By Bryan Thompson, KPR

WASHINGTON, D.C. — All four Kansas members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of three bills last week that seek to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency.

The most controversial of the three measures is called the Secret Science Reform Act. Backers say it would prohibit the EPA from relying on data that isn’t publicly available in making rules and regulations. They contend it’s about transparency, while opponents say the real goal is to tie the EPA’s hands.

Dozens of prominent scientific organizations testified against the bill, saying much of the research EPA uses includes patient information, which by law is confidential. Written testimony included a joint statement by Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, and Stephen C. Crane, executive director of the American Thoracic Society.

“The legislation before the Congress will compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to either ignore the best science by prohibiting the agency from considering peer-reviewed research that is based on confidential patient information or force EPA to publicly release confidential patient information, which would violate federal law,” Wimmer and Crane said in the statement. “This is an untenable outcome that would completely undermine the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to perform its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and myriad other federal laws. The legislation will not improve EPA’s actions, rather it will stifle public health protections.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill likely would force the EPA to cut in half the number of scientific studies it uses and add up to $1.5 billion in administrative costs.

Another measure, called the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2014, would change the makeup of the panel that advises the EPA administrator on matters including the relevance and quality of scientific and technical information used in regulatory decisions. One part of the measure reads, “Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work.”

Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew Rosenberg said in a Roll Call editorial last week that the clause means that “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

The bill also would make it easier for industry experts to serve on the advisory panel, while making it more difficult for scientists who’ve applied for EPA grants in the past to be appointed.

The measure includes requirements for members of the board to disclose potential conflicts of interest, and bars them from weighing in on matters affecting any specific party in which they have an interest.

The third bill, called the Promoting New Manufacturing Act, would require the EPA to publicly report the number of preconstruction permits it issues for construction or modification of businesses — like power plants — that emit large amounts of air pollution. Among other provisions, it would require the EPA to report on actions to speed up the review of these permits.

All three bills passed on largely partisan votes in the House, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. Kansas Republican Reps. Tim Huelskamp, Lynn Jenkins, Mike Pompeo and Kevin Yoder voted in favor of all three measures.

The White House has threatened to veto all three bills if they make it through the Senate.

Bryan Thompson is a reporter for Heartland Health Monitor, a news collaboration focusing on health issues and their impact in Missouri and Kansas.