[Pages H2564-H2576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2017

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1431) 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 233, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 1431

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``EPA Science Advisory Board
Reform Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

(a) Independent Advice.--Section 8(a) of the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of
1978

[[Page H2565]]

(42 U.S.C. 4365(a)) is amended by inserting ``independently''
after ``Advisory Board which shall''.
(b) 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.
``(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 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, or for which the Board has
evidence that it may involve, 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 or
evaluation of their own work, unless fully disclosed to the
public and the work has been externally peer-reviewed;
``(F) Board members shall be designated as special
Government employees;
``(G) no registered lobbyist is appointed to the Board; and
``(H) a Board member shall have no current grants or
contracts from the Environmental Protection Agency and shall
not apply for a grant or contract for 3 years following the
end of that member's service on 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,
the Interior, and Health and Human Services;
``(C) solicit nominations from--
``(i) institutions of higher education (as defined in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a))); and
``(ii) scientific and research institutions based in work
relevant to that of the Board;
``(D) make public the list of nominees, including the
identity of the entities that nominated each, and shall
accept public comment on the nominees;
``(E) 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
``(F) 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)(E) 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.''.
(c) Record.--Section 8(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(c))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``or draft risk or hazard assessment,''
after ``at the time any proposed'';
(B) by striking ``formal''; and
(C) by inserting ``or draft risk or hazard assessment,''
after ``to the Board such proposed''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``or draft 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.''.
(d) Member Committees and Investigative Panels.--Section
8(e)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(e)(1)(A)) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``These member committees
and investigative panels--
``(i) 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);
``(ii) do not have authority to make decisions on behalf of
the Board; and
``(iii) may not report directly to the Environmental
Protection Agency.''.
(e) Public Participation.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
4365) is amended by amending subsection (h) to read as
follows:
``(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, and shall be
published in the Federal Register grouped by common themes.
If multiple repetitious comments are received, only one such
comment shall be published along with the number of such
repetitious comments received. Any report made public by the
Board shall include written responses to significant
comments, including those that present an alternative
hypothesis-based scientific point of view, 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.''.
(f) Operations.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) is
further amended by amending subsection (i) to read as
follows:
``(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 or Congress.
``(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,
the Administrator, and Congress.
``(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.
``(5) The Board shall be fully and timely responsive to
Congress.''.

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.).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.

{time} 0915

General Leave

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1431.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank Chairman Smith and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Biggs
for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. I also
thank my good friend, Representative

[[Page H2566]]

Peterson for, yet again, working--helping, I should say--to make this
bill a bipartisan effort. I appreciate his willingness to sponsor this
bill with me.
I had the opportunity to speak in favor of this legislation when it
passed this House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. Now, I
come to the floor yet again to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
this important reform. The SAB Reform Act was a good bill then, and it
is a good bill now. This is a policy that is built on the values we
should uphold regardless of which side of the political aisle we are on
or who happens to be the President.
H.R. 1431, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures the best
experts are free to undertake a balanced and open review of regulatory
science. The Board was established to provide scientific advice to the
EPA and Congress, and to review the quality and relevance of science
EPA uses for regulations. But in recent years, shortcomings with the
process have arisen. Opportunities for public participation have been
limited, potential conflicts of interest have gone unchecked, and the
ability of the Board to speak independently has been curtailed.
If the administration undermines the Board's independence or prevents
it from providing advice to Congress, the valuable advice these experts
can provide is wasted.
Despite the existing requirement that the EPA's advisory panels be
fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented, the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee has identified a number of past
problems that have undermined the panel's credibility and work product.
These include a number of advisory members who received money from the
EPA. At the very least, this could create the appearance of a conflict
of interest.
Some of the panelists have taken public and even political positions
on issues they are advising about. For example, a lead reviewer of the
EPA's hydraulic fracking study published an anti-fracking article
titled, ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.'' Now, this clearly is not an
objective viewpoint, and should be publicly disclosed.
Public participation is limited during most board meetings.
Interested parties have almost no ability to comment on the scope of
the work, and meeting records are often incomplete and hard to obtain.
This bill is both pro-science, and pro-sound science. This bill is
founded upon recommendations for reform outlined by the National
Academy of Sciences, and the EPA's Peer Review Handbook. This bill
ensures that the Board is balanced, transparent, and independent, all
of which will help prevent the SAB from being manipulated by any group.
H.R. 1431 makes sound science the driving force of the Board, no
matter who is the chief executive officer of our government.
Perhaps most importantly, this bill seeks to increase public
participation that benefits all stakeholders. Currently, valuable
opportunities for diverse perspectives are limited. The Federal
Government does not have a monopoly on the truth. Ask your constituents
back home if they know that.
The public has important expertise that can't afford to be ignored in
a democracy. State, local, tribal, and private sectors have a long
history of qualified scientific experts. Their contributions should be
taken seriously.
Unfortunately, the history of the SAB shows that private sector
representation is often lacking or simply nonexistent. Instead, in the
past, EPA has picked the Board, ignoring the knowledge, experience, and
contributions of those experts. This bill ensures that qualified
experts are not excluded simply due to their affiliation. This will add
value and credibility to future Board reviews.
Mr. Peterson and I recognize the important role science should play
in our policy debates and provides safeguards to give the public
confidence in science. It restores the independent Science Advisory
Board as a defender of scientific integrity.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board
Reform Act of 2017. Like the bill we considered yesterday, the so-
called HONEST Act, H.R. 1431 is designed to harm the Environmental
Protection Agency's ability to use science to make informed decisions.
The bill before us today claims to reform the EPA's Science Advisory
Board. And let's talk about what these reforms would mean.
First, the bill establishes a series of roadblocks to prevent
independent academic scientists from serving on the Board. It
accomplishes this by turning the term ``conflict of interest'' on its
head by excluding scientists who have done the most relevant research
on the topic being considered by the Board. The bill also prohibits
Science Advisory Board members from obtaining extramural research
grants for 3 years after their service on the Board, which would be a
major disincentive for scientists to serve on the panel.
At the same time that this bill makes it much more difficult for
academic researchers to serve on the Science Advisory Board, the bill
also makes it much easier for corporate interests to serve. This
is accomplished by gutting actual financial conflict-of-interest
restrictions against industry representatives. Under this legislation,
those industry representatives would simply have to disclose their
financial conflicts, and they could serve on panels directly related to
their corporate interests.

Finally, H.R. 1431 imposes exhaustive and duplicative notice-and-
comment requirements on the Science Advisory Board. I say these
requirements are exhaustive because, in addition to being an open-ended
process, the Board would also have to respond in writing to any and all
significant comments. In fact, I find it hard to believe that the
advisory process created by this bill could ever be completed.
Of course, that is the real purpose of this provision. It is designed
to throw sand in the gears of the Science Advisory Board process, and
prevent board members from ever rendering their expert advice.
These additions are totally unnecessary. The Science Advisory Board
already has statutorily mandated notice-and-comment obligations, and
the Federal Advisory Committee Act already applies to their activities.
So if this bill passes, what would happen?
As an example, I will turn to a case study from the early 1990s. At
that time, the EPA was forming a Scientific Advisory Panel to review
evidence of harm from secondhand tobacco smoke. Thanks to internal
tobacco industry documents that have been made public, we now know that
Big Tobacco made a concerted effort to stack the Scientific Advisory
Panel with tobacco industry hacks.
We take it for granted now that tobacco smoke is dangerous, but at
that time, in the early nineties, Big Tobacco had succeeded in muddying
the scientific waters around this issue by investing tens of millions
of dollars in a coordinated attempt to defraud the American people.
If H.R. 1431 had been in effect back then, Big Tobacco likely would
have succeeded in co-opting the Science Advisory Board.
What would the effects have been on public health to have had the
EPA's science review body controlled by tobacco interests?
That is why a number of public health and environmental interest
groups have come out against H.R. 1431. In a letter penned by the
American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and
several other health groups, the effects of H.R. 1431 are summed up
like this:
``In short, EPA's Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit the
voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to respond to
important questions, and increase the influence of industry in shaping
EPA policy. This is not the best interest of the American public.''
I couldn't agree more. I strongly urge Members to oppose this
misguided bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space,
and Technology Committee, a fellow who has worked very diligently on
the committee for many years.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the
gentleman

[[Page H2567]]

from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, the vice chairman of the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee for yielding to me, and I would also like to thank
him for his leadership on H.R. 1431, the Environmental Protection
Agency Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.
This bill gives much needed transparency, fairness, and balance to
the EPA's Science Advisory Board. These reforms will strengthen the
public's trust of the science the EPA uses to support its regulations.
It also allows more public participation in the EPA science review
process, and it requires the SAB to be more responsive to the public
and to congressional questions, inquiries, and oversight.
Last Congress, similar legislation passed the House with bipartisan
support. I appreciate Mr. Lucas and the ranking member of the
Agriculture Committee, Representative Peterson, for introducing this
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill, and recommend it to my
colleagues.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 1431 is a blatant attempt to cripple the
important mission of the EPA by stacking the EPA Science Advisory Board
with industry insiders.
When Congress established the Science Advisory Board in 1978 to
review the scientific data that informs the EPA's regulatory process,
they did that with the requirement that the Board be balanced
with representatives from industry and academia. The legislation we are
considering today would skew that balance in favor of industry, with
the intent of slowing down the EPA's regulatory process.

With a significant respect for the vice chair from Oklahoma, it makes
no sense to suggest that the representatives of regulated corporate
interests, however expert, can be credibly described as ``defenders of
scientific integrity.''
I am particularly concerned about the double standard mandated by
this bill. On the one hand, the bill makes it easier for industry
representatives to serve on the Board by only requiring that they
disclose their conflicts of interest. There is no recusal requirement
for industry insiders, no matter how deep their financial ties may go
or how much their industry is regulated by the EPA. But, astonishingly,
on the other hand, the same scientists and researchers who received EPA
research grants or contracts are automatically disqualified from
service. Any scientists or researcher would be precluded from accepting
any grant or contract for 3 years after their service.
So the scientists who spent their whole career becoming the world's
top experts on a given topic must choose between advising our public
health or continuing their research. They can bring their knowledge to
the EPA and give up that work or continue.
Why oh why would we make it more difficult for the scientists and
academic experts to participate in the Science Advisory Board while at
the same time making it easier for industry experts to participate? Why
would we want less science on the Science Advisory Board?
This proposal does nothing to advance science or protect public
health. Instead, it creates senseless hurdles, burdensome red tape for
the Science Advisory Board, and makes it more difficult to achieve its
mission. We need to let scientists and researchers do their jobs by
opposing this legislation.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), a member of the Environment Subcommittee of
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

{time} 0930

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, of which I am an
original cosponsor.
This bill intends not to deny science, but to deny manipulated
science. This is a commonsense, good-government piece of legislation
that will discourage ideologically based decisions by the Science
Advisory Board and set it back on a path of making objective, science-
based conclusions as originally intended by Congress.
Further, this bill would promote accountability within SAB, while
also strengthening public participation, ensuring that there is a
diverse makeup on its various boards and panels, reinforcing a strong
system of peer-review requirements that work toward reducing conflicts
of interest, providing ample opportunity for dissenting views by
panelists, and, most importantly, requiring conclusions and reasonings
be made available to the public.
Mr. Speaker, this is a crucial piece of legislation. The rules and
regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency have
real-world implications on families in my State of Louisiana and,
indeed, across the Nation.
The current system in place allows for the EPA to set forth
ideological, biased, and nonscience-based rules and regulations. The
standards set forth by this bill promote the use of good science and a
strong and open system of transparency and peer review.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1431.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, since President Trump took office, I have
heard from hundreds of my constituents who are concerned about attacks
by this new administration on the Environmental Protection Agency and
the potential, long-term negative impacts on public health, clean
water, clean air, and our Nation's work to play a leading role in
combating climate change.
Thelma from Lowell wrote:

Without EPA and its mission to protect our water and air, I
fear that all the work done over the past 40 years will be
erased.

Ingrid from Groton wrote:

I need to be able to trust that the EPA will protect our
air, water, land, and health. But Scott Pruitt has worked so
closely with polluters, even suing the EPA more than a dozen
times, how can we trust that he will protect our health and
safety?

And demonstrating just how personal an issue this is for many people,
Katherine from Acton wrote to me:

This is my first time writing a congressional
Representative, and I am proud to be doing so now, though my
motivation is less heartening. As a mother of two precocious
young kids, I have little time to do much beyond the
essentials of daily living, much less writing a letter, so I
assure you this one is written out of a feeling of necessity.

She went on to say:

Environmental pollution is real and in our backyards. It
contaminates our air, our water, and our land. Cleanup of
these pollutants is extremely difficult, if not impossible,
and the implications for our health are astounding.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us today will do nothing to
assuage the fears of my constituents and millions of others around the
country who support independent, unbiased, science-based decisionmaking
at the EPA, which is essential to protecting public health, clean
water, and combating climate change.
Instead of promoting sound science, this legislation would weaken the
scientific expertise of the EPA's Science Advisory Board, the
independent body that reviews scientific and technical information used
in EPA decisionmaking and provides scientific advice to the EPA
Administrator.
If Congress really wants to promote sound science, I would urge
consideration of the Scientific Integrity Act, legislation that I
introduced along with Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas and
Representatives Lowenthal and Tonko. Our bill will protect scientific
research at Federal agencies from political interference and special
interests. This legislation currently has 93 cosponsors, and it
deserves debate in this House.
The majority is trying to claim that the legislation before us today
helps us achieve goals similar to those of the Scientific Integrity
Act, but my constituents aren't fooled.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1431.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I include in the Record the following letters: a letter of support
from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter of support
from the American Chemistry Council, a letter

[[Page H2568]]

of support from the National Cotton Council of America, another letter
of support from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter
of support from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a
letter of support from the CO<inf>2</inf> Coalition, and a letter of
support from the Cato Institute.

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2017.
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the ``Honest and Open New
EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of 2017'' and the ``EPA
Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.'' These bills
would improve the transparency and reliability of scientific
and technical information that Federal agencies rely heavily
upon to support new regulatory actions.
The HONEST Act is designed to ensure that the studies and
data Federal agencies cite when they write new regulations,
standards, guidance, assessments of risk--or take other
regulatory action--are clearly identified and available for
public review. Additionally, information must be sufficiently
transparent to allow study findings to be reproduced and
validated. This is a critical safeguard to assure the public
that the data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically
sound, unbiased, and reliable.
The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 would
help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which
directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on key scientific and technical issues, is unbiased and
transparent in performing its duties. The bill would
establish requirements that SAB members are qualified
experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of bias are
disclosed, that the views of members--including dissenting
members--are available to the public, and that the public has
the opportunity to participate in the advisory activities of
the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA relies on SAB
reviews and studies to support new regulations, standards,
guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions, the actions
of the SAB must be transparent and accountable. This is a
critical safeguard to assure the public that the data Federal
agencies rely on is scientifically sound and unbiased.
The HONEST Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform
Act would improve the transparency and trustworthiness of
scientific and technical reviews and information that
agencies, including EPA, rely on to justify regulatory
actions that can significantly affect society. The American
public must have confidence that the scientific and technical
data driving regulatory action can be trusted. Accordingly,
the Chamber supports these important bills.
Sincerely,

Neil L. Bradley,

Senior Vice President & Chief Policy
Officer, Government Affairs.
____

American Chemistry Council,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2017.
Hon. Frank Lucas,
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Dear Vice Chairman Lucas: On behalf of the American
Chemistry Council (ACC), we want to thank you for introducing
H.R. 1431 ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017,''
to help improve the science employed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Agency's
regulatory decision making processes.
The proposed legislation would increase the transparency
and public confidence in the EPA's peer review panels.
The Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the
peer review process--a critical component of the scientific
process used by EPA in their regulatory decisions about
potential risks to human health or the environment. The Act
would make peer reviewers accountable for responding to
public comment, strengthen policies to address conflicts of
interest, ensure engagement of a wide range of perspectives
of qualified scientific experts in EPA's scientific peer
review panels and increase transparency in peer review
reports.
We commend you for your leadership and commitment to
advance this important issue. We look forward to working with
you and other cosponsors for quick passage of H.R. 1431.
Sincerely,
Cal Dooley,
President and CEO.
____

National Cotton Council

of America,

Washington, DC, March 27, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the National Cotton
Council, thank you and your committee for the work on the EPA
Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 1431) and the
Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017--HONEST
Act (H.R. 1430). We support both of these critically
important bills in an effort to return sound science and
transparency to the regulatory process that affects our
members and all of agriculture.
The NCC is the central organization of the United States
cotton industry. Its members include growers, ginners,
cottonseed processors and merchandizers, merchants,
cooperatives, warehousers and textile manufacturers. A
majority of the industry is concentrated in 17 cotton-
producing states stretching from California to Virginia. U.S.
cotton producers cultivate between 9 and 12 million acres of
cotton with production averaging 12 to 18 million 480-lb
bales annually. The downstream manufacturers of cotton
apparel and home furnishings are located in virtually every
state. Farms and businesses directly involved in the
production, distribution and processing of cotton employ more
than 125,000 workers and produce direct business revenue of
more than $21 billion. Annual cotton production is valued at
more than $5.5 billion at the farm gate, the point at which
the producer markets the crop. Accounting for the ripple
effect of cotton through the broader economy, direct and
indirect employment surpasses 280,000 workers with economic
activity of almost $100 billion. In addition to the cotton
fiber, cottonseed products are used for livestock feed, and
cottonseed oil is used as an ingredient in food products as
well as being a premium cooking oil.
As you know, agriculture struggles with many factors in the
production of fiber, food, and fuel, but the regulatory
impact and burdens on our industry have greatly increased
over the last several years. In addition, we have found
ourselves unable to adequately defend and maintain many of
our crop protection products and technologies because we are
often unable to access the data used by federal government
agencies to place additional restrictions on these products
and technologies. We believe these two bills--H.R. 1430 and
H.R. 1431--will greatly improve the transparency of
regulatory review process. These two bills will substantially
enhance the role of sound science that was intended to be a
centerpiece of the regulatory process.
We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in
Congress to get these bills enacted into law. If you have any
questions or need any additional information from us, please
have your staff contact Steve Hensley in our office.
Sincerely,
Reece Langley,
Vice President--Washington Operations.
____

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce supports the ``Honest and Open New EPA
Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of 2017'' and the ``EPA
Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.'' These bills
would improve the transparency and reliability of scientific
and technical information that Federal agencies rely heavily
upon to support new regulatory actions.
The HONEST Act is designed to ensure that the studies and
data Federal agencies cite when they write new regulations,
standards, guidance, assessments of risk--or take other
regulatory action--are clearly identified and available for
public review. Additionally, information must be sufficiently
transparent to allow study findings to be reproduced and
validated. This is a critical safeguard to assure the public
that the data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically
sound, unbiased, and reliable.
The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 would
help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which
directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on key scientific and technical issues, is unbiased and
transparent in performing its duties. The bill would
establish requirements that SAB members are qualified
experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of bias are
disclosed, that the views of members--including dissenting
members--are available to the public, and that the public has
the opportunity to participate in the advisory activities of
the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA relies on SAB
reviews and studies to support new regulations, standards,
guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions, the actions
of the SAB must be transparent and accountable. This is a
critical safeguard to assure the public that the data Federal
agencies rely on is scientifically sound and unbiased.
The HONEST Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform
Act would improve the transparency and trustworthiness of
scientific and technical reviews and information that
agencies, including EPA, rely on to justify regulatory
actions that can significantly affect society. The American
public must have confidence that the scientific and technical
data driving regulatory action can be trusted. Accordingly,
the Chamber supports these important bills.
Sincerely,

Neil L. Bradley,

Senior Vice President & Chief Policy
Officer, Government Affairs.
____

March 8, 2017.
Hon. Lamar S. Smith,
Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: The American Exploration & Production
Council (``AXPC'')

[[Page H2569]]

and the Independent Petroleum Association of America strongly
support the enactment of both the EPA Science Advisory Board
Reform Act and the Honest and Open New EPA Science-Treatment
Act and are most grateful to you and your committee for your
efforts in respect of the important objectives set forth in
each of these pieces of proposed legislation.
AXPC is a national trade association representing 33 of
America's largest and most active independent natural gas and
crude oil exploration and production companies, each with
considerable experience drilling, operating, and producing
oil and natural gas on federal lands. AXPC members are
``independent'' in that their operations are limited to
exploration for and production of oil and natural gas.
Moreover, its members operate autonomously, unlike their
fully integrated counterparts, which operate in additional
segments of the energy business, such as downstream refining
and marketing. AXPC members are leaders in developing and
applying innovative and advanced technologies necessary to
explore for and produce oil and natural gas, both offshore
and onshore, from non-conventional sources.
IPAA represents the thousands of independent oil and
natural gas explorers and producers, as well as the service
and supply industries that support their efforts, that will
most directly be impacted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) policy decisions to regulate methane
directly from the oil and natural gas sector. Independent
producers develop about 95 percent of American oil and
natural gas wells, produce 54 percent of American oil, and
produce 85 percent of American natural gas. Historically,
independent producers have invested over 150 percent of their
cash flow back into American oil and natural gas development
to find and produce more American energy. IPAA is dedicated
to ensuring a strong, viable American oil and natural gas
industry, recognizing that an adequate and secure supply of
energy is essential to the national economy.
The EPA's Science Advisory Board is a critical link in the
EPA's policy making process and must, therefore, be unbiased
and motivated only to seek the best possible policy result
based on the best possible, publicly available, verifiable
data. Moreover, open, public debate must be encouraged, not
discouraged. The goal must be to get the best possible
result, which is why the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform
Act should be enacted.
Science used to support or as a basis for regulations or
other policies should be based on publicly available
scientific and technical data so as to allow for and even
encourage independent fact finding and analysis. Transparency
is critical to this process. The Honest and Open New EPA
Science Treatment Act would accomplish this result.
AXPC and IPAA urge passage of both of these critical pieces
of legislation and stand ready to assist in any way you
believe we might be able to add value to this process.
Should you have any questions or require additional
information contact AXPC or IPAA. Thank you for your good
work on these and other issues.
Very truly yours,
V. Bruce Thompson,
President, AXPC.
Lee O. Fuller,
Executive Vice President, IPAA.
____

CO2 COALITION,

Arlington, VA, March 8, 2017.
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Lamar Smith and the Committee: The CO2
Coalition supports the purpose and principles of the ``Honest
and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017'' and the
``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.'' We would,
in fact, support such principles applied on a government-wide
basis.
The scientific method demands that the results of
scientific studies be capable of replication. While it is
generally up to individual scientists, journals and the
larger scientific community as to how the replication
requirement is satisfied, when it comes to science used to
set public policy, there can be no doubt that the relevant
methods and data must be publicly available for purposes of
replication.
With respect to the federal government obtaining
independent science advice from outside advisors, it goes
without saying that advisory panels should not be unduly
influenced by members hoping to curry government favor or to
advance personal agendas. Panels should be truly independent
and unbiased. Clear and enforceable standards will help meet
this goal.
Sincerely,
William Happer,
President, CO2 Coalition.
____

CATO,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.
Hon. Lamar S. Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House
of Representatives.
Dear Congressman Smith: Recently, Committee staff sent me
copies of two draft pieces of legislation, the ``HONEST Act''
and the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017''.
The Cato Institute interprets its tax-exempt status as
precluding any specific support of adoption (or
recommendation of rejection) for pending legislation.
However, I can comment on substantive aspects of such
legislation.
The HONEST Act would require that regulations promulgated
by EPA be backed by reproducible and transparent science. In
the are of climate change, this will surely provoke a timely
inquiry as to whether the climate models that are used to
calculate the Social Cost of Carbon, and the justification of
subsequent regulations, are indeed ``science''. I would argue
that they are not.
A climate model is merely a complicated mathematical
statement of multiple hypotheses. These include a prediction
of a general warming of surface temperatures, and a greater
warming of the tropical troposphere. All subsequent changes
in weather regimes--such as rainfall, winter snows, and
Atlantic hurricanes derive from the warming and its
distribution.
As such, a reasonable test of hypothesis would be to
examine the performance of these models as carbon dioxide has
accumulated in the atmosphere, and during the period in which
we have multiple, independent measures of bulk atmospheric
global temperatures, which would be from 1979 to the present.
As I noted in recent (February 28) testimony, there is a
clear systematic failure of these models, with the central
estimate of warming generally twice as large as what is being
observed as a whole in the troposphere, and as much as seven
times larger than what is being observed in the tropical
upper troposphere.
This, and other recent refereed publications are finally
beginning to detail the subjective fashion by which the
equilibrium climate sensitivity is being derived, argue that
these models do not constitute science in the classical
sense. It would be more appropriate to call the field
``climate studies''.
Litigation deriving from the HONEST Act is likely to
uncover this problem, with the likelihood that EPA's 2009
Endangerment Finding, which empowers subsequent regulation of
carbon dioxide, should be vacated because of a lack of
verifiable science associated with its determination.
The other piece of legislation will open up the EPA Science
Advisory Board(s) to more institutional diversity and less
political selection.
I hope you find my comments useful, and stand available to
answer any questions or provide any amplifications you may
desire.
Cordially,
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D.,
Director, Center for the Study of Science.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would note to the body, part of the
challenge that we face here today on this bill is like so many
challenges we face as Members of Congress: How do you avoid the short-
term perspective? How do you take the long view? How do you set into
motion things that, while they might not, perhaps, give us the great
advantage in the short-term sense that either side of the room would
want, in the long-term, they are in the best interest of the body?
I would remind my colleagues, the Scientific Advisory Board is
appointed by the EPA; the EPA is managed by the Director; the Director
is appointed by the President of the United States. If you believe that
the work product, if you believe that the rules that have been
generated by this in recent years reflect your perspective, I
understand that, but nothing is ever static.
We have recently had a change of administration. We have a change of
direction in the leadership of the EPA. That will be reflected in all
the appointments and the actions of the EPA.
I implore my colleagues, we need to work in the perspective of what
is in the long-term interest; and that long-term interest is providing
scientific review at the SAB that our fellow citizens have confidence
in and that will generate good rules and regulations when they have to
be created.
Following this course of action advocated in H.R. 1431 will not make
my most conservative constituents happy because they want to duplicate
what they believe my most liberal constituents have advocated for
years, but our goal here is not to empower one or the other side in
these perspectives to force their will upon the country. Our
responsibility with the SAB is to create a process where we can have
confidence in the results and where, when appropriate, the end
resulting regulations, the rules that come from it, will be in the best
long-term interest of the Nation as a whole.
I know there are requirements in here that, if you have taken money
as a scientist to do a research project from the EPA, you have to cool
off for 3 years. But what is wrong with allowing a little separation
between the people who take money to do the studies and then become the
judges of other studies in the knowledge that perhaps the people who
have done the studies will judge their studies? What is wrong with
that?
And the public disclosure about allowing people with knowledge and
expertise to participate, too, if they have

[[Page H2570]]

a conflict through these disclosures, we will know. I would hope that
whoever leads the EPA on whatever day would act in a responsible
fashion.
I just want, through this bill, to change the system so that the
perception is out there that the SAB and the scientific process and the
rulemaking that comes from it at EPA are being gained by one
perspective or the other because that is in no one's best interest.
I know we live in tough times and challenging times to legislate. I
think my colleagues know, in the legislation I have worked on before,
that I have always worked across the aisle. I have always worked with
every perspective within this body. I have always tried to take that
long-ball perspective. I know it is a challenging time, but think about
that as we continue this well-meaning, good-spirited, very focused
debate.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I include in the
Record correspondence in opposition to this bill: a letter from the
American Lung Association, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy
Environments, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the American
Public Health Association, the National Medical Association, the Health
Care Without Harm Association, the Physicians for Social
Responsibility, and the American Thoracic Society; along with a letter
from the Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, League of Conservation
Voters, and Natural Resources Defense Council; as well as a letter from
the League of Conservation Voters.

March 27, 2017.
Dear Representative: The undersigned health and medical
organizations are writing to express our opposition to the
EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest
and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. Our
organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving
public health.
Science is the bedrock of sound medical and public health
decision-making. The best science undergirds everything our
organizations do to improve health. Under the Clean Air Act,
EPA has long implemented a transparent and open process for
seeking advice from the medical and scientific community on
standards and measures to meet those standards. Both of these
bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the
review of complex issues and add undue industry influence
into EPA's decision-making process.
As written, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would
make unneeded and unproductive changes that would:
Restrict the ability of scientists to speak on issues that
include their own expertise;
Block scientists who receive any EPA grants from serving on
the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, despite their having the
expertise and conducted relevant research that earned them
these highly competitive grants;
Prevent the EPA Scientific Advisory Board from making
policy recommendations, even though EPA administrators have
regularly sought their advice in the past;
Add a notice and comment component to all parts of the EPA
Scientific Advisory Board actions, a burdensome and
unnecessary requirement since their reviews of major issues
already include public notice and comment; and
Reallocate membership requirements to increase the
influence of industry representatives on the scientific
advisory panels.
In short, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit
the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to
respond to important questions, and increase the influence of
industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not in the best
interest of the American public.
We also have concerns with the HONEST Act. This legislation
would limit the kinds of scientific data EPA can use as it
develops policy to protect the American public from
environmental exposures and permit violation of patient
confidentiality. If enacted, the legislation would:
Allow the EPA administrator to release confidential patient
information to third parties, including industry;
Bolster industry's flawed arguments to discredit research
that documents the adverse health effects of environmental
pollution; and
Impose new standards for the publication and distribution
of scientific research that go beyond the robust, existing
requirements of many scientific journals.
Science, developed by the respected men and women
scientists at colleges and universities across the United
States, has always been the foundation of the nation's
environmental policy. EPA's science-based decision-making
process has saved lives and led to dramatic improvements in
the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the
earth we share. All Americans have benefited from the
research-based scientific advice that scientists have
provided to EPA.
Congress should adopt policy that fortifies our scientists,
not bills that undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's
decision-making or give polluters a disproportionate voice in
EPA's policy-setting process.
We strongly urge you to oppose these bills.
Sincerely,
Katie Huffling, RN, CNM,
Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.
Harold P. Wimmer,
National President and CEO, American Lung Association.
Georges C. Benjamin, MD,
Executive Director, American Public Health Association.
Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,
Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.
Cary Sennett, MD, PhD, FACP,
President & CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.
Paul Bogart,
Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm.
Richard Allen Williams, MD,
117th President, National Medical Association.
Jeff Carter, JD,
Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility.
____

March 29, 2017.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: We are
writing to express our strong opposition to the draft
legislation, the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2017'' (H.R. 1431). The bill, which would amend the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act of 1978, would hinder the ability of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board (EPA
SAB) to reach timely, independent, objective, credible
conclusions that can form the basis of policy. While the bill
is not identical to previous versions of this legislation,
the bill would still weaken longstanding conflict-of-interest
considerations for industry scientists while imposing
unprecedented and unnecessary limitations on government-
funded scientists, and complicating the SAB review process,
with no discernible benefit to EPA or the public.
Our most serious specific concerns with the bill are
described below, in the order in which the provisions appear:
P.3, lines 1-8, creating Section 8(b)(2)(C) in the
underlying Act, promotes inclusion of panelists with
financial conflicts, as long as they disclose their conflicts
and obtain a waiver.
As with previous versions of this legislation, the bill
shifts the current presumption against including people with
financial conflicts on the SAB. The bill appears to
effectively mandate the inclusion of scientists with
financial conflicts, as long as the conflicts are disclosed,
notwithstanding the reference to one portion of existing
ethics law. Disclosure does not eliminate the problems that
can occur when someone with a conflict influences policy
guidance.
Policies and practices to identify and eliminate persons
with financial conflicts, interests, and undue biases from
independent scientific advisory committees have been
implemented by all the federal agencies, the National Academy
of Sciences, and international scientific bodies 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.
Moreover, EPA already grants exemptions as needed to allow
scientists to participate if their expertise is required
despite their potential conflicts.
P.3, line 23 to P.4, line 2, creating a Section 8(b)(2)(H)
in the underlying Act, establishes an arbitrary and
unwarranted bar on non-industry scientists who are receiving
grants or contracts from EPA, or who may do so in the future.
This provision would bar participation by any academic or
government scientist who is currently receiving a grant or
under contract from EPA, and bar any Board member from
seeking any grant or contract from EPA for three years after
the end of their term on the Board. This arbitrary and
unwarranted limitation on current or future recipients of
government funding would severely limit the ability of EPA to
get the best, most independent scientists on its premier
advisory board--as well as any committees or panels of the
board--without any evidence that no-strings government
funding, such as research grants, constitute a conflict of
interest.
P.6, lines 1-21, amending Section 8(c) of the underlying
act, expands the scope of the SAB's work, and increases the
burden.
This provision broadens the scope of documents that must be
submitted to the SAB for review to include every risk or
hazard assessment proposed by the agency, a dramatic and
unnecessary expansion. The expansion

[[Page H2571]]

would provide an expanded platform for the new industry-
stacked panels envisioned by this bill to challenge proposed
actions by EPA, including hazard and risk assessments.
P.8, lines 8-23 creating a Section 8(h)(4) in the
underlying Act, ensures endless delay, burden and red tape
under the guise of ``transparency.''
This provision would give industry unlimited time to
present its arguments to the SAB. Industry representatives
already dominate proceedings because of their greater numbers
and resources. In addition, the requirement for the SAB to
respond in writing to ``significant'' public comments is
vague (e.g., who defines what is ``significant,'' and how?)
and would tie down the SAB with needless and burdensome
process. It also misconstrues the nature of both the SAB's
role and the role of public comment in the SAB process. The
role of the SAB is to provide its expert advice to the
Agency. The role of the public comments during this phase is
to provide informative input to the SAB as it deliberates,
but the final product of the SAB deliberation is advice from
the panel members, not an agency proposal or decision that
requires response to public comment. Members of the public,
including stakeholders, have multiple opportunities to
provide input directly to the agency.
In short, the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2017'' would alter the nature of the SAB, which has been
largely successful in providing the EPA expert review of key
scientific and technical questions and would encourage
industry conflicts in the review of scientific materials. It
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 public
health, safety and environmental measures.
We urge you to abandon plans to advance this legislation.
We would be happy to discuss our concerns with you further.
Sincerely,
Clean Water Action.
Earthjustice.
League of Conservation Voters (LCV).
Natural Resources Defense Council.
____

League of Conservation Voters,

Washington, DC, March 28, 2017.
Re Oppose H.R. 1430 and H.R. 1431--Attacks on Science and
Public Health.

United States House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members,
the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) works to turn
environmental values into national, state, and local
priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National
Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of
members of Congress on environmental legislation. The
Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters
nationwide, and the media.
LCV urges you to vote NO on H.R. 1430 and H.R. 1431. These
two bills are backdoor attempts to undermine the
Environmental Protection Agency's ability to use science in
decision-making and obstruct the process for developing
effective public health safeguards.
H.R. 1430, the ``HONEST Act'', would endanger public health
by making it extremely difficult for the EPA to use the best
available science. The bill contains favorable exemptions for
industry and would restrict the health studies that the EPA
is able to use by requiring that data is shared with anyone
willing to sign a vague confidentiality agreement. These
provisions would severely limit the EPA's ability to use data
that includes studies with confidential health information.
These types of studies are the basis for the best research on
pollution's effects on people, but include individual health
records that are legally required to remain confidential.
H.R. 1430 would cripple the EPA's ability to develop
effective public health safeguards by forcing them to
disregard the results of these studies, resulting in less
protective standards.
H.R. 1431, the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2017'', would undermine the ability of the Science Advisory
Board to provide independent, objective, and credible
scientific advice to the EPA. This bill would facilitate
greater industry influence of the Scientific Advisory Board
by weakening conflict-of-interest protections while
unnecessarily and arbitrarily limiting the participation of
subject experts. Additionally, new burdens imposed on the
Board and provisions that allow industry to significantly
prolong the Board's scientific review process would delay key
public health and environmental protections.
These two bills would significantly undermine the EPA's
ability to protect public health and the environment. LCV
urges you to REJECT H.R. 1430 and H.R. 1431 and will consider
including votes on these bills in the 2017 Scorecard. If you
need more information, please call my office and ask to speak
with a member of our Government Relations team.
Sincerely,
Gene Karpinski,
President.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, less science, more pollution--that is,
unbelievably, the Republican plan.
I want to just refer to what my colleague said. This is not long-ball
time. This is emergency time where we have to deal with a worldwide
environmental crisis, and this bill is just the latest attack on clean
air and clean water. And as the threat of climate change becomes
increasingly clear, Republicans are trying to reverse the progress that
we have made to address this global challenge.
President Trump proposed gutting the Environmental Protection Agency,
and this week he signed an executive order to ignore the effects of
climate change, increase drilling on Federal lands, and undo efforts to
promote renewable energy.
Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have voted to block environmental
protections. Republicans are replacing President Obama's Clean Power
Plan with, essentially, a dirty power plan that will pollute our air
and contaminate our water and put our children and our grandchildren at
risk. Those actions further confirm Republicans' place on the wrong
side of history.
It is time for America to lead, not to ignore reality. We should be
investing in clean, job-producing energy. We should be at the forefront
of the fight against climate change.
My constituents and most Americans expect to drink clean water and
breathe fresh air. They want to protect our planet for future
generations. Republicans, today, have it backward. We need more science
and less pollution.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and resist those attacks on
our environment.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the former chairman of the Science, Space,
and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, have you ever had that deja vu all over
again? Haven't we been doing this one since, what, 2013, 2014?
I accept I have been off the committee now for 4 years; yet we are
talking past each other. I hear the gentlewoman and some of the others
say things. It is a 12-page bill. It hasn't changed that much in the
last couple Congresses.
How many of us would like to go back to the 2013 inspector general
report that basically suggested going this direction because of the
conflicts in these advisory committees?

{time} 0945

If you really, once again--and this is sort of similar to yesterday's
discussion--if you really care about the environment, then you really
care about the data and the information and sort of the ethics and
honesty of those who are both reviewing the data and giving you advice.
So what happens when the inspector general of the EPA hands you a
report and says: These committees, these advisory councils are rife
with conflicts? People who are on these advisory boards are making
money.
Now, accept much of what we do here in Washington, D.C., if not
almost all of it, is about the cash, and it is one of the ugly secrets
that is not a secret, but we all pretend. It is always about the money.
Let's try something novel. Let's actually--this was an inspector
general's report under the Obama administration. Why wouldn't we step
up and respect it? It was very simple.
Hey, we need some more diversity on these advisory boards. And
wouldn't it be wonderful if we had people advising us on air quality
policy in non-attainment areas, or in regional interests that also
weren't selling products, selling reports, making money off data with
the EPA?
I mean, if it was reversed, if it was some other agency, if this same
set of ethical lapses was reversed, I believe the left would be
apoplectic. But the fact of the matter is that so many of these
individual organizations that are represented on these advisory boards,
that are making money from the EPA, even though they are advising in
their own behalf, happen to be friends of the left. That makes it okay.
The ethical standards are the ethical standards. I have no concept
how the left can oppose the concept of structured diversity.
Why shouldn't those of us from the Southwest, where substantial
portions

[[Page H2572]]

of my State are Native American, have a voice? Why should we allow
people on these advisory committees who, once again, are selling
products, selling data, making a living, making money, one step away
from the very work they are advising on?
It is a 12-page bill. It is not that complicated. I will make the
argument that it makes our air, our water, the things around us safer,
better, healthier, and it makes the way we get there sounder and more
ethical, and we remove conflicts that right now taint the very
decisions that are coming out of these advisory boards.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Let me thank the other side for their vigorous defense of this bill.
I must say that I am a nurse by profession, and I appreciate the
gains we have made for using scientific data to determine what is
unhealthy for the people; and it really does disturb me to see these
protections being torn apart.
It is really unfortunate that we have spent so much time putting
these protections of the people in place to see that, in this
administration, they will probably fly away. Only the people of this
Nation will be the losers, with more healthcare costs when they don't
even want health care; more people not able to get out of dirty areas.
I live in the State of Texas where we have seen the detriment of all
of the lack of these protections before they came about. Scientists are
in science because they believe in the theories that put forth the
procedures for us to follow for the safety and protection of human
beings.
I regret that we are at a point this time in history where we are
willing to throw all that away because of allowing the polluting
companies to have more to say about policy. I regret that I have to
stand against my colleagues that feel so strongly about getting rid of
these protections, but I cannot sit idly by without saying that our
Nation will not be in better shape when we take away all the
protections for the people and their health.
Everybody wants clean air and clean food and protections from the
damage that a bad environment brings, and all this is is taking away
those protections.
I ask everyone to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the second set of
letters which I referred to earlier.

National Association of

Home Builders,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the 140,000 members of
the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I am
writing to express NAHB's strong support for the Honest and
Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA
Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. These bills would
ensure an open and honest scientific process by allowing the
public access to the science that underpins regulations
developed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
ensuring that scientists advising the EPA on regulatory
decisions are not the same scientists receiving EPA grants.
It is important for the EPA to use sound science in order
to support their rulemakings. Far too often, the EPA relies
on science that lacks transparency and reliability to
buttress their rulemakings. This is a consequence of the EPA
conducting their scientific review of rulemakings behind
closed doors. The EPA frequently ignores scientific integrity
by limiting public participation, excluding state and private
sector expertise, and pushing a specific agenda by appointing
scientists who are biased. In some cases, scientists that
have been appointed to review proposed regulations have
received EPA grants which the EPA disregards as a conflict of
interest.
The EPA should not be able to create costly regulations
without being transparent, fair and open to public input when
considering the science behind a rulemaking. However, the EPA
has sacrificed the integrity of the rulemaking process by
using biased science to push their agenda. It is important to
address these shortcomings so that future rules can be
transparent and honest.
For these reasons, NAHB urges the House Science, Space and
Technology Committee to support the Honest and Open New EPA
Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA Science Advisory
Board Reform Act of 2017, in order to bring transparency and
integrity to the regulatory process.
Thank you for giving consideration to our views.
Sincerely,
James W. Tobin III,
Executive Vice President & Chief Lobbyist, Government
Affairs and Communications Group.
____

Small Business &

Entreneurship Counsel,

Vienna, VA, March 7, 2017.
Hon. Frank Lucas,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Science, Space and Technology Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith and Representative Lucas: On behalf of
the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council)
and its more than 100,000 members nationwide, I am pleased to
voice our strong support for the ``EPA Science Advisory Board
Reform Act of 2017.''
This important legislation reforms the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Science Advisory Board (SAB) and
its subpanels by strengthening public participation,
improving the process for selecting expert advisors,
expanding transparency requirements by board members, opening
the board's research to public review, and limiting
nonscientific policy advice. The reforms proposed by the
legislation are especially critical given the growing impact
of EPA's regulations on America's small business sector, the
controversial science used as the basis to advance certain
rulemakings, and the need to ensure that sound science is
guiding EPA actions.
Balance, independence and transparency are critical to
EPA's scientific advisory process. The bill addresses key
concerns with the SAB, such as placing limitations on its
members who receive environmental research grants, applying
conflict of interest standards, and ensuring balanced
representation on the board's membership.
These are sensible reforms that will strengthen the SAB's
integrity and work, and by extension EPA's regulatory
process.
SBE Council supports solutions that improve the regulatory
system to ensure the voice of small businesses and
entrepreneurs is heard and considered, that they operate and
compete under rational rules, and transparency throughout the
regulatory process. The ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform
Act of 2017'' is an important legislative initiative that
brings fairness, transparency and objectivity to the SAB and
EPA rulemakings.
Please let SBE Council know how we can further support your
efforts to advance this important legislation into law. Thank
you for your leadership, and support of America's small
business and entrepreneurial sector.
Sincerely,
Karen Kerrigan,
President & CEO.
____

National Stone, Sand &

Gravel Association,

Alexandria, VA.
The National Stone Sand and Gravel Association supports
both The Honest and Open New Science Treatment Act of 2017
(HONEST Act) and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2017.
Both acts go a long way towards addressing many of the
current issues our industry has with regulatory science, and
we encourage the House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology to mark up both pieces of legislation.
Our association represents 100,000 jobs across the United
States. The regulatory burden on our workforce dramatically
impacts our ability to provide cost-effective materials for
America's roads, runways, bridges and ports. Our members
pride themselves on their commitment to environmental
stewardship and are heavily involved in sustainability and
reclamation in their communities.
Federal regulations must balance industry's voice and
environmental and health concerns. Unfortunately, we often
see problems in the scientific underpinnings of regulations
when agencies select studies that are neither public nor
reproducible as the basis of new rules. This practice chips
away at the credibility of any regulatory action and makes it
difficult for industries to respect the regulatory process.
Our members have the right to comment on regulations and it
is not reasonable to ask hard working men and women of any
industry to trust that an agency has selected good science
without if an agency is not being transparent.
Stakeholder input in the regulatory process is required
under federal law and valuable for the justification and the
implementation of rules.
NSSGA stands ready to work with Congress to ensure that
industry, states and the scientific community can work
together openly and honestly to create regulations.
Sincerely,

Michael W. Johnson,

President and CEO,
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.
____

Portland Cement Association,

Washington, DC, March 7, 2017.
Chairman Lamar Smith,
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington,
DC.
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson,
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Bernice Johnson: The
Portland Cement

[[Page H2573]]

Association (PCA) supports the EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB) Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest and Open New EPA
Science Treatment Act (HONEST Act) of 2017. PCA is the
premier policy, research, education, and market intelligence
organization serving America's cement manufacturers. PCA
members represent 92 percent of U.S. cement production
capacity and have facilities in all 50 states. The
Association promotes safety, sustainability, and innovation
in all aspects of construction, fosters continuous
improvement in cement manufacturing and distribution, and
generally promotes economic growth and sound infrastructure
investment.
PCA supports these bills because they would improve
fairness and transparency in the regulatory process, while
promoting use of the best available science. As you know, SAB
reform is needed to update and strengthen the scientific
foundation of EPA's regulatory decisions. The SAB Reform Act
would improve the Science Advisory Board by ensuring balance
among its members and providing better public access to
scientific information and data. SAB reform is an important
step toward improving EPA's regulatory process, public access
to information, and transparency.
The HONEST Act would similarly improve transparency and
access to information. Scientists reviewing agency studies
and rulemakings need a fair chance to evaluate and validate
the studies EPA relies on in the rulemaking process. The
HONEST Act protects the sensitive and confidential
information often covered by confidentiality agreements,
while allowing EPA to make critical information available for
public comment and access. The HONEST Act follows the data
access requirements of many scientific journals. This level
of transparency and potential for peer review are critical to
improving regulatory decisions.
PCA supports the Committees' efforts to improve
accountability, public access, and better science in the EPA
rulemaking process. Please feel free to contact Rachel Derby,
PCA's Vice President of Government Affairs, for further
information on this matter.
Sincerely,
A. Todd Johnston,
Executive Vice President, Government Affairs.
____

American Farm

Bureau Federation,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chair, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: Later this
week, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee will
consider legislation to provide for Scientific Advisory Board
(SAB) member qualifications and public participation. The
American Farm Bureau strongly supports this legislation and
pledges our commitment to work with the committee in pressing
for its swift consideration.
This legislation is a priority because it reforms the SAB
process by strengthening public participation, improving the
process of selecting expert advisors, and expanding the
overall transparency of the SAB. While the SAB should be a
critical part of the scientific foundation of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory process,
EPA has systematically used its authority to silence
dissenting scientific experts. Rather than promote fairness,
transparency and independence to ensure unbiased scientific
advice, EPA routinely has ignored its own Peer Review
Handbook and silenced dissenting voices on expert panels.
This legislation seeks to reinforce the SAB process as a
tool that can help policymakers with complex issues while
preventing EPA from muzzling impartial scientific advice.
This legislation deserves strong, bipartisan support. We
applaud your leadership in this effort and will work with you
to ensure passage.
Sincerely,
Zippy Duvall,
President.
____

March 9, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: We are writing to express our strong
support for H.R. 1430, the ``Honest and Open New EPA Science
Treatment Act of 2017'' (HONEST Act), and H.R. 1431, the
``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.''
For too long now, the Environmental Protection Agency has
hidden key scientific data from the public and corrupted its
own boards of outside science advisors. This subversion of
science and the regulatory process has produced costly, job-
killing regulations of dubious-to-no merit to public health
and the environment.
We welcome these bills in the names of transparent
government, and unbiased and balanced peer review.
Sincerely,
Craig Richardson,
President, Energy & Environment Action Team (E&E Action).
Amy Oliver Cooke,
Executive vice president, Independence Institute.
Kathleen Sgamma,
President, Western Energy Alliance.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate to my colleagues, this is a situation
where the goal really is not to empower one perspective or one faction
over another. The goal, ultimately, of this bill--and, yes, this did
come out of the inspector general's report, the initial work and
effort. The goal of the bill is to add transparency, accountability.
The goal of the bill is to increase the American people's confidence in
the work product that is then used by the EPA to craft the rules and
regulations that impact every life in this country on a daily basis.
Whatever your perspective may be, remember, the pendulum in this
great Nation, when it comes to the executive branch, in my time, every
8 years, has swung back and forth. Just because at the present moment
or the past moment you think you got your perspective's way, or if
perhaps you think with the pendulum swing now you will get your
perspective's way, that is not what the focus should be here.
I would also remind my colleagues, in my 23 years, I have served in
the minority soon to be for 4\1/2\ years. But the other 18\1/2\ years,
I have served in the majority. I have served in the majority. So when I
step up to you and say we can do better, we can enhance the quality of
information, we can do it in a way that the American people have more
confidence in ultimately what goes on, and we can do it in a way that
makes it more difficult for anyone to hijack the process, I say that
sincerely.
There is nothing wrong with full disclosure for everyone who can add
to the process, who should be available for consideration. There is
nothing wrong with a financial cooling-off between benefiting from the
studies and analyzing someone else's studies. There is nothing wrong
with this.
But if you stay with the status quo, this Board and this Agency are
in change. Get ready for 8 years of a dramatically different way of
doing things.
Now, maybe you are so confident that the pendulum will swing back
again that you are willing to accept that. But as for me, I want to
stay between the lines. I want to focus in ways that, for the long
term, represent the best interests of this great country.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1431. I ask my
colleagues to think about 10 or 20 years down the road. I ask my
colleagues to put the long-term best interests of their constituents
first.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of
H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and urge
my colleagues to vote in support.
The Science Advisory Board's work is important to making sure the EPA
considers all scientific information when writing regulations that will
impact American farmers, families and small businesses. Unfortunately,
concerns have been raised about the current review process.
This legislation addresses those concerns and builds on the work done
in the 2014 Farm Bill to create an agriculture committee under the
Science Advisory Board. This bill is necessary to ensure the EPA takes
into account the best information possible with input from public and
independent stakeholders.
H.R. 1431 will ensure a balanced and independent Science Advisory
Board and will help alleviate some of the unintended consequences
surrounding EPA regulations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 233, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. FOSTER. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Foster moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1431 to the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology with instructions
to

[[Page H2574]]

report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendments:
Page 5, line 4, strike ``and''.
Page 5, line 9, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 5, after line 9, insert the following:
``(I) a Board member, during that member's term of service
on the Board and for a period of 3 years following the end of
that member's service on the Board, shall not be employed
with any corporate or other entity which has interests before
the Board.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
This amendment is a commonsense and logical addition to this bill. It
will help ensure that members of the EPA's Science Advisory Board will
act in the best interests of the American people and our environment.
I think that we can all agree that, now more than ever, we need
integrity in government. And this amendment would simply prohibit any
member of the EPA's Science Advisory Board from being employed by any
entity, corporate or otherwise, which has interests before the Board.
This prohibition would be in place during the member's time on the
Board and would extend for 3 years after they leave the Board.
My Republican colleagues have taken up this bill with the stated
intent of protecting the scientific integrity of the EPA, and this
amendment will go a long way to making sure that they keep their word.
The underlying bill also includes a similar prohibition on board
members applying for a grant or contract from the EPA during their
service or for 3 years after. And as the chairman just said, there is
nothing wrong with a financial cooling-off period.
However, the authors of this bill are apparently concerned that
members of the Board would be tempted to favor environmental concerns
in the hopes of getting an EPA grant. Therefore, it also stands to
reason that they should worry equally about a board member tilting the
scales in favor of a specific industry in return for future financial
compensation or career advancement, the classic revolving door problem.
So what this motion to recommit does is something that I think we all
should be able to agree is a good thing. We have seen too many people
in the President's Cabinet who appear to have connections too close to
the big interests they regulate rather than the interests of the
American people.
This amendment would ensure that no one can unduly personally profit
from their time at the EPA, and that members are there to represent the
interests of the American people and our environment rather than their
own self interests.
Finally, I would like to close by bringing up a more general question
of why we seem to be having variations on this repetitive theme of
whether or not we can pollute our way out of the structural and
economic challenges that our country faces.
Mr. Speaker, you and your party have been very successful at selling
yourselves and your supporters on the idea that if we can just, once
again, dump unlimited pollutants into our rivers and streams, into our
groundwater, our food, air, lungs, our bloodstreams and those of our
children, then everything will be great again in America.
This week, we saw our President surrounded by earnest and hopeful
young coal miners as he gutted environmental regulations and promised
them that all their jobs were coming back. And then we have seen
interviews on TV with desperate families in Appalachia using up their
life savings to pay for training for underground coal jobs that they
have been told will be coming back now that Donald Trump is President.
Then we have seen interviews with coal executives quietly pointing
out that those jobs will not come back; that it was machines and
fundamental economic forces that took those jobs in coal country.
The story is the same in oil country, where even as oil production
has rebounded, the jobs and wages have not come back because of
automation, the same way that machines took the jobs in rural America,
manufacturing America, and increasingly middle class, white-collar
America.

{time} 1000

So until we realize that we are all in this together and that a
fundamental restructuring of our economy is needed rather than a
mindless retraction of the protections on environmental quality on the
land that we will pass on to our children, then I am afraid that we are
destined to repeat this infinite loop of marginally productive debate.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. I claim the time in opposition to the motion, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I look at this language--and I am a farmer by
trade; I am not an attorney; I will confess that--but the phrase ``or
other entity'' seems to be a very broad concept. How will that affect
people who work for research foundations at institutions of higher
education? How will that affect entities, people who are part of so-
called think tanks in places like Washington, D.C.? I personally
believe the language is intended more to simply turn the bill inside
out.
On that basis, I would ask my colleagues to reject the motion to
recommit with instructions and to pass the underlying bill.
But I go one step further, and I offer this in the most sincerest of
ways: if you look at the discussion today and if you look at the
discussion that has gone on for some time on these issues, it is almost
as though there are those with certain perspectives who are trying to
force their will--their perspective of what is right and wrong
scientifically or economically or socially--on the rest of the country,
on the rest of us, and, for that matter, on the rest of the world.
That is why I am the author of this bill. No one entity should have
the power by manipulating the bureaucratic process or the rulemaking
process to enforce their definitions of everything on the rest of us.
We have both the right and the responsibility to judge this information
and to make decisions about what is in our enlightened self-interest,
as the old economist would say, or in the best interest of the country
or of society as a whole.
That is why I want all of us--the great American people--to have
access and some certainty about the people and the process that are
driving everything in our world.
Reject the motion, pass the bill, create greater transparency,
incorporate more input, and when it is necessary to have rules and
regulations, generate good rules and regulations so that we all have a
chance to prosper and to live up to our potential in this country.
Don't let the tyranny of the idealistic--whatever perspective they may
have--drive us all into despair and destruction.
With that, I respectfully ask my colleagues to reject this motion and
pass the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189,
nays 233, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 207]

YEAS--189

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline

[[Page H2575]]

Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth

NAYS--233

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--7

Calvert
Duffy
Marino
Quigley
Rush
Slaughter
Wilson (FL)

{time} 1029

Messrs. FLORES, CRAWFORD, GROTHMAN, Ms. GRANGER, and Mrs. BLACKBURN
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mses. BLUNT ROCHESTER, JACKSON LEE, Messrs. HIGGINS of New York, and
LANGEVIN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Sessions was allowed to speak out of
order.)

Announcement by Committee on Rules Regarding Amendment Process for H.R.
1343, Encouraging Employee Ownership Act, and H.R. 1219, Supporting
America's Innovators Act

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee issued
announcements outlining the amendment processes for two measures likely
to come before the Rules Committee next week.
An amendment deadline has been set for Monday, April 3, at 10 a.m.,
for the following measures:
H.R. 1343, Encouraging Employee Ownership Act; and H.R. 1219,
Supporting America's Innovators Act.
The text of these measures is available on the Rules Committee
website. Feel free to contact me or my staff if anyone has any
questions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 193, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 208]

AYES--229

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--193

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici

[[Page H2576]]

Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--7

Calvert
Duffy
Marino
Mullin
Quigley
Rush
Slaughter

{time} 1040

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

personal explanation

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes 207 and 208 I was unable
to vote due to obligations in my congressional district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 207, the Motion to
Recommit, and ``yes'' on rollca11 208, related to H.R. 1431, the EPA
Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017, which would ensure EPA
administrator and the Science Advisory Board make public all reports
and relevant scientific information at the same time they are received
by members of the Science Advisory Board.

personal explanation

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 2017, on rollcall No. 207 on
motion to recommit with instructions, I am not recorded. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
On rollcall No. 208 on final passage of H.R. 1431, the EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017, I am not recorded. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''

personal explanation

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed
rollcall vote Nos. 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, and 208. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye'' on votes 205 and 207. I would have
voted ``nay'' on votes 203, 204, 206, and 208.

____________________