[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 29, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2536-H2547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HONEST AND OPEN NEW EPA SCIENCE TREATMENT ACT OF 2017
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 229, I
call up the bill (H.R. 1430) to prohibit the Environmental Protection
Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or
assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible,
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 229, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1430
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Honest and Open New EPA
Science Treatment Act of 2017'' or the ``HONEST Act''.
SEC. 2. DATA TRANSPARENCY.
Section 6(b) of the Environmental Research, Development,
and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4363
note) is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or
disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and
technical information relied on to support such covered
action is--
``(A) the best available science;
``(B) specifically identified; and
``(C) publicly available online in a manner that is
sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of research results, except that any personally
identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or
financial information obtained from a person and privileged
or confidential, shall be redacted prior to public
availability.
``(2) The redacted information described in paragraph
(1)(C) shall be disclosed to a person only after such person
signs a written confidentiality agreement with the
Administrator, subject to guidance to be developed by the
Administrator.
``(3) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as--
``(A) requiring the Administrator to disseminate scientific
and technical information;
``(B) superseding any nondiscretionary statutory
requirement; or
``(C) requiring the Administrator to repeal, reissue, or
modify a regulation in effect on the date of enactment of the
Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017.
``(4) In this subsection--
``(A) the term `covered action' means a risk, exposure, or
hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation,
regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance; and
``(B) the term `scientific and technical information'
includes--
``(i) materials, data, and associated protocols necessary
to understand, assess, and extend conclusions;
``(ii) computer codes and models involved in the creation
and analysis of such information;
``(iii) recorded factual materials; and
``(iv) detailed descriptions of how to access and use such
information.
``(5) The Administrator shall carry out this subsection in
a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year, to
be derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be
appropriated.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 229, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1430.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1430, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment
Act of 2017, or HONEST Act, requires the Environmental Protection
Agency to base its regulations on science that is publicly available.
Why would anyone want to hide this information from the American
people?
I thank former Science Committee member and former Environment
Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert for his longtime commitment to
this issue, and for sponsoring the Secret Science Reform Act in the
113th Congress. In the last Congress, a similar bill passed the House
with bipartisan support. Our goal is to help advance not just any
science, but the best science.
The HONEST Act is a nonpartisan bill: a change in administration does
not affect the public's right to know and see the science behind the
EPA's regulations.
This legislation ensures that sound science is the basis for EPA
decisions and regulatory actions. The days of ``trust-me science'' are
over. In our modern Information Age, Federal regulations should be
based only upon data that is available for every American to see, and
that can be subjected to independent review. That is called the
scientific method.
We can all agree that the government should rely on the best
available science. Unfortunately, the government does not always hold
to this standard. Looking at the EPA's past record, it is clear that
the Agency has not followed an open and honest process. For example,
many major air-quality regulations from the previous administration
were justified by data that the EPA said they had not seen, even though
they proposed the regulation.
This means that the EPA's claims about the cost and benefits of its
regulations and the real risk they are meant to address cannot be
independently verified by unbiased experts. If the EPA's mandates
really are based on sound science, then the American people should be
allowed to see the data. The EPA's past refusal to cooperate, leads to
the question: What have they been hiding?
Americans have a right to be suspicious.
Mr. Speaker, we all care about the environment, but if policies are
not based on legitimate science, regulations will result in economic
hardship with little or no environmental benefits. In other words, the
regulations would be all pain and no gain.
This bill strengthens the previous House-passed legislation of the
last Congress, the Secret Science Reform Act. That bill also required
the EPA to base its decisions on information fully available to
scientists and the American people.
You may hear from opponents of this legislation that it costs too
much money. That is based on a CBO estimate from 2 years ago that
misinterprets the implementation requirements of the bill. CBO has not
reissued that misinterpretation this year after consulting with the
EPA.
All the HONEST Act requires is that the EPA use science that is
publicly available, not make all science public itself. So the cost is
negligible.
Some critics may claim that it puts personal data at risk. This is
false. The HONEST Act specifically requires
[[Page H2537]]
redactions of personally identifiable information and confidential
business information.
It is also misleading to assert that the bill tells scientists how to
conduct science. The opposite is true. The bill reinforces the
scientific method and its tenets of observing, hypothesizing, testing,
gathering and sharing data, and analyzing and challenging the resulting
theories. It allows independent researchers to evaluate the studies
that the EPA uses to justify its regulations.
The HONEST Act promotes sound science and restores confidence in the
EPA decisionmaking process.
Finally, the HONEST Act ensures that the EPA is not promoting a one-
sided ideological agenda. The legislation provides for the type of open
and accountable government that the American people want and deserve.
You are either for an open and honest government, or you are not. If
you are, then support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1430, the so-called HONEST Act.
This is the third time the majority has tried to move this misguided
legislation, which was formerly known as the Secret Science Reform Act.
Unfortunately, in this case, the third time is not the charm. The
Secret Science bills that the Republicans tried to enact over the
previous two Congresses were insidious bills designed, from the outset,
to prevent the EPA from using the best available science to meet its
obligations under the law. Those bills were constructed to hamstring
the ability of the EPA to do just about anything to protect the
American public.
As the American Lung Association said at the time: ``The legislation
will not improve EPA's actions; rather, it will stifle public health
protections.''
The HONEST Act, if anything, is even worse than those two previous
bills. There are several reasons for this. Like the prior Secret
Science bills, the HONEST Act requires the EPA to release the
underlying data from any science that is relied upon when taking
action. This would cause a host of cascading problems for the Agency,
which is, of course, the real reason they are pushing this bill.
First, the EPA relies upon science drawn from many sources. Since EPA
does not own or control the data for most of these scientific sources,
the EPA would have no authority to order the public release of such
data. This would preclude the EPA from using the vast majority of peer-
reviewed science in existence today.
Second, under the HONEST Act, scientific studies relied upon by the
EPA must be reproducible from the data that is publicly released.
However, the EPA frequently investigates and relies upon scientific
studies that are inherently not reproducible.
For instance, the EPA might study natural or manmade environmental
disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, to better
understand the effects on the environment and to improve disaster
response. Under this bill, the EPA couldn't use this type of
information at all.
These problems with the legislation were apparently not enough for my
Republican colleagues. They have worked hard to make the bill even
worse this Congress. The newest addition to the bill would permit the
EPA to redact from public disclosure confidential information, such as
trade secrets and public health information. However, the bill then
sets up an unrestricted process whereby anyone who signs a
confidentiality agreement can access any restricted information in the
EPA's possession.
This provision is a Pandora's box, which could have untold
consequences for the EPA, industry, and the general public. First, the
EPA will find it much more difficult to collect scientific data in the
first instance if people think it will be disclosed at will. This will
cripple the EPA's ability to conduct their own science, which is
important since the rest of the HONEST Act essentially places all non-
EPA science off limits.
This provision is also in direct conflict with any number of other
Federal laws, like the Freedom of Information Act, and HIPAA. The bill
provides no guidance to the Agency on how to navigate the minefield it
creates, which will surely lead to a morass of lawsuits and legal bills
for the EPA.
Finally, this provision places no restrictions on who can access
restricted information. For instance, could a chemical manufacturer
obtain access to the trade secrets of a competitor simply by signing a
confidentiality agreement? Could insurance companies seek the health
information of potential customers?
The potential for abuses with this provision are endless.
In a day and age when the most valuable commodity on the black market
is personal information and trade secrets, it is unconscionable that we
are providing an easily accessible source for criminals around the
world.
Finally, the HONEST Act also foists upon the EPA a massive unfunded
mandate. While we have no CBO cost estimate for this bill, prior
versions were estimated to cost the EPA $250 million per year. However,
the bill restricts the EPA to spending only $1 million to implement its
provisions. In essence, this hits the EPA with a $249 million unfunded
mandate every year.
If that were not bad enough, this bill comes in the face of massive
proposed budget cuts to the EPA's science program by the Trump
administration.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans claim that this bill is just implementing
scientific's best practices. It is odd, then, that a host of scientific
societies and science stakeholder groups have expressed their
opposition to this legislation. This includes the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, the Association of Public and Land-
grant Universities, the Association of American Universities; and the
American Chemical Society.
If Republicans don't want to be labeled as flat-Earth science haters,
I think they would want to listen to what scientists say instead of
lecturing them about things they don't understand.
In reality, this bill isn't about science. It is about undermining
public health and the environment. That is why a host of public health
and environmental groups are actively opposing the bill. This includes,
among others, the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic
Society, the American Public Health Association, the Union of Concerned
Scientists, and the Environmental Defense Fund.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record some of the letters I received
in opposition.
March 27, 2017.
Dear Representative: The undersigned health and medical
organizations are writing to express our opposition to the
EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest
and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. Our
organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving
public health.
Science is the bedrock of sound medical and public health
decision-making. The best science undergirds everything our
organizations do to improve health. Under the Clean Air Act,
EPA has long implemented a transparent and open process for
seeking advice from the medical and scientific community on
standards and measures to meet those standards. Both of these
bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the
review of complex issues and add undue industry influence
into EPA's decision-making process.
As written, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would
make unneeded and unproductive changes that would:
Restrict the ability of scientists to speak on issues that
include their own expertise;
Block scientists who receive any EPA grants from serving on
the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, despite their having the
expertise and conducted relevant research that earned them
these highly competitive grants;
Prevent the EPA Scientific Advisory Board from making
policy recommendations, even though EPA administrators have
regularly sought their advice in the past;
Add a notice and comment component to all parts of the EPA
Scientific Advisory Board actions, a burdensome and
unnecessary requirement since their reviews of major issues
already include public notice and comment; and
Reallocate membership requirements to increase the
influence of industry representatives on the scientific
advisory panels.
In short, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit
the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to
respond to important questions, and increase the influence of
industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not in the best
interest of the American public.
We also have concerns with the HONEST Act. This legislation
would limit the kinds of scientific data EPA can use as it
develops policy to protect the American public from
[[Page H2538]]
environmental exposures and permit violation of patient
confidentiality. If enacted, the legislation would:
Allow the EPA administrator to release confidential patient
information to third parties, including industry;
Bolster industry's flawed arguments to discredit research
that documents the adverse health effects of environmental
pollution; and
Impose new standards for the publication and distribution
of scientific research that go beyond the robust, existing
requirements of many scientific journals.
Science, developed by the respected men and women
scientists at colleges and universities across the United
States, has always been the foundation of the nation's
environmental policy. EPA's science-based decision-making
process has saved lives and led to dramatic improvements in
the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the
earth we share. All Americans have benefited from the
research-based scientific advice that scientists have
provided to EPA.
Congress should adopt policy that fortifies our scientists,
not bills that undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's
decision-making or give polluters a disproportionate voice in
EPA's policy-setting process.
We strongly urge you to oppose these bills.
Sincerely,
Katie Huffling, RN, CNM,
Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.
Harold P. Wimmer,
National President and CEO, American Lung Association.
Georges C. Benjamin, MD,
Executive Director, American Public Health Association.
Stephen C. Crane, Ph.D., MPH,
Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.
Cary Sennett, MD, Ph.D., FACP,
President & CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.
Paul Bogart,
Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm.
Richard Allen Williams, MD,
117th President, National Medical Association.
Jeff Carter, JD,
Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility.
____
American Association for the
Advancement of Science,
Washington, DC, March 28, 2017.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
House Majority Whip,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative McCarthy: As leading U.S. science,
engineering, and academic institutions, we are writing to
express our concerns regarding H.R. 1430, the Honest and Open
New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of 2017. We encourage
you and your colleagues to take additional time to evaluate
the unintended consequences of this bill before considering
it on the House floor. This bill is virtually identical to
the Secret Science Reform Act of the 113th and 114th
Congress, on which we expressed similar concerns that have
remained unchanged.
Of course, regulations and agency actions should be
informed by the best available science and a rigorous
scientific process. Undermining the integrity of the
scientific process, or the ability of federal agencies to
utilize rigorous science in establishing policies, could have
long-term negative consequences. It is with this in mind that
we urge caution in setting laws that submerge science beneath
politics.
The research community is concerned that some key terms in
the bill could be interpreted or misinterpreted, especially
terms such as ``materials,'' ``data,'' and ``reproducible.''
Legislation removing concepts like reproducibility and
independent analysis from the hands of scientists and into
the hands of legislators could undermine the scientific
process and reduce the benefits that science could bring to
society.
With respect to reproducibility of research, it is often
impossible to repeat an experiment down to the last detail.
Some scientific research, especially in areas of public
health, involve longitudinal studies that are so large and of
great duration that they could not realistically be repeated.
Rather, these studies are verified utilizing statistical
modeling or independent data analysis. The same may be true
for scientific data from a one-time event (e.g., Deepwater
Horizon Gulf oil spill) where the data are gathered in real
time. It is unclear if data from studies like these would be
permitted under this bill. As a result, we could foresee a
situation where the EPA would be prevented from using the
best available science and disseminating public information
in a timely fashion.
In addition, H.R. 1430 would give the EPA administrator
sole authority to disclose private information gathered in
research studies, which might include confidential health and
proprietary business information, to anyone who signs a
confidentiality agreement with the EPA. It is unclear whether
the EPA has this authority, and very clear this would deter
individuals and businesses from participating in studies used
by the EPA. This would again constrain the EPA from making a
proposal based on the best available science.
We thank you for your consideration and stand ready to work
with you to evaluate the unintended consequences of this bill
before consideration on the House floor.
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
American Association of Geographers, American Chemical
Society, American Geosciences Institute, American Geophysical
Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American
Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy,
American Sociological Association, Association of American
Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant
Universities.
Brown University, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Crop
Science Society of America, Duke University, Ecological
Society of America, Harvard University, The National
Postdoctoral Association, Soil Science Society of America,
University of California System, University of Maine,
University of Pennsylvania, University of Toledo.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for the many reasons
I have spoken about today, I strongly oppose this legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to alleviate the ranking member's unfounded
concerns and remind her that the National Academy of Sciences itself
has explained that transparency in science is possible without any risk
to confidentiality or privacy.
This is what the National Academy of Sciences said: ``Nothing in the
past suggests that increasing access to research data without damage to
privacy and confidentiality rights is beyond scientific reach.''
So I hope that will alleviate her concerns. Really, it comes down to
whether you are for an open and honest government or not. That is what
this bill is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Babin), who is the chairman of the Space Subcommittee of the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee.
{time} 1400
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the HONEST Act.
As a cosponsor of this legislation and a member of the Science, Space,
and Technology Committee, I am very pleased to see this bill come to
the House floor.
I represent the congressional district with the highest concentration
of petrochemical, manufacturing, and refining facilities than any other
district in the entire Nation. This means that thousands of my
constituents have been or are currently employed by these industries.
In fact, years ago, I spent some time as a worker in one of these very
factories.
With this in mind, you can understand why pushing for reform,
transparency, and accountability within the EPA would be very important
to me because so many of my constituents' livelihoods are affected by
costly and burdensome regulations from the EPA. My constituents want to
make sure that the EPA's actions, particularly those based on secret
science, do not cost them their jobs or their livelihood.
Time and again, the EPA has issued extensive regulations without ever
showing the science to back up their claims to justify these
regulations. It is like they have a little black box over there. They
don't let anyone else look into it, and they just say: Trust us, we
have got good science backing up our claims.
I say, if your science is so good, then don't hide it in your little
black box. Show us your data.
The HONEST Act simply requires the EPA to open their little black box
to public scrutiny. After we pass the HONEST Act, any regulations
coming from the EPA must be based on data that is publicly available.
What is so offensive about a little transparency?
Most companies and businesses would be happy to comply with the EPA
when data shows that their regulations are backed up by clear evidence.
But many times, if not most of the time, this is not the case. Instead
the regulations are based on secret science that no one but the
regulators themselves have access to.
When the Federal Government issues regulations based on secret
science, this is yet another example of a Federal agency getting away
with something the rest of America cannot do.
[[Page H2539]]
American workers are fed up with overzealous regulators pushing our
jobs overseas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about protecting American jobs
and the American economy.
In math class, we were taught to show our work; and when we didn't,
we got the problem counted wrong. This bill is about transparency,
accountability, and holding the government to the same standard that
everyone else is.
According to a poll by the Institute for Energy Research, 90 percent
of Americans believe that scientific data used to make government
decisions should be available to the public, to the rest of us. That is
nearly 100 percent. Not many issues in our current political
environment enjoy that level of support. But when it does, Congress
should very well listen.
The HONEST Act is a commonsense legislation that I am proud to
support.
I include in the Record this letter of support from the American
Chemistry Council.
American Chemistry Council,
Washington, DC, March 28, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the American Chemistry
Council (ACC), we want to thank you for introducing H.R.
1430, the ``Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of
2017'' (or the HONEST Act) to help improve the science
employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
the Agency's regulatory decision making processes.
The proposed legislation would increase the transparency
and public confidence in the EPA's scientific analyses.
Consistency and transparency are key to the regulatory
certainty our industry needs to grow and create jobs. In some
instances, EPA has fallen short of employing the highest-
quality, best-available science in their regulatory decision
making.
It is critical that the regulated community and the public
have confidence that decisions reached by EPA are grounded in
transparent and reproducible science, while ensuring the
protection of confidential business information and
competitive intelligence. By ensuring that the EPA utilizes
high quality science and shares underlying data used to reach
decisions, the HONEST Act can help foster a regulatory
environment that will allow the U.S. business of chemistry to
continue to develop safe, innovative products that Americans
depend on in their everyday lives.
We commend you for your leadership and commitment to
advance and improve EPA science. We look forward to working
with you and other bill sponsors to pass this important piece
of legislation.
Sincerely,
Cal Dooley.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the tireless work that Chairman
Lamar Smith has done to bring this legislation forward so that we can
bring accountability and transparency to the EPA.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1430, which
makes it harder for the Environmental Protection Agency to do its job.
This bill would bring the EPA's work to a halt, undermining
protection of America's health and safety. This legislation interferes
with the use of sound science and creates obstacles that stop the EPA
from enforcing the law.
This bill is just one part of President Trump and congressional
Republicans' attacks on science and our environment. Shortly after the
inauguration, the Trump administration removed taxpayer-funded
scientific data from public websites. Now, that is not open, that is
not honest, and that is not fair to the taxpayers.
This month, President Trump proposed dramatic budget cuts that would
make it impossible for the EPA to enforce clean air and clean water
laws. Yesterday, President Trump rescinded the Clean Power Plan, paving
the way for more air pollution.
We cannot go backwards. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and
other Republican efforts to weaken the environmental protections.
We must put public health and scientific integrity before polluters'
profits.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Banks), who is the vice chairman of the Science,
Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment.
Mr. BANKS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Smith for
sponsoring this legislation, the HONEST Act.
I believe that this bill will take a very important step toward
improving the quality of science at the EPA. This is incredibly
important because this agency ensures that our air and water are clean,
which is something that all Americans want and deserve.
However, in recent years, the EPA has not been as transparent and
forthcoming with the scientific data that the agency has used as the
basis for costly regulations. That is exactly where the HONEST Act
comes in.
By requiring the agency to base its regulations on publicly available
science, scientists and the American people will be able to examine the
data and pursue their own scientific inquiry if they wish, improving
the scientific integrity of the EPA.
Transparency throughout all levels of the Federal Government is an
important tenet of American democracy. I strongly support all efforts
to provide the American people with more information on how our
government works. This is most important when regulations that impact
American jobs and the economy are involved.
Critics of the HONEST Act claim that requiring scientific data to be
public would compromise personal information. This is a false
narrative. This legislation specifically protects that information by
way of redactions. It is not the interest of Congress or the EPA to
compromise anyone's personal data.
Passage of the HONEST Act comes at a critical time for the EPA.
Executive orders issued by President Trump require that the agency
review and potentially revise a number of regulations from the past
administration that were only partly based on science and that were
never made public to the American people. We want to avoid similar
situations moving forward, regardless of the administration.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation to promote a more
honest and open EPA.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), the vice ranking member of the
full committee and ranking member of the Science, Space, and
Technology's Subcommittee on Oversight.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I have several objections to the legislation
being considered today. As with the Secret Science Reform Act, the bill
would seriously undercut the Environmental Protection Agency's ability
to use science to inform their work.
The bill would prohibit the EPA from using any scientific findings
when the EPA did not have total access to the underlying data. This
would eliminate some of the best available science from being
considered by the EPA.
Let me be very clear, there is nothing secret nor dishonest about
relying on voluminous, peer-reviewed studies published in the most
credible scientific journals in the world to make public health
decisions.
Equally problematic, the bill would force the EPA to grant full
access to any scientific data it does possess, including highly
sensitive materials like trade secrets and personal health histories.
Much has been made about the ability of the EPA to redact this
information, but there is a piece of legislation that says: By simply
signing a nondisclosure agreement at the discretion of the EPA
administrator, you can have access to all of the nonredacted
information.
We talk about the accountability of the EPA. What is the
accountability of violating a simple nondisclosure agreement? It
becomes so easy for these private health information trade secrets to
be sold for a small fortune on the black market. It certainly doesn't
make sense to provide such an easy avenue to potential bad actors.
I would also like to object to the title of the legislation and the
implication that EPA employees and scientists are somehow not honest.
Many of those folks live in Virginia, and, frankly, I am tired of
Members of Congress bad-mouthing my constituents. These are
[[Page H2540]]
hardworking public servants who have dedicated their lives to clean
air, clean water, and to our good health. And I want to reassure the
many wonderful employees of the EPA that, in Congress, we do, in fact,
appreciate your good work on behalf of the American people.
Lastly, much like the TrumpCare bill we almost considered last week,
there is no CBO cost estimate. The chairman mentions that he has asked
the CBO to use a different methodology. The last one they said was
going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars to implement. It is
hard to imagine anything where the EPA has been required to fund or
acquire data that is not going to be unreasonably expensive relative to
anything before.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I don't see how we can make it more clear to anybody who
brings up the privacy arguments. If they go to lines 17 through 21 of
page 2 of the bill, it states:
`` . . . any personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or
commercial or financial information obtained from a person and
privileged or confidential, shall be redacted prior to public
availability.''
Any misconstruing of that is unfortunate, and it is not an accurate
description of that provision.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
LaHood), who is also the chairman of the Science, Space, and
Technology's Subcommittee on Oversight.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Lamar Smith for yielding
time and for his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, my district in central and west central Illinois is home
to some of the most fertile farmland in the entire world. My district
is the ninth largest congressional district in terms of corn and
soybean production. With that said, farming families across the 19
counties I represent are faced every day with burdensome rules and
regulations created by the EPA with little or no transparency into the
data that influenced those regulations in the first place.
These rules and regulations have and continue to cause real-world
consequences to the agriculture community. Moreover, these EPA
directives have far greater reach outside the realm of just farmers.
Manufacturing and trade industries in my district have also seen a
direct negative impact from these agency actions. They have continued
to hurt the ability of these industries to create jobs and economic
opportunities in central and west central Illinois.
As such, I am here today in support of the HONEST Act, which
encourages a more open and transparent Federal Government. It requires
data and studies used by Federal agencies in the rulemaking process to
be made publicly available to the American people and independent
scientists. The goal is to promote more accountability for Washington,
D.C., bureaucracies, such as the EPA.
The bottom line is costly Federal regulations should only be based
upon data that is comprised of sound science and that can withstand
scrutiny and review.
Simply put, the HONEST Act is a step in the right direction to
restore trust in the EPA and in Federal bureaucracies.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-
called HONEST Act. Whether in its incarnation last Congress as the
Secret Science Act or in this year's incarnation as the HONEST Act, let
us be clear, this Orwellian-named bill is clearly designed to suppress
certain scientific research that has been the foundation for essential
health and environmental regulations.
In addition to hindering scientific advancement, this bill risks
violating people's privacy by exposing sensitive patient data, and it
is harmful to public health.
The clear aim of the HONEST Act is to undermine EPA's efforts to take
action in a variety of areas, such as climate and air pollution.
Let me also be clear, in my State of Connecticut, we rely on those
regulations to deal with the asthma crisis we have based on power
plants in other parts of the country blowing polluted air into my
State.
The so-called HONEST Act accomplishes this objective by excluding
legitimate, peer-reviewed research from the policy process. If this
bill were to become law, EPA would have no choice but to lean
increasingly on industry-funded studies instead.
At my recent townhall meeting in Waterbury, Connecticut, one American
after another stood up and expressed their fear and outrage at the
attempts made in this House and by the new administration to take
science out of public policy.
My constituents want genuine scientific research guiding our efforts
to protect our environment and safeguard public health. They don't want
agenda-driven studies funded by fossil fuel companies determining the
EPA's actions on climate policy.
{time} 1415
While the majority attempted to alleviate some of our privacy
concerns with this bill, the reality is that any person whom EPA
Administrator Scott Pruitt deems worthy will have access to sensitive
patient information.
Why is this a problem?
Because fewer people will be willing to participate in the studies
that are necessary to understand air and water quality issues.
Who can blame them?
No one wants their medical records shared with strangers, or worse,
made public.
The result is that the EPA will have to rely on incomplete science to
issue lifesaving regulations.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another example of the political
crusade against science that we are seeing coming from both Congress
and the new administration.
We should be confronting the economic and environmental realities of
our changing climate. But just yesterday, President Trump issued an
executive order that would have us pretend that climate change does not
exist.
Only weeks earlier, the EPA Administrator himself said, without
evidence, that he disagreed with the scientific consensus that human
activity is the primary contributor to global climate change.
In my home State of Connecticut, we are downwind from these power
plants that are burning dirty coal. We see elevated rates of asthma,
higher rates of cardiopulmonary issues. If this bill is passed, many
longitudinal, scientific studies like the ones that establish the link
between air pollution and asthma, would be excluded from playing a role
in the EPA's actions.
Mr. Speaker, let's allow the EPA to do its job. I urge my colleagues
to oppose this misguided bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in opposition from
the Union of Concerned Scientists and from the Environmental Defense
Fund.
Union of Concerned Scientists,
March 9, 2017.
Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists,
with 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country,
strongly opposes H.R. 1430, the misleadingly named Honest and
Open New EPA Science Treatment Act (HONEST Act) of 2017. The
proposal shows that supporters of this legislation have a
fundamental misunderstanding of the process by which science
operates and is ultimately a solution in search of a problem.
This legislation would require that all raw data, models,
code, and other materials from scientific studies be made
available to the public before a federal agency could use it.
But, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) already is
exhaustingly transparent and the science it relies on to make
decisions is made available to the public.
The true intention of this bill is not to increase
transparency in agency use of science in policymaking, but
rather to handcuff the EPA from ever using critical
information necessary to follow through on statutorily
required rulemaking for popular legislation like the Clean
Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The additional restrictions
imposed by this proposed bill would make it almost impossible
to base public protections on the best available scientific
information. In particular, if enacted, the language appears
to indicate that the EPA would be inhibited by the following
challenges:
The EPA wouldn't be able to use most health studies. It
should be expected that any agency tasked with protecting
public health should be able to use public health data. The
confidentiality of such data is usually protected by
institutional review boards
[[Page H2541]]
(IRB) to insure the privacy of the participants; thus, the
data could not be made publicly available as demanded. Since
many EPA rules are health-based standards, this rule would
severely restrict the ability of the agency to base rules on
science.
The EPA wouldn't be able to draw from industry data
sources. The agency would be prevented from using data
provided by industry to the agency. Since information from
industry sources is often not publicly available, to protect
proprietary data from their competitors, a law requiring as
such would prevent the agency from utilizing industry data, a
source of information that often provides otherwise unknown
data to inform EPA rulemaking.
The EPA wouldn't be able to use new and innovative science.
New scientific methods and data may be restricted by
intellectual property protections or industry trade secret
exemptions. This bill doesn't include protections for
intellectual property, and it makes industry trade secrets
available upon request to anyone who signs an agreement. If
researchers and industry knew that sharing their science with
the EPA meant that their intellectual property would be
exposed to the world, they might opt out. This would limit
EPA's ability to rely on the best available science including
novel approaches that may not yet be publicly available.
Long-term and meta-analyses would be unavailable. Many of
the public health and safety issues facing the nation cannot
be measured within a small timeframe. The EPA needs long-term
exposure studies that assess the link between chronic
diseases/mortality and pollutants; or on meta-analyses that
include many different studies and locations to provide a
more robust look at the science. In H.R. 1430, the provision
that studies be conducted ``in a manner that is sufficient
for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of
research'' may prevent use of these vital studies by the EPA,
as it is unclear whether such spatially and temporally
comprehensive studies would be considered ``sufficient for
substantial reproduction.''
The CBO estimates exorbitant costs. The attempt to
implement this law would also make the EPA process much more
costly. For past iterations of this legislation, the CBO has
estimated it may take up to $250 million annually for the EPA
simply to comply, and that doesn't even account for the lost
benefits from delaying the protections themselves. Compounded
with the cuts to EPA's budget that are being proposed, this
would just further prevent the agency from being able to do
its job.
H.R. 1430 makes a token attempt to address some of the
criticisms about privacy concerns for personal medical
information and trade secrets. But in practice, the challenge
of identifying and redacting all protected and privileged
information sets up a series of hurdles and complications
that will deter agencies from using the best scientific
analysis to inform their work.
Small, cosmetic tweaks do not change the fact that this
bill is based on a flawed premise and that the authors of the
legislation do not understand the scientific process.
Furthermore, the burden imposed on the EPA to redact
documents would ultimately place limits on the amount of
actual scientific work the EPA can do. The EPA does not exist
in a world of infinite resources.
When this bill was introduced in the 114th Congress as the
``Secret Science Reform Act,'' it received a veto threat from
the Obama administration, which noted that it would
``interfere'' with the EPA's ability to protect public
health, safety, and the environment. The worry is that now,
with an administration that has shown zero interest in using
science to enact safeguards, this legislation could cripple
the agency.
I strongly urge you to oppose H R. 1430, the so-called
HONEST Act. The only honest thing about this legislation is
that it truly opens the window into the real intentions of
the supporters of the bill, and that is to stop the EPA from
fulfilling its science-based mission to protect public health
and the environment. H.R. 1430 is a wolf in sheep's clothing,
purporting to increase public accessibility to data used in
rulemaking, while actually crippling the EPA's ability to use
the best available scientific and technical information to
protect public health and the environment.
Agencies protecting our public health should be able to use
public health data and attempts to undermine agencies
shouldn't be cloaked in false transparency. This Trojan-horse
transparency bill would inhibit the EPA's ability to carry
out its science-based mission to protect human health and the
environment. It does not deserve your support.
Sincerely,
Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,
Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of
Concerned Scientists.
____
EDF Action,
March 8, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: The
Environmental Defense Action Fund strongly opposes the
``Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of
2017'' and the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2017''.
Despite their benign-sounding titles, these bills would
have devastating effects on public health and the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to consider
and use sound science.
The HONEST Act, a rebranded version of the ``Secret Science
Reform Act'' from prior sessions of Congress, is framed as a
measure to increase transparency by requiring that EPA only
use studies that are publicly available online and
replicable. Yet, as testimony before your Committee has made
clear, these requirements would in many cases prevent the EPA
from using the best available science for public health
decision-making.
Many epidemiological studies--for example a study on the
causes of breast cancer--rely on health data that are legally
confidential. This legislation suggests that EPA will be
given the authority to disclose confidential medical
information on breast cancer patients to anyone willing to
sign a confidentiality agreement. EPA would also be
responsible for identifying and redacting any information
that should not be made broadly publicly available in the
first place. Not only is this not an appropriate role for
EPA, it could severely restrict both the number of studies
EPA can use and the willingness of participants to be part of
vital health studies.
In addition, the Act's requirements for replicability mean
that critical longitudinal studies that follow health
outcomes of individuals or groups over years, even decades,
could not be used because--
(1) they are inherently not replicable (e.g., a study that
follows health outcomes of first responders following a
single event such as the tragic 9/11 attack); or
(2) where they are replicable, it would take years to show
that the results could be reproduced (e.g., a study that
examines the impacts on intelligence at childhood from
environmental exposures that occurred in utero).
Furthermore, even if, say, a longitudinal study that
follows a cohort of individuals over 20 years could in
principle be reproduced, there are practical and ethical
reasons why it couldn't or shouldn't be. The same goes for a
long-term environmental monitoring study, or data collected
from a one-time event like the Deepwater Horizon Spill.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that
previous iterations of this legislation would impede the
number of studies the EPA can rely on--by their estimate,
reducing the number of studies by half. Restricting EPA to
just some of the existing scientific literature will prevent
the agency from using the latest and most accurate science
when developing regulations. Moreover, the tremendous
resource burden of making data publicly available (CBO's
central estimate was $250 million a year) would create a
strong incentive to reduce the amount of scientific data and
analysis considered as part of decision-making. The net
effect would be to undermine EPA's ability to rely on the
best available science and unnecessarily put the public at
greater environmental and health risk.
Similarly, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2017 undermines scientific integrity of the EPA. Contrary to
longstanding practice, the bill allows individuals with
financial conflicts of interest to serve on the EPA Science
Advisory Board (SAB) so long as those conflicts are
disclosed. This would permit an infusion of special corporate
interest into what should remain an objective scientific
review of EPA work products.
Incredibly, at the same time, the bill makes it more
difficult for academic experts to participate on the SAB. The
bill considers an expert's research on a topic covered by the
Board to be a conflict of interest, when in fact the
academic's expertise would make them more, not less,
valuable. In addition, receipt of EPA research grants and
contracts, standard for universities, would be construed to
constitute a conflict of interest for a scientist or expert.
And a SAB member would be precluded from accepting any such
grant or contract for three years after serving on the board
which may deter qualified experts from serving on the SAB.
The ``Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST)
Act of 2017'' and the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act
of 2017'' would block the use of sound science by EPA in
developing public safeguards. For these reasons, EDF Action
strongly opposes these bills.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth B. Thompson,
President, Environmental Defense
Action Fund.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to keep up with all the misstatements about
this bill, but I am going to try. The immediate past speaker on the
other side talked about the cost of the bill; and I am sure he didn't
do it intentionally, but he was using a 2-year-out-of-date cost.
We have an email from the CBO as of this past Monday that says the
CBO estimates this legislation would not affect direct spending or
revenues, so there is no cost, despite what Members might hear
otherwise.
Also, it is just hard for me to understand how any Member of Congress
[[Page H2542]]
could oppose open and honest government. All this bill does is to say
that the data has to be transparent, the data has to be publicly
available.
If they want more government control, more environmental regulations
that can't be justified, that is one thing; but don't oppose the bill
for the wrong reasons. The bill does nothing more than require open,
transparent, and honest government.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gosar), who is a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1430, the
HONEST Act, sponsored by the chairman of the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee, Chairman Lamar Smith.
Let's all go back to the fifth grade, where we learned about the
steps of the scientific method and do a quick review.
After we formulated our question and came up with our hypothesis,
what did we do?
We tested that hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting
the data in a reproducible manner.
Data isn't reproducible if it isn't even made available. Now, Mr.
Speaker, transparency and reproducibility are basic tenets of science
that every elementary school student learns and values. Yet our very
own Environmental Protection Agency has issued regulation after
regulation using studies and data that are not available for public
review, despite the very serious ramifications of that very data.
In 2012, President Obama's own chair of the Science Advisory Board
testified ``that literature and data used by the EPA be peer-reviewed
and made available to the public.''
This is common sense, Mr. Speaker: let's make public policy using
public data and use public data for public policy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for leading this initiative.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1430, the
Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act.
I have serious concerns with this bill that the majority has offered.
This bill pretends to improve scientific integrity and transparency
while, in reality, they would stop the EPA from doing its critical job,
its critical mission of protecting the American people.
Many credible organizations have opposed the HONEST Act, including
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Union of
Concerned Scientists, American Institute of Biological Sciences,
American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, the
League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, and
the Environmental Defense Action Fund.
Two others that I include in the Record, the copies that I hold in my
hand, in opposition, have been received from the Consortium for Ocean
Leadership, and the other from the Environmental Data and Governance
Initiative.
Consortium for
Ocean Leadership,
Washington, DC, March 27, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the Consortium for Ocean
Leadership, which represents our nation's leading ocean
research and technology institutions (from academia,
industry, and aquaria), I am writing to express concern
regarding the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment
(HONEST) Act of 2017 (H.R. 1430). Sound science must underpin
the rulemaking process at all our nation's federal agencies,
the Environmental Protection Agency included. I am concerned
about the practical implications of this bill and what it
means, not only for the rulemaking process, but for the
health, security, and prosperity of our nation and its
citizens. While I ardently support efforts to ensure the
continued use of sound science, I urge you and your
colleagues to consider unintended consequences of this bill
before bringing it to the House floor.
While reproducibility is a fundamental assumption of
science, that should not be conflated with the idea that all
non-reproducible science is incorrect. There are many cases
where reproducibility is simply not possible, but that does
not negate the importance of the conclusions that have been
reached. In 1994, the comet Shoemaker-Levy collided with our
celestial neighbor Jupiter, providing a first-hand look at
cosmic collisions and insight on both the comet and the
planet. The devastating Deepwater Horizon disaster in the
Gulf of Mexico has provided untold insights into everything
ranging from ecosystem responses to oil to impacts on
communities' physical and mental health. Because studies
stemming from these one-time incidents are not reproducible,
it does not mean that their methodology and results are
flawed. Additionally, longitudinal studies, especially in the
public health arena, are often too large and take so much
time (e.g., a study following a cohort for multiple decades)
that they could not realistically be reproduced but are
instead replicated through statistical modeling. Under the
current language of the HONEST Act, similar studies within
EPA's purview would be excluded from the agency's use,
potentially keeping the agency from making a proposal or
disseminating information and limiting the amount of good
science from which the EPA can makes decisions.
The bill also requires scientific and technical information
used to make federal regulations be posted online. While the
language specifies that personally identifiable information
used in these studies be redacted (unlike in the bill's
predecessor, the Secret Science Reform Act), the HONEST Act
goes on to state that personal information could be disclosed
to anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement with the
administrator. If federal regulations are made that impact a
specific industry, the same industry could access the
personal records of those who participated in the study.
Knowing that their personal information could be made
accessible to anyone would likely reduce the number of
willing participants in such a study, again limiting the best
science available to the agency.
Additionally, redacting information from documents is a
costly and time-consuming process that often requires the
work of an entire office. The EPA's limited resources, rather
than being spent fulfilling its mission ``to protect human
health and the environment'' would instead be spent
redacting, potentially hundreds of thousands of documents.
Conversely, the bill does not define who would make this
information publicly available online (and make appropriate
redactions) if the EPA were relying on a published, peer-
reviewed study performed by another entity, such as an
academic research institution. This would potentially impose
unexpected costs on the institution.
Rather than improving the quality of science used by the
agency, this bill would instead limit the amount of ``best
available science'' available for decision-making and would
require significant time and manpower. Such an impact would
threaten the health, not only of our nation, but of our
country's citizens who rely on the EPA to protect their well-
being. The unintended consequences from this bill are myriad,
and the ocean science and technology community stands ready
to help you evaluate them before considering this legislation
on the House floor.
Respectfully,
Jonathan W. White, RADM (Ret.), USN,
President and CEO, Consortium for Ocean Leadership.
____
Environmental Data
& Governance Initiative,
March 27, 2017.
Dear Representative: The Environmental Data & Governance
Initiative (EDGI) has analyzed the potential effects of the
Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (H.R.
1430) and determined that the bill would obstruct the EPA's
use of scientific studies in essential agency work. EDGI is
an organization comprised of non-profit employees and
academics that promotes open and accessible government data
and information along with evidence-based policy making. As
researchers invested in robust environmental data governance,
EDGI members are concerned that this legislation would force
the EPA to make determinations without certain categories of
crucial evidence-based research it needs to make the best
decisions for the health and welfare of the public and the
environment.
H.R. 1430 is just the latest iteration of the proposed
Secret Science Reform Acts of 2014 and 2015. These bills
would have prevented the EPA from relying on a large number
of validated and pivotal scientific studies in its decision-
making processes. Similarly, in its words, H.R. 1430 would
``prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from
proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or
assessments based upon science that is not transparent or
reproducible.'' Proponents claim that H.R. 1430 would improve
transparency in scientific decision-making and public data
accessibility, efforts that EDGI supports. However, as EDGI's
analysis shows, H.R. 1430 instead places important validated
science off limits to the EPA.
The data access requirements in H.R. 1430 would obstruct
public protections critical to human safety and health. Any
studies that utilize confidential medical records--including
many human health studies--would be nearly impossible for the
EPA to use because personally identifiable medical data
cannot be released to the general public. For instance, the
EPA would not be able to use epidemiological studies that are
critical for linking exposure to toxics with certain types of
diseases in the creation of standards that ensure our safe
drinking water and healthy air.
[[Page H2543]]
Additionally, the proposed legislation would bar studies
that cannot be reproduced from use by the EPA. Blocking the
EPA from using studies that are hard to reproduce impedes the
EPA's ability to protect the public from future health
hazards. Some of the nation's best evidence of public health
risks comes from long-term analyses, assessments of chronic
effects of exposure to toxic substances, studies based on
natural and human-caused catastrophes, and other studies that
we cannot reproduce.
Specific examples of current protections and programs that
would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the EPA to
issue had H.R. 1430 been in place include:
Standards that protect children from lead-based paint
hazards in their homes and schools. The EPA creates standards
that protect children from the adverse neurological effects
of exposure to lead in paint, dust, and soil. The agency
bases these lead protections on long-term studies of children
who have suffered lead exposure in the past. Because EPA
regulations have effectively reduced lead exposure in
children, reproducing these long-term epidemiological studies
would be nearly impossible, as the cohort of study subjects
no longer exists. Prohibiting the EPA from using historical
reports like these would make continuing regulation of lead
much harder.
Safeguards that protect people from exposure to radioactive
contaminants in drinking water. The EPA's standards for the
permissible quantity of certain radionuclides, such as
uranium, found in drinking water are based on data from
radiation exposure studies that use confidential patient
information from a cohort of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic
bomb survivors, which could not be used under this bill.
Long-term epidemiological studies conducted on this cohort
are also unreproducible, rendering these studies, and others
like them, nearly impossible for the EPA to use under H.R.
1430's provisions.
Measures that improve safety at industrial facilities and
protect and assist first responders and emergency authorities
during accidents. The EPA improved its risk management
regulations following several catastrophic events involving
chemical plants, including an explosion at the West
Fertilizer Company facility in Texas that killed 14 people,
ten of them first responders. The studies that result from
chemical explosions like these cannot be reproduced and would
not be available for the EPA's use under H.R. 1430,
preventing the agency from properly protecting first
responders and the public from future chemical disasters.
Plans that ensure best practices in cleaning up major oil
spills and other hazardous waste spills that affect wildlife
health and habitats. After the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran
aground in Alaska's Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989,
the EPA developed a restoration program to clean up the 11
million gallons of oil that had spilled into the Sound and
affected over 1,000 miles of shoreline. This cleanup program
would have been impossible without field studies of Prince
William Sound and other historical oil spills. Given the
large scale of these catastrophic spills, these studies
cannot be reproduced and thus would be barred from use by the
EPA by H.R. 1430.
The EPA would be hampered from implementing these vital
protections and programs under H.R. 1430. While the bill
contains a provision that pretends to skirt some of these
legal obstacles by only divulging protected materials to
people who sign confidentiality agreements, this provision is
illusory because medical data, trade secrets, and other
privacy-protected data cannot be released to the general
public, regardless of whether they sign a confidentiality
agreement. The EPA cannot issue confidentiality agreements on
behalf of third party researchers, so H.R. 1430 would inhibit
the EPA's ability to use many important scientific studies
despite this confidentiality agreement provision.
Further, H.R. 1430 limits the EPA to spending only $1
million a year to comply with these new requirements, yet the
CBO estimated that past versions of this legislation would
have cost the EPA up to $250 million annually to implement
the data access provisions required in the bill. The added
obligations specified in this legislation, coupled with a
lack of adequate funding to implement the law, would prevent
the EPA from fulfilling its hazard prevention and
environmental safety protection responsibilities.
Agencies tasked with protecting human health must be able
to rely on all available scientific data. Currently, the EPA
goes to great lengths to ensure that all of the data it
relies on is thoroughly reviewed and accessible. The EPA uses
several processes to ensure quality and relevance of data,
such as internal and external peer review and review by
scientific advisory boards.
When the EPA is prohibited from utilizing the most optimal
data, it puts the health and safety of citizens at risk.
Protecting safe drinking water and healthy air depends on the
EPA's ability to incorporate the best available evidence from
all scientific fields of study into its risk assessments and
regulation drafting processes. EDGI's analysis and research
shows that the passage of H.R. 1430 would block the EPA from
using the data it needs to fulfill its mission of protecting
public health and the environment.
Sincerely,
Sarah Lamdan,
Director of Legal Research, Environmental Data Governance
Initiative; Associate Law Library Professor, CUNY School of
Law.
on behalf of the edgi steering committee:
Andrew Bergman, Ph.D. Candidate, Applied Physics, Harvard
University; Phil Brown, Ph.D., Sociology, University
Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Health Sciences,
Northeastern University; Lindsey Dillon, Ph.D., Geography,
Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of California,
Santa Cruz; Gretchen Gehrke, Ph.D., Geochemistry, Data and
Advocacy Steward, Public Lab; Rebecca Lave, Ph.D., Geography,
Associate Professor of Geography, Indiana University.
Michelle Murphy, Ph.D., History of Science, Professor of
History, Director of the Technoscience Research Unit,
University of Toronto; Nicholas Shapiro, Ph.D., Medical
Anthropology, Matter and Materials Fellow, Chemical Heritage
Foundation, Open Air Fellow, Public Lab; Christopher Sellers,
Ph.D., History; M.D., Professor of History, Stony Brook
University; Sara Wylie, Ph.D., History, Anthropology, and
Science Technology and Society Program, Assistant Professor
of Health Science and Sociology, Northeastern University.
Mr. TONKO. The Union of Concerned Scientists has recently said that
``the bill effectively prevents the EPA from using the weight of
scientific evidence to protect public health and the environment.''
They go on to say ``this doesn't make sense.''
I agree. This doesn't make any sense.
Instead, I hope that, as a Congress, we can turn our attention to
truly protecting scientific integrity. We must protect the scientific
process from political interference, which is why I recently introduced
the Scientific Integrity Act, which will require our United States
Federal agencies to adopt or strengthen policies to insulate
government-directed research from the influence of political pressure
and special interests.
Under the Scientific Integrity Act, Federal agencies that conduct or
fund scientific research would be required to develop clear, written
scientific integrity policies that can guarantee research is being done
and published without undue influence, censorship, or distortion.
Scientific and technological information would be able to flow more
easily while protecting privacy, confidentiality, and our national
security. Twenty-four separate Federal agencies have developed
scientific integrity policies to date. This legislation would also
codify and strengthen these policies within a common framework.
Every Democrat on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has
supported the Scientific Integrity Act, and I invite all of my
colleagues across the aisle to join us in working to truly protect
scientific integrity.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the so-called HONEST Act.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a couple of times today that the bill
prevents the EPA from using the best available science.
I hope that Members who are listening to this debate, and others,
will take the time to actually look at the language of the bill. Here
is the exact language, page 2, line 13. The first requirement of the
bill is that the EPA ``use the best available science.'' I don't know
what more we can do and how better we can spell it out.
The bill is only a little over three pages long. I really do
recommend that the folks who oppose it read the bill itself and
actually look at the language and the usual understanding and
definition of the words, and I hope they will be satisfied.
We have also heard that the scientific community opposes the bill,
but let me quote from a couple of Obama administration officials. Dr.
John Holdren, the President's science adviser, said that: ``Absolutely,
the data on which regulatory decisions are based should be made
available to the committee and should be made public.''
The same was said by the chair of the EPA's Science Advisory Board.
This is the EPA's Science Advisory Board. They testified before the
committee that literature and data used by the EPA be made available to
the public.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Marshall), who is the vice chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, to
[[Page H2544]]
voice my support of the HONEST Act. This legislation gives independent
scientists a fair chance to validate the studies EPA uses to make
regulations. As someone who has made a career in science, I know that
determining anything less is unwise and unscientific.
Whether you are studying a new oncology drug or EPA regulations,
transparency and the ability to reproduce and share these findings are
some of the basic tenets of science. Costly regulations that impact
American citizens and Kansas farmers should be based upon data that is
available to independent scientists and the public.
Let's continue to be a voice for the people with sound, transparent,
scientific regulatory policy.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and my
friend, the chairman of the committee.
We often agree on things in the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee, but there are times when our disagreements are huge, and
this is one of those times.
So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1430. We have seen this
bill in the last Congress, when it was called the Secret Science Reform
Act. It was a lousy bill then, and it is still a lousy bill today.
Let's start with the name of this bill, Mr. Speaker, the HONEST Act,
but it really should be called the dishonest act. That is because this
bill improperly describes what is going on at the EPA, which is
looking to protect our environment from extreme weather events that we
have in Colorado, throughout the country, and around the world.
The EPA is working to protect our clean air and our clean water, and
has demonstrably improved our communities and the health of America
since 1970.
I wish I could say these attacks today and tomorrow on the EPA and
scientific research are isolated, but unfortunately they are not.
Earlier today, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a
hearing on climate science. I was astonished at what I heard from the
majority Republican Party calling into question whether climate change
is happening, and whether it is caused by humans. All this serves is to
attack scientific research and jeopardize the progress we have made to
combat climate change and protect our communities.
Just yesterday, President Trump issued an executive order to further
roll back progress that we have made over the last 8 years. The
executive order tries to dismantle the Clean Power Plan and many other
important protections from the Obama administration which were worked
on based on the best available science and through an open and
deliberate process, gathering millions of comments along the way. The
fact is, investing in clean energy and reducing emissions is good for
our national security, good for our environment, and good for jobs.
I believe we can do both--improve our energy independence and create
good-paying jobs--at the same time. Colorado has been a leader in
reducing harmful emissions, improving energy efficiency, and investing
in clean energy, and we have realized substantial economic benefits for
Colorado through innovation, research and development, and the creation
of good-paying jobs.
Mr. Speaker, we need to do better. This House and the Science, Space,
and Technology Committee need to take their heads out of the sand and
stop ignoring what is going on across the country and across the world.
I urge all my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter dated March 8, 2017,
from the American Geophysical Union.
American Geophysical Union,
March 8, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: On behalf
of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its more than
60,000 members, I am writing to express concerns about the
Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (HONEST
Act) and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.
We encourage you and your colleagues to take additional time
to evaluate the unintended consequences of these bills before
the bills move forward.
Although we appreciate the HONEST Act's protections for
confidential information, we remain concerned about several
provisions in the bill. For example, requirements in the bill
for the use of ``best available science,'' ``data,'' and
``reproducible'' do not have uniform applications across all
disciplines.
With respect to reproducibility of research, some
scientific research involves longitudinal studies that are so
large and of great duration that they could not realistically
be reproduced. The same may be true for scientific data from
a one-time event (e.g., Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill)
where the data is gathered in real time. We're concerned that
in these situations the EPA could be constrained from using
important or relevant research in making decisions.
The legislation could also impose costs on recipients of
federal research grants where the research results are
expected to be ``relied on to support a covered action.'' The
bill is not clear on whether it is the EPA's or the research
institution's responsibility to cover the costs associated
with sharing and archiving this information.
We are also troubled by the implications of the EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act. As an organization that represents
scientists from broad backgrounds and expertise, we
appreciate the attempt to ensure a diverse panel of
scientific knowledge and perspectives, and support the bill's
goal of increasing accountability and transparency for
scientific advisors. However, because the bill would exclude
some scientists with substantial expertise in their fields
from the Science Advisory Board (SAB), the SAB would suffer
from the exclusion of valuable insight. The purpose of the
SAB is to review the quality and robustness of scientific
data that informs EPA's regulatory process. It is imperative
that the SAB comprise the most expert, independent scientists
and technical advisors to best fulfill that mission.
AGU looks forward to working with you on these critical
issues in the future.
With best wishes,
Lexi Shultz,
Director of Public Affairs,
American Geophysical Union.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Colorado attended the hearing
we had this morning on the scientific method and climate change, but I
am not sure he was listening, because not a single witness on either
side denied the facts around climate change.
I also want to reassure him--he is worried about Colorado, and I
understand that--that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
found that there was low confidence in any connection between climate
change and extreme weather events. So I hope there will not be any
unusual extreme weather events in Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
LaMalfa), a member of the Natural Resources Committee and the
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Smith for yielding time
here today, as these issues affect my constituents in northern
California as well. So being here to support H.R. 1430, the HONEST Act,
really pleases me because we haven't had a lot of honesty the way the
EPA has applied new interpretations of new rules to some of the folks
in my district here, that farm and ranch and other activities that use
their resources and their land in the way they see fit.
We need to ensure that the EPA rules and regulations are made using
verifiable, publicly available data and science.
{time} 1430
A fundamental tenet of our Nation is that citizens have the right to
know how and why the government makes decisions and, just as
importantly, have the ability to challenge those decisions. However, we
have seen an increasing tendency of Federal agencies to refuse to
disclose the data they have based decisions on, claiming it is too
sensitive to share. Really, now.
For example, the Obama administration's waters of the U.S. rule,
which would have inserted the Federal Government into local land use
decisions across the Nation, directly conflicts with publicly available
data prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers, yet the EPA refused to
release data it claimed supported its conclusion.
Farmers, in some cases, cannot even use their land under the threat
of litigation, fines, or even arrest. Even the Army Corps of Engineers
disputes the EPA's refusal, noting, in 2015, that EPA provided no
scientific basis for its jurisdictional power grab.
Under waters of the United States, we have heard interpretations that
[[Page H2545]]
people plowing their fields could be interpreted now as a regulatable
land because that could be seen as a watershed because you now have
furrows that are new watersheds.
This is the kind of thing that needs to be heard publicly in review
of Congress and the people, not made in a back room of the EPA
somewhere. That is not an honest way of doing business. That is why
H.R. 1430 is an honest way to bring them back to the accountability we
need to have so people can have their day and have a right to dispute
nonscience-led decisions made by the EPA.
The Obama Administration did not even rely on peer-reviewed science
or on publicly available Scientific Advisory Board determinations
despite EPA claims that its effort was backed by science.
The tendency for Federal agencies to develop regulations based on
secret data is even more insidious when we note that these are not even
elected officials. They don't have to stand for election. These are
career bureaucrats who cannot be removed or even sometimes met up with
by the voters, by their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, when Americans face regulations imposed by unelected
bureaucrats and based on secret science that cannot be verified or even
viewed, how can they employ their First Amendment right to petition
their government? The answer, colleagues, is simple. They can't.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill to protect every American's
right to know how and why their government makes decisions, to protect
their First Amendment rights, to protect their property, and their
ability to thrive.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I thank you for
bringing this effort and for your battle.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), who is the chairman of the Environment
Subcommittee.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the
chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and
especially for sponsoring this legislation, the HONEST Act.
As the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee on the Science
Committee, I fully support this bill that will require EPA regulations
be based on science that is publicly available. The HONEST Act pushes
forward the basic principles of the scientific method, which is
critically important in instances in which science and Federal
Government policy intersect.
Regulations put forward by the EPA impact all Americans, including my
constituents in the East Valley of the Greater Phoenix area, the four
cities of Chandler, Gilbert, Queen Creek, and Mesa. So it is imperative
that the citizens of this country be able to see the data that underpin
these rules. What is even more important is that the scientific
community be able to scrutinize EPA data to ensure that the Agency is
using the best available science, regardless of the administration.
Critics of the HONEST Act claim that scientific data underpinning
EPA's regulations are already subject to the standards of peer review.
While this may be true, peer review of scientific studies is not
adequate because this process seldom involves a close scrutiny of the
data used in these studies. Peer review rarely double-checks the
analysis, and very rarely does it attempt to actually replicate the
results of a study. Right now, we can only hope that the individuals
conducting the science can be trusted with their results.
The EPA should promote the use of rigorous science, not questionable
science. Those who say that peer review is adequate are misguided. The
American people deserve better than that, and the HONEST Act ensures
that their expectations are met.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues who are interested in an open and
honest EPA to pass this legislation.
Again, I thank Chairman Smith for bringing this legislation forward
and giving me the opportunity to speak.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
And I would like to know if the other side, the minority, has any more
speakers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaMalfa). The gentleman from Texas has
8\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Texas has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further
requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I have been standing here
listening to this debate. Let's go back and think about this for just a
minute.
Right now, in the United States, the cost of regulation in our Nation
is approximately $2 trillion; $2 trillion is the cost that our Nation
spends every year just complying with regulations. In fact, that
distills down to the average household spending around $15,000 just to
comply with regulations.
Now, let me be clear. Regulations are important. We have got to have
regulations to make sure we protect our environment, we protect the
health and safety of our citizens. That is critical.
What this bill does is it simply provides for transparency so we can
understand the basis of regulations. That is all this does: make sure
that we can understand the science that regulations were based upon.
During a public comment process, we should have the ability to
scrutinize that science to understand the basis. Because, Mr. Speaker,
if you begin hiding the basis for decisions, then you have government,
in many cases, acting without providing for transparency, without being
able to be held accountable. That is dangerous to have people making
decisions based upon secret information.
That is dangerous for our economy, and it is going to further
challenge the ability of Americans to keep their budgets balanced. It
is already $15,000 per household. How many thousands does it have to be
before we need to say: Stop. This is unreasonable?
Mr. Speaker, you look right now at the trade deficit of this country;
you look at the cost of goods and products in other nations. In many
cases, we are losing the trade war because our regulatory environment
here, our tax environment here, is simply not competitive.
What happens in a scenario where you release the science you provide
for transparency, you allow for better solutions. You allow for more
efficient regulations, for better ways to achieve those objectives to
improve our environment and protect our environment, to improve and
protect the safety and health of workers and American citizens.
This bill is in America's interest. It is in the public interest. To
listen to people stand here and talk about hiding and shielding science
and making up red herrings about privacy and other things, that is
absolutely contrary to this country's interests. It is contrary to the
public's interest.
This bill should be passed. I am shocked that there is opposition to
it, and we should pass this with unanimous support.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a former member of the Science
Committee, who is still missed, a former chairman of the Environment
Subcommittee, and the author of a very similar bill to this in a
previous Congress.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, look, I miss the Science Committee, and
I know I have been banned, and I have had a lot of coffee today. I was
going to come up to the microphone and sort of do the blast away, but
let me back away.
A number of things I have heard in this debate from the left and even
a couple of the things from my side, okay, you are conflating all sorts
of things that this bill doesn't do. This bill is three pages.
So can I ask a question? If I came to you right now and said, ``Tell
me that the EPA actually has the right rule sets for hydrocarbons, if
it has the right rule set for PM10, it has the right rule sets for
ozone,'' you would say, ``Well, I have a peer-reviewed study that says
this.'' I want to make the argument, in today's technology, why
[[Page H2546]]
shouldn't your university, why shouldn't the really smart person who
has the computer system in their basement, why shouldn't the new
statistical packages that are on these things be allowed to take the
data the taxpayers have paid for and work it and model it and bounce it
off other types of datasets and ask is the way we model and regulate
rational?
This bill doesn't reduce regulations. In many ways, it allows us all
to participate in the citizen science to understand whether we are
doing it the right way.
Why is the left so scared of citizen scientists, of university
scientists, of people who are just darned interested in the matching of
different types of datasets?
You and I might find out we are doing things the wrong way. You and I
might find out we are not doing enough. You and I may find out we are
doing far too much. But stop being afraid of people having access to
the information. If society is going to live under a regulatory
environment, then society deserves access to the information that
creates those regulations.
Public information for public policy, why is that so feared? Why is
there so much trust in the bureaucracy instead of science and
information?
I want to argue with you that, in today's world, when we are on the
cusp, where sensors are going to be attached to this, taking thousands
of readings in our communities, that that information is just as noble
as something that is locked up in the cabinet where none of us can
actually see the base datasets.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, since the time that
President Nixon signed into law authorizing the EPA, it appears to me
that there has been no evidence that they have done anything other than
attempt to protect the lives of the American people. I don't believe
that this legislation is going to do anything to further that.
It will give them a lot of unfunded mandates, far more than what they
would ever be funded to carry out. I would ask everyone to respect the
Agency and vote ``no'' on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, costly environmental regulations should only be based
upon data that is available to independent scientists and the public
and that can be verified.
H.R. 1430, the HONEST Act, gives independent scientists an
opportunity to validate the studies the EPA uses to make new
regulations. What this bill does not do is roll back the laws that
protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. It simply requires
the EPA to base regulations on science that is publicly available.
This is a nonpartisan bill. A change in administration does not
change the need or justification for it. This is the same bill,
virtually, introduced in the last administration, and that is evidenced
by my introduction of this good-government legislation with my
Democratic colleague Henry Cuellar. That shows it is a good, bipartisan
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and
promote a more open and honest Federal Government. We should not be
afraid of letting the American people see the data that the EPA or
other agencies say justifies their regulations.
So let's vote for an open and honest government and support this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). All time for
debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 229, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1445
Motion to Recommit
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. McEACHIN. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McEachin moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1430 to the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 3. EXCEPTION.
Notwithstanding the amendment made by section 2, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall,
in carrying out the activities described in that amendment,
make use of the best available science, whether or not it is
publicly available in any form, when responding to threats to
public health, including black lung disease and asthma,
caused by or exacerbated by exposure to pollution or toxic
chemicals.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment is simple. It ensures that the EPA
continues to use the best available science to respond to threats to
public health, including black lung and asthma, caused by or
exacerbated by exposure to pollution or toxic chemicals.
This motion to recommit reverses harmful restrictions imposed by this
bill that make it almost impossible to base public protections on the
best available scientific information, much of which is private or
proprietary and cannot always be published.
In its current form, Mr. Speaker, this bill, the so-called Honest and
Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, seriously impedes the EPA's ability
to protect the American public from pollutants, toxins, and other
dangerous threats to their well-being.
The true intention of this bill is not to increase transparency in
policymaking but, rather, to bar scientists and civil servants from
enforcing the intent of bedrock protections in the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, and other important laws.
If this ``secret science'' bill passes in its current form, the EPA's
work will grind to a halt and countless Americans will suffer or even
die as a result. Hardworking miners, whose work and contributions have
been overly politicized in the debate to keep access to science, are
the greatest at risk. Generations of miners toil dutifully to support
their families, all the while exposing themselves to toxicity and
pollution that can leave them with lifelong debilitating diseases, such
as black lung and asthma.
Families who will struggle from the costs to treat these expensive
diseases and from loss of income due to days missed from work do not
need more obstruction or political football. They need access to the
best care available, which relies upon evidence-based science. They
deserve far better than what the majority is offering.
Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress with a mission to uphold the values
and principles of the great constituents living in Virginia's Fourth
Congressional District. I believe that includes advocating for the
health of all Americans. That means advocating for sound science and
reasonable policies. It means rejecting dangerous, shortsighted, and an
astonishingly hard-hearted piece of legislation that is currently
before you.
Mr. Speaker, science is the bedrock of sound medical and public
health decisionmaking. EPA's science-based decisionmaking process has
saved lives and led to the dramatic improvements in the quality of the
air we breathe, the water we drink, and the Earth we share.
All Americans have benefited from the research-based scientific
advice that scientists have provided the EPA, and that is why I urge my
colleagues to support my motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I don't really know the gentleman from
Virginia, but you can hear in the tone of his voice he is truly well-
meaning and cares about his State and his population.
[[Page H2547]]
If you actually read this motion to recommit, things in here, such as
best available science, are obvious. If you actually read the three
pages of the legislation, that is the obvious part. For many of us--and
being sort of the original previous generation author of the bill--that
was our goal.
But does anyone see sort of the intellectual duplicity when, on one
hand, you say proprietary science, and then--the best available
science, but other science can't test, stress, analyze, bounce,
conflate, model the proprietary science, because it is proprietary,
with the best available and other datasets?
You can't have both. If you are going to try to make public policy in
a world with functionally secret, proprietary science data that is
sold--actually, let's be brutally honest here for a moment. This stuff
is sold to the EPA.
One of the reasons some of the groups that have been listed off
oppose this legislation is they make money selling the data, and then
they make it so you can't actually look at the datasets underneath and
test it.
How does that lead us to knowing that we are taking care of our
brothers and sisters out there? How does that lead us to actually
knowing we are doing it the best possible, most rational way and that
our rules, our mechanics are correct?
On your motion to recommit, I am a severe asthmatic. I have had it
since I was an infant. I am one of those people who wakes up every day
and takes a hit of my inhaler to make sure my lungs are okay. In the
back room, I have an emergency inhaler. I know what it is like to live
with asthma.
I care tremendously about the science, but I also want there to be
vigorous debate. I want there to be all sorts of research. I want there
to be this sort of crowd-sourced world where science and data are
competing with each other and being modeled together; and living in a
world where we trust the bureaucracy, where we trust proprietary,
secret information to make our rule sets.
I don't know how anyone, intellectually, can get to the point of
thinking that is making our society healthier and that we are actually
doing it in the most efficient manner possible.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________