Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1422, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4012, Secret Science Reform Act of 2014; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4795, Promoting New Manufacturing Act; And Providing for Proceedings During the Period from November 21, 2014, Through November 28, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thought one of the lessons of this last election was that the American people wanted Washington to work, that they wanted us to work toward passing legislation, sensible legislation, that could be passed in both Chambers, that could go to the White House and be signed into law, and we could move this country forward, but I guess that lesson somehow escaped my Republican colleagues because what we are doing here today is another colossal waste of time.

Now, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I rise in opposition to the underlying legislation. The points of the bills that we are considering today seek to prevent the EPA from protecting public health and the environment. It is that simple.

The White House has already issued three veto threats against these bills. The other body is not going to take these bills up, so here we are in this lameduck session with a lot of work that we should be doing, and instead, we are doing this.

On December 11, this government will run out of money. Maybe we should be spending some time trying to figure out how to avoid another government shutdown or to do the appropriations process in a more thoughtful way, but instead, my colleagues are going to wait until the last minute and bring a bill to the floor that most Members will not have time to read, and then that will be that.

Maybe we should be talking about passing an increase in the minimum wage. We are reading story after story about how income inequality in this country is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Maybe we ought to make sure that work actually pays a livable wage in this country, or maybe we could pass a pay equity bill so that women can earn equal pay for equal work--we are not doing any of that--and that surely would be signed by the White House.

What about an immigration bill? The United States Senate passed in a bipartisan way a comprehensive immigration bill, dealing with a very important problem in this country. It is supported by labor unions, and it is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and again, it had a bipartisan vote in the United States Senate.

Are we doing that here today? No. We can't even bring that to the floor to have a debate because the leadership in this House runs such a closed process.

We have wasted time in this Chamber debating Republican messaging bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, to undermine the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and weaken public health and environmental regulations while failing to consider legislation to help people, to create jobs, to boost the economy and help vulnerable Americans rise out of poverty, so instead of kind of doing the people's business, we are back into Republican messaging bills again.

The three bills that we are talking about here today--H.R. 4795, H.R. 4012, and H.R. 1422--will allow industry to have a greater influence over the policies developed at the EPA, will weaken our air quality, and prevent the EPA from using critical high-quality and peer-reviewed data in their policy development.

Why in the world would we want to do this? Well, because the Republicans' corporate constituency demand it, so this may be a nice way to thank big Republican donors for their support in the last election, but quite frankly, it is lousy policy.

H.R. 4795, the cleverly named Promoting New Manufacturing Act, does nothing to boost manufacturing and does nothing to help improve the permitting process or create jobs. The bill requires the EPA to issue both regulations and guidance concurrently when issuing national ambient air quality standards. If this requirement is not met, a new or expanding facility must only show it complies with the old insufficient standard.

Not only will this legislation create several new avenues for litigation, but it will also weaken air quality protections and threaten public health. Why in the world would we even contemplate doing that? H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act, will prevent the EPA from using the best available scientific data, harm future research, and delay the implementation of public health protections.

Far from protecting transparency and accountability, this bill will limit the body of high-quality scientific research that can be used and will undermine the EPA's ability to function.

The EPA relies on peer-reviewed scientific research that often contains information scientists are legally required to keep confidential, like an individual's health records. How is the EPA supposed to determine the effects of a pollutant on our health if they are not allowed to look at health data?

Individual health records should be highly protected, and I would like to point out that the peer-reviewed studies that form the basis of EPA's actions are already available.

The purpose of this bill is not to create transparency but to create bureaucracy, to make it impossible for the EPA to develop policies to protect our health and our environment. There is no secret science, just science that my Republican colleagues do not like.

I am pleased to see that the amendment to H.R. 4012, submitted by my good friend from Massachusetts, Joe Kennedy, was made in order. I strongly support this amendment, which would allow the EPA to continue to rely upon peer-reviewed scientific data, even if that data is legally required to be kept private. The EPA must be allowed to continue to use this critical data in their policy development.

Lastly, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, will slow down the EPA's ability to develop regulations and effectively force the EPA to include individuals with financial conflicts on the Science Advisory Board, so long as the conflicts are disclosed.

It isn't logical to include an individual on a decisionmaking board if that individual would be financially affected by its decision.

I should note that the legislation limits the participation of academic scientists with relevant subject matter expertise from providing their advice to EPA, which will lead to panels with disproportionately high amounts of industry representation.

This bill would allow the Republicans' corporate constituency a direct route to disrupting the EPA's ability to create regulations designed to protect our health.

I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ``I get it. You don't like science, and you don't like science that interferes with some of the interests of your corporate clients.''

But we need to rely on science so we can protect the public health and we can protect our environment. One of the main jobs that we are tasked with is to protect our constituencies. So why we would be trying to move ourselves back in a direction that would endanger public health is beyond me.

Mr. Speaker, today, we are considering three bills to undermine public health, hurt the environment, and tie up the EPA in red tape. I would, again, say to my colleagues, ``We are going to have this debate here today. These bills aren't going anywhere. We are wasting our time by doing this today.''

I am just going to close with one other issue that we ought to be talking about. In July, a majority in this House supported an amendment that I had offered, saying that if in fact we had sustained combat operations in Iraq, that Congress would vote to authorize, or not, such action.

Well, clearly, we have sustained combat operations going on in Iraq. We are getting sucked deeper and deeper and deeper into war while this Congress sits and twiddles its thumbs and does everything possible to avoid a debate on whether or not we should be involved in another war.

You know what, there are thousands of Americans that have been put in harm's way, and we are not living up to our constitutional responsibility. Surely, we should be spending some time talking about that, whether or not the United States ought to get sucked into another war halfway around the world, a war that will cost American lives and that will continue to cost a great deal in terms of our national treasure, but instead of debating that and other things that really matter to people, we are doing it on a messaging bill.

I regret the fact that here we are in these few days that we have left in this lameduck session, doing this kind of stuff, when we ought to be doing the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule, vote against all of the underlying legislation, and I plead to the Republican leadership: let's bring something to the floor that will help the American people.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to announce to my colleagues that I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to continue the ATTIRE Act. This bill would support textile research and innovation in the United States and will continue to strengthen the Made in America Movement as a conduit for creating American jobs and bolstering our economy. It is the right way to help create American jobs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing that it is frustrating to be back after the election and to kind of engage in the same old-same old Republican partisan messaging bills that are going nowhere that just waste time. We ought to do the people's business in the next campaign which is about to start in a little while.

The fact that we are back here not debating this conflict that is now going on in the Middle East, the fact that we are not debating an immigration bill, the fact that we are not debating a pay equity bill or a minimum wage bill and we are doing this is very discouraging.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to send a strong statement today and vote ``no'' on this rule and certainly vote ``no'' on the previous question. I would also urge, if the rule passes, that we vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. We have a lot of work to do. What we are doing here today does not constitute that work, and I regret it very much.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source