29–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113–165 

EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2013 

JULY 22, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1422] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 1422) to amend the Environmental Research, 

Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public 

participation, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 

report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 

the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2 

II. Purpose and Summary ............................................................................... 4 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 4 

IV. Hearing Summary ....................................................................................... 5 

V. Committee Consideration ........................................................................... 5 

VI. Committee Votes ......................................................................................... 6 

VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 12 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 12 

IX. Committee Oversight Findings .................................................................. 13 

X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 13 

XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 13 

XII. Advisory on Earmarks ................................................................................ 13 

XIII. Committee Cost Estimate ........................................................................... 14 

XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 14 

XV. Federal Mandates Statement ..................................................................... 15 

XVI. Compliance with House Resolution 5 ........................................................ 15 

XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 15 

XVIII. Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................... 15 

XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ......................................... 15 

XX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported ....................... 17 

XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 21 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013’’. 

SEC. 2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD. 

(a) MEMBERSHIP.—Section 8(b) of the Environmental Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365(b)) is amended to read as 

follows: 

‘‘(b)(1) The Board shall be composed of at least nine members, one of whom shall 

be designated Chairman, and shall meet at such times and places as may be designated by the Chairman in consultation with the Administrator. 

‘‘(2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical information on matters referred to the 

Board under this section. The Administrator shall select Board members from nominations received as described in paragraph (3) and shall ensure that— 

‘‘(A) the scientific and technical points of view represented on and the functions to be performed by the Board are fairly balanced among the members of 

the Board; 

‘‘(B) at least ten percent of the membership of the Board are from State, local, 

or tribal governments; 

‘‘(C) persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from 

the Board due to affiliation with or representation of entities that may have a 

potential interest in the Board’s advisory activities, so long as that interest is 

fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public and appointment to the 

Board complies with section 208 of title 18, United States Code; 

‘‘(D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a particular matter involving 

a specific party, no Board member having an interest in the specific party shall 

participate in that activity; 

‘‘(E) Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly 

or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work; 

‘‘(F) Board members shall be designated as special Government employees; 

and 

‘‘(G) no federally registered lobbyist is appointed to the Board. 

‘‘(3) The Administrator shall— 

‘‘(A) solicit public nominations for the Board by publishing a notification in 

the Federal Register; 

‘‘(B) solicit nominations from relevant Federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services; 

‘‘(C) make public the list of nominees, including the identity of the entities 

that nominated them, and shall accept public comment on the nominees; 

‘‘(D) require that, upon their provisional nomination, nominees shall file a 

written report disclosing financial relationships and interests, including Environmental Protection Agency grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other 

financial assistance, that are relevant to the Board’s advisory activities for the 

three-year period prior to the date of their nomination, and relevant professional activities and public statements for the five-year period prior to the date 

of their nomination; and 

‘‘(E) make such reports public, with the exception of specific dollar amounts, 

for each member of the Board upon such member’s selection. 

‘‘(4) Disclosure of relevant professional activities under paragraph (3)(D) shall include all representational work, expert testimony, and contract work as well as 

identifying the party for which the work was done. 

‘‘(5) Except when specifically prohibited by law, the Agency shall make all conflict 

of interest waivers granted to members of the Board, member committees, or investigative panels publicly available. 

‘‘(6) Any recusal agreement made by a member of the Board, a member committee, or an investigative panel, or any recusal known to the Agency that occurs 

during the course of a meeting or other work of the Board, member committee, or 

investigative panel shall promptly be made public by the Administrator. 

‘‘(7) The terms of the members of the Board shall be three years and shall be staggered so that the terms of no more than one-third of the total membership of the 

Board shall expire within a single fiscal year. No member shall serve more than two 

terms over a ten-year period.’’. 

(b) RECORD.—Section 8(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(c)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

(A) by inserting ‘‘risk or hazard assessment,’’ after ‘‘at the time any proposed’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘risk or hazard assessment,’’ after ‘‘to the Board such 

proposed’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘risk or hazard assessment,’’ after ‘‘the scientific and 

technical basis of the proposed’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Board’s advice and comments, including dissenting views of Board members, and the response of 

the Administrator shall be included in the record with respect to any proposed risk or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, or 

regulation and published in the Federal Register.’’. 

(c) MEMBER COMMITTEES AND INVESTIGATIVE PANELS.—Section 8(e) of such Act 

(42 U.S.C. 4365(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘These member 

committees and investigative panels— 

‘‘(1) shall be constituted and operate in accordance with the provisions set 

forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b), in subsection (h), and in subsection (i); 

‘‘(2) do not have authority to make decisions on behalf of the Board; and 

‘‘(3) may not report directly to the Environmental Protection Agency.’’. 

(d) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) is amended by 

adding after subsection (g) the following: 

‘‘(h)(1) To facilitate public participation in the advisory activities of the Board, the 

Administrator and the Board shall make public all reports and relevant scientific 

information and shall provide materials to the public at the same time as received 

by members of the Board. 

‘‘(2) Prior to conducting major advisory activities, the Board shall hold a public 

information-gathering session to discuss the state of the science related to the advisory activity. 

‘‘(3) Prior to convening a member committee or investigative panel under subsection (e) or requesting scientific advice from the Board, the Administrator shall 

accept, consider, and address public comments on questions to be asked of the 

Board. The Board, member committees, and investigative panels shall accept, consider, and address public comments on such questions and shall not accept a question that unduly narrows the scope of an advisory activity. 

‘‘(4) The Administrator and the Board shall encourage public comments, including 

oral comments and discussion during the proceedings, that shall not be limited by 

an insufficient or arbitrary time restriction. Public comments shall be provided to 

the Board when received. The Board’s reports shall include written responses to significant comments offered by members of the public to the Board. 

‘‘(5) Following Board meetings, the public shall be given 15 calendar days to provide additional comments for consideration by the Board.’’. 

(e) OPERATIONS.—Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) is further amended by 

adding after subsection (h), as added by subsection (d) of this section, the following: 

‘‘(i)(1) In carrying out its advisory activities, the Board shall strive to avoid making policy determinations or recommendations, and, in the event the Board feels 

compelled to offer policy advice, shall explicitly distinguish between scientific determinations and policy advice. 

‘‘(2) The Board shall clearly communicate uncertainties associated with the scientific advice provided to the Administrator. 

‘‘(3) The Board shall ensure that advice and comments reflect the views of the 

members and shall encourage dissenting members to make their views known to the 

public and the Administrator. 

‘‘(4) The Board shall conduct periodic reviews to ensure that its advisory activities 

are addressing the most important scientific issues affecting the Environmental Protection Agency.’’. 

SEC. 3. RELATION TO THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT. 

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed as 

supplanting the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 

App.). 

SEC. 4. RELATION TO THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978. 

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed as 

supplanting the requirements of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 

App.). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

1Public Law 95–155. 

2http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebProjectsby TopicBOARD!OpenView. 

3Dave Reynolds, ‘‘Advisors Narrow List Of Pending EPA Rules For Novel Scientific Scrutiny,’’ 

Inside EPA, March 11, 2013, http://insideepa.com/201303112427282/EPA-Daily-News/DailyNews/advisors-narrow-list-of-pending-epa-rules-for-novel-scientific-scrutiny/menu-id-0995.html. 4http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/Webcommittees/BOARD. 

II. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 1422 is to amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 

to provide for Science Advisory Board member qualifications, public 

participation, and for other purposes. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) was established by Congress in the Environmental 

Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 

1978 (ERDDAA) 1. Under this authorization, the SAB provides scientific advice as may be requested by the EPA Administrator and 

interested Congressional Committees. 

Since its enactment, the size and function of the SAB has 

evolved. ERDDAA established a minimum number of nine members, one of which is to be the designated Chair. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator to serve a three-year term and 

may be reappointed for a second three-year term. There are currently 51 members of the chartered SAB. The SAB and its subcommittees and ad hoc subpanels provide scientific advice on a 

wide range of issues, including stream and wetland connectivity, 

hydraulic fracturing, environmental justice screening, and regulatory cost estimates.2 The Board has also begun providing advice 

on the science underlying several potential, forthcoming Agency 

regulatory activities.3

The SAB is operated in accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972, which requires that advisory panels have 

a charter and be ‘‘fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed.’’ According to EPA, 

SAB’s mission includes: • reviewing the quality and relevance of the scientific and 

technical information being used or proposed as the basis for 

Agency regulations; • reviewing research programs and the technical basis of applied programs; • reviewing generic approaches to regulatory science, including guidelines governing the use of scientific and technical information in regulatory decisions, and critiquing such analytic 

methods as mathematical modeling; • advising the Agency on broad scientific matters in science, 

technology, social and economic issues; and • advising the Agency on emergency and other short-notice 

programs.4

Toward those goals, the chartered SAB conducts much of its 

work through subcommittees or subpanels focused on specific 

issues. Currently, these subcommittees include: Drinking Water 

Committee; Ecological Processes and Effects Committee; Environmental Economics Advisory Committee; Environmental Engineering Committee; Exposure and Human Health Committee; RadiVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:47 Jul 24, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR165.XXX HR165

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

5http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebBOARD/ 

CommitteesandMembership?OpenDocument. 6http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebBOARD/currentcharter?OpenDocument. 

7http://www.epa.gov/ocem/faca/facacomcontacts.htm. 

8http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommittees/CASAC. 

9http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebSABSO/PublicInvolvement?OpenDocument. 

ation Advisory Committee; and the Chemical Assessment Advisory 

Committee (established January 30, 2013).5 Under the SAB’s charter,6 these ‘‘[c]ommittees, panels, and workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the SAB and may not report directly to the Agency.’’ 

EPA also receives advice from and manages 22 additional Federal Advisory Committees, including entities like the EPA Board of 

Scientific Counselors, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel, and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).7 These bodies carry out a variety of advisory functions. For example, CASAC ‘‘provides independent advice to the EPA Administrator on the technical bases for 

EPA’s national ambient air quality standards’’ and ‘‘addresses research related to air quality, sources of air pollution, and the strategies to attain and maintain air quality standards and to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality.’’ The Chair of CASAC also 

sits on the chartered SAB.8

EPA staff and the chartered SAB allow for some public involvement in advisory activities through the nomination of experts for 

committees and panels and involvement in advisory committee 

meetings and report developments. In response to numerous comments during an SAB Session on Public Involvement in June 2011, 

the SAB Staff Office announced additional steps to enhance public 

involvement in advisory activities beginning in FY2012.9

IV. HEARING SUMMARY

In the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee on Environment held 

a hearing on March 20, 2013, to examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s process for receiving independent scientific advice 

and to receive testimony on draft legislation to strengthen public 

participation; improve the process for selecting expert advisors; expand transparency requirements; and limit non-scientific policy advice among advisory bodies. 

The Subcommittee heard from 3 witnesses: 

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

Dr. Roger McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health 

Risk Analysis 

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

V. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On April 9, 2013, H.R. 1422 was introduced by Rep. Chris Stewart and referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 

On April 11, 2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 1422, as 

amended, by roll call vote. Further, the Committee ordered H.R. 

1422 favorably reported to the House, as amended, by roll call vote. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

VI. COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. A motion to order 

H.R. 1422 favorably reported to the House, as amended, was 

agreed to by a recorded vote, 21 ayes, 16 nays. 

During Full Committee consideration of H.R. 1422, the following 

amendments were considered: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 9 HR165.001

No. 

1 

2 

3 

I 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

I 

10 

11 

I 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Full Committee Markup 

April 1 t, 2013 

AMENDMENT ROSTER 

H.R.1422, the "EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of2013" 

Amendment Summary 

Amendment Caps representation of for-profit entities on SAB at ten percent 

offered by Ms. of membership 

Edwards (MD) 

(455) 

Amendment Strikes language prohibiting SAB members from directly or 

offered by Ms. indirectly reviewing their own work. 

Edwards (MD) 

(460) 

Amendment Requires that minimum of 10 percent of SAB membership 

offered by Mr. come from non-governmental organizations representing 

Bera(CA) public health, minority populations, women's issues, children's 

(454) issues, food safety or other public interest non-govemmental 

organizations. 

Amendment Prohibits registered lobbyists from service on the Science 

offered by Mr. Advisory Board (SAB). 

Grayson (FL) 

'(066) 

Amendment Requi~es SAB members disclose as part of their relevant 

offered by Mr. professional activities all representational work, expert 

Swalwell (CA) testimony, and contract work including the entity for which the 

(457) work was done. 

Amendment Requires all conflict of interest waivers granted to members of 

offered by Ms. the Board, member committees or investigative panels to be 

Bonamici (OR) made publicly available. 

(010) 

Amendment Requires the Admi"nistrator to make public any recusal 

offered by Ms. agreement for a member of the Board, member committee or 

Bonamici (OR) investigative panel. 

(009) 

Amendment Inserts authorization for the appropriation of such sums as may 

offered by Ms. be necessary for the activities ofthe bill. 

Edwards (MD) 

(453) 

Amendment Authorizes Administrator to ignore requirements of act that are 

offered by Ms. detennined to incur additional costs, unless there is sufficient 

Edwards (MD) appropriation to cover the cost. 

(450) 

Amendment I Specifies thai nothing in the bill shall be construed as 

offered by Mr. supplanting the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

Grayson (FL) 

-(451) 

Amendment Specifies that nothing in the bill shall be construed as 

offered by Mr. supplanting the Ethics in Government Act. 

Grayson (FL) 

(452) 

Not Agreed to bl Voice Vote 

Not Agreed to by 

Voice Vote 

Not Agreed to by 

a roll call vote of I 16 Yeas and 21 

Nays 

Agreed to by 

Voice Vote 

Agreed to by 

Voice Vote 

Agreed to by 

Voice Vote 

Agreed to by 

Voice Vote 

I Not Agreed to by 

a roll call vote of 

16 Yeas and 21 

Navs 

Not Agreed to by 

a roll call vote of 

16 Yeas and 21 

Nays 

Agreed to by 

Voice Vote 

Agreed to by 

Voice Vote 
8 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 10 HR165.002

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY -113th 

Full Committee Roll Call 

Quorum: 13 WorkingQuorum:20 

DATE: 4/11/2013 

Bill: H.R. 1422 

Roll Call No.1 

Amendment No. 454 

Not Agreed to: 21 Noes; 16 Ayes 

MEMBER AYE NO 

1 Mr. SMITH,Chair- TX X 

2 Mr. ROHRABACHER - CA .. X 

3 Mr. HALL- TX X 

• Mr. SENSENBRENNER - WI X 

5 Mr. LUCAS - OK X 

6 Mr. NEUGEBAUER - TX X 

7 Mr. MCCAUL - TX X 

• Mr. BROUN - GA X 

• Mr. PALAZZO-MS X 

I. Mr. BROOKS - AL X 

11 Mr. HULTGREN -IL X 12 Mr. BUCSHON - IN X 

13 Mr. STOCKMAN - TX X 14 Mr. POSEY - FL X 15 Mrs. LUMMIS - WY X 16 Mr. SCHWEIKERT - AZ X 17 Mr. MASSIE - KY X ,. Mr. CRAMER - ND X 

I. Mr. BRIDENSTINE - OK X 

2. Mr. WEBER - TX X 21 Mr. STEWART-UT X 22 Vacancy 

1 Ms. JOHNSON, Rankin.q - TX X 

2 Ms. LOFGREN - CA 

3 Mr. LIPINSKI - IL X 

• Ms. EDWARDS-MD X 

5 Ms. WILSON - FL X 6 Ms. BONAMICI - OR X 

7 Mr. SWALWELL - CA X 

• Mr. MAFFEI - NY X 

9 Mr. GRAYSON - FL X 

I. Mr. KENNEDY· MA X 

11 Mr. PETERS - CA X 12 Mr. KILMER - WA X 13 Mr.BERA-CA X 

1. Ms. ESTY-CT X 

15 Mr. VEASEY - TX X 16 Ms. BROWNLEY - CA X 17 Mr. TAKANO - CA X 

1. Vacancy 

TOTALS 16 21 

** Vice Chair 

Sponsor: Bera 

PRESENT NOT VOTING 
9 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 11 HR165.003

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY - 113th 

Full Committee Roll Call 

Quorum: 13 Working Quorum: 20 

DATE: 4/11/2013 

Bill: H.R. 1422 

Roll Call No. 2 

Amendment No. 453 Sponsor: Edwards 

Not Agreed to: 21 Noes; 16 Ayes 

MEMBER AYE NO PRESENT 

1 Mr. SMITH, Chair - TX X 

2 Mr. ROHRABACHER - CA ** X 

3 Mr. HALL - TX X 

• Mr. SENSENBRENNER - WI X 

5 Mr. LUCAS - OK X 

• Mr. NEUGEBAUER - TX X 

7 Mr. MCCAUL - TX X 

8 Mr. BROUN - GA X 

9 Mr. PALAZZO - MS X 

10 Mr. BROOKS - AL X 

11 Mr: HULTGREN - IL X 

12 Mr. BUCSHON - IN X 

13 Mr. STOCKMAN - TX X 

14 Mr. POSEY - FL X 

15 Mrs. LUMMIS - WY X ,. Mr. SCHWEIKERT - AZ X 

17 Mr. MASSIE - KY X ,. Mr. CRAMER - ND X 

19 Mr. BRIDENSTINE - OK X 

20 Mr. WEBER - TX X 

21 Mr. STEWART - UT X 

22 Vacancy 

1 Ms. JOHNSON, Ranking - TX X 

2 Ms. LOFGREN - CA 

3 Mr. LIPINSKI - IL X 

• Ms. EDWARDS - MD X 

5 Ms. WILSON - FL X 

• Ms. BONAMICI - OR X 

7 Mr.SWALWELL-CA X 

• Mr. MAFFEI - NY X 

9 Mr. GRAYSON - FL X 

10 Mr. KENNEDY - MA X 

11 Mr. PETERS - CA X 

12 Mr. KILMER - WA X 

13 Mr.BERA-CA X 

I. Ms.ESTY-CT X 

15 Mr. VEASEY - TX X 

I. Ms. BROWNLEY - CA X 

17 Mr. TAKANO - CA X 

1. Vacancy 

TOTALS 16 21 

** Vice Chair 

NOT VOTING 
10 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 12 HR165.004

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY - 113th 

Full Committee Roll call 

Quorum: 13 Workmg Quorum: 20 

DATE: 4/11/2013 

Bill: H.R. 1422 

Roll Call No.3 

Amendment No. 450 

Not Agreed to: 21 Noes; 16 Ayes 

MEMBER AYE NO 

1 Mr. SMITH, Chair- TX X 

2 Mr. ROHRABACHER - CA ** X 

3 Mr. HALL- TX X 

• Mr. SENSENBRENNER - WI X 

5 Mr. LUCAS - OK X 

• Mr. NEUGEBAUER - TX X 

7 Mr. MCCAUL - TX X 

• Mr. BROUN - GA X 

9 Mr. PALAZZO - MS X 

10 Mr. BROOKS - AL X 

11 Mr. HULTGREN - IL X 

12 Mr. BUCSHON - IN X 

13 Mr. STOCKMAN - TX X ,. Mr. POSEY - FL X 

15 Mrs. LUMMIS - WY X 

I. Mr. SCHWEIKERT - AZ X 

17 Mr. MASSIE - KY X ,. Mr. CRAMER - ND X 

19 Mr. BRIDENSTINE - OK X 

20 Mr. WEBER - TX X 

21 Mr. STEWART - UT X 

22 Vacancy 

1 Ms. JOHNSON, Ranking - TX X 

2 Ms. LOFGREN - CA 

3 Mr. LIPINSKI - IL X 

• Ms. EDWARDS-MD X 

5 Ms. WILSON - FL X 

6 Ms. BONAMICI - OR X 

7 Mr.SWALWELL-CA X 

• Mr. MAFFEI - NY X 

9 Mr. GRAYSON - FL X 10 Mr. KENNEDY - MA X 

11 Mr. PETERS - CA X 

~I{lLMER- WA X 

13 Mr.BERA-CA X 

14 Ms. ESTY-CT X 

15 Mr. VEASEY - TX X 

I. Ms. BROWNLEY - CA X 

17 Mr. TAKANO - CA X 

1. Vacancy 

TOTALS 16 21 

** Vice Chair 

Sponsor: Edwards 

PRESENT NOT VOTING 
11 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 13 HR165.005

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY - 113th 

DATE: 4/11/2013 

Bill: H.R. 1422 

Roll Can No.4 

Final Passage: 21 Ayes; 16 Noes 

MEMBER 

1 Mr. SMITH, Chair - TX 

2 Mr. ROHRABACHER - CA ** 3 Mr. HALL- TX 

• Mr. SENSENBRENNER - WI 

5 Mr. LUCAS - OK 

6 Mr. NEUGEBAUER - TX 

7 Mr. MCCAUL - TX 

• Mr. BROUN - GA 

9 Mr. PALAZZO - MS 

10 Mr. BROOKS - AL 

11 Mr. HULTGREN-/L 

12 Mr. BUCSHON -IN 

13 Mr. STOCKMAN - TX 

14 Mr. POSEY - FL 

15 Mrs. LUMMIS - WY 

16 Mr. SCHWEIKERT - AZ 

17 Mr. MASSIE - KY ,. Mr. CRAMER - ND 

19 Mr. BRIDENSTINE - OK 

20 Mr. WEBER - TX 

21 Mr. STEWART - UT 

22 Vacancy 

1 Ms. JOHNSON, Rankin.q - TX 

2 Ms. LOFGREN - CA 

3 Mr. LIPINSKI - IL 

• Ms. EDWARDS-MD 

5 Ms. WILSON - FL 6 Ms. BONAMICI - OR 

7 Mr. SWALWELL- CA 

• Mr. MAFFEI - NY 

9 Mr. GRAYSON - FL 

10 Mr. KENNEDY· MA 

11 Mr. PETERS - CA 

12 Mr. KILMER- WA 

13 Mr.BERA-CA 

14 Ms. ESTY-CT 

15 Mr. VEASEY - TX 

16 Ms. BROWNLEY - CA 

17 Mr. TAKANO· CA ,. Vacancy 

TOTALS 

** Vice Chair 

Full Committee Roll Call 

Quorum: 13 Working Quorum: 20 

AYE NO PRESENT NOT VOTING 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

21 16 
12 

VII. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

H.R. 1422 reforms EPA’s Science Advisory Board and its subpanels by strengthening public participation, improving the process 

for selecting expert advisors, expanding transparency requirements, and limiting non-scientific policy advice. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

H.R. 1422 will restore balance and independence to the scientific 

advisory process at EPA. The bill seeks to codify existing practices 

and address concerns with the Science Advisory Board (SAB) by 

strengthening public participation, reinforcing the need for expertise, transparency, and balance in the SAB selection process, and 

establishing a clearer role for the SAB in providing scientific advice 

to the EPA and Congress. H.R. 1422 provides needed direction to 

SAB and helps to fulfill President Ronald Reagan’s guidance that 

‘‘[t]he purpose of the Science Advisory Board is to apply the universally accepted principles of scientific peer review to the research 

conclusions that will form the bases for EPA regulations, a function 

that must remain above interest group politics.’’ 

In light of EPA’s unique position as an agency that frequently 

provides the scientific justifications to support its regulatory decisions, it is vital that the scientific advisory and peer review process 

be independent and robust. This is especially true for the EPA 

Science Advisory Board because its members are selected by the 

EPA Administrator and frequently are asked to provide analysis on 

critical scientific matters and information from chemical assessments to EPA’s research budget prioritization. If EPA science appears biased, pre-ordained toward a specific outcome, or even less 

than willing to consider every point of view, its credibility will suffer. The bill makes basic changes to the operations, scope, and selection process for the SAB, relying on non-controversial provisions 

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA’s Peer Review Handbook, the National Academies’ Policy on Committee Composition 

and Balance and Conflicts of Interest, and recommendations from 

Science Committee testimony. 

Despite requirements in the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

that SAB and related panels be ‘‘fairly balanced in terms of point 

of view represented,’’ the Science Committee determined that individuals with certain perspectives are overrepresented within the 

SAB and other viewpoints are frequently underrepresented or excluded from participation based on misinterpretation of ethics 

rules. Additionally, EPA often differs from the practice of other federal agencies and excludes state, local, tribal, and private sector 

scientists from serving as advisors. To rectify these issues, H.R. 

1422 requires that all SAB members be designated as ‘‘special Government employees,’’ prohibits the exclusion of individuals with 

substantial and relevant expertise, requires that at least ten percent of the Board be drawn from State, local, and tribal experts, 

and clarifies, in a manner consistent with existing ethics requirements, that in the case of a Board advisory activity on a particular 

matter involving a specific party, no Board member having an interest in the specific party shall participate in that activity. The 

bill also expands disclosure requirements for panelists and nomiVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:47 Jul 24, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR165.XXX HR165

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

nees, and requires that the EPA make reports and conflict of interest waivers available publicly. 

Testimony received by the Committee demonstrated that at 

times Board members had been involved directly or indirectly in reviewing their own work. To address this issue, H.R. 1422 states 

that ‘‘Board members may not participate in advisory activities 

that directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their 

own work’’. This language was based on the EPA’s Peer Review 

Handbook language that states that ‘‘An independent peer reviewer 

is an expert who was not associated with the generation of the specific work product whether directly by substantial contribution to 

its development or indirectly by significant consultation during the 

development of the specific product.’’ Additionally, the legislation 

requires public disclosure of Board member recusals. 

H.R. 1422 makes additional changes to open up the SAB process 

for public participation in a manner that will improve scientific advice without unduly burdening the panel or the EPA. It encourages 

public comments and instructs the Board to not accept questions 

that narrow the scope of an advisory activity. Similarly, the bill 

provides additional detail to the operations of the Board, ensuring 

that their advice clearly distinguishes scientific and policy advice, 

communicates uncertainties, and offers opportunities for dissenting 

views to be made known to the public and the Administrator. 

IX. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight hearing and 

made findings that are reflected in the descriptive portions of this 

report. 

X. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the performance goals and objectives of 

the Committee are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report, including the goal to address concerns with the Science Advisory Board (SAB) by strengthening public participation, reinforcing 

the need for expertise, transparency, and balance in the SAB selection process, and establishing a clearer role for the SAB in providing scientific advice to the EPA and Congress. 

XI. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

XII. ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the 

Committee finds that H.R. 1422, the ‘‘EPA Science Advisory Board 

Reform Act of 2013’’, contains no earmarks. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

XIII. COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

XIV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, April 19, 2013. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of 

Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1422, the EPA Science 

Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. Mehlman. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1422—EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013 

H.R. 1422 would require the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to make various changes related to the qualifications of 

members serving on the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and to expand disclosure requirements for members of the board. The SAB 

was established in 1978 by the Congress with a broad mandate to 

advise EPA on technical matters related to science. Some of the 

proposed changes under this bill include requiring EPA to solicit 

nominations from the public and from relevant federal agencies, 

such as the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, and 

Health and Human Services. Nominees also would be required to 

file a written report disclosing certain financial relationships and 

interests. Additionally, the bill would require EPA to make risk or 

hazard assessments available to the SAB and to publish the 

board’s advice, comments, and views in the Federal Register. 

Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that implementing the changes proposed by this legislation would cost less 

than $500,000 annually or about $2 million over the 2014–2018 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. That funding 

would provide for additional personnel and related administrative 

expenses. 

Enacting H.R. 1422 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 1422 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susanne S. Mehlman. 

The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

XV. FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

XVI. COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5 

A. Directed Rule Making. This bill does not direct any executive 

branch official to conduct any specific rule-making proceedings. 

B. Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish 

or reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be 

duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

XVII. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation; 

however, the bill does modify current law related to an existing advisory committee. 

XVIII. APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

XIX. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 1. Short Title 

This section sets the short title as the EPA Science Advisory 

Board Reform Act of 2013. 

Sec. 2. Science Advisory Board 

Subsection (a) amends section 8(b) of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 

(ERDDAA) to include the following: 

(1) Requires the Science Advisory Board be composed of at least 

nine members, with one designated as Chairman, and requires that 

these members meet at a time and place designated by the Chairman and Administrator. 

(2) Requires that each member of the Board is qualified by education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical 

information on matters referred to the Board. The Administrator is 

required to select Board members from nominations received, and 

shall ensure: (A) the scientific and technical points of view represented on the Board, as well as the function to be performed, be 

fairly balanced among the Board members; (B) at least ten percent 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

of Board membership are from State, local, or tribal governments; 

(C) persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or representation of 

entities that might have a potential interest in the Board’s advisory 

activities, as long as this interest is fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public; (D) in the case of a Board advisory activity 

on a particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member 

that has an interest in that party shall participate in that activity; 

(E) Board members may not participate in advisory activities that 

involve review or application of their own work; and (F) Board 

members shall be designated as special Government employees. 

(3) The Administrator is required to: (A) solicit public comments 

for the Board by publishing a notification in the Federal Register; 

(B) solicit nominations from relevant Federal Agencies; (C) make 

the list of nominees, as well as the entity that nominated them, 

public, and accept public comments on the nominees; (D) require 

that upon nomination, nominees file a written report disclosing financial relationships and interests, including EPA grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other financial assistance relevant to the Board’s advisory activities for the three year period 

prior to nomination, as well as relevant professional activities and 

public statements for the five year period prior to nomination; and 

(E) make these reports public for each member of the Board upon 

their selection, excepting specific dollar amounts. 

(4) The terms of the members of the Board shall be three years 

and staggered to ensure that no more than one-third of total membership shall expire within a single year, and members are limited 

to two terms over a ten-year period. 

Subsection (b) amends Section 8(c) of ERDDAA to add a ‘‘risk or 

hazard assessment’’ to the types of proposed actions by the EPA 

that must be provided to the SAB by the Administrator for advice 

and comment. 

This section further amends ERDDAA to require that the Board’s 

advice and comments, including dissenting views of Board members, and the response of the Administrator be included in the 

record with respect to any proposed risk or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation and published 

in the Federal Register. 

Subsection (c) amends section 8(e) of ERDDAA to clarify that the 

member committees and investigative panels: (1) must be constituted and operate in accordance with other provisions of this 

Act; (2) do not have authority to make decisions on behalf of the 

Board; and (3) may not report directly to the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Subsection (d) amends ERDDAA to (1) Require the Administrator and the Board to make public all reports and relevant scientific information and provide materials to the public at the same 

time they are received by the Board. (2) Require the Board to hold 

a public information-gathering session to discuss the state of the 

science relative to the advisory activity prior to conducting major 

advisory activities. (3) Require the Administrator to accept, consider, and address public comments on questions to be asked of the 

board prior to convening a member committee or panel, and the 

Board, member committee, or panels shall accept, consider, and address these public comments. The Board cannot accept a question 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

that unduly narrows the scope of an advisory activity. (4) Require 

the Administrator and the Board to encourage public comments 

and to provide the public comments to the Board when received. 

The Board is also required to respond in writing to significant public comments. (5) Provide the public with 15 calendar days after 

Board meetings to provide additional comments for consideration. 

Subsection (e) amends ERDDAA to require: (1) the Board to 

strive to avoid making policy determinations or recommendations, 

and explicitly distinguish between scientific determinations and 

policy advice. (2) The Board clearly communicates uncertainties associated with scientific advice provided to the Administrator. (3) 

The Board ensures that advice and comments reflect the views of 

the members and encourage dissenting members to make their 

views known to the public and Administrator. (4) The Board conducts periodic reviews to ensure its advisory activities are addressing the most important scientific issues facing the EPA. 

XX. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 

DEMONSTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1978 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 8. (a) * * * 

ø(b) Such Board shall be composed of at least nine members, one 

of whom shall be designated Chairman, and shall meet at such 

times and places as may be designated by the Chairman of the 

Board in consultation with the Administrator. Each member of the 

Board shall be qualified by education, training, and experience to 

evaluate scientific and technical information on matters referred to 

the Board under this section.¿ 

(b)(1) The Board shall be composed of at least nine members, one 

of whom shall be designated Chairman, and shall meet at such 

times and places as may be designated by the Chairman in consultation with the Administrator. 

(2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education, 

training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical information on matters referred to the Board under this section. The Administrator shall select Board members from nominations received 

as described in paragraph (3) and shall ensure that— 

(A) the scientific and technical points of view represented on 

and the functions to be performed by the Board are fairly balanced among the members of the Board; 

(B) at least ten percent of the membership of the Board are 

from State, local, or tribal governments; 

(C) persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or representation 

of entities that may have a potential interest in the Board’s advisory activities, so long as that interest is fully disclosed to the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

Administrator and the public and appointment to the Board 

complies with section 208 of title 18, United States Code; 

(D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a particular 

matter involving a specific party, no Board member having an 

interest in the specific party shall participate in that activity; 

(E) Board members may not participate in advisory activities 

that directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their 

own work; 

(F) Board members shall be designated as special Government employees; and 

(G) no federally registered lobbyist is appointed to the Board. 

(3) The Administrator shall— 

(A) solicit public nominations for the Board by publishing a 

notification in the Federal Register; 

(B) solicit nominations from relevant Federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, and 

Health and Human Services; 

(C) make public the list of nominees, including the identity of 

the entities that nominated them, and shall accept public comment on the nominees; 

(D) require that, upon their provisional nomination, nominees 

shall file a written report disclosing financial relationships and 

interests, including Environmental Protection Agency grants, 

contracts, cooperative agreements, or other financial assistance, 

that are relevant to the Board’s advisory activities for the threeyear period prior to the date of their nomination, and relevant 

professional activities and public statements for the five-year 

period prior to the date of their nomination; and 

(E) make such reports public, with the exception of specific 

dollar amounts, for each member of the Board upon such member’s selection. 

(4) Disclosure of relevant professional activities under paragraph 

(3)(D) shall include all representational work, expert testimony, and 

contract work as well as identifying the party for which the work 

was done. 

(5) Except when specifically prohibited by law, the Agency shall 

make all conflict of interest waivers granted to members of the 

Board, member committees, or investigative panels publicly available. 

(6) Any recusal agreement made by a member of the Board, a 

member committee, or an investigative panel, or any recusal known 

to the Agency that occurs during the course of a meeting or other 

work of the Board, member committee, or investigative panel shall 

promptly be made public by the Administrator. 

(7) The terms of the members of the Board shall be three years 

and shall be staggered so that the terms of no more than one-third 

of the total membership of the Board shall expire within a single 

fiscal year. No member shall serve more than two terms over a tenyear period. 

(c)(1) The Administrator, at the time any proposed risk or hazard 

assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation 

under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the Noise 

Control Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or the Safe Drinking 

Water Act, or under any other authority of the Administrator, is 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

provided to any other Federal agency for formal review and comment, shall make available to the Board such proposed risk or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation, together with relevant scientific and technical information in 

the possession of the Environmental Protection Agency on which 

the proposed action is based. 

(2) The Board may make available to the Administrator, within 

the time specified by the Administrator, its advice and comments 

on the adequacy of the scientific and technical basis of the proposed 

risk or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, 

or regulation, together with any pertinent information in the 

Board’s possession. The Board’s advice and comments, including 

dissenting views of Board members, and the response of the Administrator shall be included in the record with respect to any proposed 

risk or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, 

or regulation and published in the Federal Register. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) The Board is authorized to constitute such member committees and investigative panels as the Administrator and the Board 

find necessary to carry out this section. Each such member committee or investigative panel shall be chaired by a member of the 

Board. These member committees and investigative panels— 

(1) shall be constituted and operate in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b), 

in subsection (h), and in subsection (i); 

(2) do not have authority to make decisions on behalf of the 

Board; and 

(3) may not report directly to the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

* * * * * * * 

(h)(1) To facilitate public participation in the advisory activities 

of the Board, the Administrator and the Board shall make public 

all reports and relevant scientific information and shall provide materials to the public at the same time as received by members of the 

Board. 

(2) Prior to conducting major advisory activities, the Board shall 

hold a public information-gathering session to discuss the state of 

the science related to the advisory activity. 

(3) Prior to convening a member committee or investigative panel 

under subsection (e) or requesting scientific advice from the Board, 

the Administrator shall accept, consider, and address public comments on questions to be asked of the Board. The Board, member 

committees, and investigative panels shall accept, consider, and address public comments on such questions and shall not accept a 

question that unduly narrows the scope of an advisory activity. 

(4) The Administrator and the Board shall encourage public comments, including oral comments and discussion during the proceedings, that shall not be limited by an insufficient or arbitrary 

time restriction. Public comments shall be provided to the Board 

when received. The Board’s reports shall include written responses 

to significant comments offered by members of the public to the 

Board. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

(5) Following Board meetings, the public shall be given 15 calendar days to provide additional comments for consideration by the 

Board. 

(i)(1) In carrying out its advisory activities, the Board shall strive 

to avoid making policy determinations or recommendations, and, in 

the event the Board feels compelled to offer policy advice, shall explicitly distinguish between scientific determinations and policy advice. 

(2) The Board shall clearly communicate uncertainties associated 

with the scientific advice provided to the Administrator. 

(3) The Board shall ensure that advice and comments reflect the 

views of the members and shall encourage dissenting members to 

make their views known to the public and the Administrator. 

(4) The Board shall conduct periodic reviews to ensure that its advisory activities are addressing the most important scientific issues 

affecting the Environmental Protection Agency. 

* * * * * * * 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(21) 

XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL 

COMMITTEE 

MARKUP ON H.R. 1422, 

THE EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD 

REFORM ACT OF 2013 

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

Chairman SMITH. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1422, 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, and the clerk will report the bill. 

The CLERK. H.R. 1422, a bill to amend the Environmental Research Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, 

to provide for a Science Advisory Board Member qualification—— 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the bill will be considered as 

read. 

[H.R. 1422 appears in Appendix I] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH

While different in their focus, the two bills we consider today share a common 

goal: to improve the science behind regulatory decision-making at the EPA. 

I thank Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Stewart for their work on these bills. 

It is my hope that sound science might become a common—and potentially even 

bipartisan—guiding principle for the Committee’s work on EPA issues. 

The Committee examined both bills we consider today in hearings last month. 

And both bills enjoy wide and diverse support. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner’s E15 bill is backed by both the American Petroleum Institute 

and the Environmental Working Group, two organizations that do not agree often. 

It is also supported by the American Automobile Association (AAA), as well as 

groups representing everyone from snowmobilers to boaters to motorcyclists. 

Similarly, Mr. Stewart’s Science Advisory Board Reform legislation has garnered 

support from the American Farm Bureau and the American Chemistry Council. 

Both of these bills improve the science that goes into EPA’s regulations. This is 

why they have received such broad support among diverse stakeholders. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you Chairman Smith. 

Today, we are marking up two pieces of legislation: 

H.R. 875, To provide for a comprehensive assessment of the scientific and technical research on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for 

other purposes, and, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 

2013. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

Let me say at the outset that I am disappointed the Committee is not following 

regular order on these bills. This Committee has a good tradition of following regular order in the movement of legislation, and that tradition has served both sides 

of the aisle well over the years. Regular order is not an arbitrary concept. It is a 

time tested means to perfect legislation. 

Moreover, I think it fosters bipartisanship. The last time Democrats controlled 

this Committee we held 25 subcommittee markups in four years, and took 45 bills 

through those markups. And as former Chairman Bart Gordon liked to brag, every 

one of those bills had at least some Republican support. I do not think that is a 

coincidence. I hope we can get back to that tradition sooner rather than later. 

Unfortunately I cannot support the two bills we are marking up today in their 

current form. I’m glad to see the Democratic Members have so many amendments 

to improve these bills, because they need much improvement. 

H.R. 875 is a retread of an almost identical bill this Committee marked up last 

Congress. Last year, after a contentious markup, the Committee didn’t even bother 

reporting the bill to the House. I think it’s curious that the Committee is spending 

time today marking up a bill that had so many flaws that we couldn’t even bother 

to file a report on it in the last Congress. 

One reason the Majority may have squashed the bill last Congress is that it represents everything the Republican Party platform says is bad about the government. 

I will explain in layman’s terms what the bill does. 

The bill forces the EPA to regulate a product out of existence rather than let free 

market forces dictate the success of E15. The stated justification for this is that consumers are too stupid to use this product correctly. The Majority apparently has lost 

all faith in both consumers and the free market system to deal with E15. 

So today I will support the free market system, and oppose this bill and the Majority’s attempt to expand the nanny-state. These are strange days indeed. 

Next the Committee will consider H.R. 1422, which alters the EPA’s Science Advisory Board process for the worse. This bill is a naked attempt to reduce legitimate 

scientific input at the Board, and replace it with industry funded input. If that 

weren’t bad enough, the bill contains several provisions which appear designed to 

bury the Board in a mountain of work simply to keep it from getting anything accomplished. 

For these reasons, it should not be surprising that groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, 

Clean Water Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Earthjustice, and the 

League of Conservation Voters oppose the bill. 

I have two letters from these organizations stating their opposition, and I ask that 

they be included in the record. 

Democratic Members have submitted a number of good amendments to correct the 

deficiencies in the bill, and I look forward to supporting them, and I look forward 

to a good markup, but a markup that should first have occurred at the subcommittee level. 

Chairman SMITH. And I will now recognize Mr. Stewart for five 

minutes for an opening statement on his bill. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this markup. 

The issues we are talking about today are important, and the decisions that we will make will matter. This is a process that is broken, and I believe we have an obligation to make it better. 

Established by Congress in 1978, the EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board, or SAB, is intended to provide meaningful, balanced and 

independent reviews of the science conducted and used by the 

Agency. Its Members are selected by the EPA Administrator, and 

it plays an important role in reviewing everything from the Agency’s research budget to individual chemical assessments. This panel 

is indispensable in critically reviewing the underlying science for 

virtually all major EPA regulatory activities, a tall order in recent 

years, as the Agency has pursued an overreaching and economythreatening agenda, creating an environment where policy and politics have taken a backseat to unbiased science. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

The bill before us, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, 

would help address a variety of concerns with the SAB and its subpanels by expanding transparency requirements, improving the 

process of selecting expert advisors, strengthening the public participation, and limiting nonscientific policy advice. 

The bill contains basic good-government changes and draws upon 

noncontroversial provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

The EPA’s own peer-review handbook, the National Academy’s 

committee composition and conflict of interest policy and recommendations from Science Committee testimony and other outside groups. It has a widespread support from groups like the National Association of Manufacturers, American Farm Bureau, 

American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the American Chemical Council, the American Gas Association, Portland Cement Association, the American Forest and Paper Association. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter 

into the record a letter from these groups and 22 others in support 

of H.R. 1422. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. STEWART. The bill makes clarifying changes to the scope of 

SAB’s purview and institutes commonsense changes to improve the 

transparency. H.R. 1422 would also facilitate meaningful public 

participation in the advisory process. 

Just last month, I was alarmed to hear both a former SAB manager and chair of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

and state official testify that EPA’s science advisors virtually never 

respond to public comments, and in many cases, they don’t even 

read the written comments that are submitted. 

This bill also provides clarity for SAB Member selection and disclosure process. Despite an existing requirement that these panels 

be fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented, EPA has 

systematically excluded state, local, tribal and private sector scientists from serving as advisors. For example, just last month, EPA 

announced a new hydraulic fracturing research advisory panel. 

Even though dozens of experts were nominated, with recent and direct experience with oil and gas technical developments, EPA excluded nearly all of them from serving on the panel. There are also 

other unsettling EPA trends about how EPA selects its supposedly 

independent advisors. For example, according to Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of Members in the chartered SAB 

and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, also known as 

CASAC, have directly received grants from the Agency since 2000. 

These advisors served as principal co-investigators for EPA grants 

totaling roughly $140 million. EPA frequently chooses panelists 

whose research is directly or indirectly under review, and as a final 

example, many of the panelists have clearly taken sides and made 

public pronouncement on issues they are advising about. For example, roughly 40 percent of the current panel reviewing the science 

behind upcoming EPA ozone standards have already made statements that the regulation should be made more stringent. 

The issues identified in this bill may seem to be in the weeds, 

but credible peer review is critical to everything this Agency does. 

We may not be able to control all of EPA’s regulatory overreach, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

but guaranteeing that there is an independent check on its science 

is essential. 

And let me conclude by making this important point. If the 

EPA’s science process is viewed as being biased or less than willing 

to consider every point of view, their credibility suffers, and this 

serves neither the EPA nor American businesses nor America citizens. 

And again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity and 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

Are there other Members who wish to be heard on this bill? Any 

further discussion? If not, we will go to amendments, and the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized for the first 

one. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman SMITH. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Edwards of 

Maryland. In section 2(a) of—— 

[The amendment of Ms. Edwards appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentlewoman is recognized to explain her 

amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Much of what the majority is proposing to do today in this bill 

appears to be designed to weaken the scientific independence and 

integrity of the Science Advisory Board. One of the ways that this 

is accomplished is to make it more difficult for academics and government scientists to serve by prohibiting scientists from serving 

who have worked on the issue being reviewed. At the same time, 

the bill makes it harder for independent researchers to serve on 

the board. The bill does, however, encourage greater participation 

by industry groups. Now, if you agree that credible peer review is 

important, I am not certain how that is accomplished by providing 

for service by industry groups but prohibiting service effectively by 

scientists who have specialized experience with a given issue. I 

think this is a really terrible trend, and I think it is clearly one 

that is designed to subvert the scientific review process. 

Now, I am not an unreasonable person. I think industry scientists and engineers can bring relevant and unique perspectives 

to the table and that they should be included in this process. My 

amendment would allow the people to serve—allow those people to 

serve on the board. However, my amendment limits their participation to ten percent of the board because we don’t want the industry 

to dominate or co-opt the review process. There is a difference between participation and domination, and my amendment ensures 

that the board doesn’t become dominated by corporate interests. 

You know, I think the American public would actually be appalled if the National Toxicology Program’s Board of Scientific 

Counselors was dominated by scientists from the tobacco industry. 

It would be considered an outrage. It would no less be an outrage 

if we allow the EPA Science Advisory Board to become dominated 

by the petrochemical industries or other interested industry 

groups. These industries are not looking to unearth the best 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

science, they are looking to protect their bottom line. That is what 

they should do. They are corporations. But because of that, their 

participation on this board should also be limited. 

What happened in the last century with the organized efforts of 

the tobacco industry to subvert the scientific process with regard 

to the negative health effects of smoking was a dark stain on the 

country. Many people died because of those efforts. How many people suffered through horrible diseases because of that? 

I really am concerned that we are going to allow that process to 

repeat itself here if we don’t try and protect the integrity of the 

EPA’s scientific review process, and indeed to protect the science. 

I think my amendment is a reasonable attempt to accommodate 

the industry while also safeguarding the integrity of the Science 

Advisory Board, and I urge adoption of the amendment. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized in opposition to the amendment. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity. 

I will respectfully disagree with Ms. Edwards on the contention 

that we are restricting diversity. Indeed, I think the purpose of this 

bill is to increase diversity, and I think boards are much better 

served when we do that. 

The problem with the SABs isn’t that they don’t have too many 

from industry. We recognize that there is some concerns with that, 

but the fact is that they in many cases have virtually none, no representation from industry in industries that are very dynamic and 

changing almost week to week. For example, many of the 22-Member hydraulic fracturing study panels are experts in their own 

groundwater public health but they had no experience in hydraulic 

fracturing, again, an industry that is changing rapidly. The chartered SAB despite including more than 50 Members contains virtually no private sector scientists, and that is despite many nominations. One more example. The EPA rejected five of the six industry nominees on the SAB’s mercury review panel, even thought his 

review culminated in a regulation that would cost $11 billion. 

The National Academies, and this is I think just a very important point, states that for some studies, it may be important to 

have industry perspective because such individuals through their 

participation and knowledge and expertise are often vital to achieving an informed, comprehensive and authoritative understanding 

and analysis of specific problems and potential solutions to be considered. Once again, we are just asking for diversity. We are asking 

to take advantage of the expertise that is available, and we think 

the boards are much stronger if we are able to do that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I think if the gentleman would acknowledge that 

what my amendment does is that I acknowledge even in my statement that diversity is important, that it is important to get the expertise of the industry but not to have it dominated on these 

boards, and what my amendment provides for is that not more 

than ten percent of the board can be comprised of for-profit entiVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:47 Jul 24, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR165.XXX HR165

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

ties, and in that way, the SAB that you describe with 50 percent 

would actually have at least five industry representatives on the 

board. Thank you. 

Mr. STEWART. Again, I recognize and respect your objective there. 

I just feel that there is no question that this amendment would 

make it far more restrictive, and in some cases, tie the hands of 

the SAB and not allow them the freedom and the discretion to form 

the panels in such a way as they may be best served. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Is there any cap that the gentleman would accept 

on for-profit entities on these bodies? For instance, would the gentleman accept a cap of 99 percent? 

Mr. STEWART. Is that your question? 

Mr. GRAYSON. That is the question. 

Mr. STEWART. Yeah. Well, I think 99 percent may be again an 

illustration of the other extreme. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, then, would the gentleman accept a cap of 

50 percent? 

Mr. STEWART. The gentleman is objecting to any arbitrary cap. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Then the gentleman would actually contemplate a 

situation where every single Member of these bodies would be a 

corporate shill? 

Mr. STEWART. The gentleman—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. You find nothing objectionable about that? 

Mr. STEWART. This gentleman believes that these selections 

should be made on the expertise, and that if someone can bring expertise to the panel, that individual should be able to participate 

in that panel. 

Chairman SMITH. Does the gentleman yield back his time? 

Mr. STEWART. The gentleman yields back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

Are there other Members who wish to be heard on this amendment? The gentlewoman—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is 

recognized. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is very important for this Committee to support Ms. Edwards’ commonsense 

amendment. 

The amendment ensures that the SAB cannot have employees of 

for-profit entities comprise more than ten percent of its Members. 

I am all for balance, and I believe there is a place for employees 

of for-profit entities to sit on the SAB. However, I am also for a 

balanced advisory board, and I think we all should be. By capping 

the number of employees from for-profit entities at ten percent, we 

ensure that the very important voice of industry is heard without 

overwhelming the other stakeholders of our society. 

It is truly concerning to me that without this amendment, we 

could find ourselves in a situation where a single industry domiVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:47 Jul 24, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR165.XXX HR165

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

nates an SAB panel. If this occurs, it would be a travesty of the 

very nature my Republican colleagues say they are trying to prevent with this bill. If my colleagues across the aisle are serious 

about balance, then they will support this amendment and to ensure balance and fairness of these panels. I urge my colleagues to 

support this amendment. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Are there other Members who wish to be heard on this amendment? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just to take a look at some of the fundamentals that have been presented to us, and again, there is a distinct 

difference in philosophical outlook between people in Congress, and 

we recognize that people can legitimately disagree because they 

have a different approach to how they think we are going to make 

this a better country an a better world, and I think that part of 

the discussion that we are having today reflects sort of a different 

view, a philosophical view towards how the system should work 

and does work. 

For example, by limiting the for-profit entities to ten percent, 

that is based on the assumption that for-profit entities have the 

same goals in mind and that they are not in somewhat having adversarial positions. In fact, the unintended consequences of this 

amendment would be perhaps one industry would dominate a particular advisory board because you have limited the number of interests that can be involved in the discussion at that level. In fact, 

there are corporate interests that are very adversarial to each 

other and they have experts who are advocating their positions, 

and if you limited it to 10, you are likely to have one of those representatives there to express what is a very well-researched position and may be correct or not correct but the likelihood of actually 

having more interest for the specific group that is going to make 

a profit, it is more likely that you are going to limit others and the 

group that is only interested in its own profit and not adversarial 

to that particular regulation that is being talked about. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You are likely to have a limitation on that 

discussion that helps that particular industry. So I would suggest 

that limiting it to ten percent, I don’t know what the right number 

is but limiting it to ten percent is certainly not going to benefit the 

public because it limits the discussion among people, corporate people who have competitive interests. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Certainly. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I just have a question. Because in the underlying 

bill, the limits that are then placed on scientists who have had 

some other interest and been funded would restrict their participation—I have another amendment to that effect—but would restrict 

their participation, and so at the end you are left without the kind 

of expertise that you need that we all agree on, and I think that 

what my amendment is doing is trying to strike that balance that 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

says yes, we have industry experts, we just don’t want the SABs 

dominated by those industry experts or the scientists who have 

specialized experience limited from their participation too, and it is 

the combination of those things. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, but reclaiming my time, you are not 

limiting that particular interest, you are limiting all of the corporate input, which may present a more well-rounded picture. The 

fact is, because you are saying for-profit entity, okay, so if you work 

for a for-profit solar energy company, you can’t be included more 

than that because you have got ten percent of the people on a particular council or something that might be representing the oil industry. Maybe you want more than that because you would like to 

have a for-profit entity that makes money on solar energy into the 

same discussion with those who provide other types of energy. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Any further discussion on the amendment? If not, the vote is on 

the—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, please. 

Chairman SMITH. Who seeks recognition? Oh, the gentleman 

from Florida, Mr. Grayson, is recognized. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move to 

strike the last word. 

Let us go over this here. We are talking about the Environmental 

Protection Agency. The charge of the Agency is to protect the environment. Generally speaking, threats to the environment are produced in our country by private profit-making entities. I think that 

goes without saying. I am sorry, that is the fact of the matter here. 

The Science Advisory Board that we are talking about is supposed to provide independent scientific advice to the EPA so the 

EPA can make its decisions properly. This Agency, like every other 

government agency, is threatened with the possibility of capture by 

the people whom it is supposed to be regulating. What this bill 

does in essence is facilitate that. This bill allows and encourages 

private industry to take over the Science Advisory Board at the 

EPA and therefore exercise control. The regulated will be exercising control over the regulator. That is what this bill does. 

Now, I speak in support of Ms. Edwards’s amendment because 

we need to prevent that from happening. Perhaps certain Members 

of the majority on this Committee believe that ten percent is not 

the right amount. I understand that. Maybe the right amount is 15 

percent. Maybe the right amount is 20 percent. Perhaps Congresswoman Edwards would accept a secondary amendment to that effect. I can’t speak for her. But the fact is that if we don’t put in 

any limitation here, what that means is that we are encouraging 

and inviting industry to take over the Science Advisory Boards and 

therefore take over the EPA. That is a real and present threat. 

I am not questioning the intent of the people who drafted this 

bill. I am questioning the obvious and necessary impact of this. We 

cannot let the EPA be populated by corporate tools and corporate 

shills, and that is exactly what this bill without the amendment offered by Ms. Edwards actually would do. That is the effect of this. 

Therefore, I support the Edwards amendment as an effort to ameliorate what will inevitably happen, which is this bill if passed will 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

mean that we will have all the diversity on these Science Advisory 

Boards so that we will have opinions ranging all the way from 

Exxon to Chevron and nowhere else. I yield the remainder of my 

time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from 

Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir, just very quickly. Having worked with the 

EPA for many years, I can assure you that the least of my fears 

is that they would become populated by corporate shills. It is absolutely not in their culture nor in their leadership to allow that to 

happen. 

And also, I believe that the premise of this proposed amendment, 

it presumes that there are no shared interests between profit and 

not-for-profit entities when there are. I don’t know of any corporate 

leader that doesn’t have the same desire that we have, and that 

is, to protect our environment, to have clean air, to have clean 

water, and the discussions on many of these boards is simply that 

shared goal, the best way to do that. 

And finally, let me once again just emphasize my opposition to 

the arbitrariness of ten percent. Whether it is ten percent of the 

panel or 15 percent or 20 percent, it ties the EPA’s hands in selecting those people who are most qualified, and we should allow them 

to do that. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

The vote is on the Edwards amendment. 

All in favor say aye. 

Opposed, nay. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it and the amendment 

is not agreed to. 

We will now go to the second amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, and—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 

last word. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes, 

but before she does that, the clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Bonamici of 

Oregon. In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter to be inserted as 

section 8—— 

[The amendment of Ms. Bonamici appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized 

to explain her amendment. 

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

Mr. Chairman, one of my significant concerns with this bill is the 

clause that appears to allow lawyers and lobbyists to sit on the scientific advisory boards even if they represent entities that have a 

potential interest, financial or otherwise, in the scientific advisory 

boards’ advisory activities. 

The language in section 2, the Membership section of H.R. 1422 

that will allow for the inclusion on the scientific advisory board 

committees or panels of persons who represent an entity with a potential interest in the board’s activities, is very likely to affect the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

scientific independence and integrity of these boards and the reviews that they conduct, and I know in his opening remarks, Mr. 

Stewart, the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, mentioned the importance of scientific integrity, and that is what we 

are trying to achieve. 

Lobbyists and lawyers who represent entities who have interest 

in the scientific advisory boards’ activities could be so clearly influenced by those interests that it is hard to imagine that they would 

present objective and independent perspectives on scientific questions. Lobbyists working for an entity with business before the 

board would have their jobs on the line if they represented a position that was not favorable to their clients. 

My amendment will remove this language and seek to prevent 

undue private-industry influence on the scientific advisory boards. 

The amendment simply strikes the language that allows individuals who represent entities that have a potential interest in the 

scientific advisory board advisory opinions from serving on these 

boards. When we look at the purpose of the boards, this is a reasonable amendment meant to ensure that the opinions of the board 

remain independent from financial influence, and I hope that my 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle can see the wisdom in ensuring 

that lobbyists and lawyers are prevented from affecting the independence of these important scientific advisory boards. It is a commonsense amendment, and I wanted to add, Mr. Chairman, that 

pursuant to conversations with the chairman and with the chairman’s staff, it is my understanding that this committee will not object to a similar amendment, although not quite as comprehensive, 

that is amendment number 5, Mr. Grayson is going to be offering, 

and because of that and because of an understanding that other 

amendments later will be adopted, I am going to withdraw this 

amendment. I did, Mr. Chairman, want to put on the record the 

importance of this issue. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, and without objection, the amendment will be withdrawn, and I do want to say that the gentlewoman’s understanding is correct, and we do expect to support Mr. 

Grayson’s amendment, and I thank her for withdrawing this 

amendment. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. The next amendment will be offered by the 

gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, and she is recognized 

to offer that amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman SMITH. And the clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Edwards of 

Maryland. Page 3, line 8—— 

[The amendment of Ms. Edwards appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentlewoman is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the amendment that I offered previously, we rejected the idea 

of some kind of limitation on for-profit entities serving on the 

Science Advisory Board. What my amendment, this amendment, 

does is, it actually strikes sub paragraph E under section 2(a) and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

that paragraph reads ‘‘Board Members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work.’’ And so on the one hand, we have rejected 

the idea of for-profit entities being limited but we have said that 

people who actually have an expertise, even when it is their own 

work, aren’t able to participate on the advisory committees, quite 

an irony. 

I am really concerned that this underlying provision will dramatically reduce the number of qualified scientists who can serve 

on a board. In many cases, these are people with very specialized 

kind of expertise. In many fields of study, there are only a small 

number of qualified experts to draw upon. These experts routinely 

publish research with colleagues and peer-review other colleagues’ 

work, and because of these connections between researchers, this 

provision has the potential to significantly affect the ability of the 

EPA to draw on the specialized expertise of the scientific community. 

I would note that this provision would probably leave relatively 

unaffected many scientists drawn from industry as much of their 

work is private and isn’t publicly published due to patent concerns 

nor is it peer-reviewed. However, scientists publishing in public 

journals would be greatly affected, the academic community, the 

independent scientific community, and maybe that is the intent, 

but I would certainly hope not. 

Just to give an example of how absurd this provision is, if something similar had been applied to the Manhattan Project, the country’s most eminent nuclear physicists would have been barred from 

advising the government. Obviously, that would have been disastrous and it would be no less disastrous for the Science Advisory 

Board. This is a bad provision and should be stricken from the bill. 

I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized in opposition to the amendment. 

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

Once again, with respect to Ms. Edwards, I would like to disagree and point out the reasoning for doing so. 

This provision, it is important to understand that any expert can 

still serve on a board. We are not restricting their service at all. 

They simply can’t review their own work, and there is a very important distinction to be made there. I believe the results of this 

amendment would be painfully obvious. A football team can’t use 

their own players to referee their own games, and I believe that 

SAB Members should not be able to review their own work in the 

same way. 

It is important to note as well that the EPA’s own peer-review 

handbook, their own guidance makes it clear that this is unacceptable. Quoting from it now, ‘‘An independent peer reviewer is an expert who is not associated with the generation of the specific work 

product either directly by substantial contribution to its development or indirectly by significant consultation with the development 

of the specific product. And finally, if I could, the National Academies and OMB are clear. Once again, individuals should not serve 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

on advisory panels where they are reviewing their own work. There 

are numerous examples where regulations and ethical considerations point out the inconsistency and how troubling that would be 

if they were able to do that. And for those reasons, it would be impossible for me to support this amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Would the gentleman yield? I have a question. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I just have a question. If that is the case, why do 

you need this provision in the bill at all? 

Mr. STEWART. Help me understand what you are asking. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, if what you just read, the procedures, the 

protocols of the Science Advisory Board are, why would you need 

a provision like this to prohibit something that is already prohibited? 

Mr. STEWART. Because I think it makes it uniform, it makes it 

standard, and I guess I could turn the question as well: if they already have that guidance, why would you want to overturn that? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No, what I want to do is strike the provision that 

duplicates what the guidance is. 

Mr. STEWART. Yeah, and I think in this case, again, it just standardizes it and makes it common throughout, and I guess probably 

a third consideration would be the fact that in many cases, the 

EPA doesn’t follow its own guidance in allowing those who have 

participated in producing the document to review it once again. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I would just ask, I mean, if your position is that 

the guidance exists but your position is that EPA isn’t fulfilling its 

responsibilities, it seems to me that that is a point of oversight for 

this Committee or another committee but it doesn’t require duplicate legislation, and the point of the provision is that participating 

in advisory activities directly or indirectly and not necessarily reviewing their own work. 

Mr. STEWART. It is very frustrating for many people when they 

recognize that the EPA is not following their own guidance on this. 

This is an effort for us to encourage and require them to do that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Can you just give one example of that? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, I think I did in my opening statement and 

also in my statements in not wanting to support this amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Perhaps I didn’t hear it. Could you repeat it? 

Would you mind repeating it? 

Mr. STEWART. You bet. During a recent CASAC review of EPA 

air quality science, 21 of 25 panelists had their work cited by the 

EPA and the chair of the CASAC panel was footnoted more than 

80 times. The meeting minutes did not note a single recusal of the 

panelists. And one more example, the EPA’s Advisory Council on 

Clean Air Compliance Analysis reviewed EPA’s methodology for assessing human health effects on air pollution despite the fact that 

the chair of the panel was also the lead author of the critical study 

cited by the Agency. There are many—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Your problem is with citation? 

Mr. STEWART. No. Clearly, my examples had much more than citation. I will review that for you again if you would like me to, but 

it was much more than just citation, and there are many other examples. This is an effort by this Committee to encourage and to reVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:47 Jul 24, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR165.XXX HR165

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

quire the EPA in a more forceful way than they have in the past 

to adhere to their own standards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Just for a reminder, the rule is actually about 

EPA’s work product and not simply if you were the author of the 

science underlying the work. That is what the rule goes to. 

Chairman SMITH. All right. Does the gentleman yield back his 

time? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? 

If not, all those in favor of the Edwards amendment, say aye. 

All opposed, say nay. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it and the amendment 

is not agreed to. 

We will now go to the next amendment to be offered by the gentleman from California, Dr. Bera, and he is recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. 

Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SMITH. And the clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Bera of 

California. In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter to be inserted 

as section 8—— 

[The amendment of Mr. Bera appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentleman from California is recognized 

to explain his amendment. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

You know, let us take a different approach to this. My amendment today is simple. It is meant to ensure that ten percent of the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board will include individuals from public-interest non-governmental organizations. Specifically, it requires that those individuals come from nongovernmental agencies that represent public health, minority populations, women’s issues, children’s issues, food safety and other 

public interest non-governmental organizations. It is meant to ensure a diversity of opinions. I think ensuring that these community-based organizations with public-interest missions have representation on the board is equally important to ensuring that ten 

percent of the board be comprised of individuals from state, local 

and tribal governments. 

The benefits that individuals who work in public-interest organizations can bring to a group like the Science Advisory Board are 

profound. The sole purpose of these groups is to protect public citizens. To ensure that they have a seat on the board is a grave— 

to not ensure that they have a seat on the board is a grave injustice to the needs of our population. 

As a former chief medical officer for Sacramento County, I fully 

appreciate how the advice and input of non-governmental organizations can offer important opinions on issues of public health. This 

amendment ensures that these vital voices are heard in the advice 

given to the EPA. This is not an expansive amendment. I am only 

seeking to require that these type of individuals can constitute a 

minimum of ten percent of the board. I think that is reasonable, 

given the diversity of public-interest non-governmental agencies 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

and the disparate issues they are involved in. Moreover, from my 

personal experience, I know there are many technically proficient 

individuals in these public interest groups who are qualified to 

serve on the Science Advisory Board. 

I think this is a commonsense amendment, and I hope everyone 

can support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bera. 

The gentleman from Utah is recognized. 

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

I think that all of us here would support the idea that we want 

to include Membership from all walks of life, all backgrounds, but 

board Members should be selected for one thing and one thing only, 

and that is for their expertise. Their background and their expertise is what we would consider. I think it is also important to note 

that the amendment would remove and supersede existing requirements that the EPA advisors be selected based on once again expertise and balanced points of view, and I think my colleagues on 

the other side of the aisle will be pleased as I quote President 

Reagan, who I know is one of their heroes as well, that in 1982 

when there was a near-identical effort as an amendment such as 

this, and it runs counter, quoting from him, ‘‘It runs counter to the 

basic premise of modern scientific thought as an objective undertaking in which the views of special interests have no role. The 

purpose of the scientific advisory board is to apply the universally 

accepted principles of scientific peer review to the research conclusions that will form the basis for EPA regulations, a function that 

remain above interest-group politics.’’ 

Mr. BERA. Can I make a comment? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SMITH. Does the gentleman yield, or yield back his 

time? 

Mr. STEWART. Absolutely, yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. BERA. From these non-governmental public agencies, they 

have to be experts on the panel. There are many experts that are 

going to come from these agencies, and there will be just as many 

experts from non-governmental organizations as our friend, the corporate sector and so forth, and each individual is going to be looked 

at on the merits of what they are doing. Again, it is obvious that 

they are going to be experts on the subject matter. 

Mr. STEWART. Again, I appreciate that, and we recognize that 

there would be many that would qualify as experts, and if that is 

the case, then I am sure that they would be selected for the board 

already. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. BERA. Would my colleague allow me—— 

Chairman SMITH. Does the gentleman continue to yield? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. BERA. You know, again, this amendment is meant to ensure 

a diversity of opinions that—you know, my colleague from Florida 

pointed out as well as my colleague from Maryland that we don’t 

want advice just from one perspective, whether it is the corporate 

sector or the academic sector or just the public sector. We want 

that diversity of opinions so we get the best advice that moves forVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:47 Jul 24, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR165.XXX HR165

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

ward to the EPA. And again, this is a commonsense amendment 

just to make sure we have that diversity of opinion. 

Mr. STEWART. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

Are there other Members who wish to be heard? 

Chairman SMITH. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is 

recognized. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to state my 

support for Mr. Bera’s amendment. 

This amendment really makes a lot of sense. I think that if you 

really want to protect the integrity of the EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board, then having individuals from public-interest NGOs on the 

board would go a long way to ensuring that happens. 

The type of people who work at public-interest NGOs truly have 

the best interests of the country at heart. These are people who 

spend their lives working to protect the American people. From 

NGOs that work on public health issues to those who work with 

minority populations or on women’s and children’s issues, these 

NGOs touch on every aspect of the American experience. This good, 

commonsense amendment ensures that individuals who selflessly 

serve on these organizations can present their advice and opinions 

on the important issues that EPA SAB addresses. 

When I think of the great work that NGOs that I have dealt with 

to help further the goals of STEM education in this country, it reminds me of the expertise that those types of groups bring with 

them, and I hope the majority can see the wisdom of this amendment. 

This bill seeks to change the balance of the types of individuals 

who serve on the SAB, and surely everyone can see the importance 

of including individuals from the public-interest NGOs. I encourage 

all of my colleagues on this Committee to support this amendment, 

ensuring that public-interest NGOs have a position on the SAB. 

I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, just very quickly, and again, I support and I 

think all of us do, the intent of this amendment. My problem with 

it is, as many of us on this side of the aisle have, is that the goals, 

although we share, we feel like this would make it actually less effective rather than more effective. The EPA already has done a 

commendable job in bringing in points of view from various backgrounds, and I think we should recognize that. I believe the problem I have is that the ten percent is arbitrary, it is difficult to justify, and it creates this incredibly complex matrix that they would 

have to comply with when you consider the NGOs, the public 

health, minority populations, women’s issues, children’s issues, food 

safety, public interest. Again, the list is very, very long and I think 

it would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for them to comply, to make sure every group has the appropriate representation, 

and it would lead to less effective SABs, which is the point of this 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

legislation to make more effective SABs, and with that, I yield back 

m time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

The vote is on Mr. Bera’s amendment. 

All in favor, say aye. 

All opposed, say nay. 

Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it 

and the amendment is not agreed to, and the gentleman from California is recognized. 

Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote. 

Chairman SMITH. A roll call vote has been requested, and pursuant to Committee Rule 2(f) and House Rule 112(h)(4), proceedings 

on this vote will be postponed. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson, is recognized for the 

purposes of offering an amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman SMITH. And the clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Grayson of 

Maryland. In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter to be inserted 

as section 8(b)(2)(E) of the—— 

[The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentleman from Florida is recognized to 

explain the amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment prohibits registered lobbyists from service on 

the Science Advisory Board. If there are any Members who want 

to extol the virtues of lobbyists and oppose this amendment, I 

would love to hear it. I will yield to him or her. 

Chairman SMITH. It sounds to me like we are going to accept the 

amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I yield the remainder of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. And the gentleman yields back the remainder 

of his time. 

All in favor of the—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized. 

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

I support Mr. Grayson’s amendment and thank him for bringing 

it forward. As I discussed when we were considering amendment 

number 2, which was broader in its intent, this is an important 

part of making sure that we have scientific integrity on the scientific advisory boards, and even though this prohibits registered 

lobbyists, I still have some concerns about others, for example, paid 

attorneys who are representing groups, so I look forward to continuing to work with the Chair and others going forward. 

That being said, I do support this amendment, and again, I 

thank Mr. Grayson and yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

And the vote is on the Grayson amendment. 

All in favor, say aye. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

Opposed, nay. 

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

Does the gentleman from Florida have another amendment? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SMITH. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Grayson of 

Florida. In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter to be inserted as 

section 8(b)(2)(E)—— 

[The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain the 

amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is an amendment that prohibits an individual who has, or 

is or has been within the past year compensated by a for-profit entity that may have an interest in the advisory activities of the SAB 

from being appointed to the board. It would also prohibit the appointment of an individual who has or has had within the past 

year a financial interest in a for-profit entity that might have an 

interest in the advisory activities of the SAB from being appointed 

to the board. 

Both of these concepts, Mr. Chairman, have to do with the danger of a conflict of interest. This is a weighty problem. I think that 

many of the amendments that have been introduced with regard to 

this bill are meant to try to figure out, to parse out exactly what 

role the Science Advisory Board should have when people are on 

the board who might or actually do have a conflict of interest. 

I think that at the end of the day, this issue is going to remain 

unresolved. I think that if the bill moves forward beyond this Committee, it is going to have to be resolved. 

I will say, though, that there were extensive discussions between 

my staff and your staff with regard to this concept, with regard to 

this issue, with regard to this problem and how to deal with it. I 

think that some progress was made but not to the point where your 

staff and my staff were comfortable with any solution. I want to 

thank you for the efforts that were made in that regard. Sometimes 

the magic works and sometimes it doesn’t but I know that goodfaith efforts were made on the part of your staff to try to accomplish that here, and I know that that will remain true going forward. 

With that in mind, I withdraw the amendment. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Grayson, for those comments, 

and we will continue to discuss the issue at hand, and you stated 

it well. 

Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn, and we will 

now go to the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, for his 

amendment. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SMITH. And the clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Swalwell of 

California. In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter—— 

[The amendment of Mr. Swalwell appears in Appendix I] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My amendment strengthens the disclosure requirements of the 

underlying bill and improves the transparency of nominees to the 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board. My background, Mr. Chairman, is 

as a former prosecutor, and I found in the courtroom just as in this 

Science Advisory Board or any decision the government makes, it 

is always best for jurors or the public to have all of the information 

possible, and I believe that this amendment does allow more transparency and accountability. We owe it to the public to make it 

known what work the nominees have done and who paid for the 

work that was done. 

While I do have concerns about the underlying bill, I think this 

amendment makes an important clarification to the disclosure requirements and will keep and help ensure the Science Advisory 

Board is indeed fairly balanced and composed of the very best scientists this country has to offer. 

Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the work that you and your staff 

put in last evening to work with my staff late into the evening to 

have this amendment put forward and accepted, and I do appreciate your efforts so far to try and make this a bipartisan effort, 

and with that, I encourage all Members to support my amendment, 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell, very much, and I 

recommend we accept the amendment. 

All in favor of the Swalwell amendment, say aye. 

Opposed, nay. 

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent 

that the reading of—that my statement be put into the record. 

Chairman SMITH. And without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. The next amendment is by the gentlewoman 

from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, and she is recognized. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman SMITH. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Bonamici of 

Oregon. In section 2(e) of the bill, in the matter to be inserted as 

section 8(i) of the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration—— 

[The amendment of Ms. Bonamici appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentlewoman is recognized to explain the 

amendment. 

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

This amendment today is very straightforward. It is a simple 

good-government principle that seeks to increase transparency and 

expand openness in government. EPA’s science is tied to its mission to protect public health, and we are fortunate that some of the 

best scientific minds in our country, that our country has to offer 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

volunteer their expertise and time to serve on EPA’s scientific advisory boards and panels. 

I understand the need for greater transparency in this process, 

and transparency increases public confidence and public understanding of how our government works to protect our health and 

our environment. Therefore, I am offering the following amendment 

to H.R. 1422, a bill that makes changes to the EPA Science Advisory Board process. 

The board has a process that addresses recusals of board Members when situations arise that make a recusal necessary. EPA follows the practice of the National Academy of Sciences, the National 

Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies when it comes to 

recusal. This amendment simply requires that when a Member 

recuses himself or herself from the Science Advisory Board committee or panel, that information should be made available to the 

public. This amendment is in line with the spirit of the bill calling 

for more transparency in the review process, and I encourage its 

inclusion in the bill. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. And we are prepared to accept the amendment, and appreciate your offering it. You continue to be recognized for the next amendment as well. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairman SMITH. Oh, I am sorry. We didn’t vote on that amendment. 

All in favor of the amendment, say aye. 

Opposed, nay. 

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

And the gentlewoman continues to be recognized. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an 

amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SMITH. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Bonamici of 

Oregon. In section 2(e) of the bill, in the matter to be inserted—— 

[The amendment of Ms. Bonamici appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentlewoman is recognized. 

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

thank you for working with myself and other Members of this Committee on this bill. 

During the legislative hearing that the Environment Subcommittee held on this bill, one witness, Dr. Francesca Grifo from 

the Union of Concerned Scientists, discussed with us recommendations that could improve the Science Advisory Board process, and 

she has a lot of expertise, having served on task forces and groups 

that looked at how this process could be better. 

As with my previous amendment, Dr. Grifo encouraged us to 

search for transparency and balance on these advisory boards, and 

this amendment seeks to do just that. Under current law, the EPA 

is allowed to waive conflict-of-interest requirements for nominees to 

science advisory boards, committees and panels. This amendment 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

will require the EPA to disclose those decisions to the general public unless prohibited by other provisions of law. The disclosure requirements in this amendment will bolster public confidence in 

EPA’s decision-making process and free academics from unfair accusations about the integrity of their perspective, and I thank the 

chairman for this opportunity to speak and again for working with 

us on these amendments, and I urge adoption of the amendment. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and with that, I yield 

back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. And we are prepared to accept the amendment for the reasons that the gentlewoman stated. 

All in favor of the amendment, say aye. 

Opposed, nay. 

The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized for 

the purposes of offering an amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman SMITH. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Edwards of 

Maryland. At the end of section 2 of the bill, add the following new 

subsection: (f) Authorization of appropriations—— 

[The amendment of Ms. Edwards appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentlewoman is recognized to explain the 

amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is really a very 

straightforward amendment. The underlying bill requires that we 

add new requirements to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board process. These new requirements will undoubtedly cost money. There 

could be some debate about how much more it will cost, but it is 

clear that the increased costs will be significant. In fact, during the 

legislative hearing, we heard from experts noting that there would 

be increased costs, responsibilities, and process with this language. 

Just the subtle changes in Section 2(b) will dramatically increase 

the workload of the Science Advisory Board. The Board will now 

have to review and comment on all risk and hazard assessments 

conducted by the EPA. I suspect that will multiply the amount of 

work the Board has to conduct. 

Now just to be clear, I don’t support any of these new requirements. They appear to be aimed at slowing down or corrupting 

EPA’s risk and hazard assessment process. Nonetheless, I think if 

you are going to increase the workload of an agency, it is incumbent on you to give the agency the resources it needs to accomplish 

the work that is required, and this is exactly what my amendment 

does. It simply says that the EPA administrators authorize such 

sums as may be necessary to carry out the requirements of this 

Act. I think it is a pretty reasonable amendment, and I hope everyone can support it. 

If you sincerely believe that the bill will make the Science Advisory Board function better, then I think you ought to be willing to 

pony up the cash to pay for it, and it is really that simple. I would 

urge adoption of the amendment and I yield back. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I address Ms. 

Edwards directly, I would like to again thank those for the opportunity to have supported many of the past amendments, and I believe that that has made—these amendments have made this bill 

stronger, and we appreciate that. 

I believe that this bill is designed to make the EPA more efficient 

and more effective, but these requirements I believe would incur 

absolutely marginal costs to the EPA, and I believe the agency is 

adequately funded in order to complete these requirements. The 

new requirements of this Act are, in fact, fairly nominal and I 

would say absolutely nominal and should incur minimal expenses, 

particularly given that most of the new requirements are simply allowing for more public comment or post of documents to the 

website. 

And finally, let me say this. Again, the EPA has adequate resources in order to do these minimal requirements. Just yesterday, 

they announced there is $54 million that would be saved due to the 

termination of outdated, underperforming, and duplicative EPA 

programs. It would seem that the costs associated with this bill, if 

any, would be miniscule compared even to this $54 million savings 

that the agency has acknowledged, and that would more than suffice for any additional financial requirements that this bill would 

entail. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

Is there any further discussion? 

The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask to strike 

the last word and yield to Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I appreciate that. 

We didn’t hear any testimony—for the record, we heard no testimony about the estimated costs. In fact, we didn’t even hear from 

the EPA about the legislation. I wonder if the gentleman even 

knows how many risk or hazard assessments the EPA does in a 

year, and what is the provision costs for the EPA to comply with 

the ones that are currently done? 

And so I think that all of us, especially in this environment with 

deep fiscal constraints and concerns, should be concerned about 

adding requirements without having any idea at all about what 

those costs would be, and sort of saying well, just trust me. The 

fact is that there is additional work and whether it is nominal or 

not, there is some cost attached to that, and if we want the EPA 

to perform this additional work, I would think that all of us on this 

committee would say that it is our duty to make sure that the 

sums are available for them to spend on the additional work that 

we require. And I don’t understand the reluctance to agree to a 

provision that simply says we are going to pay for the work that 

is required. 

And with that, I would yield back my time to Ms. Johnson. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay, thank you, Ms. Edwards and thank you, 

Ms. Johnson. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

The vote is on the Edwards amendment. Okay, before we go 

there, is there anyone else who seeks recognition on this side? If 

not, we will go to the gentlewoman who asks to be recognized, gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I move to strike the last word. Thank you very 

much. 

Chairman SMITH. Gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I am speaking in support of Ms. Edwards’ amendment, and it is correct that we did not hear about the additional 

costs involved in this. But I want to point out that this bill includes 

a provision that the Board’s report shall include written responses 

to significant comments offered by Members of the public to the 

Board. Now, there is already a public comment period and there— 

in these Science Advisory Board hearings, and there is already 

written comment that is submitted. However, this bill introduces a 

new requirement that the Board has to include written responses 

to significant comments. In addition to the fact that we don’t know 

what significant means, this appears to be yet another way that 

this process could be delayed and slowed down so that this Science 

Advisory Board is not getting the information to the EPA. So there 

must be a cost associated with just this one portion, so in that regard, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in support of Ms. Edwards’ 

amendment, and I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

The vote is on the Edwards amendment. 

All in favor, say aye. 

All opposed, nay. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it and the amendment—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SMITH. —is not agreed to—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SMITH. —and the gentlewoman is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I would ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman SMITH. Roll call vote has been requested, and pursuant to Committee Rules and House Rules, proceedings on this vote 

will be postponed. 

The gentlewoman continues to be recognized for another amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment is really the sibling to my last amendment, although I hope this one will have a bit more support from the Majority. 

As we discussed before, the underlying bill we are marking up 

today adds many new costly requirements—unknown costly requirements to the EPA’s existing Science Advisory Board process. 

However, nowhere in the bill does Congress provide any additional 

resources to the EPA to carry out these new requirements. My last 

amendment was an attempt to rectify this by providing authorization to the EPA for these additional resources, and if you didn’t like 

that amendment, you should really be fine with this one, as it adds 

no additional money. 

The amendment simply says that Congress isn’t going to pass an 

unfunded mandate on to the EPA. If the Congress doesn’t provide 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

the EPA with the funds necessary to carry out the newly created 

and costly requirements in the bill, then the administrator doesn’t 

have to implement those requirements. I think it is a pretty reasonable approach. 

You know, we hear a lot of demagogy about the Federal workforce. Well, a lot of these people are my constituents. They are 

hardworking public servants who, in many cases, are making a lot 

less money than their private sector counterparts for work that is 

vital to our country. I think it is incumbent on us as legislators to 

provide them with the conditions they need to succeed, and if we 

tell the Federal workforce to do something, we should provide them 

with the resources to do it. Otherwise, we just set them up for failure, and that is a real disservice, not just to the hardworking public servants of the country, but also to the public. And since the 

Majority has apparently decided not to provide the resources necessary to implement the Act, then we should adopt this amendment and not set the EPA up for failure by imposing upon them 

an unfunded mandate. I urge the adoption of the amendment and 

I yield back. 

[The amendment of Ms. Edwards appears in Appendix I] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will my colleague yield for a question? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Certainly. Do I have any time left? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. The points you are making about 

added costs to various agencies that ware based on what requirements we have, of course, those same arguments can be made for 

other people in our country whose jobs are important and whose 

companies are doing things that are important to the well-being of 

our people. Does the young lady also support the same principle to 

be acknowledged and to be put onto private sector mandates that 

the government does, that we should be providing the resources 

necessary for private companies and private individuals that we 

have now added responsibility for and costs for? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I think that—number one, I think that that 

is actually not our job, but our job is in authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency to do its work, to provide the resources 

to do that work, and to make sure that the public servants who are 

tasked with that have adequate resources to report back to the 

Congress as envisioned—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So I take it your answer is no? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I have claimed my time—and who have the ability 

to report back to the Congress under the expectation of work that 

we have set out for them. And it is simply unfair to impose a mandate on the Environmental Protection Agency to go through what 

may be quite an onerous process in responding to—in written comment responding to risk assessments without providing the resources and the skills and the talent that is required to do that. 

You know, more than anything else, certain Members of this body 

are very concerned about costs and very concerned that agencies 

meet their obligations, and I share that concern, but I also think 

that we should provide the resources for it. 

And so I would urge adoption of this amendment. If you are not 

willing to allow the administrator to make a decision about going 

forward with the work without the resources, then at least say that 

it is not going to be our responsibility to impose on the adminisVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:47 Jul 24, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR165.XXX HR165

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

trator the responsibility of carrying out a body of activity without 

providing the resources to pay for that. 

And with that, I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

Is there any further discussion? The gentlewoman from Texas, 

Ms. Johnson, is recognized. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment really addresses one of my deepest concerns 

about this bill. I am very disappointed that the Majority has not 

provided the means to pay for the new requirements it created for 

the Science Advisory Board in this bill, and since the Majority does 

not support providing the EPA with the authorization, just to make 

sure that we at least understand that we are adding additional 

chores and responsibilities, we should at least authorize—not appropriate, but authorize for the work, at the very least support the 

simple and common sense amendment. 

This amendment only seeks to ensure good government would 

allow EPA to avoid carrying out these new regulatory burdens unless the Congress provides the monies to fund them. We find this 

to be becoming rather common that we overload our agencies with 

lots of responsibility, but we do not supply them with the adequate 

resources to do it. There is a simple principle at work here. You 

should pay for what you buy. In this case, the Majority has sought 

to buy about additional governmental services without paying for 

the services. As every child is taught, it is wrong to take without 

paying. This amendment seeks to right that unfairness by ensuring 

that the EPA doesn’t have to provide these additional services unless the Congress is willing to pay for them. On a simple principle 

of fairness, I fully support this amendment and urge my colleagues 

to adopt it. 

I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

The question is on the Edwards amendment. 

All in favor, say aye. 

All opposed, say nay. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it and the amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SMITH. And the gentlewoman is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I would ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman SMITH. Roll call vote has been requested and pursuant 

to Committee Rules and House Rules, proceedings on this vote will 

be postponed. 

The next amendment will be offered, I believe, by the gentleman 

from Florida, Mr. Grayson, and he is recognized. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SMITH. And the clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Grayson of 

Florida. At the end of the bill—— 

[The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read and the gentleman is recognized to explain the 

amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

There is a uniform law called the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act that applies to this Board and literally over 1,000 other boards 

throughout the Federal Government. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that we don’t balkanize the law that applies to 

such bodies. I say this, recognizing that this could provoke a 

lengthy conversation between myself and Congressman Rohrabacher about the Balkans. I hope it doesn’t, because he may know 

more about the Balkans than I do. 

Chairman SMITH. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman 

yield to me, not to Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. GRAYSON. I yield. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman offers a good amendment, and 

I urge my colleagues to support it. 

All in favor of the amendment, say aye. 

Opposed, nay. 

The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

The gentleman from Florida continues to be recognized. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SMITH. And the clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Grayson of 

Florida. At the end of the bill, add the following new section, Section 3, relation to the ethics and government—— 

[The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read and the gentleman is recognized to explain the 

amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this is the last amendment before 

us today, and my staff has prepared an amazing and scintillating 

justification for this amendment, and I yield the remainder of my 

time—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield—— 

Chairman SMITH. No, no, no. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —for a question on the Balkans? 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman from Florida continues to be 

recognized. 

Mr. GRAYSON. And I yield the remainder of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. We thank Mr. Grayson for doing that. It is a 

good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. 

All in favor of the last Grayson amendment, say aye. 

Opposed, nay. 

The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

Now, if everyone will stay in place, we are going to proceed 

through the roll call votes that were rolled. 

Pursuant to the Chairman’s previous order, we will now proceed 

to the postponed roll call votes. The Committee will vote on postponed matters in the order in which the roll call votes were requested. 

The next item is the postponed roll call on the amendment offered by Mr. Bera of California, amendment 454 to the bill H.R. 

1422, and the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Chairman SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Broun? 

Mr. BROUN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes no. 

Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes no. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks votes no. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes no. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes no. 

Mr. Stockman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Posey? 

Mr. POSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Posey votes no. 

Mrs. Lummis? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Lummis votes no. 

Mr. Schweikert? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Massie? 

Mr. MASSIE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Massie votes no. 

Mr. Cramer? 

Mr. CRAMER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cramer votes no. 

Mr. Bridenstine? 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bridenstine votes no. 

Mr. Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weber votes no. 

Mr. Stewart? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

Mr. STEWART. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Stewart votes no. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes aye. 

Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. WILSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wilson votes aye. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Bonamici votes aye. 

Mr. Swalwell? 

Mr. SWALWELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. 

Mr. Maffei? 

Mr. MAFFEI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Maffei votes aye. 

Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kennedy votes aye. 

Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes aye. 

Mr. Kilmer? 

Mr. KILMER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kilmer votes aye. 

Mr. Bera? 

Mr. BERA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bera votes aye. 

Ms. Esty? 

Ms. ESTY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Esty votes aye. 

Mr. Veasey? 

Mr. VEASEY. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Veasey votes aye. 

Ms. Brownley? 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Brownley votes aye. 

Mr. Takano? 

Mr. TAKANO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Takano votes aye. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman from Texas is recognized. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 

Chairman SMITH. Gentleman from Texas votes no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes no. I am sorry, Mr. Neugebauer 

votes no. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay, and the gentleman from Arizona is recognized. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schweikert votes no. 

Chairman SMITH. Are there other Members who wish to cast 

their vote or change their vote? The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Stockman, is recognized. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Stockman votes no. 

Chairman SMITH. The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 16 Members voted aye, 21 Members 

voted nay. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
49 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS80556.034

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY - 113th 

Full Committee Roll CaU 

Quorum: 13 Working Quorum: 20 

DATE: 4/11/2013 

Bill: H.R. 1422 Amendment No. 454 Sponsor: Bera 

Roll Call No.1 

Not Agreed to: 21 Noes; 16 Ayes 

MEMBER AYE NO PRESENT NOT VOTING 

1 Mr. SMITH, Chair - TX X 

2 Mr. ROHRABACHER - CA ** X 

3 Mr. HALL - TX X 

• Mr. SENSENBRENNER - WI X 

5 Mr. LUCAS - OK X 

• Mr. NEUGEBAUER - TX X 

7 Mr. MCCAUL - TX X 

! 8 Mr. BROUN - GA X 

9 Mr. PALAZZO - MS X 

10 Mr. BROOKS - AL X 

11 Mr. HULTGREN - IL X 

12 Mr. BUCSHON - IN X 

13 Mr. STOCKMAN - TX X 

14 Mr. POSEY - FL X 

15 Mrs. LUMMIS • WY X 

,. Mr. SCHWEIKERT - AZ X 

17 Mr. MASSIE - KY X 

18 Mr. CRAMER - ND X 

19 Mr. BRIDENSTINE - OK X 

20 Mr. WEBER- TX X 

21 Mr. STEWART - UT X 

22 Vacancy 

1 Ms. JOHNSON, Ranking - TX X 

2 Ms. LOFGREN - CA 

3 Mr. LIPINSKI - IL X 

• Ms. EDWARDS-MD X 

5 Ms. WILSON - FL X 

• Ms. BONAMICI - OR X 

7 Mr. SWALWELL - CA X 

8 Mr. MAFFEI - NY X 

9 Mr. GRAYSON - FL X 

,. Mr. KENNEDY - MA X 

11 Mr. PETERS - CA X 

12 Mr. KILMER- WA X 

13 Mr.BERA-CA X 

1. Ms. ESTY-CT X 

15 Mr. VEASEY - TX X 

,. Ms. BROWNLEY - CA X 

17 Mr. TAKANO - CA X 

18 Vacancy 

TOTALS 16 21 

** Vice Chair 
50 

Chairman SMITH. The nays have it, and the amendment is not 

agreed to. 

The other unfinished business of the Committee is the postponed 

roll call on the amendment offered by Ms. Edwards of Maryland, 

amendment number 453 to the bill H.R. 1422, and the clerk will 

call the roll on that amendment. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Chairman SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Broun? 

Mr. BROUN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes no. 

Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes no. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks votes no. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes no. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes no. 

Mr. Stockman? 

Mr. STOCKMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Stockman votes no. 

Mr. Posey? 

Mr. POSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Posey votes no. 

Mrs. Lummis? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Lummis votes no. 

Mr. Schweikert? 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schweikert votes no. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

Mr. Massie? 

Mr. MASSIE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Massie votes no. 

Mr. Cramer? 

Mr. CRAMER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cramer votes no. 

Mr. Bridenstine? 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bridenstine votes no. 

Mr. Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weber votes no. 

Mr. Stewart? 

Mr. STEWART. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Stewart votes no. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes aye. 

Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. WILSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wilson votes aye. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Bonamici votes aye. 

Mr. Swalwell? 

Mr. SWALWELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. 

Mr. Maffei? 

Mr. MAFFEI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Maffei votes aye. 

Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kennedy votes aye. 

Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes aye. 

Mr. Kilmer? 

Mr. KILMER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kilmer votes aye. 

Mr. Bera? 

Mr. BERA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bera votes aye. 

Ms. Esty? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

Ms. ESTY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Esty votes aye. 

Mr. Veasey? 

Mr. VEASEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Veasey votes aye. 

Ms. Brownley? 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Brownley votes aye. 

Mr. Takano? 

Mr. TAKANO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Takano votes aye. 

Mr. Chairman, 16 Members voted, aye, 21 Members voted nay. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS80556.035

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY - 113th 

Full Committee Roll Call 

Quorum: 13 Working Quorum: 20 

DATE: 4/11/2013 

Bill: H.R. 1422 Amendment No. 450 Sponsor: Edwards 

Roll Call No. 3 

Not Agreed to: 21 Noes; 16 Ayes 

MEMBER NO PRESENT NOT VOTING 

1 Mr. SMITH, Chair - TX X 

2 Mr. ROHRABACHER - CA ** X 

3 Mr. HALL - TX X 

• Mr. SENSENBRENNER - WI X 

5 Mr. LUCAS - OK X 

• Mr. NEUGEBAUER - TX X 

7 Mr. MCCAUL - TX X 

B Mr. BROUN - GA X 

9 Mr. PALAZZO - MS X 

10 Mr. BROOKS-AL X 

11 Mr. HULTGREN - IL X 

12 Mr. BUCSHON -IN X 

13 Mr. STOCKMAN - TX X 

1. Mr. POSEY - FL X 

15 Mrs. LUMMIS - WY X 

,. Mr. SCHWEIKERT - AZ X 

17 Mr. MASSIE - KY X 

1B Mr. CRAMER - ND X 

19 Mr. BRIDENSTINE - OK X 

20 Mr. WEBER - TX X 

21 Mr. STEWART - UT X 

22 Vacancy 

1 Ms. JOHNSON, Ranking - TX X 

2 Ms. LOFGREN - CA 

3 Mr. LIPINSKI - IL X 

• Ms. EDWARDS-MD X 

5 Ms. WILSON - FL X 

• Ms. BONAMICI - OR X 

7 Mr.SWALWELL- CA X 

B Mr. MAFFEI - NY X 

9 Mr. GRAYSON - FL X 

,. Mr. KENNEDY - MA X 

11 Mr. PETERS - CA X 

12 Mr. KILMER - WA X 

13 Mr.BERA-CA X 

14 Ms. ESTY-CT X 

15 Mr. VEASEY - TX X 

,. Ms. BROWNLEY - CA X 

17 Mr. TAKANO - CA X 

1B Vacancy 

TOTALS 16 21 

*. Vice Chair 
54 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Majority having voted against the 

amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. 

We have two more votes, one on an amendment and one on final 

passage. 

The next roll call vote is on the amendment offered by Ms. 

Edwards of Maryland, amendment number 450 to the bill H.R. 

1422, and the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Chairman SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Broun? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes no. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks votes no. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes no. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes no. 

Mr. Stockman? 

Mr. STOCKMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Stockman votes no. 

Mr. Posey? 

Mr. POSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Posey votes no. 

Mrs. Lummis? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Lummis votes no. 

Mr. Schweikert? 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schweikert votes no. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

Mr. Massie? 

Mr. MASSIE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Massie votes no. 

Mr. Cramer? 

Mr. CRAMER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cramer votes no. 

Mr. Bridenstine? 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bridenstine votes no. 

Mr. Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weber votes no. 

Mr. Stewart? 

Mr. STEWART. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Stewart votes no. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes aye. 

Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. WILSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wilson votes aye. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Bonamici votes aye. 

Mr. Swalwell? 

Mr. SWALWELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. 

Mr. Maffei? 

Mr. MAFFEI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Maffei votes aye. 

Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kennedy votes aye. 

Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes aye. 

Mr. Kilmer? 

Mr. KILMER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kilmer votes aye. 

Mr. Bera? 

Mr. BERA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bera votes aye. 

Ms. Esty? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

Ms. ESTY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Esty votes aye. 

Mr. Veasey? 

Mr. VEASEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Veasey votes aye. 

Ms. Brownley? 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Brownley votes aye. 

Mr. Takano? 

Mr. TAKANO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Takano votes aye. 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chair, I am not recorded. 

Chairman SMITH. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized, and 

how is he recorded? 

Mr. BROUN. No. 

The CLERK. He has not been recorded. 

Mr. BROUN. No. 

Chairman SMITH. He votes no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes no. 

Chairman SMITH. Are there other Members who wish to vote or 

change their vote? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 16 Members voted aye, 21 Members 

voted nay. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS80556.036

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY - 113th 

Full Committee RoB Call 

Quorum: 13 Working Quorum: 20 

DATE: 4/11/2013 

Bill: H.R.1422 Amendment No. 453 Sponsor: Edwards 

Roll Cal! No.2 

Not Agreed to: 21 Noes; 16 Ayes 

MEMBER AYE NO PRESENT NOT VOTING 

1 Mr. SMITH, Chair - TX X 

2 Mr. ROHRABACHER - CA ** X 

3 Mr. HALL - TX X 

• Mr. SENSENBRENNER - WI X 

5 Mr. LUCAS - OK X 

• Mr. NEUGEBAUER - TX X 

7 Mr. MCCAUL - TX X 

8 Mr. BROUN - GA X 

9 Mr. PALAZZO - MS X 

10 Mr. BROOKS - AL X 

11 Mr. HULTGREN -IL X 

12 Mr. BUCSHON - IN X 

13 Mr. STOCKMAN - TX X 

14 Mr. POSEY - FL X 

15 Mrs. LUMMIS - WY X 

,. Mr. SCHWEIKERT-AZ X 

17 Mr. MASSIE - KY X 

,. Mr. CRAMER - ND X I 19 Mr. BRIDENSTINE - OK X 

2. Mr. WEBER - TX X 

21 Mr. STEWART - UT X 

22 Vacancy 

N, Ranking - TX X 

2 Ms. LOFGREN - CA 

3 Mr. LIPINSKI IL X 

• Ms. EDWARDS-MD X 

5 Ms. WILSON - FL X 

• Ms. BONAMICI - OR X 

7 Mr. SWALWELL - CA X 

8 Mr. MAFFEI - NY X I 9 Mr. GRAYSON - FL X 

10 Mr. KENNEDY - MA X 

11 Mr. PETERS - CA X 

12 Mr. KILMER - WA X 

13 Mr.BERA-CA X 

14 Ms.ESTY-CT X 

15 Mr. VEASEY - TX X 

,. Ms. BROWNLEY - CA X 

17 Mr. TAKANO - CA X 

18 Vacancy 

TOTALS I 16 21 

** Vice Chair 
58 

Chairman SMITH. Majority having voted against the amendment, 

the amendment is not agreed to. 

We will go to our last item of unfinished business of the Committee today, and that is the postponed roll call vote on the bill 

H.R. 1422, and the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Chairman SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. 

Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye. 

Mr. Broun? 

Mr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. 

Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes aye. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks votes aye. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes aye. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes aye. 

Mr. Stockman? 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Stockman votes aye. 

Mr. Posey? 

Mr. POSEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Posey votes aye. 

Mrs. Lummis? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Lummis votes aye. 

Mr. Schweikert? 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schweikert votes aye. 

Mr. Massie? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

Mr. MASSIE. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Massie votes aye. 

Mr. Cramer? 

Mr. CRAMER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cramer votes aye. 

Mr. Bridenstine? 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bridenstine votes aye. 

Mr. Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weber votes aye. 

Mr. Stewart? 

Mr. STEWART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Stewart votes aye. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. 

Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. 

Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. WILSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wilson votes no. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Bonamici votes no. 

Mr. Swalwell? 

Mr. SWALWELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Swalwell votes no. 

Mr. Maffei? 

Mr. MAFFEI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Maffei votes no. 

Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kennedy votes no. 

Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes no. 

Mr. Kilmer? 

Mr. KILMER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Kilmer votes no. 

Mr. Bera? 

Mr. BERA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bera votes no. 

Ms. Esty? 

Ms. ESTY. No. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

The CLERK. Ms. Esty votes no. 

Mr. Veasey? 

Mr. VEASEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Veasey votes no. 

Ms. Brownley? 

Ms. BROWNLEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Brownley votes no. 

Mr. Takano? 

Mr. TAKANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Takano votes no. 

Chairman SMITH. Are there any Members who wish to vote or 

change their vote? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 21 Members voted aye, 16 Members 

voted nay. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS80556.037

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY - 113th 

Full Committee Roll Call 

Quorum: 13 Working Quorum: 20 

DATE: 4/11/2013 

Bill: H.R. 1422 

Roll Call No.4 

Final Passage: 21 Ayes; 16 Noes 

MEMBER AYE NO PRESENT 

1 Mr. SMITH, Chair - TX X 

2 Mr. ROHRABACHER - CA ** X 

3 Mr. HALL - TX X 

• Mr. SENSENBRENNER - WI X 

5 Mr. LUCAS - OK X 

6 Mr. NEUGEBAUER - TX X 

7 Mr. MCCAUL - TX X 

8 Mr. BROUN - GA X 

9 Mr. PALAZZO MS X 

10 Mr. BROOKS-AL X 

11 Mr. HULTGREN-IL X 

12 Mr. BUCSHON - IN X 

13 Mr. STOCKMAN - TX X 

14 Mr. POSEY - FL X 

15 Mrs. LUMMIS - WY X 

,. Mr. SCHWEIKERT - AZ X 

17 Mr. MASSIE - KY X 

,. Mr. CRAMER - ND X 

19 Mr. BRIDENSTINE - OK X 

20 Mr. WEBER - TX X 

21 Mr. STEWART - UT X 

22 Vacancy 

1 Ms. JOHNSON. Ranking - TX X 

2 Ms. LOFGREN - CA 

3 Mr. LIPINSKI-IL X 

• Ms. EDWARDS-MD X 

5 Ms. WILSON - FL X 

• Ms. BONAMICI - OR X 

7 Mr. SWALWELL - CA X 

8 Mr. MAFFEI NY X 

9 Mr. GRAYSON - FL X 

10 Mr. KENNEDY - MA X 

11 Mr. PETERS - CA X 

12 Mr. KILMER - WA X 

13 Mr.BERA-CA X 

14 Ms. ESTY-CT X 

15 Mr. VEASEY - TX X 

,. Ms. BROWNLEY - CA X 

17 Mr. TAKANO - CA X 

18 Vacancy 

TOTALS 21 16 

** Vice Chair 
62 

Chairman SMITH. Majority having voted aye, the bill is agreed to. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table 

and I move that the bill H.R. 1422 as amended be favorably reported to the House and the staff be authorized to make any necessary technical and conforming changes. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Before we adjourn, I do want to thank the Members who attended today’s markup. We had a great turnout, and I regret that 

the bills themselves were not bipartisan, but we did have a number 

of bipartisan amendments that I feel improved both bills, and I 

thank the Members for offering those. 

There being no further discussion, this concludes the full Committee markup, and without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 68 HR165.006

Appendix: 

H.R. 1422, THE EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM 

ACT OF 2013, 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, &\1ENDMENTS, 

AMENDMENT ROSTER 
64 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 69 HR165.007

E':\EJS\EJS339.XML 

-112H6i>64 

(OrigWal Signat.ure of Member) 

113m 1ST CONGRESS 

8ESSIO~ H R \i-Zz-

• • -----

To llmend the En'l'ir(mmelltai ReSClll"('.h, Development, and Delllon~1ra.tion 

.Authorization ..:\.ct of 1978 to provide for Scientific .A.dvillory Board member qualifications, public particip6tion, slid for N.lIer Plll1)Ose;. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESE~TATlV]j;S 

:\orr. STEW,IRT introdm:.:ld the following bill; whidl WM referred to t.he 

l\)Jllmittee on ___________ _ 

A BILL 

To amend the Environmental Rcscnreh, Deve1opment, twd 

Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 t.o provide for 

Scientific Advisory Board member qnalificatiollFl, public 

pnrticipation, and for other purposcs_ 

1 Be it enacted by the &nute und Ho-use of Re;presenta2 t!:ves of the Vllitf'it States of America in COl1gre.~ ass€"l1tbled, 

3 SECTION l. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This .Act may be cited as the "EPA Science Advisory 

5 Board Reform Act of 2013"_ 

fWHLCIIJ.ID31311}40313.1 $!.><mI 

Apn13, 2013 (4:37 p.m.) 

(54429412) 
65 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 70 HR165.008

2 

1 SEC. 2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD. 

2 ea) lViE1IDERSHIP.-Sectioll 8 (b) of the EnvirOll3 mental Research, Development, and Demonstration Au4 thorizllticm Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365{b» is amended 

5 to read as follows: 

6 'I(b)(l) The Board shall be composed of at least nine 

7 members, one of whom shall be designated Chail .. man, and 

8 shall meet at such tilnes and places a.-; may be designated 

9 by the Chairman in eommltation with the Administrator. 

10 "(2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by 

11 education, training, and experience to evaluat~ scientific 

12 and t.echnical information on matters referred to the 

13 Board HIlder this sectioll. The Administrat(lr shall select 

14 Board members from nominations reeeived as described 

15 in paragraph (3) and shall enSllre that16 "(A) the scientific and technieal points of -view 

17 represented on and the functions to be performed by 

18 the Board are fairly balanced among the members of 

19 the Board; 

20 "(B) at least ten pere.ent of the membership of 

21 the Board are from Stare, local, or tribal govern22 lUents; 

23 "(0) persons with substantial and relevant cx24 per-lise arc not m;:cluded from the Board due to af25 filiation with or representation of entities that may 

26 have a potential interest ill the Board's advisory acfWHLCI04031S104C313.1S2.xm1 

April 3. 2013 (4:37 pm.) 

(54429412) 
66 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 71 HR165.009

3 

1 tivities, so long as t.hat interest is fully diseloscd to 

2 the Administrator and the public and appointment 

3 to the Board complies with section 208 of title 18, 

4 United States ('-ode; 

5 "CD) in Lhc case of a Board advisory activity on 

6 a particular mati€,r involving a specific party, no 

7 Board member having an interest. ill the specific 

8 party shall participate in that activity; 

9 H(E) Board members may not participate in ad10 visory activities tJlat directly or indirectly involve re11 view and evaluation of their own work; and 

12 "(F) Board members shall be designated as 

13 special Government employees. 

14 "(:3) The Administrator shall15 "(A) solicit public nominations for the Board by 

16 publishing a notificatioll ill the Feueral Register; 

17 "(E) solicit nominations fi'om relevant FeuNal 

18 agencies, ineJuding the Departments of AgrlClllt(u'c, 

19 Defense, Energy, and Healt.ll and Human &rviccsj 

20 "(C) make public the list of nomlnees, in.cluding 

21 the identity of the entities that nominated them, and 

22 shall accept public comment 011 the nominees; 

23 "(D) require that, upon their provisional nomi24 nation, nominees shall file it written repOlt disclosing 

25 financial relationships and interests, including Emif:\W.LC\040313\040313.132.xml 

Apri 3,2013 (4'37 p,m-l 

(54429412) 
67 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 72 HR165.010

4 

1 ronmental Protection Agency grants, eOlltmets, co2 operative agrccments, or other financial lissistance, 

3 that are relevant to the Board's advisory aetivities 

4 for the three-year period prior to the date of their 

5 nomination, and relevant professional aetivities and 

6 public statements for the five-year period prior to 

7 the date of their nomination; and 

8 "(E) make snch reports publi('., with the e.xcep9 tiOll of f>'Pecme dollar amOlmts, for each member of 

10 the Board upon such member's selection. 

11 "( 4) The terms of tho members of the Board shall 

12 be t.hree ycar!'l and shall be staggered so that the terms 

13 of nQ more than one-third of the total membership of the 

14 Board shall expire within a single fiscal year. No member 

15 shall scrve more than two terms over a ten-year period.". 

16 (h) RECOIm.-Scction 8(0) of such .Act (42 U.S.C. 

17 43G5(c» is amendcd~ 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

f:WHLC\040313\040313.132..xml 

April 3. 2013 (4;37 p.m.) 

(l) ill paragraph (1)-

(A) by inserting "risk or hw..ard assesf';· 

ment.," after "at the time any proposed"; and 

(B) by inserting "risk or hazarcl assessment," after "to the Board such proposed"; 

and 

(2) in paragraph (2)-

(54429412) 
68 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 73 HR165.011

5 

1 (A) by illsel·ting "risk or hazard asscss2 ment," a.fter "the scientific and tcclmical basis 

3 of the proposed"; and 

4 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

5 "The Board's advice and comments, including 

6 dissenting views of Board members, and the 1'e7 sponse of the Administrat.or shall he included in 

8 the record with respect to any proposed risk or 

9 hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, 

10 limitation, Or regulation and published in the 

11 Federal Register.". 

12 (c) .M.E:MBER CoMJ,IITTEES A:\lD IN1TESTIGATIVE PAl\-

13 ELs.-Section 8(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(c)) is 

14 amended by adding at the end the following: 

15 "These member committees and investi.gative panels--

16 "(I) shall be cOllsiitut~d <md operate in accord17 ance with the provisions set forth in parHgraphs (2) 

18 and (3) of subsection (b), in subscL'1ion (h), and in 

19 subsection (i); 

20 "(2) do not have authority t{l make decisions on 

21 behalf of the Board; and 

22 "(3) may not l-eport dit-ect.Jy to the I~miron23 mental Protection .Agency.". 

f;\VHLCI040313\1l40313.132~xml 

JIp/i 3.2013 (4:37 p.m.) 

(54429412) 
69 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 74 HR165.012

';\EJS\EJS339.XML 

6 

1 (d) PUBLIC PARTICIPATIOl'l.-Section 8 of such Act 

2 (42 U.S.C. 4365) is amended by adding after subsection 

3 (g) the following: 

4 "(h)(1) To facilitate public particip<'ltion in the advi5 sory activities of the Board, the Administrator and t.he 

6 Board shall make public all reports and relevant. scientific 

7 illfonnat.ion and shall pro,,;de materials to the public at 

8 the same time as received by members of the Board. 

9 "(2) Prior to eoudllcting major advisory activities, the 

10 Boam shall hold a public information-gathering session t.o 

11 discusR the state of the scienee related to the arlvir:;ory ac12 tivity. 

13 "(3) Prior to ('.ol1vening a member committee or in· 

14 vestig-dtive panel under subsection (e} or requesting sei15 cntifie advice from the Board, the Administra.tor shall ac16 cept, consider, and address public eOlDllicnts on questions 

17 to be asked of the Board. The Board, member committees, 

18 and investigatjvC'" panels !;haU accept, consider, awl ad19 dress public comments on sueh (tues-tions and shall not ae20 cept a question that unduly narrows the senpe of an advi21 soryactivity. 

22 "( 4) The Administrator aml the Board shall eneoul'-

23 age public comments, including oral comments and discus24 sion during the proceedings, that shall not be limited by 

25 an insufficient or arbitrary time restriction. Public comtWHlC\04W131040313.132.xml 

Aonl3. 201314:S7 n.m.\ 

(54429412) 
70 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 75 HR165.013

7 

1 mcntg shall be pro"vided to the BOaJ:d when received, The 

2 Board's repOlts shall include wriu'ell responses to signifi3 cant comments offered by members of t11C public t.o the 

4 Boa.rd. 

5 "(5) Follo-wiug Board meetings, the public shall be 

6 given 15 calendar days to provide additional comments fOT 

7 consideration by the Board.". 

8 (0) OPERATIOKS.-Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 4365) is nu-ther amended by adding after subsection (h), 

10 as added by subsectioll (d) of this section, the following: 

11 "(i)(l) In carrying out it'> advisory act.ivities, the 

12 Board shall strive to avoid making policy dctcrnrinations 

13 or reconunendatious, and, in the event the Board feels 

14 compelled to offer policy advice, shall explicitly distinguish 

15 betw-ecll scientific determinations and policy advice. 

16 <1(2) The Board shall clearly communicate lmcertain17 ties associated with the scientific ad"ice provided to tlle 

18 Admillistrator. 

19 "(3) The Board shall ensure that advice and com20 ments reflect the viewf: of t.he members and shall encoUI'-

21 age dissent.ing members to make their vimv-s known to the 

22 public and the Administrator. 

23 "(4) The Board shall conduct periodic reviews to en24 sure that it'> advisory activities arc addressing the most 

f:WHLC\04C313'1040313.132_xml 

Apri 3, 2013 (4:37 p.m.) 

(54429412) 
71 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 76 HR165.014

8 

1 impDl"tant scientific is.";ues affecting the Environmental 

2 Protection Agclley.". 

f:IVHLCI040313I.{)oI()313.132.xml 

Aprij 3. 2013 (4;37 p.m.) 

(54429412) 
72 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 77 HR165.015

SECTION-By-SECTION ANALYSIS OF 

H.R. 1422, THE EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2013 

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE 

This section sets the short title as the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act 

of 2013. 

SEC.2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD 

Subsection Cal MEMBERSHIP amends section 8(b) of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (ERDDAA) to 

include the following: 

(b)(ll Requires the Science Advisory Board be composed of at least nine mem- bers, with one designated as Chairman, and that these members meet at a times and places designated by the Chairman and Administrator. 

(2) Requires that each member of the Board is qualified by education, training, 

and experience to evaluate scientific and technical information on matters referred 

to the Board. The Administrator is required to select Board members from nominations received, and shall ensure: (A) the scientific and technical points of view represented on the Board, as well as the function to be performed, be fairly balanced 

among the Board members; (Bl at least ten percent of Board membership are from 

State, local, or tribal governments; (C) persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or representation of entities that might have a potential interest in the Board's advisory activities, as long as this interest is fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public; (D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member that has an interest in that party shall participate in that activity; 

eEl Board members may not participate in advisory activities that involve review or application of their own work; and (F) Board members shall be designated as special Government employees. 

(3) The Administrator is required to: (A) solicit public comments for the Board by 

publishing a notification in the Federal Register; (B) solicit nominations from relevant Federal Agencies; (C) make the list of nominees, as well as the entity that 

nominated them, public, and accept public comments on the nominees; (D) require 

that upon nomination, nominees file a written report disclosing financial relationships and interests, including EPA grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and 

other financial assistance relevant to the Board's advisory activities for the three 

year period prior to nomination, as well as relevant professional activities and public statements for the five year period prior to nomination; and (E) these reports are made public for each member of the Board upon their selection, excepting specific 

dollar amounts. 

(4) The terms of the members of the Board shall be three years and staggered 

to ensure that no more than one-third of total membership shall expire within a single year, and members are limited to two terms over a ten-year period. 

Subsection (b) RECORD amends Section 8(c) of ERDDAA in the following ways: 

In paragraph 1: (Al by inserting "risk or hazard assessment" after "at the time any 

proposed;" and (B) by inserting "risk or hazard assessment" after "to the Board such 

proposed." 

In paragraph 2: (Al by inserting "risk or hazard assessment" after "the scientific 

and technical basis of the proposed;" and (Bl by adding at the end "The Board's advice and comments, including dissenting views of Board members, and the response 

of the Administrator shall be included in the record with respect to any proposed 

risk or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation 

and published in the Federal Register." 

Subsection (c) MEMBER COMMITTEES AND INVESTIGATIVE PANELS 

amends section 8(e) of ERDDAA by adding requirements that the member committees and investigative panels: (1) be constituted and operate in accordance with 

other provisions of this Act; (2) do not have authority to make decisions on behalf 

of the Board; and (3) may not report directly to the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Subsection (d) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION amends ERDDAA by adding subsection 

(h). Subsection (h): (1) requires the Administrator and the Board to make public all 

reports and relevant scientific information and provide materials to the public at the same time they are received by the Board. (2) Requires the Board to hold a public 

information-gathering session to discuss the state of the science relative to the advisory activity prior to conducting major advisory activities. (3) Requires the Adminis-
73 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 78 HR165.016

trator to accept, consider, and address public comments on questions to be asked 

of the board prior to convening a member committee or panel, and The Board, mem- ber committee, or panels shall accept, consider, and address these public comments. 

The Board cannot accept a question that unduly narrows the scope of an advisory 

activity. (4) Requires the Administrator and the Board to encourage public com- ments, and the public comments must be provided to the Board when received. The 

Board is also required to respond in writing to significant public comments. (5) Provides the public with 15 calendar days after Board meetings to provide additional 

comments for consideration. 

Subsection (e) OPERATIONS amends ERDDAA by adding subsection (i) which re- quires: (1) the Board strive to avoid making policy determinations or recommendations, and explicitly distinguish between scientific determinations and policy advice. 

(2) The Board clearly communicates uncertainties associated with scientific advice 

provided to the Administrator. (3) The Board ensures that advice and comments re- flect the views of the members and encourage dissenting members to make their 

views known to the public and Administrator. (4) The Board conducts periodic re- views to ensure its advisory activities are addressing the most important scientific 

issues facing the EPA. 
74 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 79 HR165.017

AMENDMENTS 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. \ .. 2.'2. 

OFFERED BY MR.- 6EAA 

III sectiou 2(11.) of tbe bill, ill the matter to be inserted as section 8(h)(2)(E} of the Environmental Rcs(>arch, Dcw']opl1lcnt, und Dt'lllollstl'atioll Authorization 

J.et of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4.%5(b)(2}(E)}, sh-ike "ami" 

aft.er the semk·ololl. 

In scetioll 2(a) of til(' bill, ill the matter to be inscrted as section 8(b)(2)(F) of tIle Ellyironmenhll Research, Dewlopmellt, alld Demonstration AutJlOrizatioH 

Act of 1978 (42 U.8.C, 4:{6.'){h)(2)(F», striketlle period 

at th(, em1 and insert H; lind". 

In 8cctioll 2(a) of the hill, ill the matter to he iusClted as SC(,tiOll 8(b)(Z} of the Emil'Ollll1Cnta.l Reseal'<.,h, 

Den'lopmel1t, and DClllonstration Authol1zatioll At't of 

1978 (42 IU{C. 4865(h)(2)), l'ldd at the (~ld the following' ncw Snbpal'Hgt'llpl1: 

1 "(0) <'It lell8t ten l)el'ecnt. of t.he Bmud shall he 

2 l'ompo!<Ctl of ll1('mh<:'l'S ,h'awll from llol1-g0Yl.'1'l1l11<'utal 

3 nrgcmi7..8tiollS that. represeut public health, minority 

4 populations, womcll's iSStH'S, rhilc1ren's is~u('s, food 

5 safety, or othel' public iuter{'st lWIl-gOYCl'llUK'lltul 01'-

f:WHlC\0409t3\040913233.xrn1 

Apil9, 2013 (5:19 p.m.) 

(54615512) 
75 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 80 HR165.018

2 

ganizatiollS that have illtercl:lts in the work of the 

2 Board. 

1:\VHLCI040913\040913.233.xml 

April 9. 2013 (5:19p.m.) 

(54&151;12) 
76 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 81 HR165.019

AMENDMENT TO DB. 14'22. 

OFFERED BY M~. ZJj.1l\lCU'ltA 

In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter to be inserted as section 8(b)(2) of the Environmental Research, 

D€velopment, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 

1978 (42 U.S.C. 4:165(1))(2)), insert after subparagraph 

(B) the following (and redesignate subsequent subparagraphs accordingly): 

1 "(C) no mQre than ten percent of the Board 

2 may be composed of employees of for-profit entities; 

f:IVHLC1040913\0409\3.Z34 .om1 

Apnl 9, 2()13 (5:22 p.m.) 

(54016211) 
77 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 82 HR165.020

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1422 

OFFERED BYM~. l:.JwIJVJ5 .. 

Page 3, line 8, insert "and" aCLel' the semicolon. 

Page 3, strike lines 9 Lh..rough 11. 

Page 3, line 12, redesignate subparagraph (F) as 

subparagraph (E). 

I;WHLCIll-410!3IO<4101S.211.KII1l 

Jlpri/l0, 201S (2:21 p.m.) 

(S483Wt) 
78 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 83 HR165.021

F:\M I3\GRA YSO\GRA YSO_066.xMl 

AM:ENDMENT TO H.R. 

OFFERED BY MIL GRAYSON OF FLORIDA 

In section 2(a) of t.he hill, ill the mMtcr to be illserted as section R(h)(2)(E} of the Environmental ReseaI'd., Development., and Dcmonstration Authorization 

Aet of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365(b)(2)(E», strike "a1ld" 

aft.Ct, the S('ll1icololl. 

In section 2(a) of the hill, in tlw matter to lw illserted as section 8(b)(2)(F) of the Environmental Unseart~h, Developmcllt, Hnd Demonst.ration AutllOrizatioll 

Ad. of 197R (42 l}.8.C. 4365(b)(2)(1<')), strike the period 

at t.he cnd a nel insert "; and". 

In section 2(a) of the hill, III tIll' ml1tter to lw inserted as Se(:tiOll 8(b)(2) of the Env;l-onmentl1i Researeh, 

Development, and Demollstration ;\ nthoJ'i7.ation AC't of 

1978 (42 V.S.C. 4365(b)(2», mM at til(' end the following new subpanlgI'aph: 

"(G) no federally registe)'ed lobbyist is <l1l2 JXJillt~t1 t~) the Hoar·d. 

f:WHLC\041013\041013.004.xml 

April 10, 2013 (9:25 a.m.) 

(5462(411) 
79 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 84 HR165.022

AMENDMENT TQ B.R. I Y ~ L 

OFFERED BY ML~ S""tI\ \we 11 

In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter to be inserted as section 8{b) of the Envc'omnental Research, 

Development, and Demonst.ration Authorization .t\ct of 

1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365(b)), i.nsert after paragraph (3) the 

following new paragraph (and redesignate subsequent 

paragraphs accordingly}: 

1 "( 4) Disclosure of relevant professional activities 

2 under paragraph (3)(D) shall include all representational 

3 work, expert testimony, and contract work as well a.s iden4 tifying the party for which the work was done. 

f:WHLC\040913\C40913.237 .lIm1 

April 9, 2013 (5:25 p.m,) 

(5461661,) 

!2] 
80 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 85 HR165.023

P:\M 13\BONAMI\BONA:<.ICOl O.XML 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 

OFFERED BY Ms. BONAMICI OF OREGON 

In sectiun 2(e) of the hill, in the matter to he lllscrted 118 8ectiuu 8(i) of the Ellvil'Olllnental Hcse31'ch, J)e-

\'E'lOpml.'11t, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 

(42 U.S.C. 4365(i»), insert lifter pill"<lgraph (3) the 1'01-

lo'ving 11(,,\" parabrraph (and redesignate suhsell1lcnt pal'agraphs accordingly): 

"(4) Except whell specifically prohibited by law, the 

2 Agency shall make all f:onJ:lict of interest waivers granted 

3 to members of the Boad, member committef>s, m' inw's4 tigative panels puhlicly available. 

f:\VHLCI040913\040913.2G7. xml 

April 9, 2013 (7:44 p.m.) 

(546!9411) 
81 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 86 HR165.024

F:\M13\BONAMI\BONAMUI09JeML 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 

OFFERED BY Ms. BONAMICI OF OREGON 

In section 2(e) of the bill, in the matt~l' to be 111-

sertcd as section 8(i) of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstl'atioll Anthorization Act of 1978 

(42 U.S.C. 4365(i)), insert after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly): 

1 "(4) Any recusal agreement made by a member c 

2 the Board, a member committee, or an investigative panc 

3 or any reeusal known to the -t\",acllcy that occurs durin 

4 the course of a meeting or other work of the Board, mem 

5 bel' committee, or investigative panel shall promptly b 

6 made public by the Admillistratol'. 

f:\vHLCl040913\040913,266,xml 

April 9, 2013 (7:33 p,m,) 

(54619211) 
82 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 87 HR165.025

F:\EJS\E.JS353.xML 

AMENDMENT TO B.R. \42'2... 

OFFEREDBYM~. ~ 

At the end of section 2 of the bill, add the following 

new subsection: 

1 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF A.PPROPRIATIONS.-Such ad2 ditional sums as may be necessary are hereby authorized 

3 to carry out the new requirements of this Act and the 

4 amendments made by this Act. 

f:WHlC'Ol0913\040913.139.X!I1I 

April 9. 2013 (2:45 p.m.) 

(54513011) 
83 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 88 HR165.026

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 14-2-2.. 

OFFERED BY Ms... ~!I\I()(K'r}{! 

At the end of the bill, add the following new section: 

1 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON UNFUNDED MANDATES. 

2 For any fiscal year that begins after the date of en3 actment of this .Act, the .Administrator shall not imple4 ment any requirement of this Act or the amendments 

5 made by this Act which the Administrator determines 

6 adds any additional costs to the existing implementation 

7 of section 8 of the Environmental Research, Development, 

8 and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 

9 4365) lIDless, for that fiscal year, additional funds are ap10 propriated for that specific purpose. 

f:WHLC\04091 :M40913.045.xml 

April 9, 2013 (10:52 am.) 

(54607011) 
84 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 89 HR165.027

AMENDMENT TO H.R. \!..\ 22 

OFFERED BY Mb 

At the end of the hill, add the following new section: 

SEC. 8. RELATION TO THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COM2 MITfEE ACT. 

3 Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this 

4 Act shall be construed as supplmlting the re<Iuirements of 

5 the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.,. 

f:WHLC\04a913\040913.133.xml 

April 9. 2013 (2:23 p.m.) 

(54S11911) 
85 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 90 HR165.028

AMENDMENT TO H.R. I qU 

OFFERED BY M ~ G:, 'rB.1S0-

At the end of the bill, add the following- new section: 

SEC. 3. RELATION TO THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 

2 1978. 

3 Nothing in this Act or the Hmendment..'l made by this 

4 Act shall be construed as supplanting the requirements of 

5 the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.). 

f;\VHlCI0409131040913.136.xml 

Apn19. 2013 (2:33 p.m.) 

(54612911) 

[8J 
86 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 91 HR165.029

No. 

1 

2 

3 

I 

4 

5 

b 

7 

8 

9 

II) 

11 

AMENDMENT RoSTER 

COMMI1TEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Full Committee Markop 

April 11. 2013 

AMENDMENT ROSTER 

n.R. 1422, the "EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of2013H 

Amendment Summary 

Amendment Caps repre;entation of for·profit entities on SAB at ten percent 

offered by Ms. of membership 

Edwards (MO) 

(455) 

Ame.dmen! Strikes language prohibiting SAB members from directly or 

offered by Ms. indirectly reviewing their own work. 

Edwards (MOl 

(44)0) 

Amelldm ... t Requires that minimum of 10 percent ofSAB membership 

offered by Mr. rome from non-governmental organizations representing 

Bera(CA) public health, minority populations, women's issues, children's 

(454) issues, food safety or other public interest non-governmental 

organizations. 

Ameudment Prohibits registered lobbyists from service on tbe Science 

off.red by Mr. Advisory Board (SAB). 

Graysoo (FLl 

(066) 

Amendme.t Requires SAB members disclose as part of their relevant 

offered by Mr. professional activities all representational work., expert 

SwalweU (CA) testimony. and contra<:t work including the entity for which the 

(457) work was done. 

Amcndmeat Requires all conflict of interest waiVe!> granted to members of 

offered by Ms. the Board, member committees or investigative panels to be 

Bonamici (OR) made publicly available. 

(1)10) 

Amendment Requires the Administrator to make public any recusal 

offered by Ms. agreement for a member of the Board, member committee or 

Booamic; (OR) investigath'e panel. 

(009) 

AmendmeDt Inserts authorization for the appropriation of such sums as may 

offered by Mil, be necessary for the activities of the bill. 

Edwards (MD) 

(453) 

Ameadmeat Authorizes Administrator to ignore requirements of act that are 

offered by Ms, detennined to incur additional costs, unless there is sufficient 

Edward. (MD) appropriation to cover the cost. 

(450) 

Ameodmeat Specifies tbat nothing in the bill shall be construed as 

offered by Mr. supplanting the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

Grayson (FL) 

(451) 

AmendmeDt Specifies that nothing in the bill shall be construed as 

offered by Mr. supplanting the Ethics in Government Act. 

Grayson (FL) 

{451l 

Not Agreed to by 

Voice Vote 

Not Agreed to by 

Voice Vote 

Not Agreed to by 

a roll call vole of 

16 Yeas and 21 

Nays 

Agreed to by 

Voice Vote 

Agreed to by 

Voice Vote 

Agreed to by 

VoieeVot. 

Agreed to by 

Vo;.., Vote 

Not Agreed 10 by 

a roll .an vote of 

16 Yeas and 21 

Nays 

Not Agreed t. by 

a roD eall vote of 

16 Yeas and 21 

Nays 

Agreed to by 

Voi •• Vou 

Agreed to by 

Voice Vole 
87 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 92 HR165.030

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERL'ili FOR THE RECORD 
88 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 93 HR165.031

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' LE'ITER SUBMITTED BY 

CONGRESSMAN JAMES SENSENBRENNER 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

April 10, 2013 

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson 

R.anking Member 

House Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

394 Ford House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Via email 

Dear Ranking Member Johnson, 

The Union of Concerned Scientists strongly opposes the EPA Science 

Advisory Board Reform Act of 20 13, which the House Science Committee will 

mark up on April 11. When be discussed his proposal last month. Rep. Chris 

Stewart (UT) revealed the real purpose of his bill. He attacked the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for "promulgating air quality regulations that could shut 

down large swaths ofthe West, undertaking thinly veiled attacks on the safety of 

hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job-killing climate regulations." 

In the name of fostering openness and transparency at the Science Advisory 

Board (SAB), this proposal will make it nearly impossible for the Board to do the 

important work of advising the EPA on regulatory issues. This bill opens the door 

for increased corporate influence on the Board, both by increasing the number of 

conflicted SAB panelists, and by empowering companies to delay the SAB' 5 work 

for years, if not decades. 

The bill also would make it nearly impossible for the EPA to exclude 

experts with substantial flnancial ties to industries affected by the Board's 

recommendations. Instead, this bill stipulates that "persons with substantial and 

relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or 

representation of entities that may have a potential interest in the Board's advisory 

.. Union oCConeerned Sdentist& 

T'WO 8ri:tUe SqUire: ~ Cambridge, JIM, C113s.,780 " TEl..: 617·)4705552 ~ fAlC &!].86.c;.I)4DS 

1llS K S~NW, Suite-SDO .. WilShingtOO, DC loo06-u,1 -TEl...: 202..22,;.6133 • fNC10l.:22.3.6t6, 

2,397 Shatt:l.lckA .... enue,. SUftel-o,; ·8Erkeley,<A 947004·1567" Tit.: 510.613.1Bn ~ fAX..u~ 

0.. K ..... LoWot hwoc..!l.ono lto-l· Chk:ago, It 60602"'4064 ·TU: 3'2.~.a..17;o • FAX: 3t1578.1751 
89 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 94 HR165.032

activities ... " The bill does provide for disclosure and for recusaI on certain very 

narrow grounds, but it would make it very difficult for the EPA to follow the 

laudable goal of whenever possible, selecting non-conilicted members. This 

practice will increase the number of SAB members who would profit from the 

Board's advice, by influencing the Board's recommendations through the votes 

they cast, andlor dominating the Board's discussion. The SAB could soon consist 

primarily of experts on the payroll of major polluters, whose recommendations 

may weaken crucial public health and environmental protections. 

In addition, the bill could delay SAB recommendations for years, if not 

decades. The bill offers almost limitless opportunities for public comment, 

opportunities that only benefit moneyed special interests. For example, for each 

major advisory activity, the Board must convene a public information-gathering 

session ''to discuss the state of the science" related to that activity. It is possible, 

under this requirement, that the Board may find itself repeatedly re-examining ''the 

state of the science" on climate change or the harmful effects of certain toxins -

each time it made a recommendation that touched on either climate change impacts 

or reducing air pollution. In addition, both the EPA, before it asks for the Board's 

advice, and the Board itself, would be required to "accept, consider, and address" 

public comments on the agency's questions to the Board. As the SAB deliberates, 

it must also encourage public comments "that shall not be limited by an 

insufficient or arbitrary time restriction." The Board is required to respond in 

writing to each "significant" comment. In practice, it is difficult to see how the 

Board could impose any deadlines on accepting comment. 

This bill would not improve the work of the Board, and would make it 

more difficult of for the EPA to receive the independent science advice it needs to 

do its work. We strongly urge your opposition. 

Sincerely, 

Celia Viggo Wexler 

Senior Washington Representative 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

T'Io'Io'OBrattiE'SquaI"l!' ~ Cambrldge,MA. 021)8-3]81). n:t.:E'i17.$i}'.S5:Sl * FAX: 617.664.940$ 

1S1S K Street NW, Suite 800 • Wosblngton, OC 20006''')2 • n~ "':l.";J.&1;3 • ,!v(; 20=).61 •• 

~39-7 ShattvckA~ue, Suite :t03 • Bel'keW!')r, 0.. 9-4704-1567 • "ITt..: S10,S43.,8:n • FAX! 510A-4),3,765 

One North LaSOIIo Street, SUI. '904 .Chlago, 1l6060>-4064 .m.: 312-,76"750 • ''''''312.$78,'751 
90 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 95 HR165.033

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FuND, 

CLEAN WATER ACTION, PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, EARTHJUSTICE, 

LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS' LETTER SUBMITTED BY 

CONGRESSMAN JAMES SENSENBRENNER 

Natural Resources Defense Council' Environmental Defense Fund' Clean Water Action • 

Physicians for Social Responsibility • Earthjustice' League of Conservation Voters 

April 10, 2013 

The Honorable Lamar Smith 

U.s. House of Representatives 

2409 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-4304 

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2468 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-4330 

Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: 

We are ~tingto express our strong opposition to H.R. 1422, the "EPA Science AdviSOry Board Reform 

Act of2013." The bill, which would amend the Environmental Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, would hinder the ability of the Envirorunental Protection 

Agency's Science Advisory Board (BPA SAB) to reach timely, independent, objective, credible 

conclusions that can form the basis of policy. Notwithstanding changes made to the bill relative to that 

introduced in the 112" Congress (H.R. 6564), fiR. 1422 would still significantly weaken and complicate 

the SAB review process, with no discernible benefit to EPA or the public. 

Our most serious specific concerns with the hill are described below, in the order in which the provisions 

appear: 

P. 2. line 23 to P.3 l;oe4. creating Section 8(hX2)(C) in the underlying Act, promotes inclusion of 

panelists with financial conflicts, as long as they disclose Ibeir conflicts and obtain a waiver 

The bill shifts the current presumption against including people With financial conflicts on SAB panels. 

The bill appears to effectively mandate participation of scientists with financial conflicts, as long as the 

conflicts are disclosed, notwithstanding the reference to one portion of existing ethics law. 

Policies and practices to identiJY and eliminate persons with financial conflicts, interests, and undue 

biases from independent scientific advisory committees have been implemented by an tbe federal 

agencies, the National Academy of Sciences, and international scientific hodies such as the International 

Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization. The bill's provisions are inconsistent 

with a set of nearly universally accepted scientific principles to eliminate or limit financial conflicts. 

Following these principles is the way agencies, the public, and Congress should ensure their scientific 

advice is credible and independent. 

P. 3, lines.2:ll. creating a Section 8(b)(2)(E) in the underlying Act, Intentionally creates committees of 

non..expel1s 

This language will impede high-quality scientific review. If the SAB is to be made up of experts, their 

own work may be relevant to a question under review. Thal work will often be one of dozens if not 

hundreds of relevant studies. This language would result in committees of non-experts lacking first-hand 

in-<lepth technical knowledge of the topic under discussion. 

PA. lines 18-24 to P.5, lines 1-3, Section 2(h)(J) and 2(b)(2)(A), Expands the scope oflbe SAD's work, 

and increases the burden 
91 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 96 HR165.034

This provision broadens the scope of the SAB's work to include risle or ha7.ard assessments proposed by 

the agency, a dramatic and unnecessary expansion. The expansion would increase the burden C>1l the SAB 

and slow the Board's abi lily to complete review onhe criteria documents, regulatiolls and other matters 

Ibat are within the Board's cum:nt scope of work. 

P. 6. lines 22·2510 P.7 lines 1·4 creating a Section 8(b)(4) in the underlying Act, Eosures endless 

delay, buden Ilnd red tope nnder the gui.e of "transparency" 

This provision would give industry unlimned time to present its .rguments to the SAB. lndustty 

representatives already domirutte proceedings hecau'le of their greater numbers and resources. In 

addition, the requirement for the SAB to respond in writing to "Significant" public oornments is vague 

(who defines what is "significant," and how?) and would tie down the SAB with needless and 

burdensome process. It also misconstrues the nature ofbotlt lbe SAB's role and the role ofpubUc 

comment in the SAB process. The role oftha SAB is to provide its expert advice to the Agency. Therole 

of the public comments during this phase is to provide informative input to the SAB as il delibemtes. but 

the final product of the SAB deliberation is advice from Iht: rand members, no!;m Agency proposal or 

decision that requires response 10 public cemment. Members of the public, including stakehvldm. bave 

multiple opportunities 10 provide input directly to the Agency. 

In short, H.R. 1422 would alter the nature oftlte SAB, which has been largely successful in providing the 

EPA expert review of key scientific and technical questions and would encow-age industry conflicts in the 

review of sc:ieotific materials. II would also pile new and burdensome requirements on the Board, 

severely hampering its work and effectiveness. The result would be to further stall and undermine 

important publio health, safety and environmontal measures. 

w. urge you to abandon any efforts to advance this counter·productive bill. We would be happy to 

discuss our concerns wilh you further. 

Sincerely, 

Natural Resources DefellSe Council 

Ellvironmeotol Defense Fund 

Clean Water Action 

Physicians for Social Respollsibility 

Eartbjustice 

League of Conservation Voters 
92 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 97 HR165.035

AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION (AAI) LETTER SUBMITTED BY 

CONGRESSMAN CHRIS STEWART 

The Honorable Chris Stewart 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

April 10, 2013 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

We are writing on behalf of the American Alliance for Innovation (AAI), a large and diverse 

coalition of trade associations representing a broad spectrum of the American economy. 

It is paramount that chemicals and metals producers, manufacturers, distributors, importers, 

users, and consumers have confidence that there is a transparent federal chemical 

management system in place that is both grounded in sound science and will deliver timely 

safety decisions. Oversight of the safe production and use of chemicals affects us all, which 

is why we support your efforts to improve the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 

(EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) and its committees. 

The SAB is a critical part of the EPA's quality control process that was established to ensure 

that the Agency produces credible information to help guide regulatory decisions at all levels 

of government. We all agree, therefore, that the SAB must provide meaningful, balanced, 

and independent reviews of the science conducted and used by EPA, and we support 

advancing your bill, H.R. 1422 (the "EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of2013") in 

this Congress. 

We are encouraged to see that your legislation takes into account public policy 

recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences and the Bipartisan Policy Council, 

as well as input that the Committee has received from numerous experts and stakeholder 

groups. H.R. 1422 will greatly enhance the current peer review process in many important 

"''ays by strengthening policies to address conflicts of interest, while at the same time 

ensuring that a wide range of scientific perspectives are represented on panels. The bill will 

also increase the utility of SAB panels by improving the process for public engagement and 

ensuring that scientific concerns are clearly addressed and communicated. 

We are committed to working with you and the Members of the Science Committee to move 

this legislation forward, and we urge all members of Congress to support its passage. 

Sincerely. 

Adhesive and Sealant Council 

Alkylpheno\s & Ethoxylates Research Council 

American Architectural Manufacturers Association 

American Chemistry Council 

American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute 

American Farm Bureau Federation® 

American Fiber Manufacturers Association 
93 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 98 HR165.036

American Forest & Paper Association 

American Gas Association 

American Road & Transportation Builders Association 

American Wood Council 

Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association 

Com Refiners Association 

CropLife America 

Fashion Jewelry & Accessories Trade Association 

Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. 

Institute of Makers of Explosives 

National Association of Chemical Distributors 

National Association of Manufacturers 

National Oilseed Processors Association 

National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. 

Nickel Institute 

Oregon Women In Timber 

Pine Chemicals Association, Inc. 

Portland Cement Association 

Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment 

The Fertilizer Institute 

The Vinyl Institute 

Treated Wood Council 

cc: Members of House Science, Space, and Technology Committee 

o