Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1431) to amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up the bill (H.R. 1431) to amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1431.

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

I thank Chairman Smith and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Biggs for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. I also thank my good friend, Representative

Peterson for, yet again, working--helping, I should say--to make this bill a bipartisan effort. I appreciate his willingness to sponsor this bill with me.

I had the opportunity to speak in favor of this legislation when it passed this House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. Now, I come to the floor yet again to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important reform. The SAB Reform Act was a good bill then, and it is a good bill now. This is a policy that is built on the values we should uphold regardless of which side of the political aisle we are on or who happens to be the President.

H.R. 1431, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures the best experts are free to undertake a balanced and open review of regulatory science. The Board was established to provide scientific advice to the EPA and Congress, and to review the quality and relevance of science EPA uses for regulations. But in recent years, shortcomings with the process have arisen. Opportunities for public participation have been limited, potential conflicts of interest have gone unchecked, and the ability of the Board to speak independently has been curtailed.

If the administration undermines the Board's independence or prevents it from providing advice to Congress, the valuable advice these experts can provide is wasted.

Despite the existing requirement that the EPA's advisory panels be fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has identified a number of past problems that have undermined the panel's credibility and work product. These include a number of advisory members who received money from the EPA. At the very least, this could create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Some of the panelists have taken public and even political positions on issues they are advising about. For example, a lead reviewer of the EPA's hydraulic fracking study published an anti-fracking article titled, ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.'' Now, this clearly is not an objective viewpoint, and should be publicly disclosed.

Public participation is limited during most board meetings. Interested parties have almost no ability to comment on the scope of the work, and meeting records are often incomplete and hard to obtain.

This bill is both pro-science, and pro-sound science. This bill is founded upon recommendations for reform outlined by the National Academy of Sciences, and the EPA's Peer Review Handbook. This bill ensures that the Board is balanced, transparent, and independent, all of which will help prevent the SAB from being manipulated by any group.

H.R. 1431 makes sound science the driving force of the Board, no matter who is the chief executive officer of our government.

Perhaps most importantly, this bill seeks to increase public participation that benefits all stakeholders. Currently, valuable opportunities for diverse perspectives are limited. The Federal Government does not have a monopoly on the truth. Ask your constituents back home if they know that.

The public has important expertise that can't afford to be ignored in a democracy. State, local, tribal, and private sectors have a long history of qualified scientific experts. Their contributions should be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, the history of the SAB shows that private sector representation is often lacking or simply nonexistent. Instead, in the past, EPA has picked the Board, ignoring the knowledge, experience, and contributions of those experts. This bill ensures that qualified experts are not excluded simply due to their affiliation. This will add value and credibility to future Board reviews.

Mr. Peterson and I recognize the important role science should play in our policy debates and provides safeguards to give the public confidence in science. It restores the independent Science Advisory Board as a defender of scientific integrity.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, a fellow who has worked very diligently on the committee for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), a member of the Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

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

I include in the Record the following letters: a letter of support from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter of support from the American Chemistry Council, a letter

of support from the National Cotton Council of America, another letter of support from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter of support from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a letter of support from the CO2 Coalition, and a letter of support from the Cato Institute.

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2017.

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

U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the ``Honest and Open New

EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of 2017'' and the ``EPA

Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.'' These bills

would improve the transparency and reliability of scientific

and technical information that Federal agencies rely heavily

upon to support new regulatory actions.

The HONEST Act is designed to ensure that the studies and

data Federal agencies cite when they write new regulations,

standards, guidance, assessments of risk--or take other

regulatory action--are clearly identified and available for

public review. Additionally, information must be sufficiently

transparent to allow study findings to be reproduced and

validated. This is a critical safeguard to assure the public

that the data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically

sound, unbiased, and reliable.

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 would

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

directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) on key 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 HONEST Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform

Act would improve the transparency and trustworthiness of

scientific and technical reviews and information that

agencies, including EPA, rely on to justify regulatory

actions that can significantly affect society. The American

public must have confidence that the scientific and technical

data driving regulatory action can be trusted. Accordingly,

the Chamber supports these important bills.

Sincerely,

Neil L. Bradley,

Senior Vice President & Chief Policy

Officer, Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I would note to the body, part of the challenge that we face here today on this bill is like so many challenges we face as Members of Congress: How do you avoid the short- term perspective? How do you take the long view? How do you set into motion things that, while they might not, perhaps, give us the great advantage in the short-term sense that either side of the room would want, in the long-term, they are in the best interest of the body?

I would remind my colleagues, the Scientific Advisory Board is appointed by the EPA; the EPA is managed by the Director; the Director is appointed by the President of the United States. If you believe that the work product, if you believe that the rules that have been generated by this in recent years reflect your perspective, I understand that, but nothing is ever static.

We have recently had a change of administration. We have a change of direction in the leadership of the EPA. That will be reflected in all the appointments and the actions of the EPA.

I implore my colleagues, we need to work in the perspective of what is in the long-term interest; and that long-term interest is providing scientific review at the SAB that our fellow citizens have confidence in and that will generate good rules and regulations when they have to be created.

Following this course of action advocated in H.R. 1431 will not make my most conservative constituents happy because they want to duplicate what they believe my most liberal constituents have advocated for years, but our goal here is not to empower one or the other side in these perspectives to force their will upon the country. Our responsibility with the SAB is to create a process where we can have confidence in the results and where, when appropriate, the end resulting regulations, the rules that come from it, will be in the best long-term interest of the Nation as a whole.

I know there are requirements in here that, if you have taken money as a scientist to do a research project from the EPA, you have to cool off for 3 years. But what is wrong with allowing a little separation between the people who take money to do the studies and then become the judges of other studies in the knowledge that perhaps the people who have done the studies will judge their studies? What is wrong with that?

And the public disclosure about allowing people with knowledge and expertise to participate, too, if they have

a conflict through these disclosures, we will know. I would hope that whoever leads the EPA on whatever day would act in a responsible fashion.

I just want, through this bill, to change the system so that the perception is out there that the SAB and the scientific process and the rulemaking that comes from it at EPA are being gained by one perspective or the other because that is in no one's best interest.

I know we live in tough times and challenging times to legislate. I think my colleagues know, in the legislation I have worked on before, that I have always worked across the aisle. I have always worked with every perspective within this body. I have always tried to take that long-ball perspective. I know it is a challenging time, but think about that as we continue this well-meaning, good-spirited, very focused debate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the former chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the second set of letters which I referred to earlier.

National Association of

Home Builders,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the 140,000 members of

the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I am

writing to express NAHB's strong support for the Honest and

Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA

Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. These bills would

ensure an open and honest scientific process by allowing the

public access to the science that underpins regulations

developed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

ensuring that scientists advising the EPA on regulatory

decisions are not the same scientists receiving EPA grants.

It is important for the EPA to use sound science in order

to support their rulemakings. Far too often, the EPA relies

on science that lacks transparency and reliability to

buttress their rulemakings. This is a consequence of the EPA

conducting their scientific review of rulemakings behind

closed doors. The EPA frequently ignores scientific integrity

by limiting public participation, excluding state and private

sector expertise, and pushing a specific agenda by appointing

scientists who are biased. In some cases, scientists that

have been appointed to review proposed regulations have

received EPA grants which the EPA disregards as a conflict of

interest.

The EPA should not be able to create costly regulations

without being transparent, fair and open to public input when

considering the science behind a rulemaking. However, the EPA

has sacrificed the integrity of the rulemaking process by

using biased science to push their agenda. It is important to

address these shortcomings so that future rules can be

transparent and honest.

For these reasons, NAHB urges the House Science, Space and

Technology Committee to support the Honest and Open New EPA

Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA Science Advisory

Board Reform Act of 2017, in order to bring transparency and

integrity to the regulatory process.

Thank you for giving consideration to our views.

Sincerely,

James W. Tobin III,

Executive Vice President & Chief Lobbyist, Government

Affairs and Communications Group.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate to my colleagues, this is a situation where the goal really is not to empower one perspective or one faction over another. The goal, ultimately, of this bill--and, yes, this did come out of the inspector general's report, the initial work and effort. The goal of the bill is to add transparency, accountability. The goal of the bill is to increase the American people's confidence in the work product that is then used by the EPA to craft the rules and regulations that impact every life in this country on a daily basis.

Whatever your perspective may be, remember, the pendulum in this great Nation, when it comes to the executive branch, in my time, every 8 years, has swung back and forth. Just because at the present moment or the past moment you think you got your perspective's way, or if perhaps you think with the pendulum swing now you will get your perspective's way, that is not what the focus should be here.

I would also remind my colleagues, in my 23 years, I have served in the minority soon to be for 4\1/2\ years. But the other 18\1/2\ years, I have served in the majority. I have served in the majority. So when I step up to you and say we can do better, we can enhance the quality of information, we can do it in a way that the American people have more confidence in ultimately what goes on, and we can do it in a way that makes it more difficult for anyone to hijack the process, I say that sincerely.

There is nothing wrong with full disclosure for everyone who can add to the process, who should be available for consideration. There is nothing wrong with a financial cooling-off between benefiting from the studies and analyzing someone else's studies. There is nothing wrong with this.

But if you stay with the status quo, this Board and this Agency are in change. Get ready for 8 years of a dramatically different way of doing things.

Now, maybe you are so confident that the pendulum will swing back again that you are willing to accept that. But as for me, I want to stay between the lines. I want to focus in ways that, for the long term, represent the best interests of this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1431. I ask my colleagues to think about 10 or 20 years down the road. I ask my colleagues to put the long-term best interests of their constituents first.

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

I claim the time in opposition to the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I look at this language--and I am a farmer by trade; I am not an attorney; I will confess that--but the phrase ``or other entity'' seems to be a very broad concept. How will that affect people who work for research foundations at institutions of higher education? How will that affect entities, people who are part of so- called think tanks in places like Washington, D.C.? I personally believe the language is intended more to simply turn the bill inside out.

On that basis, I would ask my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit with instructions and to pass the underlying bill.

But I go one step further, and I offer this in the most sincerest of ways: if you look at the discussion today and if you look at the discussion that has gone on for some time on these issues, it is almost as though there are those with certain perspectives who are trying to force their will--their perspective of what is right and wrong scientifically or economically or socially--on the rest of the country, on the rest of us, and, for that matter, on the rest of the world.

That is why I am the author of this bill. No one entity should have the power by manipulating the bureaucratic process or the rulemaking process to enforce their definitions of everything on the rest of us. We have both the right and the responsibility to judge this information and to make decisions about what is in our enlightened self-interest, as the old economist would say, or in the best interest of the country or of society as a whole.

That is why I want all of us--the great American people--to have access and some certainty about the people and the process that are driving everything in our world.

Reject the motion, pass the bill, create greater transparency, incorporate more input, and when it is necessary to have rules and regulations, generate good rules and regulations so that we all have a chance to prosper and to live up to our potential in this country. Don't let the tyranny of the idealistic--whatever perspective they may have--drive us all into despair and destruction.

With that, I respectfully ask my colleagues to reject this motion and pass the underlying bill.

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. This is the 23rd closed rule of this short, new Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans have been denied the opportunity to amend nearly 60 percent of the legislation that has been brought to the floor through the House Rules Committee.

This effort by Speaker Ryan and the Republican leadership to halt a fair and open debate in the people's House is outrageous. We are supposed to be a deliberative body where both parties get to deliberate. These Putinesque rules that shut down all debate need to stop. This isn't the Kremlin.

You know, I think Representative Rooney, a Republican, said it best last week: ``I've been in this job for 8 years, and I'm wracking my brain to think of one thing our party has done that's been something positive, that's been something other than stopping something else from happening.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a piece of legislation that seeks to prevent the EPA from protecting public health and the environment--not exactly positive.

This bill was brought to the Rules Committee in an emergency meeting last night. And let me emphasize that, an emergency meeting.

Mr. Speaker, I think the American people have a pretty good idea of what is and what isn't an emergency. A tree falls on your house, that is an emergency. Your rose bush needs pruning, not an emergency. Timmy fell down a well, that is an emergency. Timmy might stub his toe, not an emergency.

On April 28, the government will run out of money. That is an emergency, even if it is self-inflicted by the Republicans. And we have no shortage of other actual emergencies that we should be dealing with: a devastating opioid epidemic, crumbling roads and bridges, mounting evidence of Russian meddling in our election, and people being killed every day due to gun violence, not to mention Flint, Michigan, is still dealing with the residual health effects of toxically polluted water.

These are just a few examples of actual emergencies that Congress is doing nothing to address. Instead, the underlying bill, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, is brought to the Rules Committee and to the House floor as an emergency piece of legislation.

As we learned last week, the American people are paying attention to what we do here. They are smart enough to know what an emergency is. And this bill isn't addressing an emergency, Mr. Speaker; it is creating one.

The Science Advisory Board at the EPA provides a way for the Agency to use sound, independent, and objective scientific data to help make their decisions. Science, Mr. Speaker--you may have heard of it--is kind of a big deal.

But this bill won't help the EPA to include more scientists in the decisions. It will force them to include people with potential financial conflicts of interest on the Science Advisory Board so long as they disclose them. I mean, do we really want people on our advisory boards if they could profit from a decision that they are about to make? There is nothing scientific about corruption, and this is exactly what this bill will open the door to.

This bill also limits the participation of scientific experts at the EPA, leading to a disproportionate representation of big business and corporate special interests. Are these really the people we want making decisions about the health of our kids and the policies that should be protecting our environment? Is that what we want?

So what is this bill really about? Well, it is about allowing the Republicans' big corporate cronies a direct route to the decisionmakers at the EPA. It is about disrupting the EPA's ability to fairly enforce the rules, hold corporate polluters accountable, and protect our health. It is about undermining scientific fact with political cronyism.

Now, maybe things have changed lately. It has been a while since my last science class. But I am pretty sure there is no step in the scientific method that says consult corporate cronies. The truth is that this Republican majority wants the EPA to base their decisions on fiction, not fact.

Americans can't afford to have the EPA run by people who live in a fantasyland where facts and science don't matter. Our environment and the health of our families are too important.

This law is going to have real-life consequences. It undermines science, hurts the environment, and it helps polluters. We need to allow the EPA to make decisions based on fact. We need to ensure that EPA is always free from financial conflicts, not making decisions based on panels filled with industry insiders like the ones that this bill would create.

Mr. Speaker, this bill defies logic. It defies reason. It defies sanity. It will hurt the people who sent us here, and it will help polluters. Republicans are putting corporate greed ahead of public health, and the American people will be the ones who will suffer. Americans deserve better. We should be fighting on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell my Republican friends what I tell first graders that I talk to back in my district in Massachusetts when I go to visit their schools. I usually begin by telling them that science is important. It is a big deal, and it is such a big deal that all our schools teach it. And if you do your homework and if you study hard and you pay attention, you might grow up someday to become a scientist, and scientists are people who dedicate their lives to protecting the health and well-being of people all over the world, and they dedicate their lives to protecting our planet.

Scientists tell us things that are really important. They tell us things like climate change is caused by greenhouse gasses, something my Republican friends continually deny. They tell us that polluted air can give children asthma. They tell us that lead in children's drinking water causes learning problems. They tell us pesticide exposure can cause cancer. These are important things.

We all learned in school, thanks to science, that the Earth orbits around the Sun, that gravity causes this pen to fall when I drop it, that plants turn sunshine into energy, that dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the first graders I talk to, they get it. They understand the importance of science. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues in this Chamber do not. And I would bet that those first graders understand the importance of making sure that it is scientists who sit on scientific advisory boards and not corporate cronies.

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 from Texas for his speech, but it was on a different bill than the one we are talking about right now. That was a rule we debated yesterday. The rule passed, but we are going to be talking about it today. So I was a little confused trying to follow the gentleman.

I also want to remind the gentleman that he mentioned Donald Trump's election. I will remind him that less than half of the people of the United States actually voted for him. Hillary won the popular vote by close to 3 million. The gentleman keeps on talking about a better way, a better way, a better way.

Was that what was on display last week when we spent 15 hours in the Rules Committee debating a repeal-and-replace bill on health care that only 16 percent of the American people thought was worth it and that had to be pulled because it was such a lousy process?

If that is the better way, I don't think people want anything to do with it.

I would say to the gentleman, my colleague, Mr. Newhouse, who is talking about trying to justify the closed process and saying that some of these bills were CRAs, just repealing regulations, well, my friends chose to bring up these repeal regulation bills under a very closed process. Interestingly enough, these rules were made under a very open process where agencies solicited input from stakeholders and from the public, and it was all out in the open. But the Republicans chose to bring measures to the floor to repeal regulations in such a way that that agency can't even go back and revisit the same subject of that particular regulation.

I think people need to understand this. I don't think I can ever recall a more closed, authoritarian process than the one that we have experienced under this leadership. This is not only something that I know Democrats have a problem with; I know a lot of Republicans do, too, because what this closed process means is that anybody with a good idea can't bring it to the floor and can't have an opportunity to debate the issue.

It was funny last night in the Rules Committee, my colleague from Texas (Mr. Burgess) was kind of crowing about the fact that no amendments were brought before the Rules Committee. I reminded him the reason why no amendments were brought before the Rules Committee is because this bill was noticed as an emergency and there was no call for amendments. Members weren't asked to bring their ideas or their amendments to the Rules Committee. This would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. I would say to my colleagues that it is this same closed process that brought us this disastrous health repeal bill that my friends had to pull last week that is on display today. When you have a lousy process, you end up with lousy legislation.

This is the people's House. We are supposed to deliberate, and here is a radical idea: let us deliberate a little bit. Open it up. Open it up a little bit. Let there be some amendments on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will bring to the floor an amendment, which I am going to talk about right now because, Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned by reports from our intelligence community regarding Russian interference in last year's election and even more troubled by FBI Director Comey's sworn testimony that the FBI is now investigating the possibility of collusion between members of President Trump's campaign team and Russia.

Mr. Speaker, the legitimacy of our electoral system is at stake, and it is time that this Republican-controlled Congress does its job and gets to the bottom of this. Unfortunately, recent actions by the House Intelligence Committee chairman have left many Members from both sides of the aisle convinced that the committee will not be able to conduct an impartial investigation of this crucial matter of national security.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and Representative Cummings' bill, which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in our 2016 election. For the life of me I don't know why this is controversial. My colleagues on the Republican side should be just as interested in getting to the truth and getting to the truth in a way that has credibility with the American people as we on the Democratic side do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman how many more speakers he has?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first remind Members that we are asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, we will bring up an amendment that will allow the bill that Representative Swalwell and Representative Cummings have introduced, which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in our 2016 election.

This is the appropriate place to do it because we are blocked in every other way in terms of trying to bring this to the floor, and the Rules Committee is a committee that prioritizes legislation that helps set the agenda, so this ought to be part of it. This anti-science bill can still be debated and voted on. It won't derail that, but it will allow the House to be able to deliberate on this bill that would create a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election.

This is a big deal. The American people deserve the truth. My Republican colleagues ought to get out of the way and allow this commission to be created so that the American people can actually have some trust in a process that determines the extent to which the Russians interfered in our election.

Again, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

With regard to the rule that we are debating today, I would again remind everybody that this is a closed rule. There are some Members of this House who have never seen an open rule, ever. I hope that changes because I do think that, again, there ought to be more deliberation here, there ought to be more back and forth. Even ideas that I strongly disagree with on the Republican side, they ought to have the opportunity to come here and be able to present them and we can vote up or down on them.

I think we need to break this pattern of shutting the process down. It is what resulted in the debacle last week with your horrible healthcare bill, the one that only 16 percent of the American people supported. It is pretty hard to get that low, but my friends managed to be able to set a new record on unpopular legislation--so bad that it had to be withdrawn from the floor for consideration.

I would argue it is the closed, authoritarian-like process that produced a lousy bill. If my friends continue to adhere to this closed process, they are going to get more lousy pieces of legislation that are going to do great harm to the American people brought to this floor.

This bill that is before us today, again, has been brought to the floor under this expedited procedure called an emergency provision. It is just being rushed to the floor as an emergency.

This is not an emergency. The opioid crisis is an emergency; the crisis in Flint, Michigan, is an emergency; our crumbling infrastructure is an emergency. There are deficient bridges and roads in every one of our congressional districts. That is an emergency. We need to address that.

Keeping the government open is an emergency. But to say this is an emergency is kind of ridiculous. It is not an emergency. It is kind of like our house is on fire and you are saying: I will get out the hose later, but I need to wash the dishes first.

That is how this kind of fits into what we are doing here today. This doesn't qualify for that.

On the substance of the bill, we have this radical idea that scientists ought to sit on scientific advisory committees, not corporate cronies, not people who are interested in covering up for polluters or doing their bidding. We think experts and scientists ought to sit on scientific advisory boards. That is the radical idea that we have. This bill, unfortunately, undermines that.

What this bill does is threaten public health by stacking advisory boards with industry representatives, and it weakens scientific review. It is that simple. I don't care what your political ideology is, I don't think you want that.

Let me just mention some of the groups that are opposed to this:

The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Geophysical Union, and the American Lung Association strongly oppose this bill. The American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America oppose this bill. Clean Water Action opposes this bill. Earthjustice, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, Health Care Without Harm, League of Conservation Voters, and the National Medical Association oppose this bill. The Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Union of Concerned Scientists all oppose this bill. The Food Policy Action opposes this bill.

I can go on and on. Every organization that is an advocate for the health and well-being of the American people oppose this bill. We are bringing it up for an up-or-down vote, no amendments, a closed rule, and here we are.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, again, this is a bad idea. I guess if you are an ally of big corporations or of corporations that engage in pollution, this is a good idea. But if you are interested in protecting the health and well-being of the American people, and the globe, for that matter, this is a bad idea.

As I began, I mentioned that when I speak to first-graders, they understand the importance of science. They get it. They want us to be good stewards of the environment. They want us to protect this planet. They understand the importance of science.

But I am always amazed how many people in this Chamber just don't get it. I find that really sad. I want to give my kids, and someday my grandkids and great grandkids, a future where we respect the environment. When we pass bills like this, it makes that less certain.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues again to vote ``no'' on the previous question and, please, in a bipartisan way, reject this lousy piece of legislation.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 233 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the House Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 233, providing for consideration of H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. This legislation will reform the Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, Science Advisory Board to ensure that it is unbiased and transparent in performing its duties.

The SAB, the Science Advisory Board, was first established by Congress in 1978 and plays a vital role in reviewing the scientific foundation of EPA's regulatory decisions, while also providing critical advice to us here in Congress as well as the Agency. The information it reviews is used to justify important policy decisions at the EPA and should be held to the highest standards because it is imperative that the regulated community and the public can have confidence that EPA decisions are grounded, that science should be both reproducible and transparent.

However, shortcomings with the current process have arisen in recent years, including limited public participation, EPA interference with expert advice, potential conflicts of interest, and serious deficiencies with the process to select the board members. Far too often, the SAB's authority has been used by the EPA to silence dissenting scientific views and opinions, rather than promoting the impartiality and fairness that is the cornerstone of unbiased scientific advice.

At its inception, the SAB was intended to function independently in order to provide candid advice and guidance to the EPA. Yet, if the Agency undermines this autonomy, then the SAB's value to both the EPA and Congress, I believe, is severely diminished.

Mr. Speaker, to address these issues, H.R. 1431 would reform the SAB and reaffirm its independence so the public and regulated entities can have that confidence that sound science is driving policy decisions at the EPA.

The bill makes several important reforms to the SAB, such as requiring board members to be qualified experts; disclosing conflicts of interest and sources of bias; and ensuring that the views of members, including the dissenting members, are available to the public. It provides the public with the opportunity to participate in the advisory activities of the board and gives people the ability to view the agency's responses to issues raised by the SAB.

Additionally, the bill requires that at least 10 percent of the board is comprised of State, local, and tribal experts; that board members do not participate in advisory activities that involve reviews or evaluations of their own work; and that EPA publicly disclose all board member recusals; and that comments are published in the Federal Register.

So these reforms will improve the existing regulatory process, while also reinvigorating the scientific judgements that are often directly linked to regulatory decisions.

The EPA relies on SAB reviews and studies to support new regulations, new standards, assessments, and other Agency actions. A transparent and accountable Science Advisory Board is critically important and can assure the public that the data that Federal agencies rely on is scientifically sound and unbiased.

This legislation would reinforce that the SAB process is a tool to help policymakers with complex issues, while also preventing the EPA from taking actions that impede the free flow of impartial scientific advice.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of an important measure that will improve the peer review process and ensure sound science is used in the Federal rulemaking process. It is a simple, relatively straightforward bill that will make the SAB more consistent, transparent, and accountable to our bosses, the American people.

Transparency in regulations based on the highest quality science should not be a partisan issue. In the 114th Congress, a nearly identical version of this bill was passed by the House, I am glad to say, with bipartisan support. I hope we can join together again to pass this important bill with support from Members of both sides of the aisle, from both parties.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule as well as the underlying legislation.

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman's comments. In fact, some of those comments he was making I thought he was quoting me, or at least quoting parts of my own speech.

Certainly, I agree that the decisions made by the Environmental Protection Agency should be based on fact, not by industry insiders, and that is exactly

what this legislation would do. I can't think of any instance where asking for more full public participation as well as transparency is not a positive step, and that is exactly what we are trying to do here.

In reference to the number of closed rules that we have had this year, let me just remind the good gentleman that 15 out of the 23 closed rules were actually the Congressional Review Act, the CRAs that we have been working on. They are prescribed to be a closed rule. That is the nature of a CRA.

So I would think that, in the good gentleman's estimation of this bill and all the negative things that could potentially come of it, that we should be able to come to some bipartisan agreement on this, especially considering the political climate that we are in today, the occupant of the White House today, certainly in Republican hands, and I would think our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle would be very interested in ensuring an unbiased source of information that comes from the SAB to give to the EPA in making their important decisions. This, I would think, would be a good idea for both sides of the aisle, no matter who is in the White House, and I would agree that it is.

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

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

As we get back to the bill at hand, I think it is important that there are a lot of important topics out there that people want to touch on, and that is all well and good. Just like my friend from Texas, a fine member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, brought up other bills that are important and that relate to what we are talking about here today, and I think that is important as well.

But I think I see an underlying theme here. We all agree on one thing: we want the EPA to use science. We want public participation. We want and we need transparency.

This is certainly a positive step in a bill, Mr. Speaker, that went through regular order, that was introduced with bipartisan support, that went through the markup process, and that was reported out without amendments, something that this body in the last Congress passed, I believe, in a bipartisan fashion.

Just to underscore the importance of taking this important step--and let me underscore again--no matter which side of the aisle you are on, it is important that we do this because of who you may think is the right person or the wrong person occupying the White House, it is important that the EPA has an unbiased source of information in order for it to make its decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a news release from the American Chemistry Council.

[From the American Chemistry Council, March 9, 2017]

ACC Supports Legislative Efforts To Improve EPA Science

Washington.--The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued

the following statement in support of the H.R. 1430, the

``Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017'' (or

The HONEST Act) introduced by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and

H.R. 1431 ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017,''

introduced by Congressman Frank Lucus (R-OK).

``Consistency and transparency are key to the regulatory

certainty our industry needs to grow and create jobs. In some

instances, EPA has fallen short of employing the highest-

quality, best-available science in their regulatory decision

making.

``It is critical that the regulated community and the

public have confidence that decisions reached by EPA are

grounded in transparent and reproducible science. By ensuring

that the EPA utilizes high quality science and shares

underlying data used to reach decisions, the HONEST Act can

help foster a regulatory environment that will allow the U.S.

business of chemistry to continue to develop safe, innovative

products that Americans depend on in their everyday lives.

``The Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the

peer review process--a critical component of the scientific

process used by EPA in their regulatory decisions about

potential risks to human health or the environment. The Act

would make peer reviewers accountable for responding to

public comment, strengthen policies to address conflicts of

interest, ensure engagement of a wide range of perspectives

of qualified scientific experts in EPA's scientific peer

review panels and increase transparency in peer review

reports.

``We commend Chairman Smith and Congressman Lucas for their

leadership and commitment to advance these important

issues.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an excerpt from the American Chemistry Council letter:

``The Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the peer review process--a critical component of the scientific process used by EPA in their regulatory decisions about potential risks to human health or the environment. The Act would make peer reviewers accountable for responding to public comment, strengthen policies to address conflicts of interest, ensure engagement of a wide range of perspectives of qualified scientific experts in EPA's scientific peer review panels and increase transparency in peer review reports.''

That is a strong statement.

I also include in the Record a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation.

American Farm

Bureau Federation,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Chair, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Science, Space and

Technology, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: Later this

week, the House

Science, Space and Technology Committee will consider

legislation to provide for Scientific Advisory Board (SAB)

member qualifications and public participation. The American

Farm Bureau strongly supports this legislation and pledges

our commitment to work with the committee in pressing for its

swift consideration.

This legislation is a priority because it reforms the SAB

process by strengthening public participation, improving the

process of selecting expert advisors, and expanding the

overall transparency of the SAB. While the SAB should be a

critical part of the scientific foundation of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory process,

EPA has systematically used its authority to silence

dissenting scientific experts. Rather than promote fairness,

transparency and independence to ensure unbiased scientific

advice, EPA routinely has ignored its own Peer Review

Handbook and silenced dissenting voices on expert panels.

This legislation seeks to reinforce the SAB process as a

tool that can help policymakers with complex issues while

preventing EPA from muzzling impartial scientific advice.

This legislation deserves strong, bipartisan support. We

applaud your leadership in this effort and will work with you

to ensure passage.

Sincerely,

Zippy Duvall,

President.

Mr. Speaker, the American Farm Bureau Federation states:

``This legislation seeks to reinforce the SAB process as a tool that can help policymakers with complex issues while preventing EPA from muzzling impartial scientific advice. This legislation deserves strong, bipartisan support. We applaud your leadership in this effort and will work with you to ensure passage.''

These are two bipartisan groups looking out for the best interests of the citizens of our great country, so I think they make strong statements in support of this legislation.

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

I think we have run to the end of our speakers.

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

This bill is a good idea, and I think the debate that we have had here today underscores the importance of this as we consider this under the rule.

H.R. 1431 addresses problems that have arisen over the years with the Science Advisory Board, and actually would return the Board to its intended purpose--something maybe the gentleman does not agree with--to provide independent expert advice on scientific and technical information.

By modernizing the policies and the procedures of the governing of the SAB, Congress, with this bill, can take

critical steps to make sure that the SAB is best equipped to provide that independent, transparent, balanced review and the analyses of the science used that guides the EPA's regulatory decisions.

One key issue that this measure would address is the importance of having regulations that are supported by science and that are reproducible and accessible for peer review, not antiscience, like some people have said. Quite the opposite. We want science. We want good science.

The scientific method demands that the result of scientific studies be capable of replication. This is all the more critical when the information is used to develop and set public policy, which is why the methods and the data used by the EPA and the SAB must be publicly available for purposes of replication and verification. If you don't want public transparency, I guess you should vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, opponents of the legislation have argued that it makes unnecessary and unproductive changes to the SAB, that it would restrict the ability of scientists to engage on the issues they specialize in, creates new burdens through the public comment and transparency provisions, and weakens the ability of the EPA to use the best available science and data to support its rules and regulations.

I believe that these arguments fail to recognize what this bill actually does accomplish. They seem to ignore the importance of reforming the Federal rulemaking process in a way that ensures sound science is the bedrock on which Federal rules and regulations are built--sound science; is that a radical idea--and that these are not predetermined political agendas.

Unfortunately, the EPA has diluted the Board's credibility by systematically silencing dissenting opinions, ignoring calls for balanced participation, and preventing the Board from responding to congressional reports. Fully 10 percent of the seats on the Board will be filled by State, local, and tribal representatives, improving the balance of that participation.

H.R. 1431 simply encourages greater transparency, debate, and public participation in the Board, which will result in better decisionmaking at the EPA. I think that is something everyone should be able to agree on. I don't think public participation is a burden, but, rather, a benefit that improves the relationship and the interaction between Federal regulators and the public.

By strengthening public participation, improving the process for selecting expert advisers, and expanding transparency requirements, this legislation takes critical steps that will improve our regulatory system, while also ensuring that the most qualified and the most capable scientists are free to undertake a balanced and open review of regulatory science.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to update the law. It is time to restore independence to the Science Advisory Board. It is time to strengthen scientific integrity. Science is an invaluable tool that helps policymakers navigate complex issues, yet this resource has been severely diminished if the EPA interferes with expert advice, limits public participation, and fails to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

As President Reagan said in guidance to the EPA: ``The purpose of the Science Advisory Board is to apply the universally accepted principles of scientific peer review to the research conclusions that will form the basis for EPA regulations, a function that must remain above interest group politics.''

Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 1431 gets to the heart of President Reagan's point. Greater debate, unbiased scientific advice and independent peer-reviews, and public participation will only result in better decisionmaking at the Federal level. I believe that this is the goal we all share, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule, as well as the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. Like the bill we considered yesterday, the so- called HONEST Act, H.R. 1431 is designed to harm the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to use science to make informed decisions.

The bill before us today claims to reform the EPA's Science Advisory Board. And let's talk about what these reforms would mean.

First, the bill establishes a series of roadblocks to prevent independent academic scientists from serving on the Board. It accomplishes this by turning the term ``conflict of interest'' on its head by excluding scientists who have done the most relevant research on the topic being considered by the Board. The bill also prohibits Science Advisory Board members from obtaining extramural research grants for 3 years after their service on the Board, which would be a major disincentive for scientists to serve on the panel.

At the same time that this bill makes it much more difficult for academic researchers to serve on the Science Advisory Board, the bill also makes it much easier for corporate interests to serve. This is accomplished by gutting actual financial conflict-of-interest restrictions against industry representatives. Under this legislation, those industry representatives would simply have to disclose their financial conflicts, and they could serve on panels directly related to their corporate interests.

Finally, H.R. 1431 imposes exhaustive and duplicative notice-and- comment requirements on the Science Advisory Board. I say these requirements are exhaustive because, in addition to being an open-ended process, the Board would also have to respond in writing to any and all significant comments. In fact, I find it hard to believe that the advisory process created by this bill could ever be completed.

Of course, that is the real purpose of this provision. It is designed to throw sand in the gears of the Science Advisory Board process, and prevent board members from ever rendering their expert advice.

These additions are totally unnecessary. The Science Advisory Board already has statutorily mandated notice-and-comment obligations, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act already applies to their activities.

So if this bill passes, what would happen?

As an example, I will turn to a case study from the early 1990s. At that time, the EPA was forming a Scientific Advisory Panel to review evidence of harm from secondhand tobacco smoke. Thanks to internal tobacco industry documents that have been made public, we now know that Big Tobacco made a concerted effort to stack the Scientific Advisory Panel with tobacco industry hacks.

We take it for granted now that tobacco smoke is dangerous, but at that time, in the early nineties, Big Tobacco had succeeded in muddying the scientific waters around this issue by investing tens of millions of dollars in a coordinated attempt to defraud the American people.

If H.R. 1431 had been in effect back then, Big Tobacco likely would have succeeded in co-opting the Science Advisory Board.

What would the effects have been on public health to have had the EPA's science review body controlled by tobacco interests?

That is why a number of public health and environmental interest groups have come out against H.R. 1431. In a letter penned by the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and several other health groups, the effects of H.R. 1431 are summed up like this:

``In short, EPA's Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to respond to important questions, and increase the influence of industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not the best interest of the American public.''

I couldn't agree more. I strongly urge Members to oppose this misguided bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record correspondence in opposition to this bill: a letter from the American Lung Association, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the American Public Health Association, the National Medical Association, the Health Care Without Harm Association, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the American Thoracic Society; along with a letter from the Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and Natural Resources Defense Council; as well as a letter from the League of Conservation Voters.

March 27, 2017.

Dear Representative: The undersigned health and medical

organizations are writing to express our opposition to the

EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest

and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. Our

organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving

public health.

Science is the bedrock of sound medical and public health

decision-making. The best science undergirds everything our

organizations do to improve health. Under the Clean Air Act,

EPA has long implemented a transparent and open process for

seeking advice from the medical and scientific community on

standards and measures to meet those standards. Both of these

bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the

review of complex issues and add undue industry influence

into EPA's decision-making process.

As written, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would

make unneeded and unproductive changes that would:

Restrict the ability of scientists to speak on issues that

include their own expertise;

Block scientists who receive any EPA grants from serving on

the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, despite their having the

expertise and conducted relevant research that earned them

these highly competitive grants;

Prevent the EPA Scientific Advisory Board from making

policy recommendations, even though EPA administrators have

regularly sought their advice in the past;

Add a notice and comment component to all parts of the EPA

Scientific Advisory Board actions, a burdensome and

unnecessary requirement since their reviews of major issues

already include public notice and comment; and

Reallocate membership requirements to increase the

influence of industry representatives on the scientific

advisory panels.

In short, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit

the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to

respond to important questions, and increase the influence of

industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not in the best

interest of the American public.

We also have concerns with the HONEST Act. This legislation

would limit the kinds of scientific data EPA can use as it

develops policy to protect the American public from

environmental exposures and permit violation of patient

confidentiality. If enacted, the legislation would:

Allow the EPA administrator to release confidential patient

information to third parties, including industry;

Bolster industry's flawed arguments to discredit research

that documents the adverse health effects of environmental

pollution; and

Impose new standards for the publication and distribution

of scientific research that go beyond the robust, existing

requirements of many scientific journals.

Science, developed by the respected men and women

scientists at colleges and universities across the United

States, has always been the foundation of the nation's

environmental policy. EPA's science-based decision-making

process has saved lives and led to dramatic improvements in

the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the

earth we share. All Americans have benefited from the

research-based scientific advice that scientists have

provided to EPA.

Congress should adopt policy that fortifies our scientists,

not bills that undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's

decision-making or give polluters a disproportionate voice in

EPA's policy-setting process.

We strongly urge you to oppose these bills.

Sincerely,

Katie Huffling, RN, CNM,

Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.

Harold P. Wimmer,

National President and CEO, American Lung Association.

Georges C. Benjamin, MD,

Executive Director, American Public Health Association.

Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,

Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.

Cary Sennett, MD, PhD, FACP,

President & CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Paul Bogart,

Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm.

Richard Allen Williams, MD,

117th President, National Medical Association.

Jeff Carter, JD,

Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Let me thank the other side for their vigorous defense of this bill.

I must say that I am a nurse by profession, and I appreciate the gains we have made for using scientific data to determine what is unhealthy for the people; and it really does disturb me to see these protections being torn apart.

It is really unfortunate that we have spent so much time putting these protections of the people in place to see that, in this administration, they will probably fly away. Only the people of this Nation will be the losers, with more healthcare costs when they don't even want health care; more people not able to get out of dirty areas.

I live in the State of Texas where we have seen the detriment of all of the lack of these protections before they came about. Scientists are in science because they believe in the theories that put forth the procedures for us to follow for the safety and protection of human beings.

I regret that we are at a point this time in history where we are willing to throw all that away because of allowing the polluting companies to have more to say about policy. I regret that I have to stand against my colleagues that feel so strongly about getting rid of these protections, but I cannot sit idly by without saying that our Nation will not be in better shape when we take away all the protections for the people and their health.

Everybody wants clean air and clean food and protections from the damage that a bad environment brings, and all this is is taking away those protections.

I ask everyone to vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I am opposed.

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

This amendment is a commonsense and logical addition to this bill. It will help ensure that members of the EPA's Science Advisory Board will act in the best interests of the American people and our environment.

I think that we can all agree that, now more than ever, we need integrity in government. And this amendment would simply prohibit any member of the EPA's Science Advisory Board from being employed by any entity, corporate or otherwise, which has interests before the Board. This prohibition would be in place during the member's time on the Board and would extend for 3 years after they leave the Board.

My Republican colleagues have taken up this bill with the stated intent of protecting the scientific integrity of the EPA, and this amendment will go a long way to making sure that they keep their word.

The underlying bill also includes a similar prohibition on board members applying for a grant or contract from the EPA during their service or for 3 years after. And as the chairman just said, there is nothing wrong with a financial cooling-off period.

However, the authors of this bill are apparently concerned that members of the Board would be tempted to favor environmental concerns in the hopes of getting an EPA grant. Therefore, it also stands to reason that they should worry equally about a board member tilting the scales in favor of a specific industry in return for future financial compensation or career advancement, the classic revolving door problem.

So what this motion to recommit does is something that I think we all should be able to agree is a good thing. We have seen too many people in the President's Cabinet who appear to have connections too close to the big interests they regulate rather than the interests of the American people.

This amendment would ensure that no one can unduly personally profit from their time at the EPA, and that members are there to represent the interests of the American people and our environment rather than their own self interests.

Finally, I would like to close by bringing up a more general question of why we seem to be having variations on this repetitive theme of whether or not we can pollute our way out of the structural and economic challenges that our country faces.

Mr. Speaker, you and your party have been very successful at selling yourselves and your supporters on the idea that if we can just, once again, dump unlimited pollutants into our rivers and streams, into our groundwater, our food, air, lungs, our bloodstreams and those of our children, then everything will be great again in America.

This week, we saw our President surrounded by earnest and hopeful young coal miners as he gutted environmental regulations and promised them that all their jobs were coming back. And then we have seen interviews on TV with desperate families in Appalachia using up their life savings to pay for training for underground coal jobs that they have been told will be coming back now that Donald Trump is President.

Then we have seen interviews with coal executives quietly pointing out that those jobs will not come back; that it was machines and fundamental economic forces that took those jobs in coal country.

The story is the same in oil country, where even as oil production has rebounded, the jobs and wages have not come back because of automation, the same way that machines took the jobs in rural America, manufacturing America, and increasingly middle class, white-collar America.

So until we realize that we are all in this together and that a fundamental restructuring of our economy is needed rather than a mindless retraction of the protections on environmental quality on the land that we will pass on to our children, then I am afraid that we are destined to repeat this infinite loop of marginally productive debate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.

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

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