Secret Science Reform Act of 2014

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), I believe it is southeast Illinois.

Celebrating the Lives of Alan Dixon and Kenny Gray

Thank you, Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I came to the floor and did a bit of a presentation of some of the numbers we were seeing on what was actually happening in our debt, in our future economic growth, why we were so stagnant in today's economy, and the overhang that was, I believe, the very thing that was slowing down future economic growth.

I had a number of phone calls and a number of emails and a few comments on Facebook asking for a little more definition, a little more presentation. So I thought I would come to the floor this evening, take some of this leadership hour, and walk through some of the numbers.

I have to apologize to everyone right now, I am going to throw out a lot of math, a lot of numbers, but you are going to see a theme here of what is coming at us, and it is coming at us very, very fast.

After we do this, I want to do a little talking about a piece of legislation that I have that has made it through committee, and I am hoping, over the next couple of months, we will come to the floor and what that piece of legislation, I believe, means to sort of transparency here in our government with the EPA and hopefully as just sort of the future of how we deal with data in this Federal Government.

The chart alongside me--and I know there are lots of lines in it and it is hard to read, but it has a very, very, very simple theme--I am going to show variations of this on a couple of different boards.

The red you see down at the bottom is what we call discretionary spending. That is what we substantially get to come down and vote on.

That discretionary spending, if you look at the next decade on this chart, basically stays the same. So the military, the Park Service, the FBI, education, and these things that are programatic that we come down and vote for on the discretionary side of the budget are pretty much staying even for the next 10 years.

Do you see the blue lines? They are just slightly shy of doubling. They basically double over the next 10 years. That is mandatory spending. That is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the debt, veterans' benefits, and now ObamaCare, things that are built in by formula. And they grow and grow and grow and grow, and they consume everything in their path.

That is what is going on here.

When I do meetings back home in Arizona, in the district, you often get this question: Why do you all fight with each other? Why do you all fuss with each other? And my answer is: It is about the money. And you get this look.

You must understand, we come to this floor and we are fighting over, fussing over, in many ways, a shrinking pot of resources, even though today we have actually the highest revenues this Federal Government has ever received.

So where is the money going? It is going to that mandatory spending. We need to deal with the reality that the mandatory spending--the entitlements--are consuming our future. So that is what this chart is basically saying.

We are going to the next chart. The reason I am going to put this one up is this is from 2013. So we actually know it has happened. It is a closed book.

If you look at the blue areas, that is mandatory spending. You will see Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. You will see other income. You have supplemental programs like food stamps, WIC, and some of those types of programs. You will see veterans' benefits down here. And about 6 percent of our budget last year--our money, our spending--went to interest. Thirty-two percent last year is what we, as Members of Congress, got to come down here and do policy on.

Understand that in 9 budget years--and I am going to show you that pie chart in a moment. That is 32 percent. In 9 budget years, that goes from 32 percent of our spending and collapses down to 22 percent. That 22 percent has your military, the FBI, the education, health research. All those types of things are in that remaining portion of the pie.

This was something that I picked up several months ago, and I was shocked it did not get more discussion here on the floor of the House or around here in Washington. Last September, we had the Chief of Staff of the United States Army in discussion before Congress talking about the future of the Army and what was actually going on. In his quote, he basically says that 46 percent of the Army spending today is personnel costs, like salaries, pensions, health care. By 2023, 9 years from now, it is going to be 80 percent.

So get your head around this: 80 percent of the Army's spending in 9 years will be personnel costs. It will not be equipment. It will not be things that fly fast and go kaboom or make our soldiers safer. It will be personnel costs. In 9 years, 80 percent of that Army's budget will be personnel costs.

You have got to understand the demographic bubble our country is in. The fact of the matter is these costs are consuming us. We can have a debate of, well, it's uncomfortable to talk about, it's not politically correct, when you talk about Medicare and Social Security you can get yourself unelected, but if you care about these programs, if you care about the social contract we as Members of Congress have with our constituents, you need to step up and understand the underlying math so you can save them--because it is math.

Think about if I came to you and told you that 9 years from now, for a branch of our service, 80 percent of their money is not equipment, is not things that keep the soldiers safe, but it is just going to be salaries, health care, and retirement. You need to understand that the very thing we are discussing on our overall Federal budget is now also hitting Federal employees and our military.

I am going to rotate to the next board. Remember, this one shows 32 percent of all of our spending was discretionary.

This is 9 budget years from now, so it is 2024. Nine budget years from now, that discretionary portion falls to 22 percent of our spending. And this is still the military; this is still the FBI; it is still health research; it is still education.

So what is happening here? Well, on the previous pie chart, interest was 6 percent of our budget, 6 percent of our spending. In 9 years, we predict it to be around 14 percent. That is assuming that we stay with historic norms on interest rates. If interest rates spike, if we have 1979, 1980, 1981, or 1982 all over again, our interest exposure consumes huge portions of what is left in the discretionary budget.

You must understand what we have done with the explosion of our deficits

in this country. We have actually made this country rather fragile to interest rate exposure, and something you need to understand is we now become more and more subject to the world's interest rate markets and our ability to constantly sell more and more of our debt.

There was something I found sort of amusing, and I didn't bring the actual numbers with me, but 2 days ago this administration was announcing how happy they were with that the deficit numbers and where they were at. The problem was the deficit numbers weren't that different from last year, and they were substantially higher than they were predicting last September, one more time demonstrating here in Washington you can spin almost anything. And if you have a compliant press, complicit press--whatever you want to use--you can make it sound like happy talk.

The numbers are not getting better.

So in 9 budget years, 24 percent of our spending is going to be Social Security.

On occasion, I will have someone on the left who will show up at one of our discussion groups, our working groups, or our town halls and demand a discussion about Social Security, saying Social Security is fully funded. They have all those IOUs in it.

Here is the basic math on Social Security.

Social Security is holding about $2.3 trillion of special Treasury notes from the Treasury Department. Obviously, the Treasury Department, if they were to pay those back--which they will--they have to go borrow the money, because they have already spent the money. That is the asset in Social Security. Understand, Social Security is sitting on about a $24 trillion unfunded liability. So they are holding about $2.3 trillion in special Treasury notes, and they have $24 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

And this is where it ties in. We talked about this a couple of weeks ago.

At the very beginning of the year, George Mason University did a study and put together some data of what would happen if you took the U.S. debt, the U.S. liabilities, and put them on GAAP accounting, just like your business, my business, just like everyone else where you are doing a large public statement and you would have to put them on GAAP accounting--what are your liabilities, what are your assets, and if you offset them.

What would you guess the United States shortfall is? On occasion, I will hear many of my brothers and sisters even here in this body sort of quote the number that you can see at the bottom of the U.S. debt clock on the Web site as it is spinning, and they will say things like: Oh, it's a $120 trillion shortfall.

The study at George Mason University came in at $205 trillion, which is our honest debt, our honest unfunded liabilities, if you actually use GAAP accounting.

Go to the Internet now and take a look at what many predict, estimate, guess is the entire wealth of the world. You are going to find out what we owe, what we are going to owe, what we have promised is greater than the current wealth of the entire world--every asset in the world.

I will make you the argument that even with the chaos we have right now through so many things in this country and so many things I actually hold this administration responsible for, the President's failure to step up and say, This is the systemic risk to my country, to your country, to our country, not dealing with the explosion of the future entitlements consumes our future. And it is in front of us.

We knew baby boomers were going to turn 65 for how long? I remember sitting in a statistics class in 1981 where the professor was putting things up on the board and talking about how much money we would have to have set aside in assets as we started to move into the baby boom retirements.

We are now into year three, and my understanding is a typical baby boomer will have put in around $100,000, $120,000 into Medicare in their lifetime, and they are going to take out $330,000. So they will put in about $110,000 and take out about $330,000. Now, multiply that shortfall times 76 million brothers and sisters. And we are into year three of it now.

We have known this was coming. We have known this was coming for 65 years, but it was politically dangerous to talk about. It was uncomfortable. It is easier, as you watch the debates here on the floor, to talk about today's chaos, today's spending.

Being able to cover these promises, these social entitlements, these social contracts into our future, if you love your kids, if you love your grandkids, if you love your great-grandkids that may not even be here yet, this is the question I beg of you to ask candidates who are running around this country: What are your plans to deal with the crushing future debt, the crushing future promises that we have made that there is no money for?

There is this almost pathologic attitude around here of: We will get to it one day when we have a Senate that is willing to step up and do work. We will get to it one day when we have a President that is willing to be honest about the math. We will get to it one day.

The problem is that every single day that ticks away, the math gets worse. A good example of that is 2 days ago, the Congressional Budget Office came out with their annual data.

Remember, you have heard over and over on the media that things are getting better, the job situation is better, our numbers are getting better. Well, if they are getting better, how did the fiscal scenarios get worse?

Go pull the Congressional Budget Office's numbers that they just put out. Our Congressional Budget Office does two scenarios. One is the standard and one is called an alternative.

The standard is basically based on the concept of: this is the law as it is today. Here are the numbers that it projects. Of course, you have got to understand that the law as it is today has things in it like the common vernacular ``doc fix.'' We refer to it as the SGR. It is this concept that, in a dozen or so years, doctors are going to take 73 percent less money--73 percent less compensation--to see a Medicare patient. It is implausible. It is not going to happen. Yet here is how the scam works here in Washington.

It is the current law that doctors are going to be compensated this much less over the next dozen years, so we are going to calculate that as savings all up and down our future budget projections, our future debt projections. We have things that are woven into those numbers that are fantasy. Go read the last three pages of the Medicare-Social Security actuarial report. The head actuary, whom I have never met but who I hear is just a standup person, basically says, ``Oh, by the way, these numbers are implausible,'' but they are based on current law. You will hear debates here on the floor, saying, ``No, the number is this. The number is this.'' The number often, if they are using the standard projections, is a fraud.

Then there is the alternative scenario, which may overshoot a number on the negative side because it basically makes a projection of: What if GDP isn't what we hope it to be? which, as it has turned out over the last couple of years, is true. We will be blessed if we can break through that 2 percent this year because of what happened in the first quarter.

The alternative scenario is that we hit 100 percent of debt to GDP in 14 years. How many of you remember what you were doing 14 years ago? To help you put it in sort of a perspective, when you get ready to take out that 30-year mortgage, understand that less than halfway through it your government, your country, is going to be at 100 percent debt to GDP. Theoretically, that is when your sovereign debt becomes much more risky, and this net interest figure potentially starts to explode on you because getting sovereign nations, getting individuals and getting investors from around the world to buy our sovereign debt becomes harder and harder because we start to look riskier and riskier. If you say, ``David, I don't want you to use the alternative number. I want you to use the standard number,'' okay. Add 8 years. Add 8 years so that, in 2036, we hit 100 percent of debt to GDP.

We can fix this, and we can fix it in a way that is not terrifying. It will be a little uncomfortable, but you will save the future. If you are a person of the left and if there are programs you

care so deeply about, those programs are on the discretionary side of this budget. If you are a person of the right or a person who cares a lot about the military, that is in this discretionary budget. Every time you talk about those programs, you need to stand behind that microphone and talk about mandatory spending--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, veterans' benefits, and now ObamaCare--because they are all on autopilot, and they are consuming everything in their path.

That is, hopefully, a little more detail of some of the numbers I put up a couple of weeks ago. We traditionally will put these slides up on our Facebook page and on our Web site so that you can analyze them. If you want all of this data and a lot more--I mean, a presentation could go on for hours--it is on the Congressional Budget Office's data sets. This is the issue of our time. It is that we have made as a government, as a people, lots and lots of promises, and we haven't built the mechanisms to pay for them.

With that, I want to move on to one other little thing. Let's take these boards down.

Now, as we get ready to talk about the ``Secret Science'' piece of legislation, I show you all of these debt projections and unfunded liability numbers, and I am actually more optimistic today than I have been at any time in my 3 years here in Congress. Why? If I had gone to anyone out there 10, 12 years ago and had said, ``Hey, in 2015, the United States is going to become a natural gas exporting country,'' you would have laughed at me. Ten or 12 years ago, you couldn't pick up the newspaper--you couldn't pick up The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, financial news--and not hear discussions here on the floor about this thing called ``peak oil.'' The world was running out of energy, do you remember? It wasn't that long ago. The world is running out of energy. Tomorrow, the next incremental barrel of oil and the next incremental unit of fossil fuels that we extract will be less than the day before. You all know the problem with that. It was absolutely wrong. As of today, we have more known fossil fuel supplies than any time in human history, and if we use this the right way, that is one of the legs on the stool that is going to support us as we stand up and start to meet these obligations that we have made.

The second thing is much more ethereal, a little more difficult to talk about, and that is what is happening all around us. There is this hyperefficient economy that is breaking out. How many of you have ever ridden Uber? How many of you have ever done SideCar? How many of you have ever used that handheld computer you call a phone to buy something, to sell something, and to use it in a fashion to do something that is so hyperefficient that you couldn't have done it a couple of years ago? Please understand. The incumbents, as they are often referred to--and it is not competitive businesses. It is competitive businesses and incumbent tax systems. If you have a Web site that allows you to rent someone's townhouse for the week, that becomes a great transaction for you and for that person who owns the townhouse, but the municipality and the hotel are not happy. The municipality is not getting its bed tax, and the hotel with its capital expenditures is not happy, but the fact of the matter is that this is an economic transaction that is efficient.

Over the next couple of years, I believe, in State legislatures, city councils, county councils, and here in Congress, we are going to see the fight over: Do we regulate the new alternatives you have as a citizen to engage in this hyperefficient economy? Do we regulate them out of existence? Do we create some concept of, well, we need them to have additional tort liability shields or we need to have them engage in this part of the tax scheme? A bit of economic chaos is normal. That is how you renew yourself. That is how you create the next generation of economic growth. We need to embrace it because, if we cannot reach escape velocity in the energy renaissance and in the economic renaissance, I do not know, mathematically, how we keep our promises to so many people in this country.

A few months ago, I introduced a piece of legislation, and it has been through the Science Committee. We gave it the title of ``Secret Science.'' I am not sure if I am thrilled with the title, but it is a very, very simple concept. The concept underlying it is: Do you make public policy and not make the underlying public data available? It is a simple concept--public data for public policy. Should your government be keeping the data--the underlying data--secret and then create a bunch of rules and regulations on top of you?

It is almost absurd to think we have to create a piece of legislation to get the EPA to take its data sets and make them public. There is this intense arrogance out there in the world right now, particularly at our agencies, of saying, ``David, you have got to understand. Only real scientists, researchers who we deem qualified should ever see this data. Well, you don't want the unwashed masses to have an opportunity to see how we are developing our science and our regulations.'' It is absurd. It almost borders on Orwellian as to what is going on in our bureaucracies today. They are going to create rule sets that cost hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars and that are going to affect how we live in future decades. Yet there is the arrogance of saying the young man who is a statistics major, the left-wing group, the right-wing research group, the industry group, the activist group-- just someone who is nutty enough to have a great stats package on his home computer, who wants to take the data sets and play with them and model them and see what is out in the tails and maybe match them up to other data sets that someone hadn't thought about--is not worthy. They are not worthy?

Now, it is a personal fixation, but I actually believe that transparency is the ultimate regulator in our society. Could you imagine if we had gone into 2008 and if we had had transparency on that MBS, the mortgage-secured bonds, and had known what the impairment was and had known what was actually going on? Would you have had an implosion on a single day, or would you have had a couple of years of, hey, these are having trouble, these are having trouble; we need to mark down the prices? Transparency is the ultimate regulator, the ultimate vetter, but it is also the ultimate exposure to bad acts.

This hit my desk last week. It is a TIME magazine. On the cover it says, ``Eat Butter. Scientists Labeled Fat the New Enemy. Why They Were Wrong.''

Now, how many times have you heard the people at your gym, your wife, or others saying, ``David, you need to be eating less saturated fats. You can't eat that butter. We need to go buy some of that artificial stuff''? Now I am looking at TIME magazine's saying, ``Hey, we screwed up on the data.'' How many times in our lives do we come here and say, ``We knew it except for the small problem that we got it wrong''? Remember, we all knew the world was running out of energy. ``Well, we got that wrong.'' We all knew eating butter was bad for you until we knew the data was different. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of examples like this around us, but we were so arrogant that we thought we understood the data. We thought we understood the methodology. We were so brilliant except for the fact that we weren't. We got it wrong over and over and over.

The fact of the matter is--and go back to my energy example of a dozen years ago and beyond that--our military policy, our foreign policy, our environmental policy, our tax policy was all based on this concept that the world was running out of energy, except we weren't. How much of our health policy is based on things like this: ``David, you can't eat butter''?

I saw a presentation a few years ago that the government was spending this astronomical amount of money to try to keep people from using salt. The researcher was presenting salt as only a problem for you if you have hypertension, but that is different than the folklore out there. How many things have we developed in our folklore that we make policy?

That is why H.R. 4012--it is called the ``Secret Science'' bill--is, I believe, so needed. When the EPA takes data, whether it be from industry, whether it be from a research group, an activist group, a right, a left, an internal--any group--and when they use that data to

make a policy, to make a rule, that underlying data belongs to all of us. It is public policy by public data, and we all as Americans deserve the right, if you are so inclined, if you so choose, to sit there, see it, touch it, calculate it, crunch it, compare it, understand it. Who knows? You may be the researcher who comes out, looks at the data, matches it up against other things, and tells me I can eat butter.

I promise that in a couple of weeks, maybe a month, I am going to come back to this microphone, because I have collected an entire binder of example after example of what we were absolutely positive about-- what we absolutely knew--and we got wrong, and how so many of those things we made public policy on, and we got it wrong.

My good friend from Iowa (Mr. King) has a couple of other things in sort of that same vein that he wants to share, and he may be the best person I have ever seen behind these microphones.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to also thank the ranking member, my friend from Oregon. We disagree on this bill, as it will become evident through this debate today, but she has always been respectful and professional, and I appreciate that.

The issues we are debating today are important, and the decisions we will make today are significant. There is a process that is broken, and it is through this bill that we cannot only improve that process, but also restore trust between the American people and the Federal Government.

If I could reemphasize what I just said, the process is broken. This is an opportunity for us to restore trust between the American people and the Federal Government that has fostered so much distrust of late.

Established by Congress in 1978, the EPA's Science Advisory Board, or what we refer to as SAB, is intended to provide meaningful, balanced, and independent reviews of the science conducted and used by the Agency. Its members are selected by the EPA Administrator, and it plays an important role in reviewing everything from the EPA's research budget to individual chemical assessments.

This panel is indispensable in critically reviewing the underlying science of virtually all major EPA regulatory activities. That is a tall order in recent years, especially given the fact that the Agency has pursued an overreaching, economically threatening agenda, creating an environment where politics and policies have taken the wheel from unbiased science.

This bill contains basic, good government changes and draws upon noncontroversial provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee handbook, the EPA's own Peer Review Handbook, the National Academies' committee composition and conflict of interest policy, and even recommendations from the Science Committee testimony and other outside groups.

It has widespread support from groups such as the National Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, the American Chemistry Council, the American Gas Association, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, Portland Cement Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, and I could go on and on with a long list of councils and associations that support this legislation.

It makes important clarifying changes to the scope of SAB's purview and institutes commonsense reforms. I would like to emphasize this. You are going to hear this again and again today: commonsense reforms to improve transparency. How can you argue against that? It specifically builds upon the bipartisan agreement made to the SAB in the farm bill.

H.R. 1422 would also facilitate meaningful public participation across all of the standing committees. Once again, let me emphasize that: it facilitates meaningful public participation. And let's be clear. The transparency and the public participation concerns addressed in this bill are not without merit.

For example, in my own experience, during a hearing in the Science Committee last year, I was alarmed to hear from both SAB members and the chair of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and a State official testify that EPA's science advisers virtually never respond to public comments and, in many cases, they don't even read these public comments. Imagine the arrogance of a government committee that pretends to seek public

comment and promises to consider those comments, and then to learn that they don't even read them, let alone consider what has been said. This bill would change that.

This bill also provides clarity to the SAB member selection and disclosure process. Despite an existing requirement that these panels be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,'' EPA has systematically excluded State, local, and tribal entities and private sector scientists from serving as advisers.

For example, last year EPA announced a new Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel. Even though dozens of people with recent and direct experience with oil and gas technical developments were nominated, the EPA excluded nearly every one of them from serving on the panel.

There are also a number of other unsettling Agency trends about how the EPA selects its supposedly independent advisers. For instance, according to the Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of the members of EPA's chartered SAB and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee have directly received grants from the Agency, and that is only since the year 2000. These advisers served as principal or co- investigators for EPA grants, totaling approximately $140 million. The EPA also frequently chooses panelists whose research is directly or indirectly under review.

And finally, in addition, many of the SAB panelists have clearly taken sides or made public pronouncements on issues they are advising about. For example, roughly 40 percent of the current panel members reviewing the science behind upcoming EPA ozone standards have already made statements that the regulations should be more stringent.

The issues identified in this bill seem to many as too specific and diving into the weeds, but credible peer review is critical to everything the EPA does. We may not be able to control all the EPA's regulatory overreach, but guaranteeing that there is an independent check whose sole focus is to provide unbiased, independent science is essential to the process.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I recognize the gentleman from Texas, I would like to respond briefly, if I could, to the minority Member, some of her comments regarding this bill.

The bill very clearly does not allow for the SAB to be stacked, to use her phrase, with the industry experts. I have the bill before me. It is only a couple of pages long. It is very simple. I would ask anyone to show me the language where it allows for the SAB to be stacked with industry experts.

All we are asking is that there be some balance to those experts who are asked and that there, further, be transparency, and that we understand who is selected, why they were selected, and why others were excluded from this, just like, by the way, we are not asking that those scientists who have EPA-funded backgrounds be excluded. We are not saying that they are conflicted to the point where they couldn't participate. We recognize that they have expertise that could help in this process.

But we also are asking, on the other hand, that we recognize that there are industry experts who are currently being excluded from this because of their background. Of the 51 members of the current SAB, only three--only three--have any industry expertise, and we are losing valuable insight and valuable guidance because we don't include them in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to some of the comments made on the other side of the aisle.

All of us would be concerned if we thought we were getting advice that had been conflicted financially. I share that concern. In fact, that was one of the primary reasons that we wrote this bill. This bill, to say it again, seeks for transparency and it seeks for openness.

If you are worried about industry experts being stacked on the SABs and providing biased opinion and expertise, I would ask you to give me an example of this. Because I can give you an example of exactly the opposite happening.

I will say it once again: 60 percent of the current Members of the SAB have $140 million in direct government grants. Now, that is a clear conflict. And yet once again, we are still willing to work with that. We are not seeking to exclude those members; we are simply seeking for transparency and openness, and for that same standard to be applied to industry experts as well who could help us with their background and their expertise.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Well, once again, I just have to respond to some of the things that the opposition is saying.

This is essentially their argument: we think it is okay that 60 percent of SAB members have $140 million in direct government grants, and we think it is okay that those same members are then allowed to provide their own peer review of their own work. That is okay.

I think it is very commonsensical to realize there are inherent objections and inherent conflicts in allowing that sort of structure to continue to exist.

It is not gutting the EPA, as was claimed, to ask to increase transparency. It is not gutting the EPA to ask for balance. That is all this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), my good friend.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Tennessee, I would very quickly like to make a point. Once again, all we are seeking is fairness and transparency, and the opposition is claiming that it is okay for government-sponsored and - granted scientists to sit on this board.

In fact, it is okay that 60 percent of them have tens of millions of dollars of government funding, but it is not okay for anyone from the industry, and it is completely transparent how unfair that standard would be.

The second point I would make is this: we are not claiming that either of them should be forbidden to serve on these boards. We are just asking that they disclose those financial agreements and let the American people decide, and that certainly seems to be a fair standard and hardly the minimum that we could ask.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my good friend.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, there are three things that we should keep in mind. The current content or makeup of the SAB is somewhere between 51 and 52 members because there are some in transition as new members come and go. Of those, let's say, 52, only nine are nonuniversity background, and of those, only five and sometimes six represent industry.

The industry experts have much to offer. If you don't think that, say, for example, with the hydraulic fracking board that that technology is changing rapidly, it certainly is, and we need to take advantage of that.

The second thing I would say is public comment. The American people are smart, and the American people are those that are most affected by some of the standards and the rules that the EPA would suggest. We should listen to them, and this bill allows a process where they can be listened to.

Finally, the third thing, we are requesting that 10 percent--a mere 10 percent of these board members come from State, local, or tribal governments. That hardly seems like a bar that is too high to cross in getting input from lay States and localities.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my comrade.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, but before I do, though, I would like to enter into the Record the letters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others that I mentioned in my previous testimony.

Chamber of Commerce

of the United States of America,

Washington, DC, November 18, 2014.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as

well as state and local chambers and industry associations,

and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending

America's free enterprise system, supports H.R. 1422, the

``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.'' This bill

would help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB),

which directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) on scientific and technical issues, is unbiased

and transparent in performing its duties.

The bill would establish requirements that SAB members are

qualified experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of

bias are disclosed, that the views of members--including

dissenting members--are available to the public, and that the

public has the opportunity to participate in the advisory

activities of the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA

relies on SAB reviews and studies to support new regulations,

standards, guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions,

the actions of the SAB must be transparent and accountable.

This is a critical safeguard to assure the public that the

data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically sound and

unbiased.

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the

transparency and trustworthiness of scientific and technical

reviews that EPA relies on to justify its actions. The

American public must have confidence that the scientific and

technical data driving regulatory action can be trusted.

Accordingly, the Chamber supports H.R. 1422.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for considering my bill, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

To reiterate what has been said multiple times here, this legislation addresses how the EPA is systematically silencing voices of dissent on the Science Advisory Board, ignoring calls for independence and balanced participation, and preventing the board from responding to congressional requests.

Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues. However, when inconvenient scientific conclusions are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible, and that is certainly what we have seen.

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act addresses these shortcomings by strengthening public participation and public comment opportunities and improving the makeup of the Science Advisory Board and its subpanels.

The bill reinforces peer review requirements and reduces conflicts of interest. It provides opportunities for the dissenting panelists to make their views known and requires communication of uncertainties and scientific findings and conclusions.

The Science Advisory Board Reform Act promotes fairness, transparency, and independence to ensure unbiased scientific advice. Surely, that is something that we could ask for the American people. Surely, that is something

that the opposition could support. In fact, surely, that is something that the White House would support.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this matter, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), my colleague and good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I am going to have more to say about this bill later, but I want to comment on the comments that were just made to us by the gentleman from Kentucky.

He suggested that we don't need to do anything more about climate change because greenhouse gas emissions are falling in the United States. Well, that is not an accurate story because, while U.S. greenhouse gas emissions did fall in 2008 and 2009 during the economic recession, since that time our overall emissions have grown. Cumulatively, U.S. emissions grew, not fell, in 2010 and 2011, the most recent years for which data is available.

But the fact of the matter is that if coal is being displaced by natural gas, it is not because of any regulation; it is because the market forces are moving in that direction. It is just cheaper.

And why do we want to say that is wrong? Let the market work its will.

But unless we regulate the emissions from powerplants that cause greenhouse gases to be spewed into the air, we are neglecting the major reason we have climate change in this country today.

This bill would prevent the EPA from doing anything about the problem. Burning coal would be completely unregulated, and we would continue to add greenhouse gases to our atmosphere.

I think that this is hiding their heads in the sand, denying that there is climate change, denying that we need to do anything about it, pretending like it is not a problem. This is a disservice to the American people and the future of our economy.

Those businesses that develop the technologies for the future, which will be technologies that reduce carbon pollution, are going to be the place where the economies are going to be benefited, not those that deny the problem and do nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a new bill to be presented on the House floor. It is a compilation of bills that have already been proposed and passed, for the most part, on a partisan Republican basis.

People have complained on the other side of the aisle that their bills didn't go anywhere. Well, they didn't go anywhere because they didn't have support in the other body, the U.S. Senate. The President of the United States said he would veto it.

They can't pass a bill in the House with Republican votes and put it into law. So if you can't pass a law without working with the Democrats and reaching compromises, what Republicans think is the most effective thing to do is to say it over and over and over again.

Let's not forget, we know that our Republican colleagues didn't like the Affordable Care Act, sometimes known as ObamaCare, so on this House floor we voted over 50 times to repeal it.

The Republicans said we are going to repeal it and replace it. Well, we never heard what they are going to replace it with. They just wanted to repeal it. Well, they didn't repeal it when they passed the first vote, and they didn't repeal it when they passed the 50th vote. But they thought if they say it over and over and again and do it over and over again, they would get somewhere, I presume.

When psychologists talk about this, they call it perseveration, saying the same thing over and over again.

But I don't think this is a reasonable way to legislate. If they want to legislate and you don't have the power, you have to compromise. You have to talk with the President. You have to talk with the Senate majority. You have to talk with your own colleagues. But the Republicans don't want to talk to anybody except themselves over and over and over again.

Let me give you an example. Since Republicans took control of the House less than 4 years ago, they have cast over 500 antienvironmental votes. They have voted over 500 times to weaken protection for public health and the environment, to let polluters off the hook, and even to deny science.

Well, I presume they think that is a good idea. They have voted against clean renewable energy and energy efficiency. They have voted to give taxpayer dollars to oil companies. They have voted to allow more toxic mercury pollution in our air and more contaminants in our drinking water.

I suppose they think that is a good idea, but others don't agree with them nor, I think, do the American people.

They have voted repeatedly to deny the reality of climate change and block any action to cut carbon pollution. They don't want a cap-and- trade. They don't want a price on carbon. They don't want the EPA to regulate.

What is their plan? Well, their plan is to deny the existence of climate change and pretend it is not doing any harm.

We have kept track of these votes that we consider antienvironmental, and there were over 300 antienvironmental votes last Congress, and today Ranking Member DeFazio and I released another report that there were over 200 more antienvironment votes in this Congress.

Now, Republicans like to complain about a mythical war on coal. It is a fantasy. But there is a war on the environment that is being waged on the floor of the House, and the bill before us today is proof of that. It contains dozens of antienvironment provisions.

All of us want prosperity and security for America. We know, many of us, that climate change is harming us today through droughts and fires and floods and more, and we know that it will endanger our children's future if we don't act.

Democrats, for the most part, have recognized the threat and we know that we can tackle it while, at the same time, growing jobs and our economy.

How do we know this? Because that was the history of the Clean Air Act. Every time we strengthened the Clean Air Act, industry opponents said it would cost too much, it would weaken our economy, it would mean lost jobs, but when we acted, we found that our air is cleaner and our economy is stronger.

Republicans take a much different approach. They refuse to admit that climate change is real because then, if they did, they would have to do something about it. Their policies embodied in this bill deny the problem and threaten our future.

Remember the health care debate? We said it is not fair to discriminate against people.

I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

We said it is not fair to discriminate and deny, allow insurance companies to deny the chance for people with preexisting conditions to buy insurance.

The Republicans said, Oh, yeah, we don't think that is a good idea, but they didn't have a plan to do anything about it. They were happy to let it continue.

They wanted to say it was okay for insurance companies to put caps on the amount that the policies would pay. They wanted a system where people were priced out of insurance; if they couldn't afford it, well, that is just too bad.

They deny the realities of what has been happening to millions of Americans, and now we have a health care law that is benefiting millions of Americans.

This bill is not about health care, but they are denying these environmental problems and they are trying to keep Federal agencies from doing their job.

Powerplants are the single largest uncontrolled source of carbon pollution in the United States. EPA has proposed critically important regulations to cut carbon pollution for powerplants in a balanced, cost-effective, commonsense way.

These rules would cut smog, and they would stop deadly particulate pollution. They would save thousands of lives per year and avoid tens of billions of dollars in costs, but this bill eliminates EPA's authority to issue any rules. Nothing can happen.

Mr. Speaker, powerplants aren't the only source of carbon pollution. Tar sands are another big source. They produce 17 percent more carbon pollution than conventional oil, yet this bill grants a regulatory earmark to the Canadian Keystone XL pipeline, effectively exempting it from all U.S. Federal permitting requirements, including ones that apply to every other major construction project in the United States.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

This bill creates a new process to rubberstamp every other pending and future tar sands pipeline. It even exempts these massive projects from the National Environmental Policy Act by limiting the NEPA review, which was adopted by Congress overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis, to only a tiny sliver of the pipeline only where it crosses the border. There are many other anti-environmental provisions. This bill would allow the Department of Energy to veto the rules established by the EPA, even though they are not within the jurisdiction or the expertise of the Department of Energy.

This all may make sense to the oil companies, and this may be a giveaway to the Koch Brothers, but I don't think Americans would agree that this is a good bill. Energy interests should not automatically trump everything else we care about, such as raising healthy children.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote against this bill. We have had it on the floor too many times, and I hope that we defeat it this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I won't take 25 minutes to rebut the statement that was just made. I yield myself 3 minutes.

I am impressed by the statement we had from a man who is trying to educate, as he says, the American people in that Republicans worry about 11 million people not working. I don't know if that number is right or wrong, but we have got millions of people without jobs today. It is because the Congress is busy passing, over and over and over again, bills to benefit the oil companies and the energy industry, and not to help people get jobs.

Now, they care so much about them, but they won't give them unemployment compensation. They care so much about them that they want to take away their food stamps. They care so much about them that they don't want to allow them to have a minimum living wage. They care so much about them that they want them to go to the lowest paying jobs they can possibly find, and if they can't find them, well, it must be their own fault.

Harry Reid is the majority leader in the Senate. The Senate allows amendments to any bill--they don't have to be germane--but in the House of Representatives, no bill or amendment can be offered unless it is germane or permitted under the rule, and the Rules Committee is controlled by the Republican leadership in the House.

If we would have been allowed to have voted on an immigration bill that passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, it would have passed the House, but we were denied that opportunity. If we had been allowed to vote on background checks on gun purchases so that we wouldn't find guns and assault weapons in the hands of the people who are a danger to their communities because of mental illness, or who have criminal records where they have already used guns for illegal purposes, that would have passed. Even a majority of the National Rifle Association supports that kind of measure.

Let's not be so pious as we educate the American people to say, ``Oh, in the Senate, they can't even consider these things,'' because, in the House, we are denied every day an opportunity to talk about many things. Let me give you another example that is pertinent to this debate.

The Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over the issue of climate change. We have not been able to get a single hearing that would bring in the scientists to tell us why they are concerned about climate change, to tell us all the pronouncements from consensus discussions among scientists internationally and here from the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences and others as to why they think this is a problem that we have got to deal with. If you don't even allow the scientists to talk, you are purposely encouraging your own ignorance and acting upon it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman how many more speakers he has?

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who ought to be here rightfully as a full voting Member of the House, in my opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand what the gentlelady has said is that, if we had passed a transportation bill, that would have provided help for our infrastructure and provided jobs. We didn't vote for that bill even once.

The gentlelady also said we should have done a paycheck fairness law. Well, we didn't have a chance to vote on that. The Speaker of the House or the majority leader of the House wouldn't allow it to be brought to the House floor.

So many young people are struggling with student loans, and there have been proposals to deal with that, yet we were not allowed to even vote on a bill to deal with the student loan problem.

We haven't tackled the real things that people care about, and, if they care about what is in this bill today, it has been passed by the House. Why aren't we moving on and using the time on the House floor for other worthwhile purposes?

I think that is a question that the American people are going to have to think about as they go to the polls in another month, but we have had a 6-week recess. Now, we have been here for 2 whole weeks, and, now, we are going to take another recess until the election, and then we will come back for maybe another couple of weeks.

It doesn't mean you have to work too hard in the Congress of the United States to get nothing done. We are getting nothing done, and the American people are losing out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 727, I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to remove Federal Government obstacles to the production of more domestic energy; to ensure transport of that energy reliably to businesses, consumers, and other end users; to lower the cost of energy to consumers; to enable manufacturers and other businesses to access domestically produced energy affordably and reliably in order to create and sustain more secure and well-paying American jobs; and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here on the House floor, only a few hundred yards away from the Senate, and it feels as if we are worlds apart. In the House, we are listening to the American people who are telling us that it is time to expand American energy production.

Hardworking Americans know how important energy is in their lives. They need it to commute to and from work. It fuels the buses that take our kids to school. It powers the businesses on Main Street.

It provides jobs and improves the livelihoods of millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet in President Obama's economy; and, Mr. Speaker, Sunday, it will power the Jumbotron at CenturyLink Field in Seattle as the Seahawks take on the Broncos.

Unfortunately, on the other side of the Capitol, these calls to expand American energy production are falling on deaf ears. The House has passed dozens of energy bills, including a number from the House Natural Resources Committee, on which the Senate has failed to act. By doing so, they are standing in the way of American job creation, affordable energy, and increased national security.

H.R. 2, the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act, would protect and expand American energy production by removing this administration's roadblocks and preventing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape.

Mr. Speaker, since President Obama took office, total Federal offshore oil production has dropped 13 percent, Federal offshore natural gas production has dropped by nearly one-half, and the Obama administration has placed over 85 percent of America's offshore acreage off limits.

Onshore, Mr. Speaker, it is the same story. This administration has had the 4 lowest years of Federal acres leased for onshore energy production going back to 1988. It has also pledged to impose a duplicative layer of red tape on hydraulic fracturing, which would only hurt American job creation.

The Obama administration has also waged a war on coal and on coal jobs. Coal is a reliable and affordable energy resource that provides 30 percent of America's electricity and supports millions of American jobs.

Unfortunately, with one proposed regulation by the Obama administration, those jobs could disappear. Their rewrite of the stream buffer zone rule could cost 7,000 coal jobs and cause economic harm in 22 States.

But there is good news, and the good news are the provisions in these bills. These provisions are a direct response to the Obama administration's actions that have locked up our energy resources. The bill would end the regulatory delays blocking the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

After nearly 6 years of review, this is a commonsense solution that would eliminate the need for a Presidential permit, addresses all other necessary Federal permits, and limit litigation that would delay the project.

The bill would also expand offshore energy production. It would require this administration to responsibly move forward with new offshore energy production in areas that contain the most oil and natural gas resources. What a novel idea, going where the product is, and those areas include areas off the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts.

It also requires the administration to hold oil and natural gas lease sales that have been delayed or canceled, such as offshore of Virginia. This expanded offshore production would generate over $1 billion in new revenue to the Federal Treasury and create up to 1.2 millions of jobs long-term.

Mr. Speaker, the bill would expand onshore energy production. It would reform the leasing and permitting process to remove unnecessary delays, set

clear rules for the development of U.S. oil shale resources, and establish Internet-based auctions for leases. It would also help foster expanded energy production on tribal lands.

The bill would stop the Federal Government from imposing duplicative Federal hydraulic regulations and prevent it from implementing job- destroying coal regulations. It would help protect consumers from EPA regulations that could destroy jobs and increase energy costs.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill would expand production of clean, renewable hydropower by removing outdated barriers and streamlining the regulatory process. It would authorize hydropower development at existing manmade water canals and pipes at 12 Bureau of Reclamation projects.

Mr. Speaker, the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act is a commonsense action plan to create over 1 million new American jobs and provide relief to hardworking Americans who are feeling the squeeze of higher gasoline and electricity prices. It would strengthen our economy and--probably more importantly in this unsettled world--increase America's energy security.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), my colleague from Oregon, across the Columbia River from my district.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the subcommittee chairman on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), a hardworking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), one of my classmates.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the chairman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I will advise the gentleman that we still have several more. I will advise you when we get down to that point, but we do have several Members still waiting to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from California that I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It has been acknowledged on both sides of the aisle that this bill is a package of bills that has passed the Senate. It has been talked about that the Senate hasn't acted on the individual bills. It has been talked about the Senate hasn't acted on a lot of bills.

As a matter of fact, the main bill we passed yesterday, the continuing resolution--which is a terrible way to run the government, by the way, when you haven't got certainty--was passed largely because the Senate had not passed one of the 13 House bills out of the Senate. How do you negotiate when you have that sort of a situation?

Here is a point that has not been made today--and maybe my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't familiar with what our Founders envisioned when they created a bicameral legislative body.

In order for our system to work, both Houses have to pass bills. Now, the American people, in their judgment--

you know, they made good judgments every 2 years. Sometimes, some of us don't like what that judgment is--but, in their wisdom, they created one of the Houses that is controlled by the Democrats, and, in their wisdom, they created a House that is controlled by Republicans.

Now, just by the very definition of that, clearly, you are going to have two different views--clearly, you are going to have two different views. I acknowledge that, and I doubt if anybody on the other side would dispute that too.

When we talk about sending bills that we think are important from here over to the Senate--and, by the way, I should add that within this package of bills were a number of bills that came out of the House Natural Resources Committee that I have the privilege to chair. Every one of them, every one of them passed with bipartisan support. That means there are Democrats that voted for it.

Here is the issue: if the Senate, then, has a different view on these topics than we do, then fine. Pass a bill. Pass a bill. If there is a difference between the House version and the Senate version, we have a means to work that out. It is called going to conference, but the fact is the Senate hasn't passed anything.

So how do you go to conference? The only way that we find that we could make our point over and over and over again is to say, ``Okay. We will send it over.'' Maybe somebody, somebody in the other body will finally get the message and say, ``Maybe we ought to pass it.''

Finally, I just want to make another point too. I had the privilege of serving on the Rules Committee for 12 years, and, yes, the Rules Committee, in a larger body like the House, does set the rules for debate.

When the Democrats were in the majority, they set the rules for debate that we criticized. Obviously, they are criticizing us because we are setting the rules for the debate, but my friend from California said that the Senate doesn't work that way with rules. They work by unanimous consent, that anybody can offer an amendment on any bill.

Well, that may be, that may be how the Senate rules work, but, when it is manipulated by the majority leader, all that goes away. It is a process that--I admit I don't know a whole lot about the Senate rules-- but it is a process called filling the amendment tree, amendments to be offered, and the majority leader fills the tree, and nobody has an amendment.

It has gotten so bad, so bad over there in the last 6 years that the junior Senator from Alaska, the junior Senator from Alaska who has been there for 6 years has not had an opportunity to offer one amendment on the floor, and the junior Senator happens to be a member of the majority party. You talk about openness. There is no openness that way.

We feel in this body here that the best way to make the case by debating bills that we think are important for the American people-- jobs bills, energy bills, energy security bills--the best way to do that is to continue to send the same stuff over to the Senate. Maybe, maybe--because hope springs eternal, at least from my perspective--they will take one of these up.

All they have to do, by the way, is take up one of these bills and change it and send it back over here, and we will negotiate the difference, but they haven't even done that. You see, that was never acknowledged during this whole debate of defense of what the Senate has or has not done, but, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what has happened, and that is why we are where we are.

Mr. Speaker, this is, once again, a very good bill that deals with energy and energy security and American jobs. I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Objection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this is probably my last opportunity to respond to a Democratic motion to recommit, and I have heard a whole gamut of them in the time that I have had the privilege to do that, and I kind of surmise, from reading the motion to recommit, that he is talking about energy and energy supply.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the underlying legislation is all about. My friends on the other side of the aisle talked about how oil and gas production has gone up in the United States--increased in the United States--which it has.

But, Mr. Speaker, he left out the important part: it is not because of this administration, it is in spite of this administration's actions, because all of that activity is increasing on State and private lands where they don't have the burdensome regulation from the Federal Government inhibiting that growth.

However, the focus of this legislation is to do exactly the same thing which happened on private and State lands on Federal lands because, if you have a problem with supply, what is the best way to respond to that? You increase the opportunity for supply.

What does that do to the marketplace? In the long run, it tends to lower prices. Who benefits? American people, American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say these motions to recommit have been procedural motions. They have been political motions over time, not that that isn't something we deal with on the floor, but, once again, it is a motion that, I think, is not worthy of passing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject--reject--the motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Smith and Mr. Schweikert, for their intention to improve the EPA's Science Advisory Board, and I thank them for working with me on other legislation that passed the Science Committee in the House on a bipartisan basis. It is unfortunate that we could not be repeating that bipartisan collaboration today.

My colleagues who support H.R. 1422 may describe this bill as an attempt to strengthen public participation in EPA's scientific review process, improve the process for selecting expert advisers, expand transparency requirements, and limit nonscientific policy advice within EPA's Science Advisory Board. All of these are good government principles that I agree with.

If this bill achieved those goals, I would be here today supporting it. However, on close examination of its provisions, H.R. 1422 would not achieve these good government goals. Instead of improving the Science Advisory Board structure or operation, the bill before us today will likely limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives and further delay EPA's regulatory process.

H.R. 1422 would make it easier for industry representatives to serve on a board, even if they have a financial conflict of interest. To be clear, and this is something with which I trust my Republican colleagues would agree, I am not opposed to industry experts participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer-review process at the EPA. In fact, their insight into processes and industry can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body.

That being said, Congress should not be endorsing legislation that undermines longstanding ethics requirements and practices with the end result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on EPA's Science Advisory Board, and that is likely to be the result of this bill today.

At the same time this bill eases the way for more industry members, the act also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the best and brightest from academia to serve because it would exclude from the board anyone who has participated in activities that were even indirectly reviewed by the EPA.

This provision would disqualify some of the most qualified scientists because academic researchers frequently need to compete for research funds from the Federal Government, and that includes the EPA.

Additionally, it appears H.R. 1422 would also significantly delay the work of the Science Advisory Board with new provisions that would require written responses to significant public comments following new public information-gathering sessions, a requirement that is duplicative because the board meetings are already open to the public and have time set aside for public comment. These provisions would simply result in more work without more resources and unlimited time to halt, derail, or slow EPA actions.

Finally, this bill sets a quota for membership on the Scientific Advisory Board from State, local, or tribal governments, which could very well mean that more qualified experts would not be able to serve.

EPA's science is tied to its mission, to protect public health and the environment through rational regulation. Scientific research, knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental to EPA's mission and inform its regulatory functions.

The need for that expertise is why Congress created advisory bodies such as the Science Advisory Board in the first place, to provide independent advice on the science underpinning regulation, which in turn allows the EPA Administrator to make sound regulatory decisions.

Instead of undermining the scientific advice EPA receives, we should be giving the Agency the tools they need to strengthen and improve the regulatory process with sound science.

In closing, I want to again thank my colleagues, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Schweikert, for their efforts.

This bill does not do what it needs to do. I want to quote from a letter I received from a coalition of organizations, including Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Water Action, and more. The letter states:

The bill shifts the current presumption against including

people with financial conflicts on SAB panels . . . The

bill's provisions are inconsistent with a set of nearly

universally accepted scientific principles to eliminate or

limit financial conflicts.

I agree with this assessment of H.R. 1422, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I yield, I will place into the Record letters from various groups opposed to this bill, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, among many others.

In addition, I will place into the Record the Administration's Statement of Administration Policy on the bill threatening a veto if the bill were to pass.

Union of Concerned Scientists,

Cambridge, MA, November 17, 2014.

Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists

strongly opposes the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of

2013, H.R. 1422, set to be voted on by the House as early as

November 18. This bill will cripple the Environmental

Protection Agency's ability to protect public health informed

by the best available science.

When he discussed his proposal last year, Rep. Chris

Stewart (UT) revealed the real purpose of his bill. He

attacked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for

``promulgating air quality regulations that could shut down

large swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled attacks

on the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job-

killing climate regulations. . . .''

This proposal will make it nearly impossible for the Board

to do the crucial independent evaluations of EPA scientific

analyses that enable the agency to protect public health.

This bill opens the door for more corporate influence on the

Board, because the bill directly stipulates that experts with

financial ties to corporations affected by SAB assessments

are ``not excluded.'' This signal likely will increase the

number of conflicted SAB panelists empowering companies to

delay the SAB's work for years, if not decades. It strikes at

the heart of the whole concept of independent reviews, and at

a time when the ability of corporations to influence policy

is already high.

At the same time this bill encourages corporate experts to

join the SAB, it creates roadblocks for academic experts to

meaningfully participate by banning experts' participation in

``advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve

review and evaluation of their own work.'' This effectively

turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head, with the

bizarre presumption that corporate experts with direct

financial interests are not conflicted while academics who

work on these issues are.

The notion that a member of the SAB cannot participate in a

discussion that cites the member's own work is

counterproductive and goes far beyond the common-sense limits

imposed by the National Academies. Of course, a scientist

with expertise on topics the Science Advisory Board addresses

likely will have done peer-reviewed studies on that topic.

That makes the scientist's evaluation more valuable, not

less.

The bill offers almost limitless opportunities for public

comment, opportunities that only benefit moneyed special

interests. For example, for each major advisory activity, the

Board must convene a public information-gathering session

``to discuss the state of the science'' related to that

activity.

It is possible, under this requirement, that the Board may

find itself repeatedly reexamining ``the state of the

science'' on climate change or the harmful effects of certain

toxins--each time it made an assessment that touched on

either climate change impacts or reducing air pollution.

In addition, both the EPA, before it asks for the Board's

advice, and the Board itself, would be required to ``accept,

consider, and address'' public comments on the agency's

questions to the Board. As the SAB deliberates, it must also

encourage public comments ``that shall not be limited by an

insufficient or arbitrary time restriction.'' In effect,

these provisions turn a scientific evaluation into a public

hearing, even though EPA must already accept public input on

all its regulations.

The Board is required to respond in writing to each

``significant'' comment. In practice, it is difficult to see

how the Board could impose any deadlines on accepting

comment. Nor is it a reasonable expectation on the Board's

membership of pro bono experts.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that

implementing the law's mandates will cost the EPA about $2

million over a four-year period. These are funds that could

be put to much better use by a cash-strapped agency.

This bill would not improve the work of the Board, and

would make it more difficult for the EPA to receive the

independent science advice it needs to do its work. We

strongly urge your opposition.

Sincerely,

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,

Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of

Concerned Scientists.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I just want to respond that, certainly, we on this side of the aisle agree with

the goal of transparency. However, transparency does not mean letting industry, people with a financial interest, serve by disclosing it. That is not what transparency means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera), who is not only a physician but a great member of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). I also want to mention that not only is Mr. Holt a scientist and a great Member of Congress but also has been named, starting in February of 2015, the new CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to respond, with all due respect, to my colleagues who are promoting this bill and asking for balance.

On the contrary, what this bill achieves is not balance because, as explained, under this bill, people who are employed by the industry with a financial conflict of interest can serve as long as they disclose their conflict.

That is in contrast to current practice, which is biased, which is balanced by membership, but people with financial conflicts of interest do not currently serve on this Science Advisory Board.

Just to clarify, it isn't just that people who are employed by industry with a financial conflict of interest will be able to serve; under this bill, people who receive some type of grant cannot participate.

Now, just to clarify, these are not government employees. These are employees of research institutions, universities, who may have received some government grant funding. They are not employed by the government. They are not government employees, and that is a big distinction. They are not beholden to any particular government agency, so that is the big difference.

I agree that we should have balance and transparency, but unfortunately, this bill takes us in the wrong direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The bill before us today does undertake the laudable goal of improving transparency at the EPA.

However, as I stated previously and as my colleagues mentioned, this bill, as written, does not accomplish that goal; instead, H.R. 1422 will increase the influence of industry on EPA decisionmaking, including industry members with a financial conflict of interest, while reducing the role of qualified academic researchers in helping to guide regulatory action that is based on sound science.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said:

At the same time, this bill encourages corporate experts to

join the SAB. It creates roadblocks for academic experts

to meaningfully participate by banning experts'

participation and advising activities that directly or

indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own

work.

This effectively turns the idea of conflict of interest on

its head with the bizarre presumption that corporate experts

with direct financial interests are not affected, while

academics who work on these issues are.

Breast Cancer Action wrote:

This bill's overly broad restriction, that a member of the

SAB cannot participate in a discussion that cites the

member's own work, is counterproductive and goes far beyond

the commonsense limits imposed by the National Academies.

Of course, a scientist with expertise on topics that SAB

addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies and

other work on that topic. That makes the scientist's

evaluation more valuable, not less.

Mr. Speaker, we can and should work together to improve EPA's approach to reviewing the science underpinning regulations, but this legislation will only damage and delay the process and not bring us the transparency my colleagues seek.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.