Suzanne Bonamici

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield, I will place into the Record letters from various groups opposed to this bill, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, among many others. In addition, I will place into the Record the Administration's Statement of Administration Policy on the bill threatening a veto if the bill were to pass. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA, November 17, 2014. Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists strongly opposes the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, H.R. 1422, set to be voted on by the House as early as November 18. This bill will cripple the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect public health informed by the best available science. When he discussed his proposal last year, Rep. Chris Stewart (UT) revealed the real purpose of his bill. He attacked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for ``promulgating air quality regulations that could shut down large swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled attacks on the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job- killing climate regulations. . . .'' This proposal will make it nearly impossible for the Board to do the crucial independent evaluations of EPA scientific analyses that enable the agency to protect public health. This bill opens the door for more corporate influence on the Board, because the bill directly stipulates that experts with financial ties to corporations affected by SAB assessments are ``not excluded.'' This signal likely will increase the number of conflicted SAB panelists empowering companies to delay the SAB's work for years, if not decades. It strikes at the heart of the whole concept of independent reviews, and at a time when the ability of corporations to influence policy is already high. At the same time this bill encourages corporate experts to join the SAB, it creates roadblocks for academic experts to meaningfully participate by banning experts' participation in ``advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work.'' This effectively turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head, with the bizarre presumption that corporate experts with direct financial interests are not conflicted while academics who work on these issues are. The notion that a member of the SAB cannot participate in a discussion that cites the member's own work is counterproductive and goes far beyond the common-sense limits imposed by the National Academies. Of course, a scientist with expertise on topics the Science Advisory Board addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies on that topic. That makes the scientist's evaluation more valuable, not less. The bill offers almost limitless opportunities for public comment, opportunities that only benefit moneyed special interests. For example, for each major advisory activity, the Board must convene a public information-gathering session ``to discuss the state of the science'' related to that activity. It is possible, under this requirement, that the Board may find itself repeatedly reexamining ``the state of the science'' on climate change or the harmful effects of certain toxins--each time it made an assessment that touched on either climate change impacts or reducing air pollution. In addition, both the EPA, before it asks for the Board's advice, and the Board itself, would be required to ``accept, consider, and address'' public comments on the agency's questions to the Board. As the SAB deliberates, it must also encourage public comments ``that shall not be limited by an insufficient or arbitrary time restriction.'' In effect, these provisions turn a scientific evaluation into a public hearing, even though EPA must already accept public input on all its regulations. The Board is required to respond in writing to each ``significant'' comment. In practice, it is difficult to see how the Board could impose any deadlines on accepting comment. Nor is it a reasonable expectation on the Board's membership of pro bono experts. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the law's mandates will cost the EPA about $2 million over a four-year period. These are funds that could be put to much better use by a cash-strapped agency. This bill would not improve the work of the Board, and would make it more difficult for the EPA to receive the independent science advice it needs to do its work. We strongly urge your opposition. Sincerely, Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Smith and Mr. Schweikert, for their intention to improve the EPA's Science Advisory Board, and I thank them for working with me on other legislation that passed the Science Committee in the House on a bipartisan basis. It is unfortunate that we could not be repeating that bipartisan collaboration today. My colleagues who support H.R. 1422 may describe this bill as an attempt to strengthen public participation in EPA's scientific review process, improve the process for selecting expert advisers, expand transparency requirements, and limit nonscientific policy advice within EPA's Science Advisory Board. All of these are good government principles that I agree with. If this bill achieved those goals, I would be here today supporting it. However, on close examination of its provisions, H.R. 1422 would not achieve these good government goals. Instead of improving the Science Advisory Board structure or operation, the bill before us today will likely limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives and further delay EPA's regulatory process. H.R. 1422 would make it easier for industry representatives to serve on a board, even if they have a financial conflict of interest. To be clear, and this is something with which I trust my Republican colleagues would agree, I am not opposed to industry experts participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer-review process at the EPA. In fact, their insight into processes and industry can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body. That being said, Congress should not be endorsing legislation that undermines longstanding ethics requirements and practices with the end result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on EPA's Science Advisory Board, and that is likely to be the result of this bill today. At the same time this bill eases the way for more industry members, the act also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the best and brightest from academia to serve because it would exclude from the board anyone who has participated in activities that were even indirectly reviewed by the EPA. This provision would disqualify some of the most qualified scientists because academic researchers frequently need to compete for research funds from the Federal Government, and that includes the EPA. Additionally, it appears H.R. 1422 would also significantly delay the work of the Science Advisory Board with new provisions that would require written responses to significant public comments following new public information-gathering sessions, a requirement that is duplicative because the board meetings are already open to the public and have time set aside for public comment. These provisions would simply result in more work without more resources and unlimited time to halt, derail, or slow EPA actions. Finally, this bill sets a quota for membership on the Scientific Advisory Board from State, local, or tribal governments, which could very well mean that more qualified experts would not be able to serve. EPA's science is tied to its mission, to protect public health and the environment through rational regulation. Scientific research, knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental to EPA's mission and inform its regulatory functions. The need for that expertise is why Congress created advisory bodies such as the Science Advisory Board in the first place, to provide independent advice on the science underpinning regulation, which in turn allows the EPA Administrator to make sound regulatory decisions. Instead of undermining the scientific advice EPA receives, we should be giving the Agency the tools they need to strengthen and improve the regulatory process with sound science. In closing, I want to again thank my colleagues, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Schweikert, for their efforts. This bill does not do what it needs to do. I want to quote from a letter I received from a coalition of organizations, including Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Water Action, and more. The letter states: The bill shifts the current presumption against including people with financial conflicts on SAB panels . . . The bill's provisions are inconsistent with a set of nearly universally accepted scientific principles to eliminate or limit financial conflicts. I agree with this assessment of H.R. 1422, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to respond, with all due respect, to my colleagues who are promoting this bill and asking for balance. On the contrary, what this bill achieves is not balance because, as explained, under this bill, people who are employed by the industry with a financial conflict of interest can serve as long as they disclose their conflict. That is in contrast to current practice, which is biased, which is balanced by membership, but people with financial conflicts of interest do not currently serve on this Science Advisory Board. Just to clarify, it isn't just that people who are employed by industry with a financial conflict of interest will be able to serve; under this bill, people who receive some type of grant cannot participate. Now, just to clarify, these are not government employees. These are employees of research institutions, universities, who may have received some government grant funding. They are not employed by the government. They are not government employees, and that is a big distinction. They are not beholden to any particular government agency, so that is the big difference. I agree that we should have balance and transparency, but unfortunately, this bill takes us in the wrong direction. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I just want to respond that, certainly, we on this side of the aisle agree with the goal of transparency. However, transparency does not mean letting industry, people with a financial interest, serve by disclosing it. That is not what transparency means. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera), who is not only a physician but a great member of the Science Committee.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill before us today does undertake the laudable goal of improving transparency at the EPA. However, as I stated previously and as my colleagues mentioned, this bill, as written, does not accomplish that goal; instead, H.R. 1422 will increase the influence of industry on EPA decisionmaking, including industry members with a financial conflict of interest, while reducing the role of qualified academic researchers in helping to guide regulatory action that is based on sound science. The Union of Concerned Scientists said: At the same time, this bill encourages corporate experts to join the SAB. It creates roadblocks for academic experts to meaningfully participate by banning experts' participation and advising activities that directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work. This effectively turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head with the bizarre presumption that corporate experts with direct financial interests are not affected, while academics who work on these issues are. Breast Cancer Action wrote: This bill's overly broad restriction, that a member of the SAB cannot participate in a discussion that cites the member's own work, is counterproductive and goes far beyond the commonsense limits imposed by the National Academies. Of course, a scientist with expertise on topics that SAB addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies and other work on that topic. That makes the scientist's evaluation more valuable, not less. Mr. Speaker, we can and should work together to improve EPA's approach to reviewing the science underpinning regulations, but this legislation will only damage and delay the process and not bring us the transparency my colleagues seek. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from Utah (Mr. Stewart). I want to state again that I have appreciated Mr. Stewart's collaboration on bills that have come through the Science Committee in the past, and I definitely appreciate his intent to strengthen and bring more transparency to the Science Advisory Board. However, as explained previously and as I will explain, this bill and this amendment do not accomplish what needs to be done. Although my friend's amendment seems to make mostly minor and technical corrections, there are a few changes that raise concern. One consequence of this bill is the expansion of the scope of the Science Advisory Board's work to include risk or hazard assessments proposed by the Agency. Unfortunately, the amendment offered exacerbates this burden and potential delay by adding draft work being done by the Agency to the board's workload. A letter from several leading environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, note that the inclusion of risk and hazard assessments already represents a ``dramatic and unnecessary expansion.'' It would ``increase the burden on the Science Advisory Board and slow the board's ability to complete its tasked objectives.'' Asking the board to constantly peer over the shoulder of the Agency at this stage is an inefficient and ineffective use of the board. I am also concerned about another part of the amendment that requires the board ``be fully and timely responsive to Congress.'' This seems inconsistent with language in the underlying bill that requires the board to ``avoid making policy determinations or recommendations.'' The amendment appears to put the board in a precarious position, making it vulnerable to political interference and placing a shadow over the independence that we all agree the board should have. The Science Advisory Board can provide Congress and the EPA with important scientific advice, but it should not be beholden to Congress or the EPA Administrator. Finally, it is clear that this bill would have a serious impact on the membership of the Science Advisory Board in a way that will prohibit qualified scientists from providing their advice to the EPA. Unfortunately, this amendment only deepens that impact by increasing the number of prohibited activities. If this amendment is adopted, the bill would read: Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work. I want to clearly illustrate what that means. If the EPA were to consider a rule involving gravity, for example, and if Albert Einstein were alive, this bill would prohibit him from offering expert advice, as that is a subject with which he has had ``direct'' involvement. That is obviously an absurd result that would result in fewer qualified people serving. We should want the smartest and most knowledgeable scientists advising the EPA; instead, this bill prohibits them from doing so. Again, I have great respect for my friend from Utah. I am proud that we have worked together in the past and hope we can find areas where we agree going forward, both with the remainder of the 113th and in the 114th Congress. Unfortunately, regardless of what happens with this amendment, I will have to oppose the bill, but I look forward to continuing to work on this issue. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 5682, a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline by circumventing the ongoing regulatory process. Rather than building infrastructure to transport dirty fossil fuels, we should be creating new jobs for our constituents by modernizing our transportation system and upgrading failing infrastructure. Despite some recent gains, our economic recovery is not yet reaching all of our constituents. I agree with supporters of this bill from both sides of the aisle that we must not delay consideration of legislation putting our constituents back to work. House leadership should allow us to vote on and pass a long-term transportation bill, for example. The proposal before us will result in short term job gains in some areas, but the tradeoff is a continued reliance on an outdated, dirty energy source. There is a long list of important legislation awaiting consideration by this Congress that will support new jobs, including the National Infrastructure Development Bank Act, the Bring Jobs Home Act, the Make it in America Manufacturing Act, and legislation to extend tax provisions that lead to the construction of clean energy projects. I have no doubt we can find consensus on these and other policies that will increase American competitiveness and put our constituents back to work, but the bill I opposed today is not the approach we should be taking. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill so we can work together to create new economic opportunities for our constituents.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1086, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. I would like to thank Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for their work on this important legislation. The Child Care and Development Block Grant program is an investment in our future. We know that quality care can set children up for academic success, and helping families cover the costs of child care enables parents to keep working or train for new careers. S. 1086 sets new requirements to strengthen child care quality. These requirements, which include background checks for federally- funded providers and yearly safety inspections for non-licensed providers, represent commonsense measures to protect children. The bill also takes several steps to improve access to child care services. It will give families certainty that their children can receive care for a full year, even if their income--and thus their eligibility--changes. And the bill will help providers budget for their businesses by making sure unpredictable child absences don't affect their funding. Although I am pleased that the bill authorizes increased appropriations for the Child Care and Development Block Grant program, far too many eligible families will continue to go unserved. Supporting safe, high quality child care requires resources, and I hope my colleagues will join me in continuing to call for increased funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant program.