[Pages H8087-H8103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2014

General Leave

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4012.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 756 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4012.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1310

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4012) to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from
proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments
based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible, with Mr.
Duncan of Tennessee in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Science, Space,
and Technology Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona
for yielding me this time.
H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act, is a short, commonsense
bill. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency to base its
regulations on public information. I thank the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Schweikert), the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, for
introducing this bill.
Costly environmental regulations should only be based upon data that
is available to independent scientists and the public. However, the EPA
does not adhere to this practice. In fact, nearly every major air-
quality regulation from this administration has been justified by data
that it has kept secret. This means the Agency's claims about the
benefits of its rules cannot be verified by independent scientists.
This includes the recent plan to regulate our entire electric system.
This proposal will kill thousands of jobs and increase electricity
costs, all for no discernible effect on global temperatures.
This also includes upcoming ozone regulations, which even the
administration admits will be the most expensive in history.
Unachievable standards will result in economic hardship, stalled new
road projects, and burdened local governments.
Unfortunately, EPA clearly sees transparency and accountability as a
threat. Speaking before the National Academy of Sciences, EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy said that her agency needed to keep the
science ``from those not qualified to analyze it.'' But the public
deserves better, and this administration promised more. In 2012, the
President's science adviser testified:

Absolutely, the data on which regulatory decisions are
based should be public.

The chair of EPA's own Science Advisory Board testified that EPA's
advisers recommend ``that literature and data used by EPA be peer
reviewed and made available to the public.''
Americans agree. A recent poll from the Institute for Energy Research
found that 90 percent of Americans believe that studies and data used
to make Federal Government decisions should in fact be made public.
Reforms to the EPA's regulatory process are consistent with the data
access requirements of major scientific journals, the White House
scientific integrity policy, and the recommendations of independent
groups like the Administrative Conference of the U.S. and the
Bipartisan Policy Center. Deans of major universities, former EPA
scientists, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and dozens of experts and
organizations all support this bill.
A letter from more than 80 scientists and academics stated that:

Complying with H.R. 4012 can be accomplished without
imposing unnecessary burdens, discouraging research, or
raising confidentiality concerns.

The signatories include professors, two former chairs of EPA science
committees, medical doctors, statisticians, deans of major
universities, and environmental scientists.
The Secret Science Reform Act prohibits the disclosure of
confidential or proprietary information protected by the law. Instead,
it stops EPA's use of unverifiable science.

{time} 1315

For those who are concerned about the regulations already on the
books, the act is not retroactive. It applies only to new future
regulations issued by the Agency.
The act requires the EPA to base its decisions on information to
which all scientists will have access. This will allow the EPA to focus
its limited resources on quality science that all researchers can
examine. This will promote sound science and confidence in the EPA
decisionmaking process.
This bill ensures the transparency and accountability that the
American people want and deserve.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, this bill does not permit me to mince words. This bill is
an insidious attack on EPA's ability to use the best science to protect
public health, and its consideration on the House floor today is the
culmination of one of the most anti-science and anti-health campaigns I
have witnessed in my 22 years as a Member of Congress.
The genesis of this legislation is the Republicans' longstanding
obsession with two seminal scientific studies conducted by Harvard
University and the American Cancer Society.
These studies link air pollution with increased illnesses and death;
moreover, those results were confirmed by multiple independent
researchers and organizations including the National Research Council
and the Health Effects Institute.
The Republican majority has harassed EPA for more than 2 years in an
attempt to get access to the raw data used in those studies, presumably
in an attempt to cast doubt on the conclusion that air pollution is bad
for the health of Americans and to prevent EPA from trying to keep the
air we breath clean.
The EPA told my Republican colleagues that since the studies involved
the personal health information of

[[Page H8088]]

hundreds of thousands of volunteers, the raw data was stringently
protected from public disclosure; therefore, even if they were the
legal custodian of this data, they could not lawfully hand over such
sensitive information.
Instead, in compliance with the law, EPA provided the Science
Committee with all of the ``de-identified'' data within its possession,
which ran to hundreds of pages of data rolled in like a grocery cart.
This was not enough for my colleagues, and so they have decided to
pursue this pernicious piece of legislation.
Rather than explain the problems with this legislation myself, I will
simply quote from a letter we received from the American Lung
Association and the American Thoracic Society, two leading and trusted
public health organizations. They state:

The legislation 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.
This is an untenable outcome that would completely
undermine the ability of the EPA 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.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will wrongly claim that
this legislation is consistent with the requirements of major
scientific journals, the White House's policy to promote public access
to federally-funded research, and recommendations from independent
groups like the Administrative Conference of the United States. This is
simply not true.
All of those entities recognize the balance between making data
public and protecting confidentiality and personal privacy. They do not
paint scientists or the EPA into a corner and tell them that the only
way their research can be used or considered is if all of that data is
available in a form--let me quote from the bill--``that is sufficient
for independent analysis and substantial reproduction.''
That phrase is critical to understanding the implications of H.R.
4012. According to a letter from the American Cancer Society to EPA,
they ``are not aware of any way to create a de-identified version of
the Cancer Prevention Study II data set sufficient to protect
confidentiality of the participants while at the same time allowing a
true replica of the studies.''
Because legitimate researchers like the American Cancer Society must
publish their peer-reviewed results in a de-identified form, if this
bill becomes law, the EPA will not be able to rely on those important
studies to protect public health and the environment.
I would like to quote Dr. Ellen Silbergeld from Johns Hopkins
University, a witness at a hearing the Science Committee held on this
bill. She states:

If the EPA is unable to access the peer-reviewed literature
because raw data are not available as proposed in the
``Secret Science'' bill, then we move to the dysfunctional
situation where the EPA will be unable to sustain its
decisions because these will be based on inadequate or
incomplete science.

This is not a position that I can support. Let me be clear: this bill
is an attempt to constrain the EPA under the guise of promoting
transparency.
A diverse set of voices from the scientific, public health, legal,
and environmental communities agree with me and have criticized this
legislation. I have received letters from more than 50 organizations
expressing their concern with H.R. 4012, including the American Lung
Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Association of
American Universities, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the
Environmental Defense Fund.
Whatever views my fellow Members may have about specific EPA rules
and regulations, I would hope that they will see this bill for what it
is, a malicious assault on EPA's ability to protect public
health. Limiting or prohibiting what science EPA uses as part of its
rulemaking would be a consequence of this bill. The American people
deserve better.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, at the end of my opening remarks, I
will enter into the Record an exchange of letters between the chairmen
of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I continue to be stunned at some of the hyperbolic language that
seems to be moving around this piece of legislation.
Transparency, it is an incredibly powerful concept and a fairly
simple one in this aspect: if you are going to make public policy, do
it by public data and public data for the concept of refinement and
creation of public policy.
Is there anyone in this body when we all ran for office that did not
commit to transparency? Well, H.R. 4012 is part of that commitment. If
you have faith in our higher learning institutions, if you have faith
in the American people, this data belongs to them.
Partially, one side belief I have is, as the crowd has the
opportunity to analyze and collect and look at data, whether they be
from the right, the left, or just academic, we will end up with finer-
crafted solutions.
How would any of us know if the EPA has set optimal rule sets? Well,
one of the ways you discover this is by having lots of voices in the
mix. This bill keeps that commitment, and I have no idea why my
brothers and sisters on the left seem to be trying to shut down that
commitment to transparency.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, August 22, 2014.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: I write concerning H.R. 4012, the
``Secret Science Reform Act of 2014.'' As you are aware, the
bill was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, but the Committee on Energy and Commerce has a
jurisdictional interest in the bill and has requested a
sequential referral.
Given the implications of H.R. 4012 for agencies within its
jurisdiction, the Committee on Energy and Commerce remains
committed to working on scientific transparency. However,
because of our mutual interest in having this important
legislation considered by the House before the end of the
113th Congress, I will not insist on a sequential referral of
H.R. 4012. I do so with the understanding that, by foregoing
such a referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce does
not waive any jurisdictional claim on this or similar
matters, and the Committee reserves the right to seek the
appointment of conferees.
I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming
this understanding, and ask that a copy of our exchange of
letters on this matter be included in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 4012 on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology,
Washington, DC, August 27, 2014.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton: Thank you for agreeing to withdraw
your request for a sequential referral of H.R. 4012, the
Secret Science Reform Act of 2014.
I agree that forgoing further action on this bill does not
in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of your
Committee, or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives on
this bill or similar legislation in the future. I would
support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving
this legislation.
I will insert copies of this exchange into the
Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4012 on the
House floor. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Lamar Smith,
Chairman.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the Science Committee,
so I wasn't part of the deliberations, but when a bill is presented as
being about transparency and openness and relying on science, I ask
myself:

[[Page H8089]]

``Well, of course, why would there be any partisan difference on
something like that?''
Then you start looking at different things that make you wonder if
that is what this is really about. This is a bill that came out of the
Science Committee, and I looked at the list of the supporters. There is
not a Democrat on the list. As I understand it, the vote was on a
party-line basis. Would that mean that Democrats don't believe in these
things? Or is something else going on?
I submit that Republicans don't have a lot of credibility when they
talk about wanting more science because I have seen so many areas where
Republicans have tried to ignore the science, deny the science.
The best example of this irony is that when Republicans are claiming
they are for sound science, they have had so many anti-science
proposals on the House floor. I think even the Flat Earth Society
recognizes that there is some overwhelming consensus on some things
like climate change or that man is causing climate change and that it
is a serious threat to our planet. Republicans undercut their statement
of support for science when they have voted repeatedly to deny that
climate change exists.
Well, we have a Republican majority here. It is even a larger
majority for the next year. They may be able to write our Nation's
laws, but they can't rewrite the laws of nature.
The list of anti-science votes in this body that this body has cast
is embarrassing. House Republicans voted to defund the U.S.
contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
leading international body assessing the science of climate change.
They voted to bar U.S. funding for the Global Climate Change
Initiative which funds U.S. efforts to understand climate change. They
voted to eliminate funding for EPA's greenhouse gas reporting rules so
scientists would not be able to track emissions.
House-passed budgets have repeatedly slashed funding for our Nation's
leading science-based agencies like NIH; the National Science
Foundation; and ARPA-E, which invests in cutting-edge energy research.
The Energy and Commerce Committee, despite requests that were
repeatedly made to the chairman of the full committee and the chairman
of the Energy Subcommittee, they wouldn't even allow a hearing where
scientists could come in and talk about the issue of climate change.
Now, we have a bill where the Republicans are saying they want
science, they want more transparency, they want more openness.
I looked into this, and this is a fight about something quite
controversial that happened some years ago at EPA, when those who were
against EPA action claimed that EPA shouldn't rely on the science
unless all the information were put out, including confidential
information that served as the basis for some of the scientific
conclusions, but the scientific conclusions were not refuted. In fact,
they were reaffirmed in other studies. They are not scientifically
invalid.
If this bill passed, the conclusions based on the evidence which
cannot be made public because it interferes with people's confidential
information would not be available.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield an additional minute to
the gentleman.

{time} 1330

Mr. WAXMAN. So what we are seeing is something that sounds good from
a party that has no credibility to say that they are for more science
information. What they would do is limit what EPA would be able to use
to determine, based on the science, what the regulations and their
other pronouncements could be. They would keep information away from
EPA and keep EPA from acting.
I want to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I underscore
that this is not pro-science policy. It seems to me it is anti-science
and making it difficult for government to act to stop pollution, which
can hurt people's health and destroy the atmosphere on our planet.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
Mr. HULTGREN. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4012, and I thank the
gentleman from Arizona and the chairman of the Science Committee for
bringing this important legislation to the floor.
H.R. 4012 is a critical step in restoring the public trust necessary
for EPA to accomplish its core mission. Transparency was a major
campaign promise the current President made to the American people, and
here is a way we can help the President finally follow through on one
of his goals. This should be a strong bipartisan effort for anyone that
believes their government has a duty to be accountable to the American
public we serve.
H.R. 4012 follows a basic tenet that nearly all Americans agree on:
public policy should be dictated by public science. Unfortunately,
transparency, along with oversight by the American people's duly-
elected representation, has been something EPA scoffs at. This must
change.
The President continues to use his regulatory agencies to bypass the
will of the legislature in a number of cases, and policy from EPA has
been one of the worst offenders. Everyone here believes in clean air,
clean water, and necessary regulations, but what we have now is a
regulatory agency attempting to put in place legislation which this
Congress previously rejected in prior sessions. This is not a
government that is working for you.
Americans also believe in clear laws and a fair judicial system where
both sides can state their case and an adequate resolution can be
found. This is why this closed-door regulatory approach is so
frightening.
When someone accuses you of a crime in a court of law, they must
stand before that court and make that claim. Your deposition is given
to both sides, and you cannot hide behind secret testimony which is
only given to the prosecutor. This is what we have now happening at
EPA.
EPA legislates through regulations, and the defendant has no chance
to see where EPA's claims are coming from. It is time for the American
people to see behind the curtain, and it is unjust to continue using
claims from the Agency that cannot be contested only because they
cannot be seen.
I would also like to correct unfounded claims made by opponents of
this legislation. Nothing disallows EPA from using the most up-to-date
scientific information to make public health decisions. It would
certainly be my hope that the research institutions would make this
available, but it would ultimately be their decision whether or not EPA
could use their data. If I dedicated my life to studying these complex
issues, I would want to make sure it could be used.
The other claim is that this bill will make public personal health
care information, which would be against the law. This legislation
makes clear that nothing in this bill requires the ``public
dissemination of information, the disclosure of which is prohibited by
law.'' The data sets must only be made available in a manner that is
``sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of
research results.''
Numerous congressional hearings and testimony from experts have made
it clear that this information can easily be made anonymous. This is
how data sets are presented to the peer-review community and published
for journals already.
This is the transparency the American people deserve. They should no
longer be held guilty from data they can't see or black box economic
analyses deemed proprietary. That is why I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the second most
senior member of the full committee on the Democratic side.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill. I really believe that
the so-called Secret Science Act is in fact a direct attack on American
science.
I am a very strong supporter of transparency in government, as well
as in science, and in Silicon Valley, where I am from, we believe more
data in more hands benefits everybody, but I think this bill is not in
fact an open data bill. It will be a data reduction bill.
It doesn't give the EPA greater authority to provide the raw data it
uses.

[[Page H8090]]

It actually reduces the kinds of data that can be used by prohibiting
the EPA from using any data that can't currently be publicly released.
That sounds reasonable except that in fact there is some data that
you can't actually release under current law--medical records,
confidential business data, trade secrets--all of which, if made
publicly available, would run afoul of various provisions of law.
I believe that we could work together on a bipartisan basis to figure
out how to fix the barriers to release of data while maintaining
necessary confidentiality for some data. I think we should all agree on
that.
I want to point out another way that the bill is a problem, and that
is the additional cost that is going to be incurred per study. The
estimate, according to CBO, is that there will be an additional $10,000
to $30,000 added per study. That means that if this bill were to become
law, it would cost an additional $500 million to $1.5 billion a year to
do science studies.
I would love to be disappointed, but I don't believe that the
Republicans intend to add additional funding to the EPA to cover the
cost of the science studies that this bill would create. In fact, this
bill does not address that issue.
What this would do would be to actually cut the number of science
studies that the EPA is able to do. I think that that is a result that
would be very unfortunate for the country. What we need is more
science, not less.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Chairman, our constituents have a right to know whether EPA's
regulations are based on sound science and do these regulations
actually benefit the American public.
The Secret Science Reform Act, which I have cosponsored, is a simple
and straightforward message to government bureaucrats that they cannot
propose costly new regulations without the transparency that the
American people deserve.
It makes you kind of wonder if the opponents of this legislation
believe, like Mr. Gruber, that the American people are too stupid to
understand the cost of the EPA overreaching regulations. Trust me when
I say Americans are not stupid, and they deserve and demand the truth
from the start.
When given a bad prognosis from their doctor, I wonder how many of
the proponents of the bill would say they don't really care about the
details or the data. That is interesting.
EPA's regulatory agenda should not be based on secret science and 30-
year-old data in order to sell it to the American people. It is long
past time that Congress increases the transparency of the EPA. This
legislation will do exactly that by prohibiting the EPA from proposing
or finalizing regulations based upon a science that is neither
transparent nor available for review.
I want to thank Chairman Smith and Congressman Schweikert for
bringing this important legislation to the floor today.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to
my next speaker, I would like to enter in the Record a series of
letters from outside groups opposed to this legislation, including the
American Lung Association, the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, League of Conservation Voters, and many others.
In addition, I would also like to place a Statement of Administration
Policy threatening a veto of this bill into the Record.

American Lung Association,

American Thoracic Society,

November 17, 2014.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We are writing to express our
opposition to H.R. 4012 the Secret Science Reform Act of
2014. The American Lung Association is the oldest voluntary
health organization in the United States. The Lung
Association mission is to save lives by improving lung health
and preventing lung disease. We achieve our mission through
research, advocacy and education. The American Thoracic
Society is a medical professional society dedicated to the
prevention, detection, treatment and cure of pulmonary
disease, critical care illness and sleep disordered breathing
through research, education and advocacy.
Science is the bedrock of sound regulatory decision making.
The best science underscores everything our organizations do
to improve health. We strongly believe in a transparent and
open regulatory process. A vital element of research is
patient confidentiality. Physicians and researchers have
earned by trust of their patients by steadfastly maintaining
patient confidentiality. Patient confidentiality is a clear
legal obligation and a sacred vow.
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. This is
an untenable outcome that would completely undermine ability
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.
We note that the kind of information disclosure envisioned
in this legislation exceeds that required by peer reviewed
journals. We believe much of the intent of this legislation
is already achieved through the current peer review process
required by all academic journals. The vast majority of peer
reviewed journals require manuscript authors to register any
trial using human subjects with clinicaltrials.gov. This
public registry collects key information on the study
population, research goals and methods that allow outside
reviewers and scientists to either challenge or attempt to
reproduce study results. Additionally, the peer review
process and publication of results invites the broader
scientific community to debate study findings. Trial registry
and manuscript publications are only part of the process by
which scientific endeavors operate in a transparent
environment.
Private organizations, public charities, research
universities, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
corporations and many other entities conduct medical
research. Many of these organizations compile large
longitudinal data sets that track patients of a period of
time. These data serve as the basis of many studies that
permit epidemiologists to track disease and risk factor
information for large patient populations.
The published peer-reviewed information from such data
often may inform regulatory decision making at the EPA and
other federal agencies and inform future research. Not only
do these data inform regulatory action, they help inform
efforts to educate the public about the magnitude of a
disease, risk factors and steps individuals can take to
improve their health. In order for EPA to set the most
appropriate standards it must be informed by the best
information.
Understanding the impact of air pollution on human health
and the magnitude of harm caused by pollution at specific
levels helps the agency meet its obligations under the Clean
Air Act. Absent these data, it is unclear upon what basis the
agency could make sound decisions.
We urge the House of Representatives to reject H.R. 4012.
Sincerely,
Harold Wimmer,
National President & CEO, American Lung Association.
Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,
Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.
____

American Association for the

Advancement of Science,

Washington, DC, July 31, 2014.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
House Majority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Representative McCarthy: As leading U.S. science,
engineering, and academic institutions, we are writing to
express our concerns regarding the Secret Science Reform Act
of 2014 (H.R. 4012). As the new House Majority Leader we
encourage you and your colleagues to take additional time to
evaluate the unintended consequences of this bill before
considering it on the House floor.
The research community is concerned about how some of the
key terms in the bill could be interpreted or misinterpreted,
especially terms such as ``materials,'' ``data,'' and
``reproducible.'' Would the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) be excluded from utilizing research that involved
physical specimens or biological materials that are not
easily accessible? How would the agency address research that
combines both public and private data?
With respect to reproducibility of research, some
scientific research, especially in areas of public health,
involves longitudinal studies that are so large and of great
duration that they could not realistically be reproduced.
Rather these studies are replicated, utilizing statistical
modeling. The same may be true for scientific data from a
one-time event (e.g., Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill) where
the data are being gathered in real time. We could foresee a
situation whereby the EPA would be constrained from making a
proposal or even disseminating public information in a timely
fashion.

[[Page H8091]]

Finally, the legislation could impose additional
uncompensated burdens of cost and effort on those recipients
of federal research grants where the research results are
expected to be ``relied on to support a covered action.'' The
bill is not clear on whether it is the EPA's or the research
institution's responsibility to cover the costs associated
with sharing and archiving this information.
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 required
that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) work
with federal agencies to establish access to data policies
that relate ``to the dissemination and long-term stewardship
of the results of unclassified research, including digital
data and peer-reviewed scholarly publications.'' Agencies are
expected to finalize their data access policies by the end of
the year, and given the complexities associated with access
to research data as outlined above we suggest that the
Congress wait to review the agency policies before imposing
new statutory requirements via H.R. 4012.

American Anthropological Association; American
Association for the Advancement of Science; American
Geophysical Union; American Geosciences Institute;
American Meteorological Society; American Physical
Society (APS Physics); American Political Science
Association; American Society for Microbiology (ASM);
American Society of Agronomy; American Society of Civil
Engineers; Association for the Sciences of Limnology
and Oceanography; Association of American Geographers;
Association of American Universities; Association of
Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU); Bard Center
for Environmental Policy; Biophysical Society; Brown
University; Consortium for Ocean Leadership; Consortium
of Social Science Associations; Cornell University;
Crop Science Society of America.
Duke University; Ecological Society of America;
Entomological Society of America; Harvard University;
Indiana University; Massachusetts Institute of
Technology; National Council for Science and the
Environment; Society for Conservation Biology; Soil
Science Society of America; Stanford University; Stony
Brook University; The Ohio State University; The
University of Texas at Austin; University of California
System; University of California, Davis; University of
California, Irvine; University of California,
Riverside; University of California, Santa Barbara;
University of Maryland; University of Michigan;
University of Oregon; University of Pennsylvania.
____

League of Conservation Voters,

Washington, DC, November 17, 2014.
Re Oppose H.R 1422, H.R. 4012, and H.R. 4795: An Attack on
Scientific Integrity and Public Health

House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters
(LCV) works to turn environmental values into national
priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National
Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of
members of Congress on environmental legislation. The
Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters
nationwide, and the media.
LCV urges you to vote NO on HR. 1422, H.R. 4012, and H.R.
4795.
H.R. 1422, the so-called EPA Science Advisory Board Reform
Act would undermine the ability of the Science Advisory Board
to provide independent scientific advice to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). This bill would allow industry
participation on the Scientific Advisory Board, while
preventing subject experts from being included. Additionally,
new burdens imposed on the Board would needlessly delay
necessary public health and environmental protections.
H.R. 4012, the so-called Secret Science Reform Act of 2014
would endanger public health by preventing the EPA from using
the best available science. The bill contains favorable
exemptions for industry and would severely restrict the
health studies that the EPA is able to use by prohibiting the
use of peer-reviewed studies with confidential health
information. These types of studies are the basis for the
best research on pollution's effects on people. This
legislation cripples the EPA's ability to develop effective
public health safeguards.
H.R. 4795, the so-called Promoting New Manufacturing Act is
an attack on clean air protections. This bill would create
unclear procedural requirements and loopholes that could
allow newly permitted industrial facilities to be exempted
from the most recent national air quality standards set by
the EPA. This legislation effectively creates amnesty for new
facilities while delaying the permitting process and
threatening public health.
We urge you to REJECT H.R. 1422 H.R. 4012, and H.R. 4795, a
collective attack on scientific integrity and public health.
We will strongly consider including votes on these bills in
the 2014 Scorecard. If you need more information, please call
Tiernan Sittenfeld, Sara Chieffo or Alex Taurel in my office
at (202) 785-8683.
Sincerely,
Gene Karpinski,
President.
____

BlueGreen Alliance; Center for Biological Diversity;
Center for Effective Government; Clean Water Action;
Communications Workers of America; Defenders of
Wildlife; Earthjustice; Environment America;
Environmental Defense Fund; International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW); League of Conservation Voters;
Natural Resources Defense Council; Public Citizen;
Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC);
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now; Utility Workers
Union of America (UWUA); WE ACT for Environmental
Justice.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters we strongly urge you to oppose the trio of
anti-EPA bills hitting the floor this week: the ``Secret
Science Reform Act of 2014'' (HR 4012), the ``EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013'' (HR 1422), and the
``Promoting New Manufacturing Act'' (HR 4795). Collectively,
these misleadingly named bills would radically diminish EPA's
ability to protect public health. Under these bills, EPA
would be required to ignore significant science; the
Scientific Advisory Board would be required to ignore
conflicts of interest; and enforcement officials would be
required to ignore pollution emitted in violation of the law.
These bills are broadly written and would have damaging
impacts far in excess of what their sponsors will admit.
The ``Secret Science Reform Act,'' HR 4012, is based on a
faulty premise. Its notion of ``secret science,'' based on
claims about studies of fine soot pollution conducted almost
two decades ago, is unfounded despite lengthy congressional
inquiries. The bill would deny EPA the ability to rely upon
peer-reviewed medical studies that involve commitments to
patient confidentiality, when the agency carries out its
statutory responsibilities to safeguard public health and the
environment. Further, this bill would effectively amend
numerous environmental statutes by forbidding EPA to use
certain kinds of studies in setting health standards. It
would also make it impossible for EPA to use many kinds of
economic models it routinely relies on because those models
are proprietary. This marks a radical departure from
longstanding practices. Its end result would be to make it
much more difficult to protect the public by forcing EPA to
ignore key scientific studies.
HR 1422 would attack EPA's scientific process in a
different way. This bill would significantly weaken the
content and credibility of the Scientific Advisory Board
(SAB) reviews--a textbook example of making a government
program function poorly to the benefit of polluting
industries and at the expense of public health and
independent science. The bill will add unnecessary new
burdens on the SAB, distorting its mission and altering its
process with no benefit to EPA or the public. The worst
provision would mandate allowing the participation of
scientists with financial conflicts of interest, as long as
those conflicts are disclosed. This is inconsistent with a
set of nearly universally accepted scientific principles to
eliminate or limit financial conflicts. The bill also
significantly broadens the scope of the SAB and creates a
comment process that will add needless delay to the Board's
work. The result would be further stalling and undermining of
important public health, safety, and environmental
protections.
Lastly, HR 4795 is a substantive attack on our nation's
right to clean air protections. It would grant amnesty from
national clean air health standards, create red tape and
cause unintended burdens to local businesses. The bill would
exacerbate air pollution nationwide, causing harm to public
health and making the jobs of state and local officials
harder to perform. Newly permitted industrial facilities
would be allowed to operate in violation of national health
standards, while other local businesses and local communities
would have to ``pick up the slack'' and be penalized for the
new facility's amnesty and pollution. In so doing, the bill
repeals a health safeguard in place for nearly 40 years under
the Clean Air Act, making it more difficult for states to
permit new facilities while also keeping their air clean.
This legislation will obstruct the implementation and
enforcement of critical environmental statutes, undermine the
EPA's ability to consider and use science, and jeopardize
public health. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose these
bills.
Sincerely,
BlueGreen Alliance; Center for Biological Diversity;
Center for Effective Government; Clean Water Action;
Communications Workers of America; Defenders of
Wildlife; Earthjustice; Environment America;
Environmental Defense Fund; International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW); League of Conservation Voters;
Natural Resources Defense Council; Public Citizen;
Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC);
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now; Utility Workers
Union of America (UWUA); WE ACT for Environmental
Justice.

[[Page H8092]]

____
Statement of Administration Policy

h.r. 4012--secret science reform act of 2014

(Rep. Schweikert, R-AZ, and 53 cosponsors, Nov. 17, 2014)

The Administration strongly supports regulatory
transparency, but strongly opposes H.R. 4012. The bill would
impose arbitrary, unnecessary, and expensive requirements
that would seriously impede the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) ability to use science to protect public
health and the environment, as required under an array of
environmental laws, while increasing uncertainty for
businesses and States.
H.R. 4012 could be used to prevent EPA from finalizing
regulations until legal challenges about the legitimate
withholding of certain scientific and technical information
are resolved. The bill also could prevent EPA from making
crucial decisions, including those concerning the cleanup of
contaminated sites, if the data supporting those decisions
cannot, for legitimate reasons, be made publicly available.
For example, some scientifically-important data is not made
broadly available in order to protect the privacy of test
subjects or Confidential Business Information, and H.R. 4012
could prevent EPA from taking actions based on protected
data. In short, the bill would undermine EPA's ability to
protect the health of Americans, would impose expensive new
mandates on EPA, and could impose substantial litigation
costs on the Federal government. It also could impede EPA's
reliance on the best available science.
Instead of an overly broad bill that would tie EPA's hands,
the Administration urges Congress to support the
Administration's efforts to make scientific and technical
information more accessible and regulations more transparent.
A bill consistent with the principles expressed in the
Administration's Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review'' and the December 2010 Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Memorandum on Scientific
Integrity, as well as implementation of the Administration's
recent open data and public access initiatives (e.g., OSTP's
February 2013 policy memorandum on Increasing Access to the
Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research) would
greatly benefit the American people. EPA also has embarked on
several initiatives that enhance access to and transparency
of data and science used to inform policy and regulatory
decisions.
If the President were presented with H.R. 4012, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is
a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is a dangerous attack on the power of
knowledge.
Supposedly, this bill prevents the Environmental Protection Agency
from using secret science to issue regulations. Supposedly, by
requiring the EPA to only consider publicly available data when
drafting regulations, this bill will make the EPA more transparent.
Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. Science has
shown over and over that air pollution causes health problems, such as
asthma. This is not a disputable fact.
Scientists have spent years comparing data on air pollution with data
on health problems. Those results are very clear. They have been
replicated, they have been peer-reviewed, and the EPA has issued
regulations accordingly.
But the data in these studies cannot be made public without risking
the violation of the privacy of Americans who voluntarily participated
in them by releasing their personal health information. Rather than
argue with the indisputable facts on air pollution--a losing bet--this
bill attempts to discredit the science as ``secret,'' when in fact
there is nothing secret about it.
The only secret here is the true intent of this bill, a dangerous
attack on science itself. For this reason, I have cosponsored an
amendment proposed by Mr. Kennedy. The amendment clarifies that nothing
in this bill will prevent the EPA from using sound peer-reviewed
science to issue regulations. One cannot oppose that without opposing
science itself.
Science has brought us to the Moon, it has brought us the electric
lightbulb, and yes, it demonstrates a link between air pollution and
asthma. The American people rely on us to make decisions based on
facts, not to legislate away facts that are politically inconvenient.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire on the time remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining,
and the gentlewoman from Texas has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.
It is interesting to listen to this debate. You hear one hyperbolic
statement after the other from our friends on the other side. Two
Members have used the claim that this is anti-science. One Member just
said this is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Mr. Chairman, it makes you wonder, doesn't it, why the defensiveness
about transparency, why the defensiveness about the truth, why the
defensiveness about more participation as it relates to science, and
here is the answer: they have got to defend something, Mr. Chairman,
and they have got to defend something that is indefensible.
What they have to defend is the orthodoxy that allowed the other side
to create ObamaCare. The architect of ObamaCare, Jonathan Gruber, said
this is a tortured way to make sure CBO scores it this way and so forth
and so on, and they basically had to trick and manipulate and so forth.
The irony is that the very folks who are claiming to shroud
themselves in the truth are actually doing the exact opposite.
Here is the point: I represent manufacturers. I represent all kinds
of people who are in business and science, Mr. Chairman. What they want
is to be able to participate in this process. They want to know that
the regulations that are being foisted upon them from Washington, D.C.,
at least are based on good science and are not based on bumper stickers
and other nonsense. They want to make sure that the decisionmaking is
transparent and that it makes sense.
This is a great bill. We should all vote for it.

{time} 1345

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the one scientist we have
with a Ph.D. in physics in our body who is retiring and, as of next
year, will become the CEO of AAAS.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady, my good friend from
Texas, and I rise in opposition to this legislation.
The bill concerns me, not only about the interference with protection
of public health, but also the harm it would do to science and the
science process. In sum, H.R. 4012 would prohibit the EPA from using
any scientific studies that are not publicly available and cannot be
independently reproduced.
Now, while this sounds virtuous and laudable, it is, at best, a
blatant misunderstanding of how scientists operate, of the peer review
process, and a violation of health privacy laws and an affront to
science.
Now, I see the other side saying, oh, no, it is not a violation of
health privacy laws because anything that violates the health privacy
laws won't be used. Well, that is the point.
Mr. Chairman, I will enter into the Record a letter from the
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, dated
November 4, which says, ``the proposed legislation is so broad that it
could be used to prevent the implementation of nearly any regulation by
the Environmental Protection Agency.''
These are not partisans who are talking about this. These are people
who want the science used so that we have good regulations. They are
not trying to interfere with EPA's work.
Consider epidemiology. This is the science that investigates the
patterns in disease and health, like trying to understand the spread of
diseases like Ebola, or in understanding why smoking causes cancer.
Now, not surprisingly, collecting these epidemiological data requires
getting information that is legally prohibited from disclosure under
the health privacy legislation, data about illness and treatment and
family history and so forth.
So when H.R. 4012 says EPA must use studies where the information is
public, it is saying EPA may not use many, perhaps most,
epidemiological studies because the researchers are prohibited legally
from making their data publicly available. There is no question that
H.R. 4012 strips EPA of

[[Page H8093]]

the ability to use the best available science.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the
gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. HOLT. Were it to become law, studies that might be used on
regulations to keep drinking water safe or to prevent exposure to
dangerous pesticides or other chemicals would be null and void.
Let's be honest. The not-so-hidden motivations behind this are to
restrict the availability of academic independent science and to
strengthen the hand of biased industry input. It is entitled the
``Secret Science Act,'' which is a direct aspersion on science and the
peer review process. It suggests that scientists are conspirators in
lab coats trying to pull one over and bring in unnecessary regulations.
Everyone wants transparency, reproducibility, accountability. The
science community, the publications, the universities, the funding
agencies are working on this all the time. They don't need this help,
so to speak, from Congress.
Science is a system of progress toward knowing what is right. It is
better than the private marketplace or industrial manipulation. Let's
let science work.

Federation of American Societies

for Experimental Biology,

Bethesda, MD, November 4, 2014.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McCarthy and Minority Leader Pelosi:
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB) would like to express its opposition to H.R. 4012,
the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014. As a federation of 27
scientific and engineering societies, representing more than
120,000 biomedical researchers, we clearly understand and
support the principle that federal regulations must be based
on sound science. We are, however, concerned that the
language of the proposed legislation is so broad that it
could be used to prevent the implementation of nearly any
regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and,
by precedent, lead to similar restrictions on other agencies.
We agree that federal agencies should base regulations on
sound science. However, we are concerned that this
legislation will not increase transparency, and is, in fact,
duplicative of existing policies.
According to a March 9, 2009 Memorandum from the White
House on the subject of Scientific Integrity, ``when
scientific or technological information is considered in
policy decisions, the information should be subject to well-
established scientific processes.'' Additionally, under
Section (d), unless information is prevented from being
disclosed by statute or other regulation, ``an agency should
make available to the public the scientific or technological
findings or conclusions considered or relied on in policy
decisions.'' In accordance with this Memorandum, the EPA has
its own Scientific Integrity Policy. As the policy notes, the
EPA is in compliance with the 2002 Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Information Quality Guidelines, the 2005 OMB
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, the EPA's
Quality Policy for assuring the collection and use of sound
scientific data, and the EPA's Information Quality Guidelines
for establishing the transparency, integrity, and utility of
information used and published by the agency. This extensive
and comprehensive set of regulations more than ensures that
the science upon which EPA bases regulations is of the
highest technical merit, transparent, and reproducible.
Steps to enhance and put back transparency across all
disciplines of science are already underway at several other
federal agencies. For instance, the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) is developing a training module for graduate
students to enhance experimental design to increase the
reproducibility and transparency of research findings.
Funding agencies, including NIH and the National Science
Foundation, require inclusion of data management plans as
part of the grant application. These efforts enhance work
already being done by the agencies to ensure the
transparency, availability, and reproducibility of data
produced by federally-funded research.
As working scientists, we are dedicated to the open
circulation of our work, much of which is funded by federal
agencies that require dissemination, including the EPA, NIH,
the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.
We are equally committed to seeing that our research results
contribute to the good of the Nation, including the quality
of its environment and the health of its people. Establishing
unreasonably broad and burdensome requirements for the
implementation of already well-supported regulations, as H.R.
4012 appears to do, could weaken the scientific foundations
of government policy, contrary to the stated goals of the
bill.
For these reasons, FASEB opposes the Secret Science Reform
Act in its present form.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Haywood, PhD,
FASEB President.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my buddy who actually went to MIT and knows
something on the subject.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4012, the
Secret Science Reform Act.
Before I came to Washington, I spent 6 years studying science, math,
and engineering at MIT. We were taught there and we learned very well
that transparency and reproducibility are the basic tenets of science.
In fact, one of my favorite things that I learned--and this comes from
engineering, where you apply science--is, without facts, all you have
is an opinion.
That is what the other side needs to learn today. They are hiding
behind this false narrative, unfortunately, that the EPA will be unable
to use certain data because they would have to release confidential or
private information. This is patently untrue.
Look, the FDA, the CFPB, the Census Bureau, which one of those
organizations does not collect data that has sensitive and private
information in it? Yet they still use the data. They can still disclose
the data, and it is transparent, and we can look at it.
This is a solvable problem. In fact, the National Academy of
Sciences, in 2005, said nothing in the past suggests that increasing
access to research data without damage to privacy and confidentiality
rights is beyond scientific reach.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, I will introduce into the Record a memorandum
from the President's own OMB to the executive heads of departments and
agencies that encourages more transparency. This is a May 9, 2013,
memorandum.
Clearly, we have the same goals with the administration, so I don't
understand why the other side is against this. In fact, this memorandum
from the President's own OMB says, ``Making information resources
accessible, discoverable, and usable by the public can help fuel
entrepreneurship, innovation, and scientific discovery--all of which
improve Americans' lives and contribute significantly to job
creation.''
But are they worried? Are they worried that you can't release data,
that you will violate somebody's privacy or confidentiality?
No, they are not. In fact, the President's own OMB Director
references the standards that we have. This is what science is about.
It is about standards. It is about units of measure. It is about
numbers. And we have standards for this. The NIST has standards for
guidelines and definitions for releasing data while maintaining
confidentiality, integrity, and availability. So they are clearly
hiding behind a false narrative.
The EPA Administrator, Ms. McCarthy, said in a March 7, 2014, letter
to Congress that the Agency's efforts ultimately resulted in the CDC
reaching the conclusion that all of the research data could be provided
without the need for de-identification.
So there is really a false narrative here. I don't know how the other
side, who purports to be for science--and I am for science, with my
background. I don't know how the other side can make these arguments
with a straight face.
I would just say the American people would be better served with
access to this data. I support the bill.

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2013.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

Subject: Open Data Policy--Managing Information as an Asset
From: Sylvia M. Burwell, Director; Steven VanRoekel, Federal
Chief Information Officer; Todd Park, U.S. Chief
Technology Officer; Dominic J. Mancini, Acting
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs.

Information is a valuable national resource and a strategic
asset to the Federal Government, its partners, and the
public. In order to ensure that the Federal Government is
taking full advantage of its information resources, executive
departments and agencies (hereafter referred to as
``agencies'') must manage information as an asset throughout
its life cycle to promote openness and interoperability, and
properly safeguard systems

[[Page H8094]]

and information. Managing government information as an asset
will increase operational efficiencies, reduce costs, improve
services, support mission needs, safeguard personal
information, and increase public access to valuable
government information.
Making information resources accessible, discoverable, and
usable by the public can help fuel entrepreneurship,
innovation, and scientific discovery--all of which improve
Americans' lives and contribute significantly to job
creation. For example, decades ago, the Federal Government
made both weather data and the Global Positioning System
(GPS) freely available to anyone. Since then, American
entrepreneurs and innovators have used these resources to
create navigation systems, weather newscasts and warning
systems, location-based applications, precision farming
tools, and much more.
Pursuant to Executive Order of May 9, 2013, Making Open and
Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information,
this Memorandum establishes a framework to help
institutionalize the principles of effective information
management at each stage of the information's life cycle to
promote interoperability and openness. Whether or not
particular information can be made public, agencies can apply
this framework to all information resources to promote
efficiency and produce value.
Specifically, this Memorandum requires agencies to collect
or create information in a way that supports downstream
information processing and dissemination activities. This
includes using machine-readable and open formats, data
standards, and common core and extensible metadata for all
new information creation and collection efforts. It also
includes agencies ensuring information stewardship through
the use of open licenses and review of information for
privacy, confidentiality, security, or other restrictions to
release. Additionally, it involves agencies building or
modernizing information systems in a way that maximizes
interoperability and information accessibility, maintains
internal and external data asset inventories, enhances
information safeguards, and clarifies information management
responsibilities.
The Federal Government has already made significant
progress in improving its management of information resources
to increase interoperability and openness. The President's
Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government instructed
agencies to take specific actions to implement the principles
of transparency, participation, and collaboration, and the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Open Government
Directive required agencies to expand access to information
by making it available online in open formats. OMB has also
developed policies to help agencies incorporate sound
information practices, including OMB Circular A-130 and OMB
Memorandum M-06-02. In addition, the Federal Government
launched Data.gov, an online platform designed to increase
access to Federal data assets. The publication of thousands
of data assets through Data.gov has enabled the development
of numerous products and services that benefit the public.
To help build on these efforts, the President issued a
Memorandum on May 23, 2012 entitled Building a 21st Century
Digital Government that charged the Federal Chief Information
Officer (CIO) with developing and implementing a
comprehensive government-wide strategy to deliver better
digital services to the American people. The resulting
Digital Government Strategy outlined an information-centric
approach to transform how the Federal Government builds and
delivers digital services, and required OMB to develop
guidance to increase the interoperability and openness of
government information.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is ranking member on
the Environmental Subcommittee.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4012,
the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, a short bill with a long list of
problems.
Now, I applaud the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Schweikert, the chairman
of the Environment Subcommittee, for his goal on transparency.
Transparency is something our constituents care about and deserve. But
transparency is something we should accomplish through collaboration
with and input from the scientific community. This bill, unfortunately,
passed out of the Science Committee on a party-line vote and is
opposed, for good reason, by research institutions and scientists from
across the country.
As the cornerstone of its regulatory process, the EPA relies on peer-
reviewed science conducted by the brightest minds at our Nation's
universities and other research organizations. The EPA already publicly
discloses the studies that support regulatory action.
Large cohort studies like the American Cancer Society and Harvard Six
Cities studies, which made an association between air pollution and
mortality, are vital to the Agency as it pursues its mission of
protecting public health. These studies that were peer reviewed have,
since they were conducted, been subject to reanalysis with their
findings confirmed.
This Secret Science Reform Act, which looks simple on its face, will
actually encumber, if not eradicate, the EPA's ability to perform its
most fundamental duty: protecting Americans from significant risks to
human health and the environment. The EPA would only, under this bill,
be able to rely on publicly available data and studies that are
reproducible, making it virtually impossible to use many reports and
other sources of scientific data.
I want to add that this act also perpetuates the incorrect notion
that the science relied on by the EPA is somehow hidden. It is not.
This misconception is based on conflating the meanings of ``secret''
and ``confidential.'' One thing should be made clear in this debate.
None of the information used by the EPA is secret. Some information may
be confidential if it includes, for example, the personal health
information of millions of Americans who participated in a study about
air quality.
Finally, another concern about this act is that it attempts to block
access to good science, in part, because the Science Committee majority
has not been able to obtain data it requested through a subpoena, data
containing the personal health information of millions of Americans
that was part of the Harvard Six and American Cancer studies. The EPA
responded to that subpoena with all of the information in its
possession that it was legally authorized to provide--boxes and boxes
and stacks and stacks of data and information--and apparently that was
not enough. Now the Secret Science Reform Act is going further, with
chilling consequences for the EPA and for every American who deserves
to enjoy clean air and clean water.
Let's bring back common sense. Using the personal health information
of Americans as a bargaining chip is unacceptable. I strongly urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation.
Let's go back to the drawing board, work collaboratively to make this
a better bill, and let the EPA go back to protecting the public health
of Americans.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire into the time remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 15 minutes remaining. The
gentlewoman from Texas has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of
H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014.
This much-needed legislation will finally start to shed light for the
American people on the underlying science that the EPA uses to justify
their new rules and regulations. Not only would the EPA have to share
the evidence they are using or the science they are using on the rules,
but they would have to specify the need for the rule. But most
importantly, the results of the EPA's analysis would have to provide
enough information so that the public can independently reproduce the
results so that we can check the EPA's work.
As I travel up and down my district visiting small, medium, and large
manufacturing companies, I hear a common theme over and over again. At
almost every stop these companies are telling me they are dealing with
new or proposed rules coming out of the EPA. Whether it is a mom-and-
pop brick manufacturing company, an international steel manufacturing
company, or a coal-fired power plant, they are all dealing with new and
very costly new EPA rules. If the EPA and environmentalists get their
way, some of these companies will simply go out of business because the
rules are unattainable and they apparently don't really move the needle
toward improvements in public health.
I say ``apparently'' because we don't have all the facts and data
that the EPA is using to justify these new rules, and we can't validate
and verify what they are telling the public.
Thousands of direct jobs and tens of thousands of indirect jobs are
at risk because of these proposed and pending rules. We owe it to these
hardworking

[[Page H8095]]

men and women to share the science with the public so we can verify
what the EPA is saying before they lose their jobs over unverified
studies.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this
legislation.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. I thank Chairman Schweikert for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and the sponsor have done a good job of
describing what the bill is and what it does and why it is necessary. I
want to talk a little bit about what is at stake.
I think the first thing that we have to consider that is at stake is
the unilateral disarmament of the American economy by virtue of
destroying, really, our global competitiveness. It is an interesting
time to talk about it.
Our President just came back from making a deal in China, a climate
deal in China, where the Chinese are allowed to continue to pollute for
16 years, create more jobs of their own and take some of ours, while we
put standards and requirements, emissions requirements on our
industries that won't be able to keep up and put our jobs at risk.
In my home State of North Dakota, there are 4,000 megawatts of low-
cost electricity--the jobs that producing that electricity creates and
the competitiveness that that electricity provides for our economy--
that is at stake, all based on EPA rules that are based on some 1970s,
decades-old data and studies that are only available to the
bureaucrats.

{time} 1400

We have, for example, in western North Dakota a brick plant in
Hebron, Hebron Brick, that is subject to the MACT rule, which is a rule
based on studies that are tightly held, again, and only visible to the
bureaucrats. We have countless acres of private farmland and ranch land
in our State and in the States around us that have been owned privately
for generations. It is up for grabs if this Waters of the U.S. rule
continues to go forward, a rule that really took forceful inquiry by
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee to find, to get, to reveal
the secret maps that the EPA was creating as part of this massive land
grab.
It really comes down to this, Mr. Chairman: we are at a time in our
country when there is very, very low confidence by the public in our
government. I am just saying let's restore America's confidence in
America's government, and let's provide the one great safeguard to
corruption that we can provide, and that is transparency.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Have you ever had a moment at which you are approaching the
microphone--and you have got to accept that we are all passionate about
our views--and you have heard some things that, shall we say, start to
get your blood pressure moving a bit, but let me see if I can do this
without being hyperbolic and then walk through some of the realities of
the information that is laid out in front of me right here.
First, I do want to respond to something that Ranking Member Johnson
said. I want to first caveat that she has always been very kind to me,
but we have the confirmation from the EPA, itself--and we will put the
documents into the Record--that they are perfectly capable of blinding
anything that is confidential, anything that is personal. I mean, we
have the comments from Administrator McCarthy on March 7 walking us
through that they can do this, and they didn't see it as a real
problem.
Let me walk through something else that I am finding sort of absurd,
and I am having a little trouble finding the best way to articulate
this. We spent about an hour in our office sort of just searching the
Internet on this subject. If you go back about a decade ago, a number
of our friends on the left were demanding something almost identical to
this. So what is different? It wouldn't happen to be a different
philosophy, a different President, a different party in the White
House, would it?
Let me back up and say: Why do I embrace this Secret Science bill,
H.R. 4012?
I genuinely, in every fiber of my being, believe that we will get
better policy, better design, more creative ideas because, whether you
are on the left, the right, or are just an active addition, you do not
know whether the EPA rule sets are optimal. You may believe they are,
but we are doing it on faith. Peer review is wonderful except for the
fact that the peer reviewers don't see the underlying data. The beauty
of this piece of legislation is that neither you nor I right now knows,
in the absolute collective analysis, whether the EPA is even going far
enough or whether it is going too far or whether there is another
approach that would be dramatically more efficient.
What happens when that researcher gets his hands on a linear data set
and matches it up with something else that no one had thought of
putting in there and, all of a sudden, discovers the noise in the data
that there are opportunities to do it better, faster, more efficiently,
to save lives, or to maybe even do it cheaper?
You will not know that until the cabal that right now has the
franchise on the information, on the brokerage of the data, is broken
up. What is so stunningly disheartening here is that much of this
concept, if you go back and look at the speeches from the President in
2007 and 2008, and at memos from the President 18 months ago, from OMB,
demanding this, saying this was the wave of the future if you embrace
science--but not the science of an elite few. The fact of the matter is
our Nation--our country--and our world is made up of really smart
people who have the right and the ability to give us input to do this
better.
I beg of my fellow Members here to stop being afraid of true
transparency. Stop defending the incumbent class that thinks it has the
only legitimate scientists who have the right to put forward what our
future looks like.
I may be behind this microphone in a couple of years from now if this
bill passes, saying: I never knew we weren't going far enough. You may
be behind that microphone over there, saying: The crowd analysis of the
data says there was a dramatically better way. But we need to pass this
bill to have that opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, March 7, 2014.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of February
14, 2014, regarding the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) response to a subpoena duces
tecum (subpoena) from the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology (Committee).
As you note in your letter, during and immediately after my
November 14, 2013, appearance before your Committee, we
agreed to additional dialogue regarding the EPA's response to
the subpoena. I understand that our staffs have had several
discussions since that date, and made significant progress
toward a common understanding of this matter. I want to thank
you and your staff for your willingness to engage in these
discussions, as I believe they have been both productive and
constructive.
Your subpoena sought data from the American Cancer Society
and Harvard Six Cities cohorts, as well as analyses and re-
analyses of that data. In particular, the subpoena sought
data from studies that utilized data from the American Cancer
Society and Harvard Six Cities cohorts. Once the EPA received
the subpoena, we conducted a diligent search for data, as
well as analyses and re-analyses of that data that were
already in our possession, custody, or control that would be
responsive to the subpoena. In addition, we considered what
data, as well as analyses and re-analyses of that data, were
not in our possession, custody, or control on the date we
received the subpoena, but that may still be within the scope
of the Committee's subpoena. For data, as well as analyses
and re-analyses of that data, that were not in the EPA's
possession, custody, or control but that could still be
considered within the scope of the subpoena, the EPA sought
to identify a legal authority for the agency to obtain that
information so that it could be provided to the Committee. In
this case, the Shelby Amendment (Public Law 105-277) provides
the EPA with the authority to obtain certain research data
that was not in the agency's possession, custody, or control
on the date we received the subpoena, and the EPA utilized
that authority to obtain that data.
The actions taken in response to the subpoena are detailed
in an enclosure (Enclosure 1) to this letter, and included
multiple

[[Page H8096]]

interactions with the third party owners of the research data
in an effort to obtain that data. Once the agency
successfully obtained the research data, we undertook a
review of this data to determine whether the release of the
data would raise privacy concerns. The agency sought the
assistance of the Centers for Disease Control in this inquiry
as well, in an effort to ensure the privacy of the subjects
of the data was not compromised.
Through its efforts, the EPA located within its possession,
custody, or control, or obtained through its authority, the
data for five studies listed in the subpoena. Any other data,
as well as analyses and re-analyses of that data, that may be
within the scope of the subpoena, whether specifically listed
in the subpoena or not, are not (and were not) in the
possession, custody, or control of the EPA, nor are they
within the authority to obtain data that the agency
identified. However, the issuance of the subpoena does not
provide the agency with any additional authority to obtain
data, as well as analyses and re-analyses of that data, that
we otherwise do not have the authority to obtain.
All responsive data, as well as analyses and re-analyses of
that data, located or obtained during our efforts to respond
to the subpoena have been provided to the Committee. The EPA
provided that data to the Committee through letters sent
prior to our receipt of the subpoena, and then our letters
responding to the subpoena of August 19, 2013, September 16,
2013, and September 30, 2013. The EPA provided the Committee
with the data for these five studies in exactly the same
format the data were provided to us. Importantly, the agency
was able to work through the various privacy concerns so that
we would not need to de-identify any of the data. As of the
EPA's letter of September 30, 2013, the agency has provided
the Committee with all of the data covered by the subpoena
that the agency has obtained or has the authority to obtain
under the Shelby Amendment. Additionally, the EPA has not
withheld any data in our possession that is responsive to the
subpoena. Thus, the EPA has completed its response to the
subpoena. The EPA acknowledges, however, that the data
provided are not sufficient in themselves to replicate the
analyses in the epidemiological studies, nor would they allow
for the one to one mapping of each pollutant and ecological
variable to each subject. For the reasons explained in our
previous letters on this topic, these acknowledgements do not
call into question the EPA's reliance on these studies for
regulatory actions.
Your February 14, 2014, letter also requests the grant
agreements related to the studies covered by the subpoena,
and those documents are being provided with this letter.
These EPA grant agreements span from 1998 to 2006 and contain
a variety of data access provisions. Despite that variation,
the EPA has reviewed each of the agreements and determined
that each grant agreement contained data access provisions
that are consistent with the EPA grant regulations at the
time of the award. The EPA's current practice is to
incorporate into our grant agreements a reference to the
agency's regulations regarding access to research data funded
by the grant.
Thank you again for the opportunity to explain the actions
the EPA took in responding to your subpoena.
Sincerely,
Gina McCarthy.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chair, I hope we can all agree that it is in the
nation's best interest to allow EPA to use the best available science
to protect our health and well-being. This means the science that EPA
uses should be held to the same standards as any other science. I
support transparency in scientific research, but it is important to
recognize that the data from many of the studies that EPA depends on
cannot be made publicly available without violating the privacy of
individuals.
As a member of the Science Committee, I have supported increased
public access to scientific data in science journals. However, there
are exceptions to the types of data that can be shared publicly. EPA
studies often rely on personal health records or proprietary computer
models to characterize the harmful effects of pollutants. We must not
mistake EPA's legally-mandated shielding of personally identifiable
information as dubious ``secret science.''
These studies undergo a rigorous review process including peer review
and sometimes replication. If the goal is more replication, Congress
should provide funds to conduct additional studies, not throw out
studies that depend on sensitive information. The Congressional Budget
Office estimates that up to 50 percent of the studies that EPA uses
rely on such sensitive materials. Through these studies, we gain a
deeper understanding of our natural environment that is invaluable to
informing public health policy. This bill would eliminate these
insightful scientific studies from being used to protect our clean air
and drinking water.
This bill could also dangerously impact participation in future
public health studies if privacy of study participants cannot be
ensured. It is unclear how EPA would make data ``publicly available in
a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of research results,'' without divulging identities. With
the large amount of personal information available on the internet and
in public archives, it can be relatively easy to identify an individual
based on limited information.
Our businesses, our environment, and our families depend on EPA to
work with the best available science to protect the air we breathe and
the water we drink. I cannot support a piece of legislation that
impedes their ability to do so.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I submit the following
letters.

American Statistical Association,

Alexandria, VA, September 5, 2014.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McCarthy, As president-elect of the
American Statistical Association, with 19,000 members, I
write regarding H.R. 4012, the ``Secret Science Reform Act.''
We generally applaud the idea that researchers and federal
agencies strive to make data available to others--under
strict pledges to maintain confidentiality of data provided
by individuals and establishments where necessary--and to
encourage reproducible research. Access to data and
reproducibility of research are crucially important for
science to advance.
While H.R. 4012's intent is to make data more widely
available, we have several concerns and urge the bill to be
revised significantly before further consideration. Our
concerns include those voiced by others (especially the
American Association for the Advancement of Science) that the
bill's statements do not account for the complexities common
to the scientific process on research that involves
biological materials or physical specimens not easily
accessible, combinations of public and private data,
longitudinal data collected over many years that are
difficult to reproduce, and data from one-time events that
cannot be replicated. The bill as written could have far-
reaching consequences that would ultimately hamper or
undermine the scientific process generally and EPA's work
specifically. We also agree with the point that it would be
prudent to see the EPA's data access policy--in accordance
with the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010--
expected by year's end before further action on H.R. 4012.
Our nation should be striving for transparency in
government and, as noted above, data accessibility, but these
goals also must be balanced with the necessity to protect
individuals' and businesses' privacy. The bill's language of
``publicly available'' except when ``prohibited by law''
acknowledges this balance, but that language is vague and may
be insufficient to protect individuals and businesses. In
particular, some data sets may not fall under ``prohibited by
law,'' yet the data are still collected under a pledge to
protect the identifiability and confidentiality of the
reported values. For example, the government, as well as
private and nonprofit sectors, routinely collects data--
including private business information and private health
information--under strict pledges to protect confidentiality.
In some studies, this is backed up with penalties for
violating those pledges. Such data should not be publicly
available to every person who might ask for them. Rather,
data subjects' confidentiality should be protected, for
example by policies and procedures that provide data access
to trusted users (i.e., approved users committed to
appropriate protections of the confidentiality of study
participants) while discouraging breaches of confidentiality
and/or by data redaction techniques developed in the
statistical and computer science communities. Under the
current wording, a choice may have to be made between
maintaining data confidentiality and issuing needed
regulations.
To emphasize the challenges and importance of
confidentiality protection, we note that simple but necessary
de-identification methods--like stripping names and other
personally identifiable information (PII)--often do not
suffice to protect confidentiality. Statisticians and
computer scientists have repeatedly shown it can be possible
to link individuals to publicly available sources, even with
PII removed. Thus, allowing unrestricted public access
without appropriate controls could result in unintended
disclosures. These could cause significant harm to the
advancement of science and the federal government--especially
the federal statistical system--as people may be less willing
to provide their data if highly publicized breaches occur.
In short, any requirements for making data available should
carefully consider the complexities, challenges, and
potential ramifications. We hope you will address these
concerns, which would require major modifications to the
bill. We would be happy to be of any assistance.
Sincerely,

David Morganstein,

President-Elect,
American Statistical Association.
____

November 17, 2014.
Dear Representative: The undersigned individuals and
organizations working on public health and science-informed
regulation strongly oppose HR 4012, the Secret Science Reform
Act, and HR 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act,
up for a House vote as early as November 18.
Both bills would severely undermine the ability of the
Environmental Protection

[[Page H8097]]

Agency (EPA) to use the best available scientific evidence
when making decisions regarding the protection of public
health and safety and the environment.
HR 4012, the erroneously named Secret Science Reform Act,
would tie the EPA's hands by restricting the information it
can use to develop protective regulations. The EPA could only
regulate based on publicly available scientific data. This
restriction would block the agency's use of many different
types of public health data, such as those for which public
release would violate privacy protections, or data from
corporations that are designated as confidential business
information.
It also would restrict the use of scientific data that is
not ``reproducible.'' This provision seems to adopt a very
narrow view of scientific information solely based on
laboratory experiments. As major scientific societies
including the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) have noted, such a restriction would eliminate
the use of most epidemiological and public health data, such
as those regarding the public health impacts of air
pollution, because these data are collected in long-term
studies following individuals longitudinally.
Not only do privacy concerns arise, but such studies are
not inherently reproduced in the way a laboratory experiment
or a clinical trial may be. It would be unethical to
deliberately expose adults or children to air pollution
merely to determine whether the increased rates of asthma and
heart attacks caused by such exposures can be duplicated, or
to encourage teenagers to smoke to re-assess the toxic
effects of tobacco.
HR 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would
greatly weaken the EPA's advisory process, ensuring that
recommendations from its independent Science Advisory Board
(SAB) will be dominated by corporate special interests. While
the bill has been improved by several amendments offered by
minority members of the House Science Committee, it still
remains unacceptable.
This bill opens the door to increased corporate influence
on the Board, both by encouraging the EPA to accept more SAB
panelists with corporate ties, and disqualifying some of the
nation's leading experts.
The bill's overly broad restriction that a member of the
SAB cannot participate in a discussion that cites the
member's own work is counterproductive, and goes far beyond
the common-sense limits imposed by the National Academies. Of
course, a scientist with expertise on topics the SAB
addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies and
other work on that topic. That makes the scientist's
evaluation more valuable, not less.
Even worse, the bill requires the SAB to remain in an
endless loop soliciting public comment about the ``state of
the science'' touching on every major advisory activity it
undertakes and responding to nearly every comment before
moving forward, without being limited by any time
constraints. At best, the SAB will be reduced to busy work.
At worst, the SAB's assessments will address the concerns of
corporations, not the desires of citizens for science-
informed regulation that protects public health.
These bills together will greatly impede the ability of
EPA, and potentially other agencies, to utilize the best
available science, independently reviewed, to inform
regulations crucial to public health and the environment.
We strongly urge you to vote No on HR 4012 and HR 1422.
Sincerely,
Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned
Scientists; Annie Appleseed Project; Breast Cancer Action;
Center for Medical Consumers; Institute for Ethics and
Emerging Technologies; National Center for Health Research;
National Physicians Alliance; Our Bodies, Ourselves;
Physicians for Social Responsibility; Public Citizen; The TMJ
Association; Woodymatters; Susan F. Wood, PhD, Associate
Professor, Director, Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, The
George Washington University, Milken Institute School of
Public Health; John H. Powers, MD, Associate Clinical
Professor of Medicine, The George Washington University
School of Medicine.
____

Union of Concerned Scientists,

Cambridge, MA, November 17, 2014.
Dear Representative: I am writing in strong opposition to
H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, up for a
vote in the House as early as Nov. 18. The legislation
represents a solution in search of a problem, and would
greatly impede the agency's mission to protect public health
and the environment.
The EPA already makes the data, methodology, and peer-
reviewed research it relies on in its rule-making processes
as transparent as possible. Moreover, the additional
restrictions imposed by this proposed bill would make it
almost impossible to base public protections on the best
available scientific information. In particular, if enacted,
the language appears to indicate that the agency would be
inhibited by the following challenges:
The EPA wouldn't be able to use most health studies. The
agency would likely be prevented from using any study that
uses personal health data. The confidentiality of such data
is usually protected by institutional review boards (IRB);
thus, the data could not be made publicly available as
demanded. Since many EPA rules are health-based standards,
this rule would severely restrict the ability of the agency
to base rules on science.
The EPA wouldn't be able to draw from industry data
sources. The agency would be prevented from using data
provided by industry to the agency. Since information from
industry sources is often not publicly available, a law
requiring as such would prevent the agency from utilizing
industry data, a source of information that often provides
otherwise unknown data to inform EPA rule-making.
The EPA wouldn't be able to use new and innovative science.
New scientific methods and data may be restricted by
intellectual property protections or industry trade secret
exemptions. This proposed bill would limit EPA's ability to
rely on the best available science including novel approaches
that may not yet be publicly available.
Long-term and meta- analyses would be unavailable. Many of
EPA's health-based standards rely on long-term exposure
studies that assess the link between chronic diseases/
mortality and pollutants; or on meta- analyses that include
many different studies and locations to provide a more robust
look at the science. In HR 4012, the provision that studies
be conducted ``in a manner that is sufficient for independent
analysis and substantial reproduction of research'' may
prevent use of these vital studies by the EPA, as it is
unclear whether such spatially and temporally comprehensive
studies would be considered ``sufficient for substantial
reproduction.''
I strongly urge you to oppose the Secret Science Reform Act
of 2014. The proposed bill would inhibit the EPA's ability to
carry out its science-based mission to protect human health
and the environment
Sincerely,

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,

Director, Center for Science and
Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists.

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-57. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 4012

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Secret Science Reform Act of
2014''.

SEC. 2. DATA TRANSPARENCY.

Section 6(b) of the Environmental Research, Development,
and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4363
note) is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or
disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and
technical information relied on to support such covered
action is--
``(A) specifically identified; and
``(B) publicly available in a manner that is sufficient for
independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research
results.
``(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as
requiring the public dissemination of information the
disclosure of which is prohibited by law.
``(3) In this subsection--
``(A) the term `covered action' means a risk, exposure, or
hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation,
regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance; and
``(B) the term `scientific and technical information'
includes--
``(i) materials, data, and associated protocols necessary
to understand, assess, and extend conclusions;
``(ii) computer codes and models involved in the creation
and analysis of such information;
``(iii) recorded factual materials; and
``(iv) detailed descriptions of how to access and use such
information.''.

The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House
Report 113-626. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 113-626.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 1, line 13, insert ``online'' after ``publicly
available''.

[[Page H8098]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 756, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense, one-
word amendment to H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act.
My simple amendment adds the word ``online'' to the disclosure
requirements found in this legislation.
The Congressional Budget Office has determined that my amendment
would not score and would not affect direct spending or revenues. My
amendment is supported by the chairman of the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee, Lamar Smith. My amendment also has the support of
the sponsor, Mr. Schweikert. I would like to thank both the chairman,
Mr. Smith, and Congressman Schweikert for their efforts on this
legislation and for their support of my amendment.
As a result of my simple, good governance amendment, the EPA will be
required to make all scientific and technical information relied upon
for rulemaking available online before proposing or finalizing new
regulations.
I strongly support H.R. 4012, and I am proud to cosponsor this
commonsense bill offered by my good friend and fellow Arizonan, David
Schweikert. The underlying bill would require the Environmental
Protection Agency to utilize actual science when formulating
regulations, and it requires that the science be made available for
peer review and reproduction.
A recent poll from the Institute for Energy Research found that
approximately 90 percent of all Americans support making studies and
data utilized by the Federal Government available to the general
public. By the way, the general public is not stupid. The intent of the
bill is transparency, and I believe the best way to accomplish that
goal is to require this information to be posted online.
For far too long, the EPA has used secret studies and so-called
``peer reviews'' from biased sources to justify regulations that fit
their job-killing agenda. Not only does this practice result in a lack
of transparency, it also leads to hundreds of thousands of jobs being
destroyed across the country by unreasonable and unnecessary
regulations.
A requirement similar to my amendment was adopted by this body when
the House passed H.R. 4315 this past July. A provision found in H.R.
4315 required that data used by Federal agencies for Endangered Species
Act listing decisions be made publicly available and accessible through
the Internet.
Finally, H.R. 4012 protects personal and confidential information and
has a provision that makes clear such information will not be disclosed
as a result of this act. My amendment would not conflict with such
policy.
Again, all my simple, one-word amendment does is require that the
scientific and technical information requirements in the underlying
bill be posted online. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my
commonsense amendment, and I urge the passage of the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr.
Gosar's amendment. At least it clarifies the underlying intent of this
bill in that this information relied on by the EPA should be thrown up
on the Web site.
The peer-reviewed science relied on by the EPA often involves
personal health information and other confidential data that is legally
protected from disclosure. No legitimate researcher would violate the
law and leak confidential information--for example, to make a trade
secret or information protected by HIPAA accessible to anyone who has
an Internet connection.
This amendment only makes the underlying problems with the bill that
much more obvious, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Foster).
Mr. FOSTER. I would like to thank the ranking member for her
leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, we frequently hear my colleagues across the aisle say,
``I am not a scientist,'' in response to a stance they may be taking on
a matter which has a strong technical or scientific aspect to it. Well,
I am a scientist, and that is why I am standing today in strong
opposition to the Secret Science Reform Act.
Even my colleagues in the House who are not scientists, when they
have a question of law, they will consult a lawyer, but that doesn't
seem to be the case where science is concerned. I think that it would
be good if in this House we spent a little while listening to the
scientists who are concerned with these issues.
Today, a letter was introduced into the Record from the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, signed by 42 organizations
representing scientific organizations and research universities. In the
letter, they state that the research community is concerned about how
some of the key terms in this bill could be interpreted or
misinterpreted, especially terms such as ``materials,'' ``data,'' and
``reproducible.''
Would the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, be excluded
from utilizing research that involved physical specimens or biological
materials that are not easily accessible? How would the Agency address
research that combines both public and necessarily private data?
These are all important questions which this legislation and, sadly,
this debate have not addressed, so I stand alongside thousands of my
colleagues in science in opposition to the Secret Science Reform Act
and in support of what has been referred to in this debate as ``so-
called peer review.'' Let us scientists set the scientific standards
and not Washington politicians.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I am a scientist and I am a dentist, so I
understand both science and HIPAA.
Provision 2 of section 2 of H.R. 4012 protects personal and
confidential information and has a provision that makes clear such
information will not be disclosed as a result of this act. My amendment
would not conflict with such policy.

{time} 1415

So you are telling me that President Obama and members of the
Democratic Party can yell and scream for the last couple of weeks about
the need to make all information available for free at the same speed
to everyone on the Internet, the net neutrality issue, but you all have
a problem with making the science about which the APA justifies the
regulations available online for peer review and reproduction?
Wow, we are really the party of secret science. Can we all say
``Jonathan Gruber''? And do videos count? This is an absurd objection
from an administration that claims that they were going to be the most
transparent administration in the history of this country.
I yield to my friend from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having two Members from
Arizona up here.
I am prepared to accept the amendment as the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. GOSAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kennedy

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 113-626.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 3. ENSURING THE USE OF THE BEST SCIENCE.

Nothing in this Act shall prevent the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency from considering or relying
upon any peer-reviewed scientific publication even if such
publication is based on data that is prohibited from public
disclosure.

[[Page H8099]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 756, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the comments of my colleagues,
particularly the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), about the
importance of transparency. An open government with transparent rules
and regulations is at the core of our democracy, but I also believe in
the unassailable value of science.
When this country's greatest minds come together to tackle our
greatest problems, we are a stronger Nation. Whether we are talking
about advancements and achievements in cancer treatment or clean water,
science makes us healthier, stronger, and richer.
Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today takes science off
the table for the EPA, the very Agency entrusted with keeping our air
clean, our water safe, and our homes clear from toxic substances. The
bill before us leaves the EPA with unworkable standards, prohibiting it
from using certain studies simply because they contain information
that, by law, cannot be made public. My amendment would fix this
oversight.
The Kennedy-McGovern-Clark amendment clarifies that the EPA can and
should use the best scientific information available, so long as that
data complies with the highest academic peer-review protocols.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the EPA relies on roughly
50,000 scientific studies every year. As written, H.R. 4012 would
drastically shrink this number. The bill before us could even prohibit
the EPA from using other government-funded research, like NIH studies
linking toxic substances to premature births or CDC research on
mitigating the impact of natural disasters and human health.
Imagine if we took this approach across the whole of government. The
results could be catastrophic. You don't just have to take my word for
it. I have got here, Mr. Chair, a letter from the Conference of Boston
Teaching Hospitals who write:

Research conducted at our hospitals, while not originally
undertaken for environmental protection purposes, is
sometimes relied upon by the EPA and other Federal agencies
to develop scientifically-based policies. Much of this
research uses personal health data which is protected by both
Federal law and our institutional review board guidelines.

Why would we want to lose research by the best and brightest minds in
medicine that could protect the American people?
I am proud to say that the Conference supports my amendment, stating:

By allowing the EPA to consider peer-reviewed scientific
publications in its work, this amendment would ensure that
the best available science is the foundation for the EPA's
important work.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to submit that letter for the Record.

Conference of Boston

Teaching Hospitals,

Boston, MA, November 18, 2014.
Representative Joseph Kennedy,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Kennedy: On behalf of the Conference of
Boston Teaching Hospitals, I would like to thank you for your
introduction of the amendment to H.R. 4012 and offer our full
support for the amendment.
As currently drafted, H.R. 4012, The Secret Science Reform
Act of 2014, would greatly impede the EPA's mission to
protect public health and the environment by making it nearly
impossible to develop policies founded on the best available
scientific information.
Research conducted at our hospitals, while not originally
undertaken for environmental protection purposes, is
sometimes relied upon by the EPA and other federal agencies
to develop scientifically based policies. Much of this
research uses personal health data which is protected by both
federal law and our institutional review board guidelines.
Under the proposed law, this valuable research would not be
able to be used when developing EPA policies. By allowing the
EPA to consider peer-reviewed scientific publications in its
work, this amendment would ensure that the best available
science is the foundation of the EPA's important work.
Thank you again for your leadership on this important
issue.
Sincerely,
John Erwin,
Executive Director.

Mr. KENNEDY. Furthermore, CBO, in its analysis of the bill, made some
troubling conclusions. For each scientific study used, the EPA could
incur additional costs of up to $30,000.
If the EPA continues to operate as it does today, this bill could
cost taxpayers an additional $1.5 billion every year, so this bill
ensures that the EPA would have to spend more money, use fewer studies,
all without being able to use the best science available.
There are several protections in place already to ensure that the
science that the EPA uses is the best science available and that it is
credible.
First, any and all studies go through a significant peer-review
process that includes an independent analysis.
Second, the Office of Science and Technology Policy is already
working to ensure that all publicly-funded research is available
online.
Third, public comment periods allow for anyone, an individual or
organization, to submit evidence supporting or opposing a proposed
regulation. However, this bill puts limits on the public comment
period. It would prohibit the EPA from taking into consideration
valuable studies that come to light along the way during that open
comment period if they provide private information.
Mr. Chairman, this makes no sense. I urge the House to accept my
amendment to clarify that the EPA may use the best science that is peer
reviewed and published, while upholding the necessary protections for
confidential information.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself an additional 20 seconds.
I would also like to thank my colleagues from Massachusetts,
Congressman Jim McGovern and Congresswoman Katherine Clark, for
supporting this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, as I approach the mike here, I want to
make it clear that my friend on the other side, who is speaking for
this amendment, has been very kind to me and my office, but the
amendment ultimately doesn't do what we just heard.
Let's walk through the sentence. ``Any peer-reviewed.'' It doesn't
say ``highest and best.''
Okay. Let's walk through the next portion of this. Peer review, if
you actually look at the methodology and the mechanics, is the study
plausible, credible? They don't get the underlying data set.
Do we all remember our Statistics 101 class? The multiple parts of an
equation that the sample sets are where so many of the difficulties
actually are; yet we are going to rely on peer review, for peer
reviewers that never see the underlying data.
The fact of the matter is if any of you have Web access right now,
there is Web site after Web site after Web site right now talking about
the retraction of peer-reviewed articles.
You are willing to hand hundreds of billions of dollars of potential
costs and regulations, you are willing to hand the health of Americans
over and not be willing to trust transparency where there is an
egalitarian nature, where my university, your university, a researcher
here, a researcher maybe on the other side of the world, someone that
just happens to be darn good at math, and has some other data sets out
there and matches it, but they are excluded because they don't meet the
definition of the official science, official reviewers, and even the
official reviewers never see the underlying data.
This amendment does not say the finest and the best and the most
highest standard of review. It says, ``any peer-reviewed.''
With that, Mr. Chairman, I request my brothers and sisters here in
this building to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my
colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for the time.
Mr. Chairman, there used to be a time when our Republican friends
respected science. There used to be a

[[Page H8100]]

time when people like Vern Ehlers, a physicist from Michigan, was
welcomed in the Republican Conference. Sadly, those times are long
gone. If we can't agree on basic scientific principles, then there
isn't much hope for us to agree on much else.
I will remind my colleagues, for the record, up is up, down is down,
gravity exists, the Earth orbits the Sun, and climate change is real.
It doesn't matter whether the data is private or public. What matters
is whether the findings are peer reviewed and can withstand scientific
scrutiny.
Scientists understand that the real litmus test for supporting a
finding is independent confirmation, using a completely independent
method.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
commonsense amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 230, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 526]

AYES--194

Adams
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--230

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Campbell
Cassidy
Duckworth
Hall
Johnson (GA)
Maloney, Carolyn
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Smith (WA)
Velazquez

{time} 1451

Mr. MULVANEY, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. MULLIN, Mrs. HARTZLER, and Mrs. WAGNER
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HORSFORD, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Messrs. AL GREEN of Texas, HUFFMAN,
and Ms. CLARKE of New York changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Poe of Texas, Acting Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
4012) to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing,
finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon
science that is not transparent or reproducible, and, pursuant to House
Resolution 756, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to
recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I am in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas moves to recommit the
bill H.R. 4012 to the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology with instructions to report the same back to the
House forthwith, with the following amendment:
Add at the end of the proposed subsection (b) the
following:

[[Page H8101]]

``(4) This subsection shall not apply to any covered action
that is in response to an emergency with the potential to
harm the health and safety of a community, including--
``(A) a disease outbreak such as Ebola or the pandemic flu;
``(B) a release of toxic chemicals into public drinking
water supplies; and
``(C) a nuclear, biological, or terrorist attack.''.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona reserves a point
of order.
The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by
saying that this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not
kill the bill or send it back to the committee. If adopted, the bill
will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
I have already spoken at some length about the problems with the
underlying bill. The bill would prevent the Environmental Protection
Agency from using the best science in its mission to protect public
health.
However, this motion to recommit highlights a specific and very
troubling aspect of this bill. As written, the bill would prevent EPA
from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating risk, exposure, or hazard
assessments or guidance based on nonpublic information.
I and my Democratic colleagues are concerned about how this language
would impede the EPA's ability to respond to emergencies and disasters.
I will give you an example. In my hometown of Dallas, we had a well-
publicized case of a man named Thomas Duncan tragically dying after
being infected with the Ebola virus. This gentleman was originally sent
home from the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital when his symptoms were
not initially identified as Ebola.
After Ebola was identified, great efforts were made to disinfect
areas the gentleman had contact with while he was infected with Ebola.
I have a picture displayed here.
Here in my hand is EPA's list of disinfectants for use against Ebola
virus. The EPA disseminates this critically important information on
its Web site.

{time} 1500

However, under this bill, the EPA could be prevented from
disseminating this type of information because EPA-registered
disinfectants are frequently supported by legally protected information
or confidential business information.
In my hometown, not my district, two nurses who work at the Texas
Health Presbyterian Hospital contracted Ebola. As a former nurse who
worked in Dallas, I think it would be appalling to put our frontline
health care workers, as well as the general public, at risk of the
deadly Ebola virus or any other infectious disease all so we can take a
political shot at EPA.
As another example of how this bill could affect emergency response,
EPA could be prevented from providing guidance during toxic chemical
spills like the one that occurred earlier this year in West Virginia.
If that guidance to local emergency responders were based on
confidential business information, which is oftentimes the case when
dealing with registered chemicals, then the EPA would be prohibited
from disseminating vital information to the local authorities. What is
remarkable is that the Natural Resources Defense Council warned the
committee of this exact issue in a letter back in February, but the
majority chose to ignore those warnings. That is plain irresponsible.
My amendment would fix this problem by exempting any response to an
emergency that could harm the health and safety of a community. The
amendment won't fix all of the problems with this bill, but it will
prevent one of the more morally objectionable outcomes of this
legislation.
I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw my reservation, and I
rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
On this particular occasion, on this motion to recommit, this MTR, it
does win a point on creativity. But if we actually just heard part of
it, you are telling me that the EPA, when they respond to a spill, they
are showing up embracing secret information on how they are responding.
It is absurd.
Maybe even the motion may be well-meaning, but when you start using
definitions of ``emergency,'' ``community,'' ``including'' with a long
dash, we all know where that leads, and it leads both to chaos,
inefficiency, and actually doesn't make a lot of drafting sense. So
let's actually move on to what we are really here about: the underlying
bill.
I have been shocked at sort of the crazy hyperbole that we have heard
today about the secret science bill. This bill is actually very simple.
All it does is provide transparency substantially as President Obama
campaigned on.
Walk through the mechanics. We were having a little debate in our
office whether I should hold these up. This here is a stack of letters,
memos, demands from folks on the left. It just happened to be there was
a Republican President, and even some of these when they were in the
majority here, demanding disclosure of the underlying data from the
EPA. There is even part of here where the former then-chairman was
demanding the data and saying if he didn't get it he was going after
contempt.
So what has changed? Seriously, what has changed here with the left
on transparency? Is it just the fact that we now have a Democrat in the
White House?
So let's actually walk through what we have all campaigned on in
here. Is there a Member here that, when you got in front of your
constituents, did not promise more transparency in government? That is
what this is about. If you are going to create rule sets that affect
every American's life, their health, their economic future, don't they
have the right to see the underlying data?
And think of the arrogance that is going on right here. If you
believe that the EPA is the sole keeper of all great knowledge, that
their cabal is the only one qualified to be creative, to understand is
there a better way, a more efficient way, a healthier way, then vote
against the bill. But if you believe in the American people, if you
believe in our institution, if you believe there is amazing knowledge
all over this country and all over this world, this is the transparency
that makes us healthier, that makes us more efficient, that makes
decisionmaking coming out of the EPA much more rational. This is what
we all campaigned on. This is what we promised. Let's go vote for it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 230, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 527]

AYES--196

[[Page H8102]]

Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--230

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--8

Campbell
Cassidy
Duckworth
Hall
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Smith (WA)
Walz

{time} 1513

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237,
noes 190, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 528]

AYES--237

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--190

Adams
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky

[[Page H8103]]

Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--7

Campbell
Cassidy
Duckworth
Hall
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Smith (WA)

{time} 1521

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I voted ``yes'' on H.R. 4012, the
Secret Science Reform Act of 2014. I would like to express that I
intended to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4012.

____________________