49–006 

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 Expenditures 10 

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’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/epa_scientific_integrity_policy_20120115.pdf 2http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ruckelshaus-takes-steps-improve-flow-agency-information-fishbowl-policy#memo. 3http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ 

index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_id=d71fd4b6-ce77-3a98-46a0-fb02b0cae0ed 4 Ibid. 

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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

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

ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf. 9http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/epa_scientific_integrity_policy_20120115.pdf. 

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.’’ 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

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

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

10http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/documents/EPA_InfoQualityGuidelines 

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

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 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

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: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.050
8 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

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 speciVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:42 Nov 15, 2014 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX HR619

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

fying 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 withVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:42 Nov 15, 2014 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX HR619

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

out 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

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) * * * 

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; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

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.¿ 

(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. 

* * * * * * * 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(15) 

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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

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 selfdescribed ‘‘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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

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 reVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:19 Nov 15, 2014 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX HR619

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

search 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

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 peerreviewed 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

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? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.046
35 

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.] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(37) 

Appendix I 

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

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT ROSTER


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.047
39 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.048
40 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.049
41 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

AMENDMENT ROSTER


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.050
(43) 

Appendix II 

LETTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.001
45 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.002
46 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.003
47 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.004
48 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.005
49 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.006
50 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.007
51 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.008
52 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.009
53 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.010
54 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.011
55 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.014
56 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.020
57 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.021
58 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.037
59 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.042
60 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.043
61 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.044
62 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.045
63 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.015
64 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.012
65 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.013
66 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.018
67 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.019
68 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.022
69 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.023
70 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.024
71 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.025
72 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.026
73 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.027
74 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.028
75 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.029
76 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.030
77 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.031
78 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.032
79 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.033
80 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.034
81 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.035
82 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.036
83 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.038
84 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.039
85 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.040
86 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING88141.041