[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4951-4958]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1430, HONEST AND OPEN NEW EPA 
                     SCIENCE TREATMENT ACT OF 2017

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 229 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 229

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House 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. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand House Resolution 229. You 
heard the Clerk read it moments ago. Page 1 and page 2. Folks can find 
it on rules.house.gov if they haven't had a chance to see it already. 
It provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 1430, Honest and 
Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017.
  If you work through that title, Mr. Speaker, the Honest and Open New 
EPA Science Treatment Act, you will find that ``honest'' is what those 
letters spell out. It is the HONEST Act.
  In the past, the Rules Committee has reported structured rules for 
consideration of this very bill. In this case, Mr. Speaker, there were 
no amendments offered in committee. There were no amendments presented 
in the Rules Committee last night. We have reported a closed rule for 
consideration of this bill.
  Science is, Mr. Speaker, in the EPA's own words, the backbone of 
EPA's decisionmaking. President Obama, in 2011, issued an executive 
order about how agencies should go about making the regulatory process 
more effective. He said, and I quote: ``Each agency shall ensure the 
objectivity of any scientific and technological information and 
processes used to support the agency's regulatory actions.''

[[Page 4952]]

  We talk so much about what divides us in this institution, in this 
town, sometimes even in this country, Mr. Speaker, I think that point 
is worth dwelling on.
  Again, quoting from former President Barack Obama: ``Each agency 
shall ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological 
information and processes used to support the agency's regulatory 
actions.''
  It is what the HONEST Act aims to do, Mr. Speaker. It aims to provide 
the American public with the data that the EPA uses in each of its 
regulatory actions.
  It would come as a surprise to many Americans, Mr. Speaker, to learn 
that there are Agency actions that take place based entirely on 
undisclosed data sets, that the regulatory arm of government can be at 
work based on secret data that will never be released to the American 
public to verify, to confirm in this what is often, in scientific 
communities, referred to as peer-reviewed literature.
  We believe that, if we are making the rules, we should be able to 
expose the data on which those rules are based to scrutiny and, in 
fact, to challenge, Mr. Speaker.
  One thing I have learned in this job is sometimes I am not as smart 
as I think I am. I don't know if that has ever happened to you, Mr. 
Speaker. I am sure it has never happened to my friend from Colorado. 
But sometimes we are not as smart as we think we are. Sometimes being 
challenged makes us better.
  The HONEST Act, Mr. Speaker, aims to provide the opportunity simply 
by looking at the data for any American citizen to understand the 
regulatory actions being taken at the EPA, and, yes, if necessary, to 
challenge those actions if they believe they are not based on sound 
science.
  Mr. Speaker, I know what you are thinking. You are thinking: Is this 
bill necessary? The EPA's mission is to protect the environment and 
public health, so, of course, it is going to use the best science.
  The answer should be yes. The answer should be yes that in every set 
of circumstances we are always using the very best data. But as you 
know, time and time again, you can bring an expert into your office. A 
scientist on one side of the issue will tell you one thing; a scientist 
on the other will bring an equally compelling compendium of information 
to tell you the next. It is left to us, to the American people, to 
decide who is right and who is wrong.
  This is nothing to be feared. This is something to be embraced. It 
has certainly been a characteristic of our great country for over 200 
years.
  But in these days of information pouring out of the administration at 
the speed of the internet, it is more critical than ever that we make 
that information available to the public. With the ability today to 
understand that information, to process that information, to compile 
that information, to inspect that information in details never before 
imagined, it is incumbent upon us to make sure that America has that 
opportunity.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to support 
this rule to bring the bill to the floor and then to support the 
underlying legislation so that we can pass the HONEST Act, bringing 
clarity and transparency to the EPA rulemaking process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
legislation. First, when the gentleman from Georgia said there were no 
amendments brought forward on this in the Rules Committee, that is 
partial truth but not the entire truth.
  The entire truth is, when we have a process whereby Members believe 
that there might be an amendment process, there is something called a 
call for amendments which is issued. Often our chair, Mr. Sessions, and 
my friend from Georgia has heard Mr. Sessions come down to the floor 
and say: We are calling for amendments on this bill. Submit them. The 
Rules Committee will consider them and allow some of them to advance to 
the floor. At least you know you have a fair shot.
  In this particular case, there was no call for amendments issued, 
which means, yes, Members could have spun their wheels, and sometimes 
you feel like a hamster doing that, just running around and not moving 
anywhere in one of those circles. And if we thought there was any 
realistic hope that amendments could be included, I, myself, would have 
been happy to submit one, as would many of my colleagues.
  Chairman Smith actually requested a closed rule on this. So, again, 
the chairman of the committee and the Rules Committee gave every 
indication that we are not allowing any amendments to this bill; and 
that is what discourages Members from going through the work of 
submitting an amendment if they have a good idea what the outcome is 
already going to be.
  So this is a closed rule. This is an antiscience bill. It is another 
example of how we go around the ability of Members to improve bills 
and, instead, work in a partisan, smoky, backroom manner where this 
bill emerges fully formed. The chair of the committee of jurisdiction 
himself didn't want any amendments or any changes to this rule, and the 
Rules Committee never called for those amendments.
  Now, if the goal of this bill is somehow to increase government 
transparency, why don't we start with the lawmaking process and have an 
open rule that allows Democrats and Republicans to improve a bill and 
offer their best ideas forward? And if they are good ideas, they will 
be incorporated into the bill. If they are bad ideas and can't command 
a majority of this body, they will be defeated.
  But, unfortunately, these partisan tactics that were seen trying to 
ram through legislation last week that failed when the Speaker and the 
President refused to work across the aisle with us on healthcare reform 
and now on improving the process at the EPA, instead of working with us 
to improve science, they are seeking to undermine the integrity of the 
important scientific work done at the Environmental Protection Agency 
and bury the Environmental Protection Agency in red tape.
  The underlying legislation that this rule talks about has a lot of 
problems, Mr. Speaker, and so many problems, in fact, I won't even be 
able to talk about them all during my limited time for debate here. 
Hopefully they will be able to cover some more during the debate on the 
bill.
  The first issue I want to address that is highly problematic with 
this bill, and it is something that is so important to the American 
people--liberal, conservative, and moderate--and that is the issue of 
privacy.
  This bill would undermine the privacy of American families in a 
number of ways. What it would do is prohibit the Environmental 
Protection Agency, an agency that exists to protect our health, from 
taking any action unless it is based on data that is fully available to 
the public. Now, that sounds good, ``fully available to the public.'' 
But what does that mean?
  You see, normally the EPA has relied on peer-reviewed, scientifically 
valid research to inform its actions. Now that is something that the 
process of science across the world informs. It is a very important, 
well-founded process that respects the efforts of scientists everywhere 
and the diligence of a peer-reviewed process.
  Much of these bodies of work utilize personal health information and 
confidential data which, currently, are legally protected from public 
disclosure. The EPA identifies the academic papers that it uses in the 
Federal Register so we have that transparency, but it doesn't release 
the legally protected private data--participants in studies, health of 
people--to the general public nor is there any scientific value to that 
personal information.
  The value is in the studies, which are done scientifically and are 
already made public. This bill would force the EPA to either ignore 
these valuable studies because they utilize private data or violate 
Federal law by sharing confidential patient information with

[[Page 4953]]

the general public. We are talking about everything ranging from Social 
Security numbers, to whether you got cancer from something you were 
drinking as a child, to our most intimate health or lifestyle issues 
that are researched by the agency.
  The majority here, the Republicans, are trying to include a provision 
in the bill that allows personally identifiable information to be 
redacted prior to the EPA making the information available. I am sure 
my colleague from Georgia will cite that, but that is woefully 
inefficient because it has a loophole in that very provision that 
basically negates that provision in another section by allowing the EPA 
administrator to allow any person who signs a confidentiality agreement 
to have access to all the redacted data.
  So, again, basically, at the whim of the administrator, they can 
allow companies and people in there--the information can be put in 
front of people who have access to it, to use it in any way they want, 
and that is highly personal information.
  Again, whether it is under the coverage of a confidentiality 
agreement or not, it is shown with unknown partners. This is not the 
Federal agency itself. This is perhaps even the company that caused the 
pollution that wants to come in and look at it or just various 
Americans with prurient interests who want to know intimate health 
details, and there is effectively no protection for that. It is 
entirely at the whim of the administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  So that is an enormous setback for the privacy of American families 
and a woefully insufficient privacy protection with a loophole that is 
big enough to drive a truck through. There is not even a numerical 
limit on the amount of people or corporations that would be allowed 
access of that data. There could be a blanket permission from the 
administrator allowing thousands, tens of thousands of people, again, 
to see the individually identifiable data, including your Social 
Security Number, including your health details or medical records, 
including things that affect property value and affect health.
  Another major issue with this bill, major fault, is it actually 
undermines the goal of the Agency itself. The Environmental Protection 
Agency, which has the congressional mandate to keep our air and water 
clean, to protect our health, this bill actually does the opposite by 
burying the Agency under a mountain of red tape and bureaucracy.
  This bill removes sound, scientific, objective decisionmaking and 
replaces it with ridiculous amounts of red tape, adding to the process 
of regulations, adding to the process of rules, requiring the 
Environmental Protection Agency to jump through additional bureaucratic 
hoops to use certain information, and making their entire goal of 
fulfilling their mission less efficient than if this bill were not the 
law.
  The Environmental Protection Agency already uses a peer-reviewed 
scientific process. They publish in the Federal Register the reference 
of the works that they are basing their opinions on, just as the rest 
of America's scientific community does. This bill undermines the 
scientific process, is unscientific, and is opposed by so many 
scientific advocacy organizations, including opposed by the Union of 
Concerned Scientists who are strongly opposed to this legislation.
  Now, on top of the red tape and antiscience aspects of the bill, this 
would also cost the government $1 billion of EPA funds; that is 
according to analysis of a very similar bill last Congress. These are 
funds that would be diverted away from protecting our health and 
safety, which is what they are doing now, toward creating more red tape 
and bureaucracy for the very agency that the American people entrust 
with the goal of keeping our air and water clean and the American 
people healthy.
  Look, we all know what this bill is. It is a thinly veiled attack on 
science, part of the antiscience agenda that we are seeing from the 
Republican Party.
  The budget that the President offered earlier this month cuts science 
funding to the bone. Enormous setbacks in the very research into 
lifesaving science in the future that would help improve our quality of 
life and duration of life and help our economy boom are being 
devastated under the President's budgets.
  Scientific research creates billions of dollars of economic impact 
and innovation in States like mine, Colorado, and every other State. 
Science helps keep us healthy. It keeps crops alive and productive. It 
keeps our businesses open and keeps America as a global leader in 
innovation.
  I also want to take a moment to highlight that, while this bill is 
being heard on the floor today, President Trump is signing an executive 
order that effectively repeals all of the work that the Environmental 
Protection Agency and other Federal agencies have done in the last 8 
years to protect our planet from the impacts of climate change.
  Unfortunately, while we focus on a bill that forces scientists to not 
use the best science available, the President has signed an executive 
order that will essentially begin the repeal process of the Clean Power 
Plan. The Clean Power Plan is a basic requirement for States to bring 
their emissions down to a sustainable level to protect Americans' 
health, to reduce the amount of pollution in our air and water, and to 
reduce the human impact on climate change.
  The executive order also, unfortunately, undermines some of the 
commonsense protections we have with regard to fracking, something that 
is near and dear to my constituents and people in Colorado, as an area 
that is impacted by extraction activities.
  This repeal, for example, would allow oil and gas companies to hide 
the chemicals that they use when producing oil and natural gas. Picture 
that: fracking wells near homes and schools who would no longer have to 
report what chemicals could potentially be leaking into drinking water 
or groundwater. How can that possibly further our goal to protect the 
health and welfare of the American people?
  So, at the same time, we have this legislation undermining the 
scientific process of the Environmental Protection Agency and burying 
the Environmental Protection Agency under red tape, coordinated the 
same week with the President's disastrous executive order that will 
hurt the health of the American people and, ultimately, cost lives.
  These are just another step in the undermining of science and the 
work to improve and protect the health of the people of our country. 
The Environmental Protection Agency relies on the best science 
available when developing new standards, and they are fully transparent 
about posting those scientific studies.
  However, because many of the studies that this bill requires would 
impact legally protected private data, like personal medical records, 
to reach their findings, the Environmental Protection Agency could even 
be prohibited from considering that research.
  This ridiculous restriction would force the EPA to ignore a lot of 
relevant information because of the desire of the researchers and the 
legal imperative of the researchers to protect the private data of the 
participants, ultimately leading to policies that are ineffective and 
are not based on sound facts or science.
  Mr. Speaker, facts exist. Science and the pursuit of truth is an 
incredibly important human endeavor, and we can't afford to disregard 
that quest for truth in the name of a fiction-based reality that we 
increasingly seem to be headed toward as a nation.
  Without sound and strong science, America will fall behind in the 
world. Americans will--our lifespans will be of lower quality and lower 
duration, and our economy will be hurt as we cede our leadership role 
to more forward-looking countries willing to invest in the future.
  If this bill had been in place over the last few decades, I am pretty 
sure that the cloud of smog over Denver, Colorado, would probably still 
be there. Rivers and lakes across this country would suffer from 
pollution in a significantly worse way, and that is not the future that 
the American people want.
  If the EPA is prevented from using the best available peer-reviewed 
research data on air quality, asthma will

[[Page 4954]]

be causing more attacks and, yes, even deaths of children across our 
country.
  Let's see this legislation for what it is--an attack on science, a 
giveaway to corporations who benefit from pollution, who don't like the 
fact that the EPA is using sound silence, who want to create and live 
in their own fictional reality, where the externalities of their 
actions somehow don't matter.
  We need the truth. The American people deserve the truth. We deserve 
the benefit of the outcome of the process of objective science, and 
this bill undermines that by burying the Environmental Protection 
Agency under immense red tape, while preventing them from using some of 
the very peer-reviewed studies that would lead to the very best 
decisionmaking possible to protect the health of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you know that I consider the gentleman from Colorado to 
be a good friend of mine. I find myself, after that presentation, 
though, wondering if that was a cloud of smog over Denver or if it was 
another cloud of smoke over Denver in these days.
  That is just not true. It is just not true. I will start with what I 
am proud about because I think we do focus too often on divisions.
  Mr. Speaker, you know that we wanted to hold the Obama administration 
accountable for sound science. And now that there is a Republican in 
the White House, we want to hold a Republican administration 
accountable for sound science.

                              {time}  1245

  So often in this town, we see one set of rules when you agree with 
the person in office and another set of rules when you disagree with 
the person in office. I don't think that is the right way to govern a 
country. I am proud that we are not falling into that trap. If it is 
good for the Obama administration, it is good for the Trump 
administration.
  Number two, there is no smoke-filled backroom deal here. Number one, 
there is no smoke-filled room anywhere on Capitol Hill. Speaker Boehner 
is gone, and smoking is banned from all of our spaces. This bill went 
through a full committee hearing, the full committee process. So often, 
Mr. Speaker, you know at the beginning of a year like this one, we are 
trying to move legislation to the floor quickly. Some things that we 
have already had hearings and debate on, like this bill, from last 
Congress, we bring to the floor outside of regular order, and we skip 
the committee hearing process. Not so with this bill. It went through 
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee for a full hearing.
  Mr. Speaker, we talk about transparency as if it exists at the EPA. I 
will remind my friend from Colorado, Mr. Speaker, we have to issue 
subpoenas from the United States Congress to get the EPA to share its 
data with us, notwithstanding to get them to share it with the 
University of Georgia or Georgia Tech or Caltech, or wherever the best 
scientific minds of the day are. We have to issue subpoenas to get them 
to share that information. Clearly, transparency is not the norm, it is 
the exception.
  We talk about costs. My friend references $1 billion in costs from 
some study, apparently, not a peer-review study. I have not seen the 
data backing up this study. But the good news is I don't actually need 
the study. I have the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, and I will turn to the 
relevant part here. Paragraph 5, clarify that the administrator shall 
implement this section in a matter that does not exceed $1 million per 
year from the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated. Now, you 
don't have to spend the entire million dollars, Mr. Speaker, but in the 
name of transparency, to make sure that folks have access to the data, 
we have said it is worth investing resources but not to exceed $1 
million.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we talk about the burden of red tape. I don't 
know if you have had to deal with the EPA or the DOT or the DOD or the 
DOE--insert DO acronym here--red tape is abundant in this Federal 
Government, and asking the Federal Government to be transparent is the 
antithesis of red tape. Since when did it become a burden on the 
institutions of government to be transparent with the American people? 
Since when, when you are making rules and regulations that affect the 
lives of every single American, did it become a burden to share the 
data on which those regulations are based?
  I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, we get wrapped around the axle so 
often here that we end up getting further and further from our goals. 
Sharing data, getting peer-reviewed comments on that data, and having 
folks come out in support of the conclusions reached on that data are 
going to make us stronger as a nation not weaker. If you are proud of 
your underlying data, you should be proud to share that data. If you 
are embarrassed of your underlying data, I understand why you might 
want to keep it a secret.
  We have an opportunity not to hide from science but to embrace 
science, we have an opportunity not to reach political conclusions but 
scientific conclusions, and we have an opportunity to restore the 
American people's trust in the institutions of government that are 
issuing these regulations. This is a small step in the right direction 
with the HONEST Act, Mr. Speaker, but it is an important step in the 
right direction. I hope my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have some scoring from the Congressional Budget 
Office, dated March 11, 2015, that I include into the Record.

              H.R. 1030--Secret Science Reform Act of 2015

   As ordered reported by the House Committee on Science, Space, and 
                      Technology on March 3, 2015


                                SUMMARY

       H.R. 1030 would amend the Environmental Research, 
     Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to 
     prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 
     proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a ``covered action'' 
     unless all scientific and technical information used to 
     support that action is publicly available in a manner that is 
     sufficient for independent analysis and substantial 
     reproduction of research results. Covered actions would 
     include assessments of risks, exposure, or hazards; documents 
     specifying criteria, guidance, standards, or limitations; and 
     regulations and regulatory impact statements.
       Although H.R. 1030 would not require EPA to disseminate any 
     scientific or technical information that it relies on to 
     support covered actions, the bill would not prohibit EPA from 
     doing so. Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that EPA 
     would spend $250 million annually over the next few years to 
     ensure the transparency of information and data supporting 
     some covered actions.
       Enacting H.R. 1030 would not affect direct spending or 
     revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 
     H.R. 1030 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
     (UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or 
     tribal governments.


                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

       This legislation would direct EPA to implement H.R. 1030 
     using up to $1 million a year from amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for other activities under current law. Although 
     H.R. 1030 would not authorize additional appropriations to 
     implement the requirements of the bill, CBO estimates that 
     implementing H.R. 1030 would cost about $250 million a year 
     for the next few years, subject to appropriation of the 
     necessary amounts. Costs in later years would probably 
     decline gradually from that level. The additional 
     discretionary spending would cover the costs of expanding the 
     scope of EPA studies and related activities such as data 
     collection and database construction for all of the 
     information necessary to meet the legislation's requirements.


                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

       Under current law, EPA typically spends about $500 million 
     each year to support research and development activities, 
     including assessments to determine the potential risk to 
     public health from environmental contaminants. The number of 
     studies involved in supporting covered actions depends on the 
     complexity of the issue being addressed. For example, when 
     addressing a recent issue with flaring at petroleum 
     refineries, EPA relied on a dozen scientific studies. In 
     contrast, when reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality 
     Standards, the agency relied on thousands of scientific 
     studies. In total, the

[[Page 4955]]

     agency relies on about 50,000 scientific studies annually to 
     perform its mission--although some of those studies are used 
     more than once from year to year.
       The costs of implementing H.R. 1030 are uncertain because 
     it is not clear how EPA would meet the bill's requirements. 
     Depending on their size and scope, the new activities called 
     for by the bill would cost between $10,000 and $30,000 for 
     each scientific study used by the agency. If EPA continued to 
     rely on as many scientific studies as it has used in recent 
     years, while increasing the collection and dissemination of 
     all the technical information used in such studies as 
     directed by H.R. 1030, then implementing the bill would cost 
     at least several hundred million dollars a year. However, EPA 
     could instead rely on significantly fewer studies each year 
     in support of its mission, and limit its spending on data 
     collection and database construction activities to a 
     relatively small expansion of existing study-related 
     activity; in that scenario, implementing the bill would be 
     much less costly.
       Thus, the costs of implementing H.R. 1030 would ultimately 
     depend on how EPA adapts to the bill's requirements. (It 
     would also depend on the availability of appropriated funds 
     to conduct the additional data collection and database 
     construction activities and related coordination and 
     reporting activities under the legislation.) CBO expects that 
     EPA would modify its practices, at least to some extent, and 
     would base its future work on fewer scientific studies, and 
     especially those studies that have easily accessible or 
     transparent data. Any such modification of EPA practices 
     would also have to take into consideration the concern that 
     the quality of the agency's work could be compromised if that 
     work relies on a significantly smaller collection of 
     scientific studies; we expect that the agency would seek to 
     reduce its reliance on numerous studies without sacrificing 
     the quality of the agency's covered actions related to 
     research and development.
       On balance--recognizing the significant uncertainty 
     regarding EPA's potential actions under the bill--CBO expects 
     that the agency would probably cut the number of studies it 
     relies on by about one-half and that the agency would aim to 
     limit the costs of new activities required by the bill, such 
     as data collection, correspondence and coordination with 
     study authors, construction of a database to house necessary 
     information, and public dissemination of such information. As 
     a result, CBO estimates the incremental costs to the agency 
     would be around $250 million a year initially, subject to 
     appropriation of the necessary amounts. In our assessment 
     that figure lies near the middle of a broad range of possible 
     outcomes under H.R. 1030. CEO expects that the additional 
     costs to implement the legislation would decline over time as 
     EPA became more adept and efficient at working with authors 
     and researchers to ensure that the data used to support 
     studies are provided in a standardized and replicable form.


                      PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

       None.


              InTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

       H.R. 1030 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets 
     of state, local, or tribal governments.


                         ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

       Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman; Impact on State, Local, 
     and Tribal Governments: Jon Sperl; Impact on the Private 
     Sector: Amy Petz.


                         ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

       Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

  Mr. POLIS. This is based on H.R. 1030 from last session, the Secret 
Science Reform Act of 2015, effectively the same operating provisions 
as this new bill. If there are any cost-saving elements in this new 
bill that weren't in H.R. 1030, I would encourage my colleague from 
Georgia to let us know because we are voting without scoring or costs 
on the newest version of this legislation. The previous version of this 
legislation, as I mentioned earlier, would cost $250 million annually 
over the next several years, $1 billion to implement, and that is the 
scoring from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office whose director 
was appointed by the Republicans on a substantially similar bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned by reports from our intelligence 
community regarding Russian interference in last year's election. Even 
more troubling is FBI Director Comey's sworn testimony that the FBI is 
now investigating the possibility of collusion between members of 
President Trump's campaign team and Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, the legitimacy of our electoral system is at stake; and, 
frankly, it is time that we rise above partisanship and that we get our 
job done and get to the bottom of this.
  Unfortunately, recent actions by the House Intelligence Committee 
chairman have left many Members of both sides of the aisle convinced 
and the American public convinced that the committee is unable to 
conduct an impartial investigation of this critical matter of national 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer up an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and 
Representative Cummings' bill which would create a bipartisan 
commission to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Swalwell), a member of the Intelligence Committee, to 
discuss our proposal.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Colorado for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, Russia attacked our democracy this past election. I urge 
my colleagues to defeat the previous question and for all of us to get 
to the business of forming an independent commission to find out how we 
were attacked, who was responsible, whether any U.S. persons were 
involved, and, most importantly, promise the American people we will do 
everything we can to make sure we never find ourselves in a mess like 
this again.
  Congressman Cummings and I introduced H.R. 356, the Protecting Our 
Democracy Act, because we always believed that the only way to have a 
comprehensive understanding of what happened and who was responsible 
and to make recommendations was through an independent commission. 
However, it also now is an insurance policy against compromised 
investigations that we believe are coming from this House as well as 
the administration.
  There is no question that, this last election, Russia meddled in our 
election. It is not disputed that that order came from Vladimir Putin. 
There is no dispute, among our intelligence agencies, that he had a 
strong preference for Donald Trump, and the most terrifying finding 
that our intelligence agencies made was that Russia is sharpening their 
knives and undertaking a lessons-learned campaign because they will go 
at us and our allies again.
  Unfortunately, we have seen that those charged with getting to the 
bottom of what has happened have been compromised. The American people 
are counting on us to defend this great democracy, a democracy that so 
many men and women in our armed services have fought for and sacrificed 
for and who are fighting for and sacrificing for today.
  Unfortunately, the Attorney General, twice when asked under oath as 
to whether he had any prior contacts with Russia, said that he had not. 
We later learned that, indeed, during the Republican Convention and 
afterwards, he had met with Russia's Ambassador. He is now recused from 
any investigation into Russia. That is the executive branch.
  Unfortunately, our investigation in the House has also been 
compromised. I have long enjoyed working with Chairman Nunes. I think 
he is a good man who has led our committee over the last few years to 
bipartisan results that have made us safer. For the last few weeks, 
Republicans and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have gone 
down an investigative road together. We had a very productive open 
hearing last week where we were able to connect the dots of Donald 
Trump's, his family's, his campaign's, and his business' personal, 
political, and financial ties to Russia that were converging with a 
Russian interference campaign. Those dots were validated by the FBI 
Director confirming that, indeed, President Trump's campaign was under 
counterintelligence and criminal investigations.

[[Page 4956]]

  Unfortunately, the chairman, in the last week, exited this bipartisan 
investigative road to work with the White House; going to the White 
House to receive classified information before sharing it with any 
members on the committee, Democratic and Republican; and going again to 
the White House the next day to share that information with the 
President.
  The actions of the Attorney General and the actions of the leaders in 
this House who are supposed to be undertaking this campaign demand that 
we take this outside of politics and that we take this outside of 
Congress. The only way to do that is to have an independent commission 
that can depoliticize this, that can declassify the facts to the extent 
possible, and that can debunk the myths that our President has put 
forward about what happened with Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, I was a 20-year-old intern in Washington, D.C., when we 
were attacked on September 11. I will never forget watching Republicans 
and Democrats stand on the House steps, arm in arm, singing ``God Bless 
America.'' But what was more moving than that moment of symbolism was 
the unity that Republicans and Democrats showed when they came together 
to make important reforms to ensure that never again would we be 
attacked from the skies, when they made many reforms that were put in 
place by an independent commission that was parallel to investigations 
that were being done in Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, there is still time for 
Republicans and Democrats in this House to unite. There is still time 
for us to uphold that solemn duty to ensure that we always put our 
public safety and our sacred democracy first. The best way to do that 
is to bring before this House for consideration the Protect Our 
Democracy Act. This country is still worth defending.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do thank my friend from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall) for his able presentation on this very good bill and our 
colleague, Mr. Smith.
  I am sorry to change the subject back to something that is relevant, 
material, and germane. By the way, I am also looking forward to the 
investigation into Russia and the sale of such a huge percentage of our 
uranium by Hillary Clinton's State Department. They approved it. But we 
will get into that later.
  Right now we are talking about a fantastic bill because the EPA is 
very close to being omniscient, omnipotent, and ubiquitous--they are 
everywhere all the time. We have had a hard time in the last 20, 30 
years as it got more and more heavenly in getting information on why 
they were making the decisions they were. As the EPA has continued to 
crush jobs, like in Texas if there were no EPA, we have agencies that 
have continued to make our water and air cleaner and cleaner every 
year, and, despite the EPA's constant interference, they are doing a 
great job.
  But one of the things that we have wanted, as my friend, Mr. Woodall, 
was pointing out for years, is whether it is a Democrat in the White 
House or a Republican, we just wanted some openness. We wanted to know 
what these seemingly arbitrary rules were based upon. So the purpose of 
this rule coming from Chairman Smith is let's go ahead and require the 
EPA to do what anybody would have to do in one of our courtrooms, you 
got to show why there is a reason to take action.
  But since the EPA has been at this level where they were basically 
unquestionable for so long and could make arbitrary and capricious 
decisions which could not be challenged effectively, this may be a very 
helpful start to stopping the EPA from being so heavenly they are not 
earthly good.
  So I think it is a fantastic bill. It is something I hope will be a 
bipartisan vote as we require the EPA to just show the basis of what 
you are doing, and then we can know whether this American god, this 
EPA, actually has feet of clay or is back in the real world or is 
actually killing jobs unnecessarily.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the EPA protecting our quality of life, our air, and our 
water has nothing to do with Heaven or God. It is based on science. 
Individual Americans like Mr. Gohmert and myself have our own faith 
traditions. I don't think there is anybody in the country whose faith 
tradition is to worship the EPA.
  We have created the EPA for a purpose: to protect the health of the 
American people and protect our air and water. There are people alive 
today and people who are healthier today because of the work of the 
EPA. The converse of that, without the Environmental Protection Agency, 
some of us wouldn't even be here and others of us would be sickly.
  It really doesn't make any sense to talk about people worshipping the 
EPA. We respect the scientific work of the EPA, and maybe this 
confusion between faith and science is what is leading to the 
undermining of the scientific aspects that the EPA reaches their 
conclusions on.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that shows the strong 
opposition from those who advocate for our health against this bill. 
Alliance of Nurses, American Lung Association, American Public Health 
Association, National Medical Association, Asthma and Allergy 
Foundation of America, and others have all signed a letter in 
opposition to this bill because this bill threatens the health of the 
American people.
                                                   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 
     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

[[Page 4957]]

     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.

  Mr. POLIS. Last Congress, we considered a bill called the Secret 
Science Act, which was nearly identical to this bill. That was a bill 
that I submitted was at a cost of billion dollars. If the gentleman 
from Georgia has any evidence that this bill will cost less, I 
encourage him to bring it forward.
  This bill, frankly, would force the EPA to be dishonest, to not use 
the best available science, and threaten the privacy of the American 
people.
  Our goal should be to help the agencies that we charge with 
protecting our health to use the best possible science to do the best 
possible job that they can. We should not be throwing up roadblocks and 
red tape and bureaucratic mazes that hurt the quality of work and the 
science that we base our protections on.
  We need to protect American lives from things like dirty air, dirty 
water, and pollution. We should protect the privacy of all Americans, 
but this bill doesn't protect the privacy of Americans. It undermines 
the goal of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  My colleague, Mr. Swalwell, brought forward a very important motion. 
When we defeat the previous question, we have a motion to create a 
bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 
election.
  That is what I hear about from my constituents. I haven't heard from 
any constituents that say: We want our personal data to be revealed by 
the Environmental Protection Agency or we want to stop them from citing 
scientific papers.
  That is simply not on the minds of the American people.
  What is on the minds of the American people is that we need a full 
accounting for the Russian interference in the 2016 election, which is 
why we have a bill to create a bipartisan commission to investigate 
that Russian interference in a manner that has credibility with the 
American people, that can end this increasingly bizarre spy novel that 
seems to be unfolding in this city that we are meeting in now, and 
replace it with investigations and facts and a full accounting for the 
American people as to what happened and who was involved.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to inquire if the gentleman from Georgia has any 
information as to why the new bill would cost any different amount than 
the prior version of the bill from the last Congress that was scored?
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. I would say to the gentleman, as he may know, the 
language is different in this section.
  When the CBO scored the bill last year, they presumed that the EPA 
would have the obligation of compiling all the data and making it all 
public themselves. In this bill, it presumes the EPA will only make use 
of publicly available data. I would refer the gentleman to the 
committee report.
  Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, what the bill essentially does is two 
things in this regard. One, it will foist an unfunded mandate onto 
those who are conducting the research to go through the effort 
themselves of releasing the data. But more perniciously, it will 
prevent data and scientific studies that there are legal protections 
from even being looked at by the Environmental Protection Agency. They 
won't even be able to consider that data.
  I think it is important that we get back to the topics that the 
American people care about. I hope that we can move forward with 
Representatives Swalwell's and Cummings' bill to create a bipartisan 
commission to investigate the Russian influence in the 2016 election 
rather than attack and undermine science, attack and undermine privacy, 
and attack and undermine the American people.
  This bill undermines our privacy protections and opens the door for 
more Americans to get sick and hurt by pollution in our air and water. 
I hope that we can stand up against that.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on this bill and vote 
``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I often wonder what it is like to be in your position 
there, a distinguished career as a judge, and you come down here to 
talk about the EPA and whether or not the rules and regulations should 
be based on sound science or not, and you end up with a discussion over 
the Russians. There is no objection that can be lodged here for going 
outside of the scope of the bill.
  I can always tell, when I come down for Rules Committee debate, 
whether or not we are really talking about something that divides us or 
whether we are just talking. If we are talking about something that 
divides us, we spend every moment of the hours that we have debating 
the nitty-gritty of the issue before us--talking about how quickly 
should that data be disclosed; how many folks should have access to it. 
Are there going to be episodes where the data needs to be kept super 
secret and folks can't be trusted with it? What should we do about new 
and emerging business practices, propriety technologies? How do we deal 
with those questions?
  I enjoy those rules, Mr. Speaker, because we are doing exactly what 
we came here to do, and that is to delve into the details and get it 
right for the American people.
  What I am led to believe on a day like today is that we are pretty 
close to getting it right for the American people because we are not 
talking about the nitty-gritty of the legislation. We are talking about 
the Clean Power Plan that the past administration put forward. We are 
not talking about the details of the legislation; we are talking about 
the Russians today. I think that is because there aren't many things 
much more common sense than sharing with the American people that data 
on which the laws of the land are made.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the EPA is involved in a 
complicated line of work, a critically important line of work.
  I can't find a single constituent in the great State of Georgia that 
doesn't believe in clean water and clean air. I can find a whole lot of 
them who think that they believe more in clean water

[[Page 4958]]

and clean air than does any institution in Washington, D.C. I promise 
you, no one cares more about the Chattahoochee River National 
Recreation Area than those of us who live along the Chattahoochee River 
National Recreation Area.
  Nobody cares more about protecting the Earth in the great State of 
Georgia than those farmers who are creating the largest export we have 
in the great State of Georgia, which are our agriculture products.
  We are in this together, which is why, when this bill came before the 
House last Congress, it passed with a bipartisan vote. These are 
commonsense ideas that bring us together more than they divide us.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the real surprise is that folks believe the EPA 
to be transparent, and learn that it is not. Folks would not believe 
that this Congress has to subpoena information in order to get its 
hands on it.
  What this bill would say is not only should Congress be able to 
access the information, but any reputable scientist should be able to 
access the information.
  What my friend says about privacy concerns, they are a shared concern 
in this institution. There is absolutely nothing in this underlying 
legislation that threatens those privacy concerns. In fact, it requires 
that all private information be redacted before the information be 
utilized.
  Concerns over cost, again, are absolutely important, but I will read 
from the committee report: ``This bill does not contain any new budget 
authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or 
decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.''
  That it is a pretty simple bill and a pretty simple rule. It asks 
that we lift the curtain of secrecy around the regulations that protect 
our health and safety. It asks that we make health and safety issues 
not things that divide us around process, but things that unite us 
around results.
  Candidly, I came to this institution to achieve those results, Mr. 
Speaker, and I am proud to be carrying this rule to the floor today. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to please support this bill, and with 
its passage we can get to the underlying legislation, end the shroud of 
secrecy, and restore public confidence in the laws that protect all of 
our health and safety.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 229 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     356) to establish the National Commission on Foreign 
     Interference in the 2016 Election. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 356.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. 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.

                          ____________________