House Passes another Bill to Undermine EPA
(Washington, DC) – Today the House passed H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act, by a vote of 241-175. Republicans claim that H.R. 1030 increases EPA’s transparency and accountability by ensuring that its regulations are based on public data that can be verified and reproduced. In reality, H.R. 1030 prevents EPA from functioning effectively and using the most relevant scientific data—including confidential medical information that is legally protected from public disclosure. If this bill becomes law, EPA would be forced to ignore this valuable research when protecting the public.
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said, “I think it is sad that today the Science Committee is on the floor of the House of Representatives putting forth a bill that will force a public health agency to ignore science.”
She continued, “Not too many years ago, the then Chairman of the Science Committee, Sherry Boehlert, a Republican, made clear that we need to be good stewards of the environment we are leaving for future generations. I want to believe that some of my Republican colleagues still believe that. However, legislation like the bill before us today makes me fear that what we are left with is a Majority party which ignores science, ignores public health, and ignores environmental damage—all for the sake of the polluting industries who have endorsed the Majority’s actions here today. Now I don’t begrudge these companies for supporting legislation that helps their bottom lines. It’s to be expected. What concerns me is that this Congress no longer looks at industry’s requests with a critical eye. We simply rubber stamp them, without any regard for our nation’s scientific experts, health experts, or environmental experts and their concerns.”
A large number of scientific organizations, public health organizations, and environmental groups expressed opposition to the bill such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the American Statistical Association, the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Public Health Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the League of Conservation Voters. To view all of the letters from outside organizations expressing concern or opposition to H.R. 1030, click here.
The White House released a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on H.R. 1030. In its statement the Administration expresses its strong opposition to the legislation and makes clear that the President’s senior advisors would recommend the President veto the bill if it reaches his desk. To view the SAP, click here.
H.R. 1030 allocates $1 million per year to the make the data from 25,000 research studies publically available. However, CBO estimated that implementing this bill would cost $250 million per year.
Congresswoman Donna F. Edwards (D-MD) offered an amendment highlighting the actual costs to the EPA under the Republican legislation. She said, “It is totally absurd to tell an agency to do $250 million of work with $1 million. More importantly, it forces the agency into an untenable position. They must either ignore the requirements of this legislation, because the Majority isn’t providing them with the resources to carry them out, or they can comply with the requirements for all of 1 and a half days that funding will allow, and then shut down all of the covered actions under this bill. That is just really irresponsible. The Majority here is legislating failure.”
Congresswoman Katherine Clark (D-MA) described the amendment she offered with Congressman Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) and Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA). She said, “A great deal of important research, particularly related to public health, is based on sensitive personal information that this bill would exclude from consideration. This limit poses an impossible choice for the EPA: disregard critical research, even when it has been subject to rigorous evaluation and peer review, or violate the privacy of volunteers. Our amendment simply provides that the EPA may rely on any peer-reviewed scientific publication when making rules, even if its data is not publicly available.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article