Floor Statements to Amendment to H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act
March 18, 2015
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 1030, the so-called Secret Science Reform Act.
Let me just say first that I am opposed to the bill and the underlying premise that there is not good science, good research, and good data being gathered by the EPA.
Unfortunately, this bill would force the EPA to choose between protecting our health and environment and maintaining the privacy of patient medical records and the confidentiality of business records.
But my amendment highlights one issue that, to me, makes a mockery of this entire effort. The bill, as written, currently gives the EPA only $1 million per year to carry out the provisions in the bill.
It wouldn't be so bad except that the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the bill to be $250 million per year to implement the bill.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that you perhaps think that you did not hear me correctly. But to put this disparity in some perspective, the Congressional Budget Office is estimating that implementing this bill would cost 25,000 percent more than the majority is providing.
Now I understand why the majority is doing this. They don’t want to pass legislation that costs anything to implement. It wouldn’t be fiscally conservative.
Now, I am not a math major, but simple math tells me that if a bill is $1 million in the text but costs $250 million to implement, you are asking the EPA to undertake $250 million of work with $1 million – not exactly fiscally or legislatively conservative or sound.
More importantly, it forces the Agency into an untenable position. They must either ignore the requirements of this legislation because the majority isn’t providing them with the resources to carry them out, or they can comply with the requirements for – and Mr. Chairman, hold your breath – they could comply with the requirements for 1 1/2 days. That is what the funding would allow: $1 million, 1 1/2 days, and then shut down all of the covered actions under the bill.
So I know we think it might be laughable, except that it is true. But if the majority really believes in the premise behind this legislation, which I do not, then the majority should provide the Agency with the $250 million annually that, at a minimum, the Agency would need to carry out this bill.
Those are not my estimates. Those are the estimates of the independent Congressional Budget Office.
I am opposed to the bill for a number of reasons, and most likely, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would disagree with me on those points. However, I have a hard time believing that any responsible Member of Congress who supports fiscal conservatism would consciously support a bill that is guaranteed, absolutely guaranteed to cause failure.
So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and not allow this bill to move forward with an unfunded mandate to the Agency.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, so we know that the EPA’s jurisdiction is to make sure that we have clean water and clean air. That is sort of the basics of it.
And now we are hearing from the majority, Mr. Chairman, that not only do they not believe the science and they think it is secret, they also don’t believe the Congressional Budget Office.
But for the fact that we cannot pick and choose which numbers we believe out of the Congressional Budget Office, the fact is that the Congressional Budget Office, not just this year but in the last term as well, said that this bill would cost American taxpayers $250 million if the Agency were implementing it according to the legislative language. So I don’t think that the majority should be allowed to pick and choose its science or pick and choose its numbers.
The Congressional Budget Office, in fact, has said that this bill would cost $250 million to implement, more than 25,000 times the amount that is authorized in the language, and I think it is unacceptable for us to just denigrate the EPA, say that it is engaged in secret science, and then tell them that we want you to implement a bill without providing the resources that it takes to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), my colleague and the ranking Democrat on the committee.
