Promoting New Manufacturing Act

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

Mr. Chair, this bill does not permit me to mince words. This bill is an insidious attack on EPA's ability to use the best science to protect public health, and its consideration on the House floor today is the culmination of one of the most anti-science and anti-health campaigns I have witnessed in my 22 years as a Member of Congress.

The genesis of this legislation is the Republicans' longstanding obsession with two seminal scientific studies conducted by Harvard University and the American Cancer Society.

These studies link air pollution with increased illnesses and death; moreover, those results were confirmed by multiple independent researchers and organizations including the National Research Council and the Health Effects Institute.

The Republican majority has harassed EPA for more than 2 years in an attempt to get access to the raw data used in those studies, presumably in an attempt to cast doubt on the conclusion that air pollution is bad for the health of Americans and to prevent EPA from trying to keep the air we breath clean.

The EPA told my Republican colleagues that since the studies involved the personal health information of

hundreds of thousands of volunteers, the raw data was stringently protected from public disclosure; therefore, even if they were the legal custodian of this data, they could not lawfully hand over such sensitive information.

Instead, in compliance with the law, EPA provided the Science Committee with all of the ``de-identified'' data within its possession, which ran to hundreds of pages of data rolled in like a grocery cart. This was not enough for my colleagues, and so they have decided to pursue this pernicious piece of legislation.

Rather than explain the problems with this legislation myself, I will simply quote from a letter we received from the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, two leading and trusted public health organizations. They state:

The legislation will compel the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency to either ignore the best science by

prohibiting the Agency from considering peer-reviewed

research that is based on confidential patient information or

force EPA to publicly release confidential patient

information, which would violate Federal law.

This is an untenable outcome that would completely

undermine the ability of the EPA to perform its

responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and myriad other

Federal laws. The legislation will not improve EPA's actions;

rather, it will stifle public health protections.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will wrongly claim that this legislation is consistent with the requirements of major scientific journals, the White House's policy to promote public access to federally-funded research, and recommendations from independent groups like the Administrative Conference of the United States. This is simply not true.

All of those entities recognize the balance between making data public and protecting confidentiality and personal privacy. They do not paint scientists or the EPA into a corner and tell them that the only way their research can be used or considered is if all of that data is available in a form--let me quote from the bill--``that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction.''

That phrase is critical to understanding the implications of H.R. 4012. According to a letter from the American Cancer Society to EPA, they ``are not aware of any way to create a de-identified version of the Cancer Prevention Study II data set sufficient to protect confidentiality of the participants while at the same time allowing a true replica of the studies.''

Because legitimate researchers like the American Cancer Society must publish their peer-reviewed results in a de-identified form, if this bill becomes law, the EPA will not be able to rely on those important studies to protect public health and the environment.

I would like to quote Dr. Ellen Silbergeld from Johns Hopkins University, a witness at a hearing the Science Committee held on this bill. She states:

If the EPA is unable to access the peer-reviewed literature

because raw data are not available as proposed in the

``Secret Science'' bill, then we move to the dysfunctional

situation where the EPA will be unable to sustain its

decisions because these will be based on inadequate or

incomplete science.

This is not a position that I can support. Let me be clear: this bill is an attempt to constrain the EPA under the guise of promoting transparency.

A diverse set of voices from the scientific, public health, legal, and environmental communities agree with me and have criticized this legislation. I have received letters from more than 50 organizations expressing their concern with H.R. 4012, including the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Association of American Universities, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund.

Whatever views my fellow Members may have about specific EPA rules and regulations, I would hope that they will see this bill for what it is, a malicious assault on EPA's ability to protect public health. Limiting or prohibiting what science EPA uses as part of its rulemaking would be a consequence of this bill. The American people deserve better.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the second most senior member of the full committee on the Democratic side.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my next speaker, I would like to enter in the Record a series of letters from outside groups opposed to this legislation, including the American Lung Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, League of Conservation Voters, and many others.

In addition, I would also like to place a Statement of Administration Policy threatening a veto of this bill into the Record.

American Lung Association,

American Thoracic Society,

November 17, 2014.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: We are writing to express our

opposition to H.R. 4012 the Secret Science Reform Act of

2014. The American Lung Association is the oldest voluntary

health organization in the United States. The Lung

Association mission is to save lives by improving lung health

and preventing lung disease. We achieve our mission through

research, advocacy and education. The American Thoracic

Society is a medical professional society dedicated to the

prevention, detection, treatment and cure of pulmonary

disease, critical care illness and sleep disordered breathing

through research, education and advocacy.

Science is the bedrock of sound regulatory decision making.

The best science underscores everything our organizations do

to improve health. We strongly believe in a transparent and

open regulatory process. A vital element of research is

patient confidentiality. Physicians and researchers have

earned by trust of their patients by steadfastly maintaining

patient confidentiality. Patient confidentiality is a clear

legal obligation and a sacred vow.

The legislation before the Congress will compel the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency to either ignore the best

science by prohibiting the agency from considering peer-

reviewed research that is based on confidential patient

information or force EPA to publicly release confidential

patient information, which would violate federal law. This is

an untenable outcome that would completely undermine ability

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to perform its

responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and myriad other

federal laws. The legislation will not improve EPA's actions,

rather it will stifle public health protections.

We note that the kind of information disclosure envisioned

in this legislation exceeds that required by peer reviewed

journals. We believe much of the intent of this legislation

is already achieved through the current peer review process

required by all academic journals. The vast majority of peer

reviewed journals require manuscript authors to register any

trial using human subjects with clinicaltrials.gov. This

public registry collects key information on the study

population, research goals and methods that allow outside

reviewers and scientists to either challenge or attempt to

reproduce study results. Additionally, the peer review

process and publication of results invites the broader

scientific community to debate study findings. Trial registry

and manuscript publications are only part of the process by

which scientific endeavors operate in a transparent

environment.

Private organizations, public charities, research

universities, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare

and Medicaid Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs,

corporations and many other entities conduct medical

research. Many of these organizations compile large

longitudinal data sets that track patients of a period of

time. These data serve as the basis of many studies that

permit epidemiologists to track disease and risk factor

information for large patient populations.

The published peer-reviewed information from such data

often may inform regulatory decision making at the EPA and

other federal agencies and inform future research. Not only

do these data inform regulatory action, they help inform

efforts to educate the public about the magnitude of a

disease, risk factors and steps individuals can take to

improve their health. In order for EPA to set the most

appropriate standards it must be informed by the best

information.

Understanding the impact of air pollution on human health

and the magnitude of harm caused by pollution at specific

levels helps the agency meet its obligations under the Clean

Air Act. Absent these data, it is unclear upon what basis the

agency could make sound decisions.

We urge the House of Representatives to reject H.R. 4012.

Sincerely,

Harold Wimmer,

National President & CEO, American Lung Association.

Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,

Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the one scientist we have with a Ph.D. in physics in our body who is retiring and, as of next year, will become the CEO of AAAS.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is ranking member on the Environmental Subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I submit the following letters.

American Statistical Association,

Alexandria, VA, September 5, 2014.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McCarthy, As president-elect of the

American Statistical Association, with 19,000 members, I

write regarding H.R. 4012, the ``Secret Science Reform Act.''

We generally applaud the idea that researchers and federal

agencies strive to make data available to others--under

strict pledges to maintain confidentiality of data provided

by individuals and establishments where necessary--and to

encourage reproducible research. Access to data and

reproducibility of research are crucially important for

science to advance.

While H.R. 4012's intent is to make data more widely

available, we have several concerns and urge the bill to be

revised significantly before further consideration. Our

concerns include those voiced by others (especially the

American Association for the Advancement of Science) that the

bill's statements do not account for the complexities common

to the scientific process on research that involves

biological materials or physical specimens not easily

accessible, combinations of public and private data,

longitudinal data collected over many years that are

difficult to reproduce, and data from one-time events that

cannot be replicated. The bill as written could have far-

reaching consequences that would ultimately hamper or

undermine the scientific process generally and EPA's work

specifically. We also agree with the point that it would be

prudent to see the EPA's data access policy--in accordance

with the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010--

expected by year's end before further action on H.R. 4012.

Our nation should be striving for transparency in

government and, as noted above, data accessibility, but these

goals also must be balanced with the necessity to protect

individuals' and businesses' privacy. The bill's language of

``publicly available'' except when ``prohibited by law''

acknowledges this balance, but that language is vague and may

be insufficient to protect individuals and businesses. In

particular, some data sets may not fall under ``prohibited by

law,'' yet the data are still collected under a pledge to

protect the identifiability and confidentiality of the

reported values. For example, the government, as well as

private and nonprofit sectors, routinely collects data--

including private business information and private health

information--under strict pledges to protect confidentiality.

In some studies, this is backed up with penalties for

violating those pledges. Such data should not be publicly

available to every person who might ask for them. Rather,

data subjects' confidentiality should be protected, for

example by policies and procedures that provide data access

to trusted users (i.e., approved users committed to

appropriate protections of the confidentiality of study

participants) while discouraging breaches of confidentiality

and/or by data redaction techniques developed in the

statistical and computer science communities. Under the

current wording, a choice may have to be made between

maintaining data confidentiality and issuing needed

regulations.

To emphasize the challenges and importance of

confidentiality protection, we note that simple but necessary

de-identification methods--like stripping names and other

personally identifiable information (PII)--often do not

suffice to protect confidentiality. Statisticians and

computer scientists have repeatedly shown it can be possible

to link individuals to publicly available sources, even with

PII removed. Thus, allowing unrestricted public access

without appropriate controls could result in unintended

disclosures. These could cause significant harm to the

advancement of science and the federal government--especially

the federal statistical system--as people may be less willing

to provide their data if highly publicized breaches occur.

In short, any requirements for making data available should

carefully consider the complexities, challenges, and

potential ramifications. We hope you will address these

concerns, which would require major modifications to the

bill. We would be happy to be of any assistance.

Sincerely,

David Morganstein,

President-Elect,

American Statistical Association.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Gosar's amendment. At least it clarifies the underlying intent of this bill in that this information relied on by the EPA should be thrown up on the Web site.

The peer-reviewed science relied on by the EPA often involves personal health information and other confidential data that is legally protected from disclosure. No legitimate researcher would violate the law and leak confidential information--for example, to make a trade secret or information protected by HIPAA accessible to anyone who has an Internet connection.

This amendment only makes the underlying problems with the bill that much more obvious, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

I have already spoken at some length about the problems with the underlying bill. The bill would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using the best science in its mission to protect public health.

However, this motion to recommit highlights a specific and very troubling aspect of this bill. As written, the bill would prevent EPA from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating risk, exposure, or hazard assessments or guidance based on nonpublic information.

I and my Democratic colleagues are concerned about how this language would impede the EPA's ability to respond to emergencies and disasters.

I will give you an example. In my hometown of Dallas, we had a well- publicized case of a man named Thomas Duncan tragically dying after being infected with the Ebola virus. This gentleman was originally sent home from the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital when his symptoms were not initially identified as Ebola.

After Ebola was identified, great efforts were made to disinfect areas the gentleman had contact with while he was infected with Ebola.

I have a picture displayed here.

Here in my hand is EPA's list of disinfectants for use against Ebola virus. The EPA disseminates this critically important information on its Web site.

However, under this bill, the EPA could be prevented from disseminating this type of information because EPA-registered disinfectants are frequently supported by legally protected information or confidential business information.

In my hometown, not my district, two nurses who work at the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital contracted Ebola. As a former nurse who worked in Dallas, I think it would be appalling to put our frontline health care workers, as well as the general public, at risk of the deadly Ebola virus or any other infectious disease all so we can take a political shot at EPA.

As another example of how this bill could affect emergency response, EPA could be prevented from providing guidance during toxic chemical spills like the one that occurred earlier this year in West Virginia. If that guidance to local emergency responders were based on confidential business information, which is oftentimes the case when dealing with registered chemicals, then the EPA would be prohibited from disseminating vital information to the local authorities. What is remarkable is that the Natural Resources Defense Council warned the committee of this exact issue in a letter back in February, but the majority chose to ignore those warnings. That is plain irresponsible.

My amendment would fix this problem by exempting any response to an emergency that could harm the health and safety of a community. The amendment won't fix all of the problems with this bill, but it will prevent one of the more morally objectionable outcomes of this legislation.

I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thought one of the lessons of this last election was that the American people wanted Washington to work, that they wanted us to work toward passing legislation, sensible legislation, that could be passed in both Chambers, that could go to the White House and be signed into law, and we could move this country forward, but I guess that lesson somehow escaped my Republican colleagues because what we are doing here today is another colossal waste of time.

Now, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I rise in opposition to the underlying legislation. The points of the bills that we are considering today seek to prevent the EPA from protecting public health and the environment. It is that simple.

The White House has already issued three veto threats against these bills. The other body is not going to take these bills up, so here we are in this lameduck session with a lot of work that we should be doing, and instead, we are doing this.

On December 11, this government will run out of money. Maybe we should be spending some time trying to figure out how to avoid another government shutdown or to do the appropriations process in a more thoughtful way, but instead, my colleagues are going to wait until the last minute and bring a bill to the floor that most Members will not have time to read, and then that will be that.

Maybe we should be talking about passing an increase in the minimum wage. We are reading story after story about how income inequality in this country is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Maybe we ought to make sure that work actually pays a livable wage in this country, or maybe we could pass a pay equity bill so that women can earn equal pay for equal work--we are not doing any of that--and that surely would be signed by the White House.

What about an immigration bill? The United States Senate passed in a bipartisan way a comprehensive immigration bill, dealing with a very important problem in this country. It is supported by labor unions, and it is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and again, it had a bipartisan vote in the United States Senate.

Are we doing that here today? No. We can't even bring that to the floor to have a debate because the leadership in this House runs such a closed process.

We have wasted time in this Chamber debating Republican messaging bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, to undermine the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and weaken public health and environmental regulations while failing to consider legislation to help people, to create jobs, to boost the economy and help vulnerable Americans rise out of poverty, so instead of kind of doing the people's business, we are back into Republican messaging bills again.

The three bills that we are talking about here today--H.R. 4795, H.R. 4012, and H.R. 1422--will allow industry to have a greater influence over the policies developed at the EPA, will weaken our air quality, and prevent the EPA from using critical high-quality and peer-reviewed data in their policy development.

Why in the world would we want to do this? Well, because the Republicans' corporate constituency demand it, so this may be a nice way to thank big Republican donors for their support in the last election, but quite frankly, it is lousy policy.

H.R. 4795, the cleverly named Promoting New Manufacturing Act, does nothing to boost manufacturing and does nothing to help improve the permitting process or create jobs. The bill requires the EPA to issue both regulations and guidance concurrently when issuing national ambient air quality standards. If this requirement is not met, a new or expanding facility must only show it complies with the old insufficient standard.

Not only will this legislation create several new avenues for litigation, but it will also weaken air quality protections and threaten public health. Why in the world would we even contemplate doing that? H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act, will prevent the EPA from using the best available scientific data, harm future research, and delay the implementation of public health protections.

Far from protecting transparency and accountability, this bill will limit the body of high-quality scientific research that can be used and will undermine the EPA's ability to function.

The EPA relies on peer-reviewed scientific research that often contains information scientists are legally required to keep confidential, like an individual's health records. How is the EPA supposed to determine the effects of a pollutant on our health if they are not allowed to look at health data?

Individual health records should be highly protected, and I would like to point out that the peer-reviewed studies that form the basis of EPA's actions are already available.

The purpose of this bill is not to create transparency but to create bureaucracy, to make it impossible for the EPA to develop policies to protect our health and our environment. There is no secret science, just science that my Republican colleagues do not like.

I am pleased to see that the amendment to H.R. 4012, submitted by my good friend from Massachusetts, Joe Kennedy, was made in order. I strongly support this amendment, which would allow the EPA to continue to rely upon peer-reviewed scientific data, even if that data is legally required to be kept private. The EPA must be allowed to continue to use this critical data in their policy development.

Lastly, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, will slow down the EPA's ability to develop regulations and effectively force the EPA to include individuals with financial conflicts on the Science Advisory Board, so long as the conflicts are disclosed.

It isn't logical to include an individual on a decisionmaking board if that individual would be financially affected by its decision.

I should note that the legislation limits the participation of academic scientists with relevant subject matter expertise from providing their advice to EPA, which will lead to panels with disproportionately high amounts of industry representation.

This bill would allow the Republicans' corporate constituency a direct route to disrupting the EPA's ability to create regulations designed to protect our health.

I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ``I get it. You don't like science, and you don't like science that interferes with some of the interests of your corporate clients.''

But we need to rely on science so we can protect the public health and we can protect our environment. One of the main jobs that we are tasked with is to protect our constituencies. So why we would be trying to move ourselves back in a direction that would endanger public health is beyond me.

Mr. Speaker, today, we are considering three bills to undermine public health, hurt the environment, and tie up the EPA in red tape. I would, again, say to my colleagues, ``We are going to have this debate here today. These bills aren't going anywhere. We are wasting our time by doing this today.''

I am just going to close with one other issue that we ought to be talking about. In July, a majority in this House supported an amendment that I had offered, saying that if in fact we had sustained combat operations in Iraq, that Congress would vote to authorize, or not, such action.

Well, clearly, we have sustained combat operations going on in Iraq. We are getting sucked deeper and deeper and deeper into war while this Congress sits and twiddles its thumbs and does everything possible to avoid a debate on whether or not we should be involved in another war.

You know what, there are thousands of Americans that have been put in harm's way, and we are not living up to our constitutional responsibility. Surely, we should be spending some time talking about that, whether or not the United States ought to get sucked into another war halfway around the world, a war that will cost American lives and that will continue to cost a great deal in terms of our national treasure, but instead of debating that and other things that really matter to people, we are doing it on a messaging bill.

I regret the fact that here we are in these few days that we have left in this lameduck session, doing this kind of stuff, when we ought to be doing the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule, vote against all of the underlying legislation, and I plead to the Republican leadership: let's bring something to the floor that will help the American people.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to also join with the ranking member in honoring Don Sisson. As she mentions, this will be his last day on the floor. I think his last day is this week.

Mr. Speaker, Don has been working for the Rules Committee for 10 years under both Republicans and Democrats. He is a native of upstate New York, and he has been around for historic debates in Congress and has been an integral part of the Rules Committee staff for many, many, many years. As Ms. Slaughter pointed out, he will be moving on to the White House, and we are going to miss him dearly.

I think it is important for all of us to take a moment just to recognize that Don represents the best, I think, of the staff that work here. He is up here for all the right reasons. He wants to make the world a better place, and he has shown this great ability to work across party lines and to build things and make things happen. I know he will use those skills in his new position at the White House.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee meets an awful lot, and we are together an awful lot, and so we are all family. So when somebody leaves, it is painful because it is like a family member moving on and going someplace else. So we are going to miss Don, but he won't be that far away. We will work with him in a new capacity.

On behalf of everybody on that committee, members and staff included, I think we all owe you a debt of gratitude, and we are grateful for your service. You have served this institution with great honor and dignity, and we wish you all the best in your new job. So thank you very much for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to announce to my colleagues that I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to continue the ATTIRE Act. This bill would support textile research and innovation in the United States and will continue to strengthen the Made in America Movement as a conduit for creating American jobs and bolstering our economy. It is the right way to help create American jobs.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman if he has additional speakers besides himself?

Mr. Speaker, we had one other speaker who is not here, but in light of that, I will close.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, we will make in order the ATTIRE Act that Mr. Price so carefully described to all of us here today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing that it is frustrating to be back after the election and to kind of engage in the same old-same old Republican partisan messaging bills that are going nowhere that just waste time. We ought to do the people's business in the next campaign which is about to start in a little while.

The fact that we are back here not debating this conflict that is now going on in the Middle East, the fact that we are not debating an immigration bill, the fact that we are not debating a pay equity bill or a minimum wage bill and we are doing this is very discouraging.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to send a strong statement today and vote ``no'' on this rule and certainly vote ``no'' on the previous question. I would also urge, if the rule passes, that we vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. We have a lot of work to do. What we are doing here today does not constitute that work, and I regret it very much.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my colleague for those generous comments, and I am pleased to be here today to express why this bill should not pass.

Mr. Chairman, the bill is called the Promoting New Manufacturing Act. We would all want to do that--what a nice title--but the bill does not live up to the title.

The bill does not do anything to promote manufacturing, and it does not do anything to improve the permitting process for new and expanding facilities, but it does weaken air quality protections. It allows more pollution, and it threatens public health. Now, let me explain why I reached that conclusion.

The Clean Air Act requires a new or an expanding source of air pollution to obtain permits with pollution limits before the facility starts construction. These pre-construction permits ensure that a new or an expanded facility will not increase local air pollution to levels that violate National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are based on public health.

When the EPA issues a new, more protective air quality standard to reflect the latest science, permit applicants have to meet the new standard and show their emissions will not increase the amount of pollution that will then end up harming public health. This bill, H.R. 4795, creates a loophole in this process.

The bill says that, if it is a new or an expanding facility, they can apply for a permit based on the old air quality standard, which is not adequate to protect the public health, unless, they say, the EPA has been able to jump over a new procedural hurdle that they set with this legislation requiring new regulations on permitting. In effect, this bill could give new sources of pollution amnesty from new air quality standards. This amnesty provision could have serious, real-world consequences. The amnesty provision would force the States and the EPA to issue permits for facilities that pollute more than they would under current law. In fact, this bill would allow new facilities to degrade air quality to levels that are not safe to breathe.

This loophole is also bad for business because, if you are not getting the reductions from new sources, you are going to have to get those reductions from existing sources. It is shifting the burden from the new sources onto existing facilities. It raises pollution control costs overall because the whole doctrine under the Clean Air Act, which has long been recognized, is that it is generally far more efficient and cost-effective to build pollution controls into a facility upfront rather than adding them later, but this bill does the opposite.

When we had our hearing, Representative Dingell asked the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources from the State of Delaware whether creating this loophole in the Clean Air Act would do anything to expedite permitting at his agency. He responded with a categorical ``no.''

The California Air Resources Board argues this bill would actually slow the permitting process.

It wrote:

Waiting for the U.S. EPA to develop guidance will result in

unnecessary delays and public health risks because permitting

agencies appear to be barred from issuing permits consistent

with the new, more health-protective air quality standards

until the U.S. EPA provides guidance.

If we really want to expedite the permitting process, we should give the EPA and the State and local agencies more resources. This bill does not add a single penny more to the EPA or to State and local permitting agencies to hire more staff to review and process these permits. That is what the agencies need.

States don't need more loopholes. They don't need more lectures about so-called ``red tape.'' They need more money and more people, but instead of providing these resources, House Republicans have voted repeatedly to slash funding for environmental protection. Punching holes in the Clean Air Act won't help these cash-strapped agencies work any faster, but it will make the air dirtier. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of my colleague from California (Mr. McNerney), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, subsection 3(b) creates a loophole in the Clean Air Act that allows new facilities to meet old air quality standards. This means more pollution will enter the air, and it will be harder to clean up. When one facility is allowed to pollute more, other facilities in the area will have to invest more to reduce their emissions. That is not fair. That is not good for the economy. This loophole harms public health, burdens existing facilities, and creates regulatory uncertainty.

If one is unwilling to remove the loophole from the bill entirely, then we should at the very least give State and local permitting authorities the opportunity to opt out, and that is what this amendment does.

We know States have concerns about this provision. We heard strong concerns from the State of Delaware at the hearing on this bill. In my own State of California, the California Air Resources Board wrote to the committee last week to express their serious concerns about this legislation, and this provision in particular. CARB wrote that ``the provisions proposed in this bill would not increase efficiency, would result in additional delays in permitting, and would pose increased public health risks.''

They, in other words, made two key points. First of all, CARB explained that States don't need EPA guidance to issue permits under a new air quality standard. They said, ``For decades, permitting authorities have successfully implemented their programs in response to every new standard U.S. EPA has promulgated. In fact, permitting agencies have historically been the advisers to U.S. EPA on the guidance that it ultimately issues.'' They point out that the bill effectively requires EPA to issue `` `one size fits all' permit guidance that could not realistically take into account the uniqueness of every jurisdiction.''

CARB also explained that in regions with severe air quality issues, barring the States from issuing permits consistent with new, more health-protective air quality standards will ``result in unnecessary delays and public health risks.'' CARB highlighted that ``this is particularly an issue for vulnerable and already overburdened populations, such as in disadvantaged communities.''

All of California's San Joaquin Valley is in extreme non-attainment for air quality standards. This bill threatens the flexibility needed by the regional air pollution control district, the flexibility that has led to 2013 being the cleanest year on record in this region. This bill would take a step backward in that progress.

Let's not make State air pollution regulators' jobs harder by constraining their flexibility and imposing counterproductive requirements. At least let's give them a choice.

The amendment simply says, if a Federal, State, local, or tribal agency determines that adopting this loophole will increase air pollution that harms human health, slow issuance of permits, increase regulatory uncertainty, create new regulation, shift the burden of pollution control to small businesses and other existing facilities, or increase the cost of achieving breathable air, then that agency may opt out. The agency does not have to issue a permit that exempts a new facility from meeting protective air quality standards.

If you don't think the bill's Clean Air Act loophole will cause these problems, then States wouldn't opt out, and you shouldn't object to this amendment. But just in case the States we have heard from are correct, let's provide a safety hatch to make sure that we aren't harming public health and making air pollution permitting more difficult.

I have heard my colleagues, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, say over and over again, We don't need one size fits all. We need to let localities make some of these determinations. And I agree, in this case particularly, that if they see, given their circumstances, a reason why they don't want to follow this new regime that would be created by this legislation, let them opt out. Let them decide at the local level how to proceed.

For that reason, I urge passage of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I qualified it is because I see no reason to oppose the amendment. It is not objectionable. But it doesn't actually fix the bill's four problems.

Subsection 3(b) of the bill gives new sources amnesty from compliance with a new or revised air quality standard until EPA issues rules and guidance on the implementation of the air quality standard.

The provision effectively creates two classes of sources. New sources would be permitted under the outdated and less protected air standard, but existing sources would be permitted under the updated, more protective standards. This amendment doesn't affect this requirement in any way.

The Whitfield amendment says that States can set their own more stringent air quality standards under State law. I don't disagree with that. Section 116 of the Clean Air Act already gives the States the right to adopt more stringent air quality standards. It has been in the Clean Air Act for decades. That is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't address our concern with subsection 3(b).

If my colleagues are in favor of State flexibility, they should either oppose the underlying bill entirely or support the State opt-out amendment. The Whitfield amendment does not provide them any relief from the loophole and procedural burden envisioned under the bill.

I don't object to this amendment as it doesn't make the bill worse. It doesn't make it worse, but it doesn't make it better. I would urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, even if this amendment is adopted.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 1 minute just for clarification for the Record.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Whitfield mentioned that the National Association of Clean Air Agencies would like timely implementation guidance. That is true. But just yesterday, they wrote a letter making clear they oppose this bill.

I insert in the Record the letter that came under the signature of S. William Becker, National Association of Clean Air Agencies.

National Association of

Clean Air Agencies,

Washington, DC, November 19, 2014.

Hon. Ed Whitfield,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Committee on

Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Whitfield: At a hearing before the House

Rules Committee earlier this week, you spoke in support of

H.R. 4795, the Promoting New Manufacturing Act. In your

testimony, you seemed to imply that the National Association

of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) favors passage of this

legislation.

I am writing to clarify that NACAA has never expressed

support for H.R. 4795. Although we appreciate the Committee's

desire

to encourage the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

issue implementation guidance for new and revised National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in a timely manner, we

do not believe that public health should be sacrificed in

promoting that goal.

Many of our members are very concerned by the provision in

Section 3 of the bill that would allow facilities seeking

pre-construction permits to conduct air quality analyses

based on outdated air quality standards, should EPA fail to

issue implementation guidance concurrently with the

promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. They believe this

would likely cause substantial adverse health impacts and

undermine public confidence in permitting programs that were

designed to protect public health. In addition, agencies have

expressed concern that the bill could cause unnecessary

regulatory uncertainty, as well as unfairly shift the burden

of reducing emissions to existing facilities, where it is far

less cost-effective to do so.

Accordingly, NACAA cannot support this legislation. If you

have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

S. William Becker.

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