[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1733-H1748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

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

                              {time}  1233


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1030) to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from 
proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments 
based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible, with Mr. 
Graves of Louisiana in the chair.

[[Page H1734]]

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

[[Page H1735]]

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

                                                   March 16, 2015.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: We are writing to express our 
     opposition to H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 
     2015, and H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform 
     Act of 2015. Our organizations are dedicated to saving lives 
     and improving public health.
       Science is the bedrock of sound regulatory decision making. 
     The best science underscores everything our organizations do 
     to improve health. We strongly believe in a transparent and 
     open regulatory process. A vital element of research is 
     patient confidentiality. Physicians and researchers have 
     earned the trust of their patients by steadfastly maintaining 
     patient confidentiality. Patient confidentiality is a clear 
     legal and ethical obligation.
       The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 will compel the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency to either ignore the best 
     science by prohibiting the agency from considering peer-
     reviewed research that is based on confidential patient 
     information or force EPA to publicly release confidential 
     patient information, which would violate federal law. This is 
     an untenable outcome that would completely undermine the 
     ability of the EPA to perform its responsibilities under the 
     Clean Air Act and myriad other federal laws. The legislation 
     will not improve EPA's actions; rather, it will stifle public 
     health protections.
       The kind of information disclosure envisioned in this 
     legislation exceeds that required by peer-reviewed journals. 
     We believe much of the intent of this legislation is already 
     achieved through the current peer-review process required by 
     all academic journals. The vast majority of peer-reviewed 
     journals require manuscript authors to register any trial 
     using human subjects with clinicaltrials.gov. This public 
     registry collects key information on the study population, 
     research goals and methods that allow outside reviewers and 
     scientists to either challenge or attempt to reproduce study 
     results. Additionally, the peer-review process and 
     publication of results invites the broader scientific 
     community to debate study findings. Trial registry and 
     manuscript publications are only part of the process by which 
     scientific endeavors operate in a transparent environment.
       Private organizations, public charities, research 
     universities, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare 
     and Medicaid Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     corporations and many other entities conduct medical 
     research. Many of these organizations compile large 
     longitudinal data sets that track patients over a period of 
     time. These data serve as the basis of many studies that 
     permit epidemiologists to track disease and risk factor 
     information for large patient populations.
       The published peer-reviewed information from such data 
     often inform regulatory decision making at the EPA and other 
     federal agencies as well as future research. Not only do 
     these data inform regulatory action, they help inform efforts 
     to educate the public about the magnitude of a disease, risk 
     factors and steps individuals can take to improve their 
     health. In order for EPA to set the most appropriate 
     standards, it must be informed by the best information.
       Understanding the impact of air pollution on human health 
     and the magnitude of harm caused by pollution at specific 
     levels helps the agency meet its obligations under the Clean 
     Air Act. Absent these data, it is unclear upon what basis the 
     agency could make sound decisions.
       H.R. 1029, The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 
     2015 will also undermine the scientific basis for EPA policy, 
     specifically by compromising the integrity of the panel that 
     reviews that science. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is 
     composed of independent scientific and technical experts who 
     are tasked with evaluating the science and providing advice 
     that EPA uses to inform its decision making. The current law 
     provides for balanced panels and experts with diverse 
     backgrounds.
       This legislation would impose a hiring quota on the SAB 
     that would require ten percent of members to be selected for 
     qualifications other than their scientific expertise. This 
     bill will compromise not only the scientific integrity of the 
     SAB, but also its independence, as the quota would open the 
     door for representatives of the regulated industries to serve 
     on the board.
       Further, the bill will also, in some cases, prohibit SAB 
     members from participating when their own research is 
     involved--even indirectly. This requirement could block 
     participation of the ``best and the brightest'' researchers 
     in a particular field at the very time their expertise is 
     needed to accurately inform the regulatory process.
       Finally, the SAB is currently governed by the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act and already has a public comment 
     system in place. H.R. 1029 would add on the burdensome 
     requirement that the SAB respond to individual comments in 
     writing, a requirement that could be so time-consuming as to 
     render the board unable to carry out its function.
       We urge the U.S. House of Representatives to stand up for 
     sound science and public health protections, and vote NO on 
     both H.R. 1030 and H.R. 1029.
           Sincerely,
     Harold Wimmer,
       National President & CEO,
       American Lung Association;
     Georges C. Benjamin, MD,
       Executive Director,
       American Public Health Association;
     Jeffrey Levi, PhD,
       Executive Director,
       Trust for America's Health;
     Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,
       Executive Director,
       American Thoracic Society;
     Tonya Winders,
       President & CEO,
       Allergy & Asthma Network.
                                  ____

                                                   March 16, 2015.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     House Majority Whip,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative McCarthy: As leading U.S. science, 
     engineering, and academic institutions, we are writing to 
     once again express our concerns regarding the Secret Science 
     Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 1030). We encourage you and your 
     colleagues to take additional time to evaluate the unintended 
     consequences of this bill before passing it on the House 
     floor.
       The research community is concerned about how some of the 
     key terms in the bill could be interpreted or misinterpreted, 
     especially terms such as ``materials,'' ``data,'' and 
     ``reproducible.'' Would the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) be excluded from utilizing research that involved 
     physical specimens or biological materials that are not 
     easily accessible? How would the agency address research that 
     combines both public and private data?
       With respect to reproducibility of research, some 
     scientific research, especially in areas of public health, 
     involves longitudinal studies that are so large and of great 
     duration that they could not realistically be reproduced. 
     Rather, these studies are replicated utilizing statistical 
     modeling. The same may be true for scientific data from a 
     one-time event (e.g., Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill) where 
     the data are gathered in real time. We could foresee a 
     situation in which the EPA would be constrained from making a 
     proposal or even disseminating public information in a timely 
     fashion.
       Finally, the legislation could impose additional 
     uncompensated burdens of cost and effort on those recipients 
     of federal research grants where the research results are 
     expected to be ``relied on to support a covered action.'' The 
     bill is not clear on whether it is the EPA's or the research 
     institution's responsibility to cover the costs associated 
     with sharing and archiving this information.
       The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is 
     working with federal agencies to establish access to data 
     policies that relate ``to the dissemination and long-term 
     stewardship of the results of unclassified research, 
     including digital data and peer-reviewed scholarly 
     publications.'' Agencies are beginning to issue their data 
     access policies, and given the complexities associated with 
     access to research data as outlined above we suggest that 
     Congress wait to review the agency policies before imposing 
     new statutory requirements.
         American Anthropological Association, American 
           Association for the Advancement of Science, American 
           Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American 
           Geosciences Institute, American Meteorological Society, 
           American Society for Microbiology (ASM), American 
           Society of Agronomy, American Society of Civil 
           Engineers, Association of American Geographers, 
           Association of American Universities, Association of 
           Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), Biophysical 
           Society, Brown University, Consortium for Ocean 
           Leadership, Consortium of Social Science Associations.
         Cornell University, Crop Science Society of America, Duke 
           University, Ecological Society of America, 
           Entomological Society of America, Harvard University, 
           Massachusetts Institute of Technology, National Council 
           for Science and the Environment, Society for 
           Conservation Biology, Soil Science Society of America, 
           Stanford University, The Ohio State University, The 
           University of Texas at Austin, University of California 
           System, University of California, Riverside, University 
           of Maryland, University of Michigan, University of 
           Oregon, University of Pennsylvania.

[[Page H1736]]

           
                                  ____
                                                February 25, 2015.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,
     Ranking Member, House Science, Space, and Technology 
         Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson, As 
     president of the American Statistical Association, with 
     19,000 members, I write regarding the ``Secret Science Reform 
     Act of 2015.'' We generally applaud the idea that researchers 
     and federal agencies strive to make data available to 
     others--under strict pledges to maintain confidentiality of 
     data provided by individuals and establishments where 
     necessary--and to encourage reproducible research. Access to 
     data and reproducibility of research are crucially important 
     for science to advance.
       While the bill's intent is to make data more widely 
     available, we have several concerns and urge the bill be 
     revised significantly before further consideration. Our 
     concerns include those voiced by others last year (especially 
     the American Association for the Advancement of Science) that 
     the bill's statements do not account for the complexities 
     common to the scientific process on research that involves 
     biological materials or physical specimens not easily 
     accessible, combinations of public and private data, 
     longitudinal data collected over many years that are 
     difficult to reproduce, and data from one-time events that 
     cannot be replicated. The bill as written could have far-
     reaching consequences that would ultimately hamper or 
     undermine the scientific process generally and EPA's work 
     specifically. We also agree with the point that it would be 
     prudent to see the EPA's data access policy--in accordance 
     with the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010--
     expected later this year before further action on the Secret 
     Science Reform Act of 2015.
       Our nation should be striving for transparency in 
     government and, as noted above, data accessibility, but these 
     goals also must be balanced with the necessity to protect 
     individuals' and businesses' privacy. The bill's language of 
     ``publicly available'' except when ``superseding any 
     nondiscretionary statutory requirement'' acknowledges this 
     balance, but that language is vague and may be insufficient 
     to protect individuals and businesses. In particular, some 
     data sets may not fall under ``prohibited by law,'' yet the 
     data are still collected under a pledge to protect the 
     identifiability and confidentiality of the reported values. 
     For example, the government, as well as private and nonprofit 
     sectors, routinely collects data--including private business 
     information and private health information--under strict 
     pledges to protect confidentiality. In some studies, this is 
     backed up with penalties for violating those pledges. Such 
     data should not be publicly available to every person who 
     might ask for them. Rather, data subjects' confidentiality 
     should be protected, for example by policies and procedures 
     that provide data access to trusted users (i.e., approved 
     users committed to appropriate protections of the 
     confidentiality of study participants) while discouraging 
     breaches of confidentiality and/or by data redaction 
     techniques developed in the statistical and computer science 
     communities. Under the current wording, a choice may have to 
     be made between maintaining data confidentiality and issuing 
     needed regulations.
       To emphasize the challenges and importance of 
     confidentiality protection, we note that simple but necessary 
     de-identification methods--like stripping names and other 
     personally identifiable information (PII)--often do not 
     suffice to protect confidentiality. Statisticians and 
     computer scientists have repeatedly shown that it is possible 
     to link individuals to publicly available sources, even with 
     PR removed. Thus, allowing unrestricted public access without 
     appropriate controls could result in unintended disclosures. 
     These could cause significant harm to the advancement of 
     science and the federal government--especially the federal 
     statistical system--as people may be less willing to provide 
     their data if highly publicized breaches occur.
       In short, any requirements for making data available should 
     carefully consider the complexities, challenges, and 
     potential ramifications. We hope you will address these 
     concerns, which would require major modifications to the 
     bill. We would be happy to be of any assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                David Morganstein,
                      President, American Statistical Association.

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

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

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

                              {time}  1245

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

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

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

[[Page H1737]]

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

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

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

                                        Francine Laden, Sc.D.,

                              President, International Society for
     Environmental Epidemiology.
                                  ____

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

                                                 Linda Lipsen,

                                          Chief Executive Officer,
     American Association for Justice.
                                  ____

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

[[Page H1738]]

     public health and science-informed regulation strongly oppose 
     the H.R. 1029 the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 
     2015 and H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, to 
     be considered by the House of Representatives this week.
       Both bills would severely undermine the ability of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use the best 
     available scientific evidence when making decisions regarding 
     the protection of public health and safety and the 
     environment.
       When very similar bills were up for a vote in the House 
     last November, the Administration issued veto threats for 
     both bills. The Administration stated that the Secret Science 
     Reform Act would ``greatly impede the EPA's ability to use 
     science to protect public health and the environment,'' and 
     warned that the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would 
     ``weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the 
     SAB.''
       The erroneously named Secret Science Reform Act would tie 
     the EPA's hands by restricting the information it can use to 
     develop protective regulations. The EPA could only regulate 
     based on publicly available scientific data. This restriction 
     would block the agency's use of many different types of 
     public health data, such as those for which public release 
     would violate privacy protections, or data from corporations 
     that are designated as confidential business information. It 
     also would restrict the use of scientific data that is not 
     ``reproducible.'' This provision seems to adopt a very narrow 
     view of scientific information solely based on laboratory 
     experiments. As major scientific societies including the 
     American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 
     have noted, such a restriction would eliminate the use of 
     most epidemiological and public health data, such as those 
     regarding the public health impacts of air pollution, because 
     these data are collected in long-term studies following 
     individuals longitudinally.
       Not only do privacy concerns arise, but such studies are 
     not inherently reproduced in the way a laboratory experiment 
     or a clinical trial may be. It would be unethical to 
     deliberately expose adults or children to air pollution 
     merely to determine whether the increased rates of asthma and 
     heart attacks caused by such exposures can be duplicated, or 
     to encourage teenagers to smoke to re-assess the toxic 
     effects of tobacco.
       The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would greatly 
     weaken the EPA's advisory process, making it far more likely 
     that recommendations from its independent Science Advisory 
     Board (SAB) will be dominated by corporate special interests. 
     This bill opens the door to increased corporate influence on 
     the Board, by encouraging the EPA to accept more SAB 
     panelists with corporate ties.
       The bill's overly broad restriction on SAB members with 
     subject-matter expertise is equally counterproductive, and 
     goes far beyond the common-sense limits imposed by the 
     National Academies. Unlike the 2014 bill, the 2015 bill does 
     appear to permit SAB experts with published, peer-reviewed 
     research, to address those topics on which they have 
     credentials, provided that their expertise is publicly 
     disclosed. But the language in the bill is so vague that it 
     raises many questions. Generally, experts have developed 
     their knowledge base over time, and not purely through peer-
     reviewed publications. How is an expert supposed to make that 
     distinction? What happens if a scientist relies on expertise 
     that is not specifically permitted in the bill? Will there be 
     legal ramifications? Clearly, scientific experts will think 
     twice before joining the SAB if it means they will have to 
     consult their lawyers before they give advice.
       Even worse, the bill requires the SAB to remain in an 
     endless loop soliciting public comment about the ``state of 
     the science'' touching on every major advisory activity it 
     undertakes and responding to nearly every comment before 
     moving forward, without being limited by any time 
     constraints. At best, the SAB will be reduced to busy work. 
     At worst, the SAB's assessments will address the concerns of 
     corporations, not the desires of citizens for science-
     informed regulation that protects public health.
       These bills together will greatly impede the ability of 
     EPA, and potentially other agencies, to utilize the best 
     available science, independently reviewed, to inform 
     regulations crucial to public health and the environment.
       We strongly urge you to vote No on The Secret Science 
     Reform Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act.
           Sincerely,
         Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of 
           Concerned Scientists; Annie Appleseed Project; Breast 
           Cancer Action; Center for Medical Consumers; Institute 
           for Ethics and Emerging Technologies; Jacobs Institute 
           of Women's Health; National Center for Health Research; 
           National Physicians Alliance; Our Bodies Ourselves; 
           Public Citizen; Woodymatters; John H. Powers, MD, 
           Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine; The George 
           Washington University School of Medicine; University of 
           Maryland School of Medicine.

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


[[Page H1739]]


       The research community is concerned about how some of the 
     key terms in this bill could be interpreted or 
     misinterpreted, especially terms such as ``materials,'' 
     ``data,'' and ``reproducible.''
       Would the Environmental Protection Agency be excluded from 
     utilizing research that involved physical specimens or 
     biological materials that are not easily accessible? How 
     would the Agency address research that combines both public 
     and private data?

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

                              {time}  1300

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

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

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

[[Page H1740]]

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

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

                                Union of Concerned Scientists,

                                                    March 2, 2015.
       Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists, 
     with 450,000 members and supporters throughout the country, 
     strongly opposes H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 
     2015, scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives 
     this week. The legislation represents a solution in search of 
     a problem, and would greatly impede the agency's mission to 
     protect public health and the environment.
       As you know, this bill is nearly identical to the bill that 
     the Committee reported out last November. That bill received 
     a veto threat from the Administration, which noted that it 
     would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from 
     protecting public health and safety and the environment, ``if 
     the data supporting [its] decisions cannot, for legitimate 
     reasons, be made publicly available.''
       It appears that the language changes in the 2015 version of 
     this bill were made to obscure the drafters' true intent, 
     making it more difficult to discern that it would cripple the 
     ability of the EPA to regulate based on information supplied 
     by industries that is designated confidential, or on public 
     health and medical data where the privacy of patients must be 
     protected.
       The EPA already makes the data, methodology, and peer-
     reviewed research it relies on in its rule-making processes 
     as transparent as possible. Moreover, the additional 
     restrictions imposed by this proposed bill would make it 
     almost impossible to base public protections on the best 
     available scientific information. In particular, if enacted, 
     the language appears to indicate that the agency would be 
     inhibited by the following challenges:
       The EPA wouldn't be able to use most health studies. The 
     agency would likely be prevented from using any study that 
     uses personal health data. The confidentiality of such data 
     is usually protected by institutional review boards ORB); 
     thus, the data could not be made publicly available as 
     demanded. Since many EPA rules are health-based standards, 
     this rule would severely restrict the ability of the agency 
     to base rules on science.
       The EPA wouldn't be able to draw from industry data 
     sources. The agency would be prevented from using data 
     provided by industry to the agency. Since information from 
     industry sources is often not publicly available, a law 
     requiring as such would prevent the agency from utilizing 
     industry data, a source of information that often provides 
     otherwise unknown data to inform EPA rule-making.
       The EPA wouldn't be able to use new and innovative science. 
     New scientific methods and data may be restricted by 
     intellectual property protections or industry trade secret 
     exemptions. This proposed bill would limit EPA's ability to 
     rely on the best available science including novel approaches 
     that may not yet be publicly available.
       Long-term and meta-analyses would be unavailable. Many of 
     EPA's health-based standards rely on long-term exposure 
     studies that assess the link between chronic diseases/
     mortality and pollutants; or on meta- analyses that include 
     many different studies and locations to provide a more robust 
     look at the science. In HR 4012, the provision that studies 
     be conducted ``in a manner that is sufficient for independent 
     analysis and substantial reproduction of research'' may 
     prevent use of these vital studies by the EPA, as it is 
     unclear whether such spatially and temporally comprehensive 
     studies would be considered ``sufficient for substantial 
     reproduction.''
       I strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1030, the Secret Science 
     Reform Act of 2015. The proposed bill would inhibit the EPA's 
     ability to carry out its science-based mission to protect 
     human health and the environment. It does not deserve your or 
     this Congress's support.
           Sincerely,

                                   Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,

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

                                                   March 16, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members 
     and supporters we strongly urge you to oppose the ``Secret 
     Science Reform Act of 2015'' (HR), the ``EPA Science Advisory 
     Board Reform Act of 2015''. Collectively, these misleadingly 
     named bills would radically diminish EPA's ability to protect 
     public health. Under these bills, EPA would be required to 
     ignore significant science; the Scientific Advisory Board 
     would be required to ignore conflicts of interest; and 
     enforcement officials would be required to ignore pollution 
     emitted in violation of the law. These bills are broadly 
     written and would have damaging impacts far in excess of what 
     their sponsors will admit.
       The ``Secret Science Reform Act is based on a faulty 
     premise. Its notion of ``secret science,'' based on claims 
     about studies of fine soot pollution conducted almost two 
     decades ago, is unfounded despite lengthy congressional 
     inquiries. The bill would deny EPA the ability to rely upon 
     peer-reviewed medical studies that involve commitments to 
     patient confidentiality, when the agency carries out its 
     statutory responsibilities to safeguard public health and the 
     environment. Further, this bill would effectively amend 
     numerous environmental statutes by forbidding EPA to use 
     certain kinds of studies in setting health standards. It 
     would also make it impossible for EPA to use many kinds of 
     economic models it routinely relies on because those models 
     are proprietary. This marks a radical departure from 
     longstanding practices. Its end result would be to make it 
     much more difficult to protect the public by forcing EPA to 
     ignore key scientific studies.
       Science Advisory Board bill would attack EPA's scientific 
     process in a different way. The worst provision would mandate 
     allowing the participation of scientists with financial 
     conflicts of interest, as long as those conflicts are 
     disclosed. This is inconsistent with a set of nearly 
     universally accepted scientific principles to eliminate or 
     limit financial conflicts. This bill would significantly 
     weaken the content and credibility of the Scientific Advisory 
     Board (SAB) reviews--a textbook example of making a 
     government program function poorly to the benefit of 
     polluting industries and at the expense of public health and 
     independent science. The bill will add unnecessary new 
     burdens on the SAB, distorting its mission and altering its 
     process with no benefit to EPA or the public. The bill also 
     significantly broadens the scope of the SAB and creates a 
     comment process that will add needless delay to the Board's 
     work. The result would be further stalling and undermining of 
     important public health, safety, and environmental 
     protections.
       This legislation will obstruct the implementation and 
     enforcement of critical environmental statutes, undermine the 
     EPA's ability to consider and use science, and jeopardize 
     public health. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose these 
     bills.
       Sincerely,
         BlueGreen Alliance, Center for Effective Government, 
           Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, 
           Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of 
           the Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, 
           Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for 
           Social

[[Page H1741]]

           Responsibility, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned 
           Scientists.

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

                              {time}  1315

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

[[Page H1742]]

trying to hide and whether you can believe what they say.
  If you support this administration's promise to be the most 
transparent in history and want to make the EPA's data public, then 
support H.R. 1030.
  Mr. Chairman, finally, there are three questions that those who are 
opposed either can't answer or won't answer:
  One, what is the EPA hiding?
  Two, why won't they make the data public?
  And three, why doesn't the EPA trust the American people?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-11. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1030

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Secret Science Reform Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 2. DATA TRANSPARENCY.

       Section 6(b) of the Environmental Research, Development, 
     and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4363 
     note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or 
     disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and 
     technical information relied on to support such covered 
     action is--
       ``(A) the best available science;
       ``(B) specifically identified; and
       ``(C) publicly available online in a manner that is 
     sufficient for independent analysis and substantial 
     reproduction of research results.
       ``(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as--
       ``(A) requiring the Administrator to disseminate scientific 
     and technical information; or
       ``(B) superseding any nondiscretionary statutory 
     requirement.
       ``(3) In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `covered action' means a risk, exposure, or 
     hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, 
     regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance; and
       ``(B) the term `scientific and technical information' 
     includes--
       ``(i) materials, data, and associated protocols necessary 
     to understand, assess, and extend conclusions;
       ``(ii) computer codes and models involved in the creation 
     and analysis of such information;
       ``(iii) recorded factual materials; and
       ``(iv) detailed descriptions of how to access and use such 
     information.
       ``(4) The Administrator shall carry out this subsection in 
     a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year, to 
     be derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be 
     appropriated.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 114-37. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Edwards

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

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

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

[[Page H1743]]

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

                              {time}  1330

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


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kennedy

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

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

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

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

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I echo the comments of my colleagues about the 
importance of transparency that we have heard over the course of this 
debate. An open government with transparent rules and regulations is at 
the very core of our democracy. But I am discouraged and disappointed 
that we are having this debate yet again, especially on a bill that 
undermines science even more dramatically than last year's version.
  When this country's greatest minds come together to tackle our 
greatest problems, we are a stronger nation. Whether we are talking 
about achievements in cancer treatment or clean water, science makes us 
healthier, more innovative, and more competitive. Unfortunately, the 
bill we are considering today takes science off the table for the EPA, 
the very Agency entrusted with keeping our air clean, our water safe, 
and our homes clear of toxic substances.
  The bill before us leaves EPA with unworkable standards, prohibiting 
it from using certain studies simply because they include information 
that, by law, cannot be made public, such as people's personal health 
records.
  My amendment does a very simple thing. It fixes that oversight by 
clarifying that the EPA should use the most

[[Page H1744]]

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

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


                       Announcement by the Chair

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


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Edwards

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

[[Page H1745]]

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 122]

                               AYES--164

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

                               NOES--254

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

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

                              {time}  1408

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


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kennedy

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 123]

                               AYES--184

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

                               NOES--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)

[[Page H1746]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--17

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

                              {time}  1412

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 123 I was detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 123 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1030) to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, 
finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon 
science that is not transparent or reproducible, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 138, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mr. Takai moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1030 to the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       Add at the end the following new section:

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

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

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

[[Page H1747]]

  At no point does this bill make the public safer, which is the 
fundamental function of government. The Secret Science Reform Act would 
only reduce the science available to the EPA on some of the most 
important decisions it makes.
  Mr. Speaker, over 30 of the most respected groups that are dedicated 
to scientific and health research have opposed this bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same. However, before doing so, I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment to this bill.
  Again, all this amendment does is prohibit the EPA from relying on 
advice from any scientist whose primary source of research funding 
comes from corporations or individuals convicted of major environmental 
crimes. This ensures the integrity and independence of the EPA's 
scientific review process by prohibiting advice from those who are 
funded by the biggest abusers of our environment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Democratic motion to 
recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Hawaii, whom I 
have not actually had the chance to make friends with yet, you are 
actually hitting on one really good point: If there is data being used 
by bad actors, shouldn't we all know it?
  The way the EPA operates right now with their keeping their data sets 
secret, none of you are going to get to know that. That is actually 
what this piece of legislation fixes. If there is going to be data of 
groups that are bad actors--industries that you consider dodgy--
wouldn't it be a wonderful thing to have that data available for 
everyone, whether you be on the right or whether you be on the left, so 
it can be refined by sunshine? so it can be reviewed and meshed up 
against other data sets?
  If you believe that making information public refines it, if you 
believe public policy should be made by public data and public data 
should be available in the making of public policy, you like this piece 
of legislation.
  What is so fascinating in the debate we have had this time and last 
year is that I have a number of memos, demand letters, threats of 
subpoenas from when the left in this body was in both the majority and 
the minority, but there was a Republican President who was demanding 
this type of legislation. Let's try something new around here: a little 
bit of intellectual consistency.
  Do you believe the public--the researchers, the scientists, those who 
are academics, those who just have an interest in the subject area--
should have the right to touch the data, to model it, to stress it, to 
put it up against other data sets and see if we are doing what is best 
for our environment? Are we doing it the best way? Is there a better 
way? Is there a more efficient way? Is there a more cost-effective way? 
That is what this bill accomplishes, and I have no idea why my brothers 
and sisters on the left are so fearful of that.
  As I yield back, I beg all of my fellow Members here to vote ``yes'' 
on this legislation but to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAKAI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 239, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 124]

                               AYES--181

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

                               NOES--239

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

[[Page H1748]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--12

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

                              {time}  1432

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


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 175, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 125]

                               AYES--241

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

                               NOES--175

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1439

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

                          ____________________