49–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–34 

SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2015 

MARCH 2, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1030] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 1030) to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or 

reproducible, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 2 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 7 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 7 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 10 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 10 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 11 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 11 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 12 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 12 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 12 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 12 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 12 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 12 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 12 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 13 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported ...................................... 13 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 15 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
2 

1http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/epa lscientificlintegritylpolicyl20120115.pdf. 2http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ruckelshaus-takes-steps-improve-flow-agency-informationfishbowl-policy#memo. 3http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ 

index.cfm? FuseAction= Hearings.Hearing &Hearinglid= d71fd4b6-ce77–3a98–46a0- 

fb02b0cae0ed. 4 Ibid. 

5http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf. 

6http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-andagencies-3-9-09. 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 17 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 1030, the ‘‘Secret Science Reform Act of 

2015,’’ is to ensure the Environmental Protection Agency uses the 

best available science and to prohibit proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support the covered action is specifically identified and publicly available. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Science has been central to EPA’s mission and functions since its 

establishment in 1970. The Agency’s recently-finalized Scientific 

Integrity Policy describes science as ‘‘the backbone of the EPA’s decision-making.’’ 1 Efforts to encourage and guarantee open scientific 

research and assessment at the EPA are based in a number of historical, legal, and administrative origins. 

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. 

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.’’ 5Similarly, 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

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 apVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:16 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR034.XXX HR034

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
3 

7http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scientific-integrity-memo12172010.pdf. 8http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ 

ostplpubliclaccesslmemol2013.pdf. 9http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/epalscientificlintegritylpolicyl20120115.pdf. 10http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/documents/ 

EPAlInfoQualityGuidelines.pdf. 11http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/fedreg/a110-finalnotice.html. 

propriate, this should include data and models underlying regulatory proposals and policy decisions.’’ 7OSTP 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

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

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

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

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 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
4 

numerous EPA regulations. Some outside researchers have sought 

the scientific data behind these regulations and have been denied 

access. The Committee issued a subpoena for the scientific data behind these regulations. EPA ultimately responded that it was unable to provide all of the data but provided what it did have. 

Concerns had initially been raised regarding the ability of EPA 

to release the data that it did have without raising confidentiality 

concerns. However, EPA’s March 7, 2014, final subpoena response 

explained that ‘‘[t]he agency’s efforts ultimately resulted in the 

Centers for Disease Control reaching the conclusion that all of the 

research data could be provided without the need for de-identification.’’ 

EPA further indicated in its response to the Committee, that 

‘‘[a]ny other data . . . . are not (and were not) in the possession, 

custody, or control of the EPA, nor are they within the authority 

to obtain data that the agency identified.’’ EPA acknowledged that 

‘‘the data provided are not sufficient in themselves to replicate the 

analyses in the epidemiological studies, nor would they allow for 

the one to one mapping of each pollutant and ecological variable to 

each subject.’’ Without this scientific information, the public is required to blindly trust the EPA’s scientific findings that are the 

basis of some of the most costly regulations in history. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

In the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee on Environment held 

a hearing on February 11, 2014, focused on ‘‘The Secret Science Reform Act’’ and Ensuring Open Science at EPA. The Subcommittee 

received testimony from expert witnesses, which informed the Committee on the need for improved transparency and reproducibility 

of regulatory science used by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Witnesses were also asked to provide comments on ‘‘The Secret 

Science Reform Act of 2014.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony 

from the Honorable John Graham, Dean, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University; Dr. Louis Anthony Cox, 

Jr., Chief Sciences Officer, Next Health Technologies, Clinical Professor, Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado Health Sciences Center, and President, Cox Associates; Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, Professor, 

Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University; and 

Mr. Raymond Keating, Chief Economist, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. 

On November 14, 2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology held a hearing entitled, Strengthening Transparency 

and Accountability within the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The purpose of this hearing was to review science and technology 

activities at the EPA, including: agency-wide policies and practices 

related to the development and use of science in regulatory decisions; the role of independent scientific advisory bodies such as the 

EPA Science Advisory Board and the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; and the importance of transparency and integrity in the Agency’s science activities. The Committee received testimony from The Honorable Gina McCarthy, the Administrator of 

the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

In the 112th Congress, the Committee held two hearings focused 

on science at the EPA. On November 30, 2011, the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment held a hearing entitled, Fostering 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
5 

Quality Science at EPA: Perspectives on Common Sense Reform. 

The purpose of the hearing was to provide external perspectives on 

the need to reauthorize and reform science, research and development activities at EPA; explore the intersection of Agency-supported science and its regulatory mission; and receive focused recommendations to raise the level, quality, usefulness, and objectivity 

of EPA science, including any necessary changes to the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization 

Act. The subcommittee received testimony from Ms. Susan Dudley, 

Director, Regulatory Studies Center, and Research Professor of 

Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington 

University; Dr. Alan Moghissi, President, Institute for Regulatory 

Science; Dr. Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; and Dr. Gary Marchant, Professor of Law and Executive Director, Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Arizona State 

University. 

On February 3, 2012, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a second hearing to provide external perspectives on the 

need to reauthorize and reform science and research and development activities at the EPA. The Subcommittee received testimony 

from Mr. Daniel Greenbaum, President and Chief Executive Officer, Health Effects Institute; Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, Professor, 

Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota, and 

Chairwoman, EPA Science Advisory Board; Mr. Michael Walls, 

Vice President, Regulatory and Technical Affairs, American Chemistry Council; Dr. Richard Belzer, President, Regulatory Checkbook; Dr. Jerald Schnoor, Allen S. Henry Chair in Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of 

Iowa; and Dr. S. Stanley Young, Assistant Director for 

Bioinformatics, National Institute of Statistical Sciences. 

In the 113th Congress, H.R. 4012, ‘‘The Secret Science Reform 

Act of 2014’’ was passed in the House by a vote of 237 Ayes, 190 

Nays, on November 19, 2014. 

COMMITTEE VIEWS

H.R. 1030, The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, requires that 

the Environmental Protection Agency base its regulations and assessments on the best available science that is publicly available in 

a manner sufficient for independent analysis and scientific replication. This approach to regulatory science is consistent with the 

data access requirements of major scientific journals as well as the 

transparency policy of this Administration. Transparency and reproducibility are basic tenets of science. Costly environmental regulations should only be based upon data that is available to independent scientists and the public. 

This legislation is consistent with the White House’s scientific integrity policy, the President’s Executive Order 13563, data access 

provisions of major scientific journals, and the recommendations of 

the Administration’s top science advisors and the Bipartisan Policy 

Center. In 2012, the President’s Science Advisor testified that ‘‘Absolutely, the data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions 

are based should be made available to the Committee and should 

be made public unless there is a classification reason.’’ Also in 

2012, the Chair of EPA’s Science Advisory Board in response to follow-up questions after a hearing titled Fostering Quality Science at 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
6 

EPA: Need for Common Sense Reform (Day II) stated that EPA’s 

advisors recommend, ‘‘that literature and data used by EPA be 

peer-reviewed and made available to the public. When the SAB 

conducts peer reviews and evaluations, it prefers to review all data 

associated with the document in question. It is my experience that 

EPA makes its best effort to provide all data to the SAB, subject 

to ethical and legal restrictions.’’ 

The Committee received a letter of support from over 80 scientists, academic experts, and former EPA officials for ‘‘The Secret 

Science Reform Act’’ in the 113th Congress. Signatories include Ivy 

League professors, two former chairs of EPA science advisory committees, medical doctors, statisticians, deans of major universities, 

and environmental scientists. This legislation is similar to the data 

access provisions of major scientific journals like Science and Nature, as well as independent research entities like the Health Effects Institute. 

H.R. 1030 makes clear that no protected information will be disclosed. This bill only requires information that is sufficient for 

independent scientists to validate and reproduce the results of this 

regulatory science. The bill does not require the public dissemination of information, the disclosure of which is prohibited by law. To 

this end, the Committee received a letter of support from more 

than 80 scientists, experts, and doctors which states that ‘‘complying with [the Secret Science Reform Act] can be accomplished 

without imposing unnecessary burdens, discouraging research, or 

raising confidentiality concerns. Across different disciplines, numerous statistical and technical approaches exist to protect any 

sensitive information.’’ 

Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences has confirmed 

that transparency and reproducibility in science is possible without 

any risks to confidentiality or privacy. In 2005, the Panel on Data 

Access for Research Purposes of the National Research Council 

stated in its report Expanding Access to Research Data: Reconciling 

Risks and Opportunities: ‘‘Nothing in the past suggest that increasing access to research data without damage to privacy and confidentiality rights is beyond scientific reach.’’ This Committee has 

received testimony from some respected experts that the provisions 

of H.R. 1030 would not raise confidentiality issues. 

The legislation covers critical scientific documents related to 

‘‘covered actions’’ in order to ensure that significant non-regulatory 

information is subject to basic standards of transparency and reproducibility. As Dr. John Graham, Indiana University and former 

head of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

testified: ‘‘When a federal agency makes a determination that a 

product, technology or substance is hazardous, the determination 

itself without any formal regulatory action can create a stigma in 

the marketplace that causes a loss of sales, jobs and so forth. The 

stigma can also trigger lawsuits against companies under the common laws of the fifty states. If the scientific and technical data underpinning the determinations are not transparent and reproducible, it can be quite difficult for scientists in an impacted company 

or any scientist to determine whether the determination is valid.’’ 

The definition of scientific and technical information in the bill is 

based on data access policies from leading science publications and 

EPA-funded research institutes. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
7 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short Title 

This section establishes the short title of the Act as the ‘‘Secret 

Science Reform Act of 2015.’’ 

Section 2. Data Transparency 

Section 2 amends the Environmental Research, Development, 

and Demonstration Authorization Act to: 

(1) Prohibit the Administrator for the EPA from finalizing, proposing, or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and 

technical information relied on is: 

a. The best available science, 

b. Specifically identified, and 

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

(2) Protect personal and confidential information. It clarifies that 

nothing in the section requires the Administrator to disseminate 

scientific and technical information, nor does the section supersede 

any nondiscretionary statutory requirements. 

(3) Define ‘‘covered action’’ to mean a risk, exposure, or hazard 

assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, regulation, 

regulatory impact analysis, or guidance. This section defines ‘‘scientific and technical information’’ to include materials, data, and 

associated protocols necessary to understand, assess, and extend 

conclusions, computer codes and models involved in the creation 

and analysis of information, recorded factual materials, and detailed descriptions of how to access and use such information. 

(4) Clarify that the Administrator shall implement this section in a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per year from amounts 

otherwise authorized to the appropriated. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

No amendments were adopted. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
8 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 10 here HR34.001
9 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 11 here HR34.002
10 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On February 25, 2015, the Committee met in open session and 

ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 1030, by roll call vote, a 

quorum being present. 

ROLL CALL VOTES

AMENDMENT NO. 1

Bill: H.R. 1030 

Roll Call No. 1 

Amendment Sponsor: Ms. Clark—Defeated 

Member Aye No Present Not Voting 

Mr. Smith, Chair—TX .................................................................... X 

Mr. Lucas—OK ** .......................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner—WI .................................................................

Mr. Rohrabacher—CA .................................................................... X 

Mr. Neugebauer—TX .....................................................................

Mr. McCaul—TX ............................................................................

Mr. Palazzo—MS ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Brooks—AL .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Hultgren—IL ............................................................................

Mr. Posey—FL ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Massie—KY ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Bridenstine—OK ......................................................................

Mr. Weber—TX ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson—OH ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Moolenaar—MI ........................................................................ X 

Mr. Knight—CA ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Babin—TX ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Westerman—AR ...................................................................... X 

Mrs. Comstock—VA .......................................................................

Mr. Newhouse—WA ....................................................................... X 

Mr. Palmer—AL ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Loudermilk—GA ...................................................................... X 

Ms. Johnson, Ranking—TX ............................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren—CA ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Lipinski—IL .............................................................................

Ms. Edwards—MD ......................................................................... X 

Ms. Bonamici—OR ........................................................................ X 

Mr. Swalwell—CA .......................................................................... X 

Mr. Grayson—FL ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Bera—CA ................................................................................ X 

Ms. Esty—CT ................................................................................. X 

Mr. Veasey—TX ............................................................................. X 

Ms. Clark—MA .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Beyer—VA ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Perlmutter—CO .......................................................................

Mr. Tonko—NY ............................................................................... X 

Vacant ............................................................................................

Vacant ............................................................................................

Vacant ............................................................................................

Totals .................................................................................... 12 16 

FINAL PASSAGE

Bill: H.R. 1030 

Roll Call No. 2 

PASSED 

Member Aye No Present Not Voting 

Mr. Smith, Chair—TX .................................................................... X 

Mr. Lucas—OK ** .......................................................................... X 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
11 

Member Aye No Present Not Voting 

Mr. Sensenbrenner—WI .................................................................

Mr. Rohrabacher—CA .................................................................... X 

Mr. Neugebauer—TX .....................................................................

Mr. McCaul—TX ............................................................................

Mr. Palazzo—MS ...........................................................................

Mr. Brooks—AL .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Hultgren—IL ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Posey—FL ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Massie—KY ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Bridenstine—OK ......................................................................

Mr. Weber—TX ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson—OH ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Moolenaar—MI ........................................................................

Mr. Knight—CA ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Babin—TX ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Westerman—AR ...................................................................... X 

Mrs. Comstock—VA ....................................................................... X 

Mr. Newhouse—WA ....................................................................... X 

Mr. Palmer—AL ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Loudermilk—GA ...................................................................... X 

Ms. Johnson, Ranking—TX ............................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren—CA ...........................................................................

Mr. Lipinski—IL ............................................................................. X 

Ms. Edwards—MD ......................................................................... X 

Ms. Bonamici—OR ........................................................................

Mr. Swalwell—CA .......................................................................... X 

Mr. Grayson—FL ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Bera—CA ................................................................................ X 

Ms. Esty—CT .................................................................................

Mr. Veasey—TX ............................................................................. X 

Ms. Clark—MA .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Beyer—VA ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Perlmutter—CO ....................................................................... X 

Mr. Tonko—NY ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Takano—CA ............................................................................

Mr. Foster—IL ................................................................................

Vacant ............................................................................................

Totals .................................................................................... 16 11 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill ensures the Environmental Protection Agency uses the best available science, and prohibits the Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a 

covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied 

on to support the covered action is specifically identified and publicly available. As such this bill does not relate to employment or 

access to public services and accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
12 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 1030 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 1030 does not direct 

the completion of any specific rule makings within the meaning of 

5 U.S.C. 551. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandate 

Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement as to whether the 

provisions of the reported include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 1030 does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 

1030. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its 

report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee has requested but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Based on cost estimates 

from similar legislation from the 113th Congress, however, the 

Committee believes that enactment of this bill would result in no 

net effect on direct spending over the 2015–2024 period. Assuming 

the appropriation of authorized amounts, the Committee estimates 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
13 

that the legislation would also have a discretionary cost of less 

than $5 million over the 2015–2019 period. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has requested but not received a cost estimate 

for this bill from the Director of Congressional Budget Office. The 

Committee believes that this bill does not contain any new budget 

authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or 

decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 

DEMONSTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1978 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 6. (a) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency shall establish a separately identified program to conduct 

continuing and long-term environmental research and development. Unless otherwise specified by law, at least 15 per centum of 

any funds appropriated to the Administrator for environmental research and development under section 2(a) of this Act or under any 

other Act shall be allocated for long-term environmental research 

and development under this section. 

ø(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— 

ø(1) specific types of research to be carried out by such laboratory or laboratories; 

ø(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; 

ø(3) methods for assuring continuing long-range funding for 

such laboratory or laboratories; and 

ø(4) other administrative or legislative actions necessary to 

facilitate the establishment of such laboratory or laboratories.¿ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
14 

(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information 

relied on to support such covered action is— 

(A) the best available science; 

(B) specifically identified; and 

(C) publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for 

independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research 

results. 

(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as— 

(A) requiring the Administrator to disseminate scientific and 

technical information; or 

(B) superseding any nondiscretionary statutory requirement. 

(3) In this subsection— 

(A) the term ‘‘covered action’’ means a risk, exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance; and 

(B) the term ‘‘scientific and technical information’’ includes— 

(i) materials, data, and associated protocols necessary to 

understand, assess, and extend conclusions; 

(ii) computer codes and models involved in the creation 

and analysis of such information; 

(iii) recorded factual materials; and 

(iv) detailed descriptions of how to access and use such 

information. 

(4) The Administrator shall carry out this subsection in a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year, to be derived from 

amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated. 

* * * * * * * 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
(15) 

MINORITY VIEWS

MINORITY VIEWS TO H.R. 1030, THE SECRET SCIENCE 

REFORM ACT OF 2015 

I strongly oppose H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 

2015. I want to be clear: H.R. 1030 is based on a falsehood. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not use ‘‘secret 

science’’ to conduct its business. The EPA uses high-quality peer reviewed research from trusted scientific sources and H.R. 1030 is 

the Majority’s attempt to prevent the EPA from using this highquality science. Judging from the groups that have endorsed this 

bill, it might be more accurate to state that H.R. 1030 is the polluting industries’ attempt to prevent the EPA from using the best 

available science. 

So why is the Majority pushing this legislation? Because the 

science is clear. Air pollution makes people sick and kills them. 

Second hand smoke makes people sick and kills them. Lead, Mercury, and a host of other chemicals can cause great harm and disease in people. Because the science is clear, the EPA must regulate 

these things to protect the public health. 

Not that long ago, the tobacco industry realized that if they could 

muddle the message on the science, they could prevent their products from being regulated. So they engaged in a massive criminal 

conspiracy to defraud the American public, by funding their own 

sham science to cast doubt on the harm of tobacco. 

Well, their efforts have not gone unnoticed by others. A host of 

polluting industries are following their blueprint, and attempting 

to cast doubt on all facets of health and environmental science. 

Moreover, many of the same exact scientists and public relations 

folks who worked for big tobacco are now doing similar work for 

the polluting industries. 

We’ve seen it in this very Committee. When the Majority held a 

hearing on this legislation last Congress, every Majority witness at 

the hearing had significant ties to the tobacco industry. It’s really 

as if the Majority is not even trying to hide their true motivations. 

So what does this legislation actually do? Two of our nation’s 

most trusted health institutions, the American Lung Association 

and the American Thoracic Society, have clearly described the central problem with this bill: 

‘‘The legislation . . . will compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to either ignore the best science by prohibiting the 

agency from considering peer-reviewed research that is based on 

confidential patient information or force EPA to publically release 

confidential patient information, which would violate federal law. 

This is an untenable outcome that would completely undermine the 

ability of the EPA to perform its responsibilities under the Clean 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
16 

Air Act and myriad other federal laws. The legislation will not improve EPA’s actions; rather it will stifle public heath protections.’’ 

That last point is worth repeating: ‘‘it will stifle public health 

protections.’’ That’s really what this is all about. H.R. 1030 is an 

attack on public health, thinly veiled under the false pretense of 

‘‘good governance.’’ 

Before I began my life in public service, I worked as a nurse for 

17 years. I’ve seen first-hand the terrible toll of heart and lung disease and of asthma, COPD, and other respiratory conditions. These 

people aren’t statistics. They are real people with lives and aspirations and families they love. Their health will be worse if this bill 

is enacted into law. Their lives will be shorter. Their suffering will 

be greater. And their lives will be cut short by this legislation. 

Last year, Dallas-Fort Worth received a grade of F for air quality 

by the American Lung Association and was ranked as the city with 

the 8th worst air according to their State of the Air report. In my 

home town, we desperately need better protections for the air we 

breathe. To get those protections, and to get them right, we need 

the EPA to be able to use all of the best available science, not just 

the science that fits the Majority’s misguided priorities. 

I have received letters from a number of groups who share my 

concerns over H.R. 1030, including: the American Association for 

the Advancement of Science, the American Lung Association, the 

American Thoracic Society, the American Statistical Association, 

the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the BlueGreen Alliance, Defenders 

of Wildlife, Earthjustice, the Environmental Defense Fund, 

Greenpeace, the League of Conservation Voters, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health, the National 

Center for Health Research, the National Physicians Alliance, Public Citizen, the American Association for Justice, and others. 

H.R. 1030 is an insidious attack on the EPA’s ability to use the 

best science to protect public health. Limiting, or prohibiting, what 

science EPA uses as part of its rulemaking should not be a consequence of this or any other bill. The American people deserve 

better. Therefore, I strongly oppose this legislation. 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
(17) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 1030, THE SECRET SCIENCE 

REFORM ACT OF 2015 

I am strongly opposed to this bill for all of the reasons that have 

been previously mentioned by the Ranking Member and others at 

the markup. But I want to highlight one issue that, to me, really 

makes a mockery of this whole effort. 

The Majority, in the bill that was introduced the day before it 

was marked up, has included a new section from the bill we considered last Congress. The end of the bill now reads: 

‘‘The Administrator shall carry out this subsection in a 

manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year’’ 

However, the Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate of this 

bill from last Congress estimated that it would cost the EPA $250 

million dollars per year to implement the bill. But the Majority is 

now telling EPA that they cannot spend more than $1 million dollars implementing this bill. To put this disparity in some perspective, CBO is estimating that implementing this bill would cost 

25,000 percent more than the Majority is providing. 

I understand why the Majority is doing this—they don’t want to 

pass legislation that costs anything to implement; it wouldn’t be 

‘‘fiscally conservative.’’ However, it is totally absurd to tell an agency to undertake $250 million dollars of work with $1 million dollars. More importantly, it forces the agency into an untenable position. They must either ignore the requirements of this legislation, 

because the Majority isn’t providing them with the resources to 

carry them out, or they can comply with the requirements for all 

of 1 and a half days that funding will allow, and then shut down 

all of the covered actions under this bill. 

That is just irresponsible—the Majority is actually legislating 

failure. It is creating a situation that EPA will never fulfill. If the 

Majority really believes in the premise behind this legislation, then 

the Majority should provide the agency with the $250 million dollars annually that, at a minimum, the agency would need to carry 

out this bill. 

I am opposed to this bill for a number of reasons, and most likely 

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will disagree with me 

on those points. However, I have a hard time believing that any responsible Member of Congress would consciously support a bill that 

is guaranteed to cause failure. That would be grossly irresponsible. 

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. 

DONNA F. EDWARDS. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE