Suzanne Bonamici

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address an issue of national security. The Department of Defense is the world's largest institutional consumer of fuel. As a result, the volatility of oil prices directly affects military readiness. Every $10 increase on a barrel of oil costs the Department of Defense an additional $1.3 billion a year. To reduce our military's and our Nation's dependence on a single source of fuel, the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have been working closely over the past 4 years with the private sector to scale up an advanced ``drop-in'' biofuel production capability. One of those projects is in Lakeview, Oregon, where a forest biomass plant will produce fuel for the U.S. Navy and Marines. It is one of three companies selected by the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture to produce cost-competitive drop-in military biofuels. Once at scale, these biorefineries will have a combined capacity to produce 100 million gallons of fuel for military ships and planes while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent compared to conventional fuels. Our military and Nation are faced with a growing global demand for energy. We need to have a greater emphasis on renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies. Yet, without any apparent logic, this bill would prohibit the Department of Energy--the lead agency with deep, technical expertise in this area--from partnering with the Department of Defense to develop biofuels. The amendment that I am offering strikes this prohibition and would allow the Departments of Energy and Defense to continue their efforts to learn from each other's expertise. Mr. Chairman, I will introduce into the Record a letter opposing the prohibition from the Truman National Security Project, where they note--these are retired military--that 4 years of partnership between the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have seen impressive progress in the development of advanced drop-in biofuels that will allow the military to turn away from an outdated fuel source. Members of the military from every rank and service have spoken out in favor of the continued investment in biofuels for the reasons of cost and capability. Operation Free, April 21, 2015. Hon. Lamar Smith, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: The American military is the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. The United States Congress has the critical responsibility of empowering our military leaders by equipping that force with the tools they need to engage effectively in a world of ever-increasing security threats. Accordingly, we urge you to withdraw the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, which would bar the Department of Energy from continuing a four-year collaboration with the Departments of Defense and Agriculture to develop cost- effective advanced biofuels. Time and again throughout our history, the military has chosen to innovate towards new solutions. While the advances resulting from these efforts have often benefited our nation as a whole, they are undertaken not for the sake of novelty or adventure but to fill a key operational or tactical need. Advanced biofuels fills such a need: Reducing the dangerous dependence of the U.S. military on fossil fuels. The Department of Defense is the world's largest institutional consumer of fuel. With approximately $15 billion per year budgeted simply to maintain freedom of movement, the U.S. military is dangerously sensitive to the volatility of oil prices; a $10 change in the price per barrel of crude oil leaves the Department of Defense with a $1.3 billion shortfall and sees increased profits to countries who oppose our interests around the world. And because oil is priced in a global market, no amount of domestic production can insulate the military from these effects. We have learned firsthand that oil truly is the Achilles' heel of our military. With most of the world's oil traveling through two or three major chokepoints, the military must allocate significant manpower and resources to keeping those sea lanes open and secure. Moreover, as the military transitions from large-scale land engagements in the Middle East and towards a broader engagement in the Asia-Pacific, the costs and logistical challenges associated with moving fuel over thousands of miles of ocean will only increase. The threat of oil dependence along with the need for energy security isn't going away any time soon. And we shouldn't impede progress of alternatives that are moving forward now. Four years of partnership between the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have seen impressive progress in the development of advanced, ``drop in'' biofuels that will allow the military to turn away from an outdated fuel source. Top line military platforms as diverse as the super-sonic F/A-18 ``Green Hornet,'' the Air Force's F16 fighter jets, the MH- 60S Seahawk helicopter, the AV-8B Harrier, the Fire Scout unmanned vehicle, the Riverine Command Boat (RCB-X) and the frigate USS Ford have all operated at full capacity and with no averse side effects using American-made biofuels. Members of the military from every rank and service have spoken out in favor of the continued investment in biofuels for reasons of cost and capabilities alike. These voices, rather than political leanings or parochial interests, must steer national security policy. Accordingly, we urge you to withdraw the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 and to ensure that the U.S. military is free to pursue the fuel sources its leaders deign necessary for maximum operational and tactical success. Respectfully, Michael Breen, Executive Director, Truman National Security Project Army Captain (Fmr.). RADM Leendert ``Len'' Hering, USN (Ret.). Lt Gen Norman Seip, USAF (Ret.).

Ms. BONAMICI. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1561, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2015. This bill, introduced by my friend, Mr. Lucas, builds on the work that subcommittee chairman Mr. Bridenstine and former subcommittee chairman Mr. Stewart and I did in the last Congress. The language before us today is the result of a truly bipartisan effort with extensive discussions and negotiations across the aisle. Although the bill is not perfect, it is a good bill and a better bill than the one that passed in the last Congress, and I ask all my colleagues to support it. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has many important tasks at the cutting edge of science and service. The agency's responsibilities for weather forecasting are critical to our country. We are proud of the good work of NOAA and its dedicated employees. They are a committed workforce, responsible for keeping our communities safe during inclement weather. But with the increasing frequency of severe weather events, there can and should be improvements in weather forecasting. For example, forecasts can be more precise regarding what will happen and when. Forecasts can provide more lead time, especially of severe weather events, to allow people to prepare. Forecast information can be communicated more effectively to the public and those in harm's way so we can reduce the loss of life and property. This bill is designed to make sure that NOAA achieves these important goals. H.R. 1561 draws upon the model of innovation used by the military services where researchers work hand in hand with those on the front lines to develop innovations that have real-world practical returns. The bill connects the research side of NOAA, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, more effectively with the forecasting needs of the National Weather Service. The bill contains several provisions that will improve interactions and information sharing between OAR and NWS. It also establishes new ways for NOAA to hear from and work with the broader research and private weather communities. NOAA is not the only agency that researches weather or has responsibility for communicating forecast information, so the bill establishes interagency coordination, through the Office of Science and Technology Policy, across the agencies that have these responsibilities. This coordination will leverage our limited resources and more rapidly spread the adoption of best tools and practices across agencies. H.R. 1561 recognizes that the best forecasts in the world will not fully serve the public's needs unless we have an effective communications system. The bill directs NOAA to do more research, listen to experts, and improve its risk communication techniques. The bill also reestablishes a program that allows NOAA to make awards to people who save the lives of others through reliance on NOAA's Weather Radio All Hazards program. This bill also establishes a pilot program at NOAA to look to the commercial sector for weather forecasting data. This is an overdue effort to ensure that Federal dollars are spent effectively and leveraged appropriately. Additionally, the bill requires NOAA to run simulations of the effect of different configurations of instruments and datasets on forecasting accuracy so the agency can look at the benefits and costs of different arrays of sensors. It is important to make sure that these requirements are not too prescriptive so that NOAA is able to use the most efficient, accurate, and cost-effective model for the situation. I will continue to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on how we can make these provisions work well. In summary, the changes in this bill will bring about advances that result in better development and deployment of forecast innovations and technology. Importantly, most of these changes are coming at little or no cost. The bill is focused on changes to internal processes rather than simply spending more money. To the degree that the bill does expand the agency's authorization for weather research, it is done in line with anticipated needs in this area. Again, I want to thank the Members on both sides of the aisle for their input and support. I am particularly grateful to Ms. Johnson for her support during negotiations as well as Mr. Lucas and Mr. Bridenstine. Also, I want to thank the hard-working staff on both sides of the aisle for their efforts to keep coming back to the table and helping to move this forward. Mr. Chairman, we also received many letters of support for H.R. 1561 from more than 20 different organizations, including the Weather Coalition; the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which represents more than 100 research institutions; the Global Weather Corporation; the American Weather and Climate Industry Association; the American Commercial Space Weather Association; and many others. Additionally, we received letters of support from a number of individuals who serve on the Environmental Information Services Working Group, which is one of NOAA's scientific advisory bodies. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, let me say, again, that this is a good bill that will improve weather forecasting innovation and services. The results of the changes contained in this legislation? The public will be safer because of more timely and more accurate forecasts that will protect lives and property. We will also be growing our economy and creating jobs through this bill. Researchers have found that annual variations in weather can produce billions of dollars in reduced U.S. gross domestic product. With stakes that large, we owe it to our Nation to improve weather forecasting. H.R. 1561 takes intelligent steps to support NOAA and to drive needed change in how we harness research to forecasting needs. Again, I want to thank the many leaders in the research community and the private weather sector who provided advice to the committee as we worked on this bill. I also want to extend my appreciation to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Dr. Kathy Sullivan, for her cooperation and advice. I will continue working with my colleagues across the aisle and in the other body until we have a good, final bill. Again, I thank my cosponsors, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, recently I visited the Newberg-Dundee bypass, a highway construction project in my district that will divert traffic around two small communities that are thriving but choked with congestion. Once completed, local residents and visitors will no longer be stuck in traffic, especially on the weekends. The many wineries and farms and other small businesses in the county won't have to wait hours to get their customers in and their products out of the region. New businesses will see opportunity in relocating to the area, rather than obstacles to commerce. For this growing county, a comprehensive transportation network is critical to its success. This isn't just true for my district; it is true across the country. Our roads, trains, buses, bridges, and ports are at the center of our economy. They are the way people get to work and businesses get their goods to market. But unfortunately, funding for our transportation system continues to shrink. Spending on our infrastructure is now at its smallest share of GDP in the last 22 years. In my State, in a 2014 report, the Oregon Department of Transportation estimates that the current 20-year forecast budget for the State highway system is insufficient to preserve and maintain pavement and bridges in their current condition. The report finds that not only will our roads deteriorate, but an increasing number of bridges will close to heavy trucks, forcing lengthy detours that will cost businesses time and money. Poor-quality roads lead to greater maintenance costs, congested arteries, and traffic that delays the delivery of products; and, of course, the failure to update our trains and bridges threatens public safety. I implore this body, let us take action before another tragic accident. The short-term extensions of the highway trust fund have left contractors and workers with uncertainty as they delay or even scrap construction plans. This costs us jobs and defers unnecessary maintenance and new construction while increasing expenses. Recently, Ed Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department, said: ``Years of congressional inaction on a long-term surface transportation bill has harmed our economy.'' Congress needs to ``get to work on a robust long-term bill that expands investments and job creation and is paid for with a sustainable revenue stream.'' I couldn't agree more. The Newberg-Dundee bypass was decades in the making. It is a partnership with local, State, tribal, and Federal support, and, quite simply, it wouldn't be under construction without previously approved funding. The Oregon Department of Transportation couldn't make a commitment without a commitment from the Federal Government as well. When I visited the construction site last week, it was clear that this project is putting people to work: contractors, construction workers, people down the supply chain, and many others. Now with just a few days until the current transportation bill expires, I call on my colleagues to take up a robust, multimodal, long- term transportation bill. Funding transportation provides our communities with an economic boost now and reinforces our infrastructure in a way that will sustain and strengthen our economy years from now. Mr. Speaker, there have been many discussions in this Chamber about global competitiveness and the U.S. role in the world. World class infrastructure is critical to securing and maintaining this role. We need to act. We need to act now.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. BONAMICI. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his cosponsorship of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a modest increase in the Water Power Program, which supports hydropower technology as well as new and innovative solutions, like hydrokinetic renewable energy. I urge the support of this bipartisan amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of the power and potential of water and in support of a bipartisan amendment that I am pleased to offer with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Congressman Perry, and with my colleague from Maine, Congresswoman Pingree. Mr. Chairman, our amendment would increase funding to the Department of Energy's Water Power Program by just $9 million, which is a small price tag that will yield a huge return on investment. This increase is offset by an equal amount by the departmental administration account. The modest increase that we are proposing will support hydropower and also the development of innovative hydropower technologies, along with marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies. The development of these new technologies can offer the United States a chance to lead the world in an emerging area of abundant renewable energy. Marine and hydrokinetic energy--in particular, energy from waves, currents, and tides, which, unlike the Sun and wind, do not stop--is an exciting frontier in the renewable energy sector. Currently, Oregon State University, the University of Washington, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks are using Federal funding from the Water Power Program to support the testing and research activities of the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, a center that will provide visionary entrepreneurs a domestic location to test wave energy devices, along with other technology, rather than traveling to Scotland to use the European test center. Without continued Federal investment, Europe will remain the leader. When fully developed, wave and tidal energy systems could generate a significant amount of total energy used in the United States. As Congress promotes technologies that can help lower our constituents' energy bills, we must embrace new and innovative solutions, like marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy. With this modest increase, the Water Power Program can do that while continuing to support a Federal investment in conventional hydropower technology. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the bipartisan amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. This legislation is a long overdue remedy to the flawed Medicare physician payment formula known as the Sustainable Growth Rate, or SGR. I look forward to putting an end to the temporary patches that Congress has repeatedly passed in place of a permanent fix. Replacing the SGR and bringing predictability to Medicare will encourage more providers to enter and remain in the program, which in turn will improve health care access and affordability for seniors. Additionally, H.R. 2 marks an important shift from fee-for-service payments to a system that rewards quality outcomes. This bill also includes several important reauthorizations to crucial programs, including the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Qualifying Individual program, and the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program. Although I would have supported a longer authorization of CHIP, which would bring more certainty to our states and the children and families they serve through the program, I hope we can work together during the next two years to develop a strong authorization before it expires in two years. I am also very pleased that this legislation includes an extension of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Hundreds of jurisdictions across the country--including timber- dependent counties all across Oregon--rely on this essential funding for their schools, government services, and law enforcement. Lastly, H.R. 2 provides continued authorization for Community Health Centers, which provide important services in underserved communities. Although support for community health centers will prevent millions of patients from losing access to primary care, the funding will unfortunately remain subject to the Hyde Amendment--a harmful provision that undermines women's health. I am deeply troubled with the continuation of this public law. I am also troubled by the precedent set in this bill where we will begin charging some seniors more for their premiums. Medicare, like Social Security, is an earned benefit paid for over a lifetime. Despite these serious objections, I will support this bipartisan legislation. Congress must preserve access to primary care for vulnerable individuals and bring long sought stability to Medicare for our seniors. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this comprehensive legislation and permanently fix the SGR.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 8, an unnecessary partisan attack on hardworking Americans that will interfere with the rights of workers to an expeditious election on union representation. America's middle class workers should be free to decide if they want an election. Unfortunately, the current process can be mired in litigation, and in some cases, workers waiting for an election have faced interference or intimidation from outside groups. The NLRB's rule safeguards the ability of workers to choose whether to be represented by a union without confronting unnecessary delays. It makes little sense why Congress would want to get in the way of middle class Americans--factory line workers, health care workers, and utility workers--who ask for an election on union representation. It is also unreasonable to assume that employers, many of which have sophisticated legal teams, are going to be caught flat-footed. There is no ambush here. Mr. Speaker, the NLRB had a lengthy rulemaking proceeding with thousands of comments. It is unfair and, in fact, draconian to now use the Congressional Review Act to try to undermine the rights of workers by getting rid of this rule. The resolution is an ill-advised attempt to silence the voice of American workers, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Ms. Johnson for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, a short bill, which I have read, with a long list of problems. I want to start by applauding the sponsors of the bill for their focus on and goal of transparency. It is something our constituents care about and deserve. But transparency is something that we should accomplish through collaboration and with input from the scientific community. This bill, on the contrary, is opposed, for good reason, by research institutions and scientists from across the country. Mr. Chairman, we received a lot of feedback from outside groups, and I am going to place into the Record after my remarks some letters we have received from groups opposing H.R. 1030 from organizations like the American Association for Justice, Public Citizen, the National Physicians Alliance, the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, and others. Instead of working together to find a solution that increases transparency and access to federally funded research, the Secret Science Reform Act instead has the potential, in the long term, to compromise the health and well-being of Americans, and here is why: the 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 their health and to the environment. Because H.R. 1030 would require that the EPA rely only on studies that are publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results, the act will prevent the agency from considering the best and most relevant science. The EPA relies on peer-reviewed science conducted by the brightest minds at our Nation's universities and other research organizations. Large cohort peer review studies, such as the American Cancer Society and Harvard Six Cities studies, which made an association between air pollution and mortality, are vital to the Agency's implementation of the Clean Air Act. Let me be clear: the EPA does publicly disclose which studies it relies on to support its regulatory actions. For good reason, it doesn't make the raw data from these studies publicly available. This bill before us today, if adopted, would make it virtually impossible to use many reports and other sources of scientific data, such as those I mentioned earlier. First, in many cases, the EPA cannot compel the release or disclosure of information of which it is not the custodian. Second, confidentiality requirements or other legal prohibitions on the sharing of certain types of data, like health information, would preclude studies from consideration simply because they conform to common ethical and legal standards. Additionally, this act perpetuates the incorrect notion that the science relied on by the EPA is somehow hidden. This misconception is based on conflating the meanings of ``secret'' and ``confidential.'' One thing should be made very clear: none of the information used by the EPA is secret. Some information might be confidential--if it includes, for example, the personal health information of millions of Americans--as it should be. My colleagues supporting this bill argue that the data could be de- identified to protect confidentiality and privacy and concerns about disclosure of personal health information are unfounded, but according to a letter from the American Statistical Association, de- identification methods like stripping names and other personally identifiable information do not often suffice to protect confidentiality. Statisticians and computer scientists have repeatedly shown how easy is to be re-identify an individual using social media and public records. The Secret Science Reform Act will have chilling consequences for the EPA and for every American who wants to enjoy clean air and clean water. Let's bring back common sense and work together. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation and let the EPA go back to protecting the public health of all Americans. February 24, 2015. Hon. Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Bonamici: As the 114th Congress gets underway and your Committee considers its work ahead, I am writing on behalf of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology to respectfully request a reevaluation of previously introduced and House-passed legislation regarding access to research data. Last November, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, a bill that our Society strongly opposed. Had it become law, H.R. 4012 would have prevented the EPA from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments unless all underlying data were reproducible and made publicly available. In so doing, the legislation would have barred EPA from considering much of the best available science investigating the effects of the chemical, physical and microbial environment on human health, because many of the related findings are based on confidential data, such as private medical information. Neither H.R. 4012, nor its companion, S. 2613, were considered in the Senate. Our members support the sharing of epidemiological data when its purpose is to advance scientific knowledge and when data sharing protects the confidentiality of study subjects. We have participated in some of the largest data sharing efforts to advance scientific knowledge, and our Society has promulgated transparent procedures that protect patient confidentiality for assuring unbiased reanalysis of epidemiological data sets. Moreover, our members are developing and have applied new approaches to data sharing that both increase transparency and protect confidential information, with the objective of promoting rigorous evaluation of study results by other analysts. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss our work with you and how we are sharing data for reanalysis and the advancement of science, while also protecting subjects' confidentiality. Furthermore, should legislation similar to H.R. 4012 and S. 2613 be introduced in the 114th Congress, we would appreciate the opportunity to share our strong concerns over the bill's likely impact on the privacy of individual study participants and on the scientific enterprise and human health. The International Society for Environmental Epidemiology is an international organization with members from more than 60 countries. Topics addressed by ISEE members include environmental exposures, health effects, methodology, environment-gene interactions, and ethics and law. We thank you for your time and look forward to working with Congress in the future. Sincerely, Francine Laden, Sc.D., President, International Society for Environmental Epidemiology.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I want to first correct a misstatement that I made. I meant to say we did not have a subcommittee markup. We did have a full committee markup. However, we did not have any hearings this Congress on this very important issue. I want to just add to what my good colleague, Mr. Lucas, said a couple of times about how this is a work in progress. If it is a work in progress, Mr. Chairman, I submit that we shouldn't be here quite yet today. We should continue to work together on this because there are a lot of goals that we agree on. If it is a work in progress, why are we on the floor voting today? Mr. Chairman, I submit that this substitute amendment does more to improve the transparency to get to the goals that everyone agrees we need on the Science Advisory Board. I submit that it is a better approach. However, I would prefer that we continue to work, and then bring the bill up for a vote. I am an optimist too, Mr. Lucas, and I could get it done. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, our government's ability to protect public health is at stake when we consider legislation like the bill before us today. Unfortunately, we do not have to look far to see the impacts of these kinds of delay tactics. Articles published last year by the Center for Public Integrity chronicle efforts to slow down and to undermine the EPA's efforts to keep arsenic out of drinking water and benzene out of American workplaces. When we prevent the EPA from taking timely action to protect the public from known poisons and cancer-causing agents, we are putting lives at risk. The 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 the 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 the EPA receives, we should be giving the Agency the tools it needs to strengthen and improve the regulatory process with sound science. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me, once again, in opposing this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. I want to start by thanking my colleagues, Mr. Lucas and Chairman Smith, for their intention to improve the EPA's Science Advisory Board, and I especially want to thank Chairman Smith for working with me on other legislation that passed the Science Committee and the House on a bipartisan basis. Members and staff on both sides of the aisle worked tirelessly last week and, in fact, since the last Congress toward a bipartisan bill about the Science Advisory Board that accommodated much, if not all, of the fundamental principles shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach agreement on some very critical provisions by this date. Accordingly, I will be urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill before us today. This bill has not changed meaningfully since we considered it last year, and I stand here today with the same concerns I raised last Congress. My colleagues who support H.R. 1029 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 the EPA's Science Advisory Board. All of these are good government principles that I agree with, and if this bill or the bill we considered last year achieved these goals, I would be here ready to support it, but H.R. 1029 would not achieve these good government goals. Instead of improving the Science Advisory Board structure or operation, the bill will limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives and allow seemingly endless delays in EPA's regulatory process. H.R. 1029 would make it easier for industry representatives to serve on the Board, even if they have a financial conflict of interest. To be clear, I am not opposed to industry experts participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer review process at the EPA. Their insight into processes and industry conduct 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 this is likely to be the result of the adoption of this bill. This bill conflates bias with financial conflicts of interest, and it assumes that a simple disclosure will prevent a material interest in an outcome from coloring the judgment and actions of a Board member. Congress should not be supporting legislation that undermines longstanding ethics requirements and practices that have worked well to ensure fairness and the balance of views on all Federal advisory committees. Another troubling element of H.R. 1029 is that it would significantly delay the work of the Science Advisory Board. The Board should absolutely seek public comment on the science it is reviewing, and, if necessary, it should extend the duration of the public comment period to ensure that interested parties have ample opportunity to submit their views. With this, we agree. However, H.R. 1029 takes this process to the extreme by creating unnecessary burdens, including a loophole that could keep the Board from ending the public comment period and that could require that the Board provide written responses to a significant number of comments it receives. H.R. 1029 distorts the important public participation process to create what amounts to an endless appeals process that will provide those who disagree with the EPA an effective tool to halt, derail, or slow the Agency's rulemaking. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record several letters from organizations that have similar concerns with H.R. 1029, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Center for Health Research, the Center for Medical Consumers, the National Physicians Alliance, and others. March 16, 2015. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: We are writing to express our opposition to H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, and H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015. Our organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving public health. Science is the bedrock of sound regulatory decision making. The best science underscores everything our organizations do to improve health. We strongly believe in a transparent and open regulatory process. A vital element of research is patient confidentiality. Physicians and researchers have earned the trust of their patients by steadfastly maintaining patient confidentiality. Patient confidentiality is a clear legal and ethical obligation. The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 will compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to either ignore the best science by prohibiting the agency from considering peer- reviewed research that is based on confidential patient information or force EPA to publicly release confidential patient information, which would violate federal law. This is an untenable outcome that would completely undermine the ability of the EPA to perform its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and myriad other federal laws. The legislation will not improve EPA's actions; rather, it will stifle public health protections. The kind of information disclosure envisioned in this legislation exceeds that required by peer-reviewed journals. We believe much of the intent of this legislation is already achieved through the current peer-review process required by all academic journals. The vast majority of peer-reviewed journals require manuscript authors to register any trial using human subjects with clinicaltrials.gov. This public registry collects key information on the study population, research goals and methods that allow outside reviewers and scientists to either challenge or attempt to reproduce study results. Additionally, the peer-review process and publication of results invites the broader scientific community to debate study findings. Trial registry and manuscript publications are only part of the process by which scientific endeavors operate in a transparent environment. Private organizations, public charities, research universities, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, corporations and many other entities conduct medical research. Many of these organizations compile large longitudinal data sets that track patients over a period of time. These data serve as the basis of many studies that permit epidemiologists to track disease and risk factor information for large patient populations. The published peer-reviewed information from such data often inform regulatory decision making at the EPA and other federal agencies as well as future research. Not only do these data inform regulatory action, they help inform efforts to educate the public about the magnitude of a disease, risk factors and steps individuals can take to improve their health. In order for EPA to set the most appropriate standards, it must be informed by the best information. Understanding the impact of air pollution on human health and the magnitude of harm caused by pollution at specific levels helps the agency meet its obligations under the Clean Air Act. Absent these data, it is unclear upon what basis the agency could make sound decisions. H.R. 1029, The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 will also undermine the scientific basis for EPA policy, specifically by compromising the integrity of the panel that reviews that science. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is composed of independent scientific and technical experts who are tasked with evaluating the science and providing advice that EPA uses to inform its decision making. The current law provides for balanced panels and experts with diverse backgrounds. This legislation would impose a hiring quota on the SAB that would require ten percent of members to be selected for qualifications other than their scientific expertise. This bill will compromise not only the scientific integrity of the SAB, but also its independence, as the quota would open the door for representatives of the regulated industries to serve on the board. Further, the bill will also, in some cases, prohibit SAB members from participating when their own research is involved--even indirectly. This requirement could block participation of the ``best and the brightest'' researchers in a particular field at the very time their expertise is needed to accurately inform the regulatory process. Finally, the SAB is currently governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act and already has a public comment system in place. H.R. 1029 would add on the burdensome requirement that the SAB respond to individual comments in writing, a requirement that could be so time-consuming as to render the board unable to carry out its function. We urge the U.S. House of Representatives to stand up for sound science and public health protections, and vote NO on both H.R. 1030 and H.R. 1029. Sincerely, Harold Wimmer, National President & CEO, American Lung Association, Georges C. Benjamin, MD, Executive Director, American Public Health Association, Jeffrey Levi, PhD, Executive Director, Trust for America's Health, Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH, Executive Director, American Thoracic Society, Tonya Winders, President & CEO, Allergy & Asthma Network.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that the National Center for Health Research is concerned. They ask: What happens if a scientist relies on expertise that is not specifically permitted in the bill? Will there be legal ramifications? Clearly, scientific experts will think twice before joining the Science Advisory Board if it means they will have to consult their lawyers before they give advice. Mr. Chairman, there is some ambiguous language in this. We can do a better job making sure that the Science Advisory Board functions in an efficient way that actually helps inform their decisions. I suggest that we get back to the table, rather than pass this bill today, and find strong legislation that improves the Science Advisory Board. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the bill before us today does undertake the laudable goal of improving transparency at the Environmental Protection Agency; however, as I stated previously, the bill, as written, does not accomplish this goal. I worked on this bill in the last Congress; and there were a lot of recommendations that were made, when we had hearings on this bill in the last Congress, where we could all agree--recommendations that the industry supports, that academia supports, and that scientists support. We should be taking those recommendations and adding them to this bill, working together to find a bill that will improve the Science Advisory Board. I want to clarify to my colleagues, we have no objection with industry representation on the Science Advisory Board. That is not the point. What happens under this bill, however, is that financial conflict of interest is conflated with bias, and we could have industry representation with a significant financial interest. That is not the direction we should be going in. Of course, industry people have expertise, as do scientists who work in academia. Again, we can and should work together to improve the EPA's approach to reviewing the science underpinning regulations, but this legislation is not the answer. This bill will only damage and delay the process, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would have a negative effect on the participation of the Nation's best scientists, punishing them for providing invaluable expert advice to the EPA. This amendment would penalize scientists who have received any grant from the EPA by precluding them from serving on the EPA's Science Advisory Board, a Board that is charged with providing the most sound and reliable scientific advice to the EPA; yet it is those very scientists who have received EPA grants who are often the very best in their field. Why would we pass an amendment that limits our Nation's most qualified experts from reviewing EPA actions? By precluding these scientists from serving on the Board, it could greatly diminish the pool of eligible, qualified experts who can serve on the Science Advisory Board and, more importantly, serve the Nation. This amendment essentially guarantees that the EPA will not receive the best advice from the best scientists. I can't fathom why we would do that. Of additional concern is a draconian provision in the amendment that prohibits a Board member from applying for an EPA grant or contract for 3 years after serving on the Board. I don't understand how or why we can legislate against someone applying for a grant. Three years without the ability to apply for a grant from one of our Federal research agencies can arrest the careers of our Nation's best and brightest minds. Furthermore, the amendment isn't even clear on how limited people are from applying and where they can apply. Why would we agree to an amendment that is constraining our Nation's ability to develop and foster scientific knowledge? This kind of ban is punitive, and it would force researchers to choose between public service and their own research. It makes no sense in any other area of government, and it makes no sense here. We want and need the best and brightest Americans serving our national interests everywhere, and we should never entertain the idea of punishing experts for providing valuable and needed public service. I cannot support or recommend support for any amendment that has a punitive effect on the best and brightest scientific minds in the country, and I cannot support an amendment that would limit the Environmental Protection Agency from considering the full and complete spectrum of expertise for membership to their Science Advisory Board. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for working with me on other legislation. I do want to point out that if there is something that isn't in the amendment, as my colleague noted, we have to keep in mind that the Science Advisory Boards are already covered by the Federal Advisory Committee Act that governs Federal advisory committees just like the Science Advisory Board and helps provide for balanced panels and subcommittees that include experts with diverse backgrounds who represent wide-ranging perspectives. So we need to look at this policy in conjunction with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. I do want to point out that the underlying bill, H.R. 1029, makes it harder for qualified scientists to serve but makes it easier for industry representatives to serve, even when they have a financial conflict of interest. My amendment in the nature of a substitute levels the playing field and is a better approach. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I mentioned during general debate on H.R. 1029, I am not opposed to--in fact, I support legislation that will improve the EPA's Science Advisory Board. It is something I have been committed to since we had hearings in the last Congress, something we haven't had in this Congress. We didn't even have a markup on this bill. For the most part, I agree with the goals of H.R. 1029 and recognize the need to increase transparency in the selection of Board members and to promote public participation in the Board's review process. That being said, not all of the provisions included in H.R. 1029 will actually improve the Science Advisory Board. In fact, some of the provisions in the bill distort common practices for eliminating or limiting financial conflicts of interest. Another provision turns the valuable and necessary process of soliciting public comments into a tool for the endless delay of public health protections. Over the past week, my staff has worked tirelessly with majority staff in an attempt to find common ground and move forward with a bill that is worthy of broad bipartisan support. Unfortunately, a compromise could not be reached on some of the key problem areas of this bill. However, because I agree with the goals of H.R. 1029--but not with the execution of those goals in the text of this bill--I am offering an amendment that will truly improve the Science Advisory Board. This amendment draws on nonpartisan recommendations from the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Keystone Policy Center, and the Government Accountability Office that will lead to greater transparency in the selection of Board members and restore confidence in the scientific advice offered by the Board. My substitute amendment would require EPA to release a formal memorandum detailing--among other things--the charge to the Board, including the specific questions the Board is tasked with addressing. It would require the EPA to make available online the professional credentials of each person nominated to the Board, including any source of research funding dating back 2 years. It also outlines the disclosure requirements for every nominee. Finally, my amendment requires the EPA to solicit public comment on the nominees, the candidates selected, and the advisory activities of the Board, including specific scientific or technical information for the Board to consider. These changes encompass the core principles that both Republicans and Democrats have agreed should be followed in EPA's Science Advisory Board. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, based on nonpartisan recommendations of experts, and move forward with a bill that makes positive changes to the EPA's Science Advisory Board. My amendment will improve transparency in membership balance, promote public participation without endlessly delaying EPA action or skewing the membership of the board toward conflicted parties. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.