Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1029, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015, And Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1030, Secret Science Reform Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate my friend and colleague from the
Rules Committee yielding me time to speak on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak on the rule for H.R. 1030 and H.R.
1029 because I think, frankly, it fits into what I have just been
hearing, but I think it fits in sort of maybe a perverse way, but also
a very good way, because it emphasizes exactly what we need to be
talking about here, and that is jobs, that is the economy, that is good
growth, that is good government, that is the things that we are
supposed to be doing and working on that and finding out why certain
things don't get done.

Anybody watching over the last little bit would actually have a
concern as to what we are doing, and I think it goes back to a simple
understanding that there is a very clear understanding of why and who
is offering what amendments and what bills up here. The Republican
majority is offering a vision in which people are empowered in
government, not taking the incentives away.

I think it was summed up very well in a statement just the other day
from the administration that actually said that their definition, if
you will, of a burdensome regulation was something that burdened the
employees of a government agency.

I think it is very clear from our perspective that what is a
burdensome regulation is something that burdens American businesses and
burdens the scientific communities and burdens those in which
government is putting its finger on and stifling. There is a big
difference here. All you have to do is watch what is said and watch
what is done, and you will begin to see that.

I will not be supporting, as we go back to these bills, all the
amendments made in order under this rule. I am still pleased that we, as a House, are considering them as we come to the floor and also that the House will ultimately work its will.

One of the key differences highlighted is in how we as conservatives
and others in this body look at H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform
Act. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the committee
markup of this legislation argued that ``this marks a radical departure
from longstanding practices.''

I hope this is the case, for these acclaimed ``longstanding
practices'' have favored interest group agendas over scientific
integrity, back rooms over public participation, and sacrificed
transparency and openness at the altar of political expediency.

Conservatives in this body believe that Congress should not tolerate
an administration who refuses to make public the scientific data behind
numerous EPA regulations, regulations that are crippling the ability of
businesses to survive in this economic climate created and sustained by
the failed policies of this administration.

This administration issued a statement of opposition, as I just
talked about a moment ago, saying that underlying measures in these
bills would be ``burdensome'' on the government. I think if our
Founders were hearing this today, they would stand up and say: That is
not what we intended.

Read the document. The document said a limited, structured government
that supports the people, that supports our welfare, and supports the
cause of the United States of America, not in a form in which
government is the problem in finding out these problems and keeping
from areas in a scientific community, in the business community.

There is a clear, distinct difference here. What is burdensome on
government is what then turns around and becomes burdensome on the
American people. You see, conservatives in Congress try to streamline
and reform our regulatory system, ensure that cost and benefits of
regulations are analyzed before it is implemented, and we are told that
that is burdensome.

While the conservatives are being criticized for burdensome reforms,
they are also, at the same time, pushing through $181.5 billion in
regulations just last year.

Apparently, the administration has redefined burdensome to mean
something that most do not. It is just another example of a disconnect.

Now, what is often said at this point is that conservatives and
Republicans don't want clean water. They want to destroy the
environmental integrity. They want bad air and poor traffic control and
maybe everything else in the world that you want to say because there
is a belief that government will fix all that.

There is a proper role for government, but in this environment, let's
have transparency, let's have openness, let's have public
participation. Let's not keep stuff away from the American people. That
is what they are asking for. That is what they expect from their
government.

Instead of marginalizing the honest debate about science and being
about scientific enterprise, instead of saying that they are for
something that nobody is for, let's be honest about the legislation.

If you don't really want to talk about the legislation, let's talk
about everything else in the world. That is a good way to distract. We
don't want to talk about a process that is broken. We will talk about
something else.

No, it is not going to happen this time. I agree with the previous
speaker. Let my people go. Let my people go. Let the government be
open. Let the government be transparent.

Let the government be limited so that the American people are not
limited, the American people have all they need, and that is the
purpose of these bills.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source