On the recordMarch 17, 2015
As I mentioned during general debate on H.R. 1029, I am not opposed to--in fact, I support legislation that will improve the EPA's Science Advisory Board. It is something I have been committed to since we had hearings in the last Congress, something we haven't had in this Congress. We didn't even have a markup on this bill. For the most part, I agree with the goals of H.R. 1029 and recognize the need to increase transparency in the selection of Board members and to promote public participation in the Board's review process. That being said, not all of the provisions included in H.R. 1029 will actually improve the Science Advisory Board. In fact, some of the provisions in the bill distort common practices for eliminating or limiting financial conflicts of interest. Another provision turns the valuable and necessary process of soliciting public comments into a tool for the endless delay of public health protections. Over the past week, my staff has worked tirelessly with majority staff in an attempt to find common ground and move forward with a bill that is worthy of broad bipartisan support. Unfortunately, a compromise could not be reached on some of the key problem areas of this bill. However, because I agree with the goals of H.R. 1029--but not with the execution of those goals in the text of this bill--I am offering an amendment that will truly improve the Science Advisory Board.…
