Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1430

Do EPA Regulations and Assessments Need to be Based Only on Science That’s Publicly Available?

Argument in favor

This bill would make the science the EPA considers when it takes actions like creating regulations more transparent. That data should be publicly available so that others can reproduce and verify the studies used by the EPA.

···
03/27/2017
First of all, science that hasn't been replicated and peer-reviewed (which is to say science that hasn't been publicly verified) isn't science - it's speculation. What's FAR more important, though, is that EPA regulations need to be based on the Constitution. The ultimate authority to which all government bodies are accountable, regardless of whether or not their policies are based on science, is the Constitution. That's the primary concern, and if it isn't met then having a scientific basis is irrelevant. But you can't say that, can you? Because then there wouldn't even be an EPA at all.
Like (153)
Follow
Share
Harry's Opinion
···
03/27/2017
Why would an unconstitutional arm of the executive branch want to use unpublished studies as bases for regulation? Unless you can answer that question you must vote YEA.
Like (55)
Follow
Share
Loraki's Opinion
···
03/29/2017
Countable member jameslj said: "At the very, very least the science needs to be publicly available and reproduceable. Better, the EPA would need to base any regulation on peer-reviewed science from independent scientists. A huge problem with the regulatory milieu in this country right now is that the agencies err on the side of restricting freedom, rather than allowing innovation to flourish. It's absolutely crucial that these agencies be reined in, or else we will continue to see little to no growth in the economy. Domestic regulation (including wage controls), not China and Mexico, is the greatest threat to American productivity." I think he's right! As for those of you who think this bill is an attack on science, I say "HOGWASH!" I see it as just the opposite! If a scientist has any personal integrity and objectivity where his work is concerned, he should WELCOME public scrutiny and input! He should WANT to see if there are any flaws in his work. Scientific progress happens when there's collaboration. Science should have no room for the ego-driven or the scientist with a political agenda! Also, as Countable member Byron said: "Politicized science is its own religion based on faith in their theories and viewpoints. Science needs to be exposed as its own dog eat dog, turf protecting political regime. On the question of other viewpoints such as the possibility that God exists..."absence of proof is not proof of absence." This is a quote by one of NIH's own card carrying scientists. Very often in so called scientific findings, the WISH is the father of the discovery. In other words belief often guides the biology!" I VOTE YEA! I'm tired of them basing their regulations on what they see in chickens' entrails! They never met a U.N. agenda they didn't like! Updated 04/08/2017: LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this opinion given by Countable member "operaman"! "Science? Who's science? We certainly heard that Climate Change has been proven because 1,000s of "proclaimed" scientists say it's so. Then we read that NASA/NOAA has fudged the data or simply made a "educated" guess. And even if Climate Change were true, all the money citizens would pay for it's reduction only changes future temperature by 0.2%C. Maybe a CO2 level of 450ppm would be perfect for growing plants and would also increase O2. Carbon tax would do nothing except make taxpayers poorer while transferring America's wealth to foreign lands. I vote for real science and proven theories based on real facts that can be duplicated multiple time. Addendum: Judicial Watch filed a Feb. 6, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking communications between National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Thomas Karl and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency."
Like (41)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The requirements put forth by this bill could be very costly if the EPA tries to use the same number of scientific studies that it has in the past. It would limit the EPA’s ability to use science that isn’t reproducible or transparent.

Beannachd's Opinion
···
03/27/2017
I am writing to ask that you remember that the EPA was formed after our our rivers and lakes caught on fire because they were so polluted, which is what happens when companies are not regulated and those regulations enforced. In fact, river fires were common before the Clean Water Act. There were at least 13 on the Cuyahoga alone, but rivers in Baltimore, Detroit, Buffalo, Philadelphia, and elsewhere had fires as well. The EPA already bases decisions on science that is peer reviewed - meaning it has been reproduced and scientists have already torn it apart to verify it. That is literally the scientific method. This is a thinly veiled attempt to make it so costly to the agency that they are rendered unable to do their job. I do not want to go back to a time before corporations were forced to be responsible for the damage they caused. The Brownfields that are still unusable without major expense that we taxpayers bear are another consequence of corporations not held responsible. The EPA is responsible for our air and water being cleaner than it has been in nearly 70 years. Our own Mill Creek in Cincinnati is finally clean enough to bear life again. It was literally so toxic it was dead. Please vote NO on this transparent attempt to destroy the EPA. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/22/the-fable-of-the-burning-river-45-years-later/
Like (1207)
Follow
Share
Ryan's Opinion
···
03/27/2017
It's the "publicly available" part of this that's disturbing. I know I might sound nuts, but with the way this administration is trying to control news/facts and the way it is burying it head in the sand concerning science, it seems to me that if they were able to suppress information based on these two characteristics, they've already shown, then they could pretty much do what they wanted to the environment claiming the information/science isn't publicly available and so doesn't count.
Like (631)
Follow
Share
Cecilia's Opinion
···
03/27/2017
Particularly as the administration has forced all agencies to stop publicizing their work - this furthers that gag order.
Like (399)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Environment and Public Works
  • The house Passed March 29th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 228 Yea / 194 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
    IntroducedMarch 8th, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Environment and Public Works
  • The house Passed March 29th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 228 Yea / 194 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
    IntroducedMarch 8th, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 17 - 12.
  • action
    Reported by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 115-59.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 33.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 229 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1430 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
  • action
    Rule H. Res. 229 passed House.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 229.
  • action
    Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1430 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 1430.
  • action
    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
  • action
    Mr. McEachin moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the McEachin motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to require the administrator of the EPA to use the best available science when responding to any threats to public health.
  • action
    The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the McEachin motion to recommit, the Chair put the question on adoption of the motion to recommit and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. McEachin demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on adoption of the motion to recommit until a time to be announced.
  • action
    Considered as unfinished business.
  • action
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 189 - 232 (Roll no. 205).
  • vote
    On passage Passed by recorded vote: 228 - 194 (Roll no. 206).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
    First of all, science that hasn't been replicated and peer-reviewed (which is to say science that hasn't been publicly verified) isn't science - it's speculation. What's FAR more important, though, is that EPA regulations need to be based on the Constitution. The ultimate authority to which all government bodies are accountable, regardless of whether or not their policies are based on science, is the Constitution. That's the primary concern, and if it isn't met then having a scientific basis is irrelevant. But you can't say that, can you? Because then there wouldn't even be an EPA at all.
    Like (153)
    Follow
    Share
    I am writing to ask that you remember that the EPA was formed after our our rivers and lakes caught on fire because they were so polluted, which is what happens when companies are not regulated and those regulations enforced. In fact, river fires were common before the Clean Water Act. There were at least 13 on the Cuyahoga alone, but rivers in Baltimore, Detroit, Buffalo, Philadelphia, and elsewhere had fires as well. The EPA already bases decisions on science that is peer reviewed - meaning it has been reproduced and scientists have already torn it apart to verify it. That is literally the scientific method. This is a thinly veiled attempt to make it so costly to the agency that they are rendered unable to do their job. I do not want to go back to a time before corporations were forced to be responsible for the damage they caused. The Brownfields that are still unusable without major expense that we taxpayers bear are another consequence of corporations not held responsible. The EPA is responsible for our air and water being cleaner than it has been in nearly 70 years. Our own Mill Creek in Cincinnati is finally clean enough to bear life again. It was literally so toxic it was dead. Please vote NO on this transparent attempt to destroy the EPA. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/22/the-fable-of-the-burning-river-45-years-later/
    Like (1207)
    Follow
    Share
    It's the "publicly available" part of this that's disturbing. I know I might sound nuts, but with the way this administration is trying to control news/facts and the way it is burying it head in the sand concerning science, it seems to me that if they were able to suppress information based on these two characteristics, they've already shown, then they could pretty much do what they wanted to the environment claiming the information/science isn't publicly available and so doesn't count.
    Like (631)
    Follow
    Share
    Particularly as the administration has forced all agencies to stop publicizing their work - this furthers that gag order.
    Like (399)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a thinly veiled attack on science. And in particular climate change. Years of research and data could be lost. Science is real. Peer review is important and basically serves the same purpose without rejecting everything a minority voice disagrees with. Dissent is good. But it should not silence science.
    Like (241)
    Follow
    Share
    I will not support your efforts to dismantle the EPA nor the strength of this agency. I'm 66 years old. I remember what Narragansett's Bay became when corporations were allowed to dump whatever. I'm sorry but no job is worth letting that happen again.
    Like (190)
    Follow
    Share
    While it's imperative that policy follow science that's transparent and reproducible, this bill instead threatens to add hyperpartisan oversight and muzzle scientific topics that have political impact, such as climate change research. Whatever your views on the topic, the best way to encourage transparent, replicable science is to remove pressures that may influence researchers to publish uncertain data.
    Like (117)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill does not reflect a fundamental understanding of the scientific process. Many of the studies the EPA uses can not easily be peer reviewed (how can you quickly reproduce a 10-year study on the growth of children affected by lead poisoning in utero?). Plus, much of the information that this bill would require to be disclosed is private health information that study subjects do not want to become public domain (and redaction is not a good solution as anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement could access that info). In short, this bill would hurt the EPAs ability to use the best available research to protect our citizens and environment: Research would be slowed and made costlier, good scientists would be discouraged from working with the government, and corporations would be able to delay the formation of necessary safety regulations. Listen to the intelligent American minds in the science community and let them do their jobs!
    Like (72)
    Follow
    Share
    The EPA's budget is going to be slashed. We can't expect them to do twice the work on half the budget. Climate change is happening and solid evidence has already been published and peer-reviewed. I am all for transparency, but we have no more time to waste.
    Like (69)
    Follow
    Share
    Why would an unconstitutional arm of the executive branch want to use unpublished studies as bases for regulation? Unless you can answer that question you must vote YEA.
    Like (55)
    Follow
    Share
    Clearly the current administration is determined to rid the country of those troublesome environmental laws because they represent a threat to the freedom of states and corporations to profit while damaging the environment in which We the People must live. This is stupid as well as damaging to our economy in the long run. We must stand against short-sighted, immediate gains in profits or jobs which will guarantee long term damage that will result in massive job losses and increased damage to humans and the environment we must all live in. I have lived in this country when the air, land and water was filled with massive environmental waste. Many died as a result of thoughtless business and corporate production wastes. The EPA has been a lifeline, cleaning the environment at the expense of polluters, which is as it should be. Every one of us must own the consequences of our actions, and corporations are no exception. We the People must hold them accountable and the EPA is our means of doing this!!
    Like (49)
    Follow
    Share
    Countable member jameslj said: "At the very, very least the science needs to be publicly available and reproduceable. Better, the EPA would need to base any regulation on peer-reviewed science from independent scientists. A huge problem with the regulatory milieu in this country right now is that the agencies err on the side of restricting freedom, rather than allowing innovation to flourish. It's absolutely crucial that these agencies be reined in, or else we will continue to see little to no growth in the economy. Domestic regulation (including wage controls), not China and Mexico, is the greatest threat to American productivity." I think he's right! As for those of you who think this bill is an attack on science, I say "HOGWASH!" I see it as just the opposite! If a scientist has any personal integrity and objectivity where his work is concerned, he should WELCOME public scrutiny and input! He should WANT to see if there are any flaws in his work. Scientific progress happens when there's collaboration. Science should have no room for the ego-driven or the scientist with a political agenda! Also, as Countable member Byron said: "Politicized science is its own religion based on faith in their theories and viewpoints. Science needs to be exposed as its own dog eat dog, turf protecting political regime. On the question of other viewpoints such as the possibility that God exists..."absence of proof is not proof of absence." This is a quote by one of NIH's own card carrying scientists. Very often in so called scientific findings, the WISH is the father of the discovery. In other words belief often guides the biology!" I VOTE YEA! I'm tired of them basing their regulations on what they see in chickens' entrails! They never met a U.N. agenda they didn't like! Updated 04/08/2017: LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this opinion given by Countable member "operaman"! "Science? Who's science? We certainly heard that Climate Change has been proven because 1,000s of "proclaimed" scientists say it's so. Then we read that NASA/NOAA has fudged the data or simply made a "educated" guess. And even if Climate Change were true, all the money citizens would pay for it's reduction only changes future temperature by 0.2%C. Maybe a CO2 level of 450ppm would be perfect for growing plants and would also increase O2. Carbon tax would do nothing except make taxpayers poorer while transferring America's wealth to foreign lands. I vote for real science and proven theories based on real facts that can be duplicated multiple time. Addendum: Judicial Watch filed a Feb. 6, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking communications between National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Thomas Karl and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency."
    Like (41)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a blatant, shameless effort to reduce the EPA's ability to respond to environmental threats and protect the populace. Environmental protection is what makes us able to drink clean water (with notable exceptions showing what happens when regulations are undercut or disregarded), allows us to breathe clean air (again, notable exceptions in areas with poorly regulated industry), and repair damage from Superfund sites. Stop making the environment a partisan issue, we all rely on the environment and selling it out for short-term profits is unpatriotic.
    Like (40)
    Follow
    Share
    Science? Who's science? We certainly heard that Climate Change has been proven because 1,000s of "proclaimed" scientists say it's so. Then we read that NASA/NOAA has fudged the data or simply made a "educated" guess. And even if Climate Change were true, all the money citizens would pay for it's reduction only changes future temperature by 0.2%C. Maybe a CO2 level of 450ppm would be perfect for growing plants and would also increase O2. Carbon tax would do nothing except make taxpayers poorer while transferring America's wealth to foreign lands. I vote for real science and proven theories based on real facts that can be duplicated multiple time. Addendum: Judicial Watch filed a Feb. 6, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking communications between National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Thomas Karl and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency.
    Like (30)
    Follow
    Share
    Lamar Smith is a perfect example of the dire need for term limits and campaign finance reform. "As of 2015, Smith has received more than $600,000 from the fossil fuel industry during his career in Congress.[46] In 2014, Smith got more money from fossil fuels than he did from any other industry.[47] Smith is publicly skeptical of global warming.[48][49][50]" - Lamar Smith Wikipedia page. How could this guy ever make an unbiased decision regarding the energy industry and it's environmental impacts. $600,000, what a joke
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    Here is Republican overreach trying to handcuff the EPA. This bill is not needed because all the information the EPA uses is readily available through scientific channels. Here we have legislators (GOP) trying to convince their voters that they are saving us from the EPA. Nothing could be further from the truth. But the GOP doesn't care about truth. A shameful excuse with more hidden fear mongering.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Vote against
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    The EPA already uses data from studies that have been rigorously analyzed and reproduced. It's literally what the scientific method entails. This is a very obvious attempt to bog down the EPA with unnecessary hoops to jump through in order to prevent them from being able to regulate big corporations' emissions. If you have some semblance of care for your constituents and the longevity of this beautiful state, you will vote to oppose this bill. It's time to put partisan politics aside and act to protect our air, rivers, and lakes.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    This administrations budget defunds scientific research so fewer studies can be done and then says the epa needs a certain number of public studies to pass a regulation. I don't understand why people trust the republicans who have done nothing but support a select few and not the epa who have done nothing but fight for the common good.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Scientists need to be able to do their jobs without political bias. This is yet another example of undermining vigorous environmental research.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE