and forth between those realms. 

What is important is that you look at it, look at the charter for the 

committee and make sure that it is balanced. On that, sir, we can 

agree. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I think it should be balanced. If those academics are going to be promoting whatever their academic bias 

might be, three state regulatory members, one from USGS, and 

only one from the private sector, this is not balanced. And I think 

we can all agree we need balance, we need scientific integrity, and 

frankly, I don’t see that. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman STEWART. Yes, thank you, Dr. Broun. 
67 

Well, with that we conclude our hearing today. I would like to 

thank once again the witnesses for your valuable testimony as well 

as to the Members for their questions. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from the Members. And we ask the 

witnesses to respond to these written questions in a timely fashion. 

Well, again, with our gratitude, the witnesses are excused and 

this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(69) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
70 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Michael Honeycutt 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

Responses by Dr. Roger McClellan 
76 
77 
78 

Responses by Dr. Francesca Grifo 
(79) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
80 

LETTERS SENT TO THE COMMITTEE BY VARIOUS GROUPS

AND INDIVIDUALS EXPRESSING THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT

THE PROVISIONS IN THE BILL SUBMITTED BY

REPRESENTATIVE SUZANNE BONAMICI
81 
82 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MEMORANDUM ON EPA GRANTS

TO MEMBERS OF SELECTED EPA ADVISORY COMMITTEES

SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DANA ROHRABACHER
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

THANK YOU LETTER AND QUESTIONS SENT TO DR. GRIFO FROM THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT HEARING ON OCTOBER 13, 2011, 

FOR THE HEARING TITLED, ‘‘THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: REVIEWING

THE NEXUS OF SCIENCE AND POLICY,’’ SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE PAUL BOURN
93 
94 
95 
96 

GEORGE T. WOLFF, THE CHANGING NAAQS REVIEW PROCESS, 

SUBMITTED BY DR. MICHAEL HONEYCUTT
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

EPA EVALUALION REPORT SUBMITTED BY DR. MICHAEL HONEYCUTT
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 

GSA FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP BALANCE PLAN

SUBMITTED BY DR. MICHAEL HONEYCUTT
131 
132 
133 

Æ