State Standing Committee Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4]
- Committees
- Science, Space, and Technology Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill creates a new, FACA-exempt advisory body within the EPA to integrate state, territorial, and tribal government expertise directly into federal environmental policy development and regulatory compliance.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new State Standing Committee within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), composed of one environmental or natural resource agency employee from each state, federal district, federal territory, and federally recognized Tribe. This committee is tasked with providing scientific and technical advice to the EPA Administrator and the Science Advisory Board on a wide range of environmental matters, and it is explicitly exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The bill also updates the reporting requirements for the existing Science Advisory Board to include the new State Standing Committee.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that establishing the State Standing Committee will enhance the EPA's understanding of on-the-ground environmental challenges and implementation realities by directly incorporating the scientific and technical expertise of state, territorial, and tribal government agencies. They contend that the FACA exemption will allow for more candid, efficient, and less politicized advice, leading to more effective and practical federal environmental policies.
Opponents contend
Critics may contend that exempting the State Standing Committee from FACA reduces transparency and public accountability, potentially allowing special interests or specific state agendas to influence federal environmental policy without public scrutiny. Concerns could also be raised about potential redundancy with existing advisory bodies and the administrative burden of managing a large, diverse committee.
The bill is short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2, amending Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 by inserting Section 8A(a)
Establishment of the State Standing Committee (SSC)
This provision formally establishes the State Standing Committee within the Environmental Protection Agency. This new body is designed to serve as a dedicated channel for scientific and technical advice from state, federal district, federal territory, and federally recognized Tribe entities directly to the EPA.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that establishing this committee will ensure that federal environmental policies are better informed by the practical experiences and scientific expertise of state, territorial, and tribal governments, leading to more effective and implementable regulations.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this committee could add another layer of bureaucracy to the EPA's advisory structure, potentially duplicating efforts of existing bodies or creating new administrative burdens without clear benefits.
Tradeoffs
The provision aims to balance the need for federal environmental standards with the desire for greater input and practical considerations from sub-federal governmental entities.
Section 2, amending Section 8A(b)
Membership and Qualifications of the SSC
This section details the composition of the State Standing Committee. It mandates one member from each state, federal district, federal territory, and federally recognized Tribe. Members must reside in the area they represent, be an employee of a relevant government agency (environmental, natural resource, agricultural, or regulatory compliance), and possess relevant scientific or technical qualifications. Importantly, members cannot be part of the EPA's Science Advisory Board or be federal employees, except for their specified agency role.
Section 2, amending Section 8A(d) and (g)
Advisory Authority and Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Exemption
This provision grants the State Standing Committee, and even individual members, the authority to provide scientific or technical advice to the EPA Administrator and the Science Advisory Board on a broad range of environmental matters, regardless of whether the EPA specifically requests it or if the committee reaches a consensus. Crucially, the bill explicitly states that the Committee is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which typically governs the transparency and public access requirements for federal advisory bodies.
Section 2, amending Section 8A(f)
Public Availability of Committee Advice
This provision mandates that the EPA Administrator must make all scientific or technical advice provided by the State Standing Committee or its individual members publicly available on an EPA website within 30 days of its submission. This ensures that while deliberations may not be public, the final recommendations and individual viewpoints are accessible to the public.
Section 2(2)(C), amending Section 8(i)
Expanded Annual Report on Advisory Bodies
This amendment modifies the existing reporting requirements for the EPA Administrator. Annually, the Administrator must now submit a report to appropriate committees of Congress detailing the membership, activities, and advice from *both* the established Science Advisory Board and the newly created State Standing Committee. This ensures congressional oversight of both key advisory bodies.
These amendments subtly expand the scope of the existing Science Advisory Board (SAB). Specifically, the SAB will now advise 'an appropriate committee of Congress' in addition to the Administrator, and its purview is explicitly updated to include matters under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
Section 2(2)(A) and (B), amending Section 8(a) and (c)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for updating existing statutes, but the implications of expanding the SAB's advisory scope and reporting lines could be overlooked by a casual reader.
Case for: Supporters would argue that updating the SAB's mandate ensures its advice remains relevant to the full spectrum of EPA's responsibilities and provides Congress with direct access to its expertise, improving legislative decision-making on environmental issues.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against updating the scope of an existing advisory board to align with current environmental statutes, as it is generally seen as a technical improvement.
Estimated impact: Broadens the formal influence and responsibilities of the Science Advisory Board, potentially increasing its workload and direct engagement with Congress.
This provision adds a new subsection defining 'appropriate committee of Congress' specifically for Section 8 (related to the Science Advisory Board) and, by extension, for the new State Standing Committee's reporting. It specifies the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Section 2(2)(D), adding Section 8(j)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide clarity on terms used within a statute, but it is a critical detail for understanding the lines of congressional oversight.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this clear definition ensures that the relevant congressional committees with jurisdiction over environmental science and policy receive the mandated reports and advice, streamlining oversight.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against clarifying definitional terms in legislation, as it improves legal precision.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the specific congressional bodies responsible for receiving reports and advice from the EPA's scientific advisory committees.