[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.

                          ____________________