Committee Republicans Continue Partisan Vendetta Against EPA—Authorize Issuing Subpoenas to EPA, American Cancer Society, and Other Unspecified Citizens Despite Democrats’ Strong Objections

(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a business meeting to authorize the issuance of subpoenas and to mark up H.R. 2850, the “EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act of 2013.”

The Majority’s stated purpose of authorizing these subpoenas is to obtain “all research data, information, documents, and other records” relating to the Harvard Six Cities Study, the Cancer Prevention Study II, and analyses and re-analyses of the data from either study.  Most recently, Chairman Smith sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator McCarthy on July 22, 2013, demanding the EPA provide “all original data and analysis” by July 31 or he would be forced to take formal Committee action.  EPA has responded to these requests and provided data, information, and analyses on numerous occasions, including in a letter dated July 30.

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said in her opening statement, “This is truly a sad day in the storied history of this Committee.  At the start of this Congress, I had high hopes that you would lead us in a bipartisan fashion, as befits the history of the Committee.  I have been sorely disappointed.  This subpoena resolution is the culmination of a year of hyper-partisan activity which is unprecedented for our Committee.”

Ms. Johnson went on to describe her issues with the resolution.  She said, “There are so many problems with both this resolution and with the process you have used to get here, that it is difficult to know where to start.  Perhaps I should start with the numerous mischaracterizations contained in your July 22 letter to the EPA as well as in the Majority’s markup memo.  In both of these documents it is insinuated that both the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study are bad science or “secret science.”  However, you provide no evidence to support your claims.  None.  Of course, neither of those claims is true.  In fact, these studies are seminal works which are widely respected in the scientific community.  Moreover, there has been extensive peer review, re-analysis, and validation work on these studies.  And these facts should come as no shock to you, as the EPA has pointed this out repeatedly.”

She continued, “The notion that these studies are “EPA secret science” is also false.  First of all, neither of these studies were conducted by the EPA.  Second, none of the data cohorts used in these studies are secret.  They are, however, confidential.  And for good reason.  These cohorts contain the personal health information of over a million American citizens.  This information should be highly protected.  However, legitimate scientific researchers do have access to this data, and scores of research teams from around the country have accessed this data to conduct scientific research.”

During debate on the resolution, Ranking Member Johnson had thousands of pages of data and analysis entered into the record—data that has already been provided to the Committee by EPA in response to Committee requests, including the de-identified data from the Harvard Six Cities Study being sought in today’s subpoena authorization resolution.

Democratic Members questioned the very broad scope of the Chairman’s subpoena authorization resolution.  Chairman Smith indicated that subpoenas would be issued to EPA, and if necessary the American Cancer Society, Harvard University, and unspecified American citizens and organizations in order to get the data he is demanding.

Despite repeated inquiries by Democratic Members, Chairman Smith refused to identify the individuals and organizations to whom he plans to provide the data.   Said Chairman Smith, “It wouldn’t be fair to identify individuals or organizations.”  Members were unable to get the Chairman to provide a legitimate reason for his secrecy on the matter.

Democratic Members, including Reps. Donna Edwards (D-MD) and Alan Grayson (D-FL) raised liability concerns associated with the release of the data.  Rep. Edwards noted that “We are all dealing with two private entities who have made privacy commitments to patients who have undertaken the studies. We have not dealt at all with the legal liability of those two entities should information that is private be released to the public, whether the public be this Committee or its staff, or the general public.  I am wondering what provisions have been made, either in the resolution or in some other instance, for EPA, Harvard, and the ACS with respect to their prospective liability in the event that private information is released.”   The Majority could provide no clarity on how liability concerns would be addressed.

Ms. Johnson said of H.R. 2850, the other item marked up at today’s business meeting:  “If the Majority were really interested in legislating on the issue ostensibly being addressed by this bill, they would have had meaningful subcommittee hearings to examine the potential impact on the congressionally mandated study that this bill could have.  They would have given EPA time to assess that impact and provide input to the subcommittee of jurisdiction.  They would not have skipped subcommittee and instead rushed this bill to a full committee markup one day before the August recess…This bill is at best a piece of political messaging, and at worst, something that could seriously delay or undercut the congressionally mandated study.  It will go nowhere in the Senate, but it should not even be coming out of this Committee.”

Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA) offered an amendment to H.R. 2850 to ensure that this bill does not delay the EPA’s release of its final report on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination.  The amendment passed by voice vote.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) stated that, “Because there was no hearing on the bill, we do not have information from the EPA regarding whether these requirements will take additional time and, if so, how much time.  And we don’t have information about what additional resources the EPA might require to comply with this language.  And I do want to note what’s happened in the meantime - the Majority has proposed cutting the EPA’s budget by 34%.”

The full text of H.R. 2850 can be found here.

Mr. Bera’s amendment can be found here.

Ranking Member Johnson’s full prepared statements can be found below.

Opening statement

Statement on the authorization to issue subpoenas

Statement on H.R. 2850

Related Content

• Print
• Email
• Tweet