On the recordJanuary 11, 2017
As the letter states: ``No presumption of scientific legitimacy can be afforded when making good public policy.'' Unfortunately, many administrative agencies make this assumption and do not take seriously the peer review process. For that reason, I once again urge my colleagues to support this good government proposal for transparency and accountability that will help protect the integrity of the Federal rulemaking process. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey). The amendment was agreed to. Announcement by the Acting Chair The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 115-2 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order: Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia. Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Castor of Florida. Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island. Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Ruiz of California. Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Scott of Virginia. Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Tonko of New York. Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona. The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte The Acting CHAIR.…
