[Pages H1733-H1748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2015

General Leave

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R.
1030.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 138 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. 1030.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1233

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. 1030) 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.
Graves of Louisiana in the chair.

[[Page H1734]]

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 Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act, requires the Environmental
Protection Agency to base its regulations on unbiased, publicly
accessible science that can be verified. Why would anyone want to hide
this information from the American people?
This is essentially the same bill that was introduced in the last
Congress by the former Environment Subcommittee chairman, David
Schweikert, and it passed with bipartisan support last November.
We must make sure that Federal regulations are based on science that
is available for independent review. Many Americans are unaware that
some of the EPA's most expensive and burdensome regulations, such as
its proposed ozone rules, are based on data that not even the EPA has
seen. The EPA contracts out scientific research to third parties whom
the EPA relies upon to justify its regulations, but if independent
scientists ask for details, the Agency claims that it doesn't have the
data, and so results cannot be verified.
This is ``trust me'' science, which should make us suspicious, and it
clearly conflicts with this administration's promise to be the most
transparent in history. This bill ensures that the decisions that
affect every American are based on independently verified, unbiased
scientific research instead of on secret data that is hidden behind
closed doors.
The Secret Science Reform Act does not weaken privacy laws. In fact,
it states that nothing in the bill will supersede privacy laws. It does
not give the EPA any new authority to take private information and make
it public. The Secret Science Reform Act simply prohibits the Agency
from relying on nonpublic data that cannot be verified by independent
scientists. The bill requires the EPA to use data that is available to
the public when the Agency writes its regulations. This allows
independent researchers to evaluate the studies that the EPA uses to
justify its regulations. This is the scientific method.
How can we believe claims by the government about the costs and
benefits of regulations if the science that allegedly justifies them
cannot be verified by independent experts? What does the EPA want to
hide?
This bill does not require the EPA to pay to disseminate the data it
relies on publicly. Unfortunately, the CBO's old cost estimate on a
previous bill ignores this point. If a third party has researched data
that it believes the EPA should rely on in its rulemaking, that third
party should make it publicly available so that the EPA and other
scientists can check its work. There is nothing in the bill that
compels the EPA to shoulder this cost, which is where the CBO went
wrong in scoring the cost of this bill. The EPA has received over $8
billion this year. Billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars have been
spent by the EPA, and taxpayers deserve to know whether it went to good
science or to politically correct science.
Today, we have an opportunity to set a new course and let the
American people see the data. The EPA should use sound science based on
public data, not secret data hidden from the American people. This bill
also will help the EPA focus its resources on the best possible
science. That, in turn, will ensure a healthier, happier, and more
prosperous future for all Americans. The days of ``trust me'' science
are over. An open government that is accountable to the people is
essential to protect Americans from excessive government control. The
EPA has a responsibility to be open and transparent with the people it
serves and whose money it uses.
If you support the right of the people to see the EPA's data, then
support this bill and help the administration keep its promise to be
open and honest with the American people. In God we trust. All others,
especially the EPA, must use public data, not secret science.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform
Act of 2015.
First off, I would like to dispel the falsehood that the EPA relies
on secret science. They do not. They rely upon tens of thousands of
peer reviewed, publicly published research studies. The kind of science
that Republicans call ``secret'' actually consists of research studies
published in prestigious scientific journals like Science, the New
England Journal of Medicine, the Annals of Epidemiology, the American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, and many more.
Moreover, it is not a secret that the EPA uses these studies. In all
of the regulatory actions the EPA takes, they publish exhaustive
information about exactly what science the Agency is relying upon to
establish the scientific underpinnings of the regulations. These are
public documents that are easily located on the Internet.
So what is the secret?
What my Republican colleagues are calling ``secret'' is actually
confidential, personal health information from research study
participants. Some of this information is protected from disclosure by
law, and other information is protected by agreements between the study
participants and the researchers. The disclosure of this kind of
information would be a major breach of faith with the hundreds of
thousands of research participants who volunteer to enter these types
of public health studies.
That said, I don't actually think that my Republican colleagues want
this personal health information to be publicly disclosed. If they did
want that, it would be terribly hypocritical since they have been
repeatedly bashing the Obama Web site healthcare.gov for disclosing far
less information to third-party vendors.
I think that the real motivation here is to prevent the EPA from
using these public health studies altogether, because if the EPA cannot
rely upon these public health studies, then it will be much more
difficult for the EPA to justify its protections for public health. The
effect of this is that certain public health regulations will be almost
impossible to update regardless of what new things the health sciences
tell us about pollution and its effects on public health.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is sad that today the Science Committee is
on the floor of this House of Representatives putting forth a bill that
will force a public health agency to ignore science. That is why some
of our premier scientific organizations, such as the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the Union of Concerned
Scientists, the American Statistical Association, and others, have
expressed their concerns about this bill. It would be nice, when we
debate bills which are supposedly about science, if we actually
listened to the concerns of the scientific community instead of
ignoring them, as the majority has done here.
Likewise, some of the Nation's premier public health organizations,
like the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, and
the American Public Health Association, among others, have come out in
opposition to this bill.
Again, when dealing with issues of public health, it would be nice to
occasionally listen to what the public health experts have to say
instead of ignoring their voices, like the majority has done here.
Finally, a number of well-known environmental groups have registered
opposition to this legislation, including the Natural Resources Defense
Council, the League of Conservation Voters, and Greenpeace, among
others. There was a time not too long ago when the views of these
groups would have mattered to some of my Republican colleagues. Not too
many years ago, the then-Republican chairman of the Science Committee,
Sherry Boehlert, made clear that we need to be good stewards of the
environment we are leaving for future generations.
I want to believe that some of my Republican colleagues still believe
that. However, legislation like the bill before us today makes me fear
that what

[[Page H1735]]

we are left with is a majority party which ignores science, ignores
public health, and ignores environmental damage--all for the sake of
polluting industries that have endorsed the majority's actions here
today.
Now, I don't begrudge these companies for supporting legislation that
helps their bottom lines. It is expected. What concerns me is that this
Congress no longer looks at the industry's request with a critical eye.
We simply rubberstamp them without any regard for our Nation's
scientific experts, health experts, or environmental experts and their
concerns.
Mr. Chairman, I include some of these letters in the Record today
because Congress should care about these experts and what they have to
say.

March 16, 2015.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We are writing to express our
opposition to H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of
2015, and H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform
Act of 2015. Our organizations are dedicated to saving lives
and improving public health.
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 the trust of their patients by steadfastly maintaining
patient confidentiality. Patient confidentiality is a clear
legal and ethical obligation.
The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 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.
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 over 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 inform regulatory decision making at the EPA and other
federal agencies as well as 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.
H.R. 1029, The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2015 will also undermine the scientific basis for EPA policy,
specifically by compromising the integrity of the panel that
reviews that science. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is
composed of independent scientific and technical experts who
are tasked with evaluating the science and providing advice
that EPA uses to inform its decision making. The current law
provides for balanced panels and experts with diverse
backgrounds.
This legislation would impose a hiring quota on the SAB
that would require ten percent of members to be selected for
qualifications other than their scientific expertise. This
bill will compromise not only the scientific integrity of the
SAB, but also its independence, as the quota would open the
door for representatives of the regulated industries to serve
on the board.
Further, the bill will also, in some cases, prohibit SAB
members from participating when their own research is
involved--even indirectly. This requirement could block
participation of the ``best and the brightest'' researchers
in a particular field at the very time their expertise is
needed to accurately inform the regulatory process.
Finally, the SAB is currently governed by the Federal
Advisory Committee Act and already has a public comment
system in place. H.R. 1029 would add on the burdensome
requirement that the SAB respond to individual comments in
writing, a requirement that could be so time-consuming as to
render the board unable to carry out its function.
We urge the U.S. House of Representatives to stand up for
sound science and public health protections, and vote NO on
both H.R. 1030 and H.R. 1029.
Sincerely,
Harold Wimmer,
National President & CEO,
American Lung Association;
Georges C. Benjamin, MD,
Executive Director,
American Public Health Association;
Jeffrey Levi, PhD,
Executive Director,
Trust for America's Health;
Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,
Executive Director,
American Thoracic Society;
Tonya Winders,
President & CEO,
Allergy & Asthma Network.
____

March 16, 2015.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
House Majority Whip,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative McCarthy: As leading U.S. science,
engineering, and academic institutions, we are writing to
once again express our concerns regarding the Secret Science
Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 1030). We encourage you and your
colleagues to take additional time to evaluate the unintended
consequences of this bill before passing 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 gathered in real time. We could foresee a
situation in which the EPA would be constrained from making a
proposal or even disseminating public information in a timely
fashion.
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 Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is
working 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 beginning to issue their data
access policies, and given the complexities associated with
access to research data as outlined above we suggest that
Congress wait to review the agency policies before imposing
new statutory requirements.
American Anthropological Association, American
Association for the Advancement of Science, American
Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American
Geosciences Institute, American Meteorological Society,
American Society for Microbiology (ASM), American
Society of Agronomy, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Association of American Geographers,
Association of American Universities, Association of
Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), 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,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, National Council
for Science and the Environment, Society for
Conservation Biology, Soil Science Society of America,
Stanford University, The Ohio State University, The
University of Texas at Austin, University of California
System, University of California, Riverside, University
of Maryland, University of Michigan, University of
Oregon, University of Pennsylvania.

[[Page H1736]]

____
February 25, 2015.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, House Science, Space, and Technology
Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson, As
president of the American Statistical Association, with
19,000 members, I write regarding the ``Secret Science Reform
Act of 2015.'' 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 the bill's intent is to make data more widely
available, we have several concerns and urge the bill be
revised significantly before further consideration. Our
concerns include those voiced by others last year (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 later this year before further action on the Secret
Science Reform Act of 2015.
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 ``superseding any
nondiscretionary statutory requirement'' 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 that it is possible
to link individuals to publicly available sources, even with
PR 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, American Statistical Association.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Before closing, I would simply
note that the Congressional Budget Office has scored this bill.
To quote the CBO:

The CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1030 would cost
about $250 million a year for the next few years.

As we prepare to debate the budget resolution and fiscal policy next
week, I cannot fathom why so-called fiscal conservatives could support
a bill that will increase bureaucracy at the EPA at a cost of a
quarter-billion dollars a year. For a whole host of reasons, this is a
bad bill, and I strongly oppose this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1245

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds before
yielding to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
I want to point out that this bill has been endorsed by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau, Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Council, and The Center for Regulatory Solutions.
I want to call all Members' attention to the actual language of the
bill itself. If they will look on page 2, they will find out that this
bill does protect privacy, and it does so specifically. It prevents the
EPA from releasing confidential information, and it clarifies that this
bill does not supersede any privacy laws. In fact, the EPA
Administrator, herself, wrote this in a recent letter:

The Agency's efforts ultimately resulted in the Center for
Disease Control reaching the conclusion that all the research
data could be provided without the need for de-
identification, and further, the National Academy of Sciences
has said the same thing. We are happy to stand with them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Bridenstine), who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Environment of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank our chairman for his
leadership on this very important bill.
I think it is highly appropriate that we ask our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to actually read the bill. If they did, they
would find out that it prevents the EPA from releasing any confidential
information. It prevents the EPA from releasing any confidential
information. The idea that you are using or that somebody on this floor
would use confidential information, they are hiding behind that in an
effort to hide the actual science.
My children are in elementary school. They are required to show their
work. If they don't show their work, their integrity could be
questioned, which would be appropriate, by the way. Mr. Chairman, is it
too much to ask for the EPA to follow the same guidelines I give my
children in elementary school? Show your work. We need to see it. This
is an Agency, as the chairman noted, that is funded by taxpayers at a
level of $8 billion a year. This is also an Agency that promulgates
rules that cost the economy hundreds of millions, if not billions, of
dollars every year, as well.
In my home State of Oklahoma, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with the Clean
Power Plan going forward and now new regulations on ozone, we are
looking at the cost of electricity going up. We are looking at the cost
of doing business going up.
By the way, when the cost of electricity goes up, it doesn't hurt me;
it hurts the poor. This is a war on the poor. If we are going to punish
poor people in my district, I would like to see the science behind it.
I think it is perfectly appropriate that we have perfect transparency
as it relates to the science behind the EPA.
The Secret Science Reform Act is a very simple bill. It simply makes
the EPA show its work, as my children do in elementary school. It is
not truly sound science unless the results can be replicated, and this
bill would allow others to test the results and to challenge the
assumptions of the EPA.
If we are truly for good science, for sound science, we must pass
this bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the State of Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Environment.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Ms. Johnson for
yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1030, the Secret
Science Reform Act of 2015, a short bill, which I have read, with a
long list of problems.
I want to start by applauding the sponsors of the bill for their
focus on and goal of transparency. It is something our constituents
care about and deserve. But transparency is something that we should
accomplish through collaboration and with input from the scientific
community. This bill, on the contrary, is opposed, for good reason, by
research institutions and scientists from across the country.
Mr. Chairman, we received a lot of feedback from outside groups, and
I am

[[Page H1737]]

going to place into the Record after my remarks some letters we have
received from groups opposing H.R. 1030 from organizations like the
American Association for Justice, Public Citizen, the National
Physicians Alliance, the International Society for Environmental
Epidemiology, and others.
Instead of working together to find a solution that increases
transparency and access to federally funded research, the Secret
Science Reform Act instead has the potential, in the long term, to
compromise the health and well-being of Americans, and here is why: the
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
their health and to the environment.
Because H.R. 1030 would require that the EPA rely only on studies
that are publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for
independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results,
the act will prevent the agency from considering the best and most
relevant science.
The EPA relies on peer-reviewed science conducted by the brightest
minds at our Nation's universities and other research organizations.
Large cohort peer review studies, such as the American Cancer Society
and Harvard Six Cities studies, which made an association between air
pollution and mortality, are vital to the Agency's implementation of
the Clean Air Act.
Let me be clear: the EPA does publicly disclose which studies it
relies on to support its regulatory actions. For good reason, it
doesn't make the raw data from these studies publicly available. This
bill before us today, if adopted, would make it virtually impossible to
use many reports and other sources of scientific data, such as those I
mentioned earlier.

First, in many cases, the EPA cannot compel the release or disclosure
of information of which it is not the custodian. Second,
confidentiality requirements or other legal prohibitions on the sharing
of certain types of data, like health information, would preclude
studies from consideration simply because they conform to common
ethical and legal standards.
Additionally, this act perpetuates the incorrect notion that the
science relied on by the EPA is somehow hidden. This misconception is
based on conflating the meanings of ``secret'' and ``confidential.''
One thing should be made very clear: none of the information used by
the EPA is secret. Some information might be confidential--if it
includes, for example, the personal health information of millions of
Americans--as it should be.
My colleagues supporting this bill argue that the data could be de-
identified to protect confidentiality and privacy and concerns about
disclosure of personal health information are unfounded, but according
to a letter from the American Statistical Association, de-
identification methods like stripping names and other personally
identifiable information do not often suffice to protect
confidentiality. Statisticians and computer scientists have repeatedly
shown how easy is to be re-identify an individual using social media
and public records.
The Secret Science Reform Act will have chilling consequences for the
EPA and for every American who wants to enjoy clean air and clean
water. Let's bring back common sense and work together. I strongly urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation and
let the EPA go back to protecting the public health of all Americans.

February 24, 2015.
Hon. Suzanne Bonamici,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on
Science, Space and Technology, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Bonamici: As the 114th Congress gets
underway and your Committee considers its work ahead, I am
writing on behalf of the International Society for
Environmental Epidemiology to respectfully request a
reevaluation of previously introduced and House-passed
legislation regarding access to research data.
Last November, the House of Representatives passed H.R.
4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, a bill that our
Society strongly opposed. Had it become law, H.R. 4012 would
have prevented the EPA from proposing, finalizing, or
disseminating regulations or assessments unless all
underlying data were reproducible and made publicly
available. In so doing, the legislation would have barred EPA
from considering much of the best available science
investigating the effects of the chemical, physical and
microbial environment on human health, because many of the
related findings are based on confidential data, such as
private medical information. Neither H.R. 4012, nor its
companion, S. 2613, were considered in the Senate.
Our members support the sharing of epidemiological data
when its purpose is to advance scientific knowledge and when
data sharing protects the confidentiality of study subjects.
We have participated in some of the largest data sharing
efforts to advance scientific knowledge, and our Society has
promulgated transparent procedures that protect patient
confidentiality for assuring unbiased reanalysis of
epidemiological data sets. Moreover, our members are
developing and have applied new approaches to data sharing
that both increase transparency and protect confidential
information, with the objective of promoting rigorous
evaluation of study results by other analysts.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss our work with
you and how we are sharing data for reanalysis and the
advancement of science, while also protecting subjects'
confidentiality. Furthermore, should legislation similar to
H.R. 4012 and S. 2613 be introduced in the 114th Congress, we
would appreciate the opportunity to share our strong concerns
over the bill's likely impact on the privacy of individual
study participants and on the scientific enterprise and human
health.
The International Society for Environmental Epidemiology is
an international organization with members from more than 60
countries. Topics addressed by ISEE members include
environmental exposures, health effects, methodology,
environment-gene interactions, and ethics and law. We thank
you for your time and look forward to working with Congress
in the future.
Sincerely,

Francine Laden, Sc.D.,

President, International Society for
Environmental Epidemiology.
____

February 25, 2015.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chair, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space and Technology,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chair and Ranking Member: We are writing in strong
opposition to H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of
2015. The American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly
the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) with
members in United States, Canada and abroad, is the world's
largest trial bar. It was established in 1946 to safeguard
victims' rights, strengthen the civil justice system, promote
injury prevention and foster public health and safety of
numerous individuals who have been harmed by unsafe
chemicals. AAJ is an advocate for strong chemical safety
regulation and healthy environment, in combination with a
strong civil justice system in order to protect the health
and wellbeing of all Americans. In this capacity, AAJ
robustly objects to the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015.
This legislation would severely limit the science that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can consider while
implementing public protections; upending numerous
environmental statutes and longstanding Agency practices and
is severely overbroad. In fact, the Secret Science Reform Act
of 2015 may make it impossible for the EPA to regulate at
all. The EPA would no longer be able to use most health
studies including peer-reviewed research as a result of the
limitation on using data that is not ``publicly available''.
Many accurate and reliable health studies contain personal
health data that is currently and rightfully protected. Under
the Secret Science Act, however, these studies would be
erroneously excluded from use by the EPA, substantially
narrowing the science the EPA may relay when considering
public safeguards.
In addition, H.R. 1030 will also restrict the use of new
and innovative science and well as long-term exposure
studies. Oftentimes the newest and most innovative science
and data may not be publically available. However, this
shouldn't mean that the EPA is precluded from using it.
Lastly, many of EPA's standards rely on long-term exposure
studies that assess the link between diseases and pollutants;
or on meta analyses that combine many different studies. If
the Secret Science Act of 2015 becomes law these studies may
also be barred from EPA use because they will be unable to be
``substantially reproduced''. The end result of this
legislation is that the EPA will no longer be able to rely on
the best science in order to protect American health and the
environment.
We urge you to oppose the Secret Science Reform Act of
2015. This bill would seriously inhibit the EPA from
protecting human health and the environment through its
improper limitation on the use of sound science.
Sincerely,

Linda Lipsen,

Chief Executive Officer,
American Association for Justice.
____

March 2, 2015.
Dear Representative: The undersigned individuals and
organizations working on

[[Page H1738]]

public health and science-informed regulation strongly oppose
the H.R. 1029 the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of
2015 and H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, to
be considered by the House of Representatives this week.
Both bills would severely undermine the ability of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use the best
available scientific evidence when making decisions regarding
the protection of public health and safety and the
environment.
When very similar bills were up for a vote in the House
last November, the Administration issued veto threats for
both bills. The Administration stated that the Secret Science
Reform Act would ``greatly impede the EPA's ability to use
science to protect public health and the environment,'' and
warned that the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would
``weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the
SAB.''
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.
The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would greatly
weaken the EPA's advisory process, making it far more likely
that recommendations from its independent Science Advisory
Board (SAB) will be dominated by corporate special interests.
This bill opens the door to increased corporate influence on
the Board, by encouraging the EPA to accept more SAB
panelists with corporate ties.
The bill's overly broad restriction on SAB members with
subject-matter expertise is equally counterproductive, and
goes far beyond the common-sense limits imposed by the
National Academies. Unlike the 2014 bill, the 2015 bill does
appear to permit SAB experts with published, peer-reviewed
research, to address those topics on which they have
credentials, provided that their expertise is publicly
disclosed. But the language in the bill is so vague that it
raises many questions. Generally, experts have developed
their knowledge base over time, and not purely through peer-
reviewed publications. How is an expert supposed to make that
distinction? What happens if a scientist relies on expertise
that is not specifically permitted in the bill? Will there be
legal ramifications? Clearly, scientific experts will think
twice before joining the SAB if it means they will have to
consult their lawyers before they give advice.
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 The Secret Science
Reform Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act.
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; Jacobs Institute
of Women's Health; National Center for Health Research;
National Physicians Alliance; Our Bodies Ourselves;
Public Citizen; Woodymatters; John H. Powers, MD,
Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine; The George
Washington University School of Medicine; University of
Maryland School of Medicine.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds before
yielding to the gentleman from Texas.
I would like to call Members' attention to page 1, line 12 of this
bill. Again, it is only two pages long. I hope everybody will take the
time to read it. Line 12 of the first page points out that the
Administrator of the EPA shall use the best available science. Once
again, the bill actually calls upon the Administrator to use the best
available science.
The question is: Why does the EPA want to hide this science? Why does
it want to hide this data? Why won't it let the American people see
this data? That is the question of the hour.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Weber), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1030, the Secret
Science Reform Act of 2015.
Last December, the EPA proposed a new regulation that is widely
predicted to be the costliest regulation in U.S. history--I repeat, the
costliest U.S. regulation in history. It would actually cost our
economy $140 billion per year, according to the National Association of
Manufacturers--manufacturers, you know, those who manufacture or make
things.
I like to say the things that make America great are the things that
America makes. Likewise, in these hard economic times, more Americans
will make it in America when more things are made in America.
Therefore, regulations that hamper manufacturing should really be
scrutinized, and regulations that have such a big impact on our economy
should not be based on secret science in order to sell it to the
American people. Unfortunately, the EPA has prevented outside
researchers from accessing the data behind recent regulatory decisions.
The public is just supposed to trust the EPA. Apparently, their policy
is trust, but evade your eyes; we want a policy that says trust, but
verify.
It is long past time that Congress increases transparency into the
EPA's regulatory process. The Secret Science Reform Act would prohibit
the EPA from proposing or finalizing regulations based upon science
that is not transparent or available for independent review. Our
constituents have a right to know whether EPA's regulations are based
on sound science and have the stated benefits the Agency claims they
have.
The legislation is simple, it is straightforward, and it is a message
that government bureaucrats cannot propose costly regulations without
the transparency that the American people deserve. We want more
Americans and more American companies to make it in America.
I want to thank Chairman Smith for bringing this important
legislation to the floor today.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a scientist.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to be here once again
speaking out against the Secret Science Reform Act. There are many
problems that our Nation faces that we need to tackle--growing income
inequity, a badly broken immigration system, and underinvestment in
Federal research and development--so I am having a hard time
understanding why congressional leaders think that this body, composed
largely of lawyers and career politicians, should devote its attention
to telling scientists how to conduct their research.
We have heard many of these same politicians declare proudly, ``I am
not a scientist,'' as they excuse their ignorance on issues like
climate change or the effectiveness of vaccines, yet they want to
rewrite the rules for standards of research for EPA scientists.
As a scientist myself, as well as a manufacturer, one who started a
business that now provides hundreds of manufacturing jobs in the United
States and has kept those jobs in the Midwest and understands what is
important for manufacturing to succeed in the United States, I always
value the input of experts over political rhetoric.
So what have the experts said about the Secret Science Reform Act?
Today a letter was introduced into the Record from the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, signed by 35 groups
representing scientific organizations and research universities. In the
letter, they state:

[[Page H1739]]

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 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?

These are all important questions that were not addressed when this
bill was proposed last Congress and still remain unaddressed today. So
I continue to stand alongside thousands of my colleagues in science in
opposition to the Secret Science Reform Act. These are the standards
that should be set by scientists and not by Washington politicians.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds before
yielding to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, I almost feel like we ought to take a 5-minute recess
and allow everybody a chance to read the bill, which, again, is only
two pages long.
There is nothing in this bill that tells scientists how to conduct
their science. All the bill does is to say that the data should be
publicly available and should be independently verified and let the
American people see it--nothing more, nothing less. That is why,
according to a public opinion poll, 90 percent of the American people
support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Loudermilk), who happens to be chairman of the Subcommittee on
Oversight of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak on
this very important bill.
Mr. Chair, as I stand in the Chamber here, this historic Chamber, all
around the top of the wall here are engraved images of great lawgivers
who have influenced this Nation and the great institutions of
government we have. As the Prime Minister of Israel pointed out, Moses
is in the back, who gave us the natural laws our Founders referred to,
but over my right shoulder, just above the rostrum, is the image of
Thomas Jefferson.

{time} 1300

Thomas Jefferson wrote about another set of laws and rights that are
given to us. He also wrote 27 grievances--27 violations--of either the
natural law that Moses wrote about or the natural rights of men that he
wrote about in the Declaration of Independence. These were grievances
against the King of England for violations against the natural laws or
the natural rights of men.
The 10th grievance, ironically, that he wrote about can also be seen
as a warning to where we are today in this Nation. The 10th grievance
says that:

The King has erected a multitude of new offices and sent
hither swarms of officers to harass the people and eat out
their substance.

What Jefferson was talking about was the multitude of regulations and
regulatory agencies that the King of England had instituted here on the
continent of North America.
Over the past decades, we have seen a rampant growth not only in the
number of Federal agencies that have regulatory authority over
Americans, but the scope of the regulations, that they have impacted
our very lives. Every moment of your day is in some way impacted by
regulation--and I argue overregulation--by the Federal Government.
As we speak here today, the EPA is considering a decrease in the
amount of acceptable ozone in our atmosphere, which is questionable.
Many scientists have said that that level of ozone that they are trying
to achieve is unachievable. Even some of the most remote areas of our
Nation would not even be able to achieve that. These are areas that
don't have any type of industry or significant population.
The National Black Chamber of Commerce testified in a committee
hearing the other day that this level of ozone in the regulation the
EPA is trying to impose would have significant impact on the economy,
especially small business owners and minority business owners. Most of
their small businesses are in metropolitan areas. This overregulation
is eating out the substance of Americans.
The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council recently testified that
the average American pays $14,974 in hidden taxes. These are taxes
because of regulation by the Federal Government. That is $14,000 a year
average Americans are spending out of their own pocket because of
overregulation. Much of this is because of questionable science that is
hidden and not transparent. That is 23 percent of their income.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional
30 seconds.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
While this bill would not fix the overreach of this administration in
their regulation, it will bring transparency--that the American people
have a right to know that when their rights and their liberties are
being restricted by government, that it is substantiated and it is
sound science.
I fully support this measure. It is one of the most important ones, I
believe, that we will do in this Congress.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, for the second time in a 6-month period, we are
considering legislation specifically designed to delay implementation
of EPA regulations and prevent the EPA from using the best available
scientific data.
I know my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the EPA,
and they don't believe in sound science--they have made that very clear
during the time that they have the majority--but this so-called Secret
Science Reform Act is a dangerous attack on the EPA's ability to use
the best available science to protect public health and our
environment.
Peer reviewed scientific research from our world class universities
informs EPA rulemaking. To limit access to this research--and open the
doors to industry-manipulated data--is just plain wrong.
I have cosponsored an amendment offered by my good friend Joe Kennedy
to allow the EPA to continue relying upon peer reviewed scientific
data. Boy, what a radical idea. This commonsense amendment will ensure
the EPA has access to the valuable research necessary to make sound
decisions about our public health and environment.
Mr. Chairman, there isn't ``secret science,'' just science that my
Republican colleagues do not like. The contempt for science
demonstrated by the Republican majority in this House is troublesome.
Putting profits of a particular industry ahead of the safety and well-
being of our citizens by rigging the data is dangerous.
People might wonder: Why are we debating this bill here today? Well,
I would suggest you follow the money, follow where the political
campaign contributions are going.
The notion that we, in this House, would disregard sound science and
instead open the doors for profitmaking industries to come in and
dictate what the rules and regulations are with regard to the safety
and well-being of our citizens is just plain dangerous.
I urge my colleagues, at the very least, support the Kennedy
amendment and defeat the underlying legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Babin), who is a hardworking member of the Science
Committee.
Mr. BABIN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to end the era of secret science within the
Environmental Protection Agency. This bill before us, H.R. 1030, does
just that.
As the Representative of a very diverse district in Texas with
timber; agricultural interests; four ports, including the Port of
Houston; and more petrochemical plants than any other in the United
States, I rise in strong support of this bill.
I cosponsored this bill because I believe that the American people
deserve a greater level of accountability from the EPA and less
bureaucratic regulation and dodging the facts. Let the facts speak for
themselves.
Transparency is one of the fundamental tenets of science. I have a
biology degree. I have had plenty of science, chemistry, and physics--I
am a

[[Page H1740]]

dentist--medicine. If they have the facts, there is no need to hide
them.
The EPA spends about $8 billion a year in taxpayer money, and I
believe that the taxpayers of the United States have a right to know
just how their hard-earned money is being spent.
As new sets of data are created, I hope that this level of
transparency will encourage researchers, companies, and nonprofits
towards a greater level of openness.
The President committed that his administration would be the most
transparent administration in history. Unfortunately, I believe this
administration has fallen short of this goal. This bill is necessary to
ensure that the American people have transparency in the Environmental
Protection Agency.
When the EPA overreaches, it costs Americans their jobs by putting
U.S. workers at a competitive disadvantage. We need transparency and
accountability so that American workers and their families are
protected.

Let's put an end to ``secret science.'' H.R. 1030 does exactly this,
and I call on my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this will be the second
time that I have cosponsored an amendment to the Secret Science Reform
Act with Representatives Kennedy and McGovern.
I have spoken in opposition to this bill before, but so long as the
House continues to consider antiscience legislation that endangers
public health, I will continue to point out why it is dangerous.
As written, the Secret Science Reform Act prohibits the EPA from
considering any science that is not publicly available in its
rulemaking process. A great deal of important research, particularly
related to public health, is based on sensitive personal information
that this bill would exclude from consideration.
This limit poses an impossible choice for the EPA: disregard critical
research--even when it has been subject to rigorous evaluation and peer
review--or violate the privacy of volunteers.
Our amendment ensures that this will not happen. It simply provides
that the EPA may rely on any peer reviewed scientific publication when
making rules, even if all of the underlying data is not publicly
available. This will protect the scientific integrity of the EPA's
process without endangering the privacy of Americans who participate in
scientific research.
Mr. Chairman, I include two letters in opposition to H.R. 1030 for
the Record. One is from the Union of Concerned Scientists and the other
is from a coalition of environmental organizations, including the
Sierra Club and Clean Water Action.

Union of Concerned Scientists,

March 2, 2015.
Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists,
with 450,000 members and supporters throughout the country,
strongly opposes H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of
2015, scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives
this week. 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.
As you know, this bill is nearly identical to the bill that
the Committee reported out last November. That bill received
a veto threat from the Administration, which noted that it
would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from
protecting public health and safety and the environment, ``if
the data supporting [its] decisions cannot, for legitimate
reasons, be made publicly available.''
It appears that the language changes in the 2015 version of
this bill were made to obscure the drafters' true intent,
making it more difficult to discern that it would cripple the
ability of the EPA to regulate based on information supplied
by industries that is designated confidential, or on public
health and medical data where the privacy of patients must be
protected.
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 ORB);
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 H.R. 1030, the Secret Science
Reform Act of 2015. The proposed bill would inhibit the EPA's
ability to carry out its science-based mission to protect
human health and the environment. It does not deserve your or
this Congress's support.
Sincerely,

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,

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

March 16, 2015.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters we strongly urge you to oppose the ``Secret
Science Reform Act of 2015'' (HR), the ``EPA Science Advisory
Board Reform Act of 2015''. 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 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.
Science Advisory Board bill would attack EPA's scientific
process in a different way. 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. 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 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.
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 Effective Government,
Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife,
Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of
the Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for
Social

[[Page H1741]]

Responsibility, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned
Scientists.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
the Kennedy amendment and ``no'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who is a former chairman of the
Environment Subcommittee of the Science Committee.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I thank Chairman Smith for yielding, and to all my
friends, I miss all of you, but are we having that sense of deja vu all
over again? Have you ever started listening to a debate and you are
starting to think: Are we discussing two completely separate pieces of
legislation here?
Mr. Chair, this isn't that complicated. So far, I have got to tell
you, this debate--and this is going to be a little harsh--has been
absolutely intellectually vacuous because we are not saying things that
are true. Let's try one more time--no, Madam Ranking Member, you are
not. So let's try it one more time.
What does the piece of legislation do? It is public policy made by
public data, public data by public policy. Why is that so terrifying to
the left? This concept of, well, there's personal medical records used
for part of this--there are.
That is why this White House, 3 or 4 years ago, did a series of memos
instructing how to do the deidentification of personal data.
If you really object to that, then I am sure you are going to stand
up and start saying that the FDA, the CFPB, all the others that get
personal data, you don't want them to touch that either. Come on, a
little intellectual consistency here, let's try it.
Something I chose not to do when we ran this bill last time--and I am
going to do this time--is that I will submit at a later time into the
Record a handful of memos coming from my office from when this body was
controlled by the Democrats and there was a Republican in the White
House.
The Democrats were demanding this of the White House--and a series of
senior Democrat officials--demanding this type of disclosure to make
public policy. I think that would be sort of amusing to put into the
public record, so folks can see how duplicitous this argument has
started to become.
Now, back to sort of an underlying principle that I embraced--and I
hope all those who actually are not at war with science and want to
embrace the complete aggregation of information--is that we need to
walk away from this arrogance that there is a small subset in our
society that absolutely knows everything.
Because the fact of the matter is you put up a study today and a
handful of smart folks at Kennedy's--do you represent MIT? Sorry. That
is where all the really smart kids are, right?
But people like Arizona State, the next smartest school in the
Nation, why can't they take that data set and bounce it up against
studies they are doing? Why can't an industry group, why can't an
environmental group, why can't an academic group, why can't someone who
just really likes statistics?
What you are basically saying is all information, all knowledge, is
housed in a tiny population and the rest of the world be damned.
There is a crowdsourcing concept of refining, and here is where I am
fascinated that the left hasn't caught on. This bill, this piece of
legislation may come back to us and say: EPA, you are actually not
doing enough.
It could actually come back and say: When we make the data public,
when we bounce it up against other data sources, when we do other
latitudinal studies, we may find we are not doing enough. We may find
there is a much better way to do a regulation set.
I would think, actually, in the modern world, where we know
information is providing us so many opportunities, why aren't we
embracing that? Why has that become partisan?

{time} 1315

There are actually also a couple of other things that have been said
from behind the microphone across the aisle that we need to, one more
time, restate honestly.
What if a data set is provided by industry?
One of the biggest complaints in the past said, Well, if a Republican
President had a Republican EPA and they used industry data to set up a
reg--guess what? That falls under this same piece of legislation. That
also is disclosed. All data that is used to create public policy is
public.
Why does this terrify the left so much, public policy by public data
and public data by public policy, and then the opportunity for everyone
who takes an interest in this to be able to refine it and make it
better and make it more efficient and more healthy for our families,
for our environment, for our economy, instead of a small, arrogant
population controlling all knowledge and all information?
The CHAIR. The Chair will remind Members to address their remarks to
the Chair.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, so I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no further
requests for time, so I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First of all, I would like to thank Science Committee member and
Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert for his great
efforts on this particular subject. Our goal is to help advance not
just any science, but the best science.
Costly environmental regulations should only be based upon data that
is available to independent scientists and the public and that can be
verified. H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, gives
independent scientists an opportunity to validate the studies EPA uses
to make new regulations.
In 2012, the President's own science adviser testified that,
``absolutely, the data on which regulatory decisions are based should
be made available to the committee and should be made public.''
The chair of EPA's Science Advisory Board testified that EPA's
advisers recommend ``that literature and data used by EPA be peer
reviewed and be made available to the public.''
Let me repeat. The chair of EPA's own Science Advisory Board said the
data EPA relies upon should be public.
And a recent poll from the Institute for Energy Research found that
90 percent of Americans agree that studies and data used to make
Federal Government decisions should be public.
Relying on public data prevents the manipulation of scientific
evidence. So this bill is no different from any other sunshine law,
such as the Freedom of Information Act.
It doesn't roll back the laws that protect the air we breathe and the
water we drink; it simply requires the EPA to use the best available
science when it makes new regulations.
In other words, the EPA should rely upon good science, not science
fiction.
The bill does not change or repeal critical privacy laws that prevent
the EPA from releasing confidential information. It does not give the
EPA any new authority to take private information and make it public.
In fact, it prohibits that.
In a democratic society, regulations should not be based upon
undisclosed data. Maybe in Putin's Russia, but not in the United States
of America. Undisclosed data rightfully raises a lot of suspicions.
Actually, this bill is more than just about data. It is about an
agency that apparently doesn't trust the American people. The EPA
thinks it knows better than the American people what is good for them.
It is time to change that mindset. It is time to restore faith in our
government and return the power to the people. It is time for honesty,
and it is past time to ensure that the EPA bases their regulations on
data that is public. The American people deserve to see the data.
Let us not forget the President also asked for this. H.R. 1030
ensures the speedy implementation of President Obama's Executive Order
13536, to give the public access to federally funded science.
This bill supports the administration's commitment to open science,
but now they threaten to veto it. It makes you wonder what the
administration is

[[Page H1742]]

trying to hide and whether you can believe what they say.
If you support this administration's promise to be the most
transparent in history and want to make the EPA's data public, then
support H.R. 1030.
Mr. Chairman, finally, there are three questions that those who are
opposed either can't answer or won't answer:
One, what is the EPA hiding?
Two, why won't they make the data public?
And three, why doesn't the EPA trust the American people?
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. 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 114-11. 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. 1030

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
2015''.

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) the best available science;
``(B) specifically identified; and
``(C) publicly available online in a manner that is
sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of research results.
``(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as--
``(A) requiring the Administrator to disseminate scientific
and technical information; or
``(B) superseding any nondiscretionary statutory
requirement.
``(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.
``(4) The Administrator shall carry out this subsection in
a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year, to
be derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be
appropriated.''.

The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be order except those printed in part B of House
Report 114-37. 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 Ms. Edwards

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 114-37.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 2, lines 21 through 24, amend paragraph (4) to read as
follows:
``(4) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator to carry out this subsection $250,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2016 through 2019.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Edwards) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
1030, the so-called Secret Science Reform Act.
Let me just say first that I am opposed to the bill and the
underlying premise that there is not good science, good research, and
good data being gathered by the EPA.
Unfortunately, this bill would force the EPA to choose between
protecting our health and environment and maintaining the privacy of
patient medical records and the confidentiality of business records.
But my amendment highlights one issue that, to me, makes a mockery of
this entire effort. The bill, as written, currently gives the EPA only
$1 million per year to carry out the provisions in the bill.
It wouldn't be so bad except that the Congressional Budget Office
estimates the cost of the bill to be $250 million per year to implement
the bill.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that you perhaps think that you did not hear me
correctly. But to put this disparity in some perspective, the
Congressional Budget Office is estimating that implementing this bill
would cost 25,000 percent more than the majority is providing.
Now I understand why the majority is doing this. They don't want to
pass legislation that costs anything to implement. It wouldn't be
fiscally conservative.
Now, I am not a math major, but simple math tells me that if a bill
is $1 million in the text but costs $250 million to implement, you are
asking the EPA to undertake $250 million of work with $1 million--not
exactly fiscally or legislatively conservative or sound.
More importantly, it forces the Agency into an untenable position.
They must either ignore the requirements of this legislation because
the majority isn't providing them with the resources to carry them out,
or they can comply with the requirements for--and Mr. Chairman, hold
your breath--they could comply with the requirements for 1\1/2\ days.
That is what the funding would allow: $1 million, 1\1/2\ days, and then
shut down all of the covered actions under the bill.
So I know we think it might be laughable, except that it is true. But
if the majority really believes in the premise behind this legislation,
which I do not, then the majority should provide the Agency with the
$250 million annually that, at a minimum, the Agency would need to
carry out this bill.
Those are not my estimates. Those are the estimates of the
independent Congressional Budget Office.
I am opposed to the bill for a number of reasons, and most likely, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would disagree with me on
those points. However, I have a hard time believing that any
responsible Member of Congress who supports fiscal conservatism would
consciously support a bill that is guaranteed, absolutely guaranteed to
cause failure.
So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and not allow this
bill to move forward with an unfunded mandate to the Agency.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do thank my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Maryland, for her amendment, but I must oppose it.
This amendment would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to
continue its practice of hiding data from the American people.
This amendment is based upon what appears to be a misreading of the
bill that has resulted in an inaccurate score by the Congressional
Budget Office. In fact, the statutory language directly contradicts the
CBO's analysis, and here is why.
For its analysis, CBO assumed that the bill requires the EPA to
collect and disseminate the underlying data of the science it relies
upon. Through some unknown calculation, CBO then came up with a $250
million price tag for the collection and dissemination of the data.
However, the bill does not require the collection and dissemination
of information. It simply says that the EPA must use data that is
public and available to independent scientists.
The bill itself states that there is no requirement for the EPA to
disseminate scientific and technical information. Again, I urge my
colleagues to read the bill.

[[Page H1743]]

So let me say it again. This bill does not require the EPA to
disseminate information. It simply says that, when the EPA decides to
regulate, it needs to rely on the best available science that is
publicly available for independent verification and review.
So the CBO is way off base--not for the first time--and, therefore,
so is this amendment.
CBO's cost estimate also contradicts the clear statutory bill
language, which reads: ``The Administrator shall carry out this
subsection in a manner that does not exceed $1 million per fiscal year
to be derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.''
When the CBO says that under this legislation the EPA will have to
spend hundreds of millions of dollars to collect and disseminate new
data, that is clearly inconsistent with the language and intent of the
bill. So the CBO's cost estimate is meaningless.
But let's assume that the EPA decides it must collect and disseminate
the data itself. EPA has an $8 billion budget. It spends more than $20
million of taxpayer money every day to issue regulations that cost
taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year. And the President has
asked Congress for an increase of $50 million for the Agency this year.
Surely the EPA can base its rules on science that is transparent and
available to everyone, and do it with funds from its already massive
budget. A Federal agency that spends over $8 billion a year in taxpayer
money should be able to afford to honor the public's right to know.
This amendment would allow the EPA to continue business as usual and
would ignore congressional intent and statutory language. For these
reasons, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, so we know that the EPA's jurisdiction is
to make sure that we have clean water and clean air. That is sort of
the basics of it.
And now we are hearing from the majority, Mr. Chairman, that not only
do they not believe the science and they think it is secret, they also
don't believe the Congressional Budget Office.
But for the fact that we cannot pick and choose which numbers we
believe out of the Congressional Budget Office, the fact is that the
Congressional Budget Office, not just this year but in the last term as
well, said that this bill would cost American taxpayers $250 million if
the Agency were implementing it according to the legislative language.
So I don't think that the majority should be allowed to pick and choose
its science or pick and choose its numbers.
The Congressional Budget Office, in fact, has said that this bill
would cost $250 million to implement, more than 25,000 times the amount
that is authorized in the language, and I think it is unacceptable for
us to just denigrate the EPA, say that it is engaged in secret science,
and then tell them that we want you to implement a bill without
providing the resources that it takes to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), my colleague and
the ranking Democrat on the committee.

{time} 1330

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the
gentlelady, and I fully support her amendment.
EPA normally relies upon approximately 50,000 scientific studies each
year to support these actions. The Congressional Budget Office
estimated that if EPA were to cut the amount of studies they considered
in half, it would still cost the Agency roughly $250 million annually
to comply with this legislation.
This bill will effectively require EPA to pay more in order to do
less, yet my colleagues are only providing EPA with $1 million annually
to comply with the provisions of this bill.
This forces EPA into a lose-lose situation. Either drastically limit
the amount of science used to protect the public health and the
environment or spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year ensuring
that the job is done right.
I think this legislation is seriously misguided.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Chairman I really don't know why it is so difficult to read this
bill. It is only two pages long. And those who are concerned about the
cost ought to recognize--or I hope they have realized and seen--that
the bill this year reads differently than the bill last year.
And what I would like to do is read to those who are opposed who
raised the cost issue. Look at lines 17 and 18 of page 1 and lines 1
and 2 of page 2. They read as follows: ``Nothing in the subsection
shall be construed as requiring the Administrator to disseminate
scientific and technical information.''
I hope that allays their concerns. But it is always nice to hear my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle so concerned about the cost
of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, contrary to the CBO estimate, H.R. 1030 does not
require the EPA to disseminate information. It requires the EPA to base
their regulations on data that is public so that all Americans are
better informed about the regulations that affect their daily lives.
Americans deserve all the facts, and they deserve all the data. They
have the right to know if the regulations they are forced to live under
are justified by sound science.
The EPA spends over $8 billion a year. Surely it can base its rules
on science that is transparent and available to everyone.
For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kennedy

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 114-37.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The 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.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, 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 echo the comments of my colleagues about the
importance of transparency that we have heard over the course of this
debate. An open government with transparent rules and regulations is at
the very core of our democracy. But I am discouraged and disappointed
that we are having this debate yet again, especially on a bill that
undermines science even more dramatically than last year's version.
When this country's greatest minds come together to tackle our
greatest problems, we are a stronger nation. Whether we are talking
about achievements in cancer treatment or clean water, science makes us
healthier, more innovative, and more competitive. 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 of toxic substances.
The bill before us leaves EPA with unworkable standards, prohibiting
it from using certain studies simply because they include information
that, by law, cannot be made public, such as people's personal health
records.
My amendment does a very simple thing. It fixes that oversight by
clarifying that the EPA should use the most

[[Page H1744]]

reliable scientific information available, regardless of whether that
can be publicly disclosed.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the EPA relies on
about 50,000 scientific studies every year. As written, H.R. 1030 would
drastically shrink this number. The bill before us could even prohibit
the EPA from using other government-funded research, like NIH studies
that link toxic substances to premature births or CDC research on
mitigating the impact of natural disasters on public health.
Furthermore, there are several protections in place already to ensure
the science the EPA uses is properly vetted and credited. First, any
and all studies go through a significant peer review process, including
an independent analysis. Second, Mr. Chairman, 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 would
actually put limits on the public comment period.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation jeopardizes our clean air, our clean
water, and the health of our families. I urge the House to accept my
amendment to clarify that the EPA may use the most reliable science
available.
I would also like to thank my colleagues from Massachusetts,
Congressman Jim McGovern and Katherine Clark, and the ranking member of
the committee for their support of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank my
colleague and friend from Massachusetts for offering this amendment,
but I must oppose it.
The gentleman's amendment implies that the bill does something that,
in fact, it does not. The amendment also creates a loophole the EPA
Administrator could easily exploit.
First, by stating that nothing in the act prevents the EPA from
considering or relying upon peer reviewed science, the amendment
appears to imply that the bill would do otherwise. This is simply not
true.
The EPA, through its implementation of the Information Quality Act,
is already required to rely on peer reviewed information. Nothing in
this legislation changes that.
What this bill would accomplish--and what the gentleman's amendment
would undermine--is to ensure that the science the EPA relies upon is
publicly available and verifiable.
Independent scientists don't have an opportunity to examine the
assumptions and methodologies that EPA relies upon when it makes public
regulations. It is time for the EPA to show its work and come out into
the daylight. Peer review alone is not a sufficient check. Peer
reviewers are not always provided the underlying data, and the quality
of peer review is highly variable.
The simple premise behind H.R. 1030 is that public policy should be
backed up by public data. Peer review alone does not allow independent
scientists to verify the EPA's claims.
This amendment would destroy the purpose of the bill and provide the
EPA Administrator with permission to disregard the basic principles of
transparency and accountability that are provided by H.R. 1030. For
these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire into the time that I
have remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the chairman
of the committee, my friend from Texas, for his friendship and for the
work that he has been doing. I know that we share the same goal of
having a transparent government and a transparent enforcement
mechanism. Unfortunately, I think he and I have come to disagree on the
underlying impact of my amendment and the underlying bill itself.
The EPA--the goal of this amendment is to make sure that they are
able to rely on the most sound, reliable information available. We
heard from the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards), my colleague,
earlier that there are already constraints put in place by this
legislation that limit the EPA from doing so should this bill pass.

My amendment takes up that same challenge and tries to make sure that
when we are making rules and regulations that are going to impact our
society that we are using the best data that is available. All of that
data and all of those studies must be peer reviewed. There is a process
which the EPA goes through that is publicly available and not actually
under any sort of challenge because the underlying bill here doesn't
say that that peer review process is flawed.
So if we take it as given, then, that that peer review process is
sound and is strong and can be relied upon, then the issue is the
underlying data. And what we have seen here is an effort to try to
ensure that, yes, the analysis and the method for the inquiry is
actually available, but the underlying data that can contain people's
personal health records, that can contain personally identifiable
information is kept private to not expose people to the dissemination
of data that they never even knew was going to be publicly available.
That is the sole point of this amendment: to ensure that our
government is using information for the highest and best use as we
promulgate rules and regulations that are going to impact the American
people--nothing less, nothing more.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my friend from
Massachusetts that I appreciate his comments and his friendship as
well. While we agree on many things, we do happen to disagree on this
one amendment.
Let me also say that I wish he was still a member of the Science
Committee, and he would be welcomed back any time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would allow the EPA to
continue to hide the data it says justifies its regulations.
Peer review does not allow independent scientists to verify the EPA's
claims. It is not a sufficient check to ensure that the EPA uses the
best science available.
H.R. 1030 promotes the fundamental principles of transparency and
accountability. This amendment would make it harder to achieve that
goal.
Giving independent scientists an opportunity to examine the data that
the EPA relies upon when it makes public regulations will ensure
transparency and accountability.
Public policy should be backed up by public data. Peer review alone
will not give the American people all the facts.
Americans deserve access to this data. They have the right to know if
the regulations paid for with their tax dollars are based upon the best
science available.
For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be
postponed.

Announcement by the Chair

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 114-37 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Edwards of Maryland.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Edwards

The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H1745]]

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164,
noes 254, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 122]

AYES--164

Adams
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--254

Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Quigley
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruiz
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--14

Fudge
Graves (MO)
Hinojosa
Hurd (TX)
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Luetkemeyer
Payne
Roskam
Sanchez, Loretta
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Young (IN)

{time} 1408

Messrs. FLORES, DUFFY, WALBERG, ABRAHAM, MILLER of Florida, WALZ, and
YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mrs. TORRES, and Messrs. ISRAEL and PASCRELL
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 122 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kennedy

The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 231, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 123]

AYES--184

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
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
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--231

[[Page H1746]]

Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--17

Ashford
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Hinojosa
Holding
Kaptur
Loudermilk
Palazzo
Payne
Roskam
Sanchez, Loretta
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Young (IN)

{time} 1412

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 123 I was detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 123 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, 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.
1030) 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 138, 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.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
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

Mr. TAKAI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. TAKAI. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Takai moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1030 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 the following new section:

SEC. 3. PROTECTING TAXPAYERS FROM SCIENCE PROMOTED BY
POLLUTING COMPANIES.

Under the amendment made by section 2, the Environmental
Protection Agency shall not rely on advice from any scientist
whose primary source of research funds comes from
corporations or individuals convicted of major environmental
crimes, including the release of toxic pollutants into safe
drinking water, refusal to clean up Superfund waste sites, or
violations from the release of air pollutants that endanger
human health and safety.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point
of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for
5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. TAKAI. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill would immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment is simple. It would prohibit the EPA from
relying on advice from any scientist whose primary source of research
funding comes from corporations or individuals convicted of major
environmental crimes. The Democratic motion to recommit would help
ensure the integrity and the independence of the EPA's scientific
review process by prohibiting the reliance on advice from those who are
funded by the biggest abusers of our environment.
H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act, would impose arbitrary,
unnecessary, and expensive requirements that would seriously impede the
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. This bill would stack
the cards in favor of industry-backed data studies rather than the most
reliable studies. In doing so, it will prevent the EPA from using the
best data possible to make decisions.
Think about 50 years of tobacco-backed studies that lied about the
effects of cigarette smoking in order to avoid labeling, regulation,
and fines. That is the type of data that this bill wants the EPA to
rely on to make decisions about our environment--industry-backed data
that shifts the favor to polluters, climate deniers, and those who do
not have the best interests of public health and our environment in
mind. This amendment would make sure that this data does not come from
corporations or individuals who show disregard for our environmental
laws, which is the main reason the EPA exists in the first place.
Consequences of H.R. 1030 could include the public release of
industry-funded studies and data intended to bias the body of
scientific evidence that the EPA is allowed to consider towards a
particular industry position. For example, research that shows arsenic,
mercury, or benzene is not bad for you could be in the majority of
studies the EPA is allowed to base its recommendations and regulations
on.
Unfortunately, Republicans will claim that this bill increases the
EPA's transparency and accountability by ensuring that its regulations
are based on public data that can be verified and reproduced. In
reality, this bill would prevent the EPA from functioning effectively
and from using the most relevant scientific data, including data that
is legally protected from public disclosure.
An effort to limit the scope of science that can be considered by the
EPA does not strengthen scientific integrity but undermines it. The EPA
relies on peer reviewed scientific research from our universities as
the backbone of its mission to protect public health and our
environment. This amendment ensures that this data does not come from
sources that routinely break our environmental laws. Because clinicians
and researchers are legally prohibited from making the data publicly
available, if this bill becomes law, the EPA would be forced to ignore
this valuable research when protecting the public.

[[Page H1747]]

At no point does this bill make the public safer, which is the
fundamental function of government. The Secret Science Reform Act would
only reduce the science available to the EPA on some of the most
important decisions it makes.
Mr. Speaker, over 30 of the most respected groups that are dedicated
to scientific and health research have opposed this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same. However, before doing so, I urge my
colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment to this bill.
Again, all this amendment does is prohibit the EPA from relying on
advice from any scientist whose primary source of research funding
comes from corporations or individuals convicted of major environmental
crimes. This ensures the integrity and independence of the EPA's
scientific review process by prohibiting advice from those who are
funded by the biggest abusers of our environment.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Democratic motion to
recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is
withdrawn.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Hawaii, whom I
have not actually had the chance to make friends with yet, you are
actually hitting on one really good point: If there is data being used
by bad actors, shouldn't we all know it?
The way the EPA operates right now with their keeping their data sets
secret, none of you are going to get to know that. That is actually
what this piece of legislation fixes. If there is going to be data of
groups that are bad actors--industries that you consider dodgy--
wouldn't it be a wonderful thing to have that data available for
everyone, whether you be on the right or whether you be on the left, so
it can be refined by sunshine? so it can be reviewed and meshed up
against other data sets?
If you believe that making information public refines it, if you
believe public policy should be made by public data and public data
should be available in the making of public policy, you like this piece
of legislation.
What is so fascinating in the debate we have had this time and last
year is that I have a number of memos, demand letters, threats of
subpoenas from when the left in this body was in both the majority and
the minority, but there was a Republican President who was demanding
this type of legislation. Let's try something new around here: a little
bit of intellectual consistency.
Do you believe the public--the researchers, the scientists, those who
are academics, those who just have an interest in the subject area--
should have the right to touch the data, to model it, to stress it, to
put it up against other data sets and see if we are doing what is best
for our environment? Are we doing it the best way? Is there a better
way? Is there a more efficient way? Is there a more cost-effective way?
That is what this bill accomplishes, and I have no idea why my brothers
and sisters on the left are so fearful of that.
As I yield back, I beg all of my fellow Members here to vote ``yes''
on this legislation but to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, 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

Mr. TAKAI. 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 181,
noes 239, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 124]

AYES--181

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
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
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--239

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema

[[Page H1748]]

Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--12

Castor (FL)
Fudge
Graves (MO)
Hinojosa
Kaptur
Payne
Roskam
Sanchez, Loretta
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Young (IN)

{time} 1432

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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

Mr. SMITH 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 241,
noes 175, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 125]

AYES--241

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--175

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--16

Fudge
Graves (MO)
Himes
Hinojosa
Kaptur
Pascrell
Payne
Peters
Roskam
Sanchez, Loretta
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Van Hollen
Walker
Young (IN)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1439

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 for:
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 125 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on March 18, 2015, I was unavoidably
detained and missed one vote. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no'' on rollcall No. 125.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on
passage of H.R. 1030--The Secret Science Reform Act. I wish the record
to reflect my intentions had I been able to vote. Had I been present
for rollcall No. 125, I would have voted ``no.''

____________________