afternoon after the house adjourns for the day. live picture of the house floor now as work is about to get under way on a bill prohibiting the e.p.a. from finalizing rules unless all scientific and technical information is made publicly available. this is live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend mark gooden of munsey memorial united methodist church johnson city, tennessee. the chaplain: let us pray. dear god, i give you praise this morning for your goodness and mercy, for your steadfast

love and wonderful grace, hoe sli your namism pray for these congress women and men who represent the people across this land. these servants sought public office to make a difference. help them compromise when conscience allow bus stand in conviction when they can do no less. i pay prey you grant them clarity of thought, wisdom, and understanding. some here are hurting and grieving. please comfort them and give them peace. i pray that you forgive us as a people when we react with hatred and not kindness, when we are quick to speak and slow to listen when we seek not to be understood but to judge. help us remember what you require of us, that we act justly, that we love mercy and that we walk humbly with you.

amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from ohio, ms. beatty. merchandise beatty: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god -- mrs. beatty: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. row is recognized for one -- mr. roe is recognized for one minute. mr. roe: i rise today to recognize dr. mark gooden of johnson city, tennessee, for his service today as guest chaplain of the house of representatives. for more than 30 years he's served as a spiritual light to more than half a dozen churches across tennessee as a pastor and elder. i have personally had the

privilege of knowing him as senior pastor of my home church in my hometown in tennessee. mark and his wife helped counsel my wife in her illness. for that i am grateful. i am proud to welcome him to the house of representatives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. the speaker: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: resolution electing a member to a certain standing committee of the house of representatives. the speaker: is there any objection to the consideration of the resolution? without objection the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will entertain up to is a requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and rhett let's -- revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. >> mr. speaker, our constitution's very first amendment protects every individual's freedom of religion but our servicemen and women who protect our country with their lives are seeing that freedom under fire. in 2013 the united states air force academy made the phrase so help me god optional in the oath each cadet takes. mr. johnson: and why did they do that? because one radical atheist group demands let me be clear, americans have the freedom of religion but not the freedom from religion. that's why i'm introducing

legislation that requires congressional approval before any change could be made to our military oaths. the moral foundation of our country is in serious danger if we allow radical groups to dictate whether or not we can freely express our religious briefs and i think it's time to take a stand. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? mrs. beatty: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. beatty: i rise to highlight a g.o.p. budget proposal that can be summed up in one phrase. work harder for less. they put forward a budget that does nothing to boost paychecks of hardworking americans.

students will see education cut college will be less affordable. mr. speaker, this budget takes away the tools that allow people to climb the ladder of opportunity. it attacks retirement for seniors and seniors on medicare will immediately pay more for preventive health services. and those with high prescription drug costs will see prices skyrocket. it will mean the end of the current medicare guarantee and millions of seniors can be hurt. while republican leadership pushes this misguided budget proposal that doesn't work for my district and doesn't work for the nation, democrats will continue pursuing policies that provide the tools hard worging families need to achieve economic security. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my

remarks the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> 90 years ago today, the deadliest tornado in u.s. history passed through the southwestern indiana towns of griffin, owensville and princeton, indiana. named the great tristate tornado it traveled three states and 219 miles over 3 1/2 hours causing 695 deaths derek stroying family farms and devastating cities this catastrophic event is an important reminder to hoosier families don't wait to get prepared. make an emergency plan ahead of time and as we enter tornado season, take the time to stay informed. hoosiers can access information on what to expect and how to prepare through the department of homeland security at the federal level, the indiana d.h.s. the red cross, my office and other organizations. don't wait, take the time get prepared today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts

seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute & revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kennedy texas at the beginning of my first time i came across an article in a paper about a constituent of mine named larry darcy. years after being exposed to nuclear components while working at a plant supporting the u.s. knave, mr. darcy was diagnose -- for the u.s. navy mr. darcy was diagnosed with cancer in 199. facing fear and uncertainty over his first cancer diagnosis he found out he was far from the only employee of that plant with cancer, but he found he was one of the few who knew about the government compensation. he helped 200 of his co-workers

file claims. guided by their efforts i have worked with the department of labor and social security administration to provide former workers and their families with over $34 million, more than twice as much as had been paid out in the previous 13 years compensation in the program's existence. to many families that support has changed and even saved lives. and it is all thanks to larry darcy for raising his voice when he saw a gap in our system. thank you larry. for all you have done and all you do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to recognize howard coble on his 84th birthday. he served north carolina for 34

years. from the first day he assumed office in 1985 and the nearly 11,000 days following he was a pillar for outstanding constituent service. with his three decades in congress he became the longest serving republican in the history of north carolina. he was regarded as one of the most -- one of the more friendliest members of congress and certainly the most fashionable. but the title i believe he embodies is public servant he spent a lifetime serving our great country and our state. beyond congress he served in a multitude of capacities for north carolina including as a state representative. additionally he's a korean war veteran and spent more than two decades serving in the coast guard and reserves. mr. walker: it is my distinct pleasure to succeed howard coble and on behalf of the sixth district and my colleagues in congress i thank you for your service and wish you a happy 84th birthday. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek

recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to legislation that is nothing short of an attack on workers. a bill that will harm the economic security of american families all over this country. mr. speaker i strongly believe that economic growth is the committee to strengthening the middle class put only if we have fair rules in place to allow workers to share in that growth by negotiating for decent wages and benefits. mr. kilmer: the national ray boar relations board put forward a rule that ensures workers are treated fairly in the election process that reduces bureaucratic red tape and ensures the right to collectively bargain is guaranteed. unfortunately this body is considering legislation that would overturn that rule. it's wrong and it's a waste of time. if congress wants to support business we should pass legislation to repair our crumbling infrastructure so folks can get their products to market to reform our tax code

to make it easier for small businesses to compete or to invest in work force development so our kids are prepared to compete in a 21st century economy. mr. speaker there are democrats who stand ready to work with you on an agenda that strengthens the middle class but this resolution doesn't do that and i urge my colleagues to stand up for workers by voting down this resolution. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gun ta: i rise to -- mr. guinta: i rise to honor a soldier, staff sernlt pitts demonstrated an incredible amount of courage bravery and

honor as he fought to hold off the taliban ambush in one of the bloodiest battles of the war in afghanistan. despite being attacked by more than 200 taliban militants and sustaining injuries of his own he, single handedly defended his platoon's observation post his fight unwavering. every day, service members like staff sergeant pitts put themselves in harm's way to defend our liberties, our nation and our freedom, for that, we are forever grateful. during that ambush nine of his comrades made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. we shall not and we will not forget their bravery and sacrifice. since 1981 the congressional medal of honor has been awarded to just over 3,400 of our nation's bravest soldiers. it is my honor to recognize staff sergeant pitts today and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new hampshire seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. kuster: i rise to honor jonathan merric daniels of keane, new hampshire. during his studies at the episcopal theological seminary, his faith inspired him to travel to alabama where dr. martin luther king jr. had sought to help the fellow clergy members in registering african-americans to vote. along with other students including our esteemed colleague, congressman john lewis of georgia, jonathan spent the summer and spring advocating for civil rights, standing guard during the march from selma to montgomery and even helping to integrate an episcopal church in selma. while many of his fellow students ultimately traveled back north, mr. daniels chose

to indefinitely remain in alabama and continue to fight for equal rights. sadly, on august 20, 1965, mr. daniels was walking with fellow students when a sheriff's deputy happened upon the group and threatened them with his gun. seing the weapon pointed in their direction, mr. daniels placed himself in front of a 17-year-old girl and took the bullet that was meant for her. friends of jonathan had noted he was willing and prepared to die to help others and tragically, that's indeed what happened. jonathan daniels would have been 76 years old this friday. he left this world far too soon and he died fighting for the values he held dear. justice, equality and human dignity. as we celebrate this year's 50th anniversary of the landmark voting rights act, we honor the memory of jonathan daniels and those like him who fought for the essential rights of every american. thank you mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the contributions of two local south florida innovative tech hubs. venture high and lab miami. venture high is a business accelerator and lab miami, a tech incubator. both are local leaders working to help our communities, entrepreneurs grow, create more jobs, and expand our economy. building on these lofting goals, susan the founder of venture hub has partnered with miami-dade county public schools to engage students in the business of innovation at an early age. meanwhile wifi has worked to build a place known as the ellis island of miami for tech

entrepreneurs. both of these wonderful places are examples for cities across our nation to help strengthen our economy and spur info vation. -- innovation. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island -- mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cicilline: i rise today to pay tribute to the first responders and fire crews who put their lives on the line for more than 24 hours to feet the five alarm mill fire in providence last week. firefighters from across my district came to the scene to help working through the night to contain the blaze that consumed a 90,000 square foot building. thank you to the members of the providence fire department and fire crews at central falls ladder, north providence engine, east providence engine, pa tucket north providence ladder for your willingness to help the fire department and your dedicated service to keep rhode

islanders safe throughout the year. i'd also like to thank the companies from the second congressional district who pitched in. and johnston engine and ladder. i applaud their service today and hope this reminds all of us of the heroic and important work that our firefighters and first responders do and it's our responsibility to support them in every way that we can. i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the life and note the recent passing of officer burke j. rose of nichlasville, kentucky. on march 11, officer roads was suddenly and tragically killed in a car accident while on duty as an officer with the police department. he was 35 years old and survived by his wife, and his three

children officer rhodes was a u.s. army veteran and served on the police force for eight years. we grieve the loss of this promoter of peace, advocate of laws, sentry of safety and security in our community. however we also celebrate and honor his life and his service. inscribed on the wall of the national law enforcement officer's memorial are the words in valor there a hope. he helped to bring his community hope in knowing they were safer on his watch. i thank officer rhodes for his service and devotion to our community. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today americans are working more and earning less.

the cost of college is rising, young people are in debt, and america's infrastructure is in decay. mr. speaker, the republican budget does nothing to help struggling americans. it gives tax breaks to the wealthy ends the medicare guarantee, may it harder for americans to buy a home, and cuts funding for education. our military leaders even testified that the republican budget will put the lives of our men and women in uniform at risk. mr. speaker this is outrageous. the american people elected us. we owe it to them to pass a budget that addresses their needs, keeps them safe, and gives them the best opportunity possible to live the american people. -- dream. let's focus on creating good-paying jobs, providing universal pre-k, and restoring food stamm programs that's helped many american families through these tough times and ensure the military has the resources they need to make sure they can fight the fight that america wants. democrats will keep standing with the american people and do the job that we were elected to

do on their behalf. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. harris: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. harris: mr. speaker, this week the house republicans rolled out next year's budget and laid out a clear plan to balance the budget in less than 10 years, cut $5.5 trillion in deficit spending, and fully repeal obamacare. it will work to cut waste and create a lean and effective government that truly works for the people. every day hardworking taxpayers across our nation are forced to balance their budgets. it's about time that the federal government does the same. over the last several years, we have seen reckless spending that is saddling future generation was massive amounts of debt. i want our children and grandchildren to have a better opportunity to succeed than we did e. and on the current trajectory that's not possible.

unlike the budget president obama submitted to congress, the house budget calls for a fairer simpler tax code, promotes job creation, and healthy economy. it will work to cut red tape that is suffocating our private employers, and it creates a more transparent and accountable government. it's time to put money back in the pockets of our hardworking american taxpayers and this budget will do just that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to speak out against the latest budget proposal from house republicans. when bill clinton left office in 2001, our government was running a surplus and on track to pay down our national debt to zero by 2009. republicans then took control of the house, senate, and presidency and we saw eight

years of republican budgets that drove us into debt and recognized our economy. mr. foster: by the time democrats regained control in 2009, our economy was in collapse and the deficit was over $1 trillion a year. republicans are now proposing to return to the very same policies that destroyed our economy in the first place. wars and military spending paid for on the backs of the middle class, tax cuts skewed to the wealthy that produce no jobs, and underinvestment in education, research, and infrastructure that are the lifeblood of our nation's economic growth. once again, we are seeing a budget that would increase financial stress on the middle class, end the medicare guarantee, and force seniors to pay more for health care and prescription drugs. we can and we must do better. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.

revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. beyer: mr. speaker, i rise today to bring our attention to an increasingly urgent problem. ocean acidfication. about 25% of man-made carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by our oceans. this is the great carbon sink which helps buffer the amount of co-2 in our atmosphere. it's making our waters more acidic which has a damaging effect on the ain't of shellfish to build their shells. it's cost the united states shellfish industry millions in lost profits and jobs. i'm deeply concerned because the chesapeake bay has been identified as a main hot spot for rapid ocean acidfication. pollution from agricultural and sewage runoff into the bay are key culprits exacerbating the effects of acidfication. the clear solution addressing this problem is reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions entering our waters. therefore i ask my colleagues to stand with the safe climate

caucus in supporting efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. we need to support the e.p.a.'s proposed rules for power plants. and protect our ecosystems and the long-term viability of our coastal economies. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this looks like it could be candy for kids. but it's not. these are deter gent packs we use in our dishwasher or washing machine. last year, the national poison data system received 17230 calls involving children who are exposed to chemicals in these

packs. ms. speier: they buy into them or skirt them in their eyes. these are concentrate the packs so they do more damage. even burning the esophagus. 769 of these children had to go to the hospital. and one child died. i'm introducing along with senator particular durbin the deter gent poisoning and child safety act to require that companies that produce these deter gent packs provide more child resistant packaging. this is a consumer issue that should be addressed and i urge my colleagues to join with he me. i yield back. -- join with me. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.

ms. wilson: here ye, hear y.e. wake the town and tell the people that isis and boca had a ram are teaming up for terror. it equals a marriage from hell, says cnn. mr. speaker boko haram was courted isis for months, but this is the first time that the intelligence community has acknowledged that isis has responded to the overtures that could pave the road for the two to collaborate. we cannot forget the people of nigeria. we cannot forget our school girls who were kidnapped. we cannot forget those awful unions between isis and boko haram. mr. speaker, we must continue to tweet to keep the reports of corruption, election shenanigans and shear terror in the national spotlight. tweet, #bringbackourgirls, #

joinrepwilson. i yield back the balance of my time. tweet, tweet, tweet. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, while congress was away last week we had another strong jobs report. you might even say as former president reagan used to say, it's morning in america. in his famous ad. in february, the economy added another 295,000 private sector jobs. and the unemployment rate edged down to 5.5%. that means that there have been 12 straight uninterrupted months of private sector job growth of over 200,000 jobs a month. that's the first time that has happened since 1977. inflation remains tame. gas prices are low.

thele toar is strong. and -- the dollar is strong. and by many measures the economy's performance under the obama administration has been stronger than the economy under former president reagan. though i suspect that some may find it unusual to compare president obama and president reagan, their efforts are good news for the economy and good news for america. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, congressional democrats are trying to move the country forward but the house republican budget is designed to turn back the clock. mr. jeffries: instead of trying to take a balanced approach to

dealing with our nation's fiscal problems, the house republican budget seeks to balance itself on the backs of working families, middle class folk, senior citizens, young americans, college students, the poor, the sick and the afflicted, instead of trying to promote progress for everyone, the house republican budget seeks to enact policies designed to simply benefit the privileged few. it is a regressive retrograde and a irresponsible republican budget. and it should be soundly rejected. it does not add a sippingle middle class job. it does not increase a single middle class paycheck, it does not help a single middle class family send their child to college. mr. speaker, i am urging that the house soundly reject this reckless republican budget and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir this is to notify you, pursuant to rule 8, of the rules of the house of representatives, that the committee on the judiciary has received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the district of massachusetts for documents in a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel regarding this subpoena i have determined that compliance is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed sincerely, bob goodlatte, chairman. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 10306789 the speaker pro tempore: 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 consideration of h.r. 1030. the chair appoints the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves, to preside over the committee of the hole. -- 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. 1030, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the environmental protection agency from proposing, finalizing or implementing regulations based upon science that's not transparent or reproducible. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith and the gentlewoman from texas, ms. eddie bernice johnson, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr.

smith. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you mr. chairman. h.r. 1030, the secret science reform act requires the environmental protection agency to base its regulations on unbiased publicly accessible science that can be verified. why would anyone want to hide this information from the american people? this is essentially the same bill that was introduced in the last congress by the former environment subcommittee chairman david schweikert and passed with bipartisan support last september. we must make sure federal regulations are based on science that is available for independent review. many americans are unaware that some of the e.p.a. east most expensive and burdensome regulations, such as its proposed ozone rules, are based on data not even the e.p.a. has seen. the e.p.a. contracts out

scientific research to third parties who the e.p.a. relies upon to justify its regulations. but if independent scientists ask for details the agency claims they don't have the data and so results cannot be verified. this is trust me science which should make us suspicious and it clearly conflicts with this administration's promise to be the most transparent in history. this bill ensures that the decisions that affect every american are based on independently verified unbiased scientific research instead of on secret data hiten behind closed doors. the secret science reform act does not weaken privacy laws. in fact, it states that nothing in the bill will supersede privacy laws. it does not give the e.p.a. any new authority to take private information and make it public. the secret science reform act simply prohibits the agency from relying on nonpublic data

that cannot be verified by independent scientists. the bill requires the e.p.a. to use data that is available to the public when the agency writes its regulations. this allows independent researchers to evaluate the studies the e.p.a. uses to justify its regulations. s the scientific method. -- this is the scientific method. how can we believe claims by the government about the benefits of regulations if the science that allegedly justifies them cannot be verified by independent experts? what does the e.p.a. want to hide? this bill does not require the e.p.a. to pay to disseminate the data it relies on publicly. unfortunately c.b.o.'s old cost estimate on a previous bill ignore this is point. if a third party has research data it believes e.p.a. should rely on in its rule making that third party should make it publicly available so that the e.p.a. and other scientists can check its work.

there is nothing in the bill that compels the e.p.a. to shoulder this cost which is where the c.b.o. went wrong in scoring the cost of this bill. the e.p.a. has received over $8 billion a year. billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars have been spent by the e.p.a. and taxpayers deserve to know whether it went to good science or politically correct science. today we have an opportunity to set a new course and let the american people see the data. the e.a.p. should use sound science based on public data, not secret data hidden from the american people. this bill also will help the e.p.a. focus its resources on the best possible science. that in turn will ensure a healthier, happier, and more prosperous future for all americans. the days of trust me science are over. and open -- an open government that's accountable to the people is essential to protect

americans from excessive government control. the e.p.a. has a responsibility to be open and transparent with the people it serves and whose money it uses. if you support the right of the people to see the e.p.a.'s data then support this bill and help the administration keep its promise to be open and honest with the american people. in god we trust all others, especially the e.p.a., must use public data, not secret science. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1030 the secret science reform act of 2015. first off, i'd like to dispel the falsehood that e.p.a.

relies on secret science. they do not. they rely upon tens of thousands of peer-reviewed publicly published research studies. the kind of science that republicans call secret actually consists of research studies published in prestigious scientific journals like science the new england journal of medicine and annals of epidemiology and the american journal of respiratory and critical care medicine and many more. moreover it is not a secret that e.p.a. uses these studies and all the regulatory actions -- in actions emplet p.a. takes they publish -- actions the e.p.a. takes, they publish the

science they use. these are public documents easily located on the internet system of what is the credit? what my republican colleagues are calling secrets are actually confidential personal health information from research study participants. some of this information is protected from disclosure by law and other information is protected by agreements between the study participants and the researchers. disclosure of this kind of information would be a major breach of faith with hundreds of thousands of research participants who volunteered to enter these types of public health studies. that said, i don't actually think that my republican colleagues want this personal information to be publicly disclosed. if they did want that, it would be terribly hypocritical since they have repeatedly bashed the obama website healthcare.gov, for disclosing far less

information to third party vendors. i think that the real motivation here is to prevent e.p.a. from using public health studies altogether because if e.p.a. cannot rely upon these public health study, then it will be much more difficult for e.p.a. to justify its protections for public health. the effect of this is that certain public health regulations will be almost impossible to update regardless of what new things health science tells us about pollution and its effects on public health. mr. chairman, i think it is sad that the today the science committee son the floor of the house of representatives putting forth a bill that will force a public health agency to ignore science. that's why some of our previous scientific organizations such as the american association for advancement of science, the

union of concerned scientists, the american statistical association and others have expressed their concerns about this bill. it would be nice when we debate bills which are supposedly about science if we actually listened to the concerns of the scientific community instead of ignoring them as the majority has done here. likewise some of the nation's premiere public health organizations like the american lung association, the american thoracic society and the american public health association among others have come out in opposition to this bill. again, when dealing with issues of public health, it would be nice to occasionally listen to what the public health experts have to say instead of ignoring their voices like the majority has done here. finally a number -- a number of well known environmental groups have registered opposition to this legislation

including the natural resources defense council, the league of conservation voters, and greenpeace among others. there was a time, not too long ago, when the views of these groups would have mattered to some of my republican colleagues. not too many years ago. then the republican chairman of the science committee jerry boller made clear we need to be good stewards of the environment we are leaving for future generations. i want to believe that some of my republican colleagues still believe that. however, legislation like this bill before us today makes me fear that what we are left with is a majority party which ignores science ignores public health and ignores environmental damage. all for the sake of polluting industries who have endorsed the majority's actions here today. now, i don't begrudge these companies for supporting legislation that help theirs bottom line.

it's expected. what concerns me is that this congress no longer looks at the requests with critical eye. we simply rubber stamp them -- rubber stamp them without any regard for our nation's science experts health experts or environmental experts and their concerns. i'm going to place some of these records in the -- these letters in the record today. i will simply note that the congressional budget office has scored this bill quote c.b.o. c.b.o. estimates that implementing h r. 1030 would cost about $250 million a year for the next few years. as we prepare to debate the budget resolution and fiscal policy next week i cannot fathom why so-called fiscal conservatives could support a bill that will increase

bureaucracy at e.p.a. at a cost of a quarter million dollars a year. mr. chairman for a whole host of reasons this is a bad bill. i strongly oppose this legislation. i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. -- the chair: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield myself 30 seconds. i want to point out this bill has been endorsed by the u.s. chamber of commerce, the farm bureau, small business and entrepreneurship coup sill and i also want to call all members' attention to the lang wg of the bill itself. if they look on page two, they find that this bill does protect privacy and does so specifically. it prevents the e.p.a. from releasing confidential information and clarifies that this bill does not supersede any privacy laws and in fact

the e.p.a. administrator herself wrote this in a recent letter, the agency's efforts ultimately resulted in the centers for disease control reaching the conclusion that all the research data could be provided without the need for de-identification and further the national academy of sciences have said the same thing, we're happy to stand with them, mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. bridenstine who is also chairman of the environment subcommittee of the science committee. . cope the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. briden stein: thank you for your leadership on this important bill. i think it's highly appropriate we ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to actually read the bill. if they did they would find out it prevents the e.p.a. from releasing any confidential information. it prevents the e.p.a. from releasing any confidential information. the idea you're using or somebody on this floor would use confidential information they are hiding behind that in an

effort to hide the actual science. my children are in elementary school. they are required to show their work. if they don't show their work, their integrity could be questioned. which would be appropriate, by the way. mr. chairman, is it too much to ask for the e.p.a. to follow the same guidelines i give my children in elementary school? show your work. we need to see it. this is an agency, as the chairman noted that is funded by taxpayers at a level of $8 billion a year. this is also an agency that promulgates rules that cost the economy hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars every year as well. in my home state of oklahoma, in tulsa, oklahoma, with the clean power plan going forward and new regulations on ozone, we are looking at the cost of electricity going up. we are looking at the cost of doing business going up. and by the way, when the cost of

electricity goes up, it doesn't hurt me. it hurts the poor. this is a war on the poor. if we are going to punish poor people in my district, i'd like to see the science behind it. i think it's perfectly appropriate that we have perfect transparency as it relates the science behind the e.p.a. the secret science reform act is a very simple bill. it simply makes the e.p.a. show its work. as my children do in elementary school. it's not truly sound science unless the results can be replicated. and this bill would allow others to test the results and to challenge the assumptions of the e.p.a. if we are truly for good science, sound science, we must pass this bill. i encourage my colleagues to vote for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. johnson. ms. johnson: i yield five minutes to the gentlelady from the state of oregon, ms. bonamici who is the chairperson

-- ranking member of the subcommittee on the virme. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ms. johnson, for yielding. mr. chair, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1030, the secret science reform act of 2015. a short bill with which i have read with a long list of problems. i want to start by applauding the sponsors of the bill for their focus on and goal of transparency. it is something our constituents care about and deserve. but transparency is something that we should accomplish through collaboration and with input from the scientific community. this bill on the contrary is opposed for good reason by research institutions and scientist from across the country. mr. chairman, we received a lot of feedback from outside groups and i'm going to place into the record some letters we have received from groups opposing h.r. 1030 from organizing like the american association for justice, public citizen, the national physicians alliance the international society for

environmental epidemiology and others. instead of working together to find a solution that increases transparency and access to federally funded research the secret science reform act instead has the potential in the long term to compromise the health and well-being of americans, and here is why. the secret science reform act, which looks simple on its face will actually encumber if not eradicate the e.p.a.'s ability to perform its most fundamental duties. protecting americans from significant risks to their health and to the environment. because h.r. 1030 would require that the e.p.a. rely only on studies that are publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results. the actual prevent the agency from considering the best and most relevant science. the e.p.a. relies on pier reviewed -- peer reviewed science.

large cohort peer review studies such as the american cancer society and harvard studies which made an association between air pollution and mortality are vital to the agency's implementation of the clean air act. let me be clear, the e.p.a. does publicly disclose which studies it rely on support its regulatory action. for good reason it doesn't make the raw data from these studies public-l available. this bill before us today if adopted would make it virtually impossible to use many reports and other sources of scientific data such as those i mentioned earlier. first in many cases the e.p.a. cannot compel the release or disclosure of information of which it is not the custodian. second, confidentiality requirements or other legal prohibitions on the sharing of certain types of data like health information would preclude studies from

consideration simply because they conform to common ethical and legal standards. additionally this act perpetuates the incorrect social that the science relied on by the e.p.a. is hidden. this misconception is based on conflating the meaning of secret and confidential. one thing should be made very clear. none of the information used by the e.p.a. is secrete. some might be confidential if it includes, for example, the personal health information of millions of americans, as it should be. my colleagues supporting this bill argue that the data could be de-identified to protect confidentiality and privacy and concerns about disclosure of personal health information are unfounded. according to a letter from the american statistical association deidentification methods like stripping names do not off suffice to protect confidentiality. stigs and computer scientists have shown ow easy it is to identify an individual using social media and public records. the secret science reform act will have chilling consequences

for the e.p.a. and every american who wants to enjoy clean air and clean water. let's bring back common sense and work together. i strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation and let the e.p.a. go back to protecting the public health of all americans. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back of the the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, virginia tech. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds before yielding to the gentleman from texas. i'd like to call members' attention to page 1, line 12 of this bill. again it is only two pages long. i hope everybody will take the time to read it. 12 -- line 12 of the first page points out that the administrator of the e.p.a. shall use the best available science. once again, the bill actually calls upon the administrator use the best available science. the question is why does the e.p.a. want to hide the science? why does it want to hide this data? why won't it let the american people see this data? that's the question. mr. chairman, i yield three

minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. weber, who is the chairman of the energy subcommittee of the science committee. er: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1030, the secret science reform act of 2015. last december, the e.p.a. proposed a new regulation that is widely predicted to be the costliest regulation in u.s. history. i repeat the costliest u.s. regulation in history. it would actually cost our economy $140 billion per year, according to the national association of manufacturers. manufacturers. you know those who manufacture or make things. i like to say the things that make america great are the things that america makes. like wise in these hard economic times, more americans will make it in america when more things are made in america. therefore, regulation that is hamper manufacturing should really be scrutinized.

and regulations that have such a big impact on our economy should not be based on secret science in order to sell it to the american people. unfortunately, the e.p.a. has prevented outside researchers from accessing the data behind recent regulatory decisions. the public has supposed to trust the e.p.a. a parnle their policy is trust but evade. we want a policy that says plus but verify. it is long past time that congress increases transparency into the e.p.a.'s regulatory process. the secret science reform act would prohibit the e.p.a. from proposing or finalizing regulations based upon science that is not transparent or available for independent review. our constituents have a right to know whether e.p.a.'s regulations are based on sound science and have the stated benefits the agency claims they have. legislation's simple, it's straightforward, and it's a

message the government bureaucrats cannot propose costly regulations without the transparency that the american people deserve. we want more americans and more american companies to make it in america. i want it thank chairman smith for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from texas, ms. johnson is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you mr. chairman. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from illinois, dr. foster, a scientist. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes. mr. foster: i'm disappointed to be here once again speaking out against the secret science reform act. there are many problems that our nation faces that we need to tackle. growing income inequity, a badly groken immigration system, an under investment in federal research and development. so i'm having a hard time understanding why congressional leaders think that this body composed largely of lawyers and career politicians, should devote its attention to telling

scientists how to conduct their research. we ever heard many of these same politicians declare proudly, i am not a scientist as they exclues their ignorance on issues like climate change or the effectiveness of vaccines. yet they want to rewrite the rules for standards of research for e.p.a. scientists. as a scientist myself, as well as a manufacturer, one who started a business that now provides hundreds of manufacturing jobs in the united states and has kept those jobs in the midwest and understands what is important for manufacturing to succeed in the united states, i also value the input of experts over political rhetoric. so what have the experts said about the secret science reform acts? today a letter was introduced into the record from the american association for the advancement of science. signed by 35 groups representing scientific organizations and research universities. in the letter, they state the

research community is concerned about how some of the key terms in this bill could be interpreted or misinterpreted. especially terms such as materials data, and reproduceable. with the environmental protection agency be excluded from utilizing research that involved physical specimens or bilogical materials that are not easily accessible? how would the agency address research that combines both public and private data? these are all important questions that were not addressed when this bill was proposed last congress and still remain unaddressed today. so i continue to stand alongside thousands of my colleagues in science in opposition to the secret science reform act. these are the standards that should be set by scientists and not by washington politicians. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas mr. smith, is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself 30 seconds before yielding to the gentleman from georgia. mr. chairman, i almost field

like we ought to take a five-minute recess and allow everybody a chance to read the bill. which again is only two pages long. there is nothing in this bill that tells scientists how to conduct their science. all the bill does is to say that the data should be publicly available and should be independently verified and let the american people see it. nothing more, nothing less. and that is why according to public opinion poll, 90% of the american people support this bill. mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk, who happens to be chairman of the oversight subcommittee of the science committee. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. loudermilk: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to speak on this very important bill. as i stand in the chamber here this his hork chamber, all around the top of the wall here are engraved images of great lawgivers who have influenced this nation and the great institutions the government we have. as the prime minister of israel pointed out, moses is in the

back who gave us the natural laws our founders referred to. over my right shoulder just above the rostrum is the image of thomas jefferson. thomas jefferson wrote about another set of laws and rights that are given to us. he also wrote 27 grievance 27 violations of either the natural law that moses wrote about or the natural rights of man that he wrote about in the declaration of independence, these were greenchances -- grievances against the king of england for violations against the natural laws or natural rights of men. the 10th grievance, ironically, that he wrote about, can also be seen as a warning to where we are today in this nation. . the 10th gree advance says he, the king, has erected a multiple -- a multitude of new officers -- offices and sent a swarm of officers to harass the people.

what jefferson was talking about is the multitufede regulations and the regulatory agencies the king instituted on the continent of america. over the past decades we have seen a rampant growth not only in the number of federal agencies that have regulatory authority over americans, but the scope of the regulations that they have impacted our every lives. every moment of your day is in some way impacted by regulation and i argue overregulation by the federal government. as we speak here today, the e.p.a. is considering an increase in the amount -- or decrease in the amount of acceptable ozone in our atmosphere. which is questionable. many steinist e-- scientists have said that that level of ozone they are trying to achieve is unachieveable even in some of the most remotest areas of our nation would not even be able to achieve that. these are areas that don't have any type of industry or

significant population. the national black chamber of commerce testified in a committee hearing the other day that this level of ozone, the regulation the e.p.a. is trying to impose would have a significant impact on the economy especially small business owners and minority business owners who most of their small businesses are in metropolitan areas. these overregulations are eating out the substance of americans. the small business and entrepreneur council recently testified that the average american, the average american pays $14,974 in hidden taxes. these are taxes because of regulation by the federal government. $14,000 a year that average americans are spending out of their own pocket because of overregulation and much of this is because of questionable science that is hidden and untransparent. that's 23% of their income.

mr. smith: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. loudermilk: this will bring transparency that the american people have a right to know that when their rights and liberties are being restricted by government that it is substantiated and it is on sound science. i appreciate the opportunity to speak. i fully support this measure and it's one of the most important ones i believe we'll do in this congress. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from texas, ms. johnson, is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you mr. chairman. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. chairman, for the second time in a six-month period, we are considering legislation specifically designed to delay implementation of e.p.a. regulations and prevent the e.p.a. from using the best available scientific data.

i know my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the e.p.a. and don't believe in sound science, they have made that very clear during the time that they have had in the majority. but this so-called secret science reform act is a dangerous attack on the e.p.a.'s ability to use the best available science to protect public health and our environment. peer-reviewed scientific research from our world class universities informs e.p.a. rule making, to limit access to this research and open the doors to industry manipulated data is just plain wrong. now i have co-sponsored an amendment offered by my good friend joe kennedy to allow the e.p.a. to continue relying upon peer-reviewed scientific data. boy what a radical idea. this commonsense amendment will ensure the e.p.a. has access to the valuable research necessary to make sound decisions about our public health and environment. mr. speaker mr. chairman,

there isn't secret science, just science that my republican colleagues do not like. the contempt for science demonstrated by the republican majority in this house is troublesome. putting profits of a particular industry ahead of the safety and well being of our citizens by rigging the data is dangerous. people might wonder why are we debating this bill here today? well i would suggest you follow the money. i would say follow where the political campaign contributions are going. the notion that we in this house would disregard sound science and instead open the doors for profit making industry to come in and dictate what the rules and regulations are with regard to the safety and well being of our citizens is just plain cages. so i urge my colleagues at the very least support the kennedy amendment and defeat the underlying legislation and with that, i yield back the remaining time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas, mr.

smith is recognized. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. babin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. babin: it is time to end the era of secret science within the environmental protection agency. this bill before us h.r. 1030, does just that. as the representative of a very diverse district in texas, with timber, agricultural interests, four ports including the port of houston and more petrochemical plants than any other in the united states i rise in strong support of this bill. i co-sponsored this bill because i believe that the american people deserve a greater level of accountability from the e.p.a. and less bureaucratic regulation and dodging the facts. let the facts speak for themselves.

transparentcy is one of the fundamental tenets of science. i have a biology degree. i've had plenty of science. chemistry. physics. i'm a dentist. medicine. if they have the facts, there is no need to hide them. the e.p.a. spends about $8 billion a year in taxpayer money. and i believe that the taxpayers of the united states have a right to know just how their hard-earned money is being spent. as new sets of data are created, i hope that this level of transparency will encourage researchers companies, and nonprofits toward a greater level of openness. the president committed that his administration would be the most transparent administration in history. unfortunately i believe this administration has fallen short of this goal. and this bill is necessary to ensure that the american people

have transparency in the environmental protection agency. when the e.p.a. overreaches it costs americans their jobs by putting u.s. workers at a competitive disadvantage. we need transparency. and we need accountability so that american workers and their families are protected. let's put an to end secret science. h.r. 1030 does exactly this and i call on my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. johnson: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. clarke. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. clark: this is the second time i have co-sponsored an amendment to the secret science reform act with representatives kennedy and mcgovern.

i have spoken in opposition to this bill before, but so long as the house continues to consider anti-science legislation that endangers public health, i will continue to point out why it's dangerous. as written, the secret science reform act prohibits the e.p.a. from considering any science that is not publicly available in its rule making process. a great deal of important research, particularly related to public health, is based on sensitive personal information that this bill would exclude from consideration. this limit poses an impossible choice for the e.p.a. disregard critical research even when it has been subject to rigorous evaluation and peer review, or violate the privacy of volunteers. our amendment ensures that this

will not happen. it simply provides that the e.p.a. may rely on any peer-reviewed scientific publications when making rules. even if all of the underlying data is not publicly available this will protect the scientific integrity of the e.p.a.'s process without endangering the privacy of americans who participate in scientific research. mr. chairman, i'd like to place two letters in opposition to h.r. 1030 into the record. one is from the union of concerned scientists and the other is from a coalition of environmental organizations, including the sierra club and clean water action. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the kennedy amendment and no on the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. mr. smith: i yield five minutes

to the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, a former chairman of the environment subcommittee of the science committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. schweikert: to all my friends, i miss all of you but are we having that sense of deja vu all over again? have you ever started to listen to a debate and you're starting to think, are we discussing two completely separate pieces of legislation here? this isn't that complicated and so far, i've got to tell you this debate and this is going to be a little harsh, has been intellectually vacuous because we're not saying things that are true. so let's try one more time, no, you're not, madam ranking member, you're not. let's try it one more time. what is the piece of legislation -- what does the piece of legislation do? it's public policy made by public data public data by

public policy. why is that so terrifying to the left? and this concept, well there's personal medical records used for part of this, there are. and that is why this white house three, four years ago did a series of memos instructing how to do the deidentification of personal data. if you really object to that, then i'm sure you're going to stand up and start saying that the f.d.a., the capb, all the others that get personal data, you don't want them to touch that either. come on, little intellectual consistency here. let's try it. something i chose not to do when we ran this bill last time, and i'm going to do this time is i'm going to ask for u.c. i have a handful of memos coming from my office when this body was controlled by the democrats and there was a republican in the white house

and the democrats were demanding this of the white house. and a series of senior democrat officials demanding this tiche disclosure of information to make public policy. i think that would be sort of amusing to put into the public record so folks can see how duplicitous this argument has started to become. and there's -- now back to sort of an underlying principle that i embrace and all those -- i hope all those who are not at war with science and want to embrace the completing a gation of information is we need to walk -- aggregation of information is we need to walk away from this arrogance that there's a small subset in our society that absolutely knows everything because the fact of the matter is, you put up a study today and a handful of smart folks at kennedy's, do you represent m.i.t.? oh well, sorry. that's where all the really smart kids are, right? but people like arizona state, the next smartest school in the

nation, why can't they take that data set and bounce it up against studies they're doing? why can't an industry group, why can't an environmental group, why can't an academic group, high why can't someone who just really likes statistics? what you're basically saying is all information, all knowledge is housed in a tiny population and the rest of the world be damned. there's a crowd sourcing concept of refining and here's where i'm fascinated that the left hasn't caught on. this bill this piece of legislation, make may come back to us and say, e.p.a. you're actually not doing enough. it could actually come back and say, when we make the data public, when we bounce it up against other tai ta sources, when we do other latitudal studies we may find we're not doing enough. we may find there's a much better way to do a regulation set. and i would think actually in the modern world where we know

information is providing so many opportunities, why aren't we embracing that? why has that become partisan? there's actually also a couple of things that have been said from behind the microphones across the aisle that we need to one more time restate honestly. what if a data set is provided by industry? one of the biggest complaints in the past, if a republican president had a republican e.p.a. and they used industry data to set up a reg, guess what that falls under this same piece of legislation. that also is disclosed. all data that is used to create public policy. . why does this terrify the left so much that public policy by public policy and then the ones

who take an interest in it to be able to refine it and make it better and more efficient and more healthy for our families, for our environment, for our economy instead of a small arrogant population to control all knowledge and all information? i yield back to my chairman. the chair: the chair will remind members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentlewoman from texas ms. johnson, is recognized. ms. johnson: i reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman we are prepared to close so i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. ms. johnson: i yield back. i have no requests for time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, first, i'd like to thank science committee member david schweikert for his great efforts on this particular subject. our goal is to help advance not

just any science but the best science. costly environmental regulations should only be based upon data that is available to independent scientists and the public and that can be verified. h.r. 1030, the secret science reform act of 2015 gives independent scientists an opportunity to validate the studies e.p.a. uses to make new regulations. in 2012 the president's own science advisor testified that, quote, absolutely that data on which regulatory decisions are based should be made available to the committee and should be made public end quote. the chair of e.p.a.'s science advisory board testified that e.p.a.'s advisors recommend, quote that literature and data used by e.p.a. be peer reviewed and be made available to the public, end quote. let me repeat. the chairman of e.p.a.'s own advisory -- science advisory

board said the data e.p.a. relies upon should be made public. and a recent poll found that 90% of americans agree that studies and data used to make federal government decisions should be public. relying on public data prevents the manipulation of scientific evidence. so this bill is no different from any other sunshine law, such as the freedom of information act. it doesn't roll back the laws that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. it simply requires the e.p.a. to use the best available science when it makes new regulations. in other words, the e.p.a. should rely upon good science, not science fiction. the bill does not change or repeal critical privacy laws that prevent the e.p.a. from releasing confidential information. it does not give the e.p.a. any new authority to make private information and make it public. in fact, it prohibits that. in a democratic society regulation should not be based

upon undisclosed data. maybe in putin's russia but not in the united states of america. undisclosed data rightly raises a lot of suspicions. actually, this bill is more than just about data. it's about an agency that apparently doesn't trust the american people. the e.p.a. thinks it knows better than the american people what's good for them. it's time to change that mind set. it's time to restore faith in our government and return the power to the people. it's time for honesty and its past time to ensure that e.p.a. bases their regulations on data that is public. the american people deserve to see the data. let's not forget the president also asked for this. h.r. 1030 ensures the speedy implementation of president obama's executive order 13536, to give the public access to federally funded science. this bill supports the administration's commitment to

open science. but now they threaten to veto it. it makes you wonder what the administration is trying to hide and whether you can believe what they say. if you support this administration's promise to be the most transparent in history and want to make the e.p.a.'s data public, then support h.r. 1030. mr. chairman, finally, there are three questions that either those who are opposed can't answer or won't answer. one, what is the e.p.a. hiding? two, why won't they make the data public? and three, why doesn't the e.p.a. trust the american people? mr. chairman, i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the rule the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be considered an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-11. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be

considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 114-37. each such amendment may be offered only in order in the report 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 opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall -- shall be subject for demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-37. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed part b of house report 114-37 offered by ms. edwards of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 138, the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 1030 to the so-called secret science reform act. let me first say first, i'm opposed to the bill and the underlying premise that there's not good science, good research and good data being gathered by the e.p.a. unfortunately this bill would force the e.p.a. to choose between protecting our health and environment and maintaining the privacy of patient medical records and the confidentiality of business records. but my amendment highlights one issue that to me makes a mockery of this entire effort. the bill, as written, currently gives the e.p.a. only $1 million per year to carry out the provisions in the bill. wouldn't be so bad except that the congressional budget office estimates the cost of the bill to be $250 million per year to implement the bill. i know, mr. chairman, that you perhaps think you did not hear me correctly, but to put this

disparity in some perspective, the congressional budget office is estimating that implementing this bill would cost 25,000% more than the majority is providing. now, i understand why the majority is doing this. they don't want to pass legislation that cost anything to implement. it wouldn't be fiscally conservative. now, i'm not a math major but simple math tells me that if a bill is $1 million in the text but costs $250 million to implement, you're asking the e.p.a. to undertake $250 million of work with $1 million. not exactly fiscally or legislatively conservative or sound. more importantly, it forces the agency into an untenable position. they must either ignore the requirements of this legislation because the majority isn't providing them with the resources to carry them out or they can comply

with the requirements for -- and mr. chairman, hold your breath. they could comply with the requirements for 1 1/2 days. $1 million, 1 1/2 days and then shut down all of the covered actions under the bill. and so i know we might think it's laughable except it is true. if the majority really believes in the premise behind this legislation which i do not then the majority should provide the agency with the $250 million annually that at a minimum the agency would need to carry out this bill. those are not my estimates. those are the estimates of the independent congressional budget office. i'm opposed to the bill for a number of reasons, and most likely my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would disagree with me on those points. however, i have a hard time believing that any responsible member of congress who supports fiscal conservatism would consciously support a bill that

is guaranteed absolutely guaranteed to cause failure. and so i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and not allow this bill to move forward with an unfunded mandate to the agency. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: mr. chairman i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i do thank my colleague from maryland for her amendment but i must oppose it. this would allow the environmental protection agency to continue its practice of hiding data from the american people. this amendment is based upon what appears to be a misreading of the bill that has resulting in an inaccurate score by the congressional budget office. in fact the statutory language directly contradicts the c.b.o.'s analysis. and here's why. c.b.o. assumed that bill requires the e.p.a. to collect and disseminate the underlying

the science it relies upon. through some unknown calculation, c.b.o. then came up with $250 million price tag for the collection and dissemination of the data. however, the bill does not require the collection and dissemination of information. it simply says that e.p.a. must use data that is public and available to independent scientists. the bill itself states that there's no requirement for the e.p.a. to disseminate scientific and technical information. again, i urge my colleagues to read the bill. so let me say it again. this bill does not require the e.p.a. to disseminate information. it simply says that when the e.p.a. decides to regulate it needs to rely on the best available science that is publicly available for independent verification and review. so the c.b.o. is way off base not for the first time and therefore so is this amendment. c.b.o.'s cost estimate also contradicts the clear statutory

bill language which reads, the administrator shall carry out this subsection in a manner that does not exceed $1 million per fiscal year to be derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated end quote. when the c.b.o. says that under this legislation the e.p.a. will have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to collect and disseminate new data, that is clearly inconsistent with the language and intent of the bill. so the c.b.o.'s cost estimate is meaningless. but let's assume that e.p.a. decides it must collect and disseminate the data itself. e.p.a. has an $8 billion budget. it spends more than $20 million of taxpayer money every day to issue regulations that cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year. and the president has asked congress for an increase of $50 million for the agency this year. surely the e.p.a. can base its rules on science that is transparent and available to everyone and do it with funds from its already massive

budget. a federal agency that spends over $8 billion a year in taxpayer money should be able to afford to honor the public's right to know. this amendment would allow the e.p.a. to continue business as usual and would ignore congressional intent and statutory language. for these reasons i oppose the amendment and, mr. chairman, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman. so we know that e.p.a.'s jurisdiction is to make sure that we have clean water and clean air. that's sort of the basics of it. and now we're hearing from the majority, mr. chairman, that not only do they not believe the science and they think it's secret, they also don't believe the congressional budget office. were but for the fact we cannot pick and choose which numbers we believe out of the congressional budget office, the fact is that congressional budget office not just this year but in the last term as well said that this bill would cost american taxpayers $250

million if the agency were implementing it according to the legislative language. and so i don't think that the majority should be allowed to pick and choose its science or pick and choose its numbers, and the congressional budget office in fact has said that this bill would cost $250 million to implement, more than 25000 times the amount that is authorized in the language, and i think it is unacceptable for us to just denigrate the e.p.a. say that it's engaged in secret science and then tell them we want you to implement a bill without providing the resources that it takes to do it. and with that i would just yield to my colleague and the ranking democrat on the committee, ms. johnson from texas. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: i want to thank the gentlelady and i fully support her amendment. e.p.a. normally relies on approximately 50,000 scientific studies each year to support its actions.

the congressional budget office estimated that if e.p.a. were to cut the amount of studies they consider in half, it would still cost the agency roughly $250 million annually to comply with this legislation. this bill would effectively require e.p.a. to pay more in order to do less. yet, my colleagues are only providing e.p.a. with only $1 million annually to comply with the provisions of this bill. this forces e.p.a. into a lose-lose situation. either drastically limit the amount of science used to protect the public health and environment or spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year ensuring that the job is done right. . while thing legislation is seriously misguided -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of me

time. i don't know why it's so difficult to read this bill. it's only two pages long and those concerned about the cost ought to recognize, or i hope they've realized and seen that the bill this year reads differently than the bill last year. what i'd like to do is read that those who are opposed and raise the cost issue look at lines 17 and 18 of page one and lines one and two of page two. they read as follows. nothing in the subsection shall be construed as requiring the administrator to disseminate scientific and technical information. i hope that allays their concerns but it's always nice to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle so concerned about the cost of legislation. contrary to the c.b.o. estimate, h.r. 1030 does not require the e.p.a. to disseminate information. it requires them to base their information on data that is public so all americans are better informed about the regulations that affect their daily lives. americans deserve all the facts and they deserve all the data. they have the right to know what the regulations -- that

the regulations they are forced to live under are justified by sound science. the e.p.a. spends over $8 billion a year. surely it can base its rule ops science that is transparent and available to everyone. for these reasons i oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. edwards: mr. chairman. i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pusuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maryland will be postponed testimonies now in order to consider amendment aurm 2 printed if part b of house report 113--- 114-37. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. kennedy: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number two printed in house report 114 preponderance 37, offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. kennedy: i yield myself four minutes. mr. chairman, i echo the comments of my colleague about the importance of transparency we have heard over the course of this debate. an open government without transparent rules and regulations -- or with transparent rules and regulations, ex-dudes me, is at the core of our democracy. but i'm discouraged and disappointed that we are having this debate yet again, especially on a bill that undermines science even more dramatically than last year's version. when this country's greatest minds mr. chairman, come together to tackle our greatest problems, we are a stronger nation. whether we're talking about achievements in cancer treatment or clean water, science makes us healthier more innovative and more competitive. unfortunately, the bill we're considering today takes science off the table for the e.p.a.

the very agency entrusted with keeping our air clean, our water safe, our homes clear of toxic substances. the bill before us leaves e.p.a. with an unworkable standard, prohibiting it from using certain studies simply because they include information that by law cannot be made public. such as people's personal health records. my amendment does a very simple thing. it fixes that oversight by clarifying that the e.p.a. should use the most reliable scientific information available regardless of whether that can be publicly disclosed. the congressional budget office estimates that e.p.a. relies on about 50,000 scientific studies every year. as written, h.r. 1030 would drastically shrink this number. it could prohibit e.p.a. from using other government-funded research like n.i.h. studies that link toxic substances to

premature births or c.d.c. research on mitigating the effect of natural disasters on public health. furthermore, there's several measures in place to ensure e.p.a. uses properly credited and credited information. first, any and all such studies go through a significant peer review process including an independent analysis. second mr. chairman, the office of science and technology policy is already working to ensure that all publicly funded research is available online. third, the public comment period allows anyone, individual or organization, to submit evidence supporting or opposing a proposed regulation. however, this bill actually puts limits on that public comment period. mr. chairman, this legislation jeopardizes our clean air, our clean water, and the health of our families. i urge the house to accept my amendment to clarify that the

e.p.a. may use the most reliable science available. i'd also like to thank my colleagues from massachusetts congressman jim mcgovern, katherine clark and the ranking member of the committee for their support of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: first of all i want to thank my colleague and friend from massachusetts for offering this amendment but i must oppose it. the gentleman's amendment implies that the bill does something that in fact it does not and the amendment also creates a loophole the e.p.a. administrator could easily exploit. first by stating that nothing in the act prevents the e.p.a. from considering or relying on peer-reviewed science, the amendment imapeers to imply the bill would do otherwise. this is simply not true. the e.p.a., through its implementation of the information quality act, is already required to rely on

peer-reviewed information. nothing in this legislation changes that. but this bill would accomplish -- what this bill would accomplish and what the gentleman's amendment would undermine is to ensure that the science the e.p.a. relies upon is publicly available and verifiable. independent scientists don't have an opportunity to examine the assumptions and methodologies that e.p.a. relies on when it makes public regulations. it's time for the e.p.a. to show its work and come out into the daylight. peer review alone is not a sufficient check. peer reviewers are not always provided the underlying data and the quality of preer review is highly variable. the simple premise behind h.r. 1030 is that public policy should be backed up by public day tafment peer review alone does not allow independent scientists to verify the e.p.a.'s claims. this amendment would destroy the purpose of the bill and provide the e.p.a. administrator with permission to disregard the basic

principles of transparency and accountability that are provided by h.r. 1030. for these reasons i oppose the amendment, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. kennedy: if i can inquire as to the time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. kennedy: i want to begin by thanking the chairman of the committee, my friend from texas, for his friendship and for the work that he's been doing. i know that we share the same goal of having a transparent government and a transparent enforcement mechanism. unfortunately, i think he and i come to disagree on the underlying impact of my amendment and the underlying bill itself. the e.p.a. and the goal of this amendment is to make sure they are able to rely on the most sound reliable information available. we heard from ms. edwards, my colleague earlier, that

there's already constraints put in place by this legislation that limits the e.p.a. from doing so should this bill pass. my amendment takes up that same challenge and tries to make sure that when we are making rules and regulations that are going to impact our society that we're using the best data that's available. all of that data must be -- all those studies must be peer reviewed. there's a process by which the e.p.a. goes through that is publicly available and not actually under any sort of challenge because the underlying bill here doesn't say that that peer-reviewed process is flawed. so if we take it as given, then that the prer review process is sound and is strong and can be relied upon, then the issue is the underlying data and what we've seen here is an effort to try to ensure that yes, that the analysis and the method for the inquiry is actually available but the underlying data that can contain people's personal health records that can contain personally identifiable information, that

is kept private to not expose people to the dissemination of data they never knew would be publicly available. that is the sole point of this amendment. to ensure that our government is using information for the highest and best use as we promulgate rules and regulations that will impact the american people. nothing les less and nothing more. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i appreciate the gentleman's comments and his friendship as well. while we agree on many things we happen to agree -- to disagree on this one amendment. i wish he were still a member of the science committee and he would be welcome back any time. mr. chairman, the gentleman's amendment would allow the e.p.a. to continue to hide the data it says justifies its regulations. peer review does not allow independent scientists to verify the e.p.a.'s claims. it is not a sufficient check to ensure the e.p.a. uses the best science available. h.r. 1030 promotes the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability

this amendment would make it harder to achieve that goal. giving independent scientists an opportunity to examine the data that the e.p.a. relies on when it makes public regulations will ensure transparency and accountability. public policy should be backed up by public data. peer review alone will not give the american people all the facts. americans deserve access to this data. they have the right to know if the regulations paid for with their tax collars are based on the best science available. for these reasons, i oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. kennedy: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings will resume on amendments printed in part b of house report 114-37 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number one by ms. edwards of maryland. amendment number two, mr. kennedy of massachusetts. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number one printed in part b of house report 114-37, by the gentlewoman from maryland ms. edwards on which the further -- on which further proceedings were postponed on which the noes prerailed vi -- prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report 114-37, offered by ms. edwards of maryland. 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 risen, 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.]