That isn't in the bill itself.
I realize that.
That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.
A person who backs the bill, who perhaps could and should have said something a LOT MORE INTELLIGENT about it.
I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.
So then what is the REAL dispute? That would lead a president to veto it? Or is this whole debate the syphility ramblings of a 24 hour media cycle that can't seem to find any real news to report on in a world of 6 billion people with nearly uncountable real issues to investigate? (And despite my sarcasm... I count that possibility as entirely plausible.)