- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 113-619
======================================================================
SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2014
_______
November 12, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 4012]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 4012) to prohibit the Environmental
Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating
regulations or assessments based upon science that is not
transparent or reproducible, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Reported Bill...................................................1
II. Purpose and Summary.............................................2
III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................2
IV. Hearing Summary.................................................4
V. Committee Consideration.........................................5
VI. Committee Votes.................................................6
VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................8
VIII. Committee Views.................................................8
IX. Committee Oversight Findings....................................9
X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives...........9
XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditur10
XII. Advisory on Earmarks...........................................10
XIII. Committee Cost Estimate........................................10
XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................10
XV. Federal Mandates Statement.....................................12
XVI. Compliance with House Resolution 5.............................12
XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................12
XVIII.Applicability to Legislative Branch............................12
XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation.................13
XX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........13
XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................15
I. Reported Bill
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Secret Science Reform Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. DATA TRANSPARENCY.
Section 6(b) of the Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4363 note) is
amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or
disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical
information relied on to support such covered action is--
``(A) specifically identified; and
``(B) publicly available in a manner that is sufficient for
independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research
results.
``(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as requiring the
public dissemination of information the disclosure of which is
prohibited by law.
``(3) In this subsection--
``(A) the term `covered action' means a risk, exposure, or
hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation,
regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance; and
``(B) the term `scientific and technical information'
includes--
``(i) materials, data, and associated protocols
necessary to understand, assess, and extend
conclusions;
``(ii) computer codes and models involved in the
creation and analysis of such information;
``(iii) recorded factual materials; and
``(iv) detailed descriptions of how to access and use
such information.''.
II. Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 4012, the ``Secret Science Reform Act
of 2014'', is to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Administrator from finalizing, proposing, or
disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and
technical information relied on to support the covered action
is specifically identified and publicly available in a manner
that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction.
III. Background and Need for the Legislation
Science has been central to EPA's mission and functions
since its establishment in 1970. The Agency's recently-
finalized Scientific Integrity Policy describes science as
``the backbone of the EPA's decision-making.''\1\ Efforts to
encourage and guarantee open scientific research and assessment
at the EPA are based in a number of historical, legal, and
administrative origins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/
epa_scientific_integrity_policy_20120115.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1983, then-Administrator William Ruckelshaus wrote a
memo to all EPA employees dictating that the agency should
operate as though it were ``in a fishbowl.'' The memo stressed
the importance of being as open as possible, while also
providing the fullest possible public participation in decision
making.\2\ EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy echoed this priority
in her confirmation hearing, stating that ``The rule of law,
along with sound science and transparency, is one of EPA's core
values and, if I am confirmed, it will continue to guide all
EPA actions.''\3\ Similarly, she stated that, ``EPA is
committed to transparency with regard to the scientific bases
of agency decision making.''\4\ Science is a critical component
of EPA's regulatory decisions related to several environmental
laws, including the Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean
Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ruckelshaus-takes-steps-improve-
flow-agency-information-fishbowl-policy#memo.
\3\http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing;_id=d71fd4b6-ce77-3a98-
46a0-fb02b0cae0ed
\4\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent EPA and White House scientific integrity,
regulatory, and open access policies indicate strong support
for open access to scientific information, including the
information underlying Federal regulatory actions. Executive
Order 13563 requires that regulations ``be based upon the best
available science.''\5\ Similarly, President Obama's March 2009
Scientific Integrity Memo states that ``[t]o the extent
permitted by law, there should be transparency in the
preparation, identification, and use of scientific and
technological information in policymaking.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf
\6\http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-
executive-departments-and-agencies-3-9-09
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following up on this direction, the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Memo from December 2010
states that ``agencies should expand and promote access to
scientific information by making it available online in open
formats. Where appropriate, this should include data and models
underlying regulatory proposals and policy decisions.''\7\ OSTP
also issued a 2013 Memorandum on ``Increasing Access to the
results of Federally Funded Scientific Research,'' in which the
President's Science Advisor John Holdren explained that, ``The
Administration is committed to ensuring that, to the greatest
extent and with the fewest constraints possible and consistent
with law and the objectives set out below, the direct results
of federally funded scientific research are made available to
and useful for the public, industry, and the scientific
community. Such results include peer-reviewed publications and
digital data.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
scientific-integrity-memo-12172010.pdf.
\8\http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to provide Agency-specific guidelines emanating
from the President's and OSTP's Scientific Integrity Memos,
EPA's 2012 final Scientific Integrity Policy states:
``Scientific research and analysis comprise the foundation of
all major EPA policy decisions. Therefore, the Agency should
maintain vigilance toward ensuring that scientific research and
results are presented openly and with integrity, accuracy,
timeliness, and the full public scrutiny demanded when
developing sound, high-quality environmental science.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/
epa_scientific_integrity_policy_20120115.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developed in response to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) guidelines issued following provisions of the Treasury
and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658), EPA's Guidelines for Ensuring
and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and
Integrity, of Information Disseminated by the Environmental
Protection Agency state that the Agency is ``committed to
providing public access to environmental information'' and
that, in order to fulfill its mission, ``EPA must rely upon
information of appropriate quality for each decision we make.''
EPA also notes the limitations of these guidelines, stating
that they ``provide non-binding policy and procedural guidance,
and are therefore not intended to create legal rights, impose
legally binding requirements or obligations on EPA or the
public when applied in particular situations, or change or
impact the status of information we disseminate, nor to
contravene any other legal requirements that may apply to
particular agency determinations or other actions.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/documents/
EPA_InfoQualityGuidelines .pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Circular A-110 also indicates that the federal
government has a right to data produced under certain
federally-funded research awards. In 1999, following an
amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY1999 (often
referred to as the ``Shelby Amendment'' due to the role of
Senator Richard Shelby) OMB revised this circular to ``ensure
that all data produced under an award will be made available to
the public through the procedures established under the Freedom
of Information Act.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/fedreg/a110-
finalnotice.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite a seemingly strong position in favor of openness
and transparency regarding the science behind regulations, the
Administration has yet to make public the scientific data that
is behind numerous EPA regulations. Some outside researchers
have sought the scientific data behind these regulations and
have been denied access. The Committee issued a subpoena for
the scientific data behind these regulations and EPA responded
that it was unable to provide all of the data. EPA further
indicated in its response to the Committee received on March 7,
2014, that ``Any other data. . .are not (and were not) in the
possession, custody, or control of the EPA, nor are they within
the authority to obtain data that the agency identified.'' EPA
acknowledged that ``the data provided are not sufficient in
themselves to replicate the analyses in the epidemiological
studies, nor would they allow for the one to one mapping of
each pollutant and ecological variable to each subject.''
Without this scientific information, the public is required to
blindly trust the EPA's scientific findings that are the basis
of some of the most costly regulations in history.
IV. Hearing Summary
In the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee on Environment held
a hearing on February 11, 2014, focused on H.R. 4012 and
Ensuring Open Science at EPA. The Subcommittee received
testimony from expert witnesses, which informed the Committee
on the need for improved transparency and reproducibility of
regulatory science used by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Witnesses were also asked to provide comments on H.R. 4012, the
``Secret Science Reform Act of 2014.'' The Subcommittee
received testimony from the Honorable John Graham, Dean, School
of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University; Dr.
Louis Anthony Cox, Jr., Chief Sciences Officer, Next Health
Technologies, Clinical Professor, Biostatistics and
Informatics, Colorado Health Sciences Center, and President,
Cox Associates; Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, Professor, Bloomberg
School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University; and Mr.
Raymond Keating, Chief Economist, Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council.
On November 14, 2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology held a hearing entitled, Strengthening Transparency
and Accountability within the Environmental Protection Agency.
The purpose of this hearing was to review science and
technology activities at the EPA, including: agency-wide
policies and practices related to the development and use of
science in regulatory decisions; the role of independent
scientific advisory bodies such as the EPA Science Advisory
Board and the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; and
the importance of transparency and integrity in the Agency's
science activities. The Committee received testimony from The
Honorable Gina McCarthy, the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
In the 112th Congress, the Committee held two hearings
focused on science at the EPA. On November 30, 2011, the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing entitled,
Fostering Quality Science at EPA: Perspectives on Common Sense
Reform. The purpose of the hearing was to provide external
perspectives on the need to reauthorize and reform science,
research and development activities at EPA; explore the
intersection of Agency-supported science and its regulatory
mission; and receive focused recommendations to raise the
level, quality, usefulness, and objectivity of EPA science,
including any necessary changes to the Environmental Research,
Development and Demonstration Authorization Act. The
subcommittee received testimony from Ms. Susan Dudley,
Director, Regulatory Studies Center, and Research Professor of
Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington
University; Dr. Alan Moghissi, President, Institute for
Regulatory Science; Dr. Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar,
American Enterprise Institute; and Dr. Gary Marchant, Professor
of Law and Executive Director, Center for Law, Science &
Innovation, Arizona State University.
On February 3, 2012, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a second hearing to provide external
perspectives on the need to reauthorize and reform science and
research and development activities at the EPA. The
Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Daniel Greenbaum,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Health Effects
Institute; Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, Professor, Environmental
Health Sciences, University of Minnesota, and Chairwoman, EPA
Science Advisory Board; Mr. Michael Walls, Vice President,
Regulatory and Technical Affairs, American Chemistry Council;
Dr. Richard Belzer, President, Regulatory Checkbook; Dr. Jerald
Schnoor, Allen S. Henry Chair in Engineering, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iowa; and
Dr. S. Stanley Young, Assistant Director for Bioinformatics,
National Institute of Statistical Sciences.
V. Committee Consideration
On February 6, 2014, H.R. 4012 was introduced by Rep.
Schweikert and referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology.
On June 24, 2014, the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 4012, by
a vote of 17 Ayes, 13 Nays.
VI. Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The
Committee adopted H.R. 4012 by a vote of 17 Ayes, 13 Nays; a
motion to order H.R. 4012 favorably reported to the House, as
amended, was agreed to by unanimous consent.
During Full Committee consideration of H.R. 4012, the
following amendments were considered:
VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill
The bill prohibits the EPA Administrator from finalizing,
proposing, or disseminating a covered action unless all
scientific and technical information relied on to support the
covered action is specifically identified and publicly
available in a manner that is sufficient for independent
analysis and substantial reproduction. Nothing in the language
of the bill is to be construed as requiring public
dissemination of information, the disclosure of which is
prohibited by law.
The bill also defines ``covered action'' to mean a risk,
exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard,
limitation, regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or
guidance. The section defines ``scientific and technical
information'' to include materials, data, and associated
protocols necessary to understand, assess, and extend
conclusions, computer codes and models involved in the creation
and analysis of information, recorded factual materials, and
detailed descriptions of how to assess and use such
information.
VIII. Committee Views
H.R. 4012, The Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, requires
that the Environmental Protection Agency base its regulations
and assessments on science that is publicly available in a
manner sufficient for independent analysis and scientific
replication. This approach to regulatory science is consistent
with the data access requirements of major scientific journals
as well as the transparency policy of this Administration.
Transparency and reproducibility are basic tenets of science.
Costly environmental regulations should only be based upon data
that is available to independent scientists and the public.
This legislation is consistent with the White House's
scientific integrity policy, the President's Executive Order
13563, data access provisions of major scientific journals, and
the recommendations of the Administration's top science
advisors and the Bipartisan Policy Center. In 2012, the
President's Science Advisor testified that ``Absolutely, the
data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions are
based should be made available to the Committee and should be
made public unless there is a classification reason.'' Also in
2012, the Chair of EPA's Science Advisory Board in response to
follow-up questions after a hearing titled Fostering Quality
Science at EPA: Need for Common Sense Reform (Day II) stated
that EPA's advisors recommend, ``that literature and data used
by EPA be peer-reviewed and made available to the public. When
the SAB conducts peer reviews and evaluations, it prefers to
review all data associated with the document in question. It is
my experience that EPA makes its best effort to provide all
data to the SAB, subject to ethical and legal restrictions.''
The Committee received a letter of support from over 80
scientists, academic experts, and former EPA officials.
Signatories include Ivy League professors, two former chairs of
EPA science advisory committees, medical doctors,
statisticians, deans of major universities, and environmental
scientists. This legislation is similar to the data access
provisions of major scientific journals like Science and
Nature, as well as independent research entities like the
Health Effects Institute.
H.R. 4012 makes clear that no protected information will be
disclosed. This bill only requires information that is
sufficient for independent scientists to validate and reproduce
the results of this regulatory science. The bill does not
require the public dissemination of information, the disclosure
of which is prohibited by law. To this end, the Committee
received a letter of support from more than 80 scientists,
experts, and doctors which states that ``complying with H.R.
4012 can be accomplished without imposing unnecessary burdens,
discouraging research, or raising confidentiality concerns.
Across different disciplines, numerous statistical and
technical approaches exist to protect any sensitive
information.'' Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences
has confirmed that transparency and reproducibility in science
is possible without any risks to confidentiality or privacy. In
2005, the Panel on Data Access for Research Purposes of the
National Research Council stated in its report Expanding Access
to Research Data: Reconciling Risks and Opportunities:
``Nothing in the past suggest that increasing access to
research data without damage to privacy and confidentiality
rights is beyond scientific reach.'' This Committee has
received testimony from some respected experts that the
provisions of H.R. 4012 would not raise confidentiality issues.
The legislation covers critical scientific documents
related to ``covered actions'' in order to ensure that
significant non-regulatory information is subject to basic
standards of transparency and reproducibility. As Dr. John
Graham, Indiana University and former head of White House
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, testified that:
``When a federal agency makes a determination that a product,
technology or substance is hazardous, the determination
itself--without any formal regulatory action--can create a
stigma in the marketplace that causes a loss of sales, jobs and
so forth. The stigma can also trigger lawsuits against
companies under the common laws of the fifty states. If the
scientific and technical data underpinning the determinations
are not transparent and reproducible, it can be quite difficult
for scientists in an impacted company--or any scientist--to
determine whether the determination is valid.'' The definition
of scientific and technical information in the bill is based on
data access policies from leading science publications and EPA-
funded research institutes.
IX. Committee Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight
hearing and made findings that are reflected in the descriptive
portions of this report.
X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the performance goals and
objectives of the Committee are reflected in the descriptive
portions of this report, including the goal to prohibit the EPA
Administrator from finalizing, proposing, or disseminating a
covered action unless all scientific and technical information
relied on to support the covered action is specifically
identified and publically available in a manner that is
sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction.
XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
XII. Advisory on Earmarks
In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI,
the Committee finds that H.R. 4012, the ``Secret Science Reform
Act of 2014,'' contains no earmarks.
XIII. Committee Cost Estimate
The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 3, 2014.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4012, the Secret
Science Reform Act of 2014.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S.
Mehlman.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 4012--Secret Science Reform Act of 2014
H.R. 4012 would amend the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to
prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from
proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a ``covered action''
unless all scientific and technical information used to support
that action is publicly available in a manner that is
sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of research results. Covered actions would include
assessments of risks, exposure, or hazards; documents
specifying criteria, guidance, standards, or limitations; or
regulations and regulatory impact statements.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4012 would cost about
$250 million a year for the next few years, subject to
appropriation of the necessary amounts. Costs in later years
would probably decline gradually from that level. The
additional discretionary spending would cover the costs of
expanding the scope of EPA studies and related activities such
as data collection and database construction for all of the
information necessary to meet the legislation's requirements.
Enacting H.R. 4012 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
H.R. 4012 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, and tribal
governments.
Under current law, EPA typically spends about $500 million
each year to support research and development activities,
including assessments to determine the potential risk to public
health from environmental contaminants. EPA relies on the
findings of many scientific studies to develop regulations and
perform other covered actions. The number of studies involved
in such cases depends on the complexity of the issue being
addressed. For example, when addressing a recent issue with
flaring at petroleum refineries, EPA relied on a dozen
scientific studies. In contrast, when reviewing the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, the agency relied on thousands
of scientific studies. In total, the agency relies on about
50,000 scientific studies annually to perform its mission--
although some of those studies are used more than once from
year to year.
The costs of implementing H.R. 4012 are very uncertain
because it is not clear how EPA would meet the bill's
requirements. Depending on their size and scope, the new
activities called for by the bill would cost between $10,000
and $30,000 for each scientific study used by the agency. If
EPA continued to rely on as many scientific studies as it has
used in recent years, while increasing the collection and
dissemination of all the technical information used in such
studies as directed by H.R. 4012, then implementing the bill
would cost at least several hundred million dollars a year.
However, EPA could instead rely on significantly fewer studies
each year in support of its mission, and limit its spending on
data collection and database construction activities to a
relatively small expansion of existing study-related activity;
in that scenario, implementing the bill would be much less
costly.
Thus, the costs of implementing H.R. 4012 would ultimately
depend on how EPA adapts to the bill's requirements. (It would
also depend on the availability of appropriated funds to
conduct the additional data collection and database
construction activities and related coordination and reporting
activities under the legislation.) CBO expects that EPA would
modify its practices, at least to some extent, and would base
its future work on fewer scientific studies, and especially
those studies that have easily accessible or transparent data.
Any such modification of EPA practices would also have to take
into consideration the concern that the quality of the agency's
work could be compromised if that work relies on a
significantly smaller collection of scientific studies; we
expect that the agency would seek to reduce its reliance on
numerous studies without sacrificing the quality of the
agency's covered actions related to research and development.
On balance--recognizing the significant uncertainty
regarding EPA's potential actions under the bill--CBO expects
that the agency would probably cut the number of studies it
relies on by about one-half and that the agency would aim to
limit the costs of new activities required by the bill, such as
data collection, correspondence and coordination with study
authors, construction of a database to house necessary
information, and public dissemination of such information. As a
result, CBO estimates the incremental costs to the agency would
be around $250 million a year initially, subject to
appropriation of the necessary amounts. In our assessment that
figure lies near the middle of a broad range of possible
outcomes under H.R. 4012.
CBO expects that the additional costs to implement the
legislation would decline over time as EPA became more adept
and efficient at working with authors and researchers to ensure
that the data used to support studies are provided in a
standardized and replicable form. Costs could be even lower if
EPA were to more severely restrict the number of studies it
relies on to support its decisions regarding environmental
standards, regulations, and risk assessments. However, if EPA
were to continue its recent practice of relying on roughly
50,000 studies each year, the costs to implement H.R. 4012
would be much higher.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susanne S.
Mehlman. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
XV. Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
XVI. Compliance With H. Res. 5
A. Directed Rule Making. The bill does not direct any
executive branch official to conduct any specific rule-making
proceedings.
B. Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
XVIII. Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
This section establishes the short title of the Act as the
``Secret Science Reform Act of 2014.''
Section 2. Data transparency
Section 2 amends the Environmental Research, Development,
and Demonstration Authorization Act to:
(1) Prohibit the Administrator of EPA from finalizing,
proposing, or disseminating a covered action unless all
scientific and technical information relied on to support the
covered action is:
a. Specifically identified, and
b. Publicly available in a manner that is sufficient
for independent analysis and substantial reproduction
of research results.
(2) Clarify that nothing in the section shall be construed
as requiring public dissemination of information, the
disclosure of which is prohibited by law.
(3) Define ``covered action'' to mean a risk, exposure, or
hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation,
regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance. The
section defines ``scientific and technical information'' to
include materials, data, and associated protocols necessary to
understand, assess, and extend conclusions, computer codes and
models involved in the creation and analysis of information,
recorded factual materials, and detailed descriptions of how to
assess and use such information.
XX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION AUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 1978
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6. (a) * * *
[(b) The Administrator, after consultation with the Science
Advisory Board, shall submit to the President and the Congress
a report concerning the desirability and feasibility of
establishing a national environmental laboratory, or a system
of such laboratories, to assume or supplement the long-term
environmental research functions created by subsection (a) of
this section. Such report shall be submitted on or before March
31, 1978, and shall include findings and recommendations
concerning--
[(1) specific types of research to be carried out by
such laboratory or laboratories;
[(2) the coordination and integration of research to
be conducted by such laboratory or laboratories with
research conducted by existing Federal or other
research facilities;
[(3) methods for assuring continuing long-range
funding for such laboratory or laboratories; and
[(4) other administrative or legislative actions
necessary to facilitate the establishment of such
laboratory or laboratories.]
(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or
disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and
technical information relied on to support such covered action
is--
(A) specifically identified; and
(B) publicly available in a manner that is sufficient
for independent analysis and substantial reproduction
of research results.
(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as requiring
the public dissemination of information the disclosure of which
is prohibited by law.
(3) In this subsection--
(A) the term ``covered action'' means a risk,
exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document,
standard, limitation, regulation, regulatory impact
analysis, or guidance; and
(B) the term ``scientific and technical information''
includes--
(i) materials, data, and associated protocols
necessary to understand, assess, and extend
conclusions;
(ii) computer codes and models involved in
the creation and analysis of such information;
(iii) recorded factual materials; and
(iv) detailed descriptions of how to access
and use such information.
* * * * * * *
XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUP ON H.R. 4012,
SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2014
----------
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time. Pursuant to Committee
Rule 2(f) and House Rule XI(2)(h)(4), the Chair announces that
he may postpone roll call votes.
Let me recognize myself for an opening statement and then I
will recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, from Texas.
Today, we will consider H.R. 4012, the Secret Science
Reform Act of 2014, offered by Environment Subcommittee
Chairman David Schweikert. H.R. 4012 is a short, common sense
bill. It requires that the Environmental Protection Agency base
its regulations on data that is made public. The American
people foot the bill for the EPA's billion-dollar regulations
and they have the right to see the underlying data.
The EPA's regulatory process is both hidden and flawed. It
hides the data and then handpicks scientists to review it.
Unfortunately, the EPA continues to resist basic
accountability. Every major air quality regulation proposed by
this Administration has been justified by nontransparent data
and unverifiable claims. This includes the recent plan to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.
This proposal will result in the loss of thousands of jobs and
spike electricity costs, all for no discernible effect on
global temperatures. Upcoming ozone standards, which even the
Administration admits will be the most expensive in history,
also rely on hidden data.
The EPA clearly sees transparency and accountability as a
threat. Speaking before the National Academy of Sciences two
months ago, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that her
Agency needed to protect the science ``from those not qualified
to analyze it.'' Aside from the arrogance that is indicative of
the EPA, Administrator McCarthy herself testified to this
committee that the information should be available for
independent review and verification. The American people are
still waiting.
If the EPA has nothing to hide, and if their data really
justifies their regulations, why not make the information
public? Is it because the EPA knows the data will not justify
their regulations?
The bill we consider today reforms EPA's regulatory process
and is consistent with the data access requirements of major
scientific journals, the White House Scientific Integrity
Policy, and the recommendations of independent groups like the
Administrative Conference of the United States and the
Bipartisan Policy Center.
A 2013 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 made public.
There also is substantial support for this bill from the
scientific and business communities. From deans of major
universities to former EPA scientists to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, dozens of experts and organizations support the
provisions of this bill.
A letter from more than 80 scientists and academics stated,
``Complying with H.R. 4012 can be accomplished without imposing
unnecessary burdens, discouraging research, or raising
confidentiality concerns.''
The principles behind the bill also have been supported by
top officials in the self-described ``most transparent
Administration in history.'' The President's own Science
Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, testified in this room 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 independent Science Advisory Board
echoed that sentiment a few months later.
The Secret Science Reform Act does not require any
disclosure of confidential information. It would only prohibit
EPA's use of secret science. Data sharing is becoming
increasingly common across scientific disciplines. The
legislation requires that EPA science be available for
validation and replication.
Americans impacted by EPA regulations have a right to see
the data and determine for themselves if the Agency's actions
are based on sound science or a partisan agenda. This bill
ensures transparency and accountability. The American people
deserve the facts and so does good policy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Good morning. Today we will consider H.R. 4012, the Secret Science
Reform Act of 2014, offered by Environment Subcommittee Chairman
Schweikert.
H.R. 4012 is a short, common-sense bill. It requires that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) base its regulations on data that
is made public. The American people foot the bill for the EPA's billion
dollar regulations and they have the right to see the underlying data.
The EPA's regulatory process is both hidden and flawed. It hides
the data and then handpicks scientists to review it. Unfortunately, the
EPA continues to resist basic accountability. Every major air quality
regulation proposed by this Administration has been justified by
nontransparent data and unverifiable claims.
This includes the recent plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions
from existing power plants. This proposal will result in the loss of
thousands of jobs and spike electricity costs, all for no discernible
effect on global temperatures. Upcoming ozone standards--which even the
Administration admits will be the most expensive in history--also rely
on hidden data.
The EPA clearly sees transparency and accountability as a threat.
Speaking before the National Academy of Sciences two months ago, EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy said that her Agency needed to protect the
science ``from those not qualified to analyze it.''
Aside from the arrogance that is indicative of the EPA,
Administrator McCarthy herself testified to this committee that the
information should be available for independent review and
verification. The American people are still waiting.
If the EPA has nothing to hide, and if their data really justifies
their regulations, why not make the information public? Is it because
the EPA knows the data won't justify their regulations?
The bill we consider today reforms EPA's regulatory process and is
consistent with the data access requirements of major scientific
journals, the White House Scientific Integrity Policy, and the
recommendations of independent groups like the Administrative
Conference of the U.S. and the Bipartisan Policy Center.
A 2013 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 made public. There also is substantial
support for this bill from the scientific and business communities.
From deans of major universities to former EPA scientists to the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, dozens of experts and organizations support the
provisions of this bill.
A letter from more than 80 scientists and academics stated,
``Complying with H.R. 4012 can be accomplished without imposing
unnecessary burdens, discouraging research, or raising confidentiality
concerns.''
The principles behind the bill also have been supported by top
officials in the self-described ``most transparent Administration in
history.'' The President's own Science Advisor, Dr. John Holdren,
testified in this room 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 independent Science
Advisory Board echoed that sentiment a few months later.
The Secret Science Reform Act does not require any disclosure of
confidential information. It would only prohibit EPA's use of secret
science. Data sharing is becoming increasingly common across scientific
disciplines. The legislation requires that EPA science be available for
validation and replication.
Americans impacted by EPA regulations have a right to see the data
and determine for themselves if the agency's actions are based on sound
science or a partisan agenda. This bill ensures transparency and
accountability.
The American people deserve the facts. And so does good policy.
Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, but
before the gentlewoman from Texas I would like to enter into
the record the following letters in support of H.R. 4012: a
letter to the Committee from over 80 scientists and experts; a
letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest
business federation; a letter from other 30 trade associations;
a letter from the Dean of Indiana University and the former
head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Dr.
John Graham; a letter from Dr. McClellan, former Chairman of
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; and particularly
persuasive is an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal on the
subject of the EPA's data, which I happened to write. Without
objection, those documents will be made a part of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. And at this point I will recognize the
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, the Ranking Member of this
committee.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Today, the Committee is marking up H.R. 4012, the Secret
Science Reform Act of 2014. It is my opinion that this bill is
an insidious attack on the EPA's ability to use the best
science to protect public health, and this markup is a
culmination of one of the most anti-science and anti-health
campaigns in the history of this esteemed committee.
The genesis of this legislation is the majority's long-
standing obsession with two seminal scientific studies
conducted by Harvard University and the American Cancer
Society, which linked increasing air pollution with death and
disease. The majority has harassed EPA for more than two years
in an attempt to get access to the raw data used in these
studies. Since these studies involve hundreds of thousands of
human volunteers who submitted sensitive personal health
information to the researchers, the raw data is stringently
protected from public disclosure. The EPA explained this to the
Chairman, but he nonetheless issued a subpoena to the EPA
Administrator to turn over data that the EPA has no legal right
to access and for which there are strict legal prohibitions
against public disclosure.
The majority's solution to this problem, a problem of their
own creation, is H.R. 4012. Rather than explain the problems
with this legislation myself, I will simply quote from a letter
we received from the American Lung Association and the American
Thoracic Society, two leading, trusted public health
organizations. They state, ``The legislation before the
Committee 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 a myriad of other
Federal laws. The legislation will not improve EPA's actions;
rather, it will stifle public health protections.
I also want to take a moment to comment on the process that
led us to where we are today. In the formulation of both the
EPA's subpoena and the legislation before us, the majority has
shown a disturbing pattern of relying upon the advice of
researchers and other individuals with strong financial ties to
the tobacco industry. When the Committee met in August to
authorize subpoenas to obtain the data from Harvard and the
Cancer Society studies, we questioned what legitimate
researchers didn't already have access to the data.
The Chairman named Dr. James Enstrom as someone who didn't
have access to the data and apparently someone to whom the
Chair intended to provide the data. As I have noted in the
letters to the Chairman, Dr. Enstrom has a long history of ties
to the tobacco industry that includes receiving research
funding from and performing consultant work for tobacco
companies. When the majority had their legislative hearing on
this bill, they called three witnesses to testify all of whom
had past financial connections to the tobacco industry. In
fact, the only scientist who was called by the majority to
testify had an extensive history of tobacco industry research
funding and consulting work.
This should be profoundly disturbing to the members of this
committee. The tobacco industry was a responsible--was
responsible for perpetuating or perpetrating one of the
greatest scientific frauds in history on the American people.
They committed this fraud to subvert and delay the imposition
of health regulations on their industry. As a consequence of
the delayed implementation of tobacco regulations, millions of
people needlessly suffered and died. It defies logic that the
majority would be relying on these people to justify their
bill.
On the other hand, a diverse set of voices from the
scientific, public health, legal, and environmental communities
have criticized this legislation. We have received letters or
statements expressing concern with the bill from the American
Association for Advancement of Science, the American Lung
Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American
Association for Justice, the Center for Effective Government,
the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, Clean Water Action, Earth Justice,
Environmental America, and the Environmental Defense Fund,
Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra
Club, the Center for Progressive Reform, and I will ask that
these letters be placed in the record.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To close, when the Committee of Science has taken its cues
from people tied to the tobacco industry instead of from
legitimate scientists and public health professionals, then
something is profoundly wrong. Whatever views my fellow Members
may have about specific EPA rules and regulations, I would hope
that they will see this bill for what it is, a pernicious
assault on EPA's ability to use the best science to protect
public health. It is a bill that diminishes our committee by
the very fact that we are marking it up today. I strongly urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this
legislation. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you Chairman Smith. Today the Committee is marking up H.R.
4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014. This bill is an insidious
attack on the EPA's ability to use the best science to protect public
health, and this markup is the culmination of one of the most anti-
science and anti-health campaigns in the history of this esteemed
Committee.
The genesis of this legislation is the Majority's longstanding
obsession with two seminal scientific studies conducted by Harvard
University and the American Cancer Society which linked increasing air
pollution with death and disease. The Majority has harassed the EPA for
more than two years in an attempt to get access to the raw data used in
those studies.
Since those studies involved hundreds of thousands of human
volunteers who submitted sensitive personal health information to the
researchers, the raw data is stringently protected from public
disclosure.
The EPA explained this to the Chairman, but he nonetheless issued a
subpoena to the EPA Administrator to turn over data that the EPA had no
legal right to access and for which there are strict legal prohibitions
against public disclosure.
The Majority's solution to this ``problem''--a problem of their own
creation--is H.R. 4012. Rather than explain the problems with this
legislation myself, I will simply quote from a letter we received from
the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, two
leading and trusted public health organizations. They state:
``The legislation before the committee 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 publically
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.''
I also want to take a moment to comment on the process that led us
to where we are today. In the formulation of both the EPA subpoena and
the legislation before us, the Majority has shown a disturbing pattern
of relying upon the advice of researchers and other individuals with
strong financial ties to the tobacco industry. When the Committee met
in August to authorize subpoenas to obtain the data from the Harvard
and Cancer Society studies, we questioned what legitimate researchers
didn't already have access to the data. The Chairman named Dr. James
Enstrom as someone who didn't have access to the data, and, apparently,
someone to whom the Chair intended to provide the data.
As I've noted in letters to the Chairman, Dr. Enstrom has a long
history of ties to the tobacco industry that include receiving research
funding from and performing consulting work for tobacco companies. When
the Majority had their legislative hearing on this bill, they called
three witnesses to testify, all of whom had past financial connections
to the tobacco industry. In fact, the only scientist who was called by
the Majority to testify had an extensive history of tobacco industry
research funding and consulting work.
This should be profoundly disturbing to the Members of this
Committee.
The tobacco industry was responsible for perpetrating one of the
greatest scientific frauds in history on the American people. They
committed this fraud to subvert and delay the imposition of health
regulations on their industry. As a consequence of the delayed
implementation of tobacco regulations, millions of people needlessly
suffered and died. It defies logic that the Majority would be relying
on these people to justify their bill.
On the other hand, a diverse set of voices from the scientific,
public health, legal, and environmental community have criticized this
legislation.
We have received letters or statements expressing concern with the
bill from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American
Association for Justice, the Center for Effective Government, the Union
of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean
Water Action, Earthjustice, Environment America, the Environmental
Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters,
the Sierra Club, and the Center for Progressive Reform, and I'd ask
that these letters be placed in the record.
Mr. Chairman, to close, when the Committee on Science is taking its
cues from folks tied to the tobacco industry instead of from legitimate
scientists and public health professionals, then something is
profoundly wrong.
Whatever views my fellow Members may have about specific EPA rules
and regulations, I would hope that they will see this bill for what it
is-a pernicious assault on EPA's ability to use the best science to
protect public health. It is a bill that diminishes our Committee by
the very fact that we are marking it up today. I strongly urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation, and I
yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 4012, the Secret
Science Reform Act of 2014. The clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4012, a bill to prohibit the Environmental
Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating
regulations or----
[H.R. 4012 appears in Appendix I]
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill will be
considered as read.
If there is no further discussion on the bill, the bill
will be open to amendment at this point. And we will go to the
first amendment on our roster, and that is going to be offered
by the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, and she is
recognized for that purpose.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an
amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
4012, offered by Ms. Bonamici----
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read.
And the gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized to explain
her amendment.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment is the Promoting Public Access and
Transparency Act of 2014. It takes an important step forward to
increase public access to federally funded research, and unlike
the base bill we are marking up today, it does so in a way that
does not risk the health of Americans or the environment.
Taxpayers support most of the research conducted at our
universities, and I agree that more can and should be done to
provide the public with access to the results of that research.
I was glad to support the bipartisan amendment to the FIRST Act
offered by my colleagues Mr. Sensenbrenner and Ms. Lofgren to
require Federal science agencies to develop open access
policies for publications resulting from federally funded
research.
The amendment I am offering today extends the language
adopted in the FIRST Act to the EPA as well and would require
the Administrator formulate and implement a public access
policy to ensure that the American people have access to the
research papers resulting from EPA-sponsored work. The
amendment contains specific provisions that set up the
structure for public access policy including provisions that
address metadata, electronic access, repositories, stakeholder
coordination, and a process to petition for modification of the
embargo period if doing so would be in the public interest. And
importantly, unlike in the base bill, relevant terms are
defined. This amendment ensures that the best available science
is considered by the EPA while also continuing to protect
patient privacy and confidentiality.
Many have raised concerns that, as written, the underlying
bill will result in certain scientific research being ignored
by the EPA because of the need to protect patient privacy and
confidentiality. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I, along with
much of the scientific community, are concerned that the
underlying bill before us today will undermine EPA's ability to
fulfill its mission to protect human health and the
environment.
As the Ranking Member noted, we have received letters of
opposition from, among others, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the American Lung Association, the
Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Center for Progressive
Reform, which is a group of environmental and administrative
law professors.
Additionally, on this committee we have heard at length
about concerns with the so-called secret science, but those
concerns expressed to date ignore the fact that often
transparency is lacking when it comes to disclosing the source
of research for--funding for research. Now, I am not suggesting
that industry-funded research is bad, only that it should be
subjected to the same transparency and accountability as
federally sponsored research. This underlying bill treats them
differently. My amendment would address this issue by requiring
that the EPA only consider peer-reviewed research results and
scholarly publications that disclose the entity that funded the
research.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment achieves the transparency and
accountability that is the stated rationale for the bill before
us today and it does so in a way that preserves the EPA's
ability to make use of the best science available and serve its
mission of protecting public health. I urge Members to support
this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. And the gentleman
from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, the author of this bill, is
recognized.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to my friend, the gentlewoman from Oregon, there are
probably three things here that are problematic. I am not going
to UC it or do a procedural objection--but the amendment is
actually multiple times larger than the underlying bill and has
some germaneness issues. But if you actually read through the
amendment and walk through the mechanics, it actually creates
significant loopholes to avoid actually what we are trying to
accomplish.
There is also another thematic problem because have you
ever had one of these discussions--and this is--I am not
picking on anyone, but you sort of feel like you are in
parallel universes where, for those of us who have been working
on this bill for a while, we are seeing this sort of
egalitarian access to information that I don't think favors the
right, the left, the universities, the private academician, the
person with a good computer in their basement that likes to do
statistics. It is information. And if you can do public policy,
it should be by public data and public data for public policy
and this ability to try to argue to gain the data.
There is also something I think is a misnomer and I really
do want to correct it. If the bureaucracy--if the EPA actually
reaches out and uses industry data in creation of their rule
set, they need to disclose those data sets. So it may happen
one day that there is a President of a different party and it
would be amusing to see if the arguments in this room all of a
sudden, because of that partisan change, the arguments flip
upside down and go the other direction.
It is public data to make public policy. And if you are
going to have a public policy, don't we all, every single
person in this room, every person on this committee, and our
constituents have the right to those underlying data sets?
The very last thing, I am almost embarrassed to hear
someone use the language of, well, this is secret, personal
data. Come on. And tell me every agency out there, there are
protocols. So if that argument is going to be used, should the
Census Bureau, should the CFPB, should the, you know, the
universities, should--I mean every agency out there collects
very personal data on us. There is mechanisms that have been
around since time immemorial to blind data. I remember being in
a freshman stats class and we were instructed on how to blind
data. It is an absurd argument.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert. Are there other
Members who wish to be heard?
The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
I want to commend Ms. Bonamici for her amendment. The
gentlelady's amendment takes a commonsense approach to
increased public access to federally funded research results at
EPA.
As my colleagues are aware, in 2010 COMPETES bill, former
Chairman Gordon set into motion an interagency process for the
development of public access plans for all of our Federal
research agencies. Last year, OSTP issued guidance based on
that process. And last month, the only bipartisan amendment
adopted by the part of the FIRST Act codified OSTP's guidance
and the development of open-access policies in a number of
agencies within the Committee's jurisdiction.
Ms. Bonamici's amendment rightfully extends that policy to
EPA. This is the right approach to increasing transparency and
public access at the Agency. It does not take the reckless
approach of the underlying bill, which keeps EPA from using the
best science available to inform their regulatory process.
The amendment also does not ignore the fact that we need to
address the issue of transparency as it relates to industry-
funded research. The underlying bill is in effect a witch-hunt
for Members of the other side of the aisle to force EPA to
disclose data that is strictly protected by the law to ensure
patient confidentiality. If the majority wants to pursue
legitimate efforts to increase public access to federally
funded research, then they will support the adoption of this
amendment.
The gentlelady's amendment ensures that EPA can fulfill
their mission by protecting public health and the environment
while also increasing public access to research results
supported by the Agency. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Bucshon, is recognized.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Transparency and reproducibility are basic
tenets of science. I am a medical doctor, practicing
cardiothoracic surgery for over 15 years, and written multiple
medical journals that have grouped patient information that
protects the privacy of the individual patient. So hiding
behind regulations like HIPAA law and saying that this
information can't be used in a fashion that can protect patient
privacy just isn't true.
Costly environmental regulations should only based upon
data that is available to independent scientists and the
public. H.R. 4012 makes very clear that no protected
information will be disclosed and any confidential information
can easily be coded through existing statistical methods. Dr.
John Graham, Dean of the Indiana University School of Public
and Environmental Affairs, stated in testimony supporting the
bill in February 2014 that ``once environmental scientists have
published their work in the peer-reviewed scientific community
is already common practice for them to share their data with
other scientists who have an interest in their research.''
This committee has also received significant testimony from
respected experts that the provisions of H.R. 4012 would not
raise confidentiality issues. For this reason, I would ask my
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon.
If there is no further discussion, the question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Bonamici.
All in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
We will now go to the next amendment to be offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and he is recognized
for that purpose.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will read the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4012 offered by Mr. Kennedy of
Massachusetts, amendment #003.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read.
And the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, is
recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, today we have heard a bit about the
importance of scientific integrity and transparency, and I want
to agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and say
that that is two fundamental principles with which I could not
agree more.
However, I am concerned that the bill before us today
doesn't achieve those goals and instead puts our country at
greater risk of not being able to use the best available, most
up-to-date science to protect our health and public safety.
Currently, the EPA incorporates science in the regulatory
process through a number of procedures, including extensive
outside peer-reviewed prior to consideration of the Agency's
internal process. Prior to any action, the EPA must go through
an extensive rulemaking process that incorporates printing all
relevant information in a Federal Register, which is publicly
available, a draft rule, a public comment period, responding to
those public comments, and then issuing a final rule, a process
that takes considerable amount of time with extensive input
from interested parties.
Last, as the majority indicated in a memorandum of today's
markup, all Federal agencies that support scientific research
are already under direction by the President and the Office of
Science and Technology Policy to make said research publicly
available where appropriate, include data and models used to
support the science. The EPA is currently in the process of
developing its own public access policy consistent with OSTP.
Unfortunately, I am concerned that the underlying bill only
creates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and actually prohibits
the EPA from using sound science. It creates confusing and
likely unworkable requirements limiting the scientific research
that can be used unless it can be publicly accessible. The EPA
relies on science that often includes personally identifiable
information which cannot simply be made public--excuse me--
publicly available due to privacy concerns, which is why EPA
already has important peer-reviewed standards in place as
previously supported independent analyses of studies in
accordance with privacy protections set forth by law.
In this committee, we have talked about the importance of
the Federal Government protecting private information. I cannot
support an effort to either require the EPA to disclose
protected health information or simply not use it. My amendment
upholds the high standards set by the EPA using the latest,
most up-to-date science. It prohibits EPA from proposing,
finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all
science and technical information is specifically identified,
requiring the EPA to identify the science being used to engage
in any regulatory action. It ensures we--excuse me--you base
regulations on sound science and allows EPA to continue their
efforts to make all information publicly available, as
applicable by law in coordination with the OSTP directive.
Mr. Chairman, specifically, the amendment basically--if you
look to the text, it strikes--on page 2, lines 10 through 15,
it puts in that--it leads in Subsection A and it says that has
to be specifically identified. I am concerned that the language
of actually--I take--my colleague's comments on the last
amendment are well noted. I am concerned that the way the
language is actually drafted, it creates a bit of an ambiguity
saying that the EPA, unless--noting--and from Subsection 2,
noting that nothing shall be construed as requiring public
dissemination of information, the disclosure of which is
prohibited by law. If there is private information there that
the EPA cannot disclose by law, then they cannot actually
implement the regulation because of Subsection B. And what I am
basically saying is take out that ambiguity, keep in the
specifically identified so that we know what the research
actually is so that there is accountability, but to try to
remove that ambiguity of creating a requirement that the EPA
cannot comply with under law. That is essentially what we are
trying to do is just simplify the regulation.
And I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, is recognized.
Mr. Schweikert. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Strike the
last word.
To my friend from Massachusetts who has actually been very
kind to my office, and if anyone wants to know the story, I
will tell you later----
Mr. Kennedy. Please don't.
Mr. Schweikert. Please don't. Actually, I appreciate the
explanation because reading over the amendment I am not sure
your language actually gets you to where you want. There is
actually lots and lots--I mean already in protocols--actually
it is already an order from the Administration to do this and
we will put that into the record a little bit later.
If we are blessed enough or I am blessed enough to have
this bill move towards the Floor, I will work with you on this
because maybe there is a sentence I can make crisper, but
having been around this sort of for a while, I don't think your
amendment gets you to where you want because what we are all
talking about here is in large data sets you are going to have
these occasions where you get down to either the data
identifies one because you have someone who is out in the tail,
you know, is the one outlier, and that becomes an ability to
identify the individual or clusters of particular difficulties
down to being able to identify those individuals. There are
protocols all up and down our government that blinds that data,
and I think that is what you are after is I never wanted
something personally identifying of an individual, right?
I don't think your amendment gets you there, but if we move
forward on this, I promise you we will work on--because I think
we can just capture some language that has already been
proposed both--actually, it has already been--it is not
proposed; it is the rules given out from the Administration to
all agencies. It is just not being carried out right now at the
EPA.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert.
Let me ask the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman
from Massachusetts, do you all want to continue this discussion
between now and the next step for this bill or, Mr. Kennedy, do
you want to proceed without prejudice to have a vote on your
amendment?
Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard. I move
to strike the last word before we vote on the amendment.
Chairman Smith. Okay. The gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Grayson, is recognized.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you.
As I read this and in connection with the Kennedy
amendment, I am concerned about one particular scenario, which
is this: Let's say that the EPA relies upon a published report
in Nature based upon a Harvard study and it is--obviously
Nature is a reputable journal. There is no reason to think that
it is unreliable information, but it simply is whatever 15
pages of data is put in the journal. In that situation, EPA
would have no access to the underlying data. Harvard is under
no obligation to provide that information even to Nature, much
less to the EPA, and if I read this bill correctly, without the
Kennedy amendment, this means that in that situation the EPA
would not be able to go forward with any rule relying upon a
published Harvard study in the journal Nature. That seems to me
to be a fatal flaw in this bill.
And I will yield to anybody who is a proponent of this bill
to explain why that is not the case.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is
recognized.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to strike
the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Posey. I would like to yield to Congressman Schweikert.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
Two points, go grab your copy of Nature right now and go
into the front section and look at the data release
requirements for peer-review there. Actually--and also in
Scientific America, Science, they actually, as part of their
language and standards--where do you think some of this
language came from? Go look at Nature and Scientific America
and in their data release discussions in their peer-reviewed
publications, that is where this came from.
Also, remember, because we have already heard the misnomer
twice now and I want to clear it up, if the Agency uses
industry data in creating a rule set, they need to make that
base data public. One more time, public policy by public data.
And maybe because I have a fixation on the crowd having access
to information, purifying--and also to my friend from Florida,
you know--and I am not going to refer to the trial bar, but
whatever side you are on, the ability to get the data and test
it and merge it with other data, who knows? You may find that
we are not going far enough. But that data belongs to the
public.
I yield back.
Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I actually----
Mr. Schweikert. I will give it to Mr. Posey.
Mr. Grayson. --had not used to my time up and I would like
to reclaim my time.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Florida continues to
have the time.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you. Listen, I don't find that answer,
with all due respect, satisfying. I think that what you are
doing as you are tying the hands of the EPA based upon what you
claim to be are provisions in Nature's own internal policies,
which may not be true. As far as I know, they are not true,
respectfully, and even if they were true, could change
tomorrow. So you are basically making the EPA's rulemaking
ability contingent upon the policies adopted by scientific
journals and I think that that is completely unacceptable.
I will yield to whoever wants to respond to that if you
want or I will just yield back my time.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman yields back his time.
Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on this
amendment?
Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. And, Mr. Chairman, I do have some questions
for the Chair that I would be happy to yield to. And as the
Chair knows, when Congress enacted HIPAA, it required the
Secretary of HHS to issue regulations governing the use and
disclosure of protected health information. This privacy rule
which we are referring to insures that an individual's medical
condition as well as their Social Security number and other
personal identifiable information are protected and only shared
in a limited and specific way. And one of my concerns and one
of the concerns that has been expressed by my colleagues
particularly from Oregon and Massachusetts is that this could
require the researchers to violate the privacy rules.
And so my question, Mr. Chair, is that it sounds like this
legislation and the Chair would be requiring researchers and
the EPA to violate HIPAA by putting the underlying data up on
the internet. And I was wondering if that is the case.
Chairman Smith. Let me respond real quickly and then I can
yield to Mr. Schweikert if he wants to add more than he has,
but I think you have been particularly articulate on the
subject.
On page 2 of the bill you have got Section 2, ``Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed as requiring the public
dissemination of information, the disclosure of which is
prohibited by law.'' So the law that you referred to yourself a
minute ago would prohibit the disclosure of the information you
are concerned about. And again, that is the whole purpose of
the bill and that is what the gentleman from Arizona has
recognized as well.
Mr. Swalwell. And reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair, then is it
the Chair's position that the EPA can only rely on research
results where the underlying data is publicly available as a
part of its rulemaking?
Chairman Smith. I think the--I don't want to----
Mr. Swalwell. And yielding back.
Chairman Smith. Okay. The gentleman will yield. And I will
be happy to yield to the gentleman from Arizona. But the point
of the bill is actually full disclosure of data sets that the
EPA is now not willing to be made public. And there is good
reason for that, as has already been explained, and I am kind
of amazed that anybody would object to the full disclosure of
that data. As I mentioned in my opening statement, you have the
Administrator of the EPA herself testifying on this room that
that data should be made public. You have got the Science
Advisor to the President testifying in this room that that data
should be made public. So I am happy to follow their good
suggestions.
Mr. Swalwell. And reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair, how would
the Chair respectfully envision the EPA complying with this
disclosure without violating patient privacy and
confidentiality?
And I would yield again.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you for yielding again.
That is kind of self-explanatory I think. The way for the
EPA to comply without violating the law is to comply without
violating the law. And that is what the bill does.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And reclaiming my time, my fear again is that the
underlying or raw data that the Chair and this legislation are
seeking to obtain from the Harvard Six studies and the American
Cancer Society studies through EPA include what we believe are
protected health information. And because we have not been
successful--because my colleagues across the aisle have not
been successful in obtaining that information because it is
protected by privacy and confidentiality laws, instead we are
pushing it through with this bill, which would effectively tie
the hands of the EPA and threaten public health and privacy.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I would thank you for responding
to my questions and I would yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell.
Are there other Members who wish to be heard on this
amendment?
And the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Yes. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. I have some related questions regarding the
effect the bill would have on previous actions taken by the
EPA. Now, the bill says the EPA cannot propose or finalize a
covered action unless all the scientific information the action
is based on is publicly available in a manner that is
sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of results. But it also says the Administrator
cannot disseminate a covered action like guidance unless the
scientific information is also publicly available.
Now, here is the question. It seems to me that the language
suggests the legislation is retroactive, which--in which case
it would impact----
Chairman Smith. If the gentlewoman would yield, the bill is
not retroactive.
Ms. Lofgren. It is not retroactive?
Chairman Smith. That is correct.
Ms. Lofgren. All right. Then that does answer my question.
But it is not clear in the language of the bill that that is
the case, so I think, knowing how dismissive courts are to
legislative history, I think it would be an important component
to make sure that in the bill itself it is clear that it is
prospective.
Chairman Smith. If the gentlewoman would yield, if we need
to clarify that language, we will do so because that is the----
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. That is the intent.
The gentlewoman yield back.
The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized
for five minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And certainly this discussion today, as well as the letters
we have received, raises a lot of concerns about how this bill
would be implemented and interpreted. And I note that when we
did have a hearing on the bill, we did not have anyone from the
EPA to talk about how it would be implemented and interpreted.
And I know a lot of the question and concern is about the
substantial reproduction language and I want to yield the
balance of my five minutes to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you. Our illustrious staff actually has
come up with the restrictions regarding the availability of
data from Nature itself. Thank you very much, staff, for doing
that.
What it says is that the authors are allowed to qualify the
availability of material to the public as long as the
qualification is not ``undue'' and as long as they disclose
that at the time of the submission and indicate it in the
manuscript. So clearly under those circumstances it is true
that the authors of a paper Nature like, for instance, a
Harvard study would be able to withhold information from
Nature, from the readers, from the EPA while still being able
to publish it in Nature.
The result of that, including the fact that although EPA
might conceivably have access to such information under some
circumstances under no existing duty to actually get it means
that we are holding the regulatory process at EPA hostage to
whether or not individual authors of individual studies that
deign to allow the public as well as the EPA to get the
information that is required here as well as having the EPA
actually ask for it. That seems to me to be essentially
hogtying the regulatory process and making it impossible for
EPA to function in any practical way.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr.
Grayson.
Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the Kennedy
amendment?
The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to commend Mr. Kennedy for this amendment and
simply say that the gentleman's amendment ensures that EPA is
able to consider the best available science during its
rulemaking process and the bill language the amendment removes
is an attempt to constrain the EPA in the guise of promoting
transparency. Perhaps the only transparent part of this bill is
its intent, and that is to stop EPA from taking any action to
protect the health of the American people.
As written in this section, it ensures that EPA and the
American people will not be able to use the best science to
protect the air they breathe and the water they drink. The EPA
relies on peer-reviewed scientific research from our
universities as the backbone of their mission to protect public
health and the environment. Studies containing public health
information would not satisfy the requirements of this bill,
eliminating significant scientific research from EPA
consideration. For example, this bill would prevent EPA from
establishing a drinking water standard or health advisory based
on clinical research where the study is not reproducible
because of restrictions on confidential patient information.
Limiting or prohibiting what science EPA uses should not be
a consequence of this bill, unintended or otherwise. The
gentleman's amendment safeguards EPA's ability to fulfill its
mission without needless restrictions. I urge my colleagues to
support this commonsense amendment. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there is no further discussion, the vote is on the
Kennedy amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
I thought someone was seeking recognition. That was the
reason for my hesitancy.
If not, the vote is on the Kennedy amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Are there any other amendments?
If not, the next item of business is reporting the bill,
H.R. 4012.
And the question is on the bill, H.R. 4012.
Those in favor, say aye.
Ms. Johnson. I would like a recorded vote.
Chairman Smith. And that request has been noted. And
pursuant to Committee Rule 2(f) and House Rule 11(2)(h)(4),
proceedings on this vote will be postponed.
And let me explain what we are going to do. We had a number
of requests from Members because there were so many conflicts
this morning as to what time we might expect votes. The best
estimate we had is at 11:45, so if Members will return in 30
minutes, we will have our final vote on passage of the bill.
Oh, I am sorry. It is an hour from now, not 30 minutes from
now. It will be 11:45. We will return to the room and have a
vote on passage of the bill. We stand in recess until that
time.
[Recess.]
Chairman Smith. Are you ready? The Science, Space, and
Technology Committee will reconvene. Pursuant to the previous
order, we will now proceed on the postponed roll call vote. And
the question is on the bill H.R. 4012.
And the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
Mr. Sensenbrenner?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
Mr. Neugebauer?
Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
Mr. McCaul?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Broun?
Mr. Broun. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
Mr. Palazzo?
Mr. Palazzo. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes aye.
Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
Mr. Hultgren?
Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
Mr. Bucshon?
Mr. Bucshon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes aye.
Mr. Stockman?
Mr. Stockman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Stockman votes aye.
Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes aye.
Mrs. Lummis?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schweikert?
Mr. Schweikert. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schweikert votes aye.
Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Massey votes aye.
Mr. Cramer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bridenstine?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weber?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Collins votes aye.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
Ms. Lofgren?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
Ms. Edwards?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Wilson?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes no.
Mr. Swalwell?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Maffei?
Mr. Maffei. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Maffei votes no.
Mr. Grayson?
Mr. Grayson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes no.
Mr. Kennedy?
Mr. Kennedy. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy votes no.
Mr. Peters?
Mr. Peters. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Peters votes no.
Mr. Kilmer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes no.
Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes no.
Mr. Veasey?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Brownley?
Ms. Brownley. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Brownley votes no.
Ms. Kelly?
Ms. Kelly. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Kelly votes no.
Ms. Clark?
Ms. Clark. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Clark votes no.
Chairman Smith. Are there any other Members who wish to
vote or Members who want to change their vote?
The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
Mr. Kilmer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes no.
Mr. Chairman, 17 Members voted aye, 13 Members voted nay.
Chairman Smith. The bill is agreed to.
And without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid
upon the table.
I move that the bill H.R. 4012 be favorably reported to the
House and the staff be authorized to make any necessary
technical and conforming changes.
If there is no further discussion, that completes our
business and this concludes the full committee markup.
Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
H.R. 4012, SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2014
Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendments
Amendment Roster
Section-by-Section Analysis of
H.R. 4012, SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2014
Section 1. Short Title.
This section establishes the short title of the Act as the ``Secret
Science Reform Act of 2014.''
Section 2. Data Transparency
Section 2 amends the Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act to:
1) Prohibit the Administrator of EPA from finalizing, proposing,
or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and technical
information relied on to support the covered action is:
a. Specifically identified, and
b. Publically available in a manner that is sufficient for
independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.
2) Clarify that nothing in the section shall be construed as
requiring public dissemination of information, the disclosure of which
is prohibited by law.
3) Define ``covered action'' to mean a risk, exposure, or hazard
assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, regulation,
regulatory impact analysis, or guidance. The section defines
``scientific and technical information'' to include materials, data,
and associated protocols necessary to understand, assess, and extend
conclusions, computer codes and models involved in the creation and
analysis of information, recorded factual materials, and detailed
descriptions of how to assess and use such information.
Amendment Roster
Appendix II
----------
Letters submitted for the record
