Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?


[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


114th Congress      }                               {   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session        }                               {   114-34
===================================================================
 
                   SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2015

                                _______
                                

 March 2, 2015.--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

                             together with

                     MINORITY AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1030]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 1030) to prohibit the Environmental 
Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating 
regulations or assessments based upon science that is not 
transparent or reproducible, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill 
do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Committee Statement and Views....................................     2
Section-by-Section...............................................     7
Explanation of Amendments........................................     7
Committee Consideration..........................................    10
Roll Call Votes..................................................    10
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................    11
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................    11
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    12
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    12
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................    12
Federal Advisory Committee Act...................................    12
Unfunded Mandate Statement.......................................    12
Earmark Identification...........................................    12
Committee Estimate...............................................    12
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...    13
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported.............    13
Minority Views...................................................    15
Additional Views.................................................    17

                     Committee Statement and Views


                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    The purpose of H.R. 1030, the ``Secret Science Reform Act 
of 2015,'' is to ensure the Environmental Protection Agency 
uses the best available science and to prohibit proposing, 
finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all 
scientific and technical information relied on to support the 
covered action is specifically identified and publicly 
available.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR 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. EPA ultimately 
responded that it was unable to provide all of the data but 
provided what it did have.
    Concerns had initially been raised regarding the ability of 
EPA to release the data that it did have without raising 
confidentiality concerns. However, EPA's March 7, 2014, final 
subpoena response explained that ``[t]he agency's efforts 
ultimately resulted in the Centers for Disease Control reaching 
the conclusion that all of the research data could be provided 
without the need for de-identification.''
    EPA further indicated in its response to the Committee, 
that ``[a]ny 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.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    In the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee on Environment held 
a hearing on February 11, 2014, focused on ``The Secret Science 
Reform Act'' 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 ``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.
    In the 113th Congress, H.R. 4012, ``The Secret Science 
Reform Act of 2014'' was passed in the House by a vote of 237 
Ayes, 190 Nays, on November 19, 2014.

                            COMMITTEE VIEWS

    H.R. 1030, The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, requires 
that the Environmental Protection Agency base its regulations 
and assessments on the best available 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 for 
``The Secret Science Reform Act'' in the 113th Congress. 
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. 1030 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 [the 
Secret Science Reform Act] 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. 1030 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: ``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.

                           Section-by-Section


Section 1. Short Title

    This section establishes the short title of the Act as the 
``Secret Science Reform Act of 2015.''

Section 2. Data Transparency

    Section 2 amends the Environmental Research, Development, 
and Demonstration Authorization Act to:
    (1) Prohibit the Administrator for the EPA from finalizing, 
proposing, or disseminating a covered action unless all 
scientific and technical information relied on is:
          a. The best available science,
          b. Specifically identified, and
          c. Publicly available in a manner that is sufficient 
        for independent analysis and substantial reproduction 
        of research results.
    (2) Protect personal and confidential information. It 
clarifies that nothing in the section requires the 
Administrator to disseminate scientific and technical 
information, nor does the section supersede any 
nondiscretionary statutory requirements.
    (3) Define ``covered action'' to mean a risk, exposure, or 
hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, 
regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance. This 
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 
access and use such information.
    (4) Clarify that the Administrator shall implement this 
section in a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per year 
from amounts otherwise authorized to the appropriated.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    No amendments were adopted.
    
    
                        Committee Consideration

    On February 25, 2015, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 1030, by roll call 
vote, a quorum being present.

                            Roll Call Votes


                            AMENDMENT NO. 1

Bill: H.R. 1030
 Roll Call No. 1
Amendment Sponsor: Ms. Clark--Defeated

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Member                                 Aye           No         Present     Not Voting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chair--TX......................................                          X
Mr. Lucas--OK**...........................................                          X
Mr. Sensenbrenner--WI.....................................
Mr. Rohrabacher--CA.......................................                          X
Mr. Neugebauer--TX........................................
Mr. McCaul--TX............................................
Mr. Palazzo--MS...........................................                          X
Mr. Brooks--AL............................................                          X
Mr. Hultgren--IL..........................................
Mr. Posey--FL.............................................                          X
Mr. Massie--KY............................................                          X
Mr. Bridenstine--OK.......................................
Mr. Weber--TX.............................................                          X
Mr. Johnson--OH...........................................                          X
Mr. Moolenaar--MI.........................................                          X
Mr. Knight--CA............................................                          X
Mr. Babin--TX.............................................                          X
Mr. Westerman--AR.........................................                          X
Mrs. Comstock--VA.........................................
Mr. Newhouse--WA..........................................                          X
Mr. Palmer--AL............................................                          X
Mr. Loudermilk--GA........................................                          X
Ms. Johnson, Ranking--TX..................................            X
Ms. Lofgren--CA...........................................            X
Mr. Lipinski--IL..........................................
Ms. Edwards--MD...........................................            X
Ms. Bonamici--OR..........................................            X
Mr. Swalwell--CA..........................................            X
Mr. Grayson--FL...........................................            X
Mr. Bera--CA..............................................            X
Ms. Esty--CT..............................................            X
Mr. Veasey--TX............................................            X
Ms. Clark--MA.............................................            X
Mr. Beyer--VA.............................................            X
Mr. Perlmutter--CO........................................
Mr. Tonko--NY.............................................            X
Vacant....................................................
Vacant....................................................
Vacant....................................................
    Totals................................................           12            16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             FINAL PASSAGE

Bill: H.R. 1030
Roll Call No. 2
PASSED

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Member                                 Aye           No         Present     Not Voting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chair--TX......................................            X
Mr. Lucas--OK**...........................................            X
Mr. Sensenbrenner--WI.....................................
Mr. Rohrabacher--CA.......................................            X
Mr. Neugebauer--TX........................................
Mr. McCaul--TX............................................
Mr. Palazzo--MS...........................................
Mr. Brooks--AL............................................            X
Mr. Hultgren--IL..........................................            X
Mr. Posey--FL.............................................            X
Mr. Massie--KY............................................            X
Mr. Bridenstine--OK.......................................
Mr. Weber--TX.............................................            X
Mr. Johnson--OH...........................................            X
Mr. Moolenaar--MI.........................................
Mr. Knight--CA............................................            X
Mr. Babin--TX.............................................            X
Mr. Westerman--AR.........................................            X
Mrs. Comstock--VA.........................................            X
Mr. Newhouse--WA..........................................            X
Mr. Palmer--AL............................................            X
Mr. Loudermilk--GA........................................            X
Ms. Johnson, Ranking--TX..................................                          X
Ms. Lofgren--CA...........................................
Mr. Lipinski--IL..........................................                          X
Ms. Edwards--MD...........................................                          X
Ms. Bonamici--OR..........................................
Mr. Swalwell--CA..........................................                          X
Mr. Grayson--FL...........................................                          X
Mr. Bera--CA..............................................                          X
Ms. Esty--CT..............................................
Mr. Veasey--TX............................................                          X
Ms. Clark--MA.............................................                          X
Mr. Beyer--VA.............................................                          X
Mr. Perlmutter--CO........................................                          X
Mr. Tonko--NY.............................................                          X
Mr. Takano--CA............................................
Mr. Foster--IL............................................
Vacant....................................................
    Totals................................................           16            11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services and accommodations. 
This bill ensures the Environmental Protection Agency uses the 
best available science, and prohibits the Agency from 
proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless 
all scientific and technical information relied on to support 
the covered action is specifically identified and publicly 
available. As such this bill does not relate to employment or 
access to public services and accommodations.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of 
this report.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance 
goals and objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions 
of this report.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 1030 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 1030 does not 
direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the 
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.

                     Federal Advisory Committee Act

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish 
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within 
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement as to 
whether the provisions of the reported include unfunded 
mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has 
received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included 
herein.

                         Earmark Identification

    H.R. 1030 does not include any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI.

                           Committee Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 1030. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides 
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has 
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the 
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974. The Committee has requested but not received a cost 
estimate for this bill from the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office. Based on cost estimates from similar legislation 
from the 113th Congress, however, the Committee believes that 
enactment of this bill would result in no net effect on direct 
spending over the 2015-2024 period. Assuming the appropriation 
of authorized amounts, the Committee estimates that the 
legislation would also have a discretionary cost of less than 
$5 million over the 2015-2019 period.

     Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested 
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the 
Director of Congressional Budget Office. The Committee believes 
that this bill does not contain any new budget authority, 
spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or 
decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.

         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) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency shall establish a separately identified program to 
conduct continuing and long-term environmental research and 
development. Unless otherwise specified by law, at least 15 per 
centum of any funds appropriated to the Administrator for 
environmental research and development under section 2(a) of 
this Act or under any other Act shall be allocated for long-
term environmental research and development under this section.
  [(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) the best available science;
          (B) specifically identified; and
          (C) publicly available online in a manner that is 
        sufficient for independent analysis and substantial 
        reproduction of research results.
  (2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as--
          (A) requiring the Administrator to disseminate 
        scientific and technical information; or
          (B) superseding any nondiscretionary statutory 
        requirement.
  (3) In this subsection--
          (A) the term ``covered action'' means a risk, 
        exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, 
        standard, limitation, regulation, regulatory impact 
        analysis, or guidance; and
          (B) the term ``scientific and technical information'' 
        includes--
                  (i) materials, data, and associated protocols 
                necessary to understand, assess, and extend 
                conclusions;
                  (ii) computer codes and models involved in 
                the creation and analysis of such information;
                  (iii) recorded factual materials; and
                  (iv) detailed descriptions of how to access 
                and use such information.
  (4) The Administrator shall carry out this subsection in a 
manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year, to be 
derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             Minority Views

   MINORITY VIEWS TO H.R. 1030, THE SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2015

    I strongly oppose H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act 
of 2015. I want to be clear: H.R. 1030 is based on a falsehood. 
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not use ``secret 
science'' to conduct its business. The EPA uses high-quality 
peer reviewed research from trusted scientific sources and H.R. 
1030 is the Majority's attempt to prevent the EPA from using 
this high-quality science. Judging from the groups that have 
endorsed this bill, it might be more accurate to state that 
H.R. 1030 is the polluting industries' attempt to prevent the 
EPA from using the best available science.
    So why is the Majority pushing this legislation? Because 
the science is clear. Air pollution makes people sick and kills 
them. Second hand smoke makes people sick and kills them. Lead, 
Mercury, and a host of other chemicals can cause great harm and 
disease in people. Because the science is clear, the EPA must 
regulate these things to protect the public health.
    Not that long ago, the tobacco industry realized that if 
they could muddle the message on the science, they could 
prevent their products from being regulated. So they engaged in 
a massive criminal conspiracy to defraud the American public, 
by funding their own sham science to cast doubt on the harm of 
tobacco.
    Well, their efforts have not gone unnoticed by others. A 
host of polluting industries are following their blueprint, and 
attempting to cast doubt on all facets of health and 
environmental science. Moreover, many of the same exact 
scientists and public relations folks who worked for big 
tobacco are now doing similar work for the polluting 
industries.
    We've seen it in this very Committee. When the Majority 
held a hearing on this legislation last Congress, every 
Majority witness at the hearing had significant ties to the 
tobacco industry. It's really as if the Majority is not even 
trying to hide their true motivations.
    So what does this legislation actually do? Two of our 
nation's most trusted health institutions, the American Lung 
Association and the American Thoracic Society, have clearly 
described the central problem with this bill:
    ``The legislation . . . will compel the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency to either ignore the best science by 
prohibiting the agency from considering peer-reviewed research 
that is based on confidential patient information or force EPA 
to 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 heath protections.''
    That last point is worth repeating: ``it will stifle public 
health protections.'' That's really what this is all about. 
H.R. 1030 is an attack on public health, thinly veiled under 
the false pretense of ``good governance.''
    Before I began my life in public service, I worked as a 
nurse for 17 years. I've seen first-hand the terrible toll of 
heart and lung disease and of asthma, COPD, and other 
respiratory conditions. These people aren't statistics. They 
are real people with lives and aspirations and families they 
love. Their health will be worse if this bill is enacted into 
law. Their lives will be shorter. Their suffering will be 
greater. And their lives will be cut short by this legislation.
    Last year, Dallas-Fort Worth received a grade of F for air 
quality by the American Lung Association and was ranked as the 
city with the 8th worst air according to their State of the Air 
report. In my home town, we desperately need better protections 
for the air we breathe. To get those protections, and to get 
them right, we need the EPA to be able to use all of the best 
available science, not just the science that fits the 
Majority's misguided priorities.
    I have received letters from a number of groups who share 
my concerns over H.R. 1030, including: the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science, the American Lung Association, 
the American Thoracic Society, the American Statistical 
Association, the International Society for Environmental 
Epidemiology, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 
BlueGreen Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, the 
Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, the League of 
Conservation Voters, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Jacobs 
Institute of Women's Health, the National Center for Health 
Research, the National Physicians Alliance, Public Citizen, the 
American Association for Justice, and others.
    H.R. 1030 is an insidious attack on the EPA's ability to 
use the best science to protect public health. Limiting, or 
prohibiting, what science EPA uses as part of its rulemaking 
should not be a consequence of this or any other bill. The 
American people deserve better. Therefore, I strongly oppose 
this legislation.

                                             Eddie Bernice Johnson.

                            Additional Views

  ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 1030, THE SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2015

    I am strongly opposed to this bill for all of the reasons 
that have been previously mentioned by the Ranking Member and 
others at the markup. But I want to highlight one issue that, 
to me, really makes a mockery of this whole effort.
    The Majority, in the bill that was introduced the day 
before it was marked up, has included a new section from the 
bill we considered last Congress. The end of the bill now 
reads:

          ``The Administrator shall carry out this subsection 
        in a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal 
        year''

    However, the Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate of 
this bill from last Congress estimated that it would cost the 
EPA $250 million dollars per year to implement the bill. But 
the Majority is now telling EPA that they cannot spend more 
than $1 million dollars implementing this bill. To put this 
disparity in some perspective, CBO is estimating that 
implementing this bill would cost 25,000 percent more than the 
Majority is providing.
    I understand why the Majority is doing this--they don't 
want to pass legislation that costs anything to implement; it 
wouldn't be ``fiscally conservative.'' However, it is totally 
absurd to tell an agency to undertake $250 million dollars of 
work with $1 million dollars. More importantly, it forces the 
agency into an untenable position. They must either ignore the 
requirements of this legislation, because the Majority isn't 
providing them with the resources to carry them out, or they 
can comply with the requirements for all of 1 and a half days 
that funding will allow, and then shut down all of the covered 
actions under this bill.
    That is just irresponsible--the Majority is actually 
legislating failure. It is creating a situation that EPA will 
never fulfill. If the Majority really believes in the premise 
behind this legislation, then the Majority should provide the 
agency with the $250 million dollars annually that, at a 
minimum, the agency would need to carry out this bill.
    I am opposed to this bill for a number of reasons, and most 
likely my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
disagree with me on those points. However, I have a hard time 
believing that any responsible Member of Congress would 
consciously support a bill that is guaranteed to cause failure. 
That would be grossly irresponsible. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill.

                                                  Donna F. Edwards.

                              [all]