Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

house Bill H.R. 1030

Should EPA Science Reports Be More Transparent And Publicly Available?

Argument in favor

This bill would make EPA operations more transparent, especially around how they create regulations. It seems obvious that the EPA should be making its scientific studies publicly available.

Cary's Opinion
···
03/17/2015
More transparency always seems like a good idea.
Like (5)
Follow
Share
Tommy's Opinion
···
03/10/2015
Transparency is good in almost all functions. Make campaign finance funding completely transparent.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
Dennis's Opinion
···
04/11/2015
Transparency is critical so that information, measurements, and reporting that affect decision making can be absolutely verified for accuracy.
Like (3)
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. If it doesn’t, the quality of its work in protecting the environment may be undermined.

KalebNyquist's Opinion
···
03/04/2015
Sounds like bad data economics. By demanding scientists rely only on public data, we restrict our data supply and therefore increase the cost of doing science. As a member of the public, I don't want to be sifting through mountains of data I don't understand -- I trust our scientists to do this for me, and trust them to choose wisely the data-sets they want to use.
Like (6)
Follow
Share
Christina's Opinion
···
02/07/2017
This would limit EPA gaining information on events that only happen one time and are therefore not repeatable. This is a misleading attempt to limit's EPA's research.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
Daniel's Opinion
···
05/07/2015
This is just another way that the government is trying to regulate the EPA. The individuals working on the information are trained professionals. They don't need the public weighing in on facts.
Like (3)
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 18th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 241 Yea / 175 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
    IntroducedFebruary 24th, 2015
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 (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 11.
  • action
    Reported by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 114-34.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 23.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 138 Reported to House. For each measure, resolution provides one hour of general debate; makes specified amendments in order; and allows a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  • action
    Rule H. Res. 138 passed House.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 138.
  • action
    For each measure, resolution provides one hour of general debate; makes specified amendments in order; and allows a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  • action
    House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 138 and Rule XVIII.
  • action
    The Speaker designated the Honorable Garret Graves to act as Chairman of the Committee.
  • action
    GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 1030.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 138, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Edwards Part B amendment No. 1.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Edwards amendment No. 1, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Edwards demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 138, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Kennedy Part B amendment No. 2.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Kennedy amendment No. 2, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Kennedy demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
  • action
    The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1030.
  • action
    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
  • action
    The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  • action
    Mr. Takai 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 Takai 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 add a new section at the end of the bill pertaining to protecting taxpayers from science promoted by polluting companies, pending a reservation of a point of order. Subsequently, the reservation was removed.
  • action
    The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
  • action
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 181 - 239 (Roll no. 124).
  • vote
    On passage Passed by recorded vote: 241 - 175 (Roll no. 125).
  • 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.

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 18th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 241 Yea / 175 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
    IntroducedFebruary 24th, 2015
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    Cary's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    03/17/2015
    More transparency always seems like a good idea.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    KalebNyquist's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/04/2015
    Sounds like bad data economics. By demanding scientists rely only on public data, we restrict our data supply and therefore increase the cost of doing science. As a member of the public, I don't want to be sifting through mountains of data I don't understand -- I trust our scientists to do this for me, and trust them to choose wisely the data-sets they want to use.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Tommy's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    03/10/2015
    Transparency is good in almost all functions. Make campaign finance funding completely transparent.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Christina's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/07/2017
    This would limit EPA gaining information on events that only happen one time and are therefore not repeatable. This is a misleading attempt to limit's EPA's research.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Dana's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/07/2017
    Don't be fooled by this Bill's seeming transparency. It would eliminate the use of many important studies. Be careful! Couching something restrictive as something transparent is a common ruse.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Hailstorm's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/05/2017
    This is not about transparency, it is about restricting scientists and limiting what they can do, wastibg their time and resources.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Dennis's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/11/2015
    Transparency is critical so that information, measurements, and reporting that affect decision making can be absolutely verified for accuracy.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Brian's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/07/2017
    Another mis-labeled bill. Big oil's attempt to keep the EPA from exposing them.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Daniel's Opinion Against
    ···
    05/07/2015
    This is just another way that the government is trying to regulate the EPA. The individuals working on the information are trained professionals. They don't need the public weighing in on facts.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Hanna's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/07/2017
    This bill would prohibit the EPA from using studies on one-time events, such as the Gulf oil spill, pipeline spills, and pesticide bans, to inform regulations, since these events cannot be repeated.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Diana's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    03/11/2015
    Transparency is always a good thing. You can't get away with all the lying like if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Every last democrat should be booted out of congress for that one.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Cheryl's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/10/2015
    If more individuals are aware of policies and procedures before they are in place we may have better turnouts for elections so they feel they matter.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    William's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/19/2015
    If we put competent people in positions of leadership who are accountable to other elected officials who we can rely on addressing the citizens concerns, and not some interested third parties, then why do we need to add additional burden to their critical work? Another attempt at screwing with the epa
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Edward's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    03/03/2015
    The report does not belong to the EPA. It belongs to the American people.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MeganEHolstein's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/09/2015
    We need public transparency so that we can see what is going on in our government.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Crescente's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/08/2015
    States already have a lot of constraints against the EPA while polluters continue their dirty work. Such a law would further hamstring the EPA.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Richard's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/02/2015
    Legislators trying to weaken regulatory bodies....
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Michelle's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/05/2017
    This will inhibit the ability for the EPA to use data from longitudinal and environmental disasters and other non-replicable studies to propose solutions quickly and effectively.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Elinor's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    03/03/2015
    Hey, if I am paying for their studies and have to suffer the consequences of their decisions, I have a right to know the bases for all government scientists' and bureaucrats' actions and decisions. Without such information, we US CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS are subject to the whims and fancies of politically-biased government dictators.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Garrett's Opinion Against
    ···
    05/18/2015
    Stop attacking the EPA, how many bills need to attack it in how many ways. Why not just pass a "burn it all" bill congress? It's more honest.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE