Date: 2015-03-18
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1030. the Secret Science Reform Act of First off. I would like to dispel the falsehood that the EPA relies on secret science. They do not. They rely upon tens of thousands of peer reviewed. publicly published research studies. The kind of science that Republicans call "secret" actually consists of research studies published in prestigious scientific journals like Science. the New England Journal of Medicine. the Annals of Epidemiology. the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. and many more. Moreover. it is not a secret that the EPA uses these studies. In all of the regulatory actions the EPA takes. they publish exhaustive information about exactly what science the Agency is relying upon to establish the scientific underpinnings of the regulations. These are public documents that are easily located on the Internet. So what is the secret? What my Republican colleagues are calling "secret" is actually confidential. personal health information from research study participants. Some of this information is protected from disclosure by law. and other information is protected by agreements between the study participants and the researchers. The disclosure of this kind of information would be a major breach of faith with the hundreds of thousands of research participants who volunteer to enter these types of public health studies. That said. I dont actually think that my Republican colleagues want this personal health information to be publicly disclosed. If they did want that. it would be terribly hypocritical since they have been repeatedly bashing the Obama Web site healthcare.gov for disclosing far less information to thirdparty vendors. I think that the real motivation here is to prevent the EPA from using these public health studies altogether. because if the EPA cannot rely upon these public health studies. then it will be much more difficult for the EPA to justify its protections for public health. The effect of this is that certain public health regulations will be almost impossible to update regardless of what new things the health sciences tell us about pollution and its effects on public health. Mr. Chairman. I think it is sad that today the Science Committee is on the floor of this House of Representatives putting forth a bill that will force a public health agency to ignore science. That is why some of our premier scientific organizations. such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science. the Union of Concerned Scientists. the American Statistical Association. and others. have expressed their concerns about this bill. It would be nice. when we debate bills which are supposedly about science. if we actually listened to the concerns of the scientific community instead of ignoring them. as the majority has done here. Likewise. some of the Nations premier public health organizations. like the American Lung Association. the American Thoracic Society. and the American Public Health Association. among others. have come out in opposition to this bill. Again. when dealing with issues of public health. it would be nice to occasionally listen to what the public health experts have to say instead of ignoring their voices. like the majority has done here. Finally. a number of wellknown environmental groups have registered opposition to this legislation. including the Natural Resources Defense Council. the League of Conservation Voters. and Greenpeace. among others. There was a time not too long ago when the views of these groups would have mattered to some of my Republican colleagues. Not too many years ago. the thenRepublican chairman of the Science Committee. Sherry Boehlert. made clear that we need to be good stewards of the environment we are leaving for future generations. I want to believe that some of my Republican colleagues still believe that. However. legislation like the bill before us today makes me fear that what we are left with is a majority party which ignores science. ignores public health. and ignores environmental damageall for the sake of polluting industries that have endorsed the majoritys actions here today. Now. I dont begrudge these companies for supporting legislation that helps their bottom lines. It is expected. What concerns me is that this Congress no longer looks at the industrys request with a critical eye. We simply rubberstamp them without any regard for our Nations scientific experts. health experts. or environmental experts and their concerns. Mr. Chairman. I include some of these letters in the RECORD today because Congress should care about these experts and what they have to say.