Depleting Risk from Insect Infestation, Soil Erosion, and Catastrophic Fire Act

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to also thank the ranking member, my friend from Oregon. We disagree on this bill, as it will become evident through this debate today, but she has always been respectful and professional, and I appreciate that.

The issues we are debating today are important, and the decisions we will make today are significant. There is a process that is broken, and it is through this bill that we cannot only improve that process, but also restore trust between the American people and the Federal Government.

If I could reemphasize what I just said, the process is broken. This is an opportunity for us to restore trust between the American people and the Federal Government that has fostered so much distrust of late.

Established by Congress in 1978, the EPA's Science Advisory Board, or what we refer to as 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 EPA's research budget to individual chemical assessments.

This panel is indispensable in critically reviewing the underlying science of virtually all major EPA regulatory activities. That is a tall order in recent years, especially given the fact that the Agency has pursued an overreaching, economically threatening agenda, creating an environment where politics and policies have taken the wheel from unbiased science.

This bill contains basic, good government changes and draws upon noncontroversial provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee handbook, the EPA's own Peer Review Handbook, the National Academies' committee composition and conflict of interest policy, and even recommendations from the Science Committee testimony and other outside groups.

It has widespread support from groups such as the National Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, the American Chemistry Council, the American Gas Association, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, Portland Cement Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, and I could go on and on with a long list of councils and associations that support this legislation.

It makes important clarifying changes to the scope of SAB's purview and institutes commonsense reforms. I would like to emphasize this. You are going to hear this again and again today: commonsense reforms to improve transparency. How can you argue against that? It specifically builds upon the bipartisan agreement made to the SAB in the farm bill.

H.R. 1422 would also facilitate meaningful public participation across all of the standing committees. Once again, let me emphasize that: it facilitates meaningful public participation. And let's be clear. The transparency and the public participation concerns addressed in this bill are not without merit.

For example, in my own experience, during a hearing in the Science Committee last year, I was alarmed to hear from both SAB members and the chair of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and a State official testify that EPA's science advisers virtually never respond to public comments and, in many cases, they don't even read these public comments. Imagine the arrogance of a government committee that pretends to seek public

comment and promises to consider those comments, and then to learn that they don't even read them, let alone consider what has been said. This bill would change that.

This bill also provides clarity to the 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, and tribal entities and private sector scientists from serving as advisers.

For example, last year EPA announced a new Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel. Even though dozens of people with recent and direct experience with oil and gas technical developments were nominated, the EPA excluded nearly every one of them from serving on the panel.

There are also a number of other unsettling Agency trends about how the EPA selects its supposedly independent advisers. For instance, according to the Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of the members of EPA's chartered SAB and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee have directly received grants from the Agency, and that is only since the year 2000. These advisers served as principal or co- investigators for EPA grants, totaling approximately $140 million. The EPA also frequently chooses panelists whose research is directly or indirectly under review.

And finally, in addition, many of the SAB panelists have clearly taken sides or made public pronouncements on issues they are advising about. For example, roughly 40 percent of the current panel members reviewing the science behind upcoming EPA ozone standards have already made statements that the regulations should be more stringent.

The issues identified in this bill seem to many as too specific and diving into the weeds, but credible peer review is critical to everything the EPA does. We may not be able to control all the EPA's regulatory overreach, but guaranteeing that there is an independent check whose sole focus is to provide unbiased, independent science is essential to the process.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I recognize the gentleman from Texas, I would like to respond briefly, if I could, to the minority Member, some of her comments regarding this bill.

The bill very clearly does not allow for the SAB to be stacked, to use her phrase, with the industry experts. I have the bill before me. It is only a couple of pages long. It is very simple. I would ask anyone to show me the language where it allows for the SAB to be stacked with industry experts.

All we are asking is that there be some balance to those experts who are asked and that there, further, be transparency, and that we understand who is selected, why they were selected, and why others were excluded from this, just like, by the way, we are not asking that those scientists who have EPA-funded backgrounds be excluded. We are not saying that they are conflicted to the point where they couldn't participate. We recognize that they have expertise that could help in this process.

But we also are asking, on the other hand, that we recognize that there are industry experts who are currently being excluded from this because of their background. Of the 51 members of the current SAB, only three--only three--have any industry expertise, and we are losing valuable insight and valuable guidance because we don't include them in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to some of the comments made on the other side of the aisle.

All of us would be concerned if we thought we were getting advice that had been conflicted financially. I share that concern. In fact, that was one of the primary reasons that we wrote this bill. This bill, to say it again, seeks for transparency and it seeks for openness.

If you are worried about industry experts being stacked on the SABs and providing biased opinion and expertise, I would ask you to give me an example of this. Because I can give you an example of exactly the opposite happening.

I will say it once again: 60 percent of the current Members of the SAB have $140 million in direct government grants. Now, that is a clear conflict. And yet once again, we are still willing to work with that. We are not seeking to exclude those members; we are simply seeking for transparency and openness, and for that same standard to be applied to industry experts as well who could help us with their background and their expertise.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Well, once again, I just have to respond to some of the things that the opposition is saying.

This is essentially their argument: we think it is okay that 60 percent of SAB members have $140 million in direct government grants, and we think it is okay that those same members are then allowed to provide their own peer review of their own work. That is okay.

I think it is very commonsensical to realize there are inherent objections and inherent conflicts in allowing that sort of structure to continue to exist.

It is not gutting the EPA, as was claimed, to ask to increase transparency. It is not gutting the EPA to ask for balance. That is all this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), my good friend.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Tennessee, I would very quickly like to make a point. Once again, all we are seeking is fairness and transparency, and the opposition is claiming that it is okay for government-sponsored and - granted scientists to sit on this board.

In fact, it is okay that 60 percent of them have tens of millions of dollars of government funding, but it is not okay for anyone from the industry, and it is completely transparent how unfair that standard would be.

The second point I would make is this: we are not claiming that either of them should be forbidden to serve on these boards. We are just asking that they disclose those financial agreements and let the American people decide, and that certainly seems to be a fair standard and hardly the minimum that we could ask.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my good friend.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, there are three things that we should keep in mind. The current content or makeup of the SAB is somewhere between 51 and 52 members because there are some in transition as new members come and go. Of those, let's say, 52, only nine are nonuniversity background, and of those, only five and sometimes six represent industry.

The industry experts have much to offer. If you don't think that, say, for example, with the hydraulic fracking board that that technology is changing rapidly, it certainly is, and we need to take advantage of that.

The second thing I would say is public comment. The American people are smart, and the American people are those that are most affected by some of the standards and the rules that the EPA would suggest. We should listen to them, and this bill allows a process where they can be listened to.

Finally, the third thing, we are requesting that 10 percent--a mere 10 percent of these board members come from State, local, or tribal governments. That hardly seems like a bar that is too high to cross in getting input from lay States and localities.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my comrade.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, but before I do, though, I would like to enter into the Record the letters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others that I mentioned in my previous testimony.

Chamber of Commerce

of the United States of America,

Washington, DC, November 18, 2014.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as

well as state and local chambers and industry associations,

and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending

America's free enterprise system, supports H.R. 1422, the

``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.'' This bill

would help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB),

which directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) on scientific and technical issues, is unbiased

and transparent in performing its duties.

The bill would establish requirements that SAB members are

qualified experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of

bias are disclosed, that the views of members--including

dissenting members--are available to the public, and that the

public has the opportunity to participate in the advisory

activities of the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA

relies on SAB reviews and studies to support new regulations,

standards, guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions,

the actions of the SAB must be transparent and accountable.

This is a critical safeguard to assure the public that the

data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically sound and

unbiased.

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the

transparency and trustworthiness of scientific and technical

reviews that EPA relies on to justify its actions. The

American public must have confidence that the scientific and

technical data driving regulatory action can be trusted.

Accordingly, the Chamber supports H.R. 1422.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for considering my bill, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

To reiterate what has been said multiple times here, this legislation addresses how the EPA is systematically silencing voices of dissent on the Science Advisory Board, ignoring calls for independence and balanced participation, and preventing the board from responding to congressional requests.

Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues. However, when inconvenient scientific conclusions are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible, and that is certainly what we have seen.

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act addresses these shortcomings by strengthening public participation and public comment opportunities and improving the makeup of the Science Advisory Board and its subpanels.

The bill reinforces peer review requirements and reduces conflicts of interest. It provides opportunities for the dissenting panelists to make their views known and requires communication of uncertainties and scientific findings and conclusions.

The Science Advisory Board Reform Act promotes fairness, transparency, and independence to ensure unbiased scientific advice. Surely, that is something that we could ask for the American people. Surely, that is something

that the opposition could support. In fact, surely, that is something that the White House would support.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this matter, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Smith and Mr. Schweikert, for their intention to improve the EPA's Science Advisory Board, and I thank them for working with me on other legislation that passed the Science Committee in the House on a bipartisan basis. It is unfortunate that we could not be repeating that bipartisan collaboration today.

My colleagues who support H.R. 1422 may describe this bill as an attempt to strengthen public participation in EPA's scientific review process, improve the process for selecting expert advisers, expand transparency requirements, and limit nonscientific policy advice within EPA's Science Advisory Board. All of these are good government principles that I agree with.

If this bill achieved those goals, I would be here today supporting it. However, on close examination of its provisions, H.R. 1422 would not achieve these good government goals. Instead of improving the Science Advisory Board structure or operation, the bill before us today will likely limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives and further delay EPA's regulatory process.

H.R. 1422 would make it easier for industry representatives to serve on a board, even if they have a financial conflict of interest. To be clear, and this is something with which I trust my Republican colleagues would agree, I am not opposed to industry experts participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer-review process at the EPA. In fact, their insight into processes and industry can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body.

That being said, Congress should not be endorsing legislation that undermines longstanding ethics requirements and practices with the end result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on EPA's Science Advisory Board, and that is likely to be the result of this bill today.

At the same time this bill eases the way for more industry members, the act also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the best and brightest from academia to serve because it would exclude from the board anyone who has participated in activities that were even indirectly reviewed by the EPA.

This provision would disqualify some of the most qualified scientists because academic researchers frequently need to compete for research funds from the Federal Government, and that includes the EPA.

Additionally, it appears H.R. 1422 would also significantly delay the work of the Science Advisory Board with new provisions that would require written responses to significant public comments following new public information-gathering sessions, a requirement that is duplicative because the board meetings are already open to the public and have time set aside for public comment. These provisions would simply result in more work without more resources and unlimited time to halt, derail, or slow EPA actions.

Finally, this bill sets a quota for membership on the Scientific Advisory Board from State, local, or tribal governments, which could very well mean that more qualified experts would not be able to serve.

EPA's science is tied to its mission, to protect public health and the environment through rational regulation. Scientific research, knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental to EPA's mission and inform its regulatory functions.

The need for that expertise is why Congress created advisory bodies such as the Science Advisory Board in the first place, to provide independent advice on the science underpinning regulation, which in turn allows the EPA Administrator to make sound regulatory decisions.

Instead of undermining the scientific advice EPA receives, we should be giving the Agency the tools they need to strengthen and improve the regulatory process with sound science.

In closing, I want to again thank my colleagues, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Schweikert, for their efforts.

This bill does not do what it needs to do. I want to quote from a letter I received from a coalition of organizations, including Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Water Action, and more. The letter states:

The bill shifts the current presumption against including

people with financial conflicts on SAB panels . . . The

bill's provisions are inconsistent with a set of nearly

universally accepted scientific principles to eliminate or

limit financial conflicts.

I agree with this assessment of H.R. 1422, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I yield, I will place into the Record letters from various groups opposed to this bill, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, among many others.

In addition, I will place into the Record the Administration's Statement of Administration Policy on the bill threatening a veto if the bill were to pass.

Union of Concerned Scientists,

Cambridge, MA, November 17, 2014.

Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists

strongly opposes the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of

2013, H.R. 1422, set to be voted on by the House as early as

November 18. This bill will cripple the Environmental

Protection Agency's ability to protect public health informed

by the best available science.

When he discussed his proposal last year, Rep. Chris

Stewart (UT) revealed the real purpose of his bill. He

attacked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for

``promulgating air quality regulations that could shut down

large swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled attacks

on the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job-

killing climate regulations. . . .''

This proposal will make it nearly impossible for the Board

to do the crucial independent evaluations of EPA scientific

analyses that enable the agency to protect public health.

This bill opens the door for more corporate influence on the

Board, because the bill directly stipulates that experts with

financial ties to corporations affected by SAB assessments

are ``not excluded.'' This signal likely will increase the

number of conflicted SAB panelists empowering companies to

delay the SAB's work for years, if not decades. It strikes at

the heart of the whole concept of independent reviews, and at

a time when the ability of corporations to influence policy

is already high.

At the same time this bill encourages corporate experts to

join the SAB, it creates roadblocks for academic experts to

meaningfully participate by banning experts' participation in

``advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve

review and evaluation of their own work.'' This effectively

turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head, with the

bizarre presumption that corporate experts with direct

financial interests are not conflicted while academics who

work on these issues are.

The notion that a member of the SAB cannot participate in a

discussion that cites the member's own work is

counterproductive and goes far beyond the common-sense limits

imposed by the National Academies. Of course, a scientist

with expertise on topics the Science Advisory Board addresses

likely will have done peer-reviewed studies on that topic.

That makes the scientist's evaluation more valuable, not

less.

The bill offers almost limitless opportunities for public

comment, opportunities that only benefit moneyed special

interests. For example, for each major advisory activity, the

Board must convene a public information-gathering session

``to discuss the state of the science'' related to that

activity.

It is possible, under this requirement, that the Board may

find itself repeatedly reexamining ``the state of the

science'' on climate change or the harmful effects of certain

toxins--each time it made an assessment that touched on

either climate change impacts or reducing air pollution.

In addition, both the EPA, before it asks for the Board's

advice, and the Board itself, would be required to ``accept,

consider, and address'' public comments on the agency's

questions to the Board. As the SAB deliberates, it must also

encourage public comments ``that shall not be limited by an

insufficient or arbitrary time restriction.'' In effect,

these provisions turn a scientific evaluation into a public

hearing, even though EPA must already accept public input on

all its regulations.

The Board is required to respond in writing to each

``significant'' comment. In practice, it is difficult to see

how the Board could impose any deadlines on accepting

comment. Nor is it a reasonable expectation on the Board's

membership of pro bono experts.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that

implementing the law's mandates will cost the EPA about $2

million over a four-year period. These are funds that could

be put to much better use by a cash-strapped agency.

This bill would not improve the work of the Board, and

would make it more difficult for the EPA to receive the

independent science advice it needs to do its work. We

strongly urge your opposition.

Sincerely,

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,

Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of

Concerned Scientists.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I just want to respond that, certainly, we on this side of the aisle agree with

the goal of transparency. However, transparency does not mean letting industry, people with a financial interest, serve by disclosing it. That is not what transparency means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera), who is not only a physician but a great member of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). I also want to mention that not only is Mr. Holt a scientist and a great Member of Congress but also has been named, starting in February of 2015, the new CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to respond, with all due respect, to my colleagues who are promoting this bill and asking for balance.

On the contrary, what this bill achieves is not balance because, as explained, under this bill, people who are employed by the industry with a financial conflict of interest can serve as long as they disclose their conflict.

That is in contrast to current practice, which is biased, which is balanced by membership, but people with financial conflicts of interest do not currently serve on this Science Advisory Board.

Just to clarify, it isn't just that people who are employed by industry with a financial conflict of interest will be able to serve; under this bill, people who receive some type of grant cannot participate.

Now, just to clarify, these are not government employees. These are employees of research institutions, universities, who may have received some government grant funding. They are not employed by the government. They are not government employees, and that is a big distinction. They are not beholden to any particular government agency, so that is the big difference.

I agree that we should have balance and transparency, but unfortunately, this bill takes us in the wrong direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The bill before us today does undertake the laudable goal of improving transparency at the EPA.

However, as I stated previously and as my colleagues mentioned, this bill, as written, does not accomplish that goal; instead, H.R. 1422 will increase the influence of industry on EPA decisionmaking, including industry members with a financial conflict of interest, while reducing the role of qualified academic researchers in helping to guide regulatory action that is based on sound science.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said:

At the same time, this bill encourages corporate experts to

join the SAB. It creates roadblocks for academic experts

to meaningfully participate by banning experts'

participation and advising activities that directly or

indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own

work.

This effectively turns the idea of conflict of interest on

its head with the bizarre presumption that corporate experts

with direct financial interests are not affected, while

academics who work on these issues are.

Breast Cancer Action wrote:

This bill's overly broad restriction, that a member of the

SAB cannot participate in a discussion that cites the

member's own work, is counterproductive and goes far beyond

the commonsense limits imposed by the National Academies.

Of course, a scientist with expertise on topics that SAB

addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies and

other work on that topic. That makes the scientist's

evaluation more valuable, not less.

Mr. Speaker, we can and should work together to improve EPA's approach to reviewing the science underpinning regulations, but this legislation will only damage and delay the process and not bring us the transparency my colleagues seek.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Chris Stewart, former Chairman of the Science Committee's Environment Subcommittee, for his hard work on this important piece of legislation. H.R. 1422, The Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures balanced and transparent review of regulatory science.

Specifically, it strengthens the Board's independence so that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot further its regulatory ambitions under the guise of science.

Costly regulations often lead to a loss of jobs and higher electricity bills and gasoline prices for Americans.

The EPA has an extensive track record of twisting the science to justify their actions. Behind the scenes, however, there is a review process that was intended to provide a critical check on the Agency's conclusions.

The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was intended to provide a meaningful, balanced, and independent assessment of the science that supports the Agency's regulations. Unfortunately, this vision is not being realized.

The EPA undermines the Board's independence and prevents it from providing advice to Congress. As a result, the valuable advice these experts can provide is wasted.

At a time when the Agency is pursuing the most aggressive regulatory agenda in its 44 year history, it is critical that the Board function as intended.

Despite the existing requirement that EPA's advisory panels be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,'' the Science Committee has identified a number of problems that undermine the panel's credibility and work product. These include:

A majority of the members of EPA's key advisory panels have received money from the EPA. Often the research they are reviewing is directly related to the money they received. This creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Many of the panelists have taken very public and even political positions on issues they are advising about. For example, a lead reviewer of EPA's hydraulic fracturing study plan published an anti- fracking article entitled ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.'' This is clearly not an objective viewpoint.

Public participation is limited during most Board meetings; interested parties have almost no ability to comment on the scope of the work--and meeting records are often kept secret.

The EPA routinely excludes private sector experts while stacking the review panels with individuals who will give the EPA the answer it wants.

H.R. 1422 expands transparency requirements, improves the process for selecting expert advisors, and strengthens public participation requirements.

The bill requires that uncertainties in the Agency's scientific conclusions be communicated and limits the SAB from providing partisan policy advice.

This legislation is pro-science. It restores the SAB as an important defender of scientific integrity. These common sense reforms will make EPA's decisions more credible and balanced.

I thank the gentleman froth Utah, Mr. Stewart for his leadership on this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking member.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. H.R. 1422 is a continuation of the majority's anti- science agenda. It benefits no one but the industry, and it harms public health.

The bill before us today ``reforms'' EPA's Science Advisory Board not for the better, but for the worse. The supposed intent of H.R. 1422 is to improve the process of selecting advisers to serve on the Agency's advisory board, but, in reality, H.R. 1422 will allow the board to be stacked with industry-affiliated representatives while making it more difficult for the experts from academia to serve on the board.

The role of the board is to provide independent scientific analysis and advice to the EPA, which includes reviewing the quality and relevance of scientific information used as the basis for regulations.

My Republican colleagues seem to have a fundamental distrust of scientists from our Nation's universities because these researchers, the ones with the most relevant expertise to EPA's mission of protecting public health, are denied the opportunity to provide EPA with their advice under H.R. 1422. It is difficult to understand how anyone could object to the most expert academics in the country being called on to offer their expertise to EPA. Who would know better whether EPA had mischaracterized the science on an issue than the people who are leaders in their respective fields?

The board is supposed to be composed of experts, including those who may have, literally, ``written the book'' on a matter. What is the alternative? Should we find people to serve who are less expert?

Equally troubling, H.R. 1422 goes out of its way to guarantee that industry-affiliated experts are the dominant voice on the board of experts. An expert with an industry association is far more likely to find that the science they are asked to review will have a financial impact on the employer. Academic scientists do not have such financial conflicts of interest with the board's advice or EPA's actions.

To be clear, I am not arguing that industry should have no representation on EPA's Science Advisory Board. Their insight is valuable. But I do not support stacking the board with industry representatives, as would be the outcome if this bill passes.

Another goal of H.R. 1422, as stated by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is to ``improve the science that goes into EPA regulations.'' H.R. 1422 falls shorts of that goal as well and, instead, weakens and delays the scientific review process, putting the health of every American at risk.

As a former nurse, I cannot support legislation that endangers public health, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1422.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this bill came out of committee without a single Democratic vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Oregon. I rise in opposition to this legislation, H.R. 1422, as yet another attempt to gut the EPA and to reform it into an advocate for industry.

Now, the proponents make claims that sound noble and virtuous, like increasing transparency and participation.

But make no mistake: the bill is simply a way to increase the role and influence of special interests, to tip the scales in favor of these special interests, and to decrease actual scientific input into the EPA decisions and rulemaking.

Let me try to explain what is wrong here. Take, for example, the section in this bill that limits participation of board members who have relevant expertise.

Now, EPA has an advisory board whose job it is to review scientific and technical information being used as a basis for agency regulations. However, section 2 of this bill states: ``Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work.''

Now, what does that worthy-sounding clause mean? Here is how it has been explained to me. If the EPA board member is a leading scientist in a field and has published works that are well cited by other scientists and works that would be used to establish the scientific findings affecting possible regulations, that board member would be prohibited from reviewing any such materials before the board related to her or his expertise because it draws on the scientific work of that person.

Now, I realize Congress sometimes has trouble dealing with expertise, but this bill is a solution in search of a problem. The EPA advisory board does and should use science; not industry science, not government science--science.

Science works so well and provides the most reliable knowledge because it is based on evidence, the validity of which is determined by other scientists in the free exchange of information. Expertise and influence of a claim in science and its application shouldn't be determined by the highest bidder or the politically most powerful.

The science should be allowed to operate. This restricts it or would restrict it if this were to become law.

Now, to make this bill even worse, while the bill would exclude experts advising in areas of their expertise, it would allow people with corporate or special-interest bias to affect the rulemaking if they only state their affiliation.

Now, while it sounds good to say you are increasing transparency, in reality

this simply strengthens the role of special interests--biased interests--in the process.

I urge all Members to carefully review the language and think about these implications. I think they will come to a decision to vote ``no.''