Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 7, a dangerous attack on the right of women to make their own decisions about their health and their bodies.

On Saturday, I, too, joined the peaceful march in our Nation's Capital with hundreds of thousands of women and men. Millions more marched in Oregon, across the country, and around the world to demand that our voices be heard.

This legislation, one of the majority's first priorities under the Trump administration, won't create jobs. It will create barriers to reproductive health care for countless women. It will disproportionately affect low-income women, young women, women of color, women in rural communities, and immigrant women. This bill turns back the clock. It puts women's lives at risk.

Restricting abortion does not make it go away. It makes it unsafe. This bill will drive women back to back alleys.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on H.R. 7.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget resolution. The Affordable Care Act saves lives.

Today I want to talk about Mark Rouska from Tualatin, Oregon. Mark was diagnosed with stage IV renal cancer, and doctors told him the cancer had metastasized to his lungs. He had to resign from a job he loved as a special education teacher. Without chemotherapy, he would probably not be alive. That treatment costs about $20,000 a month, but because he has insurance through the Affordable Care Act, Mark pays about $175 a month. At the end of this month, Mark and his wife, Patrice, will celebrate their 31st anniversary.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act will endanger health coverage for millions of people. One of them is Mark. I will do everything in my power to protect the many Oregonians who rely on the Affordable Care Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 353, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act. This bill, introduced by my colleague, Mr. Lucas, is a product of hard work and negotiation over the past two Congresses.

In addition to Mr. Lucas, I thank Chairman Smith and also Environment Subcommittee chair, Mr. Bridenstine, and former chair, Mr. Chris Stewart, who were great partners in this process. The language before us today is a result of a truly bipartisan and bicameral effort.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is responsible for many important tasks at the cutting edge of science and public service, and weather forecasting is one of the tasks most critical to our country.

In the northwest Oregon communities I represent, my constituents rely on timely weather forecasts to decide when to harvest their crops, when to go to sea to fish, how to navigate the roads safely when there is freezing rain or snow, and to prepare for possible flood conditions.

The National Weather Service provides excellent forecasting products to support our economy, but with the increasing frequency of severe weather events, there can be and should be improvements in our forecasting capabilities and delivery.

For example, forecasts can be more precise regarding what will happen and when. Improved forecasts can provide more lead time to allow communities to prepare, especially in severe weather events. Forecast information should also be communicated more effectively to the public and those in harm's way to reduce the loss of life and property. This bill is designed to address those important goals.

The bill connects the research side of NOAA, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, more effectively to the forecasting needs of the National Weather Service. This research-to-operations pipeline is essential for the continued improvement of our weather forecasting enterprise.

The bill contains several provisions that will improve interactions and information sharing between NOAA's researchers and the National Weather Service. It also improves communications between NOAA and the broader research and private weather communities.

The bill also establishes interagency coordination, through the Office of Science and Technology Policy, across multiple agencies outside of NOAA that share responsibilities for weather research and forecast communications. This is essential as we face budget constraints, and it will help speed the adoption of best tools and practices across the various agencies.

H.R. 353 also recognizes that even the best forecasts will not serve the public's needs unless there are effective communications systems. The bill directs NOAA to do more research, listen to experts, and improve its risk communications techniques.

The bill also reestablishes a program that allows NOAA to give awards to people who save the lives of others through NOAA's Weather Radio All Hazards program. The bill also formally establishes the pilot program currently operating at NOAA to engage in contracts with the commercial sector for weather forecasting data.

Additionally, the bill requires NOAA to examine the benefits and costs of different sensors by running simulations of different configurations of instruments and datasets on forecasting accuracy. It is important that these requirements are not too prescriptive so that NOAA can use the most efficient, accurate, and cost-effective model for this situation.

This legislation will produce advances in weather forecasting and capabilities that will result in better development of forecast innovations and technology. Ultimately, this will save American lives and property.

I thank the Members on both sides of the aisle for their input and support. Also, I would like to thank the hardworking committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their efforts to continue negotiations to move this bill forward.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Section 3:

``He shall from time to time give the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; . . .''

Mr. Speaker, in 1973, 42 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that women have the right to safe and legal abortion.

I remember the days before that landmark decision. Mr. Speaker, over the centuries it has been clear, when abortion is illegal, it does not go away but is very unsafe.

On this anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we should commit to reducing unwanted pregnancies. We should commit to making family planning services more available.

To help women and families, we should be passing the Paycheck Fairness Act for equal pay and a robust infrastructure plan for jobs across this country.

To help women and families, let's stop trying to take away women's rights. Let's protect their health care. Let's pass the Women's Health Protection Act and say ``no'' to unconstitutional attempts to restrict the right of women to safe and legal abortion.

Section 7:

``All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.''

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

I rise in support of H.R. 35, the Low-Dose Radiation Research Act of 2015. I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren and Mr. Lipinski, for introducing this bipartisan legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

H.R. 35 authorizes an important research program carried out by the Department of Energy's Office of Science to examine the health impacts of exposure to low doses of radiation, such as doses resulting from certain medical tests, nuclear waste cleanup activities, or even terrorism events like dirty bombs. This program builds on the Department of Energy's unique biological research expertise and capabilities, which led to the establishment of the successful Human Genome Project that paved the way for important breakthroughs in modern medicine.

This bill authorizes a National Academies study to identify current scientific challenges in this area and to help guide the program's long-term research agenda well into the next decade. A similar bill passed the House late last Congress with overwhelming support, and it is my hope that this will again pass and move to the Senate for their consideration.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Smith, and the ranking member, Ms. Johnson, and the sponsors of this bill, Mr. Hultgren and Mr. Lipinski.

The bill before us today represents a true bipartisan effort and will help protect the health of our constituents. Passage of this bill is a positive way to start this new Congress, and I urge its adoption.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 23, legislation to reauthorize the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.

First I want to thank Representatives Neugebauer and Wilson for their hard work on this important legislation that will benefit our constituents.

Americans face significant exposure to windstorms. According to the National Weather Service, between the years of 2003 and 2013, thousands of Americans lost their lives from the impacts of windstorms. Along with the loss of life, windstorms during that time caused billions of dollars of damage to property, including a severely negative impact on agricultural crops.

Although we cannot stop a windstorm from happening, there is much we can do to save both lives and property when windstorms and other natural disasters do happen. In addition to

responding quickly and with sufficient resources in the aftermath of a natural disaster, we must also invest in preparedness and resilience.

Studies of FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation program have shown that for every dollar invested in mitigation activities, $3 to $4 in recovery costs can be saved.

The National Windstorm Reduction Program Act is primarily a mitigation program. It has the potential to lessen the loss of life and economic damage by supporting research and development on windstorms and their impacts and helping to ensure that this research is translated into improving building codes and emergency planning, but this program needs robust investment to achieve that result.

The bill today includes a lower total authorization level than was authorized for this program in fiscal year 2008. We can and we should do better than that. One of our responsibilities as a government should be to assist our constituents with disaster mitigation and response and preparedness, and that means investing in programs we already have in place to carry out these responsibilities. Nevertheless, I understand the need to reauthorize this important program, and I thank my colleagues for agreeing to maintain the authorization levels negotiated last Congress.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), who is a cosponsor of the bill, and also a member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and so in closing, we must help our constituents prepare for and mitigate the impacts of severe weather events, such as windstorms, that threaten their lives and property. This bill takes an important step in that direction, and I urge its adoption.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 34, the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2015.

I want to thank Mr. Rohrabacher for working with me to advance this bipartisan legislation. I also thank the chairman and ranking member of the Science Committee, Mr. Smith and Ms. Johnson, for their support in making this bill an early priority in the 114th Congress. I would also like to thank the State and local emergency management officials, coastal zone managers, and the many scientists and other experts who lent their expertise and experience to the development of this bill. Coastal community groups and emergency planners in my district are working hard to prepare their communities for earthquake and tsunami events, and I am grateful that they took some time to provide their input on this legislation.

Last month marked the 10th anniversary of the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake in Southeast Asia. That earthquake triggered a tsunami event that claimed the lives of more than 200,000 people from Indonesia to Madagascar. Following that tragic event, Congress enacted the Tsunami Warning and Education Act to begin preparing our communities for the considerable threat posed by such an event. We were again reminded of the severe dangers that a tsunami represents for our coastal communities almost 4 years ago when the Tohoku earthquake near Japan created a devastating tsunami that resulted in the tragic loss of human lives and billions of dollars in economic damage, damage that reached as far as the west coast of the United States.

The events in Indonesia and Japan underscore the importance of this legislation, which reauthorizes and extends U.S. efforts to prepare and protect our coastal communities from similar events.

Our ability to prepare, respond to, and recover from a tsunami depends in large part on the hard work done at the local level. The Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act will support local efforts, and it is an important step toward making sure our constituents are ready to face the dangers posed by tsunami threats.

Maritime commerce, vibrant tourism, and more than 120 million Americans are all part of the rich coastal U.S. economy, an economy that contributes significantly to the U.S. GDP. The commercial fishing industry alone supports about 1 million jobs, and the international trade associated with coastal and marine fisheries contributes close to $70 billion annually to the U.S. economy. Ensuring that coastal communities, big and small, have the resources and knowledge necessary to protect these critical assets from the threat of tsunami and be prepared should it occur is simply good and prudent policy.

My coastal constituents are keenly aware of the threat that a tsunami poses to their communities, and cities up and down coasts have responded by installing warning sirens and developing evacuation routes. But as we learn more about which areas will be hardest hit and which technologies can provide the most accurate warning, a coordinated effort is required to update preparation and response.

In Tillamook County, Oregon, for example, just outside my district, they recently decided they are going to be using social media and phones to warn residents. Seaside, a small coastal town in my district, has been identified as the most vulnerable community to tsunami on the Oregon coast, and local leaders and organizations there are proactively educating residents and visitors about tsunami evacuation routes, storage supply locations, and emergency communication systems.

At the Federal level, we must do our part to help communities understand the risks and seriousness of the threats they face, and work with them to be prepared, which is why I sponsored this bill along with my colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

In Oregon, we know that a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami will occur some day in the Cascadia subduction zone. The question is not a matter of if, but when. Although no one can predict when the Cascadia fault will rupture, we can and we must prepare.

This legislation will help to ensure that local and regional decision-makers have the tools and information they need to develop mitigation and response plans to this ever present threat, and to communicate these plans to the public in an effective and efficient manner.

For distant tsunami events, this bill will advance research efforts related to improving forecasting, detection, and notification. It adds port and harbor operations as entities to be safeguarded by tsunami forecasting capabilities.

This bill will also support research needed to improve our understanding of local tsunami events. A local tsunami--one that is generated just off the coast--has a travel time of less than 30 minutes. This is the kind of tsunami most likely to have widespread and devastating impacts on the U.S. coast and on the Caribbean.

In the 10 years since tragedy struck in the Indian Ocean region, we have made significant strides in our understanding of how to prepare for, mitigate, and respond to a tsunami.

I have no doubt that the progress we have made, in large part through NOAA's efforts under the Tsunami Warning and Education Act, has enhanced the safety of our community and has the potential to save lives. This good work must be continued, and our bipartisan bill will provide ongoing assistance to protect our coastal communities from the impact of a tsunami.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who also represents some coastline in our great State.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to again thank and acknowledge my cosponsor, Mr. Rohrabacher from California, and the chairman and ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee for bringing this bill forward.

I want to again recognize that 10 years have passed since the tragedy that befell the Indian Ocean region and also take a moment to remember the devastating 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, a tsunami whose effects were felt on the western coast of the United States.

We must be mindful of those lessons learned from past disasters and give our constituents the necessary tools to prepare for future tsunami events.

In Seaside, Oregon, the schools are in the tsunami inundation zone. We must do what we can to support the vital research and advancements in forecasting that will give local communities the resources they need to prepare and be more resilient.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Congressman Kurt Schrader to honor the life of Cary Marie Fairchild, an Oregonian who tragically lost her life as the result of a car accident in October of 2014.

Cary was a force of nature who served her community with kindness, compassion, and joy. Born in New York City, Cary moved with her family, several times before moving to Hammond, Indiana, where she was raised with her three younger siblings. Growing up, Cary was a natural-born leader. She was the center of her family who not only depended on her, but enjoyed the wild ride. Cary graduated from Hammond Morton High School and attended Ripon College, studying language abroad in Lausanne, Switzerland. Cary graduated with honors from Indiana University and went on to receive her Masters in Psychology from Valparaiso University. She also completed the course work required for a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology at the Illinois School of Professional Psychology in Chicago.

After high school, Cary married Terry Luchene. They had two children, Aaron and Ann. Cary was a very devoted mother who adored her children and her grandson, Logan.

Cary met Jim, her husband of over 30 years, when they both worked as therapists in the same mental health center in Valparaiso. In 1989, they moved to Oregon. They sold everything that didn't fit into a rental truck and

set out for Portland. Although they didn't know anyone in Portland and didn't have jobs, they knew where they were meant to be and trusted in their ability to make a new life in a place they loved.

Cary worked at the Oregon State Hospital, where she was employed as a Mental Health Specialist for almost 25 years. She was an outspoken advocate for her patients and fellow workers. Cary championed patient rights and fought to bring the option of alternative care to the hospital. She was instrumental in starting successful yoga and mindfulness meditation programs at OHS. These programs were well-liked and well-attended. Many of Cary's patients sent her notes affirming how very helpful yoga and meditation are to their recovery.

One of Cary's colleagues said, ``Speaking up for alternative care in the workplace can take courage. Cary treated her patients with compassion, dignity and respect, and they loved her for it. She was fierce!'' Cary's family and friends will forever remember her for her caring, compassionate, playful nature and for the joy she brought to all their lives. Cary was loved by everyone who knew her and she is terribly missed.

Cary is survived by her husband Jim, and mother, Eileen Zneimer of Portland; father, Jack Zneimer of Sarasota, FL; son Aaron Luchene of Canby; daughter, Ann Klug of Merrillville, IN; brothers Peter Zneimer of Chicago and John Zneimer of LaCrosse, WI; and sister Maud of Mill Valley, CA.

We send our sincere condolences to her family, and join in the celebration of her life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Congressman Kurt Schrader to honor the life and work of Dr. Steven Edward Fritz, an Oregonian whose life was tragically lost in an accident in September of 2014.

Steven Fritz was born in Frankfort, Kentucky on September 21, 1960. His parents are Salvation Army officers and Steven enjoyed moving to various assignments from Maine, Philadelphia, New Jersey, and New York City. Active in the Salvation Army, Steven was a teenager when he got his first job as a dishwasher at Camp Tecumseh, a Salvation Army children's camp in New Jersey. There he met Amanda, his wife, in 1977.

Steven graduated from Geneva College in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, and medical school at the University of Rochester, NY. He completed residency training in psychiatry at Oregon Health Sciences University and became a board certified psychiatrist, serving at the Oregon State Hospital (OSH) for 24 years. For several years he was the Chief Medical Officer at OSH, but he preferred taking care of patients so he left administrative work and returned to staffing forensics units. He was also the President of the local chapter of the Association of Federal, State, and County Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Steven was described by his colleagues as a ``compassionate clinician'' who was guided by kindness and what was best for his patients. He often worked with people who would otherwise be incarcerated, and his approach was valued for its philosophy of allowing patient-collaboration in guiding treatments. He was praised frequently by his colleagues, his patients, and their families.

After Steven and Amanda married in May of 1982, they did a nationwide search to choose a place to settle and raise their family. They moved to Portland in 1986. Their three children were born during the four years of Steve's residency training at OHSU. Steve and Amanda worked hard for many years raising their children, who attended Portland's public schools, and exploring natural areas in Oregon and the West Coast together as a family. They all particularly enjoyed camping in the Alvord Desert. Steve relished his relationships with his children, and was a terrific father.

Dr. Steven Fritz is survived by his wife Amanda; their three children, Luke, Maxwell, and Alessandra; his parents, Colonel Edward Fritz and Colonel Emily Fritz of Portland, OR; two brothers and their wives, Samuel and Diana of Amherst, NY and Andrew and Jody of Olympia, WA; his loving in-laws in England, including mother-in-law Pamela and siblings-in-law Peter and Sue; and many nephews and nieces.

We send our sincere condolences to his family, and join in the celebration of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5806, a bill that seeks to extend three tax provisions that I strongly support.

Despite my interest in seeing the tax provisions before us extended permanently, I am concerned that doing so in a package without so many other important tax provisions might jeopardize our ability to achieve comprehensive reform of our tax code next Congress. Across the district I represent, my constituents support changing the tax code to make it fair and simple. This will be a difficult process that will require significant work and compromise. Accordingly, I am opposing the bill before us today, but I will seek a permanent extension of these provisions through broader tax reform next Congress.

I am committed to policies that support our social safety net, particularly as our constituents continue to recover from the effects of the economic downturn. But by passing individual extensions, we are leaving important provisions on the table that will benefit our middle- class families. What they need is comprehensive tax reform that levels the playing field and allows everyone to have a fair opportunity to succeed.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the 113th Congress draws to a close, American businesses and families are looking to us with hopes for a new spirit of bipartisanship and decisive action. We should take this opportunity to find common ground and give certainty to our constituents instead of continuing to postpone difficult choices and leaving the tough decisions for next year.

The bill before us today, H.R. 5771, extends several important tax provisions, many of which I have actively supported over the last two years. But by failing to extend these provisions beyond 2014, we have missed the chance to provide much-needed certainty to our constituents. For this reason I am reluctantly supporting H.R. 5771, but also calling on my colleagues to embrace long-term solutions as we consider these important issues going forward.

The production tax credit for renewable energy has been key to the growth of an important industry in my home state of Oregon and in this country, and ending it in 2014 jeopardizes new investments in our communities and job creation opportunities. H.R. 5771 extends the production tax credit, but the short-term nature of the extension makes it difficult for the wind industry and others to meaningfully plan future projects. This does nothing to end our dependence on fossil fuels from other nations, and it doesn't create any incentives for innovative clean energy companies to hire additional employees.

H.R. 5771 does provide some relief to underwater homeowners who have had a portion of their mortgage debt forgiven, and that is a provision that comes as a great relief to many of our constituents. But still others will wonder what to expect in tax year 2015 and beyond, thus adding to the financial instability that prevents families from feeling the benefits of the slowly developing economic recovery.

Making businesses and families in our districts wait until the end of the year to find out whether we will grant a retroactive extension of many tax provisions that affect their returns and their finances is unacceptable. Governing by crisis must end now. Americans and Oregonians expect more from us, and they deserve more from us. H.R. 5771 is a small step in the right direction, but Congress needs to do more and give our constituents the certainty they need to lead us to a robust economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, I am here this morning to discuss an important issue that we hear about when we talk with teachers, parents, students, and school administrators. In conversation after conversation, they have expressed concern about what seems like an endless stream of tests that, in many cases, do little, if anything, to improve learning or classroom instruction.

Of course, assessments play an important role in education, and high- quality assessments are valuable for informing meaningful instruction. Nonetheless, too much time is devoted to redundant, low-quality, or unnecessary tests.

In many cases, teachers administer tests, but the results aren't made available for months, and hardworking educators have little opportunity to design individualized support based on the results of those tests.

Furthermore, some of the tests are redundant. They take up time that could be used on meaningful instruction, use resources best spent elsewhere, and cause students undue stress. In other schools, too much time is dedicated to preparing for tests that are not well-aligned with State standards. Simply put, unnecessary assessments have hindered our progress as a global leader in education.

We know that the Federal Government mandates several tests each year, and States and school districts often require even more tests. Does this all make sense? Do all of these tests improve instruction, improve public education?

Today, I rise to discuss legislation that I am working on to help States and local districts implement good, reliable assessments aligned to standards, and importantly, eliminate redundant, poor-quality assessments that take valuable time from teachers and students, time that could be used on meaningful instruction.

We don't need more tests. We need better tests. My bill will use an existing grant to provide States with funding to develop assessment systems that ensure the best use of students' test results and that align assessments with college and career-ready standards.

The transition to rigorous content standards is hard work, and my bill will support States as they implement high-quality assessments linked to those standards.

Working with local educational agencies, States will create assessment plans outlining how they will improve the quality of their tests, how they will use the assessment data, and how they will make the data more accessible to educators, students, and parents.

This legislation will also support States and local districts that want to lead the way on developing more sensible assessment systems. States will be able to volunteer to audit their assessment systems and use the results to design plans to eliminate unnecessary and redundant testing.

Many State school chiefs and district superintendents have recently made a commitment to this effort. My legislation will make available much-needed Federal support.

The focus in the classroom should be on the student. This bill will help States improve their assessments and make better use of the results, so they can draw valuable conclusions about students and give educators the data they need, so they can do what they do best: teach.

Ultimately, we must address the culture of testing that has created stress for students, parents, and teachers. This bill is a strong first step. It keeps control in the hands of the States and school districts, and it provides the funding to streamline assessment systems and make sure that the remaining assessments are high quality and useful.

My bill offers this support through an existing funding stream, and it will help put the focus back on our students. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, a short bill with a long list of problems.

Now, I applaud the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Schweikert, the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, for his goal on transparency. Transparency is something our constituents care about and deserve. But transparency is something we should accomplish through collaboration with and input from the scientific community. This bill, unfortunately, passed out of the Science Committee on a party-line vote and is opposed, for good reason, by research institutions and scientists from across the country.

As the cornerstone of its regulatory process, the EPA relies on peer- reviewed science conducted by the brightest minds at our Nation's universities and other research organizations. The EPA already publicly discloses the studies that support regulatory action.

Large cohort studies like the American Cancer Society and Harvard Six Cities studies, which made an association between air pollution and mortality, are vital to the Agency as it pursues its mission of protecting public health. These studies that were peer reviewed have, since they were conducted, been subject to reanalysis with their findings confirmed.

This Secret Science Reform Act, which looks simple on its face, will actually encumber, if not eradicate, the EPA's ability to perform its most fundamental duty: protecting Americans from significant risks to human health and the environment. The EPA would only, under this bill, be able to rely on publicly available data and studies that are reproducible, making it virtually impossible to use many reports and other sources of scientific data.

I want to add that this act also perpetuates the incorrect notion that the science relied on by the EPA is somehow hidden. It is not. This misconception is based on conflating the meanings of ``secret'' and ``confidential.'' One thing should be made clear in this debate. None of the information used by the EPA is secret. Some information may be confidential if it includes, for example, the personal health information of millions of Americans who participated in a study about air quality.

Finally, another concern about this act is that it attempts to block access to good science, in part, because the Science Committee majority has not been able to obtain data it requested through a subpoena, data containing the personal health information of millions of Americans that was part of the Harvard Six and American Cancer studies. The EPA responded to that subpoena with all of the information in its possession that it was legally authorized to provide--boxes and boxes and stacks and stacks of data and information--and apparently that was not enough. Now the Secret Science Reform Act is going further, with chilling consequences for the EPA and for every American who deserves to enjoy clean air and clean water.

Let's bring back common sense. Using the personal health information of Americans as a bargaining chip is unacceptable. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation.

Let's go back to the drawing board, work collaboratively to make this a better bill, and let the EPA go back to protecting the public health of Americans.