And my colleagues, as I rise in opposition to this amendment, the supporters would claim that it's about transparency. What it's really about is not transparency. It's about a way to block or delay critical EPA rules. That's what this whole bill is all about. The amendment does the same thing. They use rhetoric about transparency to cloud the amendment's true impact. The amendment would prevent EPA from using the best science available when implementing its public health laws. It accomplishes this by not allowing EPA to rely on any scientific study unless the agency can publish, on its Web site, all of the underlying data associated with that study. Today, EPA prides itself on using the best science available. The Agency understands that ideology will not stand the test of time, but science will; and their rules and regulations have to be based on the science, so they gladly inform stakeholders and the public about the studies upon which they rely. The underlying data to peer-reviewed studies is often not published. That's because the data sets underlying peer-reviewed scientific studies are the property of the scientists that spend their careers gathering that information. The EPA cannot require the scientists to give up their private information. Oftentimes, those studies involve going to a lot of people and trying to find out the impact of certain exposure to pollutants.…
Share & report
More from Henry Waxman
I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
At this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. Tonko), our colleague who is an active leader in energy policy.
Climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face, so before approving a multibillion-dollar energy infrastructure project that will last for decades, we need to evaluate its climate impacts. That is the standard the President rightly…
I want to point out that none of the delays that Mr. Upton indicated on that chart would result in 13 million people losing insurance coverage and raise premiums 10-20 percent. This is not a delay that we can agree to. It hurts the…





