Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?


113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    113-165

======================================================================



 
             EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2013

                                _______
                                

 July 22, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

     Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and 
                  Technology, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1422]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 1422) to amend the Environmental 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
1978 to provide for Scientific Advisory Board member 
qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose and Summary.............................................4
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................4
  IV. Hearing Summary.................................................5
   V. Committee Consideration.........................................5
  VI. Committee Votes.................................................6
 VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................12
VIII. Committee Views................................................12
  IX. Committee Oversight Findings...................................13
   X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........13
  XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditur13
 XII. Advisory on Earmarks...........................................13
XIII. Committee Cost Estimate........................................14
 XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................14
  XV. Federal Mandates Statement.....................................15
 XVI. Compliance with House Resolution 5.............................15
XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................15
XVIII.Applicability to Legislative Branch............................15

 XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation.................15
  XX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........17
 XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................21

                              I. Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

  (a) Membership.--Section 8(b) of the Environmental Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 
4365(b)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(b)(1) The Board shall be composed of at least nine members, one of 
whom shall be designated Chairman, and shall meet at such times and 
places as may be designated by the Chairman in consultation with the 
Administrator.
  ``(2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education, 
training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical 
information on matters referred to the Board under this section. The 
Administrator shall select Board members from nominations received as 
described in paragraph (3) and shall ensure that--
          ``(A) the scientific and technical points of view represented 
        on and the functions to be performed by the Board are fairly 
        balanced among the members of the Board;
          ``(B) at least ten percent of the membership of the Board are 
        from State, local, or tribal governments;
          ``(C) persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not 
        excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or 
        representation of entities that may have a potential interest 
        in the Board's advisory activities, so long as that interest is 
        fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public and 
        appointment to the Board complies with section 208 of title 18, 
        United States Code;
          ``(D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a 
        particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member 
        having an interest in the specific party shall participate in 
        that activity;
          ``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory 
        activities that directly or indirectly involve review and 
        evaluation of their own work;
          ``(F) Board members shall be designated as special Government 
        employees; and
          ``(G) no federally registered lobbyist is appointed to the 
        Board.
  ``(3) The Administrator shall--
          ``(A) solicit public nominations for the Board by publishing 
        a notification in the Federal Register;
          ``(B) solicit nominations from relevant Federal agencies, 
        including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, and 
        Health and Human Services;
          ``(C) make public the list of nominees, including the 
        identity of the entities that nominated them, and shall accept 
        public comment on the nominees;
          ``(D) require that, upon their provisional nomination, 
        nominees shall file a written report disclosing financial 
        relationships and interests, including Environmental Protection 
        Agency grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other 
        financial assistance, that are relevant to the Board's advisory 
        activities for the three-year period prior to the date of their 
        nomination, and relevant professional activities and public 
        statements for the five-year period prior to the date of their 
        nomination; and
          ``(E) make such reports public, with the exception of 
        specific dollar amounts, for each member of the Board upon such 
        member's selection.
  ``(4) Disclosure of relevant professional activities under paragraph 
(3)(D) shall include all representational work, expert testimony, and 
contract work as well as identifying the party for which the work was 
done.
  ``(5) Except when specifically prohibited by law, the Agency shall 
make all conflict of interest waivers granted to members of the Board, 
member committees, or investigative panels publicly available.
  ``(6) Any recusal agreement made by a member of the Board, a member 
committee, or an investigative panel, or any recusal known to the 
Agency that occurs during the course of a meeting or other work of the 
Board, member committee, or investigative panel shall promptly be made 
public by the Administrator.
  ``(7) The terms of the members of the Board shall be three years and 
shall be staggered so that the terms of no more than one-third of the 
total membership of the Board shall expire within a single fiscal year. 
No member shall serve more than two terms over a ten-year period.''.
  (b) Record.--Section 8(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(c)) is 
amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1)--
                  (A) by inserting ``risk or hazard assessment,'' after 
                ``at the time any proposed''; and
                  (B) by inserting ``risk or hazard assessment,'' after 
                ``to the Board such proposed''; and
          (2) in paragraph (2)--
                  (A) by inserting ``risk or hazard assessment,'' after 
                ``the scientific and technical basis of the proposed''; 
                and
                  (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The Board's 
                advice and comments, including dissenting views of 
                Board members, and the response of the Administrator 
                shall be included in the record with respect to any 
                proposed risk or hazard assessment, criteria document, 
                standard, limitation, or regulation and published in 
                the Federal Register.''.
  (c) Member Committees and Investigative Panels.--Section 8(e) of such 
Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
``These member committees and investigative panels--
          ``(1) shall be constituted and operate in accordance with the 
        provisions set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection 
        (b), in subsection (h), and in subsection (i);
          ``(2) do not have authority to make decisions on behalf of 
        the Board; and
          ``(3) may not report directly to the Environmental Protection 
        Agency.''.
  (d) Public Participation.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) is 
amended by adding after subsection (g) the following:
  ``(h)(1) To facilitate public participation in the advisory 
activities of the Board, the Administrator and the Board shall make 
public all reports and relevant scientific information and shall 
provide materials to the public at the same time as received by members 
of the Board.
  ``(2) Prior to conducting major advisory activities, the Board shall 
hold a public information-gathering session to discuss the state of the 
science related to the advisory activity.
  ``(3) Prior to convening a member committee or investigative panel 
under subsection (e) or requesting scientific advice from the Board, 
the Administrator shall accept, consider, and address public comments 
on questions to be asked of the Board. The Board, member committees, 
and investigative panels shall accept, consider, and address public 
comments on such questions and shall not accept a question that unduly 
narrows the scope of an advisory activity.
  ``(4) The Administrator and the Board shall encourage public 
comments, including oral comments and discussion during the 
proceedings, that shall not be limited by an insufficient or arbitrary 
time restriction. Public comments shall be provided to the Board when 
received. The Board's reports shall include written responses to 
significant comments offered by members of the public to the Board.
  ``(5) Following Board meetings, the public shall be given 15 calendar 
days to provide additional comments for consideration by the Board.''.
  (e) Operations.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) is further 
amended by adding after subsection (h), as added by subsection (d) of 
this section, the following:
  ``(i)(1) In carrying out its advisory activities, the Board shall 
strive to avoid making policy determinations or recommendations, and, 
in the event the Board feels compelled to offer policy advice, shall 
explicitly distinguish between scientific determinations and policy 
advice.
  ``(2) The Board shall clearly communicate uncertainties associated 
with the scientific advice provided to the Administrator.
  ``(3) The Board shall ensure that advice and comments reflect the 
views of the members and shall encourage dissenting members to make 
their views known to the public and the Administrator.
  ``(4) The Board shall conduct periodic reviews to ensure that its 
advisory activities are addressing the most important scientific issues 
affecting the Environmental Protection Agency.''.

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

  Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be 
construed as supplanting the requirements of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

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

  Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be 
construed as supplanting the requirements of the Ethics in Government 
Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).

                        II. Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 1422 is to amend the Environmental 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
1978 to provide for Science Advisory Board member 
qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science Advisory 
Board (SAB) was established by Congress in the Environmental 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
1978 (ERDDAA)\1\. Under this authorization, the SAB provides 
scientific advice as may be requested by the EPA Administrator 
and interested Congressional Committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Public Law 95-155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since its enactment, the size and function of the SAB has 
evolved. ERDDAA established a minimum number of nine members, 
one of which is to be the designated Chair. Members are 
appointed by the EPA Administrator to serve a three-year term 
and may be reappointed for a second three-year term. There are 
currently 51 members of the chartered SAB. The SAB and its 
subcommittees and ad hoc subpanels provide scientific advice on 
a wide range of issues, including stream and wetland 
connectivity, hydraulic fracturing, environmental justice 
screening, and regulatory cost estimates.\2\ The Board has also 
begun providing advice on the science underlying several 
potential, forthcoming Agency regulatory activities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebProjectsby 
TopicBOARD!OpenView.
    \3\Dave Reynolds, ``Advisors Narrow List Of Pending EPA Rules For 
Novel Scientific Scrutiny,'' Inside EPA, March 11, 2013, http://
insideepa.com/201303112427282/EPA-Daily-News/Daily-News/advisors-
narrow-list-of-pending-epa-rules-for-novel-scientific-scrutiny/menu-id-
0995.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The SAB is operated in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act of 1972, which requires that advisory panels have 
a charter and be ``fairly balanced in terms of the points of 
view represented and the functions to be performed.'' According 
to EPA, SAB's mission includes:
           reviewing the quality and relevance of the 
        scientific and technical information being used or 
        proposed as the basis for Agency regulations;
           reviewing research programs and the 
        technical basis of applied programs;
           reviewing generic approaches to regulatory 
        science, including guidelines governing the use of 
        scientific and technical information in regulatory 
        decisions, and critiquing such analytic methods as 
        mathematical modeling;
           advising the Agency on broad scientific 
        matters in science, technology, social and economic 
        issues; and
           advising the Agency on emergency and other 
        short-notice programs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/Webcommittees/BOARD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Toward those goals, the chartered SAB conducts much of its 
work through subcommittees or subpanels focused on specific 
issues. Currently, these subcommittees include: Drinking Water 
Committee; Ecological Processes and Effects Committee; 
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee; Environmental 
Engineering Committee; Exposure and Human Health Committee; 
Radiation Advisory Committee; and the Chemical Assessment 
Advisory Committee (established January 30, 2013).\5\ Under the 
SAB's charter,\6\ these ``[c]ommittees, panels, and workgroups 
have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the SAB and 
may not report directly to the Agency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebBOARD/
CommitteesandMembership?OpenDocument.
    \6\http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebBOARD/
currentcharter?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA also receives advice from and manages 22 additional 
Federal Advisory Committees, including entities like the EPA 
Board of Scientific Counselors, the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel, and 
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).\7\ These 
bodies carry out a variety of advisory functions. For example, 
CASAC ``provides independent advice to the EPA Administrator on 
the technical bases for EPA's national ambient air quality 
standards'' and ``addresses research related to air quality, 
sources of air pollution, and the strategies to attain and 
maintain air quality standards and to prevent significant 
deterioration of air quality.'' The Chair of CASAC also sits on 
the chartered SAB.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\http://www.epa.gov/ocem/faca/facacomcontacts.htm.
    \8\http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommittees/CASAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA staff and the chartered SAB allow for some public 
involvement in advisory activities through the nomination of 
experts for committees and panels and involvement in advisory 
committee meetings and report developments. In response to 
numerous comments during an SAB Session on Public Involvement 
in June 2011, the SAB Staff Office announced additional steps 
to enhance public involvement in advisory activities beginning 
in FY2012.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebSABSO/
PublicInvolvement?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          IV. Hearing Summary

    In the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee on Environment held 
a hearing on March 20, 2013, to examine the Environmental 
Protection Agency's process for receiving independent 
scientific advice and to receive testimony on draft legislation 
to strengthen public participation; improve the process for 
selecting expert advisors; expand transparency requirements; 
and limit non-scientific policy advice among advisory bodies.
    The Subcommittee heard from 3 witnesses:
          Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Chief Toxicologist, Texas 
        Commission on Environmental Quality
          Dr. Roger McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human 
        Health Risk Analysis
          Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Science 
        Policy Fellow, Union of Concerned Scientists

                       V. Committee Consideration

    On April 9, 2013, H.R. 1422 was introduced by Rep. Chris 
Stewart and referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology.
    On April 11, 2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 1422, as 
amended, by roll call vote. Further, the Committee ordered H.R. 
1422 favorably reported to the House, as amended, by roll call 
vote.

                          VI. Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. A 
motion to order H.R. 1422 favorably reported to the House, as 
amended, was agreed to by a recorded vote, 21 ayes, 16 nays.
    During Full Committee consideration of H.R. 1422, the 
following amendments were considered:


              VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    H.R. 1422 reforms EPA's Science Advisory Board and its sub-
panels by strengthening public participation, improving the 
process for selecting expert advisors, expanding transparency 
requirements, and limiting non-scientific policy advice.

                         VIII. Committee Views

    H.R. 1422 will restore balance and independence to the 
scientific advisory process at EPA. The bill seeks to codify 
existing practices and address concerns with the Science 
Advisory Board (SAB) by strengthening public participation, 
reinforcing the need for expertise, transparency, and balance 
in the SAB selection process, and establishing a clearer role 
for the SAB in providing scientific advice to the EPA and 
Congress. H.R. 1422 provides needed direction to SAB and helps 
to fulfill President Ronald Reagan's guidance that ``[t]he 
purpose of the Science Advisory Board is to apply the 
universally accepted principles of scientific peer review to 
the research conclusions that will form the bases for EPA 
regulations, a function that must remain above interest group 
politics.''
    In light of EPA's unique position as an agency that 
frequently provides the scientific justifications to support 
its regulatory decisions, it is vital that the scientific 
advisory and peer review process be independent and robust. 
This is especially true for the EPA Science Advisory Board 
because its members are selected by the EPA Administrator and 
frequently are asked to provide analysis on critical scientific 
matters and information from chemical assessments to EPA's 
research budget prioritization. If EPA science appears biased, 
pre-ordained toward a specific outcome, or even less than 
willing to consider every point of view, its credibility will 
suffer. The bill makes basic changes to the operations, scope, 
and selection process for the SAB, relying on non-controversial 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA's Peer 
Review Handbook, the National Academies' Policy on Committee 
Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest, and 
recommendations from Science Committee testimony.
    Despite requirements in the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
that SAB and related panels be ``fairly balanced in terms of 
point of view represented,'' the Science Committee determined 
that individuals with certain perspectives are overrepresented 
within the SAB and other viewpoints are frequently 
underrepresented or excluded from participation based on 
misinterpretation of ethics rules. Additionally, EPA often 
differs from the practice of other federal agencies and 
excludes state, local, tribal, and private sector scientists 
from serving as advisors. To rectify these issues, H.R. 1422 
requires that all SAB members be designated as ``special 
Government employees,'' prohibits the exclusion of individuals 
with substantial and relevant expertise, requires that at least 
ten percent of the Board be drawn from State, local, and tribal 
experts, and clarifies, in a manner consistent with existing 
ethics requirements, that in the case of a Board advisory 
activity on a particular matter involving a specific party, no 
Board member having an interest in the specific party shall 
participate in that activity. The bill also expands disclosure 
requirements for panelists and nominees, and requires that the 
EPA make reports and conflict of interest waivers available 
publicly.
    Testimony received by the Committee demonstrated that at 
times Board members had been involved directly or indirectly in 
reviewing their own work. To address this issue, H.R. 1422 
states that ``Board members may not participate in advisory 
activities that directly or indirectly involve review and 
evaluation of their own work''. This language was based on the 
EPA's Peer Review Handbook language that states that ``An 
independent peer reviewer is an expert who was not associated 
with the generation of the specific work product whether 
directly by substantial contribution to its development or 
indirectly by significant consultation during the development 
of the specific product.'' Additionally, the legislation 
requires public disclosure of Board member recusals.
    H.R. 1422 makes additional changes to open up the SAB 
process for public participation in a manner that will improve 
scientific advice without unduly burdening the panel or the 
EPA. It encourages public comments and instructs the Board to 
not accept questions that narrow the scope of an advisory 
activity. Similarly, the bill provides additional detail to the 
operations of the Board, ensuring that their advice clearly 
distinguishes scientific and policy advice, communicates 
uncertainties, and offers opportunities for dissenting views to 
be made known to the public and the Administrator.

                    IX. Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight 
hearing and made findings that are reflected in the descriptive 
portions of this report.

        X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the performance goals and 
objectives of the Committee are reflected in the descriptive 
portions of this report, including the goal to address concerns 
with the Science Advisory Board (SAB) by strengthening public 
participation, reinforcing the need for expertise, 
transparency, and balance in the SAB selection process, and 
establishing a clearer role for the SAB in providing scientific 
advice to the EPA and Congress.

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

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its 
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

                       XII. Advisory on Earmarks

    In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, 
the Committee finds that H.R. 1422, the ``EPA Science Advisory 
Board Reform Act of 2013'', contains no earmarks.

                     XIII. Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

             XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, April 19, 2013.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1422, the EPA 
Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. 
Mehlman.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

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

    H.R. 1422 would require the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) to make various changes related to the qualifications of 
members serving on the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and to 
expand disclosure requirements for members of the board. The 
SAB was established in 1978 by the Congress with a broad 
mandate to advise EPA on technical matters related to science. 
Some of the proposed changes under this bill include requiring 
EPA to solicit nominations from the public and from relevant 
federal agencies, such as the Departments of Agriculture, 
Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services. Nominees also 
would be required to file a written report disclosing certain 
financial relationships and interests. Additionally, the bill 
would require EPA to make risk or hazard assessments available 
to the SAB and to publish the board's advice, comments, and 
views in the Federal Register.
    Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that 
implementing the changes proposed by this legislation would 
cost less than $500,000 annually or about $2 million over the 
2014-2018 period, subject to the availability of appropriated 
funds. That funding would provide for additional personnel and 
related administrative expenses.
    Enacting H.R. 1422 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    H.R. 1422 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susanne S. 
Mehlman. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                     XV. Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                     XVI. Compliance With H. Res. 5

    A. Directed Rule Making. This bill does not direct any 
executive branch official to conduct any specific rule-making 
proceedings.
    B. Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

               XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation; however, the bill does modify current law related 
to an existing advisory committee.

               XVIII. Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                    XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis


Sec. 1. Short Title

    This section sets the short title as the EPA Science 
Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.

Sec. 2. Science Advisory Board

    Subsection (a) amends section 8(b) of the Environmental 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
1978 (ERDDAA) to include the following:
    (1) Requires the Science Advisory Board be composed of at 
least nine members, with one designated as Chairman, and 
requires that these members meet at a time and place designated 
by the Chairman and Administrator.
    (2) Requires that each member of the Board is qualified by 
education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific and 
technical information on matters referred to the Board. The 
Administrator is required to select Board members from 
nominations received, and shall ensure: (A) the scientific and 
technical points of view represented on the Board, as well as 
the function to be performed, be fairly balanced among the 
Board members; (B) at least ten percent of Board membership are 
from State, local, or tribal governments; (C) persons with 
substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the 
Board due to affiliation with or representation of entities 
that might have a potential interest in the Board's advisory 
activities, as long as this interest is fully disclosed to the 
Administrator and the public; (D) in the case of a Board 
advisory activity on a particular matter involving a specific 
party, no Board member that has an interest in that party shall 
participate in that activity; (E) Board members may not 
participate in advisory activities that involve review or 
application of their own work; and (F) Board members shall be 
designated as special Government employees.
    (3) The Administrator is required to: (A) solicit public 
comments for the Board by publishing a notification in the 
Federal Register; (B) solicit nominations from relevant Federal 
Agencies; (C) make the list of nominees, as well as the entity 
that nominated them, public, and accept public comments on the 
nominees; (D) require that upon nomination, nominees file a 
written report disclosing financial relationships and 
interests, including EPA grants, contracts, cooperative 
agreements, and other financial assistance relevant to the 
Board's advisory activities for the three year period prior to 
nomination, as well as relevant professional activities and 
public statements for the five year period prior to nomination; 
and (E) make these reports public for each member of the Board 
upon their selection, excepting specific dollar amounts.
    (4) The terms of the members of the Board shall be three 
years and staggered to ensure that no more than one-third of 
total membership shall expire within a single year, and members 
are limited to two terms over a ten-year period.
    Subsection (b) amends Section 8(c) of ERDDAA to add a 
``risk or hazard assessment'' to the types of proposed actions 
by the EPA that must be provided to the SAB by the 
Administrator for advice and comment.
    This section further amends ERDDAA to require that the 
Board's advice and comments, including dissenting views of 
Board members, and the response of the Administrator be 
included in the record with respect to any proposed risk or 
hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, or 
regulation and published in the Federal Register.
    Subsection (c) amends section 8(e) of ERDDAA to clarify 
that the member committees and investigative panels: (1) must 
be constituted and operate in accordance with other provisions 
of this Act; (2) do not have authority to make decisions on 
behalf of the Board; and (3) may not report directly to the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    Subsection (d) amends ERDDAA to (1) Require the 
Administrator and the Board to make public all reports and 
relevant scientific information and provide materials to the 
public at the same time they are received by the Board. (2) 
Require the Board to hold a public information-gathering 
session to discuss the state of the science relative to the 
advisory activity prior to conducting major advisory 
activities. (3) Require the Administrator to accept, consider, 
and address public comments on questions to be asked of the 
board prior to convening a member committee or panel, and the 
Board, member committee, or panels shall accept, consider, and 
address these public comments. The Board cannot accept a 
question that unduly narrows the scope of an advisory activity. 
(4) Require the Administrator and the Board to encourage public 
comments and to provide the public comments to the Board when 
received. The Board is also required to respond in writing to 
significant public comments. (5) Provide the public with 15 
calendar days after Board meetings to provide additional 
comments for consideration.
    Subsection (e) amends ERDDAA to require: (1) the Board to 
strive to avoid making policy determinations or 
recommendations, and explicitly distinguish between scientific 
determinations and policy advice. (2) The Board clearly 
communicates uncertainties associated with scientific advice 
provided to the Administrator. (3) The Board ensures that 
advice and comments reflect the views of the members and 
encourage dissenting members to make their views known to the 
public and Administrator. (4) The Board conducts periodic 
reviews to ensure its advisory activities are addressing the 
most important scientific issues facing the EPA.

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

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION AUTHORIZATION 
ACT OF 1978

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 8. (a) * * *
  [(b) Such Board shall be composed of at least nine members, 
one of whom shall be designated Chairman, and shall meet at 
such times and places as may be designated by the Chairman of 
the Board in consultation with the Administrator. Each member 
of the Board shall be qualified by education, training, and 
experience to evaluate scientific and technical information on 
matters referred to the Board under this section.]
  (b)(1) The Board shall be composed of at least nine members, 
one of whom shall be designated Chairman, and shall meet at 
such times and places as may be designated by the Chairman in 
consultation with the Administrator.
  (2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education, 
training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical 
information on matters referred to the Board under this 
section. The Administrator shall select Board members from 
nominations received as described in paragraph (3) and shall 
ensure that--
          (A) the scientific and technical points of view 
        represented on and the functions to be performed by the 
        Board are fairly balanced among the members of the 
        Board;
          (B) at least ten percent of the membership of the 
        Board are from State, local, or tribal governments;
          (C) persons with substantial and relevant expertise 
        are not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with 
        or representation of entities that may have a potential 
        interest in the Board's advisory activities, so long as 
        that interest is fully disclosed to the Administrator 
        and the public and appointment to the Board complies 
        with section 208 of title 18, United States Code;
          (D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a 
        particular matter involving a specific party, no Board 
        member having an interest in the specific party shall 
        participate in that activity;
          (E) Board members may not participate in advisory 
        activities that directly or indirectly involve review 
        and evaluation of their own work;
          (F) Board members shall be designated as special 
        Government employees; and
          (G) no federally registered lobbyist is appointed to 
        the Board.
  (3) The Administrator shall--
          (A) solicit public nominations for the Board by 
        publishing a notification in the Federal Register;
          (B) solicit nominations from relevant Federal 
        agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, 
        Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services;
          (C) make public the list of nominees, including the 
        identity of the entities that nominated them, and shall 
        accept public comment on the nominees;
          (D) require that, upon their provisional nomination, 
        nominees shall file a written report disclosing 
        financial relationships and interests, including 
        Environmental Protection Agency grants, contracts, 
        cooperative agreements, or other financial assistance, 
        that are relevant to the Board's advisory activities 
        for the three-year period prior to the date of their 
        nomination, and relevant professional activities and 
        public statements for the five-year period prior to the 
        date of their nomination; and
          (E) make such reports public, with the exception of 
        specific dollar amounts, for each member of the Board 
        upon such member's selection.
  (4) Disclosure of relevant professional activities under 
paragraph (3)(D) shall include all representational work, 
expert testimony, and contract work as well as identifying the 
party for which the work was done.
  (5) Except when specifically prohibited by law, the Agency 
shall make all conflict of interest waivers granted to members 
of the Board, member committees, or investigative panels 
publicly available.
  (6) Any recusal agreement made by a member of the Board, a 
member committee, or an investigative panel, or any recusal 
known to the Agency that occurs during the course of a meeting 
or other work of the Board, member committee, or investigative 
panel shall promptly be made public by the Administrator.
  (7) The terms of the members of the Board shall be three 
years and shall be staggered so that the terms of no more than 
one-third of the total membership of the Board shall expire 
within a single fiscal year. No member shall serve more than 
two terms over a ten-year period.
  (c)(1) The Administrator, at the time any proposed risk or 
hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, or 
regulation under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act, the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act of 
1976, the Noise Control Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, 
or the Safe Drinking Water Act, or under any other authority of 
the Administrator, is provided to any other Federal agency for 
formal review and comment, shall make available to the Board 
such proposed risk or hazard assessment, criteria document, 
standard, limitation, or regulation, together with relevant 
scientific and technical information in the possession of the 
Environmental Protection Agency on which the proposed action is 
based.
  (2) The Board may make available to the Administrator, within 
the time specified by the Administrator, its advice and 
comments on the adequacy of the scientific and technical basis 
of the proposed risk or hazard assessment, criteria document, 
standard, limitation, or regulation, together with any 
pertinent information in the Board's possession. The Board's 
advice and comments, including dissenting views of Board 
members, and the response of the Administrator shall be 
included in the record with respect to any proposed risk or 
hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, or 
regulation and published in the Federal Register.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) The Board is authorized to constitute such member 
committees and investigative panels as the Administrator and 
the Board find necessary to carry out this section. Each such 
member committee or investigative panel shall be chaired by a 
member of the Board. These member committees and investigative 
panels--
          (1) shall be constituted and operate in accordance 
        with the provisions set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) 
        of subsection (b), in subsection (h), and in subsection 
        (i);
          (2) do not have authority to make decisions on behalf 
        of the Board; and
          (3) may not report directly to the Environmental 
        Protection Agency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h)(1) To facilitate public participation in the advisory 
activities of the Board, the Administrator and the Board shall 
make public all reports and relevant scientific information and 
shall provide materials to the public at the same time as 
received by members of the Board.
  (2) Prior to conducting major advisory activities, the Board 
shall hold a public information-gathering session to discuss 
the state of the science related to the advisory activity.
  (3) Prior to convening a member committee or investigative 
panel under subsection (e) or requesting scientific advice from 
the Board, the Administrator shall accept, consider, and 
address public comments on questions to be asked of the Board. 
The Board, member committees, and investigative panels shall 
accept, consider, and address public comments on such questions 
and shall not accept a question that unduly narrows the scope 
of an advisory activity.
  (4) The Administrator and the Board shall encourage public 
comments, including oral comments and discussion during the 
proceedings, that shall not be limited by an insufficient or 
arbitrary time restriction. Public comments shall be provided 
to the Board when received. The Board's reports shall include 
written responses to significant comments offered by members of 
the public to the Board.
  (5) Following Board meetings, the public shall be given 15 
calendar days to provide additional comments for consideration 
by the Board.
  (i)(1) In carrying out its advisory activities, the Board 
shall strive to avoid making policy determinations or 
recommendations, and, in the event the Board feels compelled to 
offer policy advice, shall explicitly distinguish between 
scientific determinations and policy advice.
  (2) The Board shall clearly communicate uncertainties 
associated with the scientific advice provided to the 
Administrator.
  (3) The Board shall ensure that advice and comments reflect 
the views of the members and shall encourage dissenting members 
to make their views known to the public and the Administrator.
  (4) The Board shall conduct periodic reviews to ensure that 
its advisory activities are addressing the most important 
scientific issues affecting the Environmental Protection 
Agency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                 XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
                          MARKUP ON H.R. 1422,
                     THE EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
                           REFORM ACT OF 2013

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013

                          House of Representatives,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 
1422, the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory 
Board Reform Act of 2013, and the clerk will report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 1422, a bill to amend the Environmental 
Research Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
1978, to provide for a Science Advisory Board Member 
qualification----
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill will be 
considered as read.
    [H.R. 1422 appears in Appendix I]
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar Smith

    While different in their focus, the two bills we consider today 
share a common goal: to improve the science behind regulatory decision-
making at the EPA.
    I thank Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Stewart for their work on these 
bills.
    It is my hope that sound science might become a common--and 
potentially even bipartisan--guiding principle for the Committee's work 
on EPA issues.
    The Committee examined both bills we consider today in hearings 
last month. And both bills enjoy wide and diverse support.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner's E15 bill is backed by both the American 
Petroleum Institute and the Environmental Working Group, two 
organizations that do not agree often. It is also supported by the 
American Automobile Association (AAA), as well as groups representing 
everyone from snowmobilers to boaters to motorcyclists.
    Similarly, Mr. Stewart's Science Advisory Board Reform legislation 
has garnered support from the American Farm Bureau and the American 
Chemistry Council.
    Both of these bills improve the science that goes into EPA's 
regulations. This is why they have received such broad support among 
diverse stakeholders.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

    Thank you Chairman Smith.
    Today, we are marking up two pieces of legislation:
    H.R. 875, To provide for a comprehensive assessment of the 
scientific and technical research on the implications of the use of 
mid-level ethanol blends, and for other purposes, and, H.R. 1422, the 
EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.
    Let me say at the outset that I am disappointed the Committee is 
not following regular order on these bills. This Committee has a good 
tradition of following regular order in the movement of legislation, 
and that tradition has served both sides of the aisle well over the 
years. Regular order is not an arbitrary concept. It is a time tested 
means to perfect legislation.
    Moreover, I think it fosters bipartisanship. The last time 
Democrats controlled this Committee we held 25 subcommittee markups in 
four years, and took 45 bills through those markups. And as former 
Chairman Bart Gordon liked to brag, every one of those bills had at 
least some Republican support. I do not think that is a coincidence. I 
hope we can get back to that tradition sooner rather than later.
    Unfortunately I cannot support the two bills we are marking up 
today in their current form. I'm glad to see the Democratic Members 
have so many amendments to improve these bills, because they need much 
improvement.
    H.R. 875 is a retread of an almost identical bill this Committee 
marked up last Congress. Last year, after a contentious markup, the 
Committee didn't even bother reporting the bill to the House. I think 
it's curious that the Committee is spending time today marking up a 
bill that had so many flaws that we couldn't even bother to file a 
report on it in the last Congress.
    One reason the Majority may have squashed the bill last Congress is 
that it represents everything the Republican Party platform says is bad 
about the government. I will explain in layman's terms what the bill 
does.
    The bill forces the EPA to regulate a product out of existence 
rather than let free market forces dictate the success of E15. The 
stated justification for this is that consumers are too stupid to use 
this product correctly. The Majority apparently has lost all faith in 
both consumers and the free market system to deal with E15.
    So today I will support the free market system, and oppose this 
bill and the Majority's attempt to expand the nanny-state. These are 
strange days indeed.
    Next the Committee will consider H.R. 1422, which alters the EPA's 
Science Advisory Board process for the worse. This bill is a naked 
attempt to reduce legitimate scientific input at the Board, and replace 
it with industry funded input. If that weren't bad enough, the bill 
contains several provisions which appear designed to bury the Board in 
a mountain of work simply to keep it from getting anything 
accomplished.
    For these reasons, it should not be surprising that groups like the 
Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Environmental Defense Fund, Clean Water Action, Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, Earthjustice, and the League of Conservation Voters 
oppose the bill.
    I have two letters from these organizations stating their 
opposition, and I ask that they be included in the record.
    Democratic Members have submitted a number of good amendments to 
correct the deficiencies in the bill, and I look forward to supporting 
them, and I look forward to a good markup, but a markup that should 
first have occurred at the subcommittee level.

    Chairman Smith. And I will now recognize Mr. Stewart for 
five minutes for an opening statement on his bill.
    Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
markup.
    The issues we are talking about today are important, and 
the decisions that we will make will matter. This is a process 
that is broken, and I believe we have an obligation to make it 
better.
    Established by Congress in 1978, the EPA's Science Advisory 
Board, or SAB, is intended to provide meaningful, balanced and 
independent reviews of the science conducted and used by the 
Agency. Its Members are selected by the EPA Administrator, and 
it plays an important role in reviewing everything from the 
Agency's research budget to individual chemical assessments. 
This panel is indispensable in critically reviewing the 
underlying science for virtually all major EPA regulatory 
activities, a tall order in recent years, as the Agency has 
pursued an overreaching and economy-threatening agenda, 
creating an environment where policy and politics have taken a 
backseat to unbiased science.
    The bill before us, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform 
Act, would help address a variety of concerns with the SAB and 
its subpanels by expanding transparency requirements, improving 
the process of selecting expert advisors, strengthening the 
public participation, and limiting nonscientific policy advice.
    The bill contains basic good-government changes and draws 
upon noncontroversial provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act. The EPA's own peer-review handbook, the National 
Academy's committee composition and conflict of interest policy 
and recommendations from Science Committee testimony and other 
outside groups. It has a widespread support from groups like 
the National Association of Manufacturers, American Farm 
Bureau, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, 
the American Chemical Council, the American Gas Association, 
Portland Cement Association, the American Forest and Paper 
Association.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record a letter from these groups and 22 others 
in support of H.R. 1422.
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears in Appendix II]
    Mr. Stewart. The bill makes clarifying changes to the scope 
of SAB's purview and institutes commonsense changes to improve 
the transparency. H.R. 1422 would also facilitate meaningful 
public participation in the advisory process.
    Just last month, I was alarmed to hear both a former SAB 
manager and chair of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee and state official testify that EPA's science 
advisors virtually never respond to public comments, and in 
many cases, they don't even read the written comments that are 
submitted.
    This bill also provides clarity for SAB Member selection 
and disclosure process. Despite an existing requirement that 
these panels be fairly balanced in terms of point of view 
represented, EPA has systematically excluded state, local, 
tribal and private sector scientists from serving as advisors. 
For example, just last month, EPA announced a new hydraulic 
fracturing research advisory panel. Even though dozens of 
experts were nominated, with recent and direct experience with 
oil and gas technical developments, EPA excluded nearly all of 
them from serving on the panel. There are also other unsettling 
EPA trends about how EPA selects its supposedly independent 
advisors. For example, according to Congressional Research 
Service, almost 60 percent of Members in the chartered SAB and 
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, also known as CASAC, 
have directly received grants from the Agency since 2000. These 
advisors served as principal co-investigators for EPA grants 
totaling roughly $140 million. EPA frequently chooses panelists 
whose research is directly or indirectly under review, and as a 
final example, many of the panelists have clearly taken sides 
and made public pronouncement on issues they are advising 
about. For example, roughly 40 percent of the current panel 
reviewing the science behind upcoming EPA ozone standards have 
already made statements that the regulation should be made more 
stringent.
    The issues identified in this bill may seem to be in the 
weeds, but credible peer review is critical to everything this 
Agency does. We may not be able to control all of EPA's 
regulatory overreach, but guaranteeing that there is an 
independent check on its science is essential.
    And let me conclude by making this important point. If the 
EPA's science process is viewed as being biased or less than 
willing to consider every point of view, their credibility 
suffers, and this serves neither the EPA nor American 
businesses nor America citizens.
    And again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity 
and I yield back my time.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
    Are there other Members who wish to be heard on this bill? 
Any further discussion? If not, we will go to amendments, and 
the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized for 
the first one.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Edwards of 
Maryland. In section 2(a) of----
    [The amendment of Ms. Edwards appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read, and the gentlewoman is recognized to 
explain her amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Much of what the majority is proposing to do today in this 
bill appears to be designed to weaken the scientific 
independence and integrity of the Science Advisory Board. One 
of the ways that this is accomplished is to make it more 
difficult for academics and government scientists to serve by 
prohibiting scientists from serving who have worked on the 
issue being reviewed. At the same time, the bill makes it 
harder for independent researchers to serve on the board. The 
bill does, however, encourage greater participation by industry 
groups. Now, if you agree that credible peer review is 
important, I am not certain how that is accomplished by 
providing for service by industry groups but prohibiting 
service effectively by scientists who have specialized 
experience with a given issue. I think this is a really 
terrible trend, and I think it is clearly one that is designed 
to subvert the scientific review process.
    Now, I am not an unreasonable person. I think industry 
scientists and engineers can bring relevant and unique 
perspectives to the table and that they should be included in 
this process. My amendment would allow the people to serve--
allow those people to serve on the board. However, my amendment 
limits their participation to ten percent of the board because 
we don't want the industry to dominate or co-opt the review 
process. There is a difference between participation and 
domination, and my amendment ensures that the board doesn't 
become dominated by corporate interests.
    You know, I think the American public would actually be 
appalled if the National Toxicology Program's Board of 
Scientific Counselors was dominated by scientists from the 
tobacco industry. It would be considered an outrage. It would 
no less be an outrage if we allow the EPA Science Advisory 
Board to become dominated by the petrochemical industries or 
other interested industry groups. These industries are not 
looking to unearth the best science, they are looking to 
protect their bottom line. That is what they should do. They 
are corporations. But because of that, their participation on 
this board should also be limited.
    What happened in the last century with the organized 
efforts of the tobacco industry to subvert the scientific 
process with regard to the negative health effects of smoking 
was a dark stain on the country. Many people died because of 
those efforts. How many people suffered through horrible 
diseases because of that?
    I really am concerned that we are going to allow that 
process to repeat itself here if we don't try and protect the 
integrity of the EPA's scientific review process, and indeed to 
protect the science. I think my amendment is a reasonable 
attempt to accommodate the industry while also safeguarding the 
integrity of the Science Advisory Board, and I urge adoption of 
the amendment.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
    The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized in 
opposition to the amendment.
    Mr. Stewart. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 
opportunity.
    I will respectfully disagree with Ms. Edwards on the 
contention that we are restricting diversity. Indeed, I think 
the purpose of this bill is to increase diversity, and I think 
boards are much better served when we do that.
    The problem with the SABs isn't that they don't have too 
many from industry. We recognize that there is some concerns 
with that, but the fact is that they in many cases have 
virtually none, no representation from industry in industries 
that are very dynamic and changing almost week to week. For 
example, many of the 22-Member hydraulic fracturing study 
panels are experts in their own groundwater public health but 
they had no experience in hydraulic fracturing, again, an 
industry that is changing rapidly. The chartered SAB despite 
including more than 50 Members contains virtually no private 
sector scientists, and that is despite many nominations. One 
more example. The EPA rejected five of the six industry 
nominees on the SAB's mercury review panel, even thought his 
review culminated in a regulation that would cost $11 billion.
    The National Academies, and this is I think just a very 
important point, states that for some studies, it may be 
important to have industry perspective because such individuals 
through their participation and knowledge and expertise are 
often vital to achieving an informed, comprehensive and 
authoritative understanding and analysis of specific problems 
and potential solutions to be considered. Once again, we are 
just asking for diversity. We are asking to take advantage of 
the expertise that is available, and we think the boards are 
much stronger if we are able to do that.
    Ms. Edwards. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Stewart. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Edwards. I think if the gentleman would acknowledge 
that what my amendment does is that I acknowledge even in my 
statement that diversity is important, that it is important to 
get the expertise of the industry but not to have it dominated 
on these boards, and what my amendment provides for is that not 
more than ten percent of the board can be comprised of for-
profit entities, and in that way, the SAB that you describe 
with 50 percent would actually have at least five industry 
representatives on the board. Thank you.
    Mr. Stewart. Again, I recognize and respect your objective 
there. I just feel that there is no question that this 
amendment would make it far more restrictive, and in some 
cases, tie the hands of the SAB and not allow them the freedom 
and the discretion to form the panels in such a way as they may 
be best served.
    Mr. Grayson. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Grayson. Is there any cap that the gentleman would 
accept on for-profit entities on these bodies? For instance, 
would the gentleman accept a cap of 99 percent?
    Mr. Stewart. Is that your question?
    Mr. Grayson. That is the question.
    Mr. Stewart. Yeah. Well, I think 99 percent may be again an 
illustration of the other extreme.
    Mr. Grayson. Well, then, would the gentleman accept a cap 
of 50 percent?
    Mr. Stewart. The gentleman is objecting to any arbitrary 
cap.
    Mr. Grayson. Then the gentleman would actually contemplate 
a situation where every single Member of these bodies would be 
a corporate shill?
    Mr. Stewart. The gentleman----
    Mr. Grayson. You find nothing objectionable about that?
    Mr. Stewart. This gentleman believes that these selections 
should be made on the expertise, and that if someone can bring 
expertise to the panel, that individual should be able to 
participate in that panel.
    Chairman Smith. Does the gentleman yield back his time?
    Mr. Stewart. The gentleman yields back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
    Are there other Members who wish to be heard on this 
amendment? The gentlewoman----
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Ms. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is 
recognized.
    Ms. Johnson. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is very 
important for this Committee to support Ms. Edwards' 
commonsense amendment.
    The amendment ensures that the SAB cannot have employees of 
for-profit entities comprise more than ten percent of its 
Members. I am all for balance, and I believe there is a place 
for employees of for-profit entities to sit on the SAB. 
However, I am also for a balanced advisory board, and I think 
we all should be. By capping the number of employees from for-
profit entities at ten percent, we ensure that the very 
important voice of industry is heard without overwhelming the 
other stakeholders of our society.
    It is truly concerning to me that without this amendment, 
we could find ourselves in a situation where a single industry 
dominates an SAB panel. If this occurs, it would be a travesty 
of the very nature my Republican colleagues say they are trying 
to prevent with this bill. If my colleagues across the aisle 
are serious about balance, then they will support this 
amendment and to ensure balance and fairness of these panels. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    Are there other Members who wish to be heard on this 
amendment?
    Mr. Grayson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, is recognized.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Just to take a look at some of the 
fundamentals that have been presented to us, and again, there 
is a distinct difference in philosophical outlook between 
people in Congress, and we recognize that people can 
legitimately disagree because they have a different approach to 
how they think we are going to make this a better country an a 
better world, and I think that part of the discussion that we 
are having today reflects sort of a different view, a 
philosophical view towards how the system should work and does 
work.
    For example, by limiting the for-profit entities to ten 
percent, that is based on the assumption that for-profit 
entities have the same goals in mind and that they are not in 
somewhat having adversarial positions. In fact, the unintended 
consequences of this amendment would be perhaps one industry 
would dominate a particular advisory board because you have 
limited the number of interests that can be involved in the 
discussion at that level. In fact, there are corporate 
interests that are very adversarial to each other and they have 
experts who are advocating their positions, and if you limited 
it to 10, you are likely to have one of those representatives 
there to express what is a very well-researched position and 
may be correct or not correct but the likelihood of actually 
having more interest for the specific group that is going to 
make a profit, it is more likely that you are going to limit 
others and the group that is only interested in its own profit 
and not adversarial to that particular regulation that is being 
talked about.
    Ms. Johnson. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. You are likely to have a limitation on 
that discussion that helps that particular industry. So I would 
suggest that limiting it to ten percent, I don't know what the 
right number is but limiting it to ten percent is certainly not 
going to benefit the public because it limits the discussion 
among people, corporate people who have competitive interests.
    Ms. Edwards. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Certainly.
    Ms. Edwards. I just have a question. Because in the 
underlying bill, the limits that are then placed on scientists 
who have had some other interest and been funded would restrict 
their participation--I have another amendment to that effect--
but would restrict their participation, and so at the end you 
are left without the kind of expertise that you need that we 
all agree on, and I think that what my amendment is doing is 
trying to strike that balance that says yes, we have industry 
experts, we just don't want the SABs dominated by those 
industry experts or the scientists who have specialized 
experience limited from their participation too, and it is the 
combination of those things.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, but reclaiming my time, you are not 
limiting that particular interest, you are limiting all of the 
corporate input, which may present a more well-rounded picture. 
The fact is, because you are saying for-profit entity, okay, so 
if you work for a for-profit solar energy company, you can't be 
included more than that because you have got ten percent of the 
people on a particular council or something that might be 
representing the oil industry. Maybe you want more than that 
because you would like to have a for-profit entity that makes 
money on solar energy into the same discussion with those who 
provide other types of energy.
    Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Any further discussion on the amendment? If not, the vote 
is on the----
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, please.
    Chairman Smith. Who seeks recognition? Oh, the gentleman 
from Florida, Mr. Grayson, is recognized.
    Mr. Grayson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move to 
strike the last word.
    Let us go over this here. We are talking about the 
Environmental Protection Agency. The charge of the Agency is to 
protect the environment. Generally speaking, threats to the 
environment are produced in our country by private profit-
making entities. I think that goes without saying. I am sorry, 
that is the fact of the matter here.
    The Science Advisory Board that we are talking about is 
supposed to provide independent scientific advice to the EPA so 
the EPA can make its decisions properly. This Agency, like 
every other government agency, is threatened with the 
possibility of capture by the people whom it is supposed to be 
regulating. What this bill does in essence is facilitate that. 
This bill allows and encourages private industry to take over 
the Science Advisory Board at the EPA and therefore exercise 
control. The regulated will be exercising control over the 
regulator. That is what this bill does.
    Now, I speak in support of Ms. Edwards's amendment because 
we need to prevent that from happening. Perhaps certain Members 
of the majority on this Committee believe that ten percent is 
not the right amount. I understand that. Maybe the right amount 
is 15 percent. Maybe the right amount is 20 percent. Perhaps 
Congresswoman Edwards would accept a secondary amendment to 
that effect. I can't speak for her. But the fact is that if we 
don't put in any limitation here, what that means is that we 
are encouraging and inviting industry to take over the Science 
Advisory Boards and therefore take over the EPA. That is a real 
and present threat.
    I am not questioning the intent of the people who drafted 
this bill. I am questioning the obvious and necessary impact of 
this. We cannot let the EPA be populated by corporate tools and 
corporate shills, and that is exactly what this bill without 
the amendment offered by Ms. Edwards actually would do. That is 
the effect of this. Therefore, I support the Edwards amendment 
as an effort to ameliorate what will inevitably happen, which 
is this bill if passed will mean that we will have all the 
diversity on these Science Advisory Boards so that we will have 
opinions ranging all the way from Exxon to Chevron and nowhere 
else. I yield the remainder of my time.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Grayson.
    Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Smith. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from 
Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized.
    Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir, just very quickly. Having worked 
with the EPA for many years, I can assure you that the least of 
my fears is that they would become populated by corporate 
shills. It is absolutely not in their culture nor in their 
leadership to allow that to happen.
    And also, I believe that the premise of this proposed 
amendment, it presumes that there are no shared interests 
between profit and not-for-profit entities when there are. I 
don't know of any corporate leader that doesn't have the same 
desire that we have, and that is, to protect our environment, 
to have clean air, to have clean water, and the discussions on 
many of these boards is simply that shared goal, the best way 
to do that.
    And finally, let me once again just emphasize my opposition 
to the arbitrariness of ten percent. Whether it is ten percent 
of the panel or 15 percent or 20 percent, it ties the EPA's 
hands in selecting those people who are most qualified, and we 
should allow them to do that. I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
    The vote is on the Edwards amendment.
    All in favor say aye.
    Opposed, nay.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    We will now go to the second amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, and----
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes, but before she does that, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Bonamici 
of Oregon. In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter to be 
inserted as section 8----
    [The amendment of Ms. Bonamici appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read, and the gentlewoman from Oregon is 
recognized to explain her amendment.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, one of my significant concerns with this bill 
is the clause that appears to allow lawyers and lobbyists to 
sit on the scientific advisory boards even if they represent 
entities that have a potential interest, financial or 
otherwise, in the scientific advisory boards' advisory 
activities.
    The language in section 2, the Membership section of H.R. 
1422 that will allow for the inclusion on the scientific 
advisory board committees or panels of persons who represent an 
entity with a potential interest in the board's activities, is 
very likely to affect the scientific independence and integrity 
of these boards and the reviews that they conduct, and I know 
in his opening remarks, Mr. Stewart, the chairman of the 
Environment Subcommittee, mentioned the importance of 
scientific integrity, and that is what we are trying to 
achieve.
    Lobbyists and lawyers who represent entities who have 
interest in the scientific advisory boards' activities could be 
so clearly influenced by those interests that it is hard to 
imagine that they would present objective and independent 
perspectives on scientific questions. Lobbyists working for an 
entity with business before the board would have their jobs on 
the line if they represented a position that was not favorable 
to their clients.
    My amendment will remove this language and seek to prevent 
undue private-industry influence on the scientific advisory 
boards. The amendment simply strikes the language that allows 
individuals who represent entities that have a potential 
interest in the scientific advisory board advisory opinions 
from serving on these boards. When we look at the purpose of 
the boards, this is a reasonable amendment meant to ensure that 
the opinions of the board remain independent from financial 
influence, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle can see the wisdom in ensuring that lobbyists and lawyers 
are prevented from affecting the independence of these 
important scientific advisory boards. It is a commonsense 
amendment, and I wanted to add, Mr. Chairman, that pursuant to 
conversations with the chairman and with the chairman's staff, 
it is my understanding that this committee will not object to a 
similar amendment, although not quite as comprehensive, that is 
amendment number 5, Mr. Grayson is going to be offering, and 
because of that and because of an understanding that other 
amendments later will be adopted, I am going to withdraw this 
amendment. I did, Mr. Chairman, want to put on the record the 
importance of this issue.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, and without objection, the 
amendment will be withdrawn, and I do want to say that the 
gentlewoman's understanding is correct, and we do expect to 
support Mr. Grayson's amendment, and I thank her for 
withdrawing this amendment.
    Ms. Bonamici. I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. The next amendment will be offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, and she is recognized 
to offer that amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Edwards of 
Maryland. Page 3, line 8----
    [The amendment of Ms. Edwards appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read, and the gentlewoman is recognized.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In the amendment that I offered previously, we rejected the 
idea of some kind of limitation on for-profit entities serving 
on the Science Advisory Board. What my amendment, this 
amendment, does is, it actually strikes sub paragraph E under 
section 2(a) and that paragraph reads ``Board Members may not 
participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly 
involve review and evaluation of their own work.'' And so on 
the one hand, we have rejected the idea of for-profit entities 
being limited but we have said that people who actually have an 
expertise, even when it is their own work, aren't able to 
participate on the advisory committees, quite an irony.
    I am really concerned that this underlying provision will 
dramatically reduce the number of qualified scientists who can 
serve on a board. In many cases, these are people with very 
specialized kind of expertise. In many fields of study, there 
are only a small number of qualified experts to draw upon. 
These experts routinely publish research with colleagues and 
peer-review other colleagues' work, and because of these 
connections between researchers, this provision has the 
potential to significantly affect the ability of the EPA to 
draw on the specialized expertise of the scientific community.
    I would note that this provision would probably leave 
relatively unaffected many scientists drawn from industry as 
much of their work is private and isn't publicly published due 
to patent concerns nor is it peer-reviewed. However, scientists 
publishing in public journals would be greatly affected, the 
academic community, the independent scientific community, and 
maybe that is the intent, but I would certainly hope not.
    Just to give an example of how absurd this provision is, if 
something similar had been applied to the Manhattan Project, 
the country's most eminent nuclear physicists would have been 
barred from advising the government. Obviously, that would have 
been disastrous and it would be no less disastrous for the 
Science Advisory Board. This is a bad provision and should be 
stricken from the bill.
    I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield the balance 
of my time.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
    The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized in 
opposition to the amendment.
    Mr. Stewart. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Once again, with respect to Ms. Edwards, I would like to 
disagree and point out the reasoning for doing so.
    This provision, it is important to understand that any 
expert can still serve on a board. We are not restricting their 
service at all. They simply can't review their own work, and 
there is a very important distinction to be made there. I 
believe the results of this amendment would be painfully 
obvious. A football team can't use their own players to referee 
their own games, and I believe that SAB Members should not be 
able to review their own work in the same way.
    It is important to note as well that the EPA's own peer-
review handbook, their own guidance makes it clear that this is 
unacceptable. Quoting from it now, ``An independent peer 
reviewer is an expert who is not associated with the generation 
of the specific work product either directly by substantial 
contribution to its development or indirectly by significant 
consultation with the development of the specific product. And 
finally, if I could, the National Academies and OMB are clear. 
Once again, individuals should not serve on advisory panels 
where they are reviewing their own work. There are numerous 
examples where regulations and ethical considerations point out 
the inconsistency and how troubling that would be if they were 
able to do that. And for those reasons, it would be impossible 
for me to support this amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Would the gentleman yield? I have a question.
    Mr. Stewart. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Edwards. I just have a question. If that is the case, 
why do you need this provision in the bill at all?
    Mr. Stewart. Help me understand what you are asking.
    Ms. Edwards. Well, if what you just read, the procedures, 
the protocols of the Science Advisory Board are, why would you 
need a provision like this to prohibit something that is 
already prohibited?
    Mr. Stewart. Because I think it makes it uniform, it makes 
it standard, and I guess I could turn the question as well: if 
they already have that guidance, why would you want to overturn 
that?
    Ms. Edwards. No, what I want to do is strike the provision 
that duplicates what the guidance is.
    Mr. Stewart. Yeah, and I think in this case, again, it just 
standardizes it and makes it common throughout, and I guess 
probably a third consideration would be the fact that in many 
cases, the EPA doesn't follow its own guidance in allowing 
those who have participated in producing the document to review 
it once again.
    Ms. Edwards. I would just ask, I mean, if your position is 
that the guidance exists but your position is that EPA isn't 
fulfilling its responsibilities, it seems to me that that is a 
point of oversight for this Committee or another committee but 
it doesn't require duplicate legislation, and the point of the 
provision is that participating in advisory activities directly 
or indirectly and not necessarily reviewing their own work.
    Mr. Stewart. It is very frustrating for many people when 
they recognize that the EPA is not following their own guidance 
on this. This is an effort for us to encourage and require them 
to do that.
    Ms. Edwards. Can you just give one example of that?
    Mr. Stewart. Well, I think I did in my opening statement 
and also in my statements in not wanting to support this 
amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Perhaps I didn't hear it. Could you repeat it? 
Would you mind repeating it?
    Mr. Stewart. You bet. During a recent CASAC review of EPA 
air quality science, 21 of 25 panelists had their work cited by 
the EPA and the chair of the CASAC panel was footnoted more 
than 80 times. The meeting minutes did not note a single 
recusal of the panelists. And one more example, the EPA's 
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis reviewed 
EPA's methodology for assessing human health effects on air 
pollution despite the fact that the chair of the panel was also 
the lead author of the critical study cited by the Agency. 
There are many----
    Ms. Edwards. Your problem is with citation?
    Mr. Stewart. No. Clearly, my examples had much more than 
citation. I will review that for you again if you would like me 
to, but it was much more than just citation, and there are many 
other examples. This is an effort by this Committee to 
encourage and to require the EPA in a more forceful way than 
they have in the past to adhere to their own standards.
    Ms. Edwards. Just for a reminder, the rule is actually 
about EPA's work product and not simply if you were the author 
of the science underlying the work. That is what the rule goes 
to.
    Chairman Smith. All right. Does the gentleman yield back 
his time?
    Mr. Stewart. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman yields back his time.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
    If not, all those in favor of the Edwards amendment, say 
aye.
    All opposed, say nay.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    We will now go to the next amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from California, Dr. Bera, and he is recognized for 
the purpose of offering an amendment.
    Mr. Bera. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Bera of 
California. In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter to be 
inserted as section 8----
    [The amendment of Mr. Bera appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read, and the gentleman from California is 
recognized to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    You know, let us take a different approach to this. My 
amendment today is simple. It is meant to ensure that ten 
percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science 
Advisory Board will include individuals from public-interest 
non-governmental organizations. Specifically, it requires that 
those individuals come from non-governmental agencies that 
represent public health, minority populations, women's issues, 
children's issues, food safety and other public interest non-
governmental organizations. It is meant to ensure a diversity 
of opinions. I think ensuring that these community-based 
organizations with public-interest missions have representation 
on the board is equally important to ensuring that ten percent 
of the board be comprised of individuals from state, local and 
tribal governments.
    The benefits that individuals who work in public-interest 
organizations can bring to a group like the Science Advisory 
Board are profound. The sole purpose of these groups is to 
protect public citizens. To ensure that they have a seat on the 
board is a grave--to not ensure that they have a seat on the 
board is a grave injustice to the needs of our population.
    As a former chief medical officer for Sacramento County, I 
fully appreciate how the advice and input of non-governmental 
organizations can offer important opinions on issues of public 
health. This amendment ensures that these vital voices are 
heard in the advice given to the EPA. This is not an expansive 
amendment. I am only seeking to require that these type of 
individuals can constitute a minimum of ten percent of the 
board. I think that is reasonable, given the diversity of 
public-interest non-governmental agencies and the disparate 
issues they are involved in. Moreover, from my personal 
experience, I know there are many technically proficient 
individuals in these public interest groups who are qualified 
to serve on the Science Advisory Board.
    I think this is a commonsense amendment, and I hope 
everyone can support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
    The gentleman from Utah is recognized.
    Mr. Stewart. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think that all of us here would support the idea that we 
want to include Membership from all walks of life, all 
backgrounds, but board Members should be selected for one thing 
and one thing only, and that is for their expertise. Their 
background and their expertise is what we would consider. I 
think it is also important to note that the amendment would 
remove and supersede existing requirements that the EPA 
advisors be selected based on once again expertise and balanced 
points of view, and I think my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle will be pleased as I quote President Reagan, who I 
know is one of their heroes as well, that in 1982 when there 
was a near-identical effort as an amendment such as this, and 
it runs counter, quoting from him, ``It runs counter to the 
basic premise of modern scientific thought as an objective 
undertaking in which the views of special interests have no 
role. The purpose of the scientific advisory board is to apply 
the universally accepted principles of scientific peer review 
to the research conclusions that will form the basis for EPA 
regulations, a function that remain above interest-group 
politics.''
    Mr. Bera. Can I make a comment?
    Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Smith. Does the gentleman yield, or yield back his 
time?
    Mr. Stewart. Absolutely, yes.
    Chairman Smith. Okay.
    Mr. Bera. From these non-governmental public agencies, they 
have to be experts on the panel. There are many experts that 
are going to come from these agencies, and there will be just 
as many experts from non-governmental organizations as our 
friend, the corporate sector and so forth, and each individual 
is going to be looked at on the merits of what they are doing. 
Again, it is obvious that they are going to be experts on the 
subject matter.
    Mr. Stewart. Again, I appreciate that, and we recognize 
that there would be many that would qualify as experts, and if 
that is the case, then I am sure that they would be selected 
for the board already.
    Chairman Smith. Okay.
    Mr. Bera. Would my colleague allow me----
    Chairman Smith. Does the gentleman continue to yield?
    Mr. Stewart. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Bera. You know, again, this amendment is meant to 
ensure a diversity of opinions that--you know, my colleague 
from Florida pointed out as well as my colleague from Maryland 
that we don't want advice just from one perspective, whether it 
is the corporate sector or the academic sector or just the 
public sector. We want that diversity of opinions so we get the 
best advice that moves forward to the EPA. And again, this is a 
commonsense amendment just to make sure we have that diversity 
of opinion.
    Mr. Stewart. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
    Are there other Members who wish to be heard?
    Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is 
recognized.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to state my 
support for Mr. Bera's amendment.
    This amendment really makes a lot of sense. I think that if 
you really want to protect the integrity of the EPA's Science 
Advisory Board, then having individuals from public-interest 
NGOs on the board would go a long way to ensuring that happens.
    The type of people who work at public-interest NGOs truly 
have the best interests of the country at heart. These are 
people who spend their lives working to protect the American 
people. From NGOs that work on public health issues to those 
who work with minority populations or on women's and children's 
issues, these NGOs touch on every aspect of the American 
experience. This good, commonsense amendment ensures that 
individuals who selflessly serve on these organizations can 
present their advice and opinions on the important issues that 
EPA SAB addresses.
    When I think of the great work that NGOs that I have dealt 
with to help further the goals of STEM education in this 
country, it reminds me of the expertise that those types of 
groups bring with them, and I hope the majority can see the 
wisdom of this amendment.
    This bill seeks to change the balance of the types of 
individuals who serve on the SAB, and surely everyone can see 
the importance of including individuals from the public-
interest NGOs. I encourage all of my colleagues on this 
Committee to support this amendment, ensuring that public-
interest NGOs have a position on the SAB.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Stewart. Yes, just very quickly, and again, I support 
and I think all of us do, the intent of this amendment. My 
problem with it is, as many of us on this side of the aisle 
have, is that the goals, although we share, we feel like this 
would make it actually less effective rather than more 
effective. The EPA already has done a commendable job in 
bringing in points of view from various backgrounds, and I 
think we should recognize that. I believe the problem I have is 
that the ten percent is arbitrary, it is difficult to justify, 
and it creates this incredibly complex matrix that they would 
have to comply with when you consider the NGOs, the public 
health, minority populations, women's issues, children's 
issues, food safety, public interest. Again, the list is very, 
very long and I think it would make it very difficult, if not 
impossible, for them to comply, to make sure every group has 
the appropriate representation, and it would lead to less 
effective SABs, which is the point of this legislation to make 
more effective SABs, and with that, I yield back m time, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
    The vote is on Mr. Bera's amendment.
    All in favor, say aye.
    All opposed, say nay.
    Mr. Bera. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Smith. In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have 
it and the amendment is not agreed to, and the gentleman from 
California is recognized.
    Mr. Bera. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Smith. A roll call vote has been requested, and 
pursuant to Committee Rule 2(f) and House Rule 112(h)(4), 
proceedings on this vote will be postponed.
    The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson, is recognized for 
the purposes of offering an amendment.
    Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Grayson of 
Maryland. In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter to be 
inserted as section 8(b)(2)(E) of the----
    [The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Florida is 
recognized to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment prohibits registered lobbyists from service 
on the Science Advisory Board. If there are any Members who 
want to extol the virtues of lobbyists and oppose this 
amendment, I would love to hear it. I will yield to him or her.
    Chairman Smith. It sounds to me like we are going to accept 
the amendment.
    Mr. Grayson. I yield the remainder of my time.
    Chairman Smith. And the gentleman yields back the remainder 
of his time.
    All in favor of the----
    Ms. Bonamici. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Smith. Yes. The gentlewoman from Oregon is 
recognized.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I support Mr. Grayson's amendment and thank him for 
bringing it forward. As I discussed when we were considering 
amendment number 2, which was broader in its intent, this is an 
important part of making sure that we have scientific integrity 
on the scientific advisory boards, and even though this 
prohibits registered lobbyists, I still have some concerns 
about others, for example, paid attorneys who are representing 
groups, so I look forward to continuing to work with the Chair 
and others going forward.
    That being said, I do support this amendment, and again, I 
thank Mr. Grayson and yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you.
    And the vote is on the Grayson amendment.
    All in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, nay.
    The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
    Does the gentleman from Florida have another amendment?
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Grayson of 
Florida. In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter to be 
inserted as section 8(b)(2)(E)----
    [The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain 
the amendment.
    Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is an amendment that prohibits an individual who has, 
or is or has been within the past year compensated by a for-
profit entity that may have an interest in the advisory 
activities of the SAB from being appointed to the board. It 
would also prohibit the appointment of an individual who has or 
has had within the past year a financial interest in a for-
profit entity that might have an interest in the advisory 
activities of the SAB from being appointed to the board.
    Both of these concepts, Mr. Chairman, have to do with the 
danger of a conflict of interest. This is a weighty problem. I 
think that many of the amendments that have been introduced 
with regard to this bill are meant to try to figure out, to 
parse out exactly what role the Science Advisory Board should 
have when people are on the board who might or actually do have 
a conflict of interest.
    I think that at the end of the day, this issue is going to 
remain unresolved. I think that if the bill moves forward 
beyond this Committee, it is going to have to be resolved.
    I will say, though, that there were extensive discussions 
between my staff and your staff with regard to this concept, 
with regard to this issue, with regard to this problem and how 
to deal with it. I think that some progress was made but not to 
the point where your staff and my staff were comfortable with 
any solution. I want to thank you for the efforts that were 
made in that regard. Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it 
doesn't but I know that good-faith efforts were made on the 
part of your staff to try to accomplish that here, and I know 
that that will remain true going forward.
    With that in mind, I withdraw the amendment.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Grayson, for those comments, 
and we will continue to discuss the issue at hand, and you 
stated it well.
    Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn, and we will 
now go to the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, for his 
amendment.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Swalwell 
of California. In section 2(a) of the bill, in the matter----
    [The amendment of Mr. Swalwell appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain 
his amendment.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment strengthens the disclosure requirements of the 
underlying bill and improves the transparency of nominees to 
the EPA's Science Advisory Board. My background, Mr. Chairman, 
is as a former prosecutor, and I found in the courtroom just as 
in this Science Advisory Board or any decision the government 
makes, it is always best for jurors or the public to have all 
of the information possible, and I believe that this amendment 
does allow more transparency and accountability. We owe it to 
the public to make it known what work the nominees have done 
and who paid for the work that was done.
    While I do have concerns about the underlying bill, I think 
this amendment makes an important clarification to the 
disclosure requirements and will keep and help ensure the 
Science Advisory Board is indeed fairly balanced and composed 
of the very best scientists this country has to offer.
    Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the work that you and your 
staff put in last evening to work with my staff late into the 
evening to have this amendment put forward and accepted, and I 
do appreciate your efforts so far to try and make this a 
bipartisan effort, and with that, I encourage all Members to 
support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell, very much, and I 
recommend we accept the amendment.
    All in favor of the Swalwell amendment, say aye.
    Opposed, nay.
    The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent 
that the reading of--that my statement be put into the record.
    Chairman Smith. And without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. The next amendment is by the gentlewoman 
from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, and she is recognized.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Bonamici 
of Oregon. In section 2(e) of the bill, in the matter to be 
inserted as section 8(i) of the Environmental Research, 
Development and Demonstration----
    [The amendment of Ms. Bonamici appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read, and the gentlewoman is recognized to 
explain the amendment.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment today is very straightforward. It is a 
simple good-government principle that seeks to increase 
transparency and expand openness in government. EPA's science 
is tied to its mission to protect public health, and we are 
fortunate that some of the best scientific minds in our 
country, that our country has to offer volunteer their 
expertise and time to serve on EPA's scientific advisory boards 
and panels.
    I understand the need for greater transparency in this 
process, and transparency increases public confidence and 
public understanding of how our government works to protect our 
health and our environment. Therefore, I am offering the 
following amendment to H.R. 1422, a bill that makes changes to 
the EPA Science Advisory Board process.
    The board has a process that addresses recusals of board 
Members when situations arise that make a recusal necessary. 
EPA follows the practice of the National Academy of Sciences, 
the National Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies 
when it comes to recusal. This amendment simply requires that 
when a Member recuses himself or herself from the Science 
Advisory Board committee or panel, that information should be 
made available to the public. This amendment is in line with 
the spirit of the bill calling for more transparency in the 
review process, and I encourage its inclusion in the bill.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
    Ms. Bonamici. I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. And we are prepared to accept the 
amendment, and appreciate your offering it. You continue to be 
recognized for the next amendment as well.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Smith. Oh, I am sorry. We didn't vote on that 
amendment.
    All in favor of the amendment, say aye.
    Opposed, nay.
    The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
    And the gentlewoman continues to be recognized.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Bonamici 
of Oregon. In section 2(e) of the bill, in the matter to be 
inserted----
    [The amendment of Ms. Bonamici appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read, and the gentlewoman is recognized.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much again, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you for working with myself and other Members of this 
Committee on this bill.
    During the legislative hearing that the Environment 
Subcommittee held on this bill, one witness, Dr. Francesca 
Grifo from the Union of Concerned Scientists, discussed with us 
recommendations that could improve the Science Advisory Board 
process, and she has a lot of expertise, having served on task 
forces and groups that looked at how this process could be 
better.
    As with my previous amendment, Dr. Grifo encouraged us to 
search for transparency and balance on these advisory boards, 
and this amendment seeks to do just that. Under current law, 
the EPA is allowed to waive conflict-of-interest requirements 
for nominees to science advisory boards, committees and panels. 
This amendment will require the EPA to disclose those decisions 
to the general public unless prohibited by other provisions of 
law. The disclosure requirements in this amendment will bolster 
public confidence in EPA's decision-making process and free 
academics from unfair accusations about the integrity of their 
perspective, and I thank the chairman for this opportunity to 
speak and again for working with us on these amendments, and I 
urge adoption of the amendment.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and with that, I yield 
back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. And we are 
prepared to accept the amendment for the reasons that the 
gentlewoman stated.
    All in favor of the amendment, say aye.
    Opposed, nay.
    The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized 
for the purposes of offering an amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Ms. Edwards of 
Maryland. At the end of section 2 of the bill, add the 
following new subsection: (f) Authorization of appropriations--
--
    [The amendment of Ms. Edwards appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read, and the gentlewoman is recognized to 
explain the amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is really a very 
straightforward amendment. The underlying bill requires that we 
add new requirements to the EPA's Science Advisory Board 
process. These new requirements will undoubtedly cost money. 
There could be some debate about how much more it will cost, 
but it is clear that the increased costs will be significant. 
In fact, during the legislative hearing, we heard from experts 
noting that there would be increased costs, responsibilities, 
and process with this language. Just the subtle changes in 
Section 2(b) will dramatically increase the workload of the 
Science Advisory Board. The Board will now have to review and 
comment on all risk and hazard assessments conducted by the 
EPA. I suspect that will multiply the amount of work the Board 
has to conduct.
    Now just to be clear, I don't support any of these new 
requirements. They appear to be aimed at slowing down or 
corrupting EPA's risk and hazard assessment process. 
Nonetheless, I think if you are going to increase the workload 
of an agency, it is incumbent on you to give the agency the 
resources it needs to accomplish the work that is required, and 
this is exactly what my amendment does. It simply says that the 
EPA administrators authorize such sums as may be necessary to 
carry out the requirements of this Act. I think it is a pretty 
reasonable amendment, and I hope everyone can support it.
    If you sincerely believe that the bill will make the 
Science Advisory Board function better, then I think you ought 
to be willing to pony up the cash to pay for it, and it is 
really that simple. I would urge adoption of the amendment and 
I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
    The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized.
    Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I address Ms. 
Edwards directly, I would like to again thank those for the 
opportunity to have supported many of the past amendments, and 
I believe that that has made--these amendments have made this 
bill stronger, and we appreciate that.
    I believe that this bill is designed to make the EPA more 
efficient and more effective, but these requirements I believe 
would incur absolutely marginal costs to the EPA, and I believe 
the agency is adequately funded in order to complete these 
requirements. The new requirements of this Act are, in fact, 
fairly nominal and I would say absolutely nominal and should 
incur minimal expenses, particularly given that most of the new 
requirements are simply allowing for more public comment or 
post of documents to the website.
    And finally, let me say this. Again, the EPA has adequate 
resources in order to do these minimal requirements. Just 
yesterday, they announced there is $54 million that would be 
saved due to the termination of outdated, underperforming, and 
duplicative EPA programs. It would seem that the costs 
associated with this bill, if any, would be miniscule compared 
even to this $54 million savings that the agency has 
acknowledged, and that would more than suffice for any 
additional financial requirements that this bill would entail.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
    Is there any further discussion?
    The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask to strike 
the last word and yield to Ms. Edwards.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I appreciate that.
    We didn't hear any testimony--for the record, we heard no 
testimony about the estimated costs. In fact, we didn't even 
hear from the EPA about the legislation. I wonder if the 
gentleman even knows how many risk or hazard assessments the 
EPA does in a year, and what is the provision costs for the EPA 
to comply with the ones that are currently done?
    And so I think that all of us, especially in this 
environment with deep fiscal constraints and concerns, should 
be concerned about adding requirements without having any idea 
at all about what those costs would be, and sort of saying 
well, just trust me. The fact is that there is additional work 
and whether it is nominal or not, there is some cost attached 
to that, and if we want the EPA to perform this additional 
work, I would think that all of us on this committee would say 
that it is our duty to make sure that the sums are available 
for them to spend on the additional work that we require. And I 
don't understand the reluctance to agree to a provision that 
simply says we are going to pay for the work that is required.
    And with that, I would yield back my time to Ms. Johnson.
    Chairman Smith. Okay, thank you, Ms. Edwards and thank you, 
Ms. Johnson.
    The vote is on the Edwards amendment. Okay, before we go 
there, is there anyone else who seeks recognition on this side? 
If not, we will go to the gentlewoman who asks to be 
recognized, gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
    Ms. Bonamici. I move to strike the last word. Thank you 
very much.
    Chairman Smith. Gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Bonamici. I am speaking in support of Ms. Edwards' 
amendment, and it is correct that we did not hear about the 
additional costs involved in this. But I want to point out that 
this bill includes a provision that the Board's report shall 
include written responses to significant comments offered by 
Members of the public to the Board. Now, there is already a 
public comment period and there--in these Science Advisory 
Board hearings, and there is already written comment that is 
submitted. However, this bill introduces a new requirement that 
the Board has to include written responses to significant 
comments. In addition to the fact that we don't know what 
significant means, this appears to be yet another way that this 
process could be delayed and slowed down so that this Science 
Advisory Board is not getting the information to the EPA. So 
there must be a cost associated with just this one portion, so 
in that regard, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in support of Ms. 
Edwards' amendment, and I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
    The vote is on the Edwards amendment.
    All in favor, say aye.
    All opposed, nay.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it and the 
amendment----
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Smith. --is not agreed to----
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Smith. --and the gentlewoman is recognized.
    Ms. Edwards. I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Smith. Roll call vote has been requested, and 
pursuant to Committee Rules and House Rules, proceedings on 
this vote will be postponed.
    The gentlewoman continues to be recognized for another 
amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment is really the sibling to my last amendment, 
although I hope this one will have a bit more support from the 
Majority.
    As we discussed before, the underlying bill we are marking 
up today adds many new costly requirements--unknown costly 
requirements to the EPA's existing Science Advisory Board 
process. However, nowhere in the bill does Congress provide any 
additional resources to the EPA to carry out these new 
requirements. My last amendment was an attempt to rectify this 
by providing authorization to the EPA for these additional 
resources, and if you didn't like that amendment, you should 
really be fine with this one, as it adds no additional money.
    The amendment simply says that Congress isn't going to pass 
an unfunded mandate on to the EPA. If the Congress doesn't 
provide the EPA with the funds necessary to carry out the newly 
created and costly requirements in the bill, then the 
administrator doesn't have to implement those requirements. I 
think it is a pretty reasonable approach.
    You know, we hear a lot of demagogy about the Federal 
workforce. Well, a lot of these people are my constituents. 
They are hardworking public servants who, in many cases, are 
making a lot less money than their private sector counterparts 
for work that is vital to our country. I think it is incumbent 
on us as legislators to provide them with the conditions they 
need to succeed, and if we tell the Federal workforce to do 
something, we should provide them with the resources to do it. 
Otherwise, we just set them up for failure, and that is a real 
disservice, not just to the hardworking public servants of the 
country, but also to the public. And since the Majority has 
apparently decided not to provide the resources necessary to 
implement the Act, then we should adopt this amendment and not 
set the EPA up for failure by imposing upon them an unfunded 
mandate. I urge the adoption of the amendment and I yield back.
    [The amendment of Ms. Edwards appears in Appendix I]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Will my colleague yield for a question?
    Ms. Edwards. Certainly. Do I have any time left?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. The points you are making about 
added costs to various agencies that ware based on what 
requirements we have, of course, those same arguments can be 
made for other people in our country whose jobs are important 
and whose companies are doing things that are important to the 
well-being of our people. Does the young lady also support the 
same principle to be acknowledged and to be put onto private 
sector mandates that the government does, that we should be 
providing the resources necessary for private companies and 
private individuals that we have now added responsibility for 
and costs for?
    Ms. Edwards. Well, I think that--number one, I think that 
that is actually not our job, but our job is in authorizing the 
Environmental Protection Agency to do its work, to provide the 
resources to do that work, and to make sure that the public 
servants who are tasked with that have adequate resources to 
report back to the Congress as envisioned----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. So I take it your answer is no?
    Ms. Edwards. I have claimed my time--and who have the 
ability to report back to the Congress under the expectation of 
work that we have set out for them. And it is simply unfair to 
impose a mandate on the Environmental Protection Agency to go 
through what may be quite an onerous process in responding to--
in written comment responding to risk assessments without 
providing the resources and the skills and the talent that is 
required to do that. You know, more than anything else, certain 
Members of this body are very concerned about costs and very 
concerned that agencies meet their obligations, and I share 
that concern, but I also think that we should provide the 
resources for it.
    And so I would urge adoption of this amendment. If you are 
not willing to allow the administrator to make a decision about 
going forward with the work without the resources, then at 
least say that it is not going to be our responsibility to 
impose on the administrator the responsibility of carrying out 
a body of activity without providing the resources to pay for 
that.
    And with that, I yield the balance of my time.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
    Is there any further discussion? The gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment really addresses one of my deepest concerns 
about this bill. I am very disappointed that the Majority has 
not provided the means to pay for the new requirements it 
created for the Science Advisory Board in this bill, and since 
the Majority does not support providing the EPA with the 
authorization, just to make sure that we at least understand 
that we are adding additional chores and responsibilities, we 
should at least authorize--not appropriate, but authorize for 
the work, at the very least support the simple and common sense 
amendment.
    This amendment only seeks to ensure good government would 
allow EPA to avoid carrying out these new regulatory burdens 
unless the Congress provides the monies to fund them. We find 
this to be becoming rather common that we overload our agencies 
with lots of responsibility, but we do not supply them with the 
adequate resources to do it. There is a simple principle at 
work here. You should pay for what you buy. In this case, the 
Majority has sought to buy about additional governmental 
services without paying for the services. As every child is 
taught, it is wrong to take without paying. This amendment 
seeks to right that unfairness by ensuring that the EPA doesn't 
have to provide these additional services unless the Congress 
is willing to pay for them. On a simple principle of fairness, 
I fully support this amendment and urge my colleagues to adopt 
it.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    The question is on the Edwards amendment.
    All in favor, say aye.
    All opposed, say nay.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Smith. And the gentlewoman is recognized.
    Ms. Edwards. I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Smith. Roll call vote has been requested and 
pursuant to Committee Rules and House Rules, proceedings on 
this vote will be postponed.
    The next amendment will be offered, I believe, by the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson, and he is recognized.
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Grayson of 
Florida. At the end of the bill----
    [The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read and the gentleman is recognized to explain 
the amendment.
    Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    There is a uniform law called the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act that applies to this Board and literally over 
1,000 other boards throughout the Federal Government. The 
purpose of this amendment is to ensure that we don't balkanize 
the law that applies to such bodies. I say this, recognizing 
that this could provoke a lengthy conversation between myself 
and Congressman Rohrabacher about the Balkans. I hope it 
doesn't, because he may know more about the Balkans than I do.
    Chairman Smith. Will the gentleman yield? Will the 
gentleman yield to me, not to Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Grayson. I yield.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman offers a good amendment, and 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
    All in favor of the amendment, say aye.
    Opposed, nay.
    The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    The gentleman from Florida continues to be recognized.
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Grayson of 
Florida. At the end of the bill, add the following new section, 
Section 3, relation to the ethics and government----
    [The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read and the gentleman is recognized to explain 
the amendment.
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, this is the last amendment 
before us today, and my staff has prepared an amazing and 
scintillating justification for this amendment, and I yield the 
remainder of my time----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield----
    Chairman Smith. No, no, no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. --for a question on the Balkans?
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Florida continues to be 
recognized.
    Mr. Grayson. And I yield the remainder of my time.
    Chairman Smith. We thank Mr. Grayson for doing that. It is 
a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
    All in favor of the last Grayson amendment, say aye.
    Opposed, nay.
    The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    Now, if everyone will stay in place, we are going to 
proceed through the roll call votes that were rolled.
    Pursuant to the Chairman's previous order, we will now 
proceed to the postponed roll call votes. The Committee will 
vote on postponed matters in the order in which the roll call 
votes were requested.
    The next item is the postponed roll call on the amendment 
offered by Mr. Bera of California, amendment 454 to the bill 
H.R. 1422, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Chairman Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Broun?
    Mr. Broun. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes no.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes no.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Posey?
    Mr. Posey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes no.
    Mrs. Lummis?
    Mrs. Lummis. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lummis votes no.
    Mr. Schweikert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Massie?
    Mr. Massie. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes no.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cramer votes no.
    Mr. Bridenstine?
    Mr. Bridenstine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bridenstine votes no.
    Mr. Weber?
    Mr. Weber. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes no.
    Mr. Stewart?
    Mr. Stewart. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stewart votes no.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
    Ms. Bonamici?
    Ms. Bonamici. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes aye.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    Mr. Swalwell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Swalwell votes aye.
    Mr. Maffei?
    Mr. Maffei. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Maffei votes aye.
    Mr. Grayson?
    Mr. Grayson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy?
    Mr. Kennedy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy votes aye.
    Mr. Peters?
    Mr. Peters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Peters votes aye.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    Mr. Kilmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes aye.
    Mr. Bera?
    Mr. Bera. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes aye.
    Ms. Esty?
    Ms. Esty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes aye.
    Mr. Veasey?
    Mr. Veasey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes aye.
    Ms. Brownley?
    Ms. Brownley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brownley votes aye.
    Mr. Takano?
    Mr. Takano. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes aye.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    Chairman Smith. Gentleman from Texas votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no. I am sorry, Mr. 
Neugebauer votes no.
    Chairman Smith. Okay, and the gentleman from Arizona is 
recognized.
    Mr. Schweikert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schweikert votes no.
    Chairman Smith. Are there other Members who wish to cast 
their vote or change their vote? The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Stockman, is recognized.
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stockman votes no.
    Chairman Smith. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 16 Members voted aye, 21 Members 
voted nay.


    Chairman Smith. The nays have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    The other unfinished business of the Committee is the 
postponed roll call on the amendment offered by Ms. Edwards of 
Maryland, amendment number 453 to the bill H.R. 1422, and the 
clerk will call the roll on that amendment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Chairman Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Broun?
    Mr. Broun. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes no.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes no.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stockman votes no.
    Mr. Posey?
    Mr. Posey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes no.
    Mrs. Lummis?
    Mrs. Lummis. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lummis votes no.
    Mr. Schweikert?
    Mr. Schweikert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schweikert votes no.
    Mr. Massie?
    Mr. Massie. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes no.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cramer votes no.
    Mr. Bridenstine?
    Mr. Bridenstine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bridenstine votes no.
    Mr. Weber?
    Mr. Weber. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes no.
    Mr. Stewart?
    Mr. Stewart. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stewart votes no.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
    Ms. Bonamici?
    Ms. Bonamici. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes aye.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    Mr. Swalwell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Swalwell votes aye.
    Mr. Maffei?
    Mr. Maffei. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Maffei votes aye.
    Mr. Grayson?
    Mr. Grayson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy?
    Mr. Kennedy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy votes aye.
    Mr. Peters?
    Mr. Peters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Peters votes aye.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    Mr. Kilmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes aye.
    Mr. Bera?
    Mr. Bera. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes aye.
    Ms. Esty?
    Ms. Esty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes aye.
    Mr. Veasey?
    Mr. Veasey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes aye.
    Ms. Brownley?
    Ms. Brownley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brownley votes aye.
    Mr. Takano?
    Mr. Takano. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman, 16 Members voted, aye, 21 Members voted nay.
    
    
    Chairman Smith. Okay. Majority having voted against the 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
    We have two more votes, one on an amendment and one on 
final passage.
    The next roll call vote is on the amendment offered by Ms. 
Edwards of Maryland, amendment number 450 to the bill H.R. 
1422, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Chairman Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Broun?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes no.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stockman votes no.
    Mr. Posey?
    Mr. Posey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes no.
    Mrs. Lummis?
    Mrs. Lummis. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lummis votes no.
    Mr. Schweikert?
    Mr. Schweikert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schweikert votes no.
    Mr. Massie?
    Mr. Massie. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes no.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cramer votes no.
    Mr. Bridenstine?
    Mr. Bridenstine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bridenstine votes no.
    Mr. Weber?
    Mr. Weber. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes no.
    Mr. Stewart?
    Mr. Stewart. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stewart votes no.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
    Ms. Bonamici?
    Ms. Bonamici. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes aye.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    Mr. Swalwell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Swalwell votes aye.
    Mr. Maffei?
    Mr. Maffei. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Maffei votes aye.
    Mr. Grayson?
    Mr. Grayson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy?
    Mr. Kennedy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy votes aye.
    Mr. Peters?
    Mr. Peters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Peters votes aye.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    Mr. Kilmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes aye.
    Mr. Bera?
    Mr. Bera. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes aye.
    Ms. Esty?
    Ms. Esty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes aye.
    Mr. Veasey?
    Mr. Veasey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes aye.
    Ms. Brownley?
    Ms. Brownley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brownley votes aye.
    Mr. Takano?
    Mr. Takano. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes aye.
    Mr. Broun. Mr. Chair, I am not recorded.
    Chairman Smith. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized, and 
how is he recorded?
    Mr. Broun. No.
    The Clerk. He has not been recorded.
    Mr. Broun. No.
    Chairman Smith. He votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes no.
    Chairman Smith. Are there other Members who wish to vote or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 16 Members voted aye, 21 Members 
voted nay.


    Chairman Smith. Majority having voted against the 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
    We will go to our last item of unfinished business of the 
Committee today, and that is the postponed roll call vote on 
the bill H.R. 1422, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Chairman Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
    Mr. Broun?
    Mr. Broun. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes aye.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes aye.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stockman votes aye.
    Mr. Posey?
    Mr. Posey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes aye.
    Mrs. Lummis?
    Mrs. Lummis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lummis votes aye.
    Mr. Schweikert?
    Mr. Schweikert. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schweikert votes aye.
    Mr. Massie?
    Mr. Massie. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes aye.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cramer votes aye.
    Mr. Bridenstine?
    Mr. Bridenstine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bridenstine votes aye.
    Mr. Weber?
    Mr. Weber. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes aye.
    Mr. Stewart?
    Mr. Stewart. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stewart votes aye.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
    Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes no.
    Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes no.
    Ms. Bonamici?
    Ms. Bonamici. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes no.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    Mr. Swalwell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Swalwell votes no.
    Mr. Maffei?
    Mr. Maffei. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Maffei votes no.
    Mr. Grayson?
    Mr. Grayson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy?
    Mr. Kennedy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy votes no.
    Mr. Peters?
    Mr. Peters. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Peters votes no.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    Mr. Kilmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes no.
    Mr. Bera?
    Mr. Bera. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes no.
    Ms. Esty?
    Ms. Esty. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes no.
    Mr. Veasey?
    Mr. Veasey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes no.
    Ms. Brownley?
    Ms. Brownley. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brownley votes no.
    Mr. Takano?
    Mr. Takano. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes no.
    Chairman Smith. Are there any Members who wish to vote or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 21 Members voted aye, 16 Members 
voted nay.


    Chairman Smith. Majority having voted aye, the bill is 
agreed to.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table and I move that the bill H.R. 1422 as amended be 
favorably reported to the House and the staff be authorized to 
make any necessary technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Before we adjourn, I do want to thank the Members who 
attended today's markup. We had a great turnout, and I regret 
that the bills themselves were not bipartisan, but we did have 
a number of bipartisan amendments that I feel improved both 
bills, and I thank the Members for offering those.
    There being no further discussion, this concludes the full 
Committee markup, and without objection, the Committee stands 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]