[House Report 113-619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     113-619
======================================================================

 
                   SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2014

                                _______
                                

 November 12, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

     Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and 
                  Technology, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4012]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 4012) to prohibit the Environmental 
Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating 
regulations or assessments based upon science that is not 
transparent or reproducible, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill 
do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Reported Bill...................................................1
  II. Purpose and Summary.............................................2
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................2
  IV. Hearing Summary.................................................4
   V. Committee Consideration.........................................5
  VI. Committee Votes.................................................6
 VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................8
VIII. Committee Views.................................................8
  IX. Committee Oversight Findings....................................9
   X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives...........9
  XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditur10
 XII. Advisory on Earmarks...........................................10
XIII. Committee Cost Estimate........................................10
 XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................10
  XV. Federal Mandates Statement.....................................12
 XVI. Compliance with House Resolution 5.............................12
XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................12
XVIII.Applicability to Legislative Branch............................12

 XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation.................13
  XX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........13
 XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................15

                            I. Reported Bill

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. DATA TRANSPARENCY.

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

                        II. Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 4012, the ``Secret Science Reform Act 
of 2014'', is to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) Administrator from finalizing, proposing, or 
disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and 
technical information relied on to support the covered action 
is specifically identified and publicly available in a manner 
that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial 
reproduction.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    Science has been central to EPA's mission and functions 
since its establishment in 1970. The Agency's recently-
finalized Scientific Integrity Policy describes science as 
``the backbone of the EPA's decision-making.''\1\ Efforts to 
encourage and guarantee open scientific research and assessment 
at the EPA are based in a number of historical, legal, and 
administrative origins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/
epa_scientific_integrity_policy_20120115.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1983, then-Administrator William Ruckelshaus wrote a 
memo to all EPA employees dictating that the agency should 
operate as though it were ``in a fishbowl.'' The memo stressed 
the importance of being as open as possible, while also 
providing the fullest possible public participation in decision 
making.\2\ EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy echoed this priority 
in her confirmation hearing, stating that ``The rule of law, 
along with sound science and transparency, is one of EPA's core 
values and, if I am confirmed, it will continue to guide all 
EPA actions.''\3\ Similarly, she stated that, ``EPA is 
committed to transparency with regard to the scientific bases 
of agency decision making.''\4\ Science is a critical component 
of EPA's regulatory decisions related to several environmental 
laws, including the Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean 
Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ruckelshaus-takes-steps-improve-
flow-agency-information-fishbowl-policy#memo.
    \3\http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_id=d71fd4b6-ce77-3a98-
46a0-fb02b0cae0ed
    \4\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recent EPA and White House scientific integrity, 
regulatory, and open access policies indicate strong support 
for open access to scientific information, including the 
information underlying Federal regulatory actions. Executive 
Order 13563 requires that regulations ``be based upon the best 
available science.''\5\ Similarly, President Obama's March 2009 
Scientific Integrity Memo states that ``[t]o the extent 
permitted by law, there should be transparency in the 
preparation, identification, and use of scientific and 
technological information in policymaking.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf
    \6\http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-
executive-departments-and-agencies-3-9-09
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following up on this direction, the White House Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Memo from December 2010 
states that ``agencies should expand and promote access to 
scientific information by making it available online in open 
formats. Where appropriate, this should include data and models 
underlying regulatory proposals and policy decisions.''\7\ OSTP 
also issued a 2013 Memorandum on ``Increasing Access to the 
results of Federally Funded Scientific Research,'' in which the 
President's Science Advisor John Holdren explained that, ``The 
Administration is committed to ensuring that, to the greatest 
extent and with the fewest constraints possible and consistent 
with law and the objectives set out below, the direct results 
of federally funded scientific research are made available to 
and useful for the public, industry, and the scientific 
community. Such results include peer-reviewed publications and 
digital data.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
scientific-integrity-memo-12172010.pdf.
    \8\http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to provide Agency-specific guidelines emanating 
from the President's and OSTP's Scientific Integrity Memos, 
EPA's 2012 final Scientific Integrity Policy states: 
``Scientific research and analysis comprise the foundation of 
all major EPA policy decisions. Therefore, the Agency should 
maintain vigilance toward ensuring that scientific research and 
results are presented openly and with integrity, accuracy, 
timeliness, and the full public scrutiny demanded when 
developing sound, high-quality environmental science.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/
epa_scientific_integrity_policy_20120115.pdf. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Developed in response to Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) guidelines issued following provisions of the Treasury 
and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
(Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658), EPA's Guidelines for Ensuring 
and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and 
Integrity, of Information Disseminated by the Environmental 
Protection Agency state that the Agency is ``committed to 
providing public access to environmental information'' and 
that, in order to fulfill its mission, ``EPA must rely upon 
information of appropriate quality for each decision we make.'' 
EPA also notes the limitations of these guidelines, stating 
that they ``provide non-binding policy and procedural guidance, 
and are therefore not intended to create legal rights, impose 
legally binding requirements or obligations on EPA or the 
public when applied in particular situations, or change or 
impact the status of information we disseminate, nor to 
contravene any other legal requirements that may apply to 
particular agency determinations or other actions.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/documents/
EPA_InfoQualityGuidelines .pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OMB Circular A-110 also indicates that the federal 
government has a right to data produced under certain 
federally-funded research awards. In 1999, following an 
amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY1999 (often 
referred to as the ``Shelby Amendment'' due to the role of 
Senator Richard Shelby) OMB revised this circular to ``ensure 
that all data produced under an award will be made available to 
the public through the procedures established under the Freedom 
of Information Act.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/fedreg/a110-
finalnotice.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite a seemingly strong position in favor of openness 
and transparency regarding the science behind regulations, the 
Administration has yet to make public the scientific data that 
is behind numerous EPA regulations. Some outside researchers 
have sought the scientific data behind these regulations and 
have been denied access. The Committee issued a subpoena for 
the scientific data behind these regulations and EPA responded 
that it was unable to provide all of the data. EPA further 
indicated in its response to the Committee received on March 7, 
2014, that ``Any other data. . .are not (and were not) in the 
possession, custody, or control of the EPA, nor are they within 
the authority to obtain data that the agency identified.'' EPA 
acknowledged that ``the data provided are not sufficient in 
themselves to replicate the analyses in the epidemiological 
studies, nor would they allow for the one to one mapping of 
each pollutant and ecological variable to each subject.'' 
Without this scientific information, the public is required to 
blindly trust the EPA's scientific findings that are the basis 
of some of the most costly regulations in history.

                          IV. Hearing Summary

    In the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee on Environment held 
a hearing on February 11, 2014, focused on H.R. 4012 and 
Ensuring Open Science at EPA. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from expert witnesses, which informed the Committee 
on the need for improved transparency and reproducibility of 
regulatory science used by the Environmental Protection Agency. 
Witnesses were also asked to provide comments on H.R. 4012, the 
``Secret Science Reform Act of 2014.'' The Subcommittee 
received testimony from the Honorable John Graham, Dean, School 
of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University; Dr. 
Louis Anthony Cox, Jr., Chief Sciences Officer, Next Health 
Technologies, Clinical Professor, Biostatistics and 
Informatics, Colorado Health Sciences Center, and President, 
Cox Associates; Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, Professor, Bloomberg 
School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University; and Mr. 
Raymond Keating, Chief Economist, Small Business & 
Entrepreneurship Council.
    On November 14, 2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology held a hearing entitled, Strengthening Transparency 
and Accountability within the Environmental Protection Agency. 
The purpose of this hearing was to review science and 
technology activities at the EPA, including: agency-wide 
policies and practices related to the development and use of 
science in regulatory decisions; the role of independent 
scientific advisory bodies such as the EPA Science Advisory 
Board and the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; and 
the importance of transparency and integrity in the Agency's 
science activities. The Committee received testimony from The 
Honorable Gina McCarthy, the Administrator of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    In the 112th Congress, the Committee held two hearings 
focused on science at the EPA. On November 30, 2011, the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing entitled, 
Fostering Quality Science at EPA: Perspectives on Common Sense 
Reform. The purpose of the hearing was to provide external 
perspectives on the need to reauthorize and reform science, 
research and development activities at EPA; explore the 
intersection of Agency-supported science and its regulatory 
mission; and receive focused recommendations to raise the 
level, quality, usefulness, and objectivity of EPA science, 
including any necessary changes to the Environmental Research, 
Development and Demonstration Authorization Act. The 
subcommittee received testimony from Ms. Susan Dudley, 
Director, Regulatory Studies Center, and Research Professor of 
Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington 
University; Dr. Alan Moghissi, President, Institute for 
Regulatory Science; Dr. Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar, 
American Enterprise Institute; and Dr. Gary Marchant, Professor 
of Law and Executive Director, Center for Law, Science & 
Innovation, Arizona State University.
    On February 3, 2012, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a second hearing to provide external 
perspectives on the need to reauthorize and reform science and 
research and development activities at the EPA. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Daniel Greenbaum, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Health Effects 
Institute; Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, Professor, Environmental 
Health Sciences, University of Minnesota, and Chairwoman, EPA 
Science Advisory Board; Mr. Michael Walls, Vice President, 
Regulatory and Technical Affairs, American Chemistry Council; 
Dr. Richard Belzer, President, Regulatory Checkbook; Dr. Jerald 
Schnoor, Allen S. Henry Chair in Engineering, Department of 
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iowa; and 
Dr. S. Stanley Young, Assistant Director for Bioinformatics, 
National Institute of Statistical Sciences.

                       V. Committee Consideration

    On February 6, 2014, H.R. 4012 was introduced by Rep. 
Schweikert and referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology.
    On June 24, 2014, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 4012, by 
a vote of 17 Ayes, 13 Nays.

                          VI. Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The 
Committee adopted H.R. 4012 by a vote of 17 Ayes, 13 Nays; a 
motion to order H.R. 4012 favorably reported to the House, as 
amended, was agreed to by unanimous consent.
    During Full Committee consideration of H.R. 4012, the 
following amendments were considered: 


              VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    The bill prohibits the EPA Administrator from finalizing, 
proposing, or disseminating a covered action unless all 
scientific and technical information relied on to support the 
covered action is specifically identified and publicly 
available in a manner that is sufficient for independent 
analysis and substantial reproduction. Nothing in the language 
of the bill is to be construed as requiring public 
dissemination of information, the disclosure of which is 
prohibited by law.
    The bill also defines ``covered action'' to mean a risk, 
exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, 
limitation, regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or 
guidance. The section defines ``scientific and technical 
information'' to include materials, data, and associated 
protocols necessary to understand, assess, and extend 
conclusions, computer codes and models involved in the creation 
and analysis of information, recorded factual materials, and 
detailed descriptions of how to assess and use such 
information.

                         VIII. Committee Views

    H.R. 4012, The Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, requires 
that the Environmental Protection Agency base its regulations 
and assessments on science that is publicly available in a 
manner sufficient for independent analysis and scientific 
replication. This approach to regulatory science is consistent 
with the data access requirements of major scientific journals 
as well as the transparency policy of this Administration. 
Transparency and reproducibility are basic tenets of science. 
Costly environmental regulations should only be based upon data 
that is available to independent scientists and the public.
    This legislation is consistent with the White House's 
scientific integrity policy, the President's Executive Order 
13563, data access provisions of major scientific journals, and 
the recommendations of the Administration's top science 
advisors and the Bipartisan Policy Center. In 2012, the 
President's Science Advisor testified that ``Absolutely, the 
data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions are 
based should be made available to the Committee and should be 
made public unless there is a classification reason.'' Also in 
2012, the Chair of EPA's Science Advisory Board in response to 
follow-up questions after a hearing titled Fostering Quality 
Science at EPA: Need for Common Sense Reform (Day II) stated 
that EPA's advisors recommend, ``that literature and data used 
by EPA be peer-reviewed and made available to the public. When 
the SAB conducts peer reviews and evaluations, it prefers to 
review all data associated with the document in question. It is 
my experience that EPA makes its best effort to provide all 
data to the SAB, subject to ethical and legal restrictions.''
    The Committee received a letter of support from over 80 
scientists, academic experts, and former EPA officials. 
Signatories include Ivy League professors, two former chairs of 
EPA science advisory committees, medical doctors, 
statisticians, deans of major universities, and environmental 
scientists. This legislation is similar to the data access 
provisions of major scientific journals like Science and 
Nature, as well as independent research entities like the 
Health Effects Institute.
    H.R. 4012 makes clear that no protected information will be 
disclosed. This bill only requires information that is 
sufficient for independent scientists to validate and reproduce 
the results of this regulatory science. The bill does not 
require the public dissemination of information, the disclosure 
of which is prohibited by law. To this end, the Committee 
received a letter of support from more than 80 scientists, 
experts, and doctors which states that ``complying with H.R. 
4012 can be accomplished without imposing unnecessary burdens, 
discouraging research, or raising confidentiality concerns. 
Across different disciplines, numerous statistical and 
technical approaches exist to protect any sensitive 
information.'' Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences 
has confirmed that transparency and reproducibility in science 
is possible without any risks to confidentiality or privacy. In 
2005, the Panel on Data Access for Research Purposes of the 
National Research Council stated in its report Expanding Access 
to Research Data: Reconciling Risks and Opportunities: 
``Nothing in the past suggest that increasing access to 
research data without damage to privacy and confidentiality 
rights is beyond scientific reach.'' This Committee has 
received testimony from some respected experts that the 
provisions of H.R. 4012 would not raise confidentiality issues.
    The legislation covers critical scientific documents 
related to ``covered actions'' in order to ensure that 
significant non-regulatory information is subject to basic 
standards of transparency and reproducibility. As Dr. John 
Graham, Indiana University and former head of White House 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, testified that: 
``When a federal agency makes a determination that a product, 
technology or substance is hazardous, the determination 
itself--without any formal regulatory action--can create a 
stigma in the marketplace that causes a loss of sales, jobs and 
so forth. The stigma can also trigger lawsuits against 
companies under the common laws of the fifty states. If the 
scientific and technical data underpinning the determinations 
are not transparent and reproducible, it can be quite difficult 
for scientists in an impacted company--or any scientist--to 
determine whether the determination is valid.'' The definition 
of scientific and technical information in the bill is based on 
data access policies from leading science publications and EPA-
funded research institutes.

                    IX. Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight 
hearing and made findings that are reflected in the descriptive 
portions of this report.

        X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the performance goals and 
objectives of the Committee are reflected in the descriptive 
portions of this report, including the goal to prohibit the EPA 
Administrator from finalizing, proposing, or disseminating a 
covered action unless all scientific and technical information 
relied on to support the covered action is specifically 
identified and publically available in a manner that is 
sufficient for independent analysis and substantial 
reproduction.

 XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its 
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

                       XII. Advisory on Earmarks

    In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, 
the Committee finds that H.R. 4012, the ``Secret Science Reform 
Act of 2014,'' contains no earmarks.

                     XIII. Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

             XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, October 3, 2014.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4012, the Secret 
Science Reform Act of 2014.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. 
Mehlman.
            Sincerely,
                                    Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 4012--Secret Science Reform Act of 2014

    H.R. 4012 would amend the Environmental Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to 
prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 
proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a ``covered action'' 
unless all scientific and technical information used to support 
that action is publicly available in a manner that is 
sufficient for independent analysis and substantial 
reproduction of research results. Covered actions would include 
assessments of risks, exposure, or hazards; documents 
specifying criteria, guidance, standards, or limitations; or 
regulations and regulatory impact statements.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4012 would cost about 
$250 million a year for the next few years, subject to 
appropriation of the necessary amounts. Costs in later years 
would probably decline gradually from that level. The 
additional discretionary spending would cover the costs of 
expanding the scope of EPA studies and related activities such 
as data collection and database construction for all of the 
information necessary to meet the legislation's requirements.
    Enacting H.R. 4012 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 
H.R. 4012 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, and tribal 
governments.
    Under current law, EPA typically spends about $500 million 
each year to support research and development activities, 
including assessments to determine the potential risk to public 
health from environmental contaminants. EPA relies on the 
findings of many scientific studies to develop regulations and 
perform other covered actions. The number of studies involved 
in such cases depends on the complexity of the issue being 
addressed. For example, when addressing a recent issue with 
flaring at petroleum refineries, EPA relied on a dozen 
scientific studies. In contrast, when reviewing the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards, the agency relied on thousands 
of scientific studies. In total, the agency relies on about 
50,000 scientific studies annually to perform its mission--
although some of those studies are used more than once from 
year to year.
    The costs of implementing H.R. 4012 are very uncertain 
because it is not clear how EPA would meet the bill's 
requirements. Depending on their size and scope, the new 
activities called for by the bill would cost between $10,000 
and $30,000 for each scientific study used by the agency. If 
EPA continued to rely on as many scientific studies as it has 
used in recent years, while increasing the collection and 
dissemination of all the technical information used in such 
studies as directed by H.R. 4012, then implementing the bill 
would cost at least several hundred million dollars a year. 
However, EPA could instead rely on significantly fewer studies 
each year in support of its mission, and limit its spending on 
data collection and database construction activities to a 
relatively small expansion of existing study-related activity; 
in that scenario, implementing the bill would be much less 
costly.
    Thus, the costs of implementing H.R. 4012 would ultimately 
depend on how EPA adapts to the bill's requirements. (It would 
also depend on the availability of appropriated funds to 
conduct the additional data collection and database 
construction activities and related coordination and reporting 
activities under the legislation.) CBO expects that EPA would 
modify its practices, at least to some extent, and would base 
its future work on fewer scientific studies, and especially 
those studies that have easily accessible or transparent data. 
Any such modification of EPA practices would also have to take 
into consideration the concern that the quality of the agency's 
work could be compromised if that work relies on a 
significantly smaller collection of scientific studies; we 
expect that the agency would seek to reduce its reliance on 
numerous studies without sacrificing the quality of the 
agency's covered actions related to research and development.
    On balance--recognizing the significant uncertainty 
regarding EPA's potential actions under the bill--CBO expects 
that the agency would probably cut the number of studies it 
relies on by about one-half and that the agency would aim to 
limit the costs of new activities required by the bill, such as 
data collection, correspondence and coordination with study 
authors, construction of a database to house necessary 
information, and public dissemination of such information. As a 
result, CBO estimates the incremental costs to the agency would 
be around $250 million a year initially, subject to 
appropriation of the necessary amounts. In our assessment that 
figure lies near the middle of a broad range of possible 
outcomes under H.R. 4012.
    CBO expects that the additional costs to implement the 
legislation would decline over time as EPA became more adept 
and efficient at working with authors and researchers to ensure 
that the data used to support studies are provided in a 
standardized and replicable form. Costs could be even lower if 
EPA were to more severely restrict the number of studies it 
relies on to support its decisions regarding environmental 
standards, regulations, and risk assessments. However, if EPA 
were to continue its recent practice of relying on roughly 
50,000 studies each year, the costs to implement H.R. 4012 
would be much higher.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susanne S. 
Mehlman. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                     XV. Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                     XVI. Compliance With H. Res. 5

    A. Directed Rule Making. The bill does not direct any 
executive branch official to conduct any specific rule-making 
proceedings.
    B. Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

               XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

               XVIII. Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                    XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    This section establishes the short title of the Act as the 
``Secret Science Reform Act of 2014.''

Section 2. Data transparency

    Section 2 amends the Environmental Research, Development, 
and Demonstration Authorization Act to:
    (1) Prohibit the Administrator of EPA from finalizing, 
proposing, or disseminating a covered action unless all 
scientific and technical information relied on to support the 
covered action is:
          a. Specifically identified, and
          b. Publicly available in a manner that is sufficient 
        for independent analysis and substantial reproduction 
        of research results.
    (2) Clarify that nothing in the section shall be construed 
as requiring public dissemination of information, the 
disclosure of which is prohibited by law.
    (3) Define ``covered action'' to mean a risk, exposure, or 
hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, 
regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance. The 
section defines ``scientific and technical information'' to 
include materials, data, and associated protocols necessary to 
understand, assess, and extend conclusions, computer codes and 
models involved in the creation and analysis of information, 
recorded factual materials, and detailed descriptions of how to 
assess and use such information.

       XX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION AUTHORIZATION 
ACT OF 1978

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 6. (a) * * *
  [(b) The Administrator, after consultation with the Science 
Advisory Board, shall submit to the President and the Congress 
a report concerning the desirability and feasibility of 
establishing a national environmental laboratory, or a system 
of such laboratories, to assume or supplement the long-term 
environmental research functions created by subsection (a) of 
this section. Such report shall be submitted on or before March 
31, 1978, and shall include findings and recommendations 
concerning--
          [(1) specific types of research to be carried out by 
        such laboratory or laboratories;
          [(2) the coordination and integration of research to 
        be conducted by such laboratory or laboratories with 
        research conducted by existing Federal or other 
        research facilities;
          [(3) methods for assuring continuing long-range 
        funding for such laboratory or laboratories; and
          [(4) other administrative or legislative actions 
        necessary to facilitate the establishment of such 
        laboratory or laboratories.]
  (b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or 
disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and 
technical information relied on to support such covered action 
is--
          (A) specifically identified; and
          (B) publicly available in a manner that is sufficient 
        for independent analysis and substantial reproduction 
        of research results.
  (2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as requiring 
the public dissemination of information the disclosure of which 
is prohibited by law.
  (3) In this subsection--
          (A) the term ``covered action'' means a risk, 
        exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, 
        standard, limitation, regulation, regulatory impact 
        analysis, or guidance; and
          (B) the term ``scientific and technical information'' 
        includes--
                  (i) materials, data, and associated protocols 
                necessary to understand, assess, and extend 
                conclusions;
                  (ii) computer codes and models involved in 
                the creation and analysis of such information;
                  (iii) recorded factual materials; and
                  (iv) detailed descriptions of how to access 
                and use such information.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 
                 XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE


 
                          MARKUP ON H.R. 4012,


 
                   SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2014

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, June 24, 2014

                  House of Representatives,
        Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
                                           Washington, D.C.


    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recesses of the Committee at any time. Pursuant to Committee 
Rule 2(f) and House Rule XI(2)(h)(4), the Chair announces that 
he may postpone roll call votes.
    Let me recognize myself for an opening statement and then I 
will recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, from Texas.
    Today, we will consider H.R. 4012, the Secret Science 
Reform Act of 2014, offered by Environment Subcommittee 
Chairman David Schweikert. H.R. 4012 is a short, common sense 
bill. It requires that the Environmental Protection Agency base 
its regulations on data that is made public. The American 
people foot the bill for the EPA's billion-dollar regulations 
and they have the right to see the underlying data.
    The EPA's regulatory process is both hidden and flawed. It 
hides the data and then handpicks scientists to review it. 
Unfortunately, the EPA continues to resist basic 
accountability. Every major air quality regulation proposed by 
this Administration has been justified by nontransparent data 
and unverifiable claims. This includes the recent plan to 
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. 
This proposal will result in the loss of thousands of jobs and 
spike electricity costs, all for no discernible effect on 
global temperatures. Upcoming ozone standards, which even the 
Administration admits will be the most expensive in history, 
also rely on hidden data.
    The EPA clearly sees transparency and accountability as a 
threat. Speaking before the National Academy of Sciences two 
months ago, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that her 
Agency needed to protect the science ``from those not qualified 
to analyze it.'' Aside from the arrogance that is indicative of 
the EPA, Administrator McCarthy herself testified to this 
committee that the information should be available for 
independent review and verification. The American people are 
still waiting.
    If the EPA has nothing to hide, and if their data really 
justifies their regulations, why not make the information 
public? Is it because the EPA knows the data will not justify 
their regulations?
    The bill we consider today reforms EPA's regulatory process 
and is consistent with the data access requirements of major 
scientific journals, the White House Scientific Integrity 
Policy, and the recommendations of independent groups like the 
Administrative Conference of the United States and the 
Bipartisan Policy Center.
    A 2013 poll from the Institute for Energy Research found 
that 90 percent of Americans agree that studies and data used 
to make Federal Government decisions should be made public. 
There also is substantial support for this bill from the 
scientific and business communities. From deans of major 
universities to former EPA scientists to the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, dozens of experts and organizations support the 
provisions of this bill.
    A letter from more than 80 scientists and academics stated, 
``Complying with H.R. 4012 can be accomplished without imposing 
unnecessary burdens, discouraging research, or raising 
confidentiality concerns.''
    The principles behind the bill also have been supported by 
top officials in the self-described ``most transparent 
Administration in history.'' The President's own Science 
Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, testified in this room that 
``absolutely, the data on which regulatory decisions are based 
should be made available to the Committee and should be made 
public.'' The Chair of EPA's independent Science Advisory Board 
echoed that sentiment a few months later.
    The Secret Science Reform Act does not require any 
disclosure of confidential information. It would only prohibit 
EPA's use of secret science. Data sharing is becoming 
increasingly common across scientific disciplines. The 
legislation requires that EPA science be available for 
validation and replication.
    Americans impacted by EPA regulations have a right to see 
the data and determine for themselves if the Agency's actions 
are based on sound science or a partisan agenda. This bill 
ensures transparency and accountability. The American people 
deserve the facts and so does good policy.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith

    Good morning. Today we will consider H.R. 4012, the Secret Science 
Reform Act of 2014, offered by Environment Subcommittee Chairman 
Schweikert.
    H.R. 4012 is a short, common-sense bill. It requires that the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) base its regulations on data that 
is made public. The American people foot the bill for the EPA's billion 
dollar regulations and they have the right to see the underlying data.
    The EPA's regulatory process is both hidden and flawed. It hides 
the data and then handpicks scientists to review it. Unfortunately, the 
EPA continues to resist basic accountability. Every major air quality 
regulation proposed by this Administration has been justified by 
nontransparent data and unverifiable claims.
    This includes the recent plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions 
from existing power plants. This proposal will result in the loss of 
thousands of jobs and spike electricity costs, all for no discernible 
effect on global temperatures. Upcoming ozone standards--which even the 
Administration admits will be the most expensive in history--also rely 
on hidden data.
    The EPA clearly sees transparency and accountability as a threat. 
Speaking before the National Academy of Sciences two months ago, EPA 
Administrator Gina McCarthy said that her Agency needed to protect the 
science ``from those not qualified to analyze it.''
    Aside from the arrogance that is indicative of the EPA, 
Administrator McCarthy herself testified to this committee that the 
information should be available for independent review and 
verification. The American people are still waiting.
    If the EPA has nothing to hide, and if their data really justifies 
their regulations, why not make the information public? Is it because 
the EPA knows the data won't justify their regulations?
    The bill we consider today reforms EPA's regulatory process and is 
consistent with the data access requirements of major scientific 
journals, the White House Scientific Integrity Policy, and the 
recommendations of independent groups like the Administrative 
Conference of the U.S. and the Bipartisan Policy Center.
    A 2013 poll from the Institute for Energy Research found that 90 
percent of Americans agree that studies and data used to make federal 
government decisions should be made public. There also is substantial 
support for this bill from the scientific and business communities. 
From deans of major universities to former EPA scientists to the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, dozens of experts and organizations support the 
provisions of this bill.
    A letter from more than 80 scientists and academics stated, 
``Complying with H.R. 4012 can be accomplished without imposing 
unnecessary burdens, discouraging research, or raising confidentiality 
concerns.''
    The principles behind the bill also have been supported by top 
officials in the self-described ``most transparent Administration in 
history.'' The President's own Science Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, 
testified in this room that ``absolutely, the data on which regulatory 
decisions.are based should be made available to the Committee and 
should be made public.'' The Chair of EPA's independent Science 
Advisory Board echoed that sentiment a few months later.
    The Secret Science Reform Act does not require any disclosure of 
confidential information. It would only prohibit EPA's use of secret 
science. Data sharing is becoming increasingly common across scientific 
disciplines. The legislation requires that EPA science be available for 
validation and replication.
    Americans impacted by EPA regulations have a right to see the data 
and determine for themselves if the agency's actions are based on sound 
science or a partisan agenda. This bill ensures transparency and 
accountability.
    The American people deserve the facts. And so does good policy.

    Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, but 
before the gentlewoman from Texas I would like to enter into 
the record the following letters in support of H.R. 4012: a 
letter to the Committee from over 80 scientists and experts; a 
letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest 
business federation; a letter from other 30 trade associations; 
a letter from the Dean of Indiana University and the former 
head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Dr. 
John Graham; a letter from Dr. McClellan, former Chairman of 
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; and particularly 
persuasive is an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal on the 
subject of the EPA's data, which I happened to write. Without 
objection, those documents will be made a part of the record.
    [The information appears in Appendix II]
    Chairman Smith. And at this point I will recognize the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, the Ranking Member of this 
committee.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Today, the Committee is marking up H.R. 4012, the Secret 
Science Reform Act of 2014. It is my opinion that this bill is 
an insidious attack on the EPA's ability to use the best 
science to protect public health, and this markup is a 
culmination of one of the most anti-science and anti-health 
campaigns in the history of this esteemed committee.
    The genesis of this legislation is the majority's long-
standing obsession with two seminal scientific studies 
conducted by Harvard University and the American Cancer 
Society, which linked increasing air pollution with death and 
disease. The majority has harassed EPA for more than two years 
in an attempt to get access to the raw data used in these 
studies. Since these studies involve hundreds of thousands of 
human volunteers who submitted sensitive personal health 
information to the researchers, the raw data is stringently 
protected from public disclosure. The EPA explained this to the 
Chairman, but he nonetheless issued a subpoena to the EPA 
Administrator to turn over data that the EPA has no legal right 
to access and for which there are strict legal prohibitions 
against public disclosure.
    The majority's solution to this problem, a problem of their 
own creation, is H.R. 4012. Rather than explain the problems 
with this legislation myself, I will simply quote from a letter 
we received from the American Lung Association and the American 
Thoracic Society, two leading, trusted public health 
organizations. They state, ``The legislation before the 
Committee will compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
to either ignore the best science by prohibiting the Agency 
from considering peer-reviewed research that is based on 
confidential patient information or force EPA to publicly 
release confidential patient information, which would violate 
Federal law.'' This is an untenable outcome that would 
completely undermine the ability of the EPA to perform its 
responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and a myriad of other 
Federal laws. The legislation will not improve EPA's actions; 
rather, it will stifle public health protections.
    I also want to take a moment to comment on the process that 
led us to where we are today. In the formulation of both the 
EPA's subpoena and the legislation before us, the majority has 
shown a disturbing pattern of relying upon the advice of 
researchers and other individuals with strong financial ties to 
the tobacco industry. When the Committee met in August to 
authorize subpoenas to obtain the data from Harvard and the 
Cancer Society studies, we questioned what legitimate 
researchers didn't already have access to the data.
    The Chairman named Dr. James Enstrom as someone who didn't 
have access to the data and apparently someone to whom the 
Chair intended to provide the data. As I have noted in the 
letters to the Chairman, Dr. Enstrom has a long history of ties 
to the tobacco industry that includes receiving research 
funding from and performing consultant work for tobacco 
companies. When the majority had their legislative hearing on 
this bill, they called three witnesses to testify all of whom 
had past financial connections to the tobacco industry. In 
fact, the only scientist who was called by the majority to 
testify had an extensive history of tobacco industry research 
funding and consulting work.
    This should be profoundly disturbing to the members of this 
committee. The tobacco industry was a responsible--was 
responsible for perpetuating or perpetrating one of the 
greatest scientific frauds in history on the American people. 
They committed this fraud to subvert and delay the imposition 
of health regulations on their industry. As a consequence of 
the delayed implementation of tobacco regulations, millions of 
people needlessly suffered and died. It defies logic that the 
majority would be relying on these people to justify their 
bill.
    On the other hand, a diverse set of voices from the 
scientific, public health, legal, and environmental communities 
have criticized this legislation. We have received letters or 
statements expressing concern with the bill from the American 
Association for Advancement of Science, the American Lung 
Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American 
Association for Justice, the Center for Effective Government, 
the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, Clean Water Action, Earth Justice, 
Environmental America, and the Environmental Defense Fund, 
Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra 
Club, the Center for Progressive Reform, and I will ask that 
these letters be placed in the record.
    Chairman Smith. Without objection.
    [The information appears in Appendix II]
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    To close, when the Committee of Science has taken its cues 
from people tied to the tobacco industry instead of from 
legitimate scientists and public health professionals, then 
something is profoundly wrong. Whatever views my fellow Members 
may have about specific EPA rules and regulations, I would hope 
that they will see this bill for what it is, a pernicious 
assault on EPA's ability to use the best science to protect 
public health. It is a bill that diminishes our committee by 
the very fact that we are marking it up today. I strongly urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this 
legislation. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson

    Thank you Chairman Smith. Today the Committee is marking up H.R. 
4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014. This bill is an insidious 
attack on the EPA's ability to use the best science to protect public 
health, and this markup is the culmination of one of the most anti-
science and anti-health campaigns in the history of this esteemed 
Committee.
    The genesis of this legislation is the Majority's longstanding 
obsession with two seminal scientific studies conducted by Harvard 
University and the American Cancer Society which linked increasing air 
pollution with death and disease. The Majority has harassed the EPA for 
more than two years in an attempt to get access to the raw data used in 
those studies.
    Since those studies involved hundreds of thousands of human 
volunteers who submitted sensitive personal health information to the 
researchers, the raw data is stringently protected from public 
disclosure.
    The EPA explained this to the Chairman, but he nonetheless issued a 
subpoena to the EPA Administrator to turn over data that the EPA had no 
legal right to access and for which there are strict legal prohibitions 
against public disclosure.
    The Majority's solution to this ``problem''--a problem of their own 
creation--is H.R. 4012. Rather than explain the problems with this 
legislation myself, I will simply quote from a letter we received from 
the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, two 
leading and trusted public health organizations. They state:

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

    I also want to take a moment to comment on the process that led us 
to where we are today. In the formulation of both the EPA subpoena and 
the legislation before us, the Majority has shown a disturbing pattern 
of relying upon the advice of researchers and other individuals with 
strong financial ties to the tobacco industry. When the Committee met 
in August to authorize subpoenas to obtain the data from the Harvard 
and Cancer Society studies, we questioned what legitimate researchers 
didn't already have access to the data. The Chairman named Dr. James 
Enstrom as someone who didn't have access to the data, and, apparently, 
someone to whom the Chair intended to provide the data.
    As I've noted in letters to the Chairman, Dr. Enstrom has a long 
history of ties to the tobacco industry that include receiving research 
funding from and performing consulting work for tobacco companies. When 
the Majority had their legislative hearing on this bill, they called 
three witnesses to testify, all of whom had past financial connections 
to the tobacco industry. In fact, the only scientist who was called by 
the Majority to testify had an extensive history of tobacco industry 
research funding and consulting work.
    This should be profoundly disturbing to the Members of this 
Committee.
    The tobacco industry was responsible for perpetrating one of the 
greatest scientific frauds in history on the American people. They 
committed this fraud to subvert and delay the imposition of health 
regulations on their industry. As a consequence of the delayed 
implementation of tobacco regulations, millions of people needlessly 
suffered and died. It defies logic that the Majority would be relying 
on these people to justify their bill.
    On the other hand, a diverse set of voices from the scientific, 
public health, legal, and environmental community have criticized this 
legislation.
    We have received letters or statements expressing concern with the 
bill from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the 
American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American 
Association for Justice, the Center for Effective Government, the Union 
of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean 
Water Action, Earthjustice, Environment America, the Environmental 
Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, 
the Sierra Club, and the Center for Progressive Reform, and I'd ask 
that these letters be placed in the record.
    Mr. Chairman, to close, when the Committee on Science is taking its 
cues from folks tied to the tobacco industry instead of from legitimate 
scientists and public health professionals, then something is 
profoundly wrong.
    Whatever views my fellow Members may have about specific EPA rules 
and regulations, I would hope that they will see this bill for what it 
is-a pernicious assault on EPA's ability to use the best science to 
protect public health. It is a bill that diminishes our Committee by 
the very fact that we are marking it up today. I strongly urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation, and I 
yield back.

    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 4012, the Secret 
Science Reform Act of 2014. The clerk will report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 4012, a bill to prohibit the Environmental 
Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating 
regulations or----
    [H.R. 4012 appears in Appendix I]
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill will be 
considered as read.
    If there is no further discussion on the bill, the bill 
will be open to amendment at this point. And we will go to the 
first amendment on our roster, and that is going to be offered 
by the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, and she is 
recognized for that purpose.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
4012, offered by Ms. Bonamici----
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read.
    And the gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized to explain 
her amendment.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment is the Promoting Public Access and 
Transparency Act of 2014. It takes an important step forward to 
increase public access to federally funded research, and unlike 
the base bill we are marking up today, it does so in a way that 
does not risk the health of Americans or the environment.
    Taxpayers support most of the research conducted at our 
universities, and I agree that more can and should be done to 
provide the public with access to the results of that research. 
I was glad to support the bipartisan amendment to the FIRST Act 
offered by my colleagues Mr. Sensenbrenner and Ms. Lofgren to 
require Federal science agencies to develop open access 
policies for publications resulting from federally funded 
research.
    The amendment I am offering today extends the language 
adopted in the FIRST Act to the EPA as well and would require 
the Administrator formulate and implement a public access 
policy to ensure that the American people have access to the 
research papers resulting from EPA-sponsored work. The 
amendment contains specific provisions that set up the 
structure for public access policy including provisions that 
address metadata, electronic access, repositories, stakeholder 
coordination, and a process to petition for modification of the 
embargo period if doing so would be in the public interest. And 
importantly, unlike in the base bill, relevant terms are 
defined. This amendment ensures that the best available science 
is considered by the EPA while also continuing to protect 
patient privacy and confidentiality.
    Many have raised concerns that, as written, the underlying 
bill will result in certain scientific research being ignored 
by the EPA because of the need to protect patient privacy and 
confidentiality. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I, along with 
much of the scientific community, are concerned that the 
underlying bill before us today will undermine EPA's ability to 
fulfill its mission to protect human health and the 
environment.
    As the Ranking Member noted, we have received letters of 
opposition from, among others, the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, the American Lung Association, the 
Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Center for Progressive 
Reform, which is a group of environmental and administrative 
law professors.
    Additionally, on this committee we have heard at length 
about concerns with the so-called secret science, but those 
concerns expressed to date ignore the fact that often 
transparency is lacking when it comes to disclosing the source 
of research for--funding for research. Now, I am not suggesting 
that industry-funded research is bad, only that it should be 
subjected to the same transparency and accountability as 
federally sponsored research. This underlying bill treats them 
differently. My amendment would address this issue by requiring 
that the EPA only consider peer-reviewed research results and 
scholarly publications that disclose the entity that funded the 
research.
    Mr. Chairman, my amendment achieves the transparency and 
accountability that is the stated rationale for the bill before 
us today and it does so in a way that preserves the EPA's 
ability to make use of the best science available and serve its 
mission of protecting public health. I urge Members to support 
this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. And the gentleman 
from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, the author of this bill, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And to my friend, the gentlewoman from Oregon, there are 
probably three things here that are problematic. I am not going 
to UC it or do a procedural objection--but the amendment is 
actually multiple times larger than the underlying bill and has 
some germaneness issues. But if you actually read through the 
amendment and walk through the mechanics, it actually creates 
significant loopholes to avoid actually what we are trying to 
accomplish.
    There is also another thematic problem because have you 
ever had one of these discussions--and this is--I am not 
picking on anyone, but you sort of feel like you are in 
parallel universes where, for those of us who have been working 
on this bill for a while, we are seeing this sort of 
egalitarian access to information that I don't think favors the 
right, the left, the universities, the private academician, the 
person with a good computer in their basement that likes to do 
statistics. It is information. And if you can do public policy, 
it should be by public data and public data for public policy 
and this ability to try to argue to gain the data.
    There is also something I think is a misnomer and I really 
do want to correct it. If the bureaucracy--if the EPA actually 
reaches out and uses industry data in creation of their rule 
set, they need to disclose those data sets. So it may happen 
one day that there is a President of a different party and it 
would be amusing to see if the arguments in this room all of a 
sudden, because of that partisan change, the arguments flip 
upside down and go the other direction.
    It is public data to make public policy. And if you are 
going to have a public policy, don't we all, every single 
person in this room, every person on this committee, and our 
constituents have the right to those underlying data sets?
    The very last thing, I am almost embarrassed to hear 
someone use the language of, well, this is secret, personal 
data. Come on. And tell me every agency out there, there are 
protocols. So if that argument is going to be used, should the 
Census Bureau, should the CFPB, should the, you know, the 
universities, should--I mean every agency out there collects 
very personal data on us. There is mechanisms that have been 
around since time immemorial to blind data. I remember being in 
a freshman stats class and we were instructed on how to blind 
data. It is an absurd argument.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert. Are there other 
Members who wish to be heard?
    The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
strike the last word.
    Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
    I want to commend Ms. Bonamici for her amendment. The 
gentlelady's amendment takes a commonsense approach to 
increased public access to federally funded research results at 
EPA.
    As my colleagues are aware, in 2010 COMPETES bill, former 
Chairman Gordon set into motion an interagency process for the 
development of public access plans for all of our Federal 
research agencies. Last year, OSTP issued guidance based on 
that process. And last month, the only bipartisan amendment 
adopted by the part of the FIRST Act codified OSTP's guidance 
and the development of open-access policies in a number of 
agencies within the Committee's jurisdiction.
    Ms. Bonamici's amendment rightfully extends that policy to 
EPA. This is the right approach to increasing transparency and 
public access at the Agency. It does not take the reckless 
approach of the underlying bill, which keeps EPA from using the 
best science available to inform their regulatory process.
    The amendment also does not ignore the fact that we need to 
address the issue of transparency as it relates to industry-
funded research. The underlying bill is in effect a witch-hunt 
for Members of the other side of the aisle to force EPA to 
disclose data that is strictly protected by the law to ensure 
patient confidentiality. If the majority wants to pursue 
legitimate efforts to increase public access to federally 
funded research, then they will support the adoption of this 
amendment.
    The gentlelady's amendment ensures that EPA can fulfill 
their mission by protecting public health and the environment 
while also increasing public access to research results 
supported by the Agency. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
    Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Bucshon, is recognized.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
strike the last word.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Transparency and reproducibility are basic 
tenets of science. I am a medical doctor, practicing 
cardiothoracic surgery for over 15 years, and written multiple 
medical journals that have grouped patient information that 
protects the privacy of the individual patient. So hiding 
behind regulations like HIPAA law and saying that this 
information can't be used in a fashion that can protect patient 
privacy just isn't true.
    Costly environmental regulations should only based upon 
data that is available to independent scientists and the 
public. H.R. 4012 makes very clear that no protected 
information will be disclosed and any confidential information 
can easily be coded through existing statistical methods. Dr. 
John Graham, Dean of the Indiana University School of Public 
and Environmental Affairs, stated in testimony supporting the 
bill in February 2014 that ``once environmental scientists have 
published their work in the peer-reviewed scientific community 
is already common practice for them to share their data with 
other scientists who have an interest in their research.''
    This committee has also received significant testimony from 
respected experts that the provisions of H.R. 4012 would not 
raise confidentiality issues. For this reason, I would ask my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon.
    If there is no further discussion, the question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms. 
Bonamici.
    All in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    We will now go to the next amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and he is recognized 
for that purpose.
    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Smith. The clerk will read the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4012 offered by Mr. Kennedy of 
Massachusetts, amendment #003.
    Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read.
    And the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, is 
recognized to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, today we have heard a bit about the 
importance of scientific integrity and transparency, and I want 
to agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and say 
that that is two fundamental principles with which I could not 
agree more.
    However, I am concerned that the bill before us today 
doesn't achieve those goals and instead puts our country at 
greater risk of not being able to use the best available, most 
up-to-date science to protect our health and public safety. 
Currently, the EPA incorporates science in the regulatory 
process through a number of procedures, including extensive 
outside peer-reviewed prior to consideration of the Agency's 
internal process. Prior to any action, the EPA must go through 
an extensive rulemaking process that incorporates printing all 
relevant information in a Federal Register, which is publicly 
available, a draft rule, a public comment period, responding to 
those public comments, and then issuing a final rule, a process 
that takes considerable amount of time with extensive input 
from interested parties.
    Last, as the majority indicated in a memorandum of today's 
markup, all Federal agencies that support scientific research 
are already under direction by the President and the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy to make said research publicly 
available where appropriate, include data and models used to 
support the science. The EPA is currently in the process of 
developing its own public access policy consistent with OSTP.
    Unfortunately, I am concerned that the underlying bill only 
creates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and actually prohibits 
the EPA from using sound science. It creates confusing and 
likely unworkable requirements limiting the scientific research 
that can be used unless it can be publicly accessible. The EPA 
relies on science that often includes personally identifiable 
information which cannot simply be made public--excuse me--
publicly available due to privacy concerns, which is why EPA 
already has important peer-reviewed standards in place as 
previously supported independent analyses of studies in 
accordance with privacy protections set forth by law.
    In this committee, we have talked about the importance of 
the Federal Government protecting private information. I cannot 
support an effort to either require the EPA to disclose 
protected health information or simply not use it. My amendment 
upholds the high standards set by the EPA using the latest, 
most up-to-date science. It prohibits EPA from proposing, 
finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all 
science and technical information is specifically identified, 
requiring the EPA to identify the science being used to engage 
in any regulatory action. It ensures we--excuse me--you base 
regulations on sound science and allows EPA to continue their 
efforts to make all information publicly available, as 
applicable by law in coordination with the OSTP directive.
    Mr. Chairman, specifically, the amendment basically--if you 
look to the text, it strikes--on page 2, lines 10 through 15, 
it puts in that--it leads in Subsection A and it says that has 
to be specifically identified. I am concerned that the language 
of actually--I take--my colleague's comments on the last 
amendment are well noted. I am concerned that the way the 
language is actually drafted, it creates a bit of an ambiguity 
saying that the EPA, unless--noting--and from Subsection 2, 
noting that nothing shall be construed as requiring public 
dissemination of information, the disclosure of which is 
prohibited by law. If there is private information there that 
the EPA cannot disclose by law, then they cannot actually 
implement the regulation because of Subsection B. And what I am 
basically saying is take out that ambiguity, keep in the 
specifically identified so that we know what the research 
actually is so that there is accountability, but to try to 
remove that ambiguity of creating a requirement that the EPA 
cannot comply with under law. That is essentially what we are 
trying to do is just simplify the regulation.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
    The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, is recognized.
    Mr. Schweikert. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Strike the 
last word.
    To my friend from Massachusetts who has actually been very 
kind to my office, and if anyone wants to know the story, I 
will tell you later----
    Mr. Kennedy. Please don't.
    Mr. Schweikert. Please don't. Actually, I appreciate the 
explanation because reading over the amendment I am not sure 
your language actually gets you to where you want. There is 
actually lots and lots--I mean already in protocols--actually 
it is already an order from the Administration to do this and 
we will put that into the record a little bit later.
    If we are blessed enough or I am blessed enough to have 
this bill move towards the Floor, I will work with you on this 
because maybe there is a sentence I can make crisper, but 
having been around this sort of for a while, I don't think your 
amendment gets you to where you want because what we are all 
talking about here is in large data sets you are going to have 
these occasions where you get down to either the data 
identifies one because you have someone who is out in the tail, 
you know, is the one outlier, and that becomes an ability to 
identify the individual or clusters of particular difficulties 
down to being able to identify those individuals. There are 
protocols all up and down our government that blinds that data, 
and I think that is what you are after is I never wanted 
something personally identifying of an individual, right?
    I don't think your amendment gets you there, but if we move 
forward on this, I promise you we will work on--because I think 
we can just capture some language that has already been 
proposed both--actually, it has already been--it is not 
proposed; it is the rules given out from the Administration to 
all agencies. It is just not being carried out right now at the 
EPA.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert.
    Let me ask the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, do you all want to continue this discussion 
between now and the next step for this bill or, Mr. Kennedy, do 
you want to proceed without prejudice to have a vote on your 
amendment?
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard. I move 
to strike the last word before we vote on the amendment.
    Chairman Smith. Okay. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Grayson, is recognized.
    Mr. Grayson. Thank you.
    As I read this and in connection with the Kennedy 
amendment, I am concerned about one particular scenario, which 
is this: Let's say that the EPA relies upon a published report 
in Nature based upon a Harvard study and it is--obviously 
Nature is a reputable journal. There is no reason to think that 
it is unreliable information, but it simply is whatever 15 
pages of data is put in the journal. In that situation, EPA 
would have no access to the underlying data. Harvard is under 
no obligation to provide that information even to Nature, much 
less to the EPA, and if I read this bill correctly, without the 
Kennedy amendment, this means that in that situation the EPA 
would not be able to go forward with any rule relying upon a 
published Harvard study in the journal Nature. That seems to me 
to be a fatal flaw in this bill.
    And I will yield to anybody who is a proponent of this bill 
to explain why that is not the case.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to strike 
the last word.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Posey. I would like to yield to Congressman Schweikert.
    Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
    Two points, go grab your copy of Nature right now and go 
into the front section and look at the data release 
requirements for peer-review there. Actually--and also in 
Scientific America, Science, they actually, as part of their 
language and standards--where do you think some of this 
language came from? Go look at Nature and Scientific America 
and in their data release discussions in their peer-reviewed 
publications, that is where this came from.
    Also, remember, because we have already heard the misnomer 
twice now and I want to clear it up, if the Agency uses 
industry data in creating a rule set, they need to make that 
base data public. One more time, public policy by public data. 
And maybe because I have a fixation on the crowd having access 
to information, purifying--and also to my friend from Florida, 
you know--and I am not going to refer to the trial bar, but 
whatever side you are on, the ability to get the data and test 
it and merge it with other data, who knows? You may find that 
we are not going far enough. But that data belongs to the 
public.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I actually----
    Mr. Schweikert. I will give it to Mr. Posey.
    Mr. Grayson. --had not used to my time up and I would like 
to reclaim my time.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Florida continues to 
have the time.
    Mr. Grayson. Thank you. Listen, I don't find that answer, 
with all due respect, satisfying. I think that what you are 
doing as you are tying the hands of the EPA based upon what you 
claim to be are provisions in Nature's own internal policies, 
which may not be true. As far as I know, they are not true, 
respectfully, and even if they were true, could change 
tomorrow. So you are basically making the EPA's rulemaking 
ability contingent upon the policies adopted by scientific 
journals and I think that that is completely unacceptable.
    I will yield to whoever wants to respond to that if you 
want or I will just yield back my time.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman yields back his time.
    Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on this 
amendment?
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Swalwell. And, Mr. Chairman, I do have some questions 
for the Chair that I would be happy to yield to. And as the 
Chair knows, when Congress enacted HIPAA, it required the 
Secretary of HHS to issue regulations governing the use and 
disclosure of protected health information. This privacy rule 
which we are referring to insures that an individual's medical 
condition as well as their Social Security number and other 
personal identifiable information are protected and only shared 
in a limited and specific way. And one of my concerns and one 
of the concerns that has been expressed by my colleagues 
particularly from Oregon and Massachusetts is that this could 
require the researchers to violate the privacy rules.
    And so my question, Mr. Chair, is that it sounds like this 
legislation and the Chair would be requiring researchers and 
the EPA to violate HIPAA by putting the underlying data up on 
the internet. And I was wondering if that is the case.
    Chairman Smith. Let me respond real quickly and then I can 
yield to Mr. Schweikert if he wants to add more than he has, 
but I think you have been particularly articulate on the 
subject.
    On page 2 of the bill you have got Section 2, ``Nothing in 
this subsection shall be construed as requiring the public 
dissemination of information, the disclosure of which is 
prohibited by law.'' So the law that you referred to yourself a 
minute ago would prohibit the disclosure of the information you 
are concerned about. And again, that is the whole purpose of 
the bill and that is what the gentleman from Arizona has 
recognized as well.
    Mr. Swalwell. And reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair, then is it 
the Chair's position that the EPA can only rely on research 
results where the underlying data is publicly available as a 
part of its rulemaking?
    Chairman Smith. I think the--I don't want to----
    Mr. Swalwell. And yielding back.
    Chairman Smith. Okay. The gentleman will yield. And I will 
be happy to yield to the gentleman from Arizona. But the point 
of the bill is actually full disclosure of data sets that the 
EPA is now not willing to be made public. And there is good 
reason for that, as has already been explained, and I am kind 
of amazed that anybody would object to the full disclosure of 
that data. As I mentioned in my opening statement, you have the 
Administrator of the EPA herself testifying on this room that 
that data should be made public. You have got the Science 
Advisor to the President testifying in this room that that data 
should be made public. So I am happy to follow their good 
suggestions.
    Mr. Swalwell. And reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair, how would 
the Chair respectfully envision the EPA complying with this 
disclosure without violating patient privacy and 
confidentiality?
    And I would yield again.
    Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you for yielding again.
    That is kind of self-explanatory I think. The way for the 
EPA to comply without violating the law is to comply without 
violating the law. And that is what the bill does.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And reclaiming my time, my fear again is that the 
underlying or raw data that the Chair and this legislation are 
seeking to obtain from the Harvard Six studies and the American 
Cancer Society studies through EPA include what we believe are 
protected health information. And because we have not been 
successful--because my colleagues across the aisle have not 
been successful in obtaining that information because it is 
protected by privacy and confidentiality laws, instead we are 
pushing it through with this bill, which would effectively tie 
the hands of the EPA and threaten public health and privacy.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I would thank you for responding 
to my questions and I would yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell.
    Are there other Members who wish to be heard on this 
amendment?
    And the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I have some related questions regarding the 
effect the bill would have on previous actions taken by the 
EPA. Now, the bill says the EPA cannot propose or finalize a 
covered action unless all the scientific information the action 
is based on is publicly available in a manner that is 
sufficient for independent analysis and substantial 
reproduction of results. But it also says the Administrator 
cannot disseminate a covered action like guidance unless the 
scientific information is also publicly available.
    Now, here is the question. It seems to me that the language 
suggests the legislation is retroactive, which--in which case 
it would impact----
    Chairman Smith. If the gentlewoman would yield, the bill is 
not retroactive.
    Ms. Lofgren. It is not retroactive?
    Chairman Smith. That is correct.
    Ms. Lofgren. All right. Then that does answer my question. 
But it is not clear in the language of the bill that that is 
the case, so I think, knowing how dismissive courts are to 
legislative history, I think it would be an important component 
to make sure that in the bill itself it is clear that it is 
prospective.
    Chairman Smith. If the gentlewoman would yield, if we need 
to clarify that language, we will do so because that is the----
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. That is the intent.
    The gentlewoman yield back.
    The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And certainly this discussion today, as well as the letters 
we have received, raises a lot of concerns about how this bill 
would be implemented and interpreted. And I note that when we 
did have a hearing on the bill, we did not have anyone from the 
EPA to talk about how it would be implemented and interpreted. 
And I know a lot of the question and concern is about the 
substantial reproduction language and I want to yield the 
balance of my five minutes to the gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Grayson. Thank you. Our illustrious staff actually has 
come up with the restrictions regarding the availability of 
data from Nature itself. Thank you very much, staff, for doing 
that.
    What it says is that the authors are allowed to qualify the 
availability of material to the public as long as the 
qualification is not ``undue'' and as long as they disclose 
that at the time of the submission and indicate it in the 
manuscript. So clearly under those circumstances it is true 
that the authors of a paper Nature like, for instance, a 
Harvard study would be able to withhold information from 
Nature, from the readers, from the EPA while still being able 
to publish it in Nature.
    The result of that, including the fact that although EPA 
might conceivably have access to such information under some 
circumstances under no existing duty to actually get it means 
that we are holding the regulatory process at EPA hostage to 
whether or not individual authors of individual studies that 
deign to allow the public as well as the EPA to get the 
information that is required here as well as having the EPA 
actually ask for it. That seems to me to be essentially 
hogtying the regulatory process and making it impossible for 
EPA to function in any practical way.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. 
Grayson.
    Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the Kennedy 
amendment?
    The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to commend Mr. Kennedy for this amendment and 
simply say that the gentleman's amendment ensures that EPA is 
able to consider the best available science during its 
rulemaking process and the bill language the amendment removes 
is an attempt to constrain the EPA in the guise of promoting 
transparency. Perhaps the only transparent part of this bill is 
its intent, and that is to stop EPA from taking any action to 
protect the health of the American people.
    As written in this section, it ensures that EPA and the 
American people will not be able to use the best science to 
protect the air they breathe and the water they drink. The EPA 
relies on peer-reviewed scientific research from our 
universities as the backbone of their mission to protect public 
health and the environment. Studies containing public health 
information would not satisfy the requirements of this bill, 
eliminating significant scientific research from EPA 
consideration. For example, this bill would prevent EPA from 
establishing a drinking water standard or health advisory based 
on clinical research where the study is not reproducible 
because of restrictions on confidential patient information.
    Limiting or prohibiting what science EPA uses should not be 
a consequence of this bill, unintended or otherwise. The 
gentleman's amendment safeguards EPA's ability to fulfill its 
mission without needless restrictions. I urge my colleagues to 
support this commonsense amendment. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    If there is no further discussion, the vote is on the 
Kennedy amendment.
    All in favor, say aye.
    I thought someone was seeking recognition. That was the 
reason for my hesitancy.
    If not, the vote is on the Kennedy amendment.
    All in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, nay.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments?
    If not, the next item of business is reporting the bill, 
H.R. 4012.
    And the question is on the bill, H.R. 4012.
    Those in favor, say aye.
    Ms. Johnson. I would like a recorded vote.
    Chairman Smith. And that request has been noted. And 
pursuant to Committee Rule 2(f) and House Rule 11(2)(h)(4), 
proceedings on this vote will be postponed.
    And let me explain what we are going to do. We had a number 
of requests from Members because there were so many conflicts 
this morning as to what time we might expect votes. The best 
estimate we had is at 11:45, so if Members will return in 30 
minutes, we will have our final vote on passage of the bill.
    Oh, I am sorry. It is an hour from now, not 30 minutes from 
now. It will be 11:45. We will return to the room and have a 
vote on passage of the bill. We stand in recess until that 
time.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Smith. Are you ready? The Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee will reconvene. Pursuant to the previous 
order, we will now proceed on the postponed roll call vote. And 
the question is on the bill H.R. 4012.
    And the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
    Mr. McCaul?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun?
    Mr. Broun. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes aye.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes aye.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stockman votes aye.
    Mr. Posey?
    Mr. Posey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes aye.
    Mrs. Lummis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schweikert?
    Mr. Schweikert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schweikert votes aye.
    Mr. Massie?
    Mr. Massie. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Massey votes aye.
    Mr. Cramer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bridenstine?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weber?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Collins?
    Mr. Collins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Collins votes aye.
    Mr. Johnson?
    Mr. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
    Ms. Edwards?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici?
    Ms. Bonamici. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes no.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Maffei?
    Mr. Maffei. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Maffei votes no.
    Mr. Grayson?
    Mr. Grayson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes no.
    Mr. Kennedy?
    Mr. Kennedy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy votes no.
    Mr. Peters?
    Mr. Peters. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Peters votes no.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bera?
    Mr. Bera. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes no.
    Ms. Esty?
    Ms. Esty. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes no.
    Mr. Veasey?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brownley?
    Ms. Brownley. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brownley votes no.
    Ms. Kelly?
    Ms. Kelly. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Kelly votes no.
    Ms. Clark?
    Ms. Clark. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Clark votes no.
    Chairman Smith. Are there any other Members who wish to 
vote or Members who want to change their vote?
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
    Mr. Kilmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes no.
    Mr. Chairman, 17 Members voted aye, 13 Members voted nay.
    
    
    Chairman Smith. The bill is agreed to.
    And without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid 
upon the table.
    I move that the bill H.R. 4012 be favorably reported to the 
House and the staff be authorized to make any necessary 
technical and conforming changes.
    If there is no further discussion, that completes our 
business and this concludes the full committee markup.
    Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


              H.R. 4012, SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2014

                Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendments

                            Amendment Roster






                     Section-by-Section Analysis of

              H.R. 4012, SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2014

Section 1. Short Title.

    This section establishes the short title of the Act as the ``Secret 
Science Reform Act of 2014.''

Section 2. Data Transparency

    Section 2 amends the Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act to:
      1) Prohibit the Administrator of EPA from finalizing, proposing, 
or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and technical 
information relied on to support the covered action is:

        a. Specifically identified, and

        b. Publically available in a manner that is sufficient for 
independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.

      2) Clarify that nothing in the section shall be construed as 
requiring public dissemination of information, the disclosure of which 
is prohibited by law.

      3) Define ``covered action'' to mean a risk, exposure, or hazard 
assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, regulation, 
regulatory impact analysis, or guidance. The section defines 
``scientific and technical information'' to include materials, data, 
and associated protocols necessary to understand, assess, and extend 
conclusions, computer codes and models involved in the creation and 
analysis of information, recorded factual materials, and detailed 
descriptions of how to assess and use such information.
                            Amendment Roster



                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                    Letters submitted for the record