[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EPA ADVISORY COMMITTEES:
HOW SCIENCE SHOULD INFORM DECISIONS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-38
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-035PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina,
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee Ranking Member
DON BEYER, Virginia ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas, Ranking
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania Member
PAUL TONKO, New York BRIAN BABIN, Texas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BEN McADAMS, Utah JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
DON BEYER, Virginia Rico
C O N T E N T S
July 16, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Ralph Norman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Roger Marshall, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 18
Written statement............................................ 19
Witnesses:
Mr. J. Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Dr. Thomas A. Burke, Jacob I. and Irene B. Fabrikant Professor
and Chair in Health Risk and Society, Bloomberg School of
Public Health, Johns Hopkins University
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, Professor Emerita, Humphrey School of
Public Affairs, University of Minnesota
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Dr. Jonathan Samet, Dean, Colorado School of Public Health
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 53
Discussion....................................................... 84
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. J. Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office............. 102
Dr. Thomas A. Burke, Jacob I. and Irene B. Fabrikant Professor
and Chair in Health Risk and Society, Bloomberg School of
Public Health, Johns Hopkins University........................ 104
Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, Professor Emerita, Humphrey School of
Public Affairs, University of Minnesota........................ 108
Dr. Jonathan Samet, Dean, Colorado School of Public Health....... 113
EPA ADVISORY COMMITTEES:
HOW SCIENCE SHOULD INFORM DECISIONS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
joint with the Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mikie
Sherrill [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time. Good afternoon, and welcome to today's joint hearing
of the Investigations and Oversight and Environment
Subcommittees. I'm pleased to be here with my colleagues,
Ranking Member Norman, Chair Fletcher, and Ranking Member
Marshall. We're here today to discuss the vital role that
advisory committees play in ensuring the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) actions are informed, and supported
by the best available science.
Advisory committees have been, and continue to be, involved
in issues of great importance to the advancement of knowledge,
and the development of national policies and regulations. The
EPA currently has 22 Federal advisory committees that provide
advice to the EPA Administrator and other senior leaders on a
variety of environmental and health issues. These committees
consist of subject-matter experts who bring a range of skills
and insight. The committee can include scientists, economists,
health officials, and business leaders. Federal law, through
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA, formalizes a
process to ensure advice is solicited in an objective and
transparent manner, and it requires each committee to be
balanced in terms of the points of view and the functions to be
performed. It's essential that these committees aid the EPA in
fulfilling its mandate to protect human health and the
environment.
Unfortunately, over the course of the last 2-1/2 years
we've seen a multi-pronged attack on these committees. In 2017,
former Administrator Pruitt barred EPA grant holders, some of
the most prominent researchers in their fields, from serving on
advisory committees. Administrator Pruitt claimed this was to
prevent conflicts of interest, but he did not prohibit people
who are paid by the industries that the EPA regulates, an
arguably greater conflict of interest, from serving on advisory
committees. Administrator Pruitt also broke precedent and
declined to renew the memberships of advisory committee members
whose terms had not expired, flushing out years of experience,
and bringing in a number of climate deniers and unqualified
individuals, which weakens the quality and integrity of the
advice the advisory committee offers.
The attack on advisory committees at the EPA continued with
the Administration's manipulations of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee, or the CASAC. CASAC was established by
Congress on a bipartisan basis as part of the 1977 amendments
to the Clean Air Act. The architects of those amendments, Ed
Muskie of Maine and Howard Baker of Tennessee, recognized a
generation ago how important independent science advice would
be to informing EPA's air quality programs. And, as I see it,
healthy air to breathe remains a bipartisan concern for
Congress. Unfortunately, last October Administrator Wheeler
dismissed the Particulate Matter Review Panel of CASAC. This
specialized 24-member panel was instituted under CASAC's
authority to ensure that research on particulate matter, a
known health hazard, was adequately reviewed before setting an
updated health standard. Administrator Wheeler instead tasked
the seven member CASAC with reviewing the science, even though
it lacks an epidemiologist, among other vital specialties.
In April, CASAC wrote a letter to Administrator Wheeler
stating that they are ill equipped to review the draft
assessment of particulate matter (PM), and requesting that he
reinstate the expert sub-panel. However, the Administrator
still has not acknowledged this request, and on Monday the EPA
informed committee staff that there still is not a plan in
place to respond to CASAC's letter, let alone to re-establish
the expert panel. It's concerning that EPA intends to develop
health standards based on the advice of a committee that itself
admits it's underqualified to review the relevant science.
This month the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
issued a report outlining another mode of attack on advisory
committees--the appointment process. GAO found that for two
committees, the EPA Science Advisory Board and CASAC, EPA
disregarded its own procedures for evaluating advisory
committee candidates, and failed to assess nominees' financial
disclosure reports. This undermines the transparency and
integrity we expect from these important expert panels, and I
look forward to hearing more about these findings from our GAO
witness here today, Mr. Gomez.
The attack on science extends beyond the EPA. On June 14
the White House released an executive order requiring agencies
to cut one-third of the FACA committees instituted under their
purview. We know this won't save the government any money
because it's an experiment that we have tried before. When a
similar order was issued in the 1990s by President Clinton's
Administration, it actually drove costs up by 3 percent. It
appears that this order is an attempt to hinder agencies'
ability to solicit objective, transparent, expert advice.
So, I'm pleased to welcome our witnesses appearing here
today. Before us we have individuals with a wealth of
experience on EPA's vital scientific advisory committees, and I
look forward to hearing about how these committees inform EPA's
important work, and we can ensure the Agency is best serving
the American people. So thank you for your willingness to
appear before our Subcommittee, and for this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Sherrill follows:]
Good morning, and welcome to today's joint hearing of the
Investigations and Oversight and Environment Subcommittees. I'm
pleased to be here with my colleagues, Ranking Member Norman,
Chair Fletcher, and Ranking Member Marshall.
We're here today to discuss the vital role that advisory
committees play in ensuring EPA's actions are informed and
supported by the best available science. Advisory committees
have been and continue to be involved in issues of great
importance to the advancement of knowledge and the development
of national policies and regulations. The EPA currently has 22
Federal advisory committees that provide advice to the EPA
administrator and other senior leaders on a variety of
environmental and health issues. These committees consist of
subject matter experts who bring a range of skills and insight.
The committee can include scientists, economists, health
officials, and business leaders. Federal law, through the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA, formalizes a process
to ensure advice is solicited in an objective and transparent
manner, and it requires each committee to be balanced in terms
of the points of view and the functions to be performed. It is
essential that these committees aid EPA in fulfilling its
mandate to protect human health and the environment.
Unfortunately, over the course of the last two and a half
years, we have seen a multi-pronged attack on these committees.
In 2017, former Administrator Pruitt barred EPA grant holders -
some of the most prominent researchers in their fields - from
serving on advisory committees. Administrator Pruitt claimed
this was to prevent conflicts of interest, but he did not
prohibit people who are paid by the industries that EPA
regulates - an arguably greater conflict of interest - from
serving on advisory committees. Administrator Pruitt also broke
precedent and declined to renew the memberships of advisory
committee members whose terms had not expired, flushing out
years of experience and bringing in a number of climate deniers
and unqualified individuals, which weakens the quality and
integrity of the advice the advisory committee offers.
The attack on advisory committees at the EPA continued with
the Administration's manipulations of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee, or CASAC. CASAC was established by Congress
on a bipartisan basis as part of the 1977 amendments to the
Clean Air Act. The architects of those amendments - Ed Muskie
of Maine and Howard Baker of Tennessee - recognized a
generation ago how important independent science advice would
be to informing EPA's air quality programs. And as I see it,
healthy air to breathe remains a bipartisan concern for
Congress.
Unfortunately, last October, Administrator Wheeler
dismissed the Particulate Matter Review Panel of CASAC. This
specialized 24-member panel was instituted under CASAC's
authority to ensure that research on particulate matter - a
known health hazard - was adequately reviewed before setting an
updated health standard. Administrator Wheeler instead tasked
the seven-member CASAC with reviewing the science, even though
it lacks an epidemiologist, among other vital specialties.
In April, CASAC wrote a letter to Administrator Wheeler,
stating that they are ill-equipped to review the draft
assessment of particulate matter and requesting that he
reinstate the expert subpanel. However, the Administrator still
has not acknowledged this request. On Monday, EPA informed
Committee staff that there still is not a plan in place to
respond to CASAC's letter, let alone to reestablish the expert
panel. It is concerning that EPA intends to develop health
standards based on the advice of a committee that admits it is
unqualified to review the relevant science.
This month, the Government Accountability Office issued a
report outlining another mode of attack on advisory committees
- the appointment process. GAO found that for two committees,
the EPA Science Advisory Board and CASAC, EPA disregarded its
own procedures for evaluating advisory committee candidates and
failed to assess nominees' financial disclosure reports. This
undermines the transparency and integrity we expect from these
important expert panels. I look forward to hearing more about
these findings from our GAO witness today, Mr. Gomez.
The attack on science extends beyond EPA. On June 14, the
White House released an executive order requiring agencies to
cut one third of the FACA committees instituted under their
purview. We know this won't save the government any money,
because this is an experiment we have tried before. When a
similar order was issued in the nineties by President Clinton's
administration, it actually drove costs up by 3 percent. It
appears that this order is an attempt to hinder agencies'
ability to solicit objective, transparent, expert advice.
I'm pleased to welcome our witnesses appearing here today.
Before us we have individuals with a wealth of experience on
EPA's vital scientific advisory committees. I look forward to
hearing about how these committees inform EPA's important work,
and we can ensure the Agency is best serving the American
people. Thank you for your willingness to appear before our
Subcommittees for this hearing.
Chairwoman Sherrill. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Norman
for an opening statement.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, and Chairwoman
Fletcher, for convening this hearing. We're here today to
discuss the current state of the Federal advisory committees,
specifically at the EPA, and the appointment process for these
committees. Unfortunately, this hearing is less of a
discussion, rather than just another example of partisan
politics, unfortunately. By limiting the scope of this hearing
specifically to the EPA, the majority has prevented us from
conducting oversight of other agencies within our jurisdiction.
But even the narrow focus of the EPA wasn't enough. While
the Science Advisory Board, the SAB, the Board of Scientific
Counselors, the BOSC, and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committees, the CASAC, are all represented here today, they
seem to be the only ones that we'll be discussing. Along with
EPA's other advisory committees, the SAB and the CASAC build
scientific consensus, and provide input and recommendations
from the EPA's diverse stakeholders.
While our witnesses do valuable work for their panels, they
only represent three of EPA's 22 committees. That means, in a
hearing about EPA's advisory committees, 19 committees are
unrepresented, as well as every other agency's Federal advisory
committees. Why are we limiting this hearing, when so many more
panels fall within the Science Committee's jurisdictions? My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be using this
opportunity as a thinly veiled cover to simply attack the EPA
and this Administration's effort to improve the selection
process.
Today we'll hear about how academics are supposedly being
kicked off these committees, and the critical steps were
overlooked in the appointment process. But, upon further
examination of the data, including data produced by the GAO in
their report, I believe this Committee needs to carefully
examine the facts around these misleading assumptions. The
purpose of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA, is clear.
Committees should be fairly balance in expertise and points of
view. Yet, in 2017, 77 percent of SAB members represented
academia. Having over three-fourths of a panel affiliated with
one stakeholder group doesn't strike me as being balanced. It
is clear to me that EPA's leadership followed the direction of
the law as they worked to restore balance to this critical
committee.
We will also discuss GAO's findings that 20 members of SAB
and CASAC were appointed without EPA staff providing a
membership grid with recommendations. While this step is
detailed in EPA's internal policy guidelines, no law was
broken, and no mismanagement occurred. Instead, senior
officials at the EPA replaced this step with a more rigorous
process, where the Administrator was thoroughly briefed on the
qualification of multiple candidates. It is the Administrator's
job to set guidance, and ensure the Agency can achieve its
goals. We should be applauding him for taking the time to
examine each candidate, and, in an effort to do better, the
appointment process. I also want to commend the Science
Advisory Board Staff Office, the SABSO, for their diligent work
to ensure the best candidates are chosen to serve on the FACs.
Sadly, these individuals are not present as we evaluate whether
the new review process is effective.
The rushed nature of this hearing is disappointing, yet not
surprising to me. Members of this Committee were given limited
time to review the GAO's report, which was released 24 hours
ago. I want to thank Mr. Gomez for being here to walk us
through it, but I know we could've had a more productive
discussion if we all had time to read it and understand it. I'm
sure we'll have another hearing on President Trump's executive
order on Federal advisory committees, so why we rushed to hold
this narrow Subcommittee hearing is beyond me, when, in just a
week or two, we would've had more knowledge, could involve more
members, and have a broader debate. The only answer I came to
is that the majority would've missed the chance to take another
partisan swing at the Trump Administration. Moving forward, I
hope we can take a more holistic approach, and allow Members
the time to review the data before jumping to skewed
conclusions.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norman follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill and Chairwoman Fletcher, for
convening this hearing.
We are here today to discuss the current state of Federal
advisory committees, specifically at the EPA, and the
appointment process for these committees.
Unfortunately, this hearing is less of a discussion, rather
just another example of partisan politics. By limiting the
scope of this hearing ``specifically'' to the EPA, the majority
has prevented us from conducting oversight of other agencies
within our jurisdiction.
But even the narrow focus on the EPA wasn't enough. While
the Science Advisory Board (SAB), the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC), and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) are all represented here today, they seem to
be the only ones we'll be discussing.
Along with EPA's other advisory committees, the SAB and
CASAC build scientific consensus and provide input and
recommendations from EPA's diverse stakeholders.
While our witnesses do valuable work for their panels, they
only represent three of EPA's 22 committees.
That means - in a hearing about EPA's advisory committees -
19 committees are unrepresented, as well as every other
agencies' Federal Advisory Committees
Why are we limiting this hearing when so many more panels
fall within the Science Committee's jurisdiction? My colleagues
on the other side of the aisle seem to be using this
opportunity as a thinly veiled cover to simply attack the EPA
and this Administration's effort to improve the selection
process.
Today, we'll hear about how academics are supposedly being
kicked off these committees and that critical steps were
overlooked in the appointment process. But upon further
examination of the data, including data provided by GAO in
their report, I believe this Committee needs to carefully
examine the facts around these misleading assumptions.
The purpose of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is
clear: committees should be fairly balanced in expertise and
points of view. Yet, in 2017, 77% of S-A-B members represented
academia.
Having over three-fourths of a panel affiliated with one
stakeholder group doesn't strike me as balanced. It is clear to
me that EPA leadership followed the direction of the law as
they worked to restore balance to this critical committee.
We'll also discuss GAO's finding that 20 members of SAB and
CASAC were appointed without EPA staff providing a membership
grid with recommendations. While this step is detailed in EPA's
internal policy guidelines, no law was broken and no
mismanagement occurred.
Instead, senior officials at the EPA replaced this step
with a more rigorous process, where the Administrator was
thoroughly briefed on the qualifications of multiple
candidates.
It is the Administrator's job to set guidance and ensure
the agency can achieve its goals. We should be applauding him
for taking the time to examine each candidate in an effort to
better the appointment process.
I also want to commend the Science Advisory Board Staff
Office (SABSO), for their diligent work to ensure the best
candidates are chosen to serve on FACs. Sadly, these
individuals are not present as we evaluate whether the new
review process is effective.
The rushed nature of this hearing is disappointing, yet not
surprising, to me. Members of this Committee were given limited
time to review GAO's report, which was released just 24 hours
ago.
I thank Mr. Gomez for being here to walk us through it, but
I know we could have had a more productive discussion if we all
had time to read it and understand it.
I'm sure we will have another hearing on President Trump's
Executive Order on Federal Advisory Committees.
So why we rushed to hold this narrow subcommittee hearing
is beyond me, when in just a week or two, we would have more
knowledge, could involve more members, and have a broader
debate? The only answer I came to is that the majority would
have missed the chance to take another partisan swing at this
Administration.
Moving forward, I hope that we can take a more holistic
approach and allow members the time to review the data before
jumping to skewed conclusions.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And the Chair now
recognizes the Chair for the Subcommittee on the Environment,
Mrs. Fletcher, for an opening statement.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Good afternoon. I would like to join
Chairwoman Sherrill in welcoming all of our witnesses to
today's hearing on advisory committees at the EPA. The EPA is,
at its core, a public health agency. It works to protect all
Americans, especially the vulnerable populations from polluted
air, water, and soil. The EPA promulgates environmental
standards and protections that are informed by the most
cutting-edge science. Much of this science is conducted at the
Agency by dedicated career scientists and engineers, and
through extramural research grants funded by the EPA. However,
a critical component to ensuring the best science is utilized
by the Agency is through expert advisory committees and boards
that provide external advice and recommendations on a variety
of topics.
Advisory committees have long played a vital role in the
Federal Government to supplement the knowledge of Federal
agencies by providing additional expertise. The advisory
committee process is an opportunity for public engagement and
Federal decisionmaking, as meetings are generally accessible to
the public. As Chairwoman Sherrill discussed, Congress,
understanding the need for independent scientific advice to
inform the EPA Administrator's regulatory decisionmaking,
established the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or
CASAC, and the EPA Science Advisory Board, SAB. These
committees allow EPA to broaden its access to additional
scientific expertise not contained within the Agency itself.
Scientific advisory committees at the EPA provide advice
and recommendations that are used to inform research,
regulation standards, compliance, and enforcement functions of
the Agency. The CASAC plays a critical role in reviewing the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, by calling
upon specialized expertise to ensure that the most robust and
relevant science is used to protect the air that we breathe.
The Science Advisory Board, by far the largest advisory
committee at the EPA, provides feedback on science throughout
the Agency's decisionmaking process, while the Board of
Scientific Counselors, or BOSC, informs the EPA's science and
research priorities.
Appointment to these and other advisory boards at the EPA
has historically been considered a great honor, a recognition
of the member's preeminence and expertise in the field. We are
fortunate to have three such experts who have served as members
and chairs of CASAC, SAB, and the BOSC as part of our
distinguished witness panel today. My colleague expressed
frustration that other committees are not present at this
hearing, and I would like to note that the minority, as always,
was given an opportunity to invite whomever they saw fit, and
declined. Further, I believe this panel is more than qualified
to address the matter at hand. Mr. Gomez has presented the
facts on the grounds from his thorough audit of the Agency, and
our three other witnesses bring years of experience of public
service, both within and outside the Agency. I do anticipate
that there will be future hearings on these issues, and
encourage the minority to take all future opportunities to
invite witnesses to these important hearings.
Given the clear role the advisory committees play in
helping the EPA meet its mission, the finding of the GAO's
report yesterday raises serious concerns, and identified
problems with the three committees that are before us today.
The deficiencies in the appointment process found for the SAB
and CASAC are very troubling, as these committees are
responsible for reviewing the science that underpins many
Agency decisions that directly impact public health.
According to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, members of
these boards should be clear of conflicts of interest, and meet
the highest ethical standards before joining advisory
committees. EPA's inconsistent compliance with its own ethics
policy related to advisory committee members raises doubts
about the Agency's actions. The American people should feel
confident that all our agencies, including and especially the
EPA, are operating in their best interest--protecting them, not
sidelining transparency as a means to an end. The President's
recent executive order, purportedly to improve Federal advisory
committees, does not seem to have a basis for requiring the
termination of one-third of Agency advisory committees, and
instituting a limit of committees across the Federal
Government. I want to commend Chairwoman Johnson for asking the
agencies within this Committee's jurisdiction how they plan on
implementing this order so we can try to ensure that valuable
scientific expertise is not indiscriminately cut because of
arbitrary limits.
The EPA is responsible for protecting public and
environmental health through the application of strong science
to environmental and regulatory decisions throughout the
Agency. Baseless attempts to modify, change, and, in some
cases, undermine the Agency's established process to accomplish
this goal should be of concern to us all. I look forward to
discussing the troubling findings of this GAO report, as well
as hearing from our other distinguished witnesses, who have
served on multiple advisory committees and the EPA, how these
findings will impact the future of science at the Agency. With
that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Fletcher follows:]
Good afternoon. I would like to join Chairwoman Sherrill in
welcoming all of our witnesses to today's hearing on advisory
committees at the EPA.
The EPA is at its core a public health agency. It works to
protect all Americans, especially the most vulnerable
populations, from polluted air, water, and soil. The EPA
promulgates environmental standards and protections that are
informed by the most cutting-edge science. Much of this science
is conducted at the Agency by dedicated career scientists and
engineers, and through extramural research grants funded by the
EPA. However, a critical component to ensuring the best science
is utilized by the Agency is through expert advisory committees
and boards that provide external advice and recommendations on
a variety of topics.
Advisory committees have long played a vital role in the
Federal Government to supplement the knowledge of Federal
agencies by providing additional expertise. The advisory
committee process is an opportunity for public engagement in
Federal decision-making, as meetings are generally accessible
to the public. Congress, understanding the need for independent
scientific advice to inform the EPA Administrator's regulatory
decision making, established the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee, or CASAC, and the EPA Science Advisory Board, or
SAB. These committees allow EPA to broaden its access to
additional scientific expertise not contained within the Agency
itself.
Scientific advisory committees at the EPA provide advice
and recommendations that are used to inform research,
regulations, standards, compliance, and enforcement functions
of the Agency. The CASAC plays a critical role in reviewing the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS by calling
upon specialized expertise to ensure that the most robust and
relevant science is used to protect the air we breath. The
Science Advisory Board, by far the largest advisory committee
at the EPA, provides feedback on science throughout the
Agency's decision-making process, while the Board of Scientific
Counselors, or BOSC, informs the EPA's science and research
priorities.
Appointment to these, and other, advisory boards at the EPA
has historically been considered a great honor; a recognition
of the member's preeminence and expertise in the field. We are
very fortunate to have three such experts who have served as
members and Chairs of the CASAC, SAB, and the BOSC, as part of
our distinguished witness panel today.
Given the clear role advisory committees play in helping
EPA meet its mission, the findings of the GAO's report released
yesterday raise serious concerns. The deficiencies in the
appointment process found for the SAB and CASAC are very
troubling as these committees are responsible for reviewing the
science that underpins many Agency decisions that directly
impact public health. According to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, members of these boards should be clear of
conflicts of interest and meet the highest ethical standards
before joining advisory committees. EPA's inconsistent
compliance with its own ethics policy related to advisory
committee members raises doubts about the Agency's actions. The
American people should feel confident that all our agencies,
including and especially the EPA are operating in their best
interest, protecting them - not sidelining transparency as a
means to an end.
The President's recent Executive Order purportedly
``improve'' Federal advisory committees does not seem to a have
a basis for requiring the termination of one-third of Agency
advisory committees and instituting a limit of committees
across the Federal Government. I want to commend Chairwoman
Johnson for asking the agencies within this Committee's
jurisdiction how they plan on implementing this Order so that
we can try to ensure that valuable scientific expertise is not
indiscriminately cut because of arbitrary limits.
The EPA is responsible for protecting public and
environmental health through the application of strong science
to environmental and regulatory decisions throughout the
Agency. Baseless attempts to modify, change, and in some cases
undermine, the Agency's established processes to accomplish
this goal should be of concern to us all.
I look forward to discussing the troubling findings of this
GAO report, as well as hearing from our other distinguished
witnesses who have served on multiple advisory committees at
the EPA, how these findings will impact the future of science
at the Agency.
And with that I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes
the Ranking Member for the Subcommittee on Environment, Mr.
Marshall, for an opening statement.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Sherrill, and
Ranking Member Norman, for holding this hearing. First and
foremost, I'd like to address what seems to be the elephant in
the room, President Trump's executive order on Federal advisory
committees. While not explicitly stated as part of the purpose
of this hearing, I think we can all see the majority's
intention is to make this hearing a chance for former EPA
advisory members to defend the charter of their committee. As
Mr. Norman mentioned, we all agree EPA's major advisory
committees, these mandatory committees, especially the Science
Advisory Board, and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,
play a strategic role in carrying out the mission to protect
human health and the environment. No one's proposing we
eliminate those mandatory panels, or the critical input they
provide to the Agency.
But the President's executive order isn't focused on these,
or any other committee authorized by Congress. It doesn't even
direct agencies to keep or terminate any particular committee.
It's focused on halting wasteful spending, and improving the
quality of our advisory committees governmentwide. President
Trump's executive orders direct each agency to review their
advisory committees, eliminate one-third of their discretionary
advisory committees, and caps the total number of discretionary
committees at 350 across the Federal Government. From what I've
seen in the media, people take this to mean President Trump is
trying to eliminate hundreds of advisory committees because he
doesn't value the science they provide. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The executive order clearly states that
one-third of discretionary advisory committees should be
eliminated. Discretionary advisory committees are those
committees created by an agency head at some point, not through
law or executive order. Based on the text of the executive
order, EPA would need to eliminate just two committees to
comply.
Next let's address the impact of capping the total number
of discretionary committees at 350. Currently there are over
1,000 Federal advisory committees. Again, let's look at those
actual words in the executive order, which states that the cap
applies only to discretionary committees. At present there are
just over 400 discretionary committees. Eliminating 50
committees, especially as there has not been a systemic review
in 26 years, does not seem like a daunting challenge to me. I
think it's important to note that President Reagan issued a
memorandum similarly to this in 1985, and President Clinton
issued an executive order in 1993 requiring the exact same one-
third elimination as President Trump. So, historically,
ensuring we are maximizing the use of our Federal advisory
committees has been a bipartisan effort. It's critical that we
review advisory committees to ensure their alignment with the
current needs and mission of this Agency. Think about how
science can change in just a few years: 26 years ago the first
smartphone was still a decade away from introduction, and now
it seems that everyone is able to use one. This executive order
will help Federal agencies re-evaluate their needs, and focus
on the future of science, not the needs of the past.
The final issue to highlight is what appears to be a narrow
and limiting scope of this hearing. The Science Committee has
jurisdiction over $42 billion in Federal research and
development, including numerous agencies with Federal advisory
committees. If my colleagues in the majority were genuine about
examining how science informs decisions at Federal agencies,
we'd be hearing from representatives from other agencies like
NASA, Department of Energy, and the National Science
Foundation. Each of these have their own advisory committees
with unique needs and challenges. Narrowing the focus on this
hearing to just EPA, which only has 2 percent of the Federal
advisory committees, is puzzling. I'd also like to mention that
the two EPA committees we will talk about the most today, SAB
and CASAC, are authorized by statute, and therefore ineligible
to be eliminated by the EPA Administrator under the executive
order. I believe there is a need to conduct oversight of the
1,000 advisory committees currently in operation, as well as
the $400 million these committees cost the taxpayer each year.
That's $400,000 per committee, by my math.
I encourage my colleagues in the majority work with us to
conduct meaningful oversight of these committees, and the best
way to manage them efficiently and effectively. Instead, we
find ourselves here today, focused on the smallest fraction of
our Committee's jurisdiction. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]
Thank you for holding this hearing, Chairwoman Sherrill and
Ranking Member Norman.
First and foremost, I'd like to address what seems to be
the elephant in the room: President Trump's Executive Order on
Federal Advisory Committees. While not explicitly stated as
part of the purpose for this hearing, I think we can all see
the majority's intention is to make this hearing a chance for
former EPA advisory members to defend the charter of their
committee.
As Mr. Norman mentioned, we all agree EPA's major advisory
committees, especially the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), play a
strategic role in carrying out the mission to protect human
health and the environment.
No one is proposing we eliminate those panels or the
critical input they provide to the Agency.
But the President's Executive Order isn't focused on those,
or any other committee authorized by Congress. It doesn't even
direct agencies to keep or terminate any particular committee.
It is focused on halting wasteful spending and improving the
quality of our advisory committees government-wide.
President Trump's Executive Order directs each agency to
review their advisory committees, eliminate one-third of their
discretionary advisory committees, and caps the total number of
discretionary committees at 350 across the Federal Government.
From what I've seen in the media, people take this to mean
President Trump is trying to eliminate hundreds of advisory
committees because he doesn't value the science they provide.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Executive Order clearly states that one-third of
discretionary advisory committees should be eliminated.
Discretionary advisory committees are those committees created
by an agency head at some point, not through law or executive
order. Based on the text of the Executive Order, EPA would need
to eliminate just two committees to comply.
Next let's address the impact of capping the total number
of discretionary committees at 350. Currently, there are just
over 1,000 Federal Advisory Committees. Again, let's look at
the actual words in the Executive Order, which state that the
cap applies only to discretionary committees. At present, there
are just over 400 discretionary committees. Eliminating 50
committees - especially after there has not been a systematic
review in 26 years - does not seem like a daunting challenge to
me.
I think it's important to note that President Reagan issued
a memorandum similar to this in 1985, and President Clinton
issued an executive order in 1993 requiring the exact same one-
third elimination as President Trump. So historically, ensuring
we are maximizing the use of our Federal Advisory Committees
has been a bipartisan effort.
It is critical that we review advisory committees to ensure
their alignment with the current needs and mission of each
agency. Think of how science can change in just a few years.
Twenty-six years ago, the first smartphone was still a decade
away from introduction - and now everyone seems to always be on
one. This executive order will help Federal agencies reevaluate
their needs and focus on the future of science, not the needs
of the past.
The final issue I'd like to highlight is what appears to be
a narrow and limiting scope of this hearing. The Science
Committee has jurisdiction over $42 billion in Federal research
and development, including numerous agencies with Federal
advisory committees.
If my colleagues in the majority were genuine about
examining how science informs decisions at Federal agencies, we
would be hearing from representatives from other agencies like
NASA, the Department of Energy, and the National Science
Foundation. Each of these has its own advisory committees with
unique needs and challenges. Narrowing the focus of this
hearing to just the EPA, which only has 2% of all Federal
Advisory Committees, is puzzling to me.
I'd also like to mention that the two EPA committees we
will talk about the most today, SAB and CASAC, are authorized
by statute and therefore ineligible to be eliminated by the EPA
Administrator under the Executive Order.
I believe there is a need to conduct oversight of the 1,000
advisory committees currently in operation, as well as the $400
million these committees cost the taxpayer each year.
I encourage my colleagues in the majority to work with us
to conduct meaningful oversight of these committees and the
best way to manage them efficiently and effectively. Instead,
we find ourselves here today, focused on the smallest fraction
of our Committee's jurisdiction. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And we are honored today to
have the Full Committee Chairwoman, Ms. Johnson, with us today.
The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman for an opening
statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, and let me thank
both Chairs, and both Ranking Members. I'd like to join you
also in welcoming our witnesses this afternoon. In fact, we
have a panel full of familiar faces today. Every member of our
distinguished panel has offered their expertise to this
Committee in the past, and I'm honored to welcome some of you
back, and some of the most esteemed voices in environmental and
health science in the Nation. Thanks to each of you for your
tireless work, both in academia and on various EPA advisory
committees. And thanks to you, Mr. Gomez of the GAO, for
ensuring these important committees operate effectively.
Science advisory committees are crucial to ensuring the
best science informs all aspects of decisionmaking at the
Environmental Protection Agency. They provide the expertise
that allows us to be sure we are protecting the health of
Americans and our environment to the best of our ability. It
has been troubling to observe these important committees being
dismantled and manipulated over the past 2-1/2 years. The most
recent blow to advisory committees was an executive order
issued by the President in June. This order directed agencies
to cut one-third of FACA committees not established by Congress
or the President. It also caps the total number of FACA
committees at 350 across the Federal Government. Such
directives are clumsy at best, and malicious at worst. There's
no reason to presume that one-third of the committees have
exhausted their usefulness. A cap on committees serves only to
create a barrier for agencies to solicit expert advice in a
transparent manner.
Last week, I did send a letter to science agencies
inquiring about the metrics they will use to determine which
committees to cut. I look forward to reviewing these responses.
I hope that the White House will reconsider this harmful order,
which serves only to decrease the transparency of the advice
solicited by agencies across the government. I would be remiss
not to mention the circumstances under which Dr. Swackhamer
joined us the last time she testified before this Committee.
Just as today, Dr. Swackhamer testified in her capacity as an
independent scientist back in 2017. However, days before the
hearing, she was contacted by an EPA political official, who
had somehow obtained a copy of her prepared remarks, and
encouraged her to edit her testimony in a manner I consider to
be misleading. I hope Dr. Swackhamer has not experienced
similar interference in her preparation to join us here today.
Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a final report on
this matter from the EPA Inspector General. I look forward to
hearing from all of you. Transparency and the application of
credible science is a cornerstone of environmental and public
health protections. I look forward to working with my
colleagues, and today's distinguished witnesses, to ensuring
that EPA continues to value these principles. Thank you, and I
yield back to Congresswoman Sherrill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Thank you to both our Chairs, and I would like to join you
in welcoming our witnesses this afternoon. In fact, we have a
panel full of familiar faces today - every member of our
distinguished panel has offered their expertise to this
Committee in the past, and I'm honored to welcome back some of
the most esteemed voices in environmental and health science in
the nation. Thank you to each of you for your tireless work
both in academia and on various EPA advisory committees. And
thank you to Mr. Gomez of the GAO for ensuring these important
committees operate effectively.
Science advisory committees are crucial to ensuring the
best science informs all aspects of decision making at the
Environmental Protection Agency. They provide the expertise
that allows us to be sure we are protecting the health of
Americans and our environment to the best of our ability. It
has been troubling to observe these important committees being
dismantled and manipulated over the past two and a half years.
The most recent blow to advisory committees was the
Executive Order issued by the President in June. This order
directed agencies to cut one third of FACA committees not
established by Congress or the President. It also caps the
total number of FACA committees at 350 across the Federal
Government. Such directives are clumsy at best and malicious at
worst - there is no reason to presume that one third of
committees have exhausted their usefulness. A cap on committees
serves only to create a barrier for Agencies to solicit expert
advice in a transparent manner. Last week, I sent a letter to
science agencies inquiring about the metrics they will use to
determine which committees to cut. I look forward to reviewing
their responses. I hope the White House will reconsider this
harmful order which serves only to decrease the transparency of
the advice solicited by agencies across the government.
I would be remiss not to mention the circumstances under
which Dr. Swackhamer joined us the last time she testified
before the Committee. Just as today, Dr. Swackhamer testified
in her capacity as an independent scientist back in 2017.
However, days before the hearing, she was contacted by an EPA
political official who had somehow obtained a copy of her
prepared remarks and encouraged her to edit her testimony in a
manner I consider to be misleading. I hope Dr. Swackhamer has
not experienced similar interference in her preparation to join
us here today.
Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a final report on
this matter from the EPA Inspector General. I look forward to
hearing from them.
Transparency and the application of credible science is a
cornerstone of environmental and public health protections. I
look forward to working with my colleagues, and today's
distinguished witnesses, to ensuring the EPA continues to value
these principles.
Thank you, and I yield back to Chairwoman Sherrill.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And if there are Members
who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point. At this
time I would like to introduce our witnesses.
Mr. Alfredo Gomez is the Director of Natural Resources and
Environment at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. His
office authored the recently released GAO report, ``EPA
Advisory Committees: Improvements Needed For the Member
Appointment Process,'' which we will be discussing today.
Dr. Thomas Burke is a professor, and the Chair in Health
Risk and Society at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at
Johns Hopkins University. Prior to his current position, Dr.
Burke served as the EPA Science Advisory and Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Research and Development from January 2015 to
January 2017. He also served on EPA's Science Advisory Board,
and is a founding member of the Board of Scientific Counselors.
Next we have Dr. Deborah Swackhamer. Dr. Swackhamer is a
Professor Emerita at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey
School of Public Affairs. Previously, she served in a number of
scientific advisory positions, including Chair of the EPA
Science Advisory Board from 2008 to 2012, and Chair of the
Board of Science Counselors from 2015 to 2017.
And, last, we have Dr. Jonathan Samet, the Dean of the
Colorado School of Public Health. Dr. Samet served as Chair of
the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee from 2008 to
2012. And we will start with Mr. Gomez.
TESTIMONY OF J. ALFREDO GOMEZ,
DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT,
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Gomez. Chairwomen Sherrill and Fletcher, Ranking
Members Norman and Marshall, and Members of the Subcommittee,
good afternoon. I'm pleased to be here. My statement today
summarizes key findings from our report on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's process for appointing
members to the Federal advisory committees it manages under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. These committees play an
important role at EPA by providing advice that helps the Agency
develop regulations, accredit laboratories, and manage research
programs, among other activities. Our report describes EPA's
established process for appointing members to serve on EPA
advisory committees. It evaluates the extent to which EPA
followed its process for Fiscal Year 2017 through March 2018,
and describes how, if at all, EPA's advisory committees changed
after January 2017. As it's been noted, at the time of our
report EPA had 22 advisory committees, and the way we conducted
our work, we reviewed relevant Federal laws, regulations, and
guidance, and reviewed all EPA appointment documentation for 17
of the 22 committees that appointed members for Fiscal Years
2017 through March 2018.
With regards to the first finding, EPA has established--has
an established process for appointing advisory committee
members that involves three main phases: Soliciting
nominations, evaluating candidates, and obtaining approvals
from relevant EPA offices before the Administrator, or Deputy
Administrator, makes final decisions. This process is laid out
in the Agency's ``Federal Advisory Committee Handbook.'' Each
phase involves several steps. For example, a key step for
evaluating candidates involves EPA preparing documents that
reflect staff recommendations on the best qualified and most
appropriate candidates for achieving balanced committee
membership.
In evaluating the extent to which EPA followed its process,
we found that EPA followed its process for all of the
committees we reviewed, except for two: The EPA Science
Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
EPA did not follow a key step for appointing 20 members to
these two committees. We found that the appointment packets for
these two committees did not contain documents to reflect staff
recommendations on the best qualified and most appropriate
candidates to serve on advisory committees, which is called for
in the EPA's established process. Instead of developing these
documents, EPA stated that they held a series of briefings with
senior management. EPA management then decided whom to appoint
after reviewing the entire list of personnel nominated for
committee membership. EPA stated that this change is within the
discretion of the Administrator, and was a more robust process.
We agree that conducting such briefings is within the
discretion of the Administrator. However, it remains that, for
these two committees, EPA did not follow its established
committee appointment process that I just described. If it had
followed its established process, staff assessments of the best
qualified candidates would have been documented in a
transparent way in the appointment packets. In addition, EPA
would have had better assurance that its committee appointment
procedures were uniform, as encouraged by the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
Last, we looked at how the committees changed across the
two most recent Presidential Administrations. We were only
looking for notable changes, which we described as a 20
percentage point difference. We looked at four committee
characteristics: Committee composition, regional affiliation,
membership turnover, and number of committee meetings held. We
found notable changes in all of the characteristics, except in
the number of committee meetings held, for four of the advisory
committees. For example, we found that the percentage of
academics serving on EPA's Science Advisory Board decreased by
27 percent from January 2017 to March 2018.
In summary, we made two recommendations to EPA. One was
that EPA follow its committee appointment process for all of
its advisory committees. The second was for EPA to strengthen
oversight of its ethics program. So, Chairwomen Sherrill and
Fletcher, and Ranking Members Marshall and Norman, this
completes my statement. I'd be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gomez follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. Next the Chair recognizes
Dr. Thomas Burke for his remarks.
TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS A. BURKE,
JACOB I. AND IRENE B. FABRIKANT PROFESSOR AND
CHAIR IN HEALTH RISK AND SOCIETY,
BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Dr. Burke. Thank you for the opportunity to address the
Subcommittees today. I'm Dr. Tom Burke, Professor at Johns
Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health. I speak
today as an individual, and my views don't necessarily
represent those of Johns Hopkins University, or Johns Hopkins
Health System. Before joining the Hopkins faculty, I worked as
a New Jersey State official, serving as the Director of Science
for the Department of Environmental Protection, and then as
Deputy Commissioner of Health for the State. Most relevant to
today's topic, from 2015 to 2017, I was the EPA Science
Advisor, and Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development.
Science has been called the backbone of the EPA. Credible
and transparent science is core to the EPA mission, and the
implementation of our national environmental laws. But far
beyond Washington, the credibility of EPA science is essential
to State- and community-level local officials, as they respond
to emergencies, and address concerns about environmental
pollution. The success of their difficult decisions depends
upon public trust, and the science that supports them. The EPA
advisory committees we're discussing today make sure that the
Agency does the right science, and gets the science right.
The advisory committees were established to provide the
highest levels of independent scientific expertise and peer
review. They allow the Agency to recruit the best and brightest
to review, critique, and, ultimately, improve EPA science.
Historically, as was mentioned, appointment to an EPA advisory
board was seen as a great honor, a recognition that you're
among the Nation's best in science. The advisory committee
process provides important oversight and transparency so
essential to developing public trust. I can speak from my own
experience at the EPA overseeing a major, and controversial
study on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water.
The Science Advisory Board assembled an outstanding committee
of experts, provided an extensive review, including public
participation, and their review improved both the science and
clarity of the report, and ultimately advanced our knowledge of
the impacts of fracking on our waters.
Today we face unprecedented environmental challenges. Most
urgently, the broad environmental health and social impacts of
climate change are upon us, but let me list a few other
examples. PFAs, or Teflon-related contaminants in our water and
food, risks from cancer from widely used pesticides, like
Roundup, lead in our aging drinking water infrastructure,
harmful algal blooms, hazardous exposures from wildfires, and
health risks to fenceline communities from industrial chemical
discharges. These are not obscure science projects. They're
real life health issues facing virtually every community across
our Nation. Decisions regarding these issues will require a
strong scientific leadership from EPA, and the guidance of
knowledgeable and balanced advisory boards.
Despite increasing demand on EPA science, the current
Administration has made major changes, as we've heard, to
threaten the quality, capacity, and balance of the Science
Advisory Boards. Also, the recent Presidential executive order
to eliminate committees presents a yet unknown, but additional
troubling threat to EPA. I defer to my colleagues to present
more details on those committees, but I would like to close
with some observations about the state of science at EPA.
EPA science is in trouble. During the past 2 years, we've
witnessed a profound shift in the priorities of the Agency. The
fundamental mission of protecting health and the environment
has given way to a focus on deregulation. How else can you
explain the rollbacks that we've seen that may result in
thousands of increased deaths and illnesses each year? Sadly,
the rollbacks of science-based policies have been accompanied
by a dismantling of the scientific infrastructure by the
current political appointees. Science has become collateral
damage in their assault on our environmental health
regulations. I've attached a table to my testimony that we may
project on the screen here that provides an overview of the
many actions that have undermined science. First, the reversal
of science-based policies, interference with peer review, cuts
to research--both internal and external--limiting the
scientific studies supporting regulatory decisions, and
finally, revising the very methods so well peer reviewed and
accepted to assess health risks and benefits. These actions,
left unchecked, will have lasting impacts not only on EPA, but
the future of our environment, and the health of all Americans.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Burke follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. Next we have Dr.
Swackhamer.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DEBORAH SWACKHAMER,
PROFESSOR EMERITA, HUMPHREY SCHOOL
OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Dr. Swackhamer. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Sherrill, Chair
Fletcher, Ranking Members Norman and Marshall, Chairwoman
Johnson, and Committee Members. My name is Deborah Swackhamer,
and I'm a Professor Emerita from the University of Minnesota. I
previously served as Chair of the EPA chartered Science
Advisory Board, and Chair of the EPA BOSC. I speak to you today
as an environmental sciences and policy expert, and as a
private citizen, and not on behalf of the U.S. EPA. My
perspectives and statements are mine alone.
To start, I want to underscore two important points that I
elaborate on in my written testimony. First, environmental
threats are very complex and multi-disciplinary, thus strong
multi-disciplinary science is essential for EPA to meet its
mission. The second point, external, independent expert science
advice is critical to ensure that EPA is supported by the best
multi-disciplinary science. When the external science advisory
role is diminished or tarnished by a lack of independence, the
integrity of the science used by EPA is also diminished and
tarnished, and this leads to weak environmental protection.
Now let me speak to BOSC specifically. EPA and ORD (Office
of Research and Development) science would be diminished
without an effective BOSC. BOSC advises the Assistant
Administrator of the ORD on what the scope and direction of
internal research should be, and to ensure the highest quality
of the research being conducted. Such ongoing review allows for
mid-course corrections, and infusion of new and innovative
ideas. ORD is a relatively small enterprise, and thus BOSC
plays an important role in keeping it on point. ORD targets its
research programs to fill in the gaps that external research
doesn't fill. BOSC helps identify those gaps, identify
duplication, identify potential external partnerships to
maximizes effectiveness, and advises on emerging issues that
EPA research should get a jump start on. Without BOSC, ORD runs
the risk of getting isolated from outside research advances,
being unnecessarily redundant and wasteful, and it could easily
fall behind in focusing on timely issues.
Interference in the process of appointing BOSC members can
be highly disruptive to the ability of BOSC to assist ORD. In
April 2017, the members of BOSC who had served one of their two
allowed terms were assured by senior ORD staff that their
appointments would be renewed for a second term. One week later
the Administrator's Office reversed this recommendation, and
announced that none of these members' terms would be renewed.
The reasons given to the media created the perception that the
intent of the Administrator's Office was to remove independent
research scientists, and replace them with people having a
vested interest in the regulatory actions of EPA. In June 2017,
all of the members of the five BOSC subcommittees who were up
for second term also had their memberships terminated.
Regardless of the motive, it meant that BOSC was stripped
of the vast majority of its members, and scheduled meetings,
and thus it could not provide timely advice to ORD on a number
of important pending matters, one being recommendations on how
to reprioritize research programs as a result of budget cuts.
The other was the review of the next edition of ORD's strategic
research plans. It took 6 months to repopulate BOSC, and
another year to get them up and running. The new BOSC just had
their first executive committee meeting last month, 2 years
after those non-renewals. The action on the part of EPA
resulted in significant disruption of the iterative and ongoing
process of external scientific advice provided to ORD,
important time lost while EPA research and planning proceeded
without the benefit of BOSC advice. It should be noted that the
Administrator took similar actions against the SAB and CASAC.
Interference with science advisory boards at EPA is
consistent with a broader pattern of science misuse by the
Agency. Why would the Administrator's Office interfere with
science advisory committees? The aggressive changes made to the
advisory committee eligibility and composition are
unprecedented at EPA. It is my concern that they are populating
the committees with a significant number of members who have a
vested interest in EPA actions and regulations, thus co-opting
the committees in order to support the overall direction of the
Agency to deregulate fossil fuel and other industries, and
loosen environmental protections, rather than provide
independent advice based on solid science. The EPA
administration has demonstrated a pattern of cherry picking
scientific evidence, of ignoring rigorous scientific consensus,
or simply politicizing science to justify its actions.
While regulations can be affected by politics, science
never should be. Interference with the Science Advisory
Committees is a direct attack on the integrity of science, and
leads to an erosion of the scientific underpinning of
environmental regulations. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Swackhamer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And, finally, we have Dr.
Samet.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JONATHAN SAMET,
DEAN, COLORADO SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Dr. Samet. Good afternoon. Chairwoman Sherrill, Chair
Fletcher, Ranking Members Norman and Marshall, Subcommittee
Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak with the
Subcommittee today. I'm Jonathan Samet, a pulmonary physician
and epidemiologist, and presently Dean and Professor at the
Colorado School of Public Health. Today I testify as an
individual. Much of my testimony relates to the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee--in my jargon I will hereafter be
saying CASAC--and I would emphasize that the S is for
scientific. It was created, as noted, under the 1977 amendments
to the Clean Air Act. My comments are based on serving on
multiple advisory committees across a 40-year career, including
serving as a consultant member for CASAC in 1995-96, when our
current fine particle standard was implemented, and later
chairing CASAC.
During that period, the transition to the current approach
for development and review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, or NAQS, was developed. That process is shown here.
You will notice that it begins on that side, with science, and
ends on the other side, with the possible promulgation of the
new National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Along the way there
are a number of steps. First, the development of the Integrated
Science Assessment, that brings together what we know about the
harms from air pollution; the Risk and Exposure Analysis, which
explores how different changes to the NAQS might benefit public
health; and finally, a public--a policy analysis that is
brought to the Administrator as the basis for decisionmaking.
CASAC provides review of each of these documents through often
multiple cycles of revision as they are brought to the point
where they are ready as a base--to be the basis for
decisionmaking.
My main points. An effective approach from moving from
scientific findings to possible revisions of the NAQS has been
in place for a decade, this latest process. The role of CASAC
is well-defined and pivotal. Given the scope of the documents
reviewed, the seven chartered members specified in the 1977
amendments have generally been augmented by 12 to 15, or more,
additional panel members to do their job. For example, the
current ISA (Integrated Science Assessment) for particulate
matters--matter is 1,800 pages in length. The breadth of its
science cannot be covered by seven people alone. CASAC's
ability to provide in-depth scientific review has now been
limited by the exclusion of EPA-funded researchers, often the
most knowledgeable in relationship to the NAQS pollutants. This
follows the 2017 rule on committee membership.
With the currently ongoing review of the documents related
to airborne particles, CASAC has been crippled by the 2018
dismissal of the additional panel members added to complement
the seven chartered members. The resulting gap in expertise has
been acknowledged by the chartered CASAC, which has requested
restoration of the same, or a similar panel. Under the current
CASAC chair, untested changes in review approaches have been
introduced that have been disruptive to established CASAC
processes. Such changes need careful evaluation by CASAC and
the SAB. As described in detail in my testimony, these changes
to CASAC membership and functioning are symptomatic of threats
to the paradigm of moving from a scientific foundation to
possible revisions of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Such threats include reduced EPA funding for needed
research on these air pollution--air pollutants, and the
potential exclusion of key studies, particularly
epidemiological studies, through the proposed transparency
rule.
In summary, over more than 40 years, CASAC has functioned
effectively in providing guidance to the EPA as it has
considered whether and how to revise the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Leading researchers, experts in air quality
management, and practitioners have served on it. The hundreds
of panel members have contributed thousands of hours to benefit
public health. Like others, I'm proud to have contributed to
CASAC. The integrity of CASAC, and its pivotal role in guiding
the EPA, need to be maintained. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Samet follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And, as the Chair, I would
like to thank all of our panel for hewing so closely to the
time limit. Next we'll begin our first round of questions, and
I'm going to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
My first question is for Dr. Burke. In your testimony you
note that being appointed to the EPA Science Advisory Board has
traditionally considered an honor reserved for the best
scientists in our Nation. I'm concerned that following former
Administrator Pruitt's directive, which bars EPA grant
recipients from serving on advisory committees, this is no
longer the case. So in your experience, both as a scientist,
and as the former Deputy Assistant Administrator for EPA's
Office of Research and Development, how competitive are the EPA
grants?
Dr. Burke. Thank you for that question. The EPA grants,
which are unfortunately now few and far between, as we've seen
the reduction in the Science to Achieve Results Program at ORD,
were incredibly competitive, and they were reviewed
independently from the Agency by experts, and ranked, just as
we have a review system at the National Institute of Health
(NIH). They're very competitive, awarded to the best and
brightest in the field. And, therefore, receiving those grants
meant a certain degree of recognition out through academic
science, but also in the general environmental science
community, just as being appointed to the SAB would be seen as
that recognition. So they're very competitive.
What you have, when you omit those folks from the talent
pool of our Nation's most prestigious advisory board, is a
skewing that eliminates the best minds. What other area of
science would you omit the best minds at the start, and not
consider the potential conflicts of interest of people who may
have direct financial interest, or have received compensation
from companies that have a very big vested interest in the
subject at hand.
Chairwoman Sherrill. And speaking of conflicts of interest,
what do you think about the justification for the order that
precludes them from participating because of a conflict of
interest?
Dr. Burke. The--I'm--to clarify the question, the order
that precludes the----
Chairwoman Sherrill. Grant recipient.
Dr. Burke. That conflict of interest--financial conflict of
interest is something that is very important. However, these
grant processes are--imagine if we did that from peer reviewing
of the NIH grants. This is something we deal with in science.
It's very clear to see if there's a direct conflict, and those
grant recipients don't financially benefit directly from the
regulatory decision down the line. This is a convoluted
process, and it's skewed to eliminate, I think, unfortunately,
many of the great independent scientific experts in our
academic community, while not offering similar protections from
others.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And then my next question,
industry representatives and consultants are notably not
included in the directive claiming to strengthen independence
of Science Advisory Committees, so it's certainly important
that these boards consist of diverse perspectives. But this
double standard seems absurd on its face, and it's especially
concerning considering GAO's finding that appointees' financial
disclosure forms have not been properly handled. So, Mr. Gomez,
can you please remind me of what the GAO found regarding the
Ethics Office's review of financial disclosures?
Mr. Gomez. Sure. So we did an audit of the financial
disclosure forms, and so we audited 74 different firms for
special government employees and the committees, and in that
review we did find that there were 17 of those forms that had
not been signed and dated, so there was really a lack of
assurance that those folks--that EPA had done the review, and
that those folks were free of conflicts. So one of the things
that we did is we recommended that the Agency strengthen the
oversight of the ethics review program to do, for example,
regular checks, and oversight, and spot checks to ensure that
its ethics review program is working well.
Chairwoman Sherrill. And, Dr. Burke, in light of the 2017
directive, could those on the payroll of regulated industry be
considered to have ``a conflict of interest,'' at least as
significant as EPA grant recipients?
Dr. Burke. One would certainly think so. If you're sitting
on that board, and a matter of perhaps the toxicity of a
product from the industry that you work for is being
considered, that could represent the appearance of a conflict
of interest, or perhaps a direct financial conflict of
interest. So that has to be carefully considered in the forms
in the ethics review. And we all have received training from
the Agency. It's mandatory before you're appointed to go
through the training, to understand and report those apparent
conflicts. We have in science, both at the National Academy and
through major science advisory boards, ways to work around
that, and to prevent those conflicts, and they need to be
enforced.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. My time has expired, so now
I'm going to recognize Mr. Norman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, and I want to
thank each of the panelists for taking the time to come. Mr.
Gomez, do you agree that any legislative action requiring
Federal Advisory Committee should require the membership of the
advisory committee to be fairly balanced, in terms of the
points of views represented, and the functions to be performed
by the Advisory Committee?
Mr. Gomez. So generally, sir, the charters for each
committee spell out, you know, the composition, the membership.
Sometimes Congress may actually dictate, you know, whether
folks should come from a particular interest. So what we did is
we looked at, for each committee, what was the charter stating,
also what are the--any directives, or legislative direction,
and most of the committees do have that charge of bringing
balance and--to the committee membership.
Now, in a lot of the committees that we looked at, there
isn't really a percentage that says X number should be this,
and Y number should be that. It is really at--left up to the
staff at EPA to decide what is it that the committee needs--or
what is it that the office needs, and they usually try to get
that into the advisory committees.
Mr. Norman. So the answer would be yes, you think the views
should represent the whole committee?
Mr. Gomez. That's usually what's spelled out in the charter
for each of the committees----
Mr. Norman. OK.
Mr. Gomez [continuing]. Yes, that there should be balanced
representation, however that's defined.
Mr. Norman. All right. I'm sure you know this, but there's
a direct quote from Public Law 92-463, better known as the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA. With your answer in mind,
do you think that if one stakeholder group make up over 80
percent of a single advisory committee that that would be
fairly unbalanced?
Mr. Gomez. So, again, in our audit we were looking at what
process the EPA has in place, and whether EPA followed its
process. Our audit wasn't looking at whether the representation
or the composition of the committee was balanced or unbalanced,
so we don't have an opinion about what the balance should be.
Our audit was a process audit to look at, hey, did EPA--does
EPA have a process in place, what is it, and did they adhere to
that process?
Mr. Norman. So yes or no?
Mr. Gomez. Well, we don't have an opinion on that, sir.
Mr. Norman. OK. According to your report, at one point, in
2010, academics made up 80 percent of the Science Advisory
Board. You know, I don't have anything against academics, but
if that 82 percent of members were from industry, I think we'd
all point to a pretty big problem. So help me understand. I
know academics are world leaders in the field, but wouldn't it
be beneficial to have different perspectives, at least more
than 18 percent of membership, from consultants and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs)?
Mr. Gomez. Again, we don't have an opinion on what the
makeup of the committee should be. You know, that's something
that comes from EPA, in determining what is it that they need,
representation, and if there's any direction, either
legislative direction, or direction from the charters.
Mr. Norman. OK. I get that you don't have an opinion on it,
but wouldn't it make sense to have different perspectives from
these other groups, other than academia?
Mr. Gomez. I think so. I mean, I think that's what a lot of
the committees call for. They want independent scientific
advice from a variety of viewpoints, yes.
Mr. Norman. OK. Thank you. And last, Mr. Gomez, this GAO
report was made public yesterday, at 1:35 p.m., just barely
over 24 hours before the gavel today. As far as I'm aware, none
of the minority Members on this Committee were offered a chance
to review a draft copy, but the majority was able to send out a
summary of the full report just 3 minutes later. Did you
provide the majority with a draft copy of this report before
the hearing?
Mr. Gomez. We did not, sir.
Mr. Norman. Then how else could the majority have obtained
a copy of this report?
Mr. Gomez. So I think the majority maybe can speak where
they obtained the copy of the report, so--we--so the report was
for Senate staff, Senate requestors, and so the, you know,
whoever requests the report can give it to whoever they decide,
so----
Mr. Norman. But you didn't provide it?
Mr. Gomez. No.
Mr. Norman. OK. Thank you. Appreciate it. I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. And next the Chair will recognize
Chairwoman Fletcher, 5 minutes.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill.
Speaking of the GAO report that was released yesterday. It did
highlight a couple of areas of concern in the EPA's process for
appointing members to advisory committees. First, as discussed,
that the Agency didn't follow its own internal appointment
process for two major scientific advisory committees, the CASAC
and SAB. In EPA's response to the GAO's report, they stated
that the process the Agency used for appointments to SAB and
CASAC was more rigorous than the membership grid procedure that
is standard for all other committees, and requested GAO remove
its first findings from the report entirely. However, it's
interesting to note that this supposedly more rigorous process
was not utilized for other committees. Mr. Gomez, did you find
any evidence that EPA used in-person briefings for other
advisory committees, perhaps in addition to the prepared
membership grids?
Mr. Gomez. We're not aware of that. So for the--it's only
for the two committees that we found, where they deviated from
the process. So we're not aware that this was also done for the
other committees.
Chairwoman Fletcher. And if you found that it was only done
for these two committees, how did EPA justify its use of this
supposedly improved procedure for only two of its committees?
Mr. Gomez. I mean, that's a good question. They didn't
justify it to us, except that the explanation was just that
they deviated, and came up with an alternative process. We
don't understand why--or why they also didn't follow their
established process.
Chairwoman Fletcher. So what is GAO's assessment of the
procedure used for SAB and CASAC appointments, and the
elimination of the membership grid?
Mr. Gomez. So, again, we looked at what the Agency is
required to follow, according to their Handbook, and we lay out
those procedures, and one of those key steps was that they
develop these grids that, you know, has relative
qualifications, and it's also the staff's recommendation for
the best qualified staff. And so we don't understand why EPA
didn't follow that for these two committees. It's not clear to
us why, and so we don't have an explanation.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Did EPA indicate to you that this new
examination, more rigorous examination of candidates, was going
to become incorporated into the Agency's Handbook?
Mr. Gomez. We asked that question, and we did not get a
response as to whether this new alternative process is going to
be a new procedure in their Handbook.
Chairwoman Fletcher. OK. Thank you. And one last question
on this particular topic, is it unusual for agencies to request
findings be removed from draft reports? What information would
agencies need to provide to you to compel GAO to change its
report findings?
Mr. Gomez. Sure. So we have a standard practice of giving
agencies our draft reports because we want their reaction,
right? We want them to review what we have to make sure it's
accurate. And so they generally will provide us comments, and
sometimes it happens that we disagree, right? We disagree, and
we generally want to have data and information because, you
know, we are data driven, so we want to assess the data, if
there's additional data. In this case, we didn't get any
additional data from EPA to allow us to make any additional
assessment. So sometimes it happens, and, as you noted, it's
recorded in the report.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you. One additional topic I want
to touch on, the GAO also found that 23 percent of the Advisory
Committee members appointed as special government employees
(SGEs) did not receive a signature from an ethics official on
their SGE filing form, which ensures an employee's compliance
with Federal ethics rules. Are you able to comment on the
nature of the SGE ethics forms that remain unsigned?
Mr. Gomez. So that's a good question, and I think we can
provide for the record, like, where those forms were. I do know
that some of those forms were for members of the SAB, but we
can give you a listing of the committees that those pertain to.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, we would like to see those.
Will the GAO be conducting any additional research into the
individuals who had not yet received signature on their ethics
forms?
Mr. Gomez. Not additional reviews, no.
Chairwoman Fletcher. And have you seen this occur in other
instances during your tenure at GAO? Is this a common
occurrence, or an unusual occurrence?
Mr. Gomez. So I'd have to get back to you on that, because
I want to doublecheck to see if there have been other audits
that we've done at other agencies, where we're looking at their
ethics program, and to see whether, in fact, we found similar
findings. So we can check to see if there are other audits
we've done governmentwide, or other agencies, but I'm not aware
at this moment.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Well, can I take it from your answer,
that this is something that you have to research and go back
and look at, that this isn't a common or routine occurrence,
that you would expect for so many ethics forms to be missing, a
quarter of them?
Mr. Gomez. Again, I don't know what--how it's at other
agencies, whether--I mean, this was, for us, a finding that
rose to the level of us making a recommendation, because we saw
so many forms that hadn't been properly reviewed, signed, and
dated, and so that concerns us, because we want to make sure
that EPA has a good process in place to ensure that they are
doing ethics reviews on a timely basis, again, to ensure that
there are no conflicts of interest. So we thought it was
important enough that it rose to the level of a recommendation
that we made to EPA. EPA has agreed with our recommendation,
and, as I understand it, they've already taken steps to improve
that process.
Chairwoman Fletcher. OK. Thank you, Mr. Gomez. We'll look
forward to receiving the additional information from you, and I
have gone over my time, so, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes
Ranking Member Marshall for 5 minutes.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, thank you so much. I'll keep with Mr.
Gomez for a second. Want to continue to talk about this
alternative process of evaluating candidates. Did you feel that
what they did do in these two instances was as rigorous as the
prescribed Handbook procedure?
Mr. Gomez. Well, sir--so we didn't have an opportunity,
because we didn't get any data on what EPA did, so EPA just
told us that they had briefings with senior management, where
they discussed the advantages and disadvantages, or plus and
minuses, of candidates. But for all the other committees that
we viewed, you know, we had those grids, those documents. We
were able to see these--this is how the committee nominated
folks, and this is who they viewed was most qualified. For EPA,
we weren't able to see that, so we weren't able to make that
assessment.
Mr. Marshall. In those two, but in the other 20 committees,
from a broad, holistic perspective, did you think the EPA was
doing a satisfactory job in their advisory board appointments?
Mr. Gomez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Marshall. OK. Maybe go back to everybody left, the
witnesses, do you feel there's any two committees that EPA
could eliminate, Dr. Samet?
Dr. Samet. I would actually probably defer to my colleague,
Dr. Burke, who has a broad perspective on the various
committees. And, given the broad--breadth of EPA science, its
multidisciplinary, I suspect that there's a rather lean set of
committees, but I would defer to Dr. Burke on this.
Dr. Burke. There are, I think, 18, 18, and 22 committees at
EPA, and they represent a tremendous amount of different
interests. For instance, there's a Committee on Environmental
Justice, there's a----
Mr. Marshall. I'm sorry, it's kind of a yes or no. Do you
think there's some that could be eliminated?
Dr. Burke. I would think that, as has been mandated by the
executive order, to carefully study and understand the criteria
would be necessary before saying they should be eliminated,
so----
Mr. Marshall. But they could be absorbed, or combined, or
something like that?
Dr. Burke. I would really defer to the process on that. I
can't say. I found them to be tremendously influential and
important, and particularly important to the business
community, as----
Mr. Marshall. And there is a process that if they're
declared essential, we can bypass that. I'll go back to Mr.
Gomez. Looking at your charts on just the proportion of
academic members in a committee, your SAB report, 22 academic
members, and there's five industry members, about an eighth of
it is industry. What is an ideal ration of academic to non-
academic, and how do you get there?
Mr. Gomez. Again, that's a good question, and I think that
that's driven, as I mentioned earlier, by the charter of the
committee, and whatever the needs are of EPA, to make those
determinations. Again, we were not looking at what's the proper
composition. That wasn't our focus. Our focus, again, was a
process audit, to look at what's the process, did EPA follow
the process, and if not, you know, what is it they can do to
improve it?
Mr. Marshall. Yes. I mean, I kind of look at things through
healthcare, since I'm a physician, and I think of
recommendations for pap smears and mammograms, and the academic
folks telling us you only need a pap smear every 3 years, young
women don't need mammograms, but I was the person down there
with the experience, trying to tell a woman why she didn't need
that pap smear, or didn't need a mammogram, and really I
thought it was in her best interest to get it. And I really
think that there's a great place for people from industry, and
non-academics. And I guess I would almost take exception that
people on the committees are the best and the highest
qualified, with my experience in medicine is the brightest, the
greatest, were so busy, so popular, had such a long waiting
list, they didn't have time to do some of these committees. So
I think it's a different pool of people that are even available
to have the time, and really think that we should keep really
emphasizing non-academic members on some of these committees.
So, with that, I'll yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And next the Chair
recognizes Representative Lamb for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Dr. Burke, I just
wanted to ask you kind of a series of questions with pretty
short answers, if you don't mind. You have appointments at
Hopkins in both Environmental Health and Oncology, is that
right?
Dr. Burke. Yes.
Mr. Lamb. And is that because, over time, we've learned
that there can be a link between industrial activity, and what
that puts into the environment, and rates of cancer among
people that work there, or people that live near wherever that
site is?
Dr. Burke. Yes. I've devoted my career to that kind of
science.
Mr. Lamb. So could we actually say, in some sense, your job
has to do with trying to prevent cancer in people that live
near these places? You're studying the effect that it has in
the hope that maybe at some point we can do things to prevent
people from getting cancer?
Dr. Burke. I think that's what epidemiologists strive for,
not just for cancer, but for all environmentally related
diseases.
Mr. Lamb. Right. And in doing that, do you employ something
called the scientific method?
Dr. Burke. Yes.
Mr. Lamb. And there's different ways to describe that, but
I remember, at least from being in school, that the scientific
method is a process that we've constructed over the years,
where maybe first you observe, and then you measure things, and
then you might do experiments, and then you construct a
hypothesis, but then you continue to change that and refine it
as you learn more. Is that, like, a fair general description of
the scientific method?
Dr. Burke. Absolutely.
Mr. Lamb. OK. Now, when you start out on any scientific
problem, and you want to employ the scientific method, is it
important that you try to eliminate, or put to the side, any
biases that you might have about the problem before you start
it?
Dr. Burke. I think it's important from the start to the
finish of scientific work to try and understand biases, and to
put them forth, and to deal with them throughout the process.
Mr. Lamb. Yes. And that's actually--would you say that's
kind of what separates a real scientist from, say, an advocate,
or even, like, a politician like me?
Dr. Burke. I'm so glad you mentioned that, because we're
getting our signals mixed here today between stakeholder
comment and scientific peer review. I agree that stakeholders
have an enormous role to play in policy decisions, but with
scientific peer review, it's about expertise, and the right
disciplines at the table.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you. Yes, I thought the use of the word
stakeholder was a little bit odd as well, because if you have
someone, for example, like you, who has chosen to devote their
career to trying to prevent people from getting cancer, it
doesn't really seem to me like you have a stake, other than
just what's good for society. So I don't know that that's the
best word to use to describe your role in the process. And I
thought your list was great of the most challenging and
pressing environmental problems right now, because I think you
had eight on there. Of those eight, seven of them pretty
directly impact people in western Pennsylvania, where I'm from,
every single day, just due to our history, and the economic
activity that we have right now.
So just to pick one, you mentioned the report that you
worked on about the impact of fracking on drinking water, and
western Pennsylvania is more or less the capital of hydraulic
fracturing, at least in the northeast. I have lots of
constituents that live near drilling sites, that have family
members that live near drilling sites. We have well pads at our
airport, which, you know, a lot of people in our region go
through all the time. So the main thing that we all want to
know is that when we turn on the tap in our houses, or you
drink water from the fountain at the airport, whatever it is,
that there's a pretty good chance you're not being poisoned, or
being exposed to something that can give you cancer. And we
know that none of us are ever going to know that for sure. I
don't know exactly where every well pad is, or how it's
influencing, but you want to have some trust there, right? We
always say a cop on the beat. I mean, that's a fair analogy,
right, the idea that you guys are neutrally investigating for
the good of the public about these questions, right?
Dr. Burke. Yes.
Mr. Lamb. So that report that you did while you were at
EPA, and you used the Science Advisory Board as part of that,
would that be part of that process, kind of, of being the cop
on the beat to protect the public, and the water that they
drink, in a place like mine?
Dr. Burke. I might use a different analogy. We weren't
cops. It wasn't a regulatory report. It was trying to do public
health to understand a fundamental question, are the activities
related to fracking impacting our water resources, particularly
our drinking water resources, because that was the burning
question.
Mr. Lamb. Yes, it's a good point. You're kind of doing the
part of the cop's--I'm a former prosecutor, which is why I use
that analogy, but you're doing the part of the cop's job that
actually comes first, which is just that basic act of
observing, and measuring, and recording what happened.
Dr. Burke. Right.
Mr. Lamb. Before we decide who we need to arrest or
prosecute, what exactly happened here is a question of fact.
And so, doing that report, you had to use the scientific
method, again, in order to determine what might be happening to
our drinking water, right?
Dr. Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lamb. And wouldn't it be fair to say that to learn
about our drinking water using the scientific method, to write
a scientific report, it would've been a good idea to have
actual scientists involved in that process, right?
Chairwoman Sherrill. And if you could answer quickly? The
gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Burke. Yes. And they were, and it was a very rigorous--
--
Mr. Lamb. And that's what you were trying to do. Thank you.
I'm sorry I went over my time. And, as you noted, I'm sure
we'll continue to explain, there are lots of ways that the
industry has input into this process along the way, because, as
you noted, you were not making the regulation. You were finding
out what happened, and what could be happening, to our drinking
water, and I thank you to that. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And now the Chair
recognizes Representative Babin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Babin. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you,
witnesses, for being here today. Mr. Gomez, are EPA ethics
officials, are they career staffers?
Mr. Gomez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Babin. OK. So, from your finding and recommendation,
you're saying that EPA career officials, however many in number
they may be, are not doing their job? Is that what you're
saying?
Mr. Gomez. So our finding was that, yes, I mean, we found
cases, 17 cases, where the financial disclosure forms had not
been signed and dated, so really there was no assurance that
someone had reviewed them. We also did find cases where, you
know, forms weren't reviewed and signed within the allowed
time, 60 days, and so the explanation that we got from EPA was
that they were short staffed in that office, and so, since
then, they've added additional people, and they have noted that
they're doing a more regular review to make sure that the folks
that are sometimes the designated folks to review those forms
are doing it in the right way, and within the right amount of
time.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. And then, as the Ranking Member
on the Space Subcommittee, I have the pleasure of hearing from
NASA witnesses on almost a weekly basis, and yet it seems it's
not very often that someone brings up criticism of their
advisory boards, especially any that may be as large as the EPA
Science Advisory Board. Is it fair to say that the Federal
Advisory Committees at NASA would share the same essential to
best science outlook as EPA's committees? Dr. Burke?
Dr. Burke. Yes. I would hope that all the agencies--I'm
sorry.
Mr. Babin. OK.
Dr. Burke. I would hope that all agencies depend upon
Federal advisory committees that do bring the kind of expertise
they need, especially science agencies like NASA, like
Agriculture, like EPA.
Mr. Babin. OK. And anybody else want to take a stab at
that? OK. All right. And along with the two Ranking Members
here today, I have my concerns on the scope of this hearing.
NASA has some crucial advisory committees. Department of Energy
has some crucial advisory committees, and so does the National
Science Foundation. The list goes on. Science informs decisions
at agencies other than the EPA, and I think this hearing
could've been a chance to hear from all of them, instead of
repeating this show at the Full Committee level in a couple of
weeks. And, with that, I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes
Representative McAdams for 5 minutes. Is he here? He's not
here, so we will go on to Representative Wexton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
witnesses for appearing today. Much has been said, both today
and over the past 2-1/2 years by observers of EPA's actions,
about the danger of politicizing these boards, and filling them
with unqualified appointees, climate deniers, and a high number
of individuals who are financially dependent on regulated
industries. In its report, the GAO pointed to BOSC as a
committee with unusually high turnover--71 percent of those on
BOSC on January 19, 2017, were no longer serving on the Board
15 months later. This mass exodus of individuals who are aware
of the specific purpose and functioning of BOSC is concerning.
Dr. Swackhamer, why is it important that these advisory boards
include a number of individual members with experience advising
the Agency? Why do we need to make sure we do that?
Dr. Swackhamer. Thank you for that question. I think it's
always important not just for BOSC, but for lots of these
advisory committees, to have some expertise from previous
generations of these boards, you know, previous iterations of
these boards, to carry forth understanding of what's going on
before them, the depth of some of these issues. Some of these
issues take more than 2 or 3 years to actually get through, and
so you need a certain number of people on the committee that
understand that context. They provide a lot of context.
The other thing is that EPA is actually a very complicated
Agency, and to understand the science that's being done at EPA
actually takes quite a while to figure out who's doing what,
how it's--how it connects to the regulatory mission of EPA.
It's a complicated--often it's called a Byzantine Agency. And
so, you know, it probably took me, you know, a full year of
being on BOSC, before I was chair, to even understand how it
all worked. And so you kind of come in as a freshman, and you
learn the ropes. And so then to lose, you know, 80 percent, 70
percent of that expertise in one fell swoop was devastating.
And, of course, it then took months to even bring in new
people. But now the new BOSC is considerably made up of
freshmen.
Ms. Wexton. And that impacts their effectiveness as an
advisory committee, would you agree?
Dr. Swackhamer. I think it just means that their learning
curve--they're still on a learning curve, instead of being at
the top of that learning curve, and they're not benefiting from
having enough people on that committee who can kind of bring
them up to speed, and provide that expertise.
Ms. Wexton. Very good. Thank you. Dr. Samet, thank you for
your thorough overview of CASAC's role in developing adequately
protective standards for the health and safety of Americans. It
concerns me that the Administration that is so bent on diluting
science's role in regulatory decisions is now responsible for
creating these important standards. In particular, the EPA has
cut expert subpanels on particulate matter and ozone, but it
seems they are still planning on completing the regulatory
process by the end of next year. Dr. Samet, is EPA permitted to
raise the allowable threshold of a pollutant?
Dr. Samet. The Clean Air Act requires that the
Administrator set a standard that is protecting the public
health, with an adequate margin of safety, for the National
Ambient Air Quality standard pollutants. In that context, given
the lengthy record of evidence review and findings that the
standards are either protective, or, in the case of particulate
matter and ozone, in fact, there's concern that we cannot
achieve standards that will provide that protection with an
adequate margin of safety, it would be difficult for me to see
how a true science-based review would lead to the possibility
of raising the standards. It certainly is a concerning
possibility, but, given the mandate--strong public health
mandate of the Clean Air Act, I would hope that the possibility
to which you refer would never take place.
Ms. Wexton. So does it appear to you that the EPA is
setting the stage for weakening the standards for ozone and
particulate matter, from what you have observed?
Dr. Samet. The questions that will come to the
Administrator would be whether the NAQS for either ozone or PM
needs to be revised. The science processes that would lead to
that decision have typically been looked at as--the possibility
of lowering the standard values. Perhaps one of the threats
could be that evidence that has been viewed in the past is
supporting evidence of harm, and the need to reduce the
standards, would be set aside under some of the approaches for
evidence evaluation and inclusion or exclusion, i.e. the
transparency rule, as an example, which probably most threatens
epidemiological evidence.
Ms. Wexton. And, in your view as a pulmonary physician and
as an epidemiologist, would it be scientifically justifiable
for the EPA to weaken the standards for ozone and particulate
matter at this time?
Dr. Samet. From my----
Chairwoman Sherrill. And, again, if you could just go
quickly? The gentlewoman's time's expired.
Dr. Samet. OK. From my own perspective, the evidence,
particularly the epidemiological evidence, indicates ongoing
risk at current levels of exposure.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your
indulge. Yield----
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And now the Chair
recognizes Representative Baird for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairwomen Sherrill and Fletcher, and
Ranking Members Norman and Marshall, and I really want to thank
the witnesses for being here today. And my question goes to
each of you, or all of you, and it has to do with the fact that
all of you are very familiar with the Science Advisory Board,
but the National Academies have a similar process in putting
together their panels. Do you think the SAB, or other advisory
committees, could mimic parts of that National Academy process,
and if so, what would be the benefits of doing that? And, Mr.
Gomez, you can start--or, no, I see Mr. Samet's ready to go.
Dr. Samet. Thank you. I'll speak to this as a more than 20-
year member of the National Academy of Medicine, previously the
Institute of Medicine. I'm quite familiar with those processes.
There the committees are addressing particularly charged
questions, and assuring that both there's a balance of
scientific views on whatever the matter may be, and that there
is no conflict of interests. In a sense, the process is
somewhat akin to that of the Agency in picking the scientific
disciplines that need to be represented to provide guidance to
the Agency. There are certainly, at the National Academies,
considerations of potential conflicts of interest and ethics. A
potential conflict alone might not be the basis for exclusion
of someone from a panel. It's typically a balance of scientific
views on matters that are sometimes complex, that it is an
underlying principle.
Dr. Swackhamer. I can just agree with that, that I'm--I
have been on many National Academy committees. I currently
serve on two of their committees, and have been involved with
the EPA science advisory advice for more than a decade. And I
would say that the number one criteria from both of those
bodies, organizations, is to make sure that, at the table, you
have the right array of expertise, and the right perspectives.
And so, on committees for the National Academy, as well as
committees at EPA, you always have some industry perspective,
some NGO perspective, some State perspective, hopefully some
Native American perspective. You have community perspective and
urban perspective, you have--on all the sciences as well. And
so the number one driving parameter is making sure you have the
right science at the table.
Dr. Burke. And I would just add the Academy goes to great
measures before each study to evaluate potential financial
conflict of interest, even the appearance of conflict of
interest, and every member of a committee continually updates
that information. And so, yes, the Academy process is a great
model, and in the past I think the EPA Science Advisory Board,
and other scientific committees, tried to imitate, and use
those good provisions that have helped us prevent bias and
conflict.
Mr. Gomez. So GAO also works directly with a number of
National Academy of Science panels and committees. Sometimes we
convene our own expert panels with the help of the National
Academies. So what I would just say, that whether it's a
National Academies panel, or an EPA advisory committee, that
the selection process is transparent, is well-documented, so
that people can see what's taking place.
Mr. Baird. So thank you, and I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. Next, the Chair recognizes
Representative Beyer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much, and thank you
all very much for being with us, Dr. Swackhamer with us again.
I remember when you came to testify before us in 2017. That was
the day we were shocked to learn that, on the day of the
hearing, an EPA political appointee attempted to alter your
testimony, encourage you to mislead the Committee on important
facts, despite the fact that you were invited to testify as an
independent scientist, and that you had actually cleared your
participation with the EPA Ethics Office ahead of time. So we
were aghast. My colleagues and I referred this to the EPA
Inspector General, but we have not yet heard of the final
judgment. Have you been contacted and had discussions with the
Inspector General along the way?
Dr. Swackhamer. I have not.
Mr. Beyer. That is not the answer I was expecting, but I'm
stunned, and I think we will follow up with that again. So you
have no sense of when the Inspector General is prepared to do a
final report on this?
Dr. Swackhamer. No, I do not.
Mr. Beyer. Did you experience any pressure from the EPA
today?
Dr. Swackhamer. No. Once again, because I continue to hold
a special government employee appointment at EPA, I did clear
my participation here with the Ethics Office at EPA.
Mr. Beyer. So there's progress from 2 years ago, that you
at least weren't pressured this time, right, so----
Dr. Swackhamer. Right.
Mr. Beyer. Dr. Burke, you wrote, among other things, that
the advisory committees were established and structured to
provide EPA with the highest level of independent scientific
expertise and peer review, emphasis on the word independent, be
able to recruit the best and brightest, and elsewhere the AP
was quoted as saying that the Administrator's Office was
attempting to remove independent research scientists, and
replace them with people having a vested interest in the
regulatory actions.
My friend from South Carolina talked earlier about--asked a
question about fair and balanced--that's a fun phrase--and was
somehow arguing that 80 percent academics would make it
unfairly balanced. Can someone who is paid by the industry,
that has a strong profit motivation, whose interests are
dominated by shareholder value, ever be expected to come to
something like that without an industry agenda? And can they
ever be expected fairly to come with an independent scientific
agenda when they're being paid by an industry to represent
them?
Dr. Burke. Let me speak from experience. I've been in this
role a long time as a regulator and as a scientist, and in my
long experience in environmental protection. When the industry
folks come and present their science, it very rarely comes down
on the side of protecting public health, and pointing out to an
agency, perhaps, that they have a hazard there. Rather, it's to
push back on public health measures, whether it's a level for
cleanup, a standard that you're setting. So, sure, it's in the
interest of an industry to protect their business interests,
and you expect that. That's a source of bias. We have to
control that.
Somebody getting their paycheck to work for that industry,
would that be a potential conflict of interest? Yes, and that
should be made clear, and it should be balanced in the process.
On the other hand, when you need expertise, like we did for the
fracking report, where else to go but the oil and gas industry
to get the best engineers, and the people who understand the
process? So you have to be able to tap that industry expertise
and genius, but also balance the biases.
Mr. Beyer. OK. As a small businessperson, our family
business has been selling cars, I have often gotten upset when
somebody's promoting a Chevrolet when we don't represent that
product, you know? And as 5 years on this Committee, I've so
often seen the industry representatives come specifically to
talk about why we are trying to regulate their industry too
much, why it's too high a standard for ozone, or the like.
Dr. Samet, one of the other things that showed up here was
the old discussion we had, where in this Trump era revisions,
if a scientist got an EPA grant, they weren't allowed to serve
on the Scientific Advisory Boards, but there was no such
restriction on the industry scientists. Doesn't this asymmetry
strike you as remarkable?
Dr. Samet. The asymmetry is concerning. And, again, people
get grants, as Dr. Burke pointed out, because they're able to
compete for funding at the highest level, and to lose that
large pool of expertise potentially harms the review process.
Mr. Beyer. I agree. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And the Chair recognizes
Representative Tonko for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses for today's hearing on what is an increasingly
important topic, and it's great to hear your perspectives.
Credible independent science and evidence should shape Federal
policy without the distorting effects of inappropriate
political interference or conflicts of interest. Science
advisory boards are staffed by the top experts in their field.
These are the people who understand the science best, and can
be trusted to help ensure that our air is clean, that our water
is safe to drink, and that toxic chemicals aren't released into
our environment to harm our families and communities.
Rather than listening to and respecting science, the Trump
Administration is focused on removing as many of these
scientific experts as they can off of America's Federal science
advisory boards. As these credible independent scientists are
being pushed out, the Administration's political leaders are
working to replace them with industry advocates, and for-profit
consultants. As a result, admittedly unqualified people are now
in positions where they are reviewing issues they don't fully
understand. In fact, many of these replacements are consultants
on a corporate payroll, with many real conflicts of interest.
These board positions are critical for safeguarding the public
health and safety of millions of Americans. We need to know
that the people who serve on these boards are working toward
the best interests of the American people, and not sacrificing
public good for the private gain of their employer.
So we must ask ourselves, why would the Trump
Administration shut out the scientists and experts who know
these issues best? We sounded the alarms when these actions
were first proposed. Our fears have now been realized, that
this Administration continues clearing out scientific experts
to make room for non-experts bought and paid for by private
industry. This is shameful, and all of us will pay the price.
So, Dr. Samet, on April 11, 2019, the chartered CASAC
issued a letter to Administrator Wheeler, accompanying its
review of the draft Integrated Science Assessment, or the ISA,
of particulate matter. In the letter they state that they are
not equipped to provide a comprehensive review, lacking,
amongst other specialties, an epidemiologist and a
statistician. Administrator Wheeler has yet to respond to this
recommendation. A, in your experience as CASAC chair, is this
type of letter precedented?
Dr. Samet. To ask for additional expertise beyond the seven
chartered members was never necessary because the panels were
always supplemented by the array of experts that was needed. I
won't bore you with all the details of the 1,800 pages of the
ISA, except to say that a broad group of scientists is needed
to review it, well beyond the expertise of any seven people,
and when CASAC wisely requested restoration of the panel, or a
similar group, they did the right thing.
Mr. Tonko. And what is your perspective on the
reinstatement of the PM and ozone panels?
Dr. Samet. I think that CASAC will be unable to do its job,
remembering that this is only the first of three documents that
they need to look at, without having additional expertise,
particularly in epidemiology, which has been critical to both
the PM and ozone standards, and in statistics, to go through
the complicated analyses that are done to pull out the results
to show the risks.
Mr. Tonko. And what do you think is the consequence of
Administrator Wheeler ignoring this request, and accepting the
review submitted by a panel that admits it is unqualified?
Dr. Samet. Well, I use the word crippled. The CASAC is, in
fact, crippled, and I think that is a fair description. If you
look at the comments, they are lengthy. They try to do their
job, and, in doing so, they recognize that they could not do it
the way they should.
Mr. Tonko. And can CASAC's review of the PM ISA be
considered actionable, given that they have identified
deficiencies in their capabilities to conduct what would be a
thorough review?
Dr. Samet. CASAC has requested revisions to the PM ISA, and
once done, they will certainly need the broad range of
expertise they've called for to do their job.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, Dr. Burke, in your testimony you
touch upon how the Advisory Committee process is one that
prioritizes and ensures transparency in the Agency's scientific
decisionmaking. Why is transparency so vital, so important?
Dr. Burke. I think trust is vital to any successful policy.
Transparency in the process of science, inclusion of broad peer
review, public comment, is really essential to the way we build
our policies in this country.
Mr. Tonko. And do you anticipate that the June executive
order cutting FACA committees will impact agencies'
transparency to----
Dr. Burke. I am very concerned about representativeness and
feedback during the development of policy if we lose an
enormous amount of our advisory committees, yes.
Mr. Tonko. Do any of our other witnesses care to comment on
the executive order?
Chairwoman Sherrill. And if you could be quick? The
gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Swackhamer. Since BOSC has been identified as one of
those discretionary committees not established by Congress, but
by the administrators themselves some time ago, in 1996, I
would be--I think it would be a tremendous loss to EPA, and to
the Office of Research and Development, if they lost the
expertise and the advice of BOSC.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And, Madam Chair, I yield
back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. At this point, before we
bring the hearing to a close, I want to thank our witnesses for
testifying here today. The record will remain open for 2 weeks
for additional statements from the Members, and for any
additional questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]