s

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 414. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on

the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 1029. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 138 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1029. the chair appoints the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1029 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the

environmental research development and authorization act of 1978, to preadvise for -- provide for member qualifications, public participation and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from oklahoma mr. lucas, and the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma mr. lucas. the house will come to order. mr. lucas: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i'd like to thank chairman smith and former subcommittees chairs stewart, schweikert for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. i also want to thank my friend, representative peterson, for making this bill a bipartisan effort. i appreciate his willingness to sponsor this bill with me. there is a good -- this is a good government bill.

it reflects the values we should upheld regardless of which side of the political aisle we are on. in western oklahoma we're no strangers to regulatories overreach from the environmental protection agency. farmers, ranchers small businesses often find themselves the target of burdensome and simply inefficient regulations. these regulations range as something as specific as farm fuel tank permitting requirements to vastly prohibitive restrictions on the electric power plants that power our homes. government intrusion in -- to america's energy and agriculture sectors reverberate into our everyday lives in the form of higher food prices or higher monthly energy bills and stagnant wages and underemployment have only exacerbated the problem for families trying to make ends meet. the science behind e.p.a. regulations is as important as the money they stifen from our

economy. we need to navigate complex issues and when the economic cost of these regulations reach into the tens of millions of dollars, we need to get it right. h.r. 1029, the science advisory board reform act, ensures that best experts are free to undertake a balanced and open review of regulatory science. the board was established to provide scientific advice to the e.p.a., to congress and to review the quality and relevance of the science that e.p.a. uses for regulations. but in recent years, shortcomings from the process unfortunately have arisen. opportunities for public participation are limited. and imbalance of viewpoints has been allowed to grow. potential of conflicts of interests have gone uncheck and the inability for the board to speak independently has been curtailed. if the e.p.a. undermines the board's -- or permit it is from

preventing advice to congress, the value these experts can provide is wasted. despite the requirements that e.p.a. advisory boards be fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented, the science committee has identified a number of problems that we fear undermine the panel's credibility and work produce and these include a number of advisory members have received money from the e.p.a. this could create an appearance of conflict of interest. some of the panelists have taken public and even political positions on issues they are advising the board about. for example, a lead reviewer of the e.p.a.'s hydraulic fracking study published an anti-fracking report called "regulate, baby regulate." now clearly this is not an objective point of view and should be publicly disclosed. public participation is limited during most board meetings. interested parties have almost no ability to comment on the scope of the work.

and meeting records are often incomplete and hard to obtain. the e.p.a. routinely excludes state, local and tribal experts while some would describe a stacking review panels with individuals who give the e.p.a. the answer it wants. this bill is both pro-science and pro-sound science. the bill is founded possible recommendations for reform outlined in the national academy of sciences and the e.p.a.'s peer review handbook. this makes sure it's balanced transparent, all which will help present the easb from being manipulated by any group. h.r. 1029 liberates the board from e.p.a. some would say tyranny, but i would prefer to think it empowers the board to listen to outside expertise. this viewpoint is consistent with the basic ideals of our

democracy. subject areas such as risk, hazardous assessment, often involve the examination and evaluation of some of the most complicated and scientifically technical information. these assessments are precisely where the board's expertise is most needed. the decision to review remains in the hands of the board and the e.p.a. must respect the independence of the board's opportunity to review. perhaps most importantly this bill seeks to increase public participation that benefits all stakeholders. currently, valuable opportunities for diverse perspectives are limited. the federal government does not have a monopoly on the truth. the public has important expertise that we can't afford to ignore in a democracy. state, local tribal, private sectors have a long history of qualified scientific experts. their contributions should be taken seriously. unfortunately, the history of

the s.a.b. shows that private sector representation is often lacking or nonexistent. instead the e.p.a. picks the board ignores the knowledge expertise and contributions of these experts. this bill ensures that qualified experts are not excluded simply due to their affiliation. this will add value and credibility to future board reviews. mr. peterson and i recognize the important role that science should play in our policy debates and provide safeguards to give the public confidence in science. it restores the independent science advisory board as a defender of the scientific integrity and will help restore credibility and trust in a federal agency that has lost much of it. this agreement on scientific conclusions shouldn't occur on the house floor. and this legislation will help ensure that the best experts are free to undertake an open review by the e.p.a.'s

regulatory science. i urge my colleagues to support the bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1029, the e.p.a. science advisory board reform act, and yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by thanking my colleagues mr. lucas and chairman smith for their intention to improve the e.p.a.'s science advisory board and i especially want to thank chairman smith for working with me on other legislation that passed the science committee and the house on a bipartisan basis. members and staff on both sides of the aisle worked tirelessly last week and in fact since the last congress toward a bipartisan bill about the science advisory board that accommodated much, if not all, of the fundamental principles shared by both democrats and republicans. but unfortunately we were not able to reach agreement on some very critical provisions by

this date and accordingly, i will be urging my colleagues to vote no on the underlying bill before us today. this bill has not changed meaningfully since we considered it last year, and i stand here today with the same concerns i raised last congress. my colleagues who support h.r. 1029 may describe this bill as an attempt to strengthen public participation in e.p.a.'s scientific review process, improve the process for selecting expert advisors, expand transparency requirements and limit nonscientific policy advice within the e.p.a.'s science advisory board. all of these are good government principles that i agree with, and if this bill or the bill we considered last year achieved these goals, i would be here ready to support it. but h.r. 1029 would not achieve these good government goals. instead of improving the science advisory board's

structure, it would limit the scientific advice the e.p.a. receives and allow seemingly endless delays in e.p.a.'s regulatory process. h.r. 1029 would make it easier for industry representatives to serve on the board even if they have a financial conflict of interest. to be clear, i am not opposed to industry experts participating on the science advisory board or in the peer review process at the e.p.a. their insight into processes and industry conduct can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body. that being said, congress should not be endorsing legislation that undermines long-standing ethics requirements and practices with the end result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on e.p.a.'s science advisory board. and this is likely to be the result of the adoption of this bill. this bill conflicts bias with conflicts of interest and it assumes a simple disclosure will prevent a material

interest in the outcome from coloring the judgment and actions of a board member. congress should not be supporting legislation that undermines long-standing ethics requirements and practices that have worked well to ensure fairness and balance of views on all federal advisory committees. another troubling element of h.r. 1029 is that it could significantly delay the work of the science advisory board. the board should absolutely seek public comment on the science it is reviewing and if necessary should extend the duration of the public comment period to ensure that interested parties have ample opportunity to submit their views. . we agreed. however this takes the process to the extreme by creating unnecessary burdens including a loophole that could keep the board from ending the public comment period and requiring that the board provide written responses to significant number of comments it received to h.r. -- at that it received. and h.r. 1029 distorts the

important public participation process to create what amounts to an endless appeals process that will provide those who disagree with the e.p.a. an effective tool to halt, derail, or slow the agency's rule making. mr. chair at this time i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record several letters from organizations that have similar concerns with h.r. 1029, including the union of concerned scientists environmental defense fund, national center for health research, center for medical consumers, national physicians alliance, and others. the chair: the gentlelady's request is covered by general leave. ms. bonamici: thank you. our government's ability to protect public health is at stake. when we consider legislation like the bill before us today. unfortunately, we do not have to look far to see the impact of these delay tactics. articles published last year by the center for public integrity chronicle efforts to slow down

and undermind efforts to keep arsenic out of drinking water and benzene out of american workplaces. when we prevent the e.p.a. from taking timely action from known cancer causing agents, we are putting life at risk. e.p.a.'s science is tied to its mission, to protect public health and the environment to rational regulation. scientific research knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental of the e.p.a.'s mission and inform its rugtory function. they need for that expertise, is why congress created the advisory body such as the board in the first place. to provide independent advice on the science underpinning its regulations. which in turn allow the e.p.a. administrator make sound regulatory decisions. instead of undermining the scientific advice e.p.a. received, we should be giving the agency the tools it needs to strengthen and improve the regulatory process with sound science. mr. chair, i urge my colleagues to skpwroin me once again in opposing this bill.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i'd like to enter letters from the american farm bureau of u.s. chamber of commerce and other entities in support of 1029 in the record. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered under general leave. mr. lucas: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, the ranking member of the house agriculture committee, collin peterson. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized tore two minutes. mr. peterson: i thank the gentleman. i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of h.r. 1029, the science advisory board reform act and ask my colleagues to vote in support of this bill. the science advisory board's work is important in making sure that the e.p.a. considers all scientific information when writing regulation that is will impact american farmers families, and small businesses. unfortunately concerns have been raised about the current review process and listening to the debate, people need to understand that this is merely

an advisory board. these folks are not the ones that are making the decisions. and i would argue that if there's one thing that the e.p.a. needs it's sound advice. and they wouldn't get themselves into all of this trouble that they continue to get themselves into over water, and every other thing you can name of. now we have a business in my district that's complied with everything they asked, did a 90% reduction in emission from their outside wood furnaces and now the e.p.a. has come with a regulation that will put them out of business and cost 250 jobs in my district. it's just on and on. i think that this would be a good help for the e.p.a. to get advice from people that maybe they aren't listening to. under the current process, it's just not working. i think they are only hearing from one side of these arguments. i don't know what people are afraid of. that you're going to have

advice coming from people that actually know what's going on with some of these issues. i think that's a good thing. this legislation addresses those concerns. it builds on the work that we did in the 201 farm bill. -- 2014 farm bill. i think this bill is necessary as i said to make sure there's the right kind of input in the i don't know it's going to solve all of the problems, but it will help ensure a more balanced and independent science advisory board and will help alleviate some of the unintended consequences that surround current e.p.a. regulations. i encourage my colleagues' support and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici:ime i yield to the gentlelady from texas, the ranking member on the committee on science space, and technology, ms. eddie bernice johnson, such time as she may consume. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for such time she may consume.

ms. johnson: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1029, the e.p.a. science advisory board reform act of 20 15. the same one that we spoke against last year. because it benefits no one but the industry. it harms public health. last year, dallas-fort worth received an f for air quality from the american lung association. now more than ever the american people need a strong e.p.a. to protect their right to clean air and water and the public supports that. this includes an effective science advisory board a group whose job it is to provide e.p.a. with independent scientific analysis and advice. as written in h.r. 1029 reforms

e.p.a. science advisory board for the worse. the hypothetical intent of this bill is to improve the balance of members serving on the board, but in reality the bill would make it easier for industry affiliated representatives with a conflict of interest to serve on the board. an expert with an industry association is far more likely to find that the science they were after review will have a financial impact on the employer. academic scientists do not have such financial conflicts of interest with the board's advice or e.p.a.'s actions. however, my republican colleagues seem to have a fundamental distrust of scientist from our nation's universities. because h.r. 1029 puts in place a number of requirements that will liking dissuade academic scientists from serving on the board.

it is difficult to understand how anyone could object to the most knowledgeable academic scientists offering their advice and expertise to e.p.a. who would know better whether e.p.a. had mischaracterized the science on an issue than the people who are leaders in their respective fields. to be clear i am not arguing that indesignificance not to have representation on e.p.a. science advisory board. their insight is valuable also. do i not support weakening conflict of interest practices so more industry representatives can serve on the board. the bill also favors industry by tying the board up with procedural burdens so unlimited that it is unlikely any science advisory board panel could ever render an opinion in a useful period of time. i assume that that is the point for h.r. 1029. endless delays leave plenty of

time to manufacture doubt in the science and delay the formulation of public health regulations by e.p.a. unfortunately that also means that the health and safety of our families friends, and constituents will be needlessly put at risk. i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 1029. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield back the balance of my time. the gentlelady from oregon reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas the chairman of the science committee, science, space, and technology committee, mr. smith. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i want to thank the gentleman from oklahoma and vice chairman of the science committee for yielding me time. mr. chairman, americans expect the review of regulatory science to be balanced and transparent. h.r. 1029, the science advisory board reform act, ensures scientists get the opportunity to provide unbiased, independent advice to the

environmental protection agency and to congress. congressman lucas and the ranking member of the agriculture committee, collin peterson, for their initiative on this issue. this bill strengthens the e.p.a.'s science advisory board's independent so that the administration cannot manipulate science to further its political agenda. hardworking american families are hit hard by costly regulations, whether it is through loss jobs or higher electric bills and gasoline prices. the e.p.a. has been known to twist science to justify their actions. behind the scenes, however, there is a review process that was intended to provide a critical check on the e.p.a.'s conclusions. the e.p.a. science advisory board was created to provide a meaningful balanced, and independent assessment of the science that supports the e.p.a.'s regulations. unfortunately, this goal is not being realized. the e.p.a. frequently undermines the s.a.b.'s

independence and prevents it from being able to provide advice to congress. as a result, the valuable advice these experts can provide is wasted and the truth is silenced. the public's right to know must be protected in a democratcy. as the e.p.a. now seeks to pursue the most aggressive regulatory agenda in its 44-year history, it is critical that the s.a.b. be able to give unbiased advice. the more regulations the e.p.a. creates, the more he we need the involvement of an open -- the more we need the involvement of an open and transparency science advisory board. this bill gives independent experts an opportunity to he review the science and provide advice. we all know that the federal government doesn't have a monopoly on the truth, so it's important to get the public's take on regulations. the bill does to the create an unlimited public comment period, but the public does have a right to know what the federal government is doing to them. h.r. 1029 expands transparency

requirements, improves the process for selecting expert advisors, and strengthens public participation requirements. this bipartisan legislation restores the independent board as an important defender of scientific integrity. its commonsense reforms will help make the e.p.a.'s decisions more credible and more balanced. again i want to thank the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, for their leadership on this bill. i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. i mentioned the letters that were entered into the record, i just want to say that frequently here in congress we talk about government efficiency and getting things to work better. i just want to read from the center for medical consumers. they said about h.r. 1029 the bill requires the science

advisory board to remain in an endless loop soliciting public comment about the state of the science, touching on every activity undertaken. responding to nearly every comment before moving forward without being limited by any time constraint. ands are the national physicians alliance noted that this bill's overly broad restriction on science advisory board members with subject matter expertise is equally counterproductive and goes far beyond the commonsense limits imposed by the national academies. and the language in the bill is so vage it raises many questions. mr. chairman we can do better than this. we need to get back to the table and work together so that we have a bill that actually improves the science advisory board. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield four minutes to another outstanding gentleman from texas, mr. weber. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. weber is recognized for four minutes. mr. weber: i thank the gentleman. i rise today to speak in strong support of h.r. 1029, the e.p.a. science advisory board reform act of 2015.

the science advisory board was established by congress to review the science behind e.p.a.'s decisions and advise congress on scientific and technical matters. unfortunately, the s.a.b. is no longer functioning as designed. without the impartiality and expertise needed to be an effective arbiter of the e.p.a.'s use of science in its regulations. for example, the membership of the s.a.b. has excluded individuals from state or local governments. if these are the folks often closest to the impact regulation vs. on job creators across america. as the e.p.a. continues its regulatory assault on america's economy, it is critically important that congress act to improve the quality of e.p.a.'s use of science in its decisions. this legislation will do just that. it will improve the quality of the s.a.b.'s membership, increase public participation in its scientific reviews, allow dissenting opinions among members, and require that the

s.a.b. communicate uncertainties in its findings and conclusions. you know, mr. speaker, i'm an air conditioning contractor, and as such we are licensed by the gdlr in texas. mr. speaker i want someone on that board that understands the air conditioning business that has bliss background -- business background. it's sad, mr. speaker, we are supposed to be a country that has a government, not a government that has a country. opponents of this bill act like businesspeople cannot be trusted to help their own government. . say you have a conflict of interest, that just gets all over me. business folks whom i call the salt of the earth, they invest money in businesses, they create jobs they take risks, they build families and communities and they can't be trusted? they can use their expertise to serve our community and our country. i would even offer that they're a form of a renewable resource. mr. speaker it's high time for this bill to pass and put some

common sense and transparency in the process. i thank congressman lucas and chairman smith for bringing this legislation to the floor today and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady from oregon. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to point out that the national center for health research is concerned. they asked what happens if a scientist relies on expertise that's not specifically permitted in the bill? will there be legal ramifications? clearly scientific experts will think twice for joining the science advisory board if it means they have to consult their lawyers before they give advice. mr. chairman, there's some ambiguous language in this. we can do a better job making sure that science advisory board functions in an efficient way that actually helps inform their decisions. i suggest that we get back to the table rather than pass this bill today and find strong legislation that improves the science advisory board and with that i yield back -- reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman

reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, might i inquire the time remaining on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma has 16 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from oregon has 19 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. lucas: i would note to the gentlelady at the present time i do not have any additional speakers so whenever you're prepared to close i believe i have the right to close ultimately. ms. bonamici: thank you. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. colleagues, the bill before us today does take -- undertake the laudable goal of improving transparency at the environmental protection agency. however, as i stated previously, the bill, as written, does not accomplish this goal. i have worked on this bill in the last congress, and there are a lot of recommendations that were made when we had hearings on this bill in the last congress where we could all agree recommendations that the industry supports and that academia supports and that scientists support. we should be taking those recommendations and adding them

to this bill, working together to find a bill that will improve the science advisory board. and i want to clarify to my colleagues we have no objection with industry representation on the science advisory board. that's not the point. what happens under this bill, however is that financial conflict of interest is conflated with bias, and we could have industry representation with a significant financial interest and that is not the direction we should be going in. of course industry people have expertise, as do scientists who work in academia. again, we can and should work together to improve the e.p.a.'s approach to reviewing the science underpinning regulation, but this legislation is not the answer. this bill will only damage and delay the process, and i urge my colleagues to vote no and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from oregon yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i would apologize to the gentlelady. the majority floor leader would like to speak for a minute and

i'd yield the majority floor leader as much time as he might consume. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy, is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work. you know, there's a wise saying that one of the best assets of a good leader is a good advisor. nobody can know everything. advisors step in to give opinions and provide different perspectives for those that have to make decisions. history is filled with people or groups that failed because they never had their assumptions challenged. unfortunately, the same failure can be seen in our own government. back in 1978, congress created the e.p.a. science advisory board to provide independent scientific advice to the administration. sadly, the independence has been compromised. over the years the science advisory board has silenced voices of dissent, limited

public participation in its decisions and has shown potential conflict of interest. in fact, over half of the board members have taken grant money from the e.p.a. the very agency they are supposed to provide impartial analysis to. and this isn't chump change. since 2000, board members have received roughly $140 million in taxpayer money from the e.p.a. grants. according to the congressional research service and the research they are reviewing is often directly related to the money they received. this isn't transparent, this isn't accountable and this isn't right. today we will consider a bill to set things right. we aren't telling the science advisory board what to say. we aren't telling the e.p.a. what to do, but we are demanding that board be transparent and independent as

it was originally intended. true science demands clarity and impartiality. the science advisory board lacks both and that needs to change. so i thank the gentleman for his work bringing transparency accountability and efficiency back to the advisory board and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield myself the time i have remaining. the chair: the gentleman is recognize to close. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i think we've listened to several points of view on different perspectives here today. i think the majority floor leader and the chairman of the committee and a number of my colleagues did an outstanding job of explaining why this bill is necessary, why it's appropriate. i will acknowledge to my colleague from oregon that this is a work in progress. clearly there are still things that need to be examined, addressed, looked at perfected over the course of the

legislative session before ultimately this is signed into law. but the underlying principles and an entity like the environmental protection agency, which has such tremendous influence and control over our everyday lives , whether you're a farmer, rancher, business person, just a citizen, such tremendous control through their authority and their rulemaking process over our lives, it's important and it's the very reason congress established the science advisory board in 1978. it's important to have a knowledgeable group look over their shoulder, to verify their facts, to understand the process they're going through in order that ultimately that rulemaking process is something that is scientifically based on sound science and is something that is appropriate. now in the bill we simply say that in the effect that anyone

with knowledge and expertise should be able to participate. we ask for full disclosure. if you have an economic interest, whether it is doing scientific research or in any related business fully disclose your background. that presently is not going on, so that's an improvement. that's an enhancement. we explicitly ask that public input be allowed, that it be encouraged. there's nothing wrong with that. there are a lot of really bright people around this country who have great understandings of the issues that affect their day-to-day lives and should be able to share that. account board stop the environmental protection agency from doing something? it's an advisory board. their power is not in being able to stop an action of the peaverplet, but their power is making -- e.p.a., but their power is making them justify the action they are proposing to take, to justify the science

that leads to that action. there's nothing wrong with that. there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. i suppose the bottom line is this -- we live in an extremely cynical time. surprisingly there's distrust even of the united states congress and all federal institutions, i'm afraid. this bill is an effort to take the step in the direction of restoring that faith and confidence. call it enhanced transparency, if you want, call it openness, if you want, call it just making sure we all know where the money's going and where the money's coming from, whatever you want to call it. this is a bill that tries to move us in the direction of not only better regulations when we must have regulations but better science to justify those regulations and the confidence of all of our fellow citizens. i simply ask, mr. chairman, when the opportunity avails and i know we'll have several good amendments to discuss shortly that my colleagues support h.r. 1029 and we move

this process forward. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on science, space and technology printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-10. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of house report 114-37. each such amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division

of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in pa a of house report 114-37. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. grayson: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 114-37 offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 138, the gentleman from florida mr. grayson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: thank you, mr. chair. this amendment seeks to enhance some of the good government language that already exists in this bill. page 2 of this bill beginning on line 21, details the instances in which a board member must recuse himself from an e.p.a. science advisory board advisory activity. as currently written, a board member must recuse himself only when he has an interest in a specific party that is involved in the matter being addressed by the advisory activity.

i feel this language must be broadened and i thank the chairman for working with me toward this end. let's say that chemical assessment advisory standing committee which is to engage in advisory in a specific chemical compound. now, let's say one university in the country, perhaps the university of florida, provides research on this compoun and receives sizeable federal funds to do so. under current language, anyone should recuse himself from participating in the advisory committee. the amendment i'm offering would broaden the category of persons who must recuse themselves. my amendment would require persons for whom the board has received evidence that an advisory activity may involve them to recuse themselves. under my proposed amendment language, a drug company like pfizer, seeking to produce drugs utilizing a chemical subject to the advisory committee, could be excluded from participating as well. i think it would be highly unfair such as the university

of florida could be excluded from an advisory activity and not a corporation like pfizer if there is reason to believe that it would be directly engage in activities utilizing the science upon which the board seeks to advise. clearly we must encourage the most qualified persons in various scientific fields to participate in the committees that compose the science advisory board. what we should not do, however is to allow persons to participate in advisory actions that may directly impact their own bottom lines. exist language in this bill, i believe, partially addresses our goal of preventing conflicts of interest, but accepting this grayson amendment would go much forward to accomplishing our common goal of preventing conflicts of interest and to that end i urge support of my amendment. i thank the chairman and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: i rise time in

opposition to the amendment although i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: i would like to thank the gentleman's amendment. i appreciate his attention to detail continued engagements to this bill and look forward to his support. this helps the financial conflicts of interest that are specifically prohibited and that would clarify the intent. in addition the language already in the bill preventing conflicted individuals from participating, the bill requires disclosure. although disclosure itself may not prevent all bias, the consumers of the science advisory board's product, the e.p.a., and the american people will be better informed if they have all the facts. i want to thank my colleague from florida for his constructive amendment to this bipartisan bill. i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized to close. mr. grayson: i thank my colleague and i yield the

balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. . it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-47. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 114-37, offered by mr. mckinny of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 138, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: thank you mr. chairman. this amendment is simple. it ensures that members of the science advisory board do not receive grants from the e.p.a. or enter into contracts with the e.p.a. additionally this amendment

prohibits advisory board members from receiving e.p.a. funds for three years after the individual is no longer a board member. this amendment and this bill are about fairness and transparency. members of the science advisory board should be independent and impartial, they should not be swayed by possibility of receiving funds from the e.p.a. for their work. just as members of congress are banned from lobbying for a period of time after leafing office, members of the science advisory board should be barred from receiving grants after they leave the board. board members should not make a decision based on a promise from the e.p.a. that he or she would benefit financially after they leave the board. the role of the science advisory board should be to provide independent scientific advice to the agency. this amendment would ensure that the board is truly independent. american families who bear the

impact of the e.p.a.'s regulations deserve to know that the regulations are based on sound science not on any other agenda. thank you, mr. chairman, for the support of this amendment. i encourage all my colleagues to support fairness and transparency by supporting this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from oregon seek recognition? ms. bonamici: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. this would have a negative effect on the participation of the nation's best scientists, punishing them for providing valuable expert advice to the e.p.a. this amendment would penalize scientists who have received grant from the e.p.a. by precluding them from serving on the e.p.a.'s science advisory board, a board charged with providing the most sound and reliable scientific advice to the e.p.a. yet it is those very scientists

who have received e.p.a. grants who are often the very best in their field. why would we pass an amendment that limits our nation's most qualified experts from reviewing e.p.a. actions? by precluding those scientist from serving on the board, it would greatly diminish the pool of eligible qualified experts who serve on the board and more importantly serve the nation. this amendment essentially guarantees the e.p.a. will not receive the best advice from the best scientists. i can't fathom why we would do that. of additional concern is the draconian provision in the amendment that prohibits a board member from applying for a grant or contract for three years after serving on the board. i don't understand how or why we can legislate against someone applying for a grant. three years without the ability to apply for a grant from one of our federal research agencies can arrest the careers of our nation's best and brightens minds and furthermore, the amendment isn't even clear how limited the people are from applying and where they can apply.

why would we agree to an amendment that is constraining our nation's ability to develop and foster scientific knowledge? this kind of ban is punitive and would force researchers to choose between public servants and their own research. and makes no sense in any other area of government and it makes no sense here. we want and need the best and brightest americans serving our national interest everywhere. and we should never entertain the idea of punishing experts for providing valuable and needed public service. i cannot support or recommend support for any amendment that has a punitive effect on the best and brightens scientific minds in the country. and i cannot support an amendment that would limit the environmental protection agency from considering the full and complete spectrum of expertise for membership to their science advisory board. thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. mckinley: i yield the balance of my time to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. lucas: i thank the

gentleman from west virginia. i, too, want the best and brightens. that's why the core principal of the rule is disclosure. make sure we know where the money goes. mr. mckinley's taking this to the next point in this focus on following the money. i appreciate where he's coming from. i said earlier to my colleague from oregon this is a work in progress. we'll see ultimately what the final version is, but if you believe that the money should be followed, if you believe we should know where the dollars are, and if that impacts the science, then clearly, mr. mckinley's on the right path. i'm voting with him. it's a work in progress. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: thank you mr. chairman. again this amendment would cause the e.p.a. to be prevented from getting the best

scientists. the amendment says a board member shall have no current grants or contracts from the environmental protection agency, and shall not apply for a grant or contract for three years following the end of that member's service on the board. mr. chairman, that would cause serious problems. it's a vaguely worded amendment. it would prohibit people from even applying for grants. we need to do everything we can to support our bright scientists. this would preclude them from serving. we should vote against this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. bonamici: i request a recorded vote on the amendment. the clerk: the gentlelady from oregon requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 114-37.

for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in part a of house report number 114-37, offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 138, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer an amendment that i believe really strikes at the heart of the issues that were raised by the e.p.a.'s science advisory reform act. that is the need for found objective and transparent decisionmaking by our federal agencies. i think we all recognize how important it is to bring an outside expert in to inform agency policies and protocols. not only does this allow the engagement of americans who are practicing in their fields into a process that will impact their livelihoods, it also ensures that the federal government can reach out to access the very best scientific knowledge, including experts with the depth and variety of knowledge that we wouldn't have

access to through our own internal resources. with the e.p.a.'s science advisory board in particular, that means an independent review of technical information that's used to ground agency proposals and regulations. the efforts of this bill to seek relevant expertise outside the agency, however, without this amendment are limited by a failure to include academics science, and research-based institutions in its solicitations for board membership. that's what this amendment corrects. not to specifically solicits board membership would be a huge mistake on our board. institutions within my district alone house some leading global experts in public and environmental health. joe ryan, a current member of the advisory board and professor of environmental engineering and applied science leads his field in the study of ecological health economic, and sociologic impact on natural gas development on surrounding communities. professor ryan's work is data driven, thorough strongly objective, and would be of great help to policymakers.

as the work of james white, an institution at c.u. boulder since he started the isotope lab. since its opening the professor has produced groud breaking evidence about climate change and their origins and internal planetary adjustments. without the work of these professors we would be decades behind national park our understanding of environmental science and public health projords -- priorities and the work of the e.p.a. would suffer as a result. in april of last year, colorado state university professor, professor wall, was elected to a prestigious group of global thinkers. professor wall pioneered soil biodiversity that will help draw -- as a result she drew global praise. professor whit myer produced the first verifiable information of the impact of the ongoing ivory crisis on

elephant populations. thinks studies amount to significant breakthroughs in the field. these professors like these and many others are critical to progress. not only within the realm of their academic interest, but throughout the daily lives of american families. and helping to prevent the eroding of our public health and global environment. that's the amount i offered today. by soliciting the input of academics and research scientists who base their work on independent and transparent aims. we advance the expertise of the e.p.a. and ensure a variety of decisionmaking information is available. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment although i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman from colorado for the amendment that would complement the provisions of the bill, ensuring a public nomination process and seeking greater balance. i appreciate the gentleman's

efforts to improve this bipartisan bill and to look forward to support as we move forward. i'm proud of our nation's institutions of higher learning that house some of the greatest minds in the world. students, professors researchers circle the globe to come join our coveted academic communities. it's important that the e.p.a. reach out to universities and research institutions to find a balanced and diverse set of experts to serve on the board. i want to thank my colleague from colorado for his constructive amendment to this bipartisan bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized to close. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i appreciate the wealth of support that has been shown for this amendment. i hope that we are able to accomplish this amendment and i'm thrilled to have the support of the gentleman from oklahoma. to the extent it's within our power this body's responsibility to ensure our federal partners are receiving the very best available

objective information. my amendment will allow information that has its repository in our institutions of higher education to be able to serve as advisors for the e.p.a. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 114-37. for what purpose does the gentlelady from oregon seek recognition? ms. bonamici: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 4, printsed in part a of house report 11-37, offered by ms. bonamici of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 138er the gentlelady from organizeon, ms. bonamici, and a member opposed, each will control 10 minutes.

the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from oregon. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. as i mentioned during general debate on h.r. 1029, i am not opposed to -- in fact i support legislation that will improve the e.p.a.'s science advisory board. it's something i have been committed to since we had hearings in the last congress. something that we haven't had in this congress. we didn't even have a markup on this bill. and for the most part i agree with the goals of h.r. 1029 and recognize the need to increase transparency and the selection of board members and promote public participation in a board's review process. that being said, not all of the provisions included in h.r. 1029 will actually improve the science advisory board. in fact, some of the provisions in the bill distort common practices for eliminating or limiting financial conflicts of interest. and another provision turns the valuable and necessary process of soliciting public comments into a tool for the endless delays of public health

protection. over the past week, my staff has worked tirelessly with majority staff in an attempt to find common ground and move forward with a bill that is worthy of broad bipartisan support. unfortunately a compromise could not be reached on some of the key problems of this bill. however, because i agree with the goals of h.r. 1029 but not with the execution of those goals in the text of this bill, i'm offering an amendment that will truly improve the science advisory board. this amendment draws on nonpartisan recommendations from the bipartisan policy center, the keystone certainty and the government accountability office that will lead to greater transparency in the selection of board members and restore confidence in the scientific advice offered by the board. my substitute amendment would require e.p.a. to release a formal memorandum detailing among other things the charge to the board, including the specific questions the board is tasked with addressing. it would require the e.p.a. to make available online the

professional credentials of each person nominated to the board, including any source of research funding dating back two years. it also outlines a disclosure requirements for every nominee. and finally, my amendment requires the e.p.a. to solicit public comment on the nominees to candidates selected, and the advisory activities of the board, including specific scientific or technical information for the board to consider. these changes encompass the core principals of both repuicans and democrats have agollo td in e.p.a. science advisory board. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment based on nonpartisan recommendations of experts and move forward with a bill that makes positive changes to the e.p.a.'s science advisory board. . this will promote public participation without endlessly delaying e.p.a. action or skewing the membership of the board toward conflicted parties. with that, mr. speaker, i

reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from oregon reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for 10 minutes. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself what time i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i've said it numerous times and i'll repeat once again this is a work in progress. this is a bill that's so important to the future of the country, so important to how we address the scientific issues of our day, that this must proceed forward. mr. lucas: in the markup the other day, i think we had something like four amendments. we've had and accepted several amendments today. i would assume that if ultimately our friends in that other body are able to take action, that we'll wind up against again working on the differences between the two bills. so there are a number of opportunities to refine and improve even this piece of legislation. but with that said the fundamental principles are still there. we need to pass a bill to

continue the process on h.r. 1029, that addresses transparency. that opens the process up to the public. that opens the process up to all individuals who have the scientific knowledge, the ability to contribute to this oversight group. that's why i prefer the disclosure route. let us all know who makes what off of what. and then we'll base their objectity on that. again -- objecttivity on that. again the scientific advisory board looks over the shoulder of the e.p.a. they can't stop the e.p.a. from doing anything. but the power of their analysis, which is only as good as the information that e.p.a. shares with them their ability to review that will determine just how much support there will be across the country, where whatever the ultimate rule is. i know my colleague from oregon

works in good faith and i respect that greatly. and just as she and her staff have worked with the committee and the committee staff, i suspect we'll continue to work together. ultimately can we come up with a document that we can all agree with? i am a person of great optimism. and i think we should try. but on this day an amendment that basically from my perspective, takes away virtually all of the key points that the bill attempts to achieve on this day at this moment, i cannot support that. and i have to respectfully ask my colleagues to turn down this amendment to hopefully then advance the bill so that we can ultimately get to that final document. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady from oregon voiced. ms. bonamici: thank you mr. chairman. i want to first correct a misstatement that i made. i meant to say we did not have a subcommittee markup.

we did have a full committee markup. however, we did not have any hearings this congress on this very important issue. and i want to just add to what my good colleague, mr. lucas, said. a couple of times about how this is a work in progress. if it is a work in progress mr. chairman i submit that we shouldn't be here quite yet today. we should continue to work together on this. because there are a lot of goals that we agree on. if it's a work in progress, why are we on the floor voting today? mr. chairman, i submit that this substitute amendment does more to improve the transparency to get to the goals that everyone agrees we need on the science advisory board. i submit that it is a better approach. however, i would prefer that we continue to work and then bring the bill up for a vote. i am an optimist too, mr. lucas, and i could get it done. so with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i'd

like to yield to a very senior and knowledgeable member of the house science committee from california, mr. rohrabacher three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. let me just note that there has been some laudable cooperation in the science committee this year. we try -- which i dreeply appreciate. and -- which i deeply appreciate. and the gentlelady and i have actually co-sponsored some very needed legislation. i think this particular bill does demonstrate, however, that as much as we can try to work together, that there are some fundamental differences between the two parties here in congress, dealing with scientific issues. it is much to the chagrin of many of us to see, i've been a member of congress now since 1989, that the integrity of america's -- and especially our federal government's science programs have been brought into question by what appears to be

a very cynical manipulation of the scientists by various elements in our government and within the political system who would like to manipulate science for their own benefit. let me just say that we need to take the steps to ensure to the american people that integrity is being restored to the scientific process especially those scientific processes in which the federal government is involved. this amendment, the reason why i would be opposed to it, goes in the opposite direction. than what this bill was intended to do. the bill was intended to try to create a higher level of trust, that there is an integrity within the science situation here with the e.p.a. science advisory board and this amendment would allow individuals to peer-review their own work for example, and without any disclosure requirements. that means an individual could be paid by the e.p.a. to write

a chapter for a science project and then also serve as a reviewer for that project. the amendment does not require, for example, disclosure of conflict of interest waivers and refusal agreements. and recusal agreements excuse me. so we need to make sure that these type of activities are well within -- documented and we know exactly what needs to be done. so the public can feel confident that when you have an advisory board for the e.p.a., which actually passes regulations and controls over our lives, that the science behind those proclamations and those mandates by the e.p.a. are made on solid science rather than on people who perhaps have conflicts of interest and other such problems, in comes to what we'd

say is a scientifically-based decision -- scientifically based decision rather than a decision or recommendation that serves special interests or serves someone's own personal interest. so i would ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. i would like the chairman -- this is a work in progress. maybe we can come up with some language that both sides will appreciate. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady from oregon. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to my colleague from california for working with me on other legislation. i do want to point out that if there's something that isn't in the amendment, as my colleague noted, we have to keep in mind that the science advisory boards are already covered by the federal advisory committee act. that governs federal advisory committees just like the science advisory board. and helps provide for balanced panels and subcommittees that include experts with diverse

backgrounds and represent wide-ranging perspectives. so we need to look at this policy in had conjunction with the federal advisory -- in conjunction with the federal advisory committee act. i want to point out that the underlying bill makes it harder for qualified scientifics to serve but makes it easier for industry representatives to serve even when they have a financial conflict of interest. my amendment in the nature of a substitute levels the playing field and is a better approach and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, just to mention to the gentlelady, i have no additional speakers and i believe i have the right to close. the chair: that's correct. ms. bonamici: thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield myself what time i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: simply to note that i think we've had a very good discussion today. i think we've raised a lot of relevant points. we've covered a lot of ground and some good amendments. we've worked our way through

this process. this is a step in the great legislative effort that ultimately leads to good legislation. some of my freshmen colleagues might not be aware of this but recently i was involved in a process that took 2 1/2 years to ultimately come up with a bill. i hope that not every piece of legislation requires 2 1/2 years to accomplish, but i would say this, regular order, respect the input of all members, both sides of the aisle, both ends of the chamber, ultimately leads to better legislative product, the benefit of everyone. i think we're once again embarking on that effort. so i respectfully ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and pass the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 by the gentleman from west virginia mr. mckinley, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 114-37 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the

yeas are 242, the nays are 175. the amendment is adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1029 and, pursuant to house resolution 138, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted. in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1029

pursuant to house resolution 138 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? ? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: to amend the environmental research development and demonstration authorization act of 1978, to provide for scientific advisory board member qualifications, public participation and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. peters of california moves to recommit the bill to the committee on science, space and technology with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendment. add at the end the following new section, section 5, protecting taxpayers from science promoted by polluting companies. no person -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. peters: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentleman from -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the house will come to order.

the gentleman deserves to be heard. mr. peters: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee and if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. mr. speaker, let's make this simple. the fundamental role of the environmental protection agency is to rect our nation's environment -- protect our nation's environment and ensure we have healthy communities for children and families across the country. in the science advisory board -- and the science advisory board is the body that makes sure the e.p.a. uses the best scientific research available to protect environment and public health. to support this mission, we in congress should be working together to ensure that the best and brightest scientifics -- scientists are on this board and instead today's bill would muddy the waters when they should be crystal clear. the underlying bill moves e.p.a. away from scientific integrity and weakens the independence of the science advisory board. first, the bill requires that

all scientific and technical points be balanced among members of the board. what does the term balanced mean? politicians should not be mandating scientific results. science should be determined by the experts -- scientifics -- scientists and scientific researchers, not by those of us in this chamber. second, the bill imposes a nonscience-based hiring quota for advisory board members based on employment by a state, local or tribal government without regard to scientific expert teels. and finally the open public comment period in the bill would allow regulatory opponents an endless amount of time to halt derail, discredit and slow e.p.a. actions that go against their interests. so instead of limiting review time and providing businesses with more certainty of how e.p.a. regulations will affect their projects, the underlying bill would increase delay and decrease certainty. not what we've been trying to achieve with regulatory reform

in this body up until now. regulatory reform isn't done through obstructing every potential new rule, it's done in part by requiring agencies to render their decisions on a schedule, so that the market can move forward. this bill would do the opposite. my amendment would not cure all these defects in the underlying bill, but makes two obvious and significant changes to promote scientific integrity. it states simply that anyone working for a cooperation that has been convicted of a major environmental crime should be prohibited from serving on the science advisory board. secondly it states that any person whose primary source of research comes from these criminal corporate actors would be prohibited from serving on the science advisory board. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. please take your conversations off the floor.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. peters: for too long, we have heard that we have to choose between supporting economic prosperity and a clean environment. the implication is we can't have both but that's a false choice and one we can't afford to make. we deserve nothing less than both, economic opportunity and clean air and clean water for future generations. my state of california added 498,000 jobs in the last year and at the same time we continue to be a global leader in environmental reforms that have provided cleaner air than at any time in the last 50 years. i'm from san diego where scientific research and economic growth and environmental stewardship are not in conflict but rather are the subject of ongoing sustained, bipartisan collaboration. it should be clear to everyone that c.e.o.'s from major corporations that are convicted of major environmental crimes have no place serving on the science advisory board. vote yes on the mowing, stand

with me to maintain the integrity of the independence of the science advisory board. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: i with withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is withdrawn and the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, at one point in the debate today, one of the upper classmen walked by and said you again? referencing my working on a piece of legislation on this floor. and for the freshman, you might not understand the relevance of that but in the last session and the session before, i and mr. peterson, my colleague on this bill and the members of the ag committee worked two years to pass a piece of legislation that should have taken six months.

why is that relevant in our discussion of this bill? it's relevant because when i give you my word as the primary author of the bill that i will work with both sides of the chamber and work with all, that this is a work in progress -- you can take that for exactly what it means. now why 1029 in the very first place? one of the classic problems that we all face in our town meetings, we face in our interactions with citizens across this country is the mistrust of the federal government, of congress, of the other body, of the administration, of the institution. now how do you overcome mistrust when it is engrained as deeply as it is right now? you increase transparency. you open the process up, you make sure that everyone understands every part of the process. that's what the science advisory board was all about when it was created in 1978.

have someone look over the shoulder of the people who are picking the scientists, who put the science together that are the justifications for all these rules. the majority floor leader noted in recent times $140 million spent on this research, real money. some might argue it's done in a closed shop. some might argue it's done without the input of everyone. 1029 is an effort to open that up. 1029 is an effort to increase the transparency to restore confidence to the process. the e.p.a. needs that just as badly as this institution does. now, the motion to recommit in particular, it's pretty good, pretty impressive, pretty crafty. but remember the director of the e.p.a. appoints the board members. surely the director, especially

with the additional disclosure requirements in the bill will show the kind of judgment and prudentens that is necessary. surely, surely, that said, my friends, this is a work in progress. but it's an effort to turn around a problem that's greater than just one science board, aun agency. it's an effort to address a problem that faces the entire federal government. let us continue to work and try and do something for the benefit of everyone. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. peters: i ask for a record vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote

will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. . the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 179 and the nays are 237 with zero answering present. the motion is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. but the gentleman will suspend.

the house will come to order. the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise with a heavy heart to commemorate the loss of 11 outstanding servicemen and four members of the louisiana national guard as a result of a helicopter training accident off the coast of florida. from the louisiana's national guard 244th aviation regular meant, we lost chief warrant officer griffin, chief warrants officer strotter staff sergeant lance bergeron and from the united states marine base north carolina, captain stanford henry shaw iii, master sergeant thomas saunders staff sergeant blaylock and flynn and staff

stgget matthew kemp and i ask our colleagues to join us in a moment of silence on behalf of these servicemen. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on pass and of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. bonamici: mr. chairman. mr. chairman, qui a recorded vote on -- i request a recordeded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote -- a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a record vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and n