Secret Science Reform Act of 2015

Floor Speech

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Ms. Johnson for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, a short bill, which I have read, with a long list of problems.

I want to start by applauding the sponsors of the bill for their focus on and goal of transparency. It is something our constituents care about and deserve. But transparency is something that we should accomplish through collaboration and with input from the scientific community. This bill, on the contrary, is opposed, for good reason, by research institutions and scientists from across the country.

Mr. Chairman, we received a lot of feedback from outside groups, and I am going to place into the Record after my remarks some letters we have received from groups opposing H.R. 1030 from organizations like the American Association for Justice, Public Citizen, the National Physicians Alliance, the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, and others.

Instead of working together to find a solution that increases transparency and access to federally funded research, the Secret Science Reform Act instead has the potential, in the long term, to compromise the health and well-being of Americans, and here is why: the Secret Science Reform Act, which looks simple on its face, will actually encumber, if not eradicate, the EPA's ability to perform its most fundamental duty: protecting Americans from significant risks to their health and to the environment.

Because H.R. 1030 would require that the EPA rely only on studies that are publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results, the act will prevent the agency from considering the best and most relevant science.

The EPA relies on peer-reviewed science conducted by the brightest minds at our Nation's universities and other research organizations. Large cohort peer review studies, such as the American Cancer Society and Harvard Six Cities studies, which made an association between air pollution and mortality, are vital to the Agency's implementation of the Clean Air Act.

Let me be clear: the EPA does publicly disclose which studies it relies on to support its regulatory actions. For good reason, it doesn't make the raw data from these studies publicly available. This bill before us today, if adopted, would make it virtually impossible to use many reports and other sources of scientific data, such as those I mentioned earlier.

First, in many cases, the EPA cannot compel the release or disclosure of information of which it is not the custodian. Second, confidentiality requirements or other legal prohibitions on the sharing of certain types of data, like health information, would preclude studies from consideration simply because they conform to common ethical and legal standards.

Additionally, this act perpetuates the incorrect notion that the science relied on by the EPA is somehow hidden. This misconception is based on conflating the meanings of ``secret'' and ``confidential.'' One thing should be made very clear: none of the information used by the EPA is secret. Some information might be confidential--if it includes, for example, the personal health information of millions of Americans--as it should be.

My colleagues supporting this bill argue that the data could be de-identified to protect confidentiality and privacy and concerns about disclosure of personal health information are unfounded, but according to a letter from the American Statistical Association, de-identification methods like stripping names and other personally identifiable information do not often suffice to protect confidentiality. Statisticians and computer scientists have repeatedly shown how easy is to be re-identify an individual using social media and public records.

The Secret Science Reform Act will have chilling consequences for the EPA and for every American who wants to enjoy clean air and clean water. Let's bring back common sense and work together. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation and let the EPA go back to protecting the public health of all Americans.

Source