Joseph Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I echo the comments of my colleagues about the importance of transparency that we have heard over the course of this debate. An open government with transparent rules and regulations is at the very core of our democracy. But I am discouraged and disappointed that we are having this debate yet again, especially on a bill that undermines science even more dramatically than last year's version. When this country's greatest minds come together to tackle our greatest problems, we are a stronger nation. Whether we are talking about achievements in cancer treatment or clean water, science makes us healthier, more innovative, and more competitive. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today takes science off the table for the EPA, the very Agency entrusted with keeping our air clean, our water safe, and our homes clear of toxic substances. The bill before us leaves EPA with unworkable standards, prohibiting it from using certain studies simply because they include information that, by law, cannot be made public, such as people's personal health records. My amendment does a very simple thing. It fixes that oversight by clarifying that the EPA should use the most reliable scientific information available, regardless of whether that can be publicly disclosed. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the EPA relies on about 50,000 scientific studies every year. As written, H.R. 1030 would drastically shrink this number. The bill before us could even prohibit the EPA from using other government-funded research, like NIH studies that link toxic substances to premature births or CDC research on mitigating the impact of natural disasters on public health. Furthermore, there are several protections in place already to ensure the science the EPA uses is properly vetted and credited. First, any and all studies go through a significant peer review process, including an independent analysis. Second, Mr. Chairman, the Office of Science and Technology Policy is already working to ensure that all publicly funded research is available online. Third, public comment periods allow for anyone, an individual or organization, to submit evidence supporting or opposing a proposed regulation. However, this bill would actually put limits on the public comment period. Mr. Chairman, this legislation jeopardizes our clean air, our clean water, and the health of our families. I urge the House to accept my amendment to clarify that the EPA may use the most reliable science available. I would also like to thank my colleagues from Massachusetts, Congressman Jim McGovern and Katherine Clark, and the ranking member of the committee for their support of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire into the time that I have remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the chairman of the committee, my friend from Texas, for his friendship and for the work that he has been doing. I know that we share the same goal of having a transparent government and a transparent enforcement mechanism. Unfortunately, I think he and I have come to disagree on the underlying impact of my amendment and the underlying bill itself. The EPA--the goal of this amendment is to make sure that they are able to rely on the most sound, reliable information available. We heard from the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards), my colleague, earlier that there are already constraints put in place by this legislation that limit the EPA from doing so should this bill pass. My amendment takes up that same challenge and tries to make sure that when we are making rules and regulations that are going to impact our society that we are using the best data that is available. All of that data and all of those studies must be peer reviewed. There is a process which the EPA goes through that is publicly available and not actually under any sort of challenge because the underlying bill here doesn't say that that peer review process is flawed. So if we take it as given, then, that that peer review process is sound and is strong and can be relied upon, then the issue is the underlying data. And what we have seen here is an effort to try to ensure that, yes, the analysis and the method for the inquiry is actually available, but the underlying data that can contain people's personal health records, that can contain personally identifiable information is kept private to not expose people to the dissemination of data that they never even knew was going to be publicly available. That is the sole point of this amendment: to ensure that our government is using information for the highest and best use as we promulgate rules and regulations that are going to impact the American people--nothing less, nothing more. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of my first term, I came across an article in a local newspaper about a constituent of mine named Larry Darcey. Years after being exposed to nuclear components while working in a plant supporting the U.S. Navy in Attleboro, Massachusetts, Mr. Darcey was diagnosed with cancer in 1992. Facing the fear and uncertainty of his first cancer diagnosis, Mr. Darcey quickly found out that he was far from the only former employee at the plant with cancer. But he also learned that few of those employees were aware of the Federal compensation and medical payments that they deserved. Over the past few years, he has helped over 200 of his former coworkers file compensation claims. His work and the tireless coverage of Rick Foster and the Attleboro Sun Chronicle have kept attention on this critical issue. Guided by their efforts, I have worked with the Department of Labor and the Social Security Administration to provide former workers and their families with over $34 million--more than twice as much as had been paid out in the 13 years of the compensation program's existence. To many families, Mr. Speaker, that support has changed or even saved lives, and it is all thanks to Larry Darcey for raising his voice when he saw a gap in our system. Thank you, Larry, for all you have done and all you do.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words of my colleague in recognition of this important issue. I just would like to point out that this amendment does not require anything. It totally allows for STEM education to be highlighted and STEM programs, particularly important, I believe, at a time when Hispanics and African Americans combined make up 13 percent of our STEM workforce and women only make up 26 percent of our STEM workforce. This is an imperative. It is a priority for our country if we are truly going to recognize the talent and potential of every American. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire as to the time I have remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment rooted in values that I know we all share. While we may disagree over various aspects of Federal policy in K-12 education, there are important areas where we can in fact find common ground. We all believe that our children deserve an education that prepares him or her to succeed in a modern economy. We all know that far too many children don't get that chance today--particularly children in minority and high-poverty schools. We all know that over the next 10 years, jobs in STEM fields--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--are expected to grow at almost twice the rate of jobs in other fields. Today, in Massachusetts, Mr. Chairman, the unemployment rate for Hispanic residents is 60 percent higher than for their White neighbors, and it is over 110 percent higher for African Americans. Even more alarming, the poverty rate for Black families in Massachusetts is 144 percent higher than their White neighbors and 273 percent higher for Hispanics. Shockingly, those numbers are actually better than far more States across the country. While our economy is steadily improving, that gap is a dangerous economic undercurrent that, left unaddressed, will affect us all. In an increasing globalized and competitive economy, we need to ensure that we are tapping all the talent and potential that we have here in America in order to succeed. Title I funds are some of the best resources the Federal Government has to make sure that every child in every school has a fair chance at the starting line, delivering much-needed assistance to schools that disproportionately serve minority and low-income communities. But this bill, in its current form, would jeopardize the already inadequate resources that so many schools depend on. The Democratic substitute is a better path. It would protect those title I resources and allow them to serve their original civil rights purpose: to ensure that each of our students has an equal chance to succeed. I join my Democratic colleagues in wishing that we were not considering a bill today that would consolidate title I funds and undermine their historic role. But the amendment I offer today says that even if we are going to be living in the proposed world of cuts and block grants, STEM education and economic justice are still priorities we must elevate. My amendment would simply allow but not require States to use their flexible title I funding for grants that support the success of women, minorities, and low-income students in STEM. Too often, Mr. Speaker, the resources our teachers need to prepare their students for jobs today and tomorrow are limited by ZIP Code, gender, and race. That makes this far more than an economic issue. It is a civil rights issue that will define our society for generations to come. I know that we all support equal access to the jobs of a modern economy. That is why we must pass this amendment, increase the reach of STEM education into communities that need it most, and ensure that a student's potential isn't limited by the street that he or she grows up on. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, our country's economic forecast continues to improve, which is a good thing, but we do risk leaving far too many people behind as we come out of a recession. That is an issue for us all. STEM education--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--is a critical vehicle in making sure that all Americans have access to the economic gains that will power our country for the next generation. Over the next 10 years, STEM jobs will grow at normally double the rate of non-STEM jobs, and at all levels of education, STEM careers earn about 11 percent higher wages compared to their counterparts in other jobs. Mr. Speaker, this is an enormous opportunity, but, to date, our efforts around STEM education have left huge segments of our population behind. Combined, Hispanics and African Americans only occupy about 13 percent of all STEM jobs. While women make up nearly half of the workforce overall, only 26 percent of STEM jobs are held by women. In 2013, there were 11 States in which not a single African American student took a computer science advanced placement test, and there were eight States in which no Hispanic students did and three States in which no women did. Mr. Speaker, this is a challenge for us all. With this in mind, I rise, along with Representative Tonko and Senator Gillibrand, to introduce the STEM Gateways Act, which will try to make sure that access to the jobs of tomorrow is spread to all Americans.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud support of the Affordable Care Act and the millions of Americans that have received coverage under this law. I rise today in support of the idea that in this country, the most powerful in the world, every citizen deserves access to quality affordable health care, and I rise today on behalf of the millions of children who get health insurance through the Children's Health Insurance Program which is also at risk today. Mr. Speaker, one in five children today are on food stamps, 16 million kids under the age of 18. For the first time in 50 years, the majority of U.S. public school students live in poverty. CHIP was designed in the 1990s to try to address these kids and make sure that they had access to health care. Since then, the uninsured rate for children has dropped from 14 percent to 7 percent. CHIP funding expires later this year and is included in this bill. More than 8 million children will lose access to health insurance. That is 150,000 children in Massachusetts alone. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to hear those 8 million voices and vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in opposition to the House Republican plan to tear apart millions of families through extreme amendments to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. In the face of inaction by this House last year, our President was forced to use his constitutional authority to bring millions of our neighbors out of the shadows to fix a broken immigration system. Through scrapping the Secure Communities Program and ensuring that parents of American citizens could no longer live in fear of deportation, the President's executive order has moved our country forward. However, it is no substitute for the bipartisan congressional action that the majority of the American people feel that we need and that passed the Senate 2 years ago. By undermining the President's executive actions through amendments to DHS appropriations, my colleagues are not only jeopardizing critical funding for our Nation's security but also ignoring the pain and suffering they will cause to millions across our country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the comments of my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), about the importance of transparency. An open government with transparent rules and regulations is at the core of our democracy, but I also believe in the unassailable value of science. When this country's greatest minds come together to tackle our greatest problems, we are a stronger Nation. Whether we are talking about advancements and achievements in cancer treatment or clean water, science makes us healthier, stronger, and richer. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today takes science off the table for the EPA, the very Agency entrusted with keeping our air clean, our water safe, and our homes clear from toxic substances. The bill before us leaves the EPA with unworkable standards, prohibiting it from using certain studies simply because they contain information that, by law, cannot be made public. My amendment would fix this oversight. The Kennedy-McGovern-Clark amendment clarifies that the EPA can and should use the best scientific information available, so long as that data complies with the highest academic peer-review protocols. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the EPA relies on roughly 50,000 scientific studies every year. As written, H.R. 4012 would drastically shrink this number. The bill before us could even prohibit the EPA from using other government-funded research, like NIH studies linking toxic substances to premature births or CDC research on mitigating the impact of natural disasters and human health. Imagine if we took this approach across the whole of government. The results could be catastrophic. You don't just have to take my word for it. I have got here, Mr. Chair, a letter from the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals who write: Research conducted at our hospitals, while not originally undertaken for environmental protection purposes, is sometimes relied upon by the EPA and other Federal agencies to develop scientifically-based policies. Much of this research uses personal health data which is protected by both Federal law and our institutional review board guidelines. Why would we want to lose research by the best and brightest minds in medicine that could protect the American people? I am proud to say that the Conference supports my amendment, stating: By allowing the EPA to consider peer-reviewed scientific publications in its work, this amendment would ensure that the best available science is the foundation for the EPA's important work. Mr. Chairman, I would now like to submit that letter for the Record. Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals, Boston, MA, November 18, 2014. Representative Joseph Kennedy, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Kennedy: On behalf of the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals, I would like to thank you for your introduction of the amendment to H.R. 4012 and offer our full support for the amendment. As currently drafted, H.R. 4012, The Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, would greatly impede the EPA's mission to protect public health and the environment by making it nearly impossible to develop policies founded on the best available scientific information. Research conducted at our hospitals, while not originally undertaken for environmental protection purposes, is sometimes relied upon by the EPA and other federal agencies to develop scientifically based policies. Much of this research uses personal health data which is protected by both federal law and our institutional review board guidelines. Under the proposed law, this valuable research would not be able to be used when developing EPA policies. By allowing the EPA to consider peer-reviewed scientific publications in its work, this amendment would ensure that the best available science is the foundation of the EPA's important work. Thank you again for your leadership on this important issue. Sincerely, John Erwin, Executive Director.

Mr. KENNEDY. Furthermore, CBO, in its analysis of the bill, made some troubling conclusions. For each scientific study used, the EPA could incur additional costs of up to $30,000. If the EPA continues to operate as it does today, this bill could cost taxpayers an additional $1.5 billion every year, so this bill ensures that the EPA would have to spend more money, use fewer studies, all without being able to use the best science available. There are several protections in place already to ensure that the science that the EPA uses is the best science available and that it is credible. First, any and all studies go through a significant peer-review process that includes an independent analysis. Second, the Office of Science and Technology Policy is already working to ensure that all publicly-funded research is available online. Third, public comment periods allow for anyone, an individual or organization, to submit evidence supporting or opposing a proposed regulation. However, this bill puts limits on the public comment period. It would prohibit the EPA from taking into consideration valuable studies that come to light along the way during that open comment period if they provide private information. Mr. Chairman, this makes no sense. I urge the House to accept my amendment to clarify that the EPA may use the best science that is peer reviewed and published, while upholding the necessary protections for confidential information.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself an additional 20 seconds. I would also like to thank my colleagues from Massachusetts, Congressman Jim McGovern and Congresswoman Katherine Clark, for supporting this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague and friend, Tom Reed, for being a partner as we built momentum and support for this bill from the very beginning. I would also like to thank the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Chairman Lamar Smith, and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson for their leadership as we worked out this bill through our committee. By many metrics the economic picture in this country continues to improve. Unemployment rates are down, businesses are growing, and innovation is occurring at a breathtaking pace. But there is a flip side to that coin that we cannot ignore: our economic recovery to date has left far too many behind. In my district, proud industrial cities like Fall River, Taunton, and Attleboro are working tirelessly in the face of stubborn unemployment rates to adapt their workforce, infrastructure, and industry to the realities of a modern, global economy. Our manufacturing sector is a critical vehicle for bringing industrial cities and working-class communities across the country into the fold of the innovation economy, providing a critical link between our middle class workforce and fast-growing fields like biotech, robotics, or clean energy. The resurgence in American manufacturing has already reaped enormous economic gains, currently supporting over 17 million jobs with an average annual salary of over $77,500. There is a lot more potential on that table, and that is the idea behind RAMI. This bill creates a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation to improve our competitiveness, stimulate R&D, spread the risk of investment to bring new products and ideas to market, educate the next-generation workforce, and facilitate peer-to-peer exchange and best practices. These public-private centers for manufacturing innovation will leverage limited and targeted government funding matched dollar for dollar with private sector investment and expertise. Each center will be based on a new technology. Partnerships will include large and small businesses, universities, community colleges, career and technical schools, Federal labs, and nonprofits. Centers will leverage the regional assets to overcome communal challenges. Groups will apply for funding, putting the reins back where they belong: in the hands of industry and researchers facing the next big manufacturing challenge. Each application will go through an open, transparent peer and merit review process, minimizing conflicts of interest and ensuring the best practices and best proposals move forward. It is a model that we have already seen proven successful across the country, where institutes are creating jobs and bringing products to market in diverse fields such as 3D printing, clean energy, semiconductors, and digital design. I urge my colleagues to help propel this growth by supporting the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).