[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16010-16027]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2014


                             General Leave

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

                              {time}  1310


                     In the Committee of the Whole

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

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

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


[[Page 16011]]

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

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

                              {time}  1315

  For those who are concerned about the regulations already on the 
books, the act is not retroactive. It applies only to new future 
regulations issued by the Agency.
  The act requires the EPA to base its decisions on information to 
which all scientists will have access. This will allow the EPA to focus 
its limited resources on quality science that all researchers can 
examine. This will promote sound science and confidence in the EPA 
decisionmaking process.
  This bill ensures the transparency and accountability that the 
American people want and deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, this bill does not permit me to mince words. This bill is 
an insidious attack on EPA's ability to use the best science to protect 
public health, and its consideration on the House floor today is the 
culmination of one of the most anti-science and anti-health campaigns I 
have witnessed in my 22 years as a Member of Congress.
  The genesis of this legislation is the Republicans' longstanding 
obsession with two seminal scientific studies conducted by Harvard 
University and the American Cancer Society.
  These studies link air pollution with increased illnesses and death; 
moreover, those results were confirmed by multiple independent 
researchers and organizations including the National Research Council 
and the Health Effects Institute.
  The Republican majority has harassed EPA for more than 2 years in an 
attempt to get access to the raw data used in those studies, presumably 
in an attempt to cast doubt on the conclusion that air pollution is bad 
for the health of Americans and to prevent EPA from trying to keep the 
air we breath clean.
  The EPA told my Republican colleagues that since the studies involved 
the personal health information of hundreds of thousands of volunteers, 
the raw data was stringently protected from public disclosure; 
therefore, even if they were the legal custodian of this data, they 
could not lawfully hand over such sensitive information.
  Instead, in compliance with the law, EPA provided the Science 
Committee with all of the ``de-identified'' data within its possession, 
which ran to hundreds of pages of data rolled in like a grocery cart. 
This was not enough for my colleagues, and so they have decided to 
pursue this pernicious piece of legislation.
  Rather than explain the problems with this legislation myself, I will 
simply quote from a letter we received from the American Lung 
Association and the American Thoracic Society, two leading and trusted 
public health organizations. They state:

       The legislation will compel the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency to either ignore the best science by 
     prohibiting the Agency from considering peer-reviewed 
     research that is based on confidential patient information or 
     force EPA to publicly release confidential patient 
     information, which would violate Federal law.
       This is an untenable outcome that would completely 
     undermine the ability of the EPA to perform its 
     responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and myriad other 
     Federal laws. The legislation will not improve EPA's actions; 
     rather, it will stifle public health protections.

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

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

  This is not a position that I can support. Let me be clear: this bill 
is an attempt to constrain the EPA under the guise of promoting 
transparency.
  A diverse set of voices from the scientific, public health, legal, 
and environmental communities agree with me and have criticized this 
legislation. I have received letters from more than 50 organizations 
expressing their concern with H.R. 4012, including the American Lung 
Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the 
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Association of 
American Universities, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the 
Environmental Defense Fund.
  Whatever views my fellow Members may have about specific EPA rules 
and regulations, I would hope that they will see this bill for what it 
is, a malicious assault on EPA's ability to protect public health. 
Limiting or prohibiting what science EPA uses as part of its rulemaking 
would be a consequence of this bill. The American people deserve 
better.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, at the end of my opening remarks, I 
will enter into the Record an exchange of letters between the chairmen 
of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I continue to be stunned at some of the hyperbolic language that 
seems to be moving around this piece of legislation.
  Transparency, it is an incredibly powerful concept and a fairly 
simple one in this aspect: if you are going to make public policy, do 
it by public data and public data for the concept of refinement and 
creation of public policy.
  Is there anyone in this body when we all ran for office that did not 
commit to transparency? Well, H.R. 4012 is part of that commitment. If 
you have faith in our higher learning institutions, if you have faith 
in the American people, this data belongs to them.
  Partially, one side belief I have is, as the crowd has the 
opportunity to analyze and collect and look at data, whether they be 
from the right, the left, or just academic, we will end up with finer-
crafted solutions.
  How would any of us know if the EPA has set optimal rule sets? Well, 
one of the ways you discover this is by having lots of voices in the 
mix. This bill

[[Page 16012]]

keeps that commitment, and I have no idea why my brothers and sisters 
on the left seem to be trying to shut down that commitment to 
transparency.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

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

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

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the Science Committee, 
so I wasn't part of the deliberations, but when a bill is presented as 
being about transparency and openness and relying on science, I ask 
myself: ``Well, of course, why would there be any partisan difference 
on something like that?''
  Then you start looking at different things that make you wonder if 
that is what this is really about. This is a bill that came out of the 
Science Committee, and I looked at the list of the supporters. There is 
not a Democrat on the list. As I understand it, the vote was on a 
party-line basis. Would that mean that Democrats don't believe in these 
things? Or is something else going on?
  I submit that Republicans don't have a lot of credibility when they 
talk about wanting more science because I have seen so many areas where 
Republicans have tried to ignore the science, deny the science.
  The best example of this irony is that when Republicans are claiming 
they are for sound science, they have had so many anti-science 
proposals on the House floor. I think even the Flat Earth Society 
recognizes that there is some overwhelming consensus on some things 
like climate change or that man is causing climate change and that it 
is a serious threat to our planet. Republicans undercut their statement 
of support for science when they have voted repeatedly to deny that 
climate change exists.
  Well, we have a Republican majority here. It is even a larger 
majority for the next year. They may be able to write our Nation's 
laws, but they can't rewrite the laws of nature.
  The list of anti-science votes in this body that this body has cast 
is embarrassing. House Republicans voted to defund the U.S. 
contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 
leading international body assessing the science of climate change.
  They voted to bar U.S. funding for the Global Climate Change 
Initiative which funds U.S. efforts to understand climate change. They 
voted to eliminate funding for EPA's greenhouse gas reporting rules so 
scientists would not be able to track emissions.
  House-passed budgets have repeatedly slashed funding for our Nation's 
leading science-based agencies like NIH; the National Science 
Foundation; and ARPA-E, which invests in cutting-edge energy research. 
The Energy and Commerce Committee, despite requests that were 
repeatedly made to the chairman of the full committee and the chairman 
of the Energy Subcommittee, they wouldn't even allow a hearing where 
scientists could come in and talk about the issue of climate change.
  Now, we have a bill where the Republicans are saying they want 
science, they want more transparency, they want more openness.
  I looked into this, and this is a fight about something quite 
controversial that happened some years ago at EPA, when those who were 
against EPA action claimed that EPA shouldn't rely on the science 
unless all the information were put out, including confidential 
information that served as the basis for some of the scientific 
conclusions, but the scientific conclusions were not refuted. In fact, 
they were reaffirmed in other studies. They are not scientifically 
invalid.
  If this bill passed, the conclusions based on the evidence which 
cannot be made public because it interferes with people's confidential 
information would not be available.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield an additional minute to 
the gentleman.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WAXMAN. So what we are seeing is something that sounds good from 
a party that has no credibility to say that they are for more science 
information. What they would do is limit what EPA would be able to use 
to determine, based on the science, what the regulations and their 
other pronouncements could be. They would keep information away from 
EPA and keep EPA from acting.
  I want to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I underscore 
that this is not pro-science policy. It seems to me it is anti-science 
and making it difficult for government to act to stop pollution, which 
can hurt people's health and destroy the atmosphere on our planet.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
  Mr. HULTGREN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4012, and I thank the 
gentleman from Arizona and the chairman of the Science Committee for 
bringing this important legislation to the floor.
  H.R. 4012 is a critical step in restoring the public trust necessary 
for EPA to accomplish its core mission. Transparency was a major 
campaign promise the current President made to the American people, and 
here is a way we can help the President finally follow through on one 
of his goals. This should be a strong bipartisan effort for anyone that 
believes their government has a duty to be accountable to the American 
public we serve.
  H.R. 4012 follows a basic tenet that nearly all Americans agree on: 
public policy should be dictated by public science. Unfortunately, 
transparency, along with oversight by the American people's duly-
elected representation, has been something EPA scoffs at. This must 
change.
  The President continues to use his regulatory agencies to bypass the 
will

[[Page 16013]]

of the legislature in a number of cases, and policy from EPA has been 
one of the worst offenders. Everyone here believes in clean air, clean 
water, and necessary regulations, but what we have now is a regulatory 
agency attempting to put in place legislation which this Congress 
previously rejected in prior sessions. This is not a government that is 
working for you.
  Americans also believe in clear laws and a fair judicial system where 
both sides can state their case and an adequate resolution can be 
found. This is why this closed-door regulatory approach is so 
frightening.
  When someone accuses you of a crime in a court of law, they must 
stand before that court and make that claim. Your deposition is given 
to both sides, and you cannot hide behind secret testimony which is 
only given to the prosecutor. This is what we have now happening at 
EPA.
  EPA legislates through regulations, and the defendant has no chance 
to see where EPA's claims are coming from. It is time for the American 
people to see behind the curtain, and it is unjust to continue using 
claims from the Agency that cannot be contested only because they 
cannot be seen.
  I would also like to correct unfounded claims made by opponents of 
this legislation. Nothing disallows EPA from using the most up-to-date 
scientific information to make public health decisions. It would 
certainly be my hope that the research institutions would make this 
available, but it would ultimately be their decision whether or not EPA 
could use their data. If I dedicated my life to studying these complex 
issues, I would want to make sure it could be used.
  The other claim is that this bill will make public personal health 
care information, which would be against the law. This legislation 
makes clear that nothing in this bill requires the ``public 
dissemination of information, the disclosure of which is prohibited by 
law.'' The data sets must only be made available in a manner that is 
``sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of 
research results.''
  Numerous congressional hearings and testimony from experts have made 
it clear that this information can easily be made anonymous. This is 
how data sets are presented to the peer-review community and published 
for journals already.
  This is the transparency the American people deserve. They should no 
longer be held guilty from data they can't see or black box economic 
analyses deemed proprietary. That is why I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the second most 
senior member of the full committee on the Democratic side.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill. I really believe that 
the so-called Secret Science Act is in fact a direct attack on American 
science.
  I am a very strong supporter of transparency in government, as well 
as in science, and in Silicon Valley, where I am from, we believe more 
data in more hands benefits everybody, but I think this bill is not in 
fact an open data bill. It will be a data reduction bill.
  It doesn't give the EPA greater authority to provide the raw data it 
uses. It actually reduces the kinds of data that can be used by 
prohibiting the EPA from using any data that can't currently be 
publicly released.
  That sounds reasonable except that in fact there is some data that 
you can't actually release under current law--medical records, 
confidential business data, trade secrets--all of which, if made 
publicly available, would run afoul of various provisions of law.
  I believe that we could work together on a bipartisan basis to figure 
out how to fix the barriers to release of data while maintaining 
necessary confidentiality for some data. I think we should all agree on 
that.
  I want to point out another way that the bill is a problem, and that 
is the additional cost that is going to be incurred per study. The 
estimate, according to CBO, is that there will be an additional $10,000 
to $30,000 added per study. That means that if this bill were to become 
law, it would cost an additional $500 million to $1.5 billion a year to 
do science studies.
  I would love to be disappointed, but I don't believe that the 
Republicans intend to add additional funding to the EPA to cover the 
cost of the science studies that this bill would create. In fact, this 
bill does not address that issue.
  What this would do would be to actually cut the number of science 
studies that the EPA is able to do. I think that that is a result that 
would be very unfortunate for the country. What we need is more 
science, not less.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. Chairman, our constituents have a right to know whether EPA's 
regulations are based on sound science and do these regulations 
actually benefit the American public.
  The Secret Science Reform Act, which I have cosponsored, is a simple 
and straightforward message to government bureaucrats that they cannot 
propose costly new regulations without the transparency that the 
American people deserve.
  It makes you kind of wonder if the opponents of this legislation 
believe, like Mr. Gruber, that the American people are too stupid to 
understand the cost of the EPA overreaching regulations. Trust me when 
I say Americans are not stupid, and they deserve and demand the truth 
from the start.
  When given a bad prognosis from their doctor, I wonder how many of 
the proponents of the bill would say they don't really care about the 
details or the data. That is interesting.
  EPA's regulatory agenda should not be based on secret science and 30-
year-old data in order to sell it to the American people. It is long 
past time that Congress increases the transparency of the EPA. This 
legislation will do exactly that by prohibiting the EPA from proposing 
or finalizing regulations based upon a science that is neither 
transparent nor available for review.
  I want to thank Chairman Smith and Congressman Schweikert for 
bringing this important legislation to the floor today.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to 
my next speaker, I would like to enter in the Record a series of 
letters from outside groups opposed to this legislation, including the 
American Lung Association, the American Association for the Advancement 
of Science, League of Conservation Voters, and many others.
  In addition, I would also like to place a Statement of Administration 
Policy threatening a veto of this bill into the Record.

                                        American Lung Association,


                                    American Thoracic Society,

                                                November 17, 2014.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: We are writing to express our 
     opposition to H.R. 4012 the Secret Science Reform Act of 
     2014. The American Lung Association is the oldest voluntary 
     health organization in the United States. The Lung 
     Association mission is to save lives by improving lung health 
     and preventing lung disease. We achieve our mission through 
     research, advocacy and education. The American Thoracic 
     Society is a medical professional society dedicated to the 
     prevention, detection, treatment and cure of pulmonary 
     disease, critical care illness and sleep disordered breathing 
     through research, education and advocacy.
       Science is the bedrock of sound regulatory decision making. 
     The best science underscores everything our organizations do 
     to improve health. We strongly believe in a transparent and 
     open regulatory process. A vital element of research is 
     patient confidentiality. Physicians and researchers have 
     earned by trust of their patients by steadfastly maintaining 
     patient confidentiality. Patient confidentiality is a clear 
     legal obligation and a sacred vow.
       The legislation before the Congress will compel the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency to either ignore the best 
     science by prohibiting the agency from considering peer-
     reviewed research that is based on confidential patient 
     information or force EPA to publicly release confidential 
     patient information, which would violate federal law. This is 
     an untenable outcome that would completely undermine ability 
     the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to perform its 
     responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and

[[Page 16014]]

     myriad other federal laws. The legislation will not improve 
     EPA's actions, rather it will stifle public health 
     protections.
       We note that the kind of information disclosure envisioned 
     in this legislation exceeds that required by peer reviewed 
     journals. We believe much of the intent of this legislation 
     is already achieved through the current peer review process 
     required by all academic journals. The vast majority of peer 
     reviewed journals require manuscript authors to register any 
     trial using human subjects with clinicaltrials.gov. This 
     public registry collects key information on the study 
     population, research goals and methods that allow outside 
     reviewers and scientists to either challenge or attempt to 
     reproduce study results. Additionally, the peer review 
     process and publication of results invites the broader 
     scientific community to debate study findings. Trial registry 
     and manuscript publications are only part of the process by 
     which scientific endeavors operate in a transparent 
     environment.
       Private organizations, public charities, research 
     universities, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare 
     and Medicaid Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     corporations and many other entities conduct medical 
     research. Many of these organizations compile large 
     longitudinal data sets that track patients of a period of 
     time. These data serve as the basis of many studies that 
     permit epidemiologists to track disease and risk factor 
     information for large patient populations.
       The published peer-reviewed information from such data 
     often may inform regulatory decision making at the EPA and 
     other federal agencies and inform future research. Not only 
     do these data inform regulatory action, they help inform 
     efforts to educate the public about the magnitude of a 
     disease, risk factors and steps individuals can take to 
     improve their health. In order for EPA to set the most 
     appropriate standards it must be informed by the best 
     information.
       Understanding the impact of air pollution on human health 
     and the magnitude of harm caused by pollution at specific 
     levels helps the agency meet its obligations under the Clean 
     Air Act. Absent these data, it is unclear upon what basis the 
     agency could make sound decisions.
       We urge the House of Representatives to reject H.R. 4012.
           Sincerely,
     Harold Wimmer,
       National President & CEO, American Lung Association.
     Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,
       Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.
                                  ____

                                      American Association for the


                                       Advancement of Science,

                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 2014.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     House Majority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Representative McCarthy: As leading U.S. science, 
     engineering, and academic institutions, we are writing to 
     express our concerns regarding the Secret Science Reform Act 
     of 2014 (H.R. 4012). As the new House Majority Leader we 
     encourage you and your colleagues to take additional time to 
     evaluate the unintended consequences of this bill before 
     considering it on the House floor.
       The research community is concerned about how some of the 
     key terms in the bill could be interpreted or misinterpreted, 
     especially terms such as ``materials,'' ``data,'' and 
     ``reproducible.'' Would the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) be excluded from utilizing research that involved 
     physical specimens or biological materials that are not 
     easily accessible? How would the agency address research that 
     combines both public and private data?
       With respect to reproducibility of research, some 
     scientific research, especially in areas of public health, 
     involves longitudinal studies that are so large and of great 
     duration that they could not realistically be reproduced. 
     Rather these studies are replicated, utilizing statistical 
     modeling. The same may be true for scientific data from a 
     one-time event (e.g., Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill) where 
     the data are being gathered in real time. We could foresee a 
     situation whereby the EPA would be constrained from making a 
     proposal or even disseminating public information in a timely 
     fashion.
       Finally, the legislation could impose additional 
     uncompensated burdens of cost and effort on those recipients 
     of federal research grants where the research results are 
     expected to be ``relied on to support a covered action.'' The 
     bill is not clear on whether it is the EPA's or the research 
     institution's responsibility to cover the costs associated 
     with sharing and archiving this information.
       The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 required 
     that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) work 
     with federal agencies to establish access to data policies 
     that relate ``to the dissemination and long-term stewardship 
     of the results of unclassified research, including digital 
     data and peer-reviewed scholarly publications.'' Agencies are 
     expected to finalize their data access policies by the end of 
     the year, and given the complexities associated with access 
     to research data as outlined above we suggest that the 
     Congress wait to review the agency policies before imposing 
     new statutory requirements via H.R. 4012.

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



                                League of Conservation Voters,

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

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

[[Page 16015]]

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


                   Statement of Administration Policy


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

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

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

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is 
a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is a dangerous attack on the power of 
knowledge.
  Supposedly, this bill prevents the Environmental Protection Agency 
from using secret science to issue regulations. Supposedly, by 
requiring the EPA to only consider publicly available data when 
drafting regulations, this bill will make the EPA more transparent.
  Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. Science has 
shown over and over that air pollution causes health problems, such as 
asthma. This is not a disputable fact.
  Scientists have spent years comparing data on air pollution with data 
on health problems. Those results are very clear. They have been 
replicated, they have been peer-reviewed, and the EPA has issued 
regulations accordingly.
  But the data in these studies cannot be made public without risking 
the violation of the privacy of Americans who voluntarily participated 
in them by releasing their personal health information. Rather than 
argue with the indisputable facts on air pollution--a losing bet--this 
bill attempts to discredit the science as ``secret,'' when in fact 
there is nothing secret about it.
  The only secret here is the true intent of this bill, a dangerous 
attack on science itself. For this reason, I have cosponsored an 
amendment proposed by Mr. Kennedy. The amendment clarifies that nothing 
in this bill will prevent the EPA from using sound peer-reviewed 
science to issue regulations. One cannot oppose that without opposing 
science itself.
  Science has brought us to the Moon, it has brought us the electric 
lightbulb, and yes, it demonstrates a link between air pollution and 
asthma. The American people rely on us to make decisions based on 
facts, not to legislate

[[Page 16016]]

away facts that are politically inconvenient.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire on the time remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentlewoman from Texas has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.
  It is interesting to listen to this debate. You hear one hyperbolic 
statement after the other from our friends on the other side. Two 
Members have used the claim that this is anti-science. One Member just 
said this is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
  Mr. Chairman, it makes you wonder, doesn't it, why the defensiveness 
about transparency, why the defensiveness about the truth, why the 
defensiveness about more participation as it relates to science, and 
here is the answer: they have got to defend something, Mr. Chairman, 
and they have got to defend something that is indefensible.
  What they have to defend is the orthodoxy that allowed the other side 
to create ObamaCare. The architect of ObamaCare, Jonathan Gruber, said 
this is a tortured way to make sure CBO scores it this way and so forth 
and so on, and they basically had to trick and manipulate and so forth.
  The irony is that the very folks who are claiming to shroud 
themselves in the truth are actually doing the exact opposite.
  Here is the point: I represent manufacturers. I represent all kinds 
of people who are in business and science, Mr. Chairman. What they want 
is to be able to participate in this process. They want to know that 
the regulations that are being foisted upon them from Washington, D.C., 
at least are based on good science and are not based on bumper stickers 
and other nonsense. They want to make sure that the decisionmaking is 
transparent and that it makes sense.
  This is a great bill. We should all vote for it.

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the one scientist we have 
with a Ph.D. in physics in our body who is retiring and, as of next 
year, will become the CEO of AAAS.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady, my good friend from 
Texas, and I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  The bill concerns me, not only about the interference with protection 
of public health, but also the harm it would do to science and the 
science process. In sum, H.R. 4012 would prohibit the EPA from using 
any scientific studies that are not publicly available and cannot be 
independently reproduced.
  Now, while this sounds virtuous and laudable, it is, at best, a 
blatant misunderstanding of how scientists operate, of the peer review 
process, and a violation of health privacy laws and an affront to 
science.
  Now, I see the other side saying, oh, no, it is not a violation of 
health privacy laws because anything that violates the health privacy 
laws won't be used. Well, that is the point.
  Mr. Chairman, I will enter into the Record a letter from the 
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, dated 
November 4, which says, ``the proposed legislation is so broad that it 
could be used to prevent the implementation of nearly any regulation by 
the Environmental Protection Agency.''
  These are not partisans who are talking about this. These are people 
who want the science used so that we have good regulations. They are 
not trying to interfere with EPA's work.
  Consider epidemiology. This is the science that investigates the 
patterns in disease and health, like trying to understand the spread of 
diseases like Ebola, or in understanding why smoking causes cancer. 
Now, not surprisingly, collecting these epidemiological data requires 
getting information that is legally prohibited from disclosure under 
the health privacy legislation, data about illness and treatment and 
family history and so forth.
  So when H.R. 4012 says EPA must use studies where the information is 
public, it is saying EPA may not use many, perhaps most, 
epidemiological studies because the researchers are prohibited legally 
from making their data publicly available. There is no question that 
H.R. 4012 strips EPA of the ability to use the best available science.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the 
gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOLT. Were it to become law, studies that might be used on 
regulations to keep drinking water safe or to prevent exposure to 
dangerous pesticides or other chemicals would be null and void.
  Let's be honest. The not-so-hidden motivations behind this are to 
restrict the availability of academic independent science and to 
strengthen the hand of biased industry input. It is entitled the 
``Secret Science Act,'' which is a direct aspersion on science and the 
peer review process. It suggests that scientists are conspirators in 
lab coats trying to pull one over and bring in unnecessary regulations.
  Everyone wants transparency, reproducibility, accountability. The 
science community, the publications, the universities, the funding 
agencies are working on this all the time. They don't need this help, 
so to speak, from Congress.
  Science is a system of progress toward knowing what is right. It is 
better than the private marketplace or industrial manipulation. Let's 
let science work.

                                  Federation of American Societies


                                     for Experimental Biology,

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

[[Page 16017]]

     ensure the transparency, availability, and reproducibility of 
     data produced by federally-funded research.
       As working scientists, we are dedicated to the open 
     circulation of our work, much of which is funded by federal 
     agencies that require dissemination, including the EPA, NIH, 
     the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. 
     We are equally committed to seeing that our research results 
     contribute to the good of the Nation, including the quality 
     of its environment and the health of its people. Establishing 
     unreasonably broad and burdensome requirements for the 
     implementation of already well-supported regulations, as H.R. 
     4012 appears to do, could weaken the scientific foundations 
     of government policy, contrary to the stated goals of the 
     bill.
       For these reasons, FASEB opposes the Secret Science Reform 
     Act in its present form.
           Sincerely,
                                           Joseph R. Haywood, PhD,
                                                  FASEB President.

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

                              Office of Management and Budget,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2013.


     MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

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

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

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is ranking member on 
the Environmental Subcommittee.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4012, 
the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, a short bill with a long list of 
problems.
  Now, I applaud the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Schweikert, the chairman 
of the Environment Subcommittee, for his goal on transparency. 
Transparency

[[Page 16018]]

is something our constituents care about and deserve. But transparency 
is something we should accomplish through collaboration with and input 
from the scientific community. This bill, unfortunately, passed out of 
the Science Committee on a party-line vote and is opposed, for good 
reason, by research institutions and scientists from across the 
country.
  As the cornerstone of its regulatory process, the EPA relies on peer-
reviewed science conducted by the brightest minds at our Nation's 
universities and other research organizations. The EPA already publicly 
discloses the studies that support regulatory action.
  Large cohort studies like the American Cancer Society and Harvard Six 
Cities studies, which made an association between air pollution and 
mortality, are vital to the Agency as it pursues its mission of 
protecting public health. These studies that were peer reviewed have, 
since they were conducted, been subject to reanalysis with their 
findings confirmed.
  This Secret Science Reform Act, which looks simple on its face, will 
actually encumber, if not eradicate, the EPA's ability to perform its 
most fundamental duty: protecting Americans from significant risks to 
human health and the environment. The EPA would only, under this bill, 
be able to rely on publicly available data and studies that are 
reproducible, making it virtually impossible to use many reports and 
other sources of scientific data.
  I want to add that this act also perpetuates the incorrect notion 
that the science relied on by the EPA is somehow hidden. It is not. 
This misconception is based on conflating the meanings of ``secret'' 
and ``confidential.'' One thing should be made clear in this debate. 
None of the information used by the EPA is secret. Some information may 
be confidential if it includes, for example, the personal health 
information of millions of Americans who participated in a study about 
air quality.
  Finally, another concern about this act is that it attempts to block 
access to good science, in part, because the Science Committee majority 
has not been able to obtain data it requested through a subpoena, data 
containing the personal health information of millions of Americans 
that was part of the Harvard Six and American Cancer studies. The EPA 
responded to that subpoena with all of the information in its 
possession that it was legally authorized to provide--boxes and boxes 
and stacks and stacks of data and information--and apparently that was 
not enough. Now the Secret Science Reform Act is going further, with 
chilling consequences for the EPA and for every American who deserves 
to enjoy clean air and clean water.
  Let's bring back common sense. Using the personal health information 
of Americans as a bargaining chip is unacceptable. I strongly urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation.
  Let's go back to the drawing board, work collaboratively to make this 
a better bill, and let the EPA go back to protecting the public health 
of Americans.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire into the time remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 15 minutes remaining. The 
gentlewoman from Texas has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014.
  This much-needed legislation will finally start to shed light for the 
American people on the underlying science that the EPA uses to justify 
their new rules and regulations. Not only would the EPA have to share 
the evidence they are using or the science they are using on the rules, 
but they would have to specify the need for the rule. But most 
importantly, the results of the EPA's analysis would have to provide 
enough information so that the public can independently reproduce the 
results so that we can check the EPA's work.
  As I travel up and down my district visiting small, medium, and large 
manufacturing companies, I hear a common theme over and over again. At 
almost every stop these companies are telling me they are dealing with 
new or proposed rules coming out of the EPA. Whether it is a mom-and-
pop brick manufacturing company, an international steel manufacturing 
company, or a coal-fired power plant, they are all dealing with new and 
very costly new EPA rules. If the EPA and environmentalists get their 
way, some of these companies will simply go out of business because the 
rules are unattainable and they apparently don't really move the needle 
toward improvements in public health.
  I say ``apparently'' because we don't have all the facts and data 
that the EPA is using to justify these new rules, and we can't validate 
and verify what they are telling the public.
  Thousands of direct jobs and tens of thousands of indirect jobs are 
at risk because of these proposed and pending rules. We owe it to these 
hardworking men and women to share the science with the public so we 
can verify what the EPA is saying before they lose their jobs over 
unverified studies.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this 
legislation.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank Chairman Schweikert for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and the sponsor have done a good job of 
describing what the bill is and what it does and why it is necessary. I 
want to talk a little bit about what is at stake.
  I think the first thing that we have to consider that is at stake is 
the unilateral disarmament of the American economy by virtue of 
destroying, really, our global competitiveness. It is an interesting 
time to talk about it.
  Our President just came back from making a deal in China, a climate 
deal in China, where the Chinese are allowed to continue to pollute for 
16 years, create more jobs of their own and take some of ours, while we 
put standards and requirements, emissions requirements on our 
industries that won't be able to keep up and put our jobs at risk.
  In my home State of North Dakota, there are 4,000 megawatts of low-
cost electricity--the jobs that producing that electricity creates and 
the competitiveness that that electricity provides for our economy--
that is at stake, all based on EPA rules that are based on some 1970s, 
decades-old data and studies that are only available to the 
bureaucrats.

                              {time}  1400

  We have, for example, in western North Dakota a brick plant in 
Hebron, Hebron Brick, that is subject to the MACT rule, which is a rule 
based on studies that are tightly held, again, and only visible to the 
bureaucrats. We have countless acres of private farmland and ranch land 
in our State and in the States around us that have been owned privately 
for generations. It is up for grabs if this Waters of the U.S. rule 
continues to go forward, a rule that really took forceful inquiry by 
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee to find, to get, to reveal 
the secret maps that the EPA was creating as part of this massive land 
grab.
  It really comes down to this, Mr. Chairman: we are at a time in our 
country when there is very, very low confidence by the public in our 
government. I am just saying let's restore America's confidence in 
America's government, and let's provide the one great safeguard to 
corruption that we can provide, and that is transparency.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Have you ever had a moment at which you are approaching the 
microphone--and you have got to accept that we are all passionate about 
our views--and you have heard some things that, shall we say, start to 
get your blood pressure moving a bit, but let me see if I can do this 
without being hyperbolic and then walk through some of the realities of 
the information that is laid out in front of me right here.

[[Page 16019]]

  First, I do want to respond to something that Ranking Member Johnson 
said. I want to first caveat that she has always been very kind to me, 
but we have the confirmation from the EPA, itself--and we will put the 
documents into the Record--that they are perfectly capable of blinding 
anything that is confidential, anything that is personal. I mean, we 
have the comments from Administrator McCarthy on March 7 walking us 
through that they can do this, and they didn't see it as a real 
problem.
  Let me walk through something else that I am finding sort of absurd, 
and I am having a little trouble finding the best way to articulate 
this. We spent about an hour in our office sort of just searching the 
Internet on this subject. If you go back about a decade ago, a number 
of our friends on the left were demanding something almost identical to 
this. So what is different? It wouldn't happen to be a different 
philosophy, a different President, a different party in the White 
House, would it?
  Let me back up and say: Why do I embrace this Secret Science bill, 
H.R. 4012?
  I genuinely, in every fiber of my being, believe that we will get 
better policy, better design, more creative ideas because, whether you 
are on the left, the right, or are just an active addition, you do not 
know whether the EPA rule sets are optimal. You may believe they are, 
but we are doing it on faith. Peer review is wonderful except for the 
fact that the peer reviewers don't see the underlying data. The beauty 
of this piece of legislation is that neither you nor I right now knows, 
in the absolute collective analysis, whether the EPA is even going far 
enough or whether it is going too far or whether there is another 
approach that would be dramatically more efficient.
  What happens when that researcher gets his hands on a linear data set 
and matches it up with something else that no one had thought of 
putting in there and, all of a sudden, discovers the noise in the data 
that there are opportunities to do it better, faster, more efficiently, 
to save lives, or to maybe even do it cheaper?
  You will not know that until the cabal that right now has the 
franchise on the information, on the brokerage of the data, is broken 
up. What is so stunningly disheartening here is that much of this 
concept, if you go back and look at the speeches from the President in 
2007 and 2008, and at memos from the President 18 months ago, from OMB, 
demanding this, saying this was the wave of the future if you embrace 
science--but not the science of an elite few. The fact of the matter is 
our Nation--our country--and our world is made up of really smart 
people who have the right and the ability to give us input to do this 
better.
  I beg of my fellow Members here to stop being afraid of true 
transparency. Stop defending the incumbent class that thinks it has the 
only legitimate scientists who have the right to put forward what our 
future looks like.
  I may be behind this microphone in a couple of years from now if this 
bill passes, saying: I never knew we weren't going far enough. You may 
be behind that microphone over there, saying: The crowd analysis of the 
data says there was a dramatically better way. But we need to pass this 
bill to have that opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

         The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2014.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of February 
     14, 2014, regarding the United States Environmental 
     Protection Agency's (EPA's) response to a subpoena duces 
     tecum (subpoena) from the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology (Committee).
       As you note in your letter, during and immediately after my 
     November 14, 2013, appearance before your Committee, we 
     agreed to additional dialogue regarding the EPA's response to 
     the subpoena. I understand that our staffs have had several 
     discussions since that date, and made significant progress 
     toward a common understanding of this matter. I want to thank 
     you and your staff for your willingness to engage in these 
     discussions, as I believe they have been both productive and 
     constructive.
       Your subpoena sought data from the American Cancer Society 
     and Harvard Six Cities cohorts, as well as analyses and re-
     analyses of that data. In particular, the subpoena sought 
     data from studies that utilized data from the American Cancer 
     Society and Harvard Six Cities cohorts. Once the EPA received 
     the subpoena, we conducted a diligent search for data, as 
     well as analyses and re-analyses of that data that were 
     already in our possession, custody, or control that would be 
     responsive to the subpoena. In addition, we considered what 
     data, as well as analyses and re-analyses of that data, were 
     not in our possession, custody, or control on the date we 
     received the subpoena, but that may still be within the scope 
     of the Committee's subpoena. For data, as well as analyses 
     and re-analyses of that data, that were not in the EPA's 
     possession, custody, or control but that could still be 
     considered within the scope of the subpoena, the EPA sought 
     to identify a legal authority for the agency to obtain that 
     information so that it could be provided to the Committee. In 
     this case, the Shelby Amendment (Public Law 105-277) provides 
     the EPA with the authority to obtain certain research data 
     that was not in the agency's possession, custody, or control 
     on the date we received the subpoena, and the EPA utilized 
     that authority to obtain that data.
       The actions taken in response to the subpoena are detailed 
     in an enclosure (Enclosure 1) to this letter, and included 
     multiple interactions with the third party owners of the 
     research data in an effort to obtain that data. Once the 
     agency successfully obtained the research data, we undertook 
     a review of this data to determine whether the release of the 
     data would raise privacy concerns. The agency sought the 
     assistance of the Centers for Disease Control in this inquiry 
     as well, in an effort to ensure the privacy of the subjects 
     of the data was not compromised.
       Through its efforts, the EPA located within its possession, 
     custody, or control, or obtained through its authority, the 
     data for five studies listed in the subpoena. Any other data, 
     as well as analyses and re-analyses of that data, that may be 
     within the scope of the subpoena, whether specifically listed 
     in the subpoena or not, are not (and were not) in the 
     possession, custody, or control of the EPA, nor are they 
     within the authority to obtain data that the agency 
     identified. However, the issuance of the subpoena does not 
     provide the agency with any additional authority to obtain 
     data, as well as analyses and re-analyses of that data, that 
     we otherwise do not have the authority to obtain.
       All responsive data, as well as analyses and re-analyses of 
     that data, located or obtained during our efforts to respond 
     to the subpoena have been provided to the Committee. The EPA 
     provided that data to the Committee through letters sent 
     prior to our receipt of the subpoena, and then our letters 
     responding to the subpoena of August 19, 2013, September 16, 
     2013, and September 30, 2013. The EPA provided the Committee 
     with the data for these five studies in exactly the same 
     format the data were provided to us. Importantly, the agency 
     was able to work through the various privacy concerns so that 
     we would not need to de-identify any of the data. As of the 
     EPA's letter of September 30, 2013, the agency has provided 
     the Committee with all of the data covered by the subpoena 
     that the agency has obtained or has the authority to obtain 
     under the Shelby Amendment. Additionally, the EPA has not 
     withheld any data in our possession that is responsive to the 
     subpoena. Thus, the EPA has completed its response to the 
     subpoena. The EPA acknowledges, however, that the data 
     provided are not sufficient in themselves to replicate the 
     analyses in the epidemiological studies, nor would they allow 
     for the one to one mapping of each pollutant and ecological 
     variable to each subject. For the reasons explained in our 
     previous letters on this topic, these acknowledgements do not 
     call into question the EPA's reliance on these studies for 
     regulatory actions.
       Your February 14, 2014, letter also requests the grant 
     agreements related to the studies covered by the subpoena, 
     and those documents are being provided with this letter. 
     These EPA grant agreements span from 1998 to 2006 and contain 
     a variety of data access provisions. Despite that variation, 
     the EPA has reviewed each of the agreements and determined 
     that each grant agreement contained data access provisions 
     that are consistent with the EPA grant regulations at the 
     time of the award. The EPA's current practice is to 
     incorporate into our grant agreements a reference to the 
     agency's regulations regarding access to research data funded 
     by the grant.
       Thank you again for the opportunity to explain the actions 
     the EPA took in responding to your subpoena.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Gina McCarthy.

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chair, I hope we can all agree that it is in the 
nation's best interest to allow EPA to use the best available science 
to protect our health and well-being. This means the science that EPA 
uses should be held to the same standards as any other science. I

[[Page 16020]]

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

                             American Statistical Association,

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

                                            David Morganstein,

                                                  President-Elect,
                                 American Statistical Association.
                                  ____
                                  
                                                November 17, 2014.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned individuals and 
     organizations working on public health and science-informed 
     regulation strongly oppose HR 4012, the Secret Science Reform 
     Act, and HR 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, 
     up for a House vote as early as November 18.
       Both bills would severely undermine the ability of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use the best 
     available scientific evidence when making decisions regarding 
     the protection of public health and safety and the 
     environment.
       HR 4012, the erroneously named Secret Science Reform Act, 
     would tie the EPA's hands by restricting the information it 
     can use to develop protective regulations. The EPA could only 
     regulate based on publicly available scientific data. This 
     restriction would block the agency's use of many different 
     types of public health data, such as those for which public 
     release would violate privacy protections, or data from 
     corporations that are designated as confidential business 
     information.
       It also would restrict the use of scientific data that is 
     not ``reproducible.'' This provision seems to adopt a very 
     narrow view of scientific information solely based on 
     laboratory experiments. As major scientific societies 
     including the American Association for the Advancement of 
     Science (AAAS) have noted, such a restriction would eliminate 
     the use of most epidemiological and public health data, such 
     as those regarding the public health impacts of air 
     pollution, because these data are collected in long-term 
     studies following individuals longitudinally.
       Not only do privacy concerns arise, but such studies are 
     not inherently reproduced in the way a laboratory experiment 
     or a clinical trial may be. It would be unethical to 
     deliberately expose adults or children to air pollution 
     merely to determine whether the increased rates of asthma and 
     heart attacks caused by such exposures can be duplicated, or 
     to encourage teenagers to smoke to re-assess the toxic 
     effects of tobacco.
       HR 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would 
     greatly weaken the EPA's advisory process, ensuring that 
     recommendations from its independent Science Advisory Board 
     (SAB) will be dominated by corporate special interests. While 
     the bill has been improved by several amendments offered by 
     minority members of the House Science Committee, it still 
     remains unacceptable.
       This bill opens the door to increased corporate influence 
     on the Board, both by encouraging the EPA to accept more SAB 
     panelists with corporate ties, and disqualifying some of the 
     nation's leading experts.
       The bill's overly broad restriction that a member of the 
     SAB cannot participate in a discussion that cites the 
     member's own work is counterproductive, and goes far beyond 
     the common-sense limits imposed by the National Academies. Of 
     course, a scientist with expertise on topics the SAB 
     addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies and 
     other work on that topic. That makes the scientist's 
     evaluation more valuable, not less.
       Even worse, the bill requires the SAB to remain in an 
     endless loop soliciting public comment about the ``state of 
     the science'' touching on every major advisory activity it 
     undertakes and responding to nearly every comment before 
     moving forward, without being limited by any time 
     constraints. At best, the SAB will be reduced to busy work. 
     At worst, the SAB's assessments will address the concerns of 
     corporations, not the desires of citizens for science-
     informed regulation that protects public health.
       These bills together will greatly impede the ability of 
     EPA, and potentially other

[[Page 16021]]

     agencies, to utilize the best available science, 
     independently reviewed, to inform regulations crucial to 
     public health and the environment.
       We strongly urge you to vote No on HR 4012 and HR 1422.
           Sincerely,
       Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned 
     Scientists; Annie Appleseed Project; Breast Cancer Action; 
     Center for Medical Consumers; Institute for Ethics and 
     Emerging Technologies; National Center for Health Research; 
     National Physicians Alliance; Our Bodies, Ourselves; 
     Physicians for Social Responsibility; Public Citizen; The TMJ 
     Association; Woodymatters; Susan F. Wood, PhD, Associate 
     Professor, Director, Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, The 
     George Washington University, Milken Institute School of 
     Public Health; John H. Powers, MD, Associate Clinical 
     Professor of Medicine, The George Washington University 
     School of Medicine.
                                  ____



                                Union of Concerned Scientists,

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

                                   Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,

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

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

                               H.R. 4012

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. DATA TRANSPARENCY.

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

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


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 756, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense, one-
word amendment to H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act.
  My simple amendment adds the word ``online'' to the disclosure 
requirements found in this legislation.
  The Congressional Budget Office has determined that my amendment 
would not score and would not affect direct spending or revenues. My 
amendment is supported by the chairman of the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee, Lamar Smith. My amendment also has the support of 
the sponsor, Mr. Schweikert. I would like to thank both the chairman, 
Mr. Smith, and Congressman Schweikert for their efforts on this 
legislation and for their support of my amendment.
  As a result of my simple, good governance amendment, the EPA will be 
required to make all scientific and technical information relied upon 
for rulemaking available online before proposing or finalizing new 
regulations.
  I strongly support H.R. 4012, and I am proud to cosponsor this 
commonsense bill offered by my good friend and fellow Arizonan, David 
Schweikert. The underlying bill would require the Environmental 
Protection Agency to utilize actual science when formulating 
regulations, and it requires that the science be made available for 
peer review and reproduction.
  A recent poll from the Institute for Energy Research found that 
approximately 90 percent of all Americans support making studies and 
data utilized by the Federal Government available to the general 
public. By the way, the general public is not stupid. The intent of the 
bill is transparency, and I believe the best way to accomplish that 
goal is to require this information to be posted online.
  For far too long, the EPA has used secret studies and so-called 
``peer reviews'' from biased sources to justify regulations that fit 
their job-killing agenda. Not only does this practice result in a lack 
of transparency, it also

[[Page 16022]]

leads to hundreds of thousands of jobs being destroyed across the 
country by unreasonable and unnecessary regulations.
  A requirement similar to my amendment was adopted by this body when 
the House passed H.R. 4315 this past July. A provision found in H.R. 
4315 required that data used by Federal agencies for Endangered Species 
Act listing decisions be made publicly available and accessible through 
the Internet.
  Finally, H.R. 4012 protects personal and confidential information and 
has a provision that makes clear such information will not be disclosed 
as a result of this act. My amendment would not conflict with such 
policy.
  Again, all my simple, one-word amendment does is require that the 
scientific and technical information requirements in the underlying 
bill be posted online. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my 
commonsense amendment, and I urge the passage of the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. 
Gosar's amendment. At least it clarifies the underlying intent of this 
bill in that this information relied on by the EPA should be thrown up 
on the Web site.
  The peer-reviewed science relied on by the EPA often involves 
personal health information and other confidential data that is legally 
protected from disclosure. No legitimate researcher would violate the 
law and leak confidential information--for example, to make a trade 
secret or information protected by HIPAA accessible to anyone who has 
an Internet connection.
  This amendment only makes the underlying problems with the bill that 
much more obvious, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. FOSTER. I would like to thank the ranking member for her 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, we frequently hear my colleagues across the aisle say, 
``I am not a scientist,'' in response to a stance they may be taking on 
a matter which has a strong technical or scientific aspect to it. Well, 
I am a scientist, and that is why I am standing today in strong 
opposition to the Secret Science Reform Act.
  Even my colleagues in the House who are not scientists, when they 
have a question of law, they will consult a lawyer, but that doesn't 
seem to be the case where science is concerned. I think that it would 
be good if in this House we spent a little while listening to the 
scientists who are concerned with these issues.
  Today, a letter was introduced into the Record from the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, signed by 42 organizations 
representing scientific organizations and research universities. In the 
letter, they state that the research community is concerned about how 
some of the key terms in this bill could be interpreted or 
misinterpreted, especially terms such as ``materials,'' ``data,'' and 
``reproducible.''
  Would the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, be excluded 
from utilizing research that involved physical specimens or biological 
materials that are not easily accessible? How would the Agency address 
research that combines both public and necessarily private data?
  These are all important questions which this legislation and, sadly, 
this debate have not addressed, so I stand alongside thousands of my 
colleagues in science in opposition to the Secret Science Reform Act 
and in support of what has been referred to in this debate as ``so-
called peer review.'' Let us scientists set the scientific standards 
and not Washington politicians.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I am a scientist and I am a dentist, so I 
understand both science and HIPAA.
  Provision 2 of section 2 of H.R. 4012 protects personal and 
confidential information and has a provision that makes clear such 
information will not be disclosed as a result of this act. My amendment 
would not conflict with such policy.

                              {time}  1415

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


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kennedy

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

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

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

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

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

[[Page 16023]]

premature births or CDC research on mitigating the impact of natural 
disasters and human health.
  Imagine if we took this approach across the whole of government. The 
results could be catastrophic. You don't just have to take my word for 
it. I have got here, Mr. Chair, a letter from the Conference of Boston 
Teaching Hospitals who write:

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

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

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

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

                                              Conference of Boston


                                           Teaching Hospitals,

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

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

[[Page 16024]]



                             [Roll No. 526]

                               AYES--194

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

                               NOES--230

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

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

                              {time}  1451

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


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas moves to recommit the 
     bill H.R. 4012 to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology with instructions to report the same back to the 
     House forthwith, with the following amendment:
       Add at the end of the proposed subsection (b) the 
     following:
       ``(4) This subsection shall not apply to any covered action 
     that is in response to an emergency with the potential to 
     harm the health and safety of a community, including--
       ``(A) a disease outbreak such as Ebola or the pandemic flu;
       ``(B) a release of toxic chemicals into public drinking 
     water supplies; and
       ``(C) a nuclear, biological, or terrorist attack.''.

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona reserves a point 
of order.
  The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by 
saying that this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not 
kill the bill or send it back to the committee. If adopted, the bill 
will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
  I have already spoken at some length about the problems with the 
underlying bill. The bill would prevent the Environmental Protection 
Agency from using the best science in its mission to protect public 
health.
  However, this motion to recommit highlights a specific and very 
troubling

[[Page 16025]]

aspect of this bill. As written, the bill would prevent EPA from 
proposing, finalizing, or disseminating risk, exposure, or hazard 
assessments or guidance based on nonpublic information.
  I and my Democratic colleagues are concerned about how this language 
would impede the EPA's ability to respond to emergencies and disasters.
  I will give you an example. In my hometown of Dallas, we had a well-
publicized case of a man named Thomas Duncan tragically dying after 
being infected with the Ebola virus. This gentleman was originally sent 
home from the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital when his symptoms were 
not initially identified as Ebola.
  After Ebola was identified, great efforts were made to disinfect 
areas the gentleman had contact with while he was infected with Ebola.
  I have a picture displayed here.
  Here in my hand is EPA's list of disinfectants for use against Ebola 
virus. The EPA disseminates this critically important information on 
its Web site.

                              {time}  1500

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 527]

                               AYES--196

     Adams
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley

[[Page 16026]]


     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--230

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

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

                              {time}  1513

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 528]

                               AYES--237

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

                               NOES--190

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

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

[[Page 16027]]



                              {time}  1521

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

                          ____________________