Alan Lowenthal: “This amendment makes a small change to section 2 to make the bill somewhat more palatable to scientific publishers. So I…”

“This amendment makes a small change to section 2 to make the bill somewhat more palatable to scientific publishers. So I will not oppose it, but it does nothing to actually improve the bill itself nor the requirement surrounding the advance publication of scientific data. Today we received a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists that says they are strongly opposed to H.R. 1644. The scientists write: ``This proposal is just another attempt of what is becoming an old and tired song, an attempt to cloak an effort to block commonsense regulations in the guise of transparency.'' They continue: ``The amended version improves the original bill by exempting certain types of data from public disclosure. However, the language is so vague it will make it very difficult for scientists doing federally funded research to know whether or not the data they have spent years collecting may be prematurely disclosed before they can publish their own studies. At the very least, this discourages scientists from doing any crucial research that may be required to be publicly disclosed.'' They conclude: ``If passed, H.R. 1644 would inhibit the Department of the Interior's ability to carry out its science- and evidence-based responsibility to protect human health and the environment. We strongly recommend a `no' vote on H.R. 1644.'' I agree with the scientists on this one. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.”