Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

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.

TuckerWantsLiberty's Opinion
···
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Why would an unconstitutional arm of the executive branch want to use unpublished studies as bases for regulation?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

What is House Bill H.R. 1430?

This bill — known as the HONEST Act — would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from proposing, finalizing, or publishing regulations or assessments based on science that isn’t transparent or reproducible. All scientific and technical information used by the EPA to support their action would have to be based on the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available online in a way that allows for independent analysis and reproduction of the research results.

Personal, commercial or financial information, and trade secrets could be redacted before it becomes publicly available, and to view redactions a person would have to sign a confidentiality agreement with the EPA.

Among the EPA actions covered by this bill include a risk, exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, standards and limitations, regulations, regulatory impact analyses, and guidances. This bill’s requirements wouldn’t apply retroactively to existing regulations or assessments.

This bill’s acronym stands for the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act.

Impact

The general public; scientific entities contracted for research studies by the EPA; the subjects of those studies; EPA employees; and the EPA.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 1430

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced this bill in order to promote “an open and honest Environmental Protection Agency” and “preserving the integrity of the scientific review process.” Smith added in a press release that:

“An open and honest scientific process is long overdue at EPA. American taxpayers have often had to foot the bill for regulations and rules based on hidden science that has not been available for review by the public. We want to change that. The HONEST Act of 2017 is about ensuring public access to the very science that underpins rules and regulations by EPA. This bill would prohibit any future regulations from taking effect unless the underlying scientific data is public.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists has expressed opposition to this bill, calling it a “thinly veiled attack on science that [Rep. Smith (R-TX)] doesn’t like.”  It contends that the peer review process is sufficient for the federal government’s use in issuing relevant science-based rules, so the raw data is unnecessary. The organization also said that it would add “unnecessary and burdensome redundancy” to the regulatory process that “wastes taxpayer dollars and agency resources.” Finally, the UCS said the bill would discourage private sector and academic researchers from sharing information with the government because of its intellectual property provisions.

This legislation has the support of 29 cosponsors in the House, including 28 Republicans and a Democrat. It passed the Science, Space, and Technology Committee on a 17-12 vote. During the 114th Congress, it was introduced as the “Secret Science Reform Act” and passed the House on a mostly party-line 241-175 vote.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: U.S. National Archives and Record Administration / Public Domain)

AKA

HONEST Act

Official Title

To prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.

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!
    TuckerWantsLiberty's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    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
    Beannachd's Opinion Against
    ···
    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 Against
    ···
    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 Against
    ···
    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
    Mossteph's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/27/2017
    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
    Barbara's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/27/2017
    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
    egaly's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/27/2017
    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
    Scott's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/27/2017
    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
    HannahBorowski's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/27/2017
    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
    Harry's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    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
    singinghawk926's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/27/2017
    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
    Loraki's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    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
    CitizenLauren's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/28/2017
    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
    operaman's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/27/2017
    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
    tzubler's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/27/2017
    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
    Dennis's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/27/2017
    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
    Mark's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/27/2017
    This is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Vote against
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    Alex's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/27/2017
    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
    Rocky's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/28/2017
    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
    Fleur's Opinion Against
    ···
    03/28/2017
    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