On the recordMarch 29, 2017
I have several objections to the legislation being considered today. As with the Secret Science Reform Act, the bill would seriously undercut the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to use science to inform their work. The bill would prohibit the EPA from using any scientific findings when the EPA did not have total access to the underlying data. This would eliminate some of the best available science from being considered by the EPA. Let me be very clear, there is nothing secret nor dishonest about relying on voluminous, peer-reviewed studies published in the most credible scientific journals in the world to make public health decisions. Equally problematic, the bill would force the EPA to grant full access to any scientific data it does possess, including highly sensitive materials like trade secrets and personal health histories. Much has been made about the ability of the EPA to redact this information, but there is a piece of legislation that says: By simply signing a nondisclosure agreement at the discretion of the EPA administrator, you can have access to all of the nonredacted information. We talk about the accountability of the EPA. What is the accountability of violating a simple nondisclosure agreement? It becomes so easy for these private health information trade secrets to be sold for a small fortune on the black market. It certainly doesn't make sense to provide such an easy avenue to potential bad actors.…





