Date: 2014-11-19
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chair. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair. this bill does not permit me to mince words. This bill is an insidious attack on EPAs ability to use the best science to protect public health. and its consideration on the House floor today is the culmination of one of the most antiscience and antihealth campaigns I have witnessed in my 22 years as a Member of Congress. The genesis of this legislation is the Republicans longstanding obsession with two seminal scientific studies conducted by Harvard University and the American Cancer Society. These studies link air pollution with increased illnesses and death. moreover. those results were confirmed by multiple independent researchers and organizations including the National Research Council and the Health Effects Institute. The Republican majority has harassed EPA for more than 2 years in an attempt to get access to the raw data used in those studies. presumably in an attempt to cast doubt on the conclusion that air pollution is bad for the health of Americans and to prevent EPA from trying to keep the air we breath clean. The EPA told my Republican colleagues that since the studies involved the personal health information of hundreds of thousands of volunteers. the raw data was stringently protected from public disclosure. therefore. even if they were the legal custodian of this data. they could not lawfully hand over such sensitive information. Instead. in compliance with the law. EPA provided the Science Committee with all of the "deidentified" data within its possession. which ran to hundreds of pages of data rolled in like a grocery cart. This was not enough for my colleagues. and so they have decided to pursue this pernicious piece of legislation. Rather than explain the problems with this legislation myself. I will simply quote from a letter we received from the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society. two leading and trusted public health organizations. They state: The legislation will compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to either ignore the best science by prohibiting the Agency from considering peerreviewed research that is based on confidential patient information or force EPA to publicly release confidential patient information. which would violate Federal law. This is an untenable outcome that would completely undermine the ability of the EPA to perform its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and myriad other Federal laws. The legislation will not improve EPAs actions. rather. it will stifle public health protections. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will wrongly claim that this legislation is consistent with the requirements of major scientific journals. the White Houses policy to promote public access to federallyfunded research. and recommendations from independent groups like the Administrative Conference of the United States. This is simply not true. All of those entities recognize the balance between making data public and protecting confidentiality and personal privacy. They do not paint scientists or the EPA into a corner and tell them that the only way their research can be used or considered is if all of that data is available in a formlet me quote from the bill-"that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction." That phrase is critical to understanding the implications of H.R. 4012. According to a letter from the American Cancer Society to EPA. they "are not aware of any way to create a deidentified version of the Cancer Prevention Study II data set sufficient to protect confidentiality of the participants while at the same time allowing a true replica of the studies." Because legitimate researchers like the American Cancer Society must publish their peerreviewed results in a deidentified form. if this bill becomes law. the EPA will not be able to rely on those important studies to protect public health and the environment. I would like to quote Dr. Ellen Silbergeld from Johns Hopkins University. a witness at a hearing the Science Committee held on this bill. She states: If the EPA is unable to access the peerreviewed literature because raw data are not available as proposed in the "Secret Science" bill. then we move to the dysfunctional situation where the EPA will be unable to sustain its decisions because these will be based on inadequate or incomplete science. This is not a position that I can support. Let me be clear: this bill is an attempt to constrain the EPA under the guise of promoting transparency. A diverse set of voices from the scientific. public health. legal. and environmental communities agree with me and have criticized this legislation. I have received letters from more than 50 organizations expressing their concern with H.R. 4012. including the American Lung Association. the American Thoracic Society. the American Association for the Advancement of Science. the Union of Concerned Scientists. the Association of Public and Landgrant Universities. the Association of American Universities. the Natural Resources Defense Council. and the Environmental Defense Fund. Whatever views my fellow Members may have about specific EPA rules and regulations. I would hope that they will see this bill for what it is. a malicious assault on EPAs ability to protect public health. Limiting or prohibiting what science EPA uses as part of its rulemaking would be a consequence of this bill. The American people deserve better. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. and I reserve the balance of my time.