There Is Just One Sentence In The Bill To Terminate The EPA

Tyler Durden's picture

This is one bill that no congressman can claim he has not had read completely...


At the same time, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, today introduced the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (HONEST Act).  Simultaneously, U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), and original cosponsor Chairman Lamar Smith, introduced the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.  Both bills promote an open and honest Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as preserving the integrity of the scientific review process.

Chairman Lamar Smith: “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 Science Advisory Board at EPA has the opportunity to include a more balanced group of scientists to assist EPA in fulfilling its core mission.  With the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017, conflicts of interest will be reduced. This bill would ensure that scientists advising EPA on regulatory decisions are not the same scientists receiving EPA grants.  As both of these bills move forward, our committee is working hard to preserve EPA’s scientific integrity and to help strengthen EPA’s internal review process.”


Vice Chairman Frank Lucas: “On numerous occasions we have seen how government regulations from agencies like EPA can impact the lives of millions of Americans, whether it’s increasing the cost of monthly utility bills or diminishing the availability of job opportunities. Nearly four decades ago, Congress created the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to look over the shoulder of the EPA and ensure sound science is guiding their rules and policy. Today we introduced the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 to strengthen the accountability and transparency of the SAB by eliminating potential conflicts of interest, requiring members of the board to disclose their professional backgrounds, and opening the board’s research to public review. Science and data are invaluable tools in helping us navigate complex policy issues, and I believe this bill will help restore credibility and trust in a federal agency that lost much of it in the last eight years.”

As a reminder, Scott Pruitt, an outspoken critic of Obama-era climate rules, leads the Environmental Protection Agency - the very agency he has clashed with in the past - ushering in what are likely to be dramatic changes to the agency.

As Bloomberg reported upon his confirmation, Pruitt built his political career fighting federal regulations he said stripped power away from states, often confronting the very agency he will now head. As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt led or joined more than a dozen lawsuits challenging EPA rules governing power plant pollution, carbon dioxide emissions and wetlands.

Pruitt promised senators last month that his "cooperative federalism" approach would not mean an end to nationwide environmental regulation, but rather "meaningful collaboration between the EPA and the states to achieve important environmental objectives."


"The states are not mere vessels of federal will; they don’t exist simply to carry out federal dictates from Washington," Pruitt said at his confirmation hearing.

Pruitt joined more than two dozen other states in challenging the Clean Power Plan, saying the Obama administration overstepped its authority by establishing statewide goals and giving regulators a variety of ways to meet them. Under a plan he set out in 2014, the regulation would be limited to imposing carbon-cutting mandates on individual power plants, resulting in relatively negligible reductions. Some conservatives want Pruitt to go further and undo the legal underpinning for that regulation: the EPA’s 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.

According to the Hill, Republicans said Pruitt will bring much-needed change to an agency that exemplifies eight years of executive overreach by the administration of former President Obama.

*  *  *

Judging by the bill above - that 'change' is very drastic!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
demi urge's picture

Sooo... it's just an attention grabber? 

NoDebt's picture

Yeah, it's never going to happen.  But it definitely got my attention.


knukles's picture

Count the votes is all one need do.
Who's ferit 'n who's aginit

JungleCat's picture

Aww, shucks! Why couldn't they make the bill 2,700 pages?

Just like Obozocare.

vato poco's picture

this almost certainly won't pass: the GOPussies will cuck out and run away from it, bawling like little girls. 

but in an alternate universe featuring a GOP know...balls, it could fly. the liberal dipshits would all moan, "poison air, poison water, you're tryna kill granny & the kiddies", because of course they would. but the (hypothetical) brave republicans can then answer, "Noooo....this doesn't eliminate any existing clean air/water regs, it just kills the extremely expensive and liberty-hating agency."

and that's something that can be sold, assuming a good enough salesman

Keyser's picture

Let me know when similar rhetoric is released about the abolishment of the NSA and the NDAA... Then we can talk...

Stainless Steel Rat's picture
Stainless Steel Rat (not verified) Keyser Mar 6, 2017 11:47 PM


<-- Reform the EPA
<-- End the EPA

auricle's picture

USDA,Education,FDA,Homeland Security,HHS,Housing and Urban Development can all go. If it's just a one liner then please terminate and consolidate. Save the Republic. 

Hobbleknee's picture

They'll still have to pass it to find out what's in it.

brianshell's picture

Lets see, Dec 31, congress in recess, a few members to pass it just like they rammed through the federal reserve act in 1913.

Lets do it.

prime american's picture
prime american (not verified) brianshell Mar 7, 2017 6:30 AM

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do...

NordikAvenger's picture

Who needs enforcement, right?  Wait until stuff gets polluted and then leave burden of proof on the taxpayer effected.  It works for everyone.  The little guy cannot fight the deep pocket, so profits for the job creators, God's very own annointed ones.

vato poco's picture

Yeah, because it ain't like there's people in those ...... what are they called again?  ....STATES that could handle that. Or is ityour moronic position that the rubes who aren't lucky enough to live in DC actually LIKE getting polluted On, and aren't smart enough to do something about it without GUIDANCE from their federal matters? 

shivura's picture

the thing about states' rights, dumbass, is they are all so eager so please the high-pollutin' corporation, that they will release shit in your streams, lead in your water, chemicals in your air while the rich, politicians, and trump move on to the next piece of property to exploit/destroy.   its funny how no one on this site understand capitalism or how our bullshit political system works.

how much does the epa cost a year and y'all are so excited about trillions of corporate tax breaks....fucked up...and the only responses will be personal...

vato poco's picture

is it difficult to type with Soros' dick in your mouth?

"trillions" of corporate tax breaks? jezus. why stop there? why not "gazillions"? Mr. S pays you a princely $7/hr. to spew his statist bullshit here, but he expects it to be competent bullshit, dumbass. you'd think that after 41 whole weeks, you'd have at least learned to construct a marginally cogent argument by aping your betters here. guess not.

 your service to the Almighty State is laughably inept. report to the commisar for re-education, comrade.

#DraintheSwamp    #CrushtheBureaucracy    #DestroytheDeepState    #Pizzagate


QuantumEasing's picture

Why so much effort required to pull a corporate charter?

EPA, DoE, DEA, etc. are all for-profit corporations, not government entities.

They have listings on Dunn and Bradstreet.

Trump can revoke their corporate charter at any time, immediately. No need to involve congress.

philipat's picture

If it did happen, it would be a good start. Then how about HHS, "Education" etc? If Government is to get smaller and the budget to be seriously addressed, tinkering at the edges doesn't hack it; it needs the closing of whole Departments. On a similar theme, do we really need SEVENTEEN different Intelligence Agencies competing and falling over eachother? And how come Russia and China can come up with superior weapon systems at a fraction of what the US spends?

Bigly's picture

This and MANY more.

Do it Trump!!!!!



ersatz007's picture

One step closer to China!

PT's picture

It is a definite statement from Trump along the lines of:  "Let the official records show that I put in the effort to cut the crap.  If the crap remains then that is someone else's fault."

nmewn's picture

Holy shit! This doesn't mean they will have to use scientists & data without without goal seeked computer models & a set confirmation bias in the peer review process does it!?

Why...this could Change "the science of climate modeling" as we know it! ;-)

Enceladus's picture

Too bad we couldn't find the same wordsmith for the Obamacare repeal act.

Raffie's picture

They can do mass damage between now and then let alone all the money they can extort and land/water they can polute at will.

JuliaS's picture

Dec 2018 - that's bad.

Should be labelled "effective immediately".

Big Hugh's picture

Who will protect us from ourselves?


Hulk's picture

I'm going to crap in the creek on new years eve !!!

Nemo DeNovo's picture

^^^ You WIN the INternet today!!! ^^^

Sledge750's picture

What a friggin turd you are..


If the existence of a government agency is all it takes to keep you from shitting in the water, we need to start shooting more people...

Hulk's picture

Not to worry, our creeks are safe . I have been using a sawdust toilet for years now. The output of that gets composted !!!

Its been many years since I posted this link

Logan 5's picture
Logan 5 (not verified) Mar 6, 2017 8:16 PM

We need to pass it to see what's in it because we need to make sure it presides over all 57 states

Rusty Shorts's picture


CaptainObvious's picture

I choose Bill #1.  Kill it with fire.  Oh wait, we can't do that...air pollution and carbon credits, by golly!  Can we kill it with a giant magnifying glass?  That's solar power, so it's got the EPA seal of approval!

Dr. Magoo's picture

Looks like the type of bill I'd write. I don't have a background in law aka bullshit

homericninjas's picture

Using that bill as a template I think I could write a bunch more in one morning.

Mr. Pain's picture

Can we do this with congress?


Doom Porn Star's picture

I do not require representation.   I am fully capable of representing myself and my interests.

Those that accept the notion that they require representation have in effect decided that they are unfit to make decisions for themselves.

Disband the Congress.

NordikAvenger's picture

Yeah, where's your time for work and shit like that?

TeethVillage88s's picture

I think there are many aspects to his statement

- Without huge federal govt invading state and local govt issues... THEN there is less time needed to deal with the consequences
- In our US Case Example Federal Govt is Byzantine (Historical)

- 97 different kinds of Taxes:
- 75,000 Pages in the Federal Register of Regulations
- 74,000 Pages in the IRS Income Tax Rules
- 2,700 Pages in ACA (Obama Care) Initially, but more than 20,000 pages with all other related regulations (Laurence Kotlikoff) (Laurence Kotlikoff)

Economist has NEGATIVE $750 Billion Trade Balance.

Trade balance Current-account balance Currency units Budget balance Interest rates
Country latest 12 months, $bn latest 12 months, $bn % of GDP, 2016* Feb 16th, per $ year ago, per $ % of GDP 2016* 3-month latest 10-year government bonds, latest
United States -750.1Dec

Best evidence Videos: (Proof of BestEvidence Video on Bernanke Lies)

taggaroonie's picture

Good call Doomie. Nobody represents me unless I sign something saying they can.

A government arsehole with uniforms backing him up is, purely and simply, a clear and present threat to anyone with the self-respect of which you speak.



booboo's picture

it's an end to a meanie

TeethVillage88s's picture

Just wondering the money that could be saved or prevented from being used.

Environmental Protection Agency:
Science and Technology Outlays = $748 M
Environmental Programs and Management Outlays = $2,597 M
State and Tribal Assistance Grants outlays = $3,981 M
Payment to the Hazardous Substance Superfund Outlays = $812 M
Hazardous Substance Superfund Outlays = $1,218 M
Other Outlays = $288 M

Total--Environmental Protection Agency Outlays = $8,831 Million

- Looks like a loss for the Tribes (Pres Trump should investigate to see if it just went to pockets of rich elites)
- Science and Tech... what is that Grants to Environmental guys?
- Super Fund doesn't seem to do much?

Doom Porn Star's picture

A Superfund Site is when the owners of businesses walk with the 'profits' and the rest of the citizenry are left with a a massive dump.  -Often one that would never have been mitigated by the supposed 'profits' in the first god damned place if environmental degredation and dumping/abandoning the wastes were taken into proper account.

Superfund Site = Corporate/Oligarchy Crime/Theft Scene.

It isn't profit if you stole from the commons.  It is theft.

It doesn't matter if what was/is stolen was stolen before, during or after extraction of 'profits'.


TeethVillage88s's picture

Yes. I believe the Super fund money is only used where they know it gets a big bang for the buck. All I know about that is that Rivers or Waterways are easier to clean up.

Maybe Love Canal was the first big episode or housing development that proved a need to have a kind of treasure chest for clean up.

- Fracking has left old oil wells all over many states, I forget how many were just abandoned maybe first it was 300 something, then was estimated in thousands... waiting for clean up and funding as you stated above

Zarbo's picture

That has to be some kind of brevity record.

Barney Fife's picture

Zero chance of passing but it's a nice idea. 

ebworthen's picture

Love it.  The Chinese will hate it.