Eddie Johnson

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to expose the cavalier disregard of environmental justice by our President during his first 100 days in office. In a short period of time, President Donald J. Trump made clear his agenda--anti-climate, anti-science, and anti- fact. The current administration has already taken significant steps, in lock-step with Congressional Republicans, to roll back and erase the progress made by the Obama Administration to protect our health, our public lands, and our precious environment. Since taking office, President Trump has signed a number of executive orders reversing many of President Obama's environmental protections-- promoting cleaner air, cleaner water, and more sustainable energy production. The current White House is on a fast-track to derail decades of progress and set our nation back in the effort to combat climate change. The Clean Power Plan, which established comprehensive carbon emission standards and put the United States at the forefront of global environmental stewardship, was one of Trump's first targets. Instead of investing in technological and scientific innovation to make America a leader in greener, cleaner, sustainable energy production and consumption, President Trump has used his office to support the interests of corporations and interests in big oil and dirty coal on the backs of hardworking Americans. Furthermore, the current administration has promulgated efforts to expand environmentally detrimental offshore drilling, allow the dumping of mining waste, and potentially force an exit from the 2015 Paris Agreement which brought the world's powers together in agreement to curb our collective carbon emissions. The proposed budget goes even further in rejecting evidenced-based policy-making. From proposals to cripple the Environmental Protection Agency and zero-out critical programs at the Department of Energy like ARPA-E, this administration has abandoned our nation's effort to protect our planet and be a global leader. Our administration's blatant disregard toward the health, economic, and national security risks associated with global climate change is shortsighted and will only further endanger Americans' health, security, and economic stability. While we will all suffer from the consequences of short-sighted federal policy, the heaviest burden is bound to fall on those already marginalized. Minorities and working class families are already struggling to make ends meet, but study after study shows that they are the most vulnerable to environmental injustices. Subject to downwind and downstream pollution, children and families who are economically disadvantaged often lack the political voice to keep industries from polluting their communities and frequently bear the brunt of deregulatory regimes. Take Flint, Michigan for example, where young children have been exposed to toxic levels of lead from their drinking water. That is wrong and should be unheard of in the world's most powerful nation. I urge my colleagues to consider the kind of country we want our children to live in. Where is the freedom in living in a community where there is no access to clean drinking water, or a city where children are forced to stay inside because the air is so polluted? We can and must do better, Mr. Speaker. The actions the President has set forth thus far do nothing to Make America Great Again; rather, his first one hundred days has only made America more polluted, less safe, and less secure. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand firm in their resolve to hold this and future administrations accountable to keeping our air clean, our water safe, and our environment sustainable for future generations. We have far too much to lose, Mr. Speaker, and future generations deserve our better judgement.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I recognize the significant and rich life of a beloved woman, Dorothy A. Smith. Mrs. Smith was a religious woman, whose dedication to the many churches and communities she was a part of in her life was outweighed only by her constant warmth. She was born on August 11, 1930 in Meridian, Mississippi to her parents, Otis and Maggie. Dorothy was one of eight children. She married Edward in Meridian, MS on February 8, 1948 and they had 6 children from this union. She was educated in the public schools in New Orleans, LA. She worked for the Department of the Army for 40+ years when she retired as a Hospital Medical Records Specialist in 1993. She spent the last 15 years as a resident of Wylie, Texas. Dorothy was a member of Secondary Missionary Baptist Church in Junction City, KS, Fifth Street Baptist Church in Meridian, MS; Mt. Calvary Baptist Church, Farmersville, TX; and at the time of her death a member of Christ Unveiled Ministries, Garland, TX. Dorothy enjoyed working as a Deaconess, Trustee, Choir Member, and an Usher in the churches she attended. She spent most of her time encouraging Senior citizens and young people to have a better quality of life. Dorothy was preceded in death by her loving husband, Edward. She will be remembered by her loving children Gloria Richardson of Manhattan, KS; Mae Smith of Bossier City, LA; Edward R. Smith, Jr., Cedar Hill, TX; Audray Lincoln (Charles) of Rowlett, TX; and James Foster, Sr. of Colorado Springs. She is also survived by 20 grandchildren, 63 great grandchildren, 2 great, great grandchildren, and a host of nieces, nephews, cousins, and many ``adopted kids'' of all ages. She was preceded in death by her son Joseph F. Smith; her daughter Lue E. Foster; her grandchildren Joseph Smith and Tiphanie Lincoln, her sisters Pauline Phillips and Josephine Smith, and her brother Robert Gordon. Dorothy passed away peacefully on April 1, 2017, and will be missed dearly.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 353, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017. Climate and weather are not fundamentally partisan concerns; they affect all of our constituents, regardless of their party affiliation. The bill we are considering today, which is the culmination of more than 4 years of bipartisan compromise and negotiation, demonstrates what can be accomplished when we work together to address the concerns of our constituents. Mr. Speaker, weather affects all of us each and every day. It is a constant presence in our lives. Extreme weather events, which are becoming more severe and more frequent, are damaging lives and property in my home State of Texas, across the continental U.S., and all the way to the islands of Hawaii. Sadly, the devastation caused by tornadoes, hurricanes, and other severe weather incidents have become a far more familiar occurrence and, really, too much of it for far more Americans. It should go without saying that we need to help Americans avoid and cope with these potentially devastating events by utilizing the very best weather forecasting and warning capabilities. In that regard, the National Weather Service and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, or NOAA, play a central role in protecting the lives and property of every American. H.R. 353 will help accelerate innovation that NOAA can make use of, turning cutting-edge weather research into essential weather forecasting tools and products; tools the forecasters can then use to protect American lives. The legislation improves collaboration and cooperation within NOAA and removes barriers that exist between the weather research community, our Nation's forecasters, and the private sector weather enterprise. Improving these relationships will strengthen the accuracy and timing of our weather predictions and, ultimately, will save lives and make our communities safer. H.R. 353 also reauthorizes NOAA's tsunami warning activities. Communities along our Western Coasts are particularly impacted by the threat of tsunamis. While this bill reauthorizes tsunami warning and research activities at NOAA, it does so at a level far below current agency spending. Such a cut makes little sense. Even in a tough fiscal climate, we should be wary of cuts to programs that negatively affect our ability to protect American lives and property from natural disasters. I want to applaud Environment Subcommittee Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici for her fight to retain funding for these programs at their current level, and I hope that we can work together with our colleagues to maintain current tsunami funding when it comes time for appropriations. Mr. Speaker, strengthening our resilience to severe weather events is both vital and necessary to strengthen our Nation's economic security. H.R. 353 will advance our weather forecasting capabilities, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate 100 years of women in Congress. Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first woman to serve in U.S. Congress in 1916. Rankin was on the frontlines of the national suffrage fight and advocated relentlessly for the creation of a Committee on Woman Suffrage, serving on that committee once it was created. Casting an ``aye'' vote for the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Rankin was the only woman who ever voted to give women the right to vote. Rankin is just one of many shining examples of women knocking down barriers. I believe the history of outstanding women and many others should be shared with all Americans to uplift and inspire them. I would like to share several outstanding women from Texas who have been several ``firsts,'' but certainly not ``lasts'' of their time. Lera Millard Thomas was the first woman elected to Congress from the state of Texas. When her husband died in February of 1966, a special election was called in March and she was elected as a Democrat to succeed her husband. Thomas served on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee where she helped to expand the Houston Ship Channel, one of the country's busiest seaports. She chose not to run for reelection and instead dedicated her time to members of the armed services in Vietnam as a special liaison to the Houston Chronicle. Barbara Jordan was the first black woman elected to Congress and the first woman to represent Texas in her own right in the House of Representatives. Jordan was the first black woman to serve in the Texas State Senate and stayed there for eight years. Elected to the House in 1972, she served until 1979 and gained national praise for her legislative prowess and for her rhetoric and high morals. After retirement, Jordan returned to her former profession of teaching. Unfortunately, in Texas, the number of women in Congress is historically very low. Currently, there are three women members; myself, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and Congresswoman Kay Granger. In the Senate, former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was the first and only woman to represent Texas. In 2017, this is unacceptable. When Jeannette Rankin said that she would not be the last woman in Congress, I believe that she imagined a Congress much different from this one, a Congress that mirrored our society.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this week, the United States Senate will consider the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since President Trump first nominated Judge Gorsuch in January of this year, there has been fierce debate regarding his credentials, political leanings, and the circumstances surrounding his nomination. The circumstances surrounding Judge Gorsuch's nomination are alarming. It is only due to Republican obstructionism during President Obama's Administration that Congress is even considering Judge Gorsuch's nomination. After the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, Republicans in the Senate made an unprecedented move to stall the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland--President Obama's nominee--for a record 293 days. It was the source of tremendous tension during President Obama's final year in the White House, and undermined the integrity of the highest court in our lands and our delicate system of checks and balances. Under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's leadership, Senate Republicans refused to hold a single hearing, vote, or take a single action to advance Judge Garland's nomination. Freshly uncovered ties between President Trump and his close allies and advisors to the Kremlin have also raised numerous concerns about his nominees and the individuals who President Trump is selecting to fill the most trusted positions within our government. With the resignation of retired Gen. Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and foreign policy advisor Carter Page, there is a clear pattern emerging in President Trump's Administration. Members of Congress and others have begun asking questions, and the American people deserve answers before we allow President Trump's nominations to move forward. Judge Gorsuch's record on the issues also deserves additional scrutiny. While Judge Gorsuch's conservative views are not an outright cause for concern, his record on issues impacting minority groups, women, and workers, and his positions favoring police immunity and corporate interests are cause for concern. Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs to come together to carefully evaluate Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. Given President Trump's alleged ties to the Russian Government, I believe it is wise to suspend any of President Trump's nominations until Congress can satisfy any concerns surrounding these ties. It is also hypocritical for Republicans in Congress to cry foul of Democrats for trying to delay Judge Gorsuch's nomination when just a few months prior, Republicans had unjustly delayed President Obama's nominee for a record-setting 293 days. We must act in the best interests of our own country, and I believe that entails delaying the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. Like the bill we considered yesterday, the so- called HONEST Act, H.R. 1431 is designed to harm the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to use science to make informed decisions. The bill before us today claims to reform the EPA's Science Advisory Board. And let's talk about what these reforms would mean. First, the bill establishes a series of roadblocks to prevent independent academic scientists from serving on the Board. It accomplishes this by turning the term ``conflict of interest'' on its head by excluding scientists who have done the most relevant research on the topic being considered by the Board. The bill also prohibits Science Advisory Board members from obtaining extramural research grants for 3 years after their service on the Board, which would be a major disincentive for scientists to serve on the panel. At the same time that this bill makes it much more difficult for academic researchers to serve on the Science Advisory Board, the bill also makes it much easier for corporate interests to serve. This is accomplished by gutting actual financial conflict-of-interest restrictions against industry representatives. Under this legislation, those industry representatives would simply have to disclose their financial conflicts, and they could serve on panels directly related to their corporate interests. Finally, H.R. 1431 imposes exhaustive and duplicative notice-and- comment requirements on the Science Advisory Board. I say these requirements are exhaustive because, in addition to being an open-ended process, the Board would also have to respond in writing to any and all significant comments. In fact, I find it hard to believe that the advisory process created by this bill could ever be completed. Of course, that is the real purpose of this provision. It is designed to throw sand in the gears of the Science Advisory Board process, and prevent board members from ever rendering their expert advice. These additions are totally unnecessary. The Science Advisory Board already has statutorily mandated notice-and-comment obligations, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act already applies to their activities. So if this bill passes, what would happen? As an example, I will turn to a case study from the early 1990s. At that time, the EPA was forming a Scientific Advisory Panel to review evidence of harm from secondhand tobacco smoke. Thanks to internal tobacco industry documents that have been made public, we now know that Big Tobacco made a concerted effort to stack the Scientific Advisory Panel with tobacco industry hacks. We take it for granted now that tobacco smoke is dangerous, but at that time, in the early nineties, Big Tobacco had succeeded in muddying the scientific waters around this issue by investing tens of millions of dollars in a coordinated attempt to defraud the American people. If H.R. 1431 had been in effect back then, Big Tobacco likely would have succeeded in co-opting the Science Advisory Board. What would the effects have been on public health to have had the EPA's science review body controlled by tobacco interests? That is why a number of public health and environmental interest groups have come out against H.R. 1431. In a letter penned by the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and several other health groups, the effects of H.R. 1431 are summed up like this: ``In short, EPA's Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to respond to important questions, and increase the influence of industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not the best interest of the American public.'' I couldn't agree more. I strongly urge Members to oppose this misguided bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record correspondence in opposition to this bill: a letter from the American Lung Association, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the American Public Health Association, the National Medical Association, the Health Care Without Harm Association, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the American Thoracic Society; along with a letter from the Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and Natural Resources Defense Council; as well as a letter from the League of Conservation Voters. March 27, 2017. Dear Representative: The undersigned health and medical organizations are writing to express our opposition to the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. Our organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving public health. Science is the bedrock of sound medical and public health decision-making. The best science undergirds everything our organizations do to improve health. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has long implemented a transparent and open process for seeking advice from the medical and scientific community on standards and measures to meet those standards. Both of these bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the review of complex issues and add undue industry influence into EPA's decision-making process. As written, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would make unneeded and unproductive changes that would: Restrict the ability of scientists to speak on issues that include their own expertise; Block scientists who receive any EPA grants from serving on the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, despite their having the expertise and conducted relevant research that earned them these highly competitive grants; Prevent the EPA Scientific Advisory Board from making policy recommendations, even though EPA administrators have regularly sought their advice in the past; Add a notice and comment component to all parts of the EPA Scientific Advisory Board actions, a burdensome and unnecessary requirement since their reviews of major issues already include public notice and comment; and Reallocate membership requirements to increase the influence of industry representatives on the scientific advisory panels. In short, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to respond to important questions, and increase the influence of industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not in the best interest of the American public. We also have concerns with the HONEST Act. This legislation would limit the kinds of scientific data EPA can use as it develops policy to protect the American public from environmental exposures and permit violation of patient confidentiality. If enacted, the legislation would: Allow the EPA administrator to release confidential patient information to third parties, including industry; Bolster industry's flawed arguments to discredit research that documents the adverse health effects of environmental pollution; and Impose new standards for the publication and distribution of scientific research that go beyond the robust, existing requirements of many scientific journals. Science, developed by the respected men and women scientists at colleges and universities across the United States, has always been the foundation of the nation's environmental policy. EPA's science-based decision-making process has saved lives and led to dramatic improvements in the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the earth we share. All Americans have benefited from the research-based scientific advice that scientists have provided to EPA. Congress should adopt policy that fortifies our scientists, not bills that undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's decision-making or give polluters a disproportionate voice in EPA's policy-setting process. We strongly urge you to oppose these bills. Sincerely, Katie Huffling, RN, CNM, Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. Harold P. Wimmer, National President and CEO, American Lung Association. Georges C. Benjamin, MD, Executive Director, American Public Health Association. Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH, Executive Director, American Thoracic Society. Cary Sennett, MD, PhD, FACP, President & CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. Paul Bogart, Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm. Richard Allen Williams, MD, 117th President, National Medical Association. Jeff Carter, JD, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank the other side for their vigorous defense of this bill. I must say that I am a nurse by profession, and I appreciate the gains we have made for using scientific data to determine what is unhealthy for the people; and it really does disturb me to see these protections being torn apart. It is really unfortunate that we have spent so much time putting these protections of the people in place to see that, in this administration, they will probably fly away. Only the people of this Nation will be the losers, with more healthcare costs when they don't even want health care; more people not able to get out of dirty areas. I live in the State of Texas where we have seen the detriment of all of the lack of these protections before they came about. Scientists are in science because they believe in the theories that put forth the procedures for us to follow for the safety and protection of human beings. I regret that we are at a point this time in history where we are willing to throw all that away because of allowing the polluting companies to have more to say about policy. I regret that I have to stand against my colleagues that feel so strongly about getting rid of these protections, but I cannot sit idly by without saying that our Nation will not be in better shape when we take away all the protections for the people and their health. Everybody wants clean air and clean food and protections from the damage that a bad environment brings, and all this is is taking away those protections. I ask everyone to vote ``no'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1430, the so-called HONEST Act. This is the third time the majority has tried to move this misguided legislation, which was formerly known as the Secret Science Reform Act. Unfortunately, in this case, the third time is not the charm. The Secret Science bills that the Republicans tried to enact over the previous two Congresses were insidious bills designed, from the outset, to prevent the EPA from using the best available science to meet its obligations under the law. Those bills were constructed to hamstring the ability of the EPA to do just about anything to protect the American public. As the American Lung Association said at the time: ``The legislation will not improve EPA's actions; rather, it will stifle public health protections.'' The HONEST Act, if anything, is even worse than those two previous bills. There are several reasons for this. Like the prior Secret Science bills, the HONEST Act requires the EPA to release the underlying data from any science that is relied upon when taking action. This would cause a host of cascading problems for the Agency, which is, of course, the real reason they are pushing this bill. First, the EPA relies upon science drawn from many sources. Since EPA does not own or control the data for most of these scientific sources, the EPA would have no authority to order the public release of such data. This would preclude the EPA from using the vast majority of peer- reviewed science in existence today. Second, under the HONEST Act, scientific studies relied upon by the EPA must be reproducible from the data that is publicly released. However, the EPA frequently investigates and relies upon scientific studies that are inherently not reproducible. For instance, the EPA might study natural or manmade environmental disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, to better understand the effects on the environment and to improve disaster response. Under this bill, the EPA couldn't use this type of information at all. These problems with the legislation were apparently not enough for my Republican colleagues. They have worked hard to make the bill even worse this Congress. The newest addition to the bill would permit the EPA to redact from public disclosure confidential information, such as trade secrets and public health information. However, the bill then sets up an unrestricted process whereby anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement can access any restricted information in the EPA's possession. This provision is a Pandora's box, which could have untold consequences for the EPA, industry, and the general public. First, the EPA will find it much more difficult to collect scientific data in the first instance if people think it will be disclosed at will. This will cripple the EPA's ability to conduct their own science, which is important since the rest of the HONEST Act essentially places all non- EPA science off limits. This provision is also in direct conflict with any number of other Federal laws, like the Freedom of Information Act, and HIPAA. The bill provides no guidance to the Agency on how to navigate the minefield it creates, which will surely lead to a morass of lawsuits and legal bills for the EPA. Finally, this provision places no restrictions on who can access restricted information. For instance, could a chemical manufacturer obtain access to the trade secrets of a competitor simply by signing a confidentiality agreement? Could insurance companies seek the health information of potential customers? The potential for abuses with this provision are endless. In a day and age when the most valuable commodity on the black market is personal information and trade secrets, it is unconscionable that we are providing an easily accessible source for criminals around the world. Finally, the HONEST Act also foists upon the EPA a massive unfunded mandate. While we have no CBO cost estimate for this bill, prior versions were estimated to cost the EPA $250 million per year. However, the bill restricts the EPA to spending only $1 million to implement its provisions. In essence, this hits the EPA with a $249 million unfunded mandate every year. If that were not bad enough, this bill comes in the face of massive proposed budget cuts to the EPA's science program by the Trump administration. Mr. Speaker, Republicans claim that this bill is just implementing scientific's best practices. It is odd, then, that a host of scientific societies and science stakeholder groups have expressed their opposition to this legislation. This includes the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of Public and Land- grant Universities, the Association of American Universities; and the American Chemical Society. If Republicans don't want to be labeled as flat-Earth science haters, I think they would want to listen to what scientists say instead of lecturing them about things they don't understand. In reality, this bill isn't about science. It is about undermining public health and the environment. That is why a host of public health and environmental groups are actively opposing the bill. This includes, among others, the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Public Health Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Environmental Defense Fund. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record some of the letters I received in opposition. March 27, 2017. Dear Representative: The undersigned health and medical organizations are writing to express our opposition to the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. Our organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving public health. Science is the bedrock of sound medical and public health decision-making. The best science undergirds everything our organizations do to improve health. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has long implemented a transparent and open process for seeking advice from the medical and scientific community on standards and measures to meet those standards. Both of these bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the review of complex issues and add undue industry influence into EPA's decision-making process. As written, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would make unneeded and unproductive changes that would: Restrict the ability of scientists to speak on issues that include their own expertise; Block scientists who receive any EPA grants from serving on the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, despite their having the expertise and conducted relevant research that earned them these highly competitive grants; Prevent the EPA Scientific Advisory Board from making policy recommendations, even though EPA administrators have regularly sought their advice in the past; Add a notice and comment component to all parts of the EPA Scientific Advisory Board actions, a burdensome and unnecessary requirement since their reviews of major issues already include public notice and comment; and Reallocate membership requirements to increase the influence of industry representatives on the scientific advisory panels. In short, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to respond to important questions, and increase the influence of industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not in the best interest of the American public. We also have concerns with the HONEST Act. This legislation would limit the kinds of scientific data EPA can use as it develops policy to protect the American public from environmental exposures and permit violation of patient confidentiality. If enacted, the legislation would: Allow the EPA administrator to release confidential patient information to third parties, including industry; Bolster industry's flawed arguments to discredit research that documents the adverse health effects of environmental pollution; and Impose new standards for the publication and distribution of scientific research that go beyond the robust, existing requirements of many scientific journals. Science, developed by the respected men and women scientists at colleges and universities across the United States, has always been the foundation of the nation's environmental policy. EPA's science-based decision-making process has saved lives and led to dramatic improvements in the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the earth we share. All Americans have benefited from the research-based scientific advice that scientists have provided to EPA. Congress should adopt policy that fortifies our scientists, not bills that undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's decision-making or give polluters a disproportionate voice in EPA's policy-setting process. We strongly urge you to oppose these bills. Sincerely, Katie Huffling, RN, CNM, Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. Harold P. Wimmer, National President and CEO, American Lung Association. Georges C. Benjamin, MD, Executive Director, American Public Health Association. Stephen C. Crane, Ph.D., MPH, Executive Director, American Thoracic Society. Cary Sennett, MD, Ph.D., FACP, President & CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. Paul Bogart, Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm. Richard Allen Williams, MD, 117th President, National Medical Association. Jeff Carter, JD, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for the many reasons I have spoken about today, I strongly oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, since the time that President Nixon signed into law authorizing the EPA, it appears to me that there has been no evidence that they have done anything other than attempt to protect the lives of the American people. I don't believe that this legislation is going to do anything to further that. It will give them a lot of unfunded mandates, far more than what they would ever be funded to carry out. I would ask everyone to respect the Agency and vote ``no'' on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), the vice ranking member of the full committee and ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Oversight.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a valued staff member of the Office of Legislative Counsel-- Mr. Timothy Brown--who is retiring this month after 37 years of distinguished service to the House of Representatives. The Office of Legislative Counsel is an essential but oftentimes unheralded part of our Congressional support staff. Every bill and amendment we consider in the House of Representatives is drafted with the aid of the professionals in this office. In the course of my two decades of service on the Science Committee, Tim has aided me and my staff innumerable times in the drafting of legislation and amendments. While Tim's background is that of a lawyer, he has worked with the Science Committee staff to draft so many NASA, NSF, and NIST authorizations over the years, that Tim has become, in many respects, a science and space policy expert. In his quiet way, Tim taught the art of applying critical thinking to legislative drafting, and our bills were the better for it. Tim's expertise and dedication to his craft will be sorely missed on the Science Committee. While we will miss Tim, I hope after nearly four decades of service, that Tim will not miss us too much. I'm sure he is looking forward to spending more time with his wife, Sally, and his four children, Andrew, Alex, Emily, and Olivia. Hopefully Tim will have more time to pursue his passions like his love of basketball. Perhaps it's fitting that Tim is retiring in the midst of the NCAA March Madness. We often speak of the dedicated staff who make this institution such a wonderful place in which to work. It is the sense of this Congresswoman that Tim Brown is just such a person. The Science Committee's Members and staff wish him well as he moves on to new endeavors and a relaxing retirement. I thank Tim, for his many years of dedicated and loyal service.