webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Tonko, P Rep

GGL 5 26

[### Trump administration aims to roll back limits on toxic ...

The Hill

https://thehill.com › policy › energy-environment › epa...](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/epa-toxic-wastewater-coal-fired-power-plants/)

22 hours ago — It is the latest step that President Donald Trump's administration has taken to pull back regulations on coal mining and coal-fired power and ...Read more

AI Overview

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is facing intense scrutiny over policies that roll back federal limits on toxic heavy metals like arsenic, lead, and mercury from industrial polluters.

U.S. Senate (.gov) +3

Controversial Actions and Impact:

Sierra Club +2

Earthjustice +3

U.S. Senate (.gov) +1

Criticism and Responses:

Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (.gov)

Earthjustice +2

:{:{}:

Lee Zeldin Intends to Allow More Heavy Metals ... - Sierra Club}:}:

Jun 30, 2025 — Lee Zeldin's proposal to allow coal companies to dump more heavy metals into our waterways defies all common sense.

Sierra Club

McClellan and Tonko Send Letter to Administrator Zeldin Urging ...

Jul 23, 2025 — McClellan and Tonko Send Letter to Administrator Zeldin Urging EPA to Retract Proposal to Weaken Pollution Standards * “It is the ...

Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (.gov)

WATCH: In Senate EPW Hearing, Kelly Presses EPA on Lead ...

Apr 29, 2026 — Sen. Kelly shows EPA Administrator Zeldin how close the hazardous lead and arsenic smelter is to an elementary school during an EP...

---

HILL

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency moved Thursday to roll back limits that require coal-fired power plants to prevent the release of toxic heavy metals into streams and rivers through polluted groundwater, saying a three-year-old rule is unduly costly for the energy industry at a time when energy demand is spiking.

It is the latest step that President Donald Trump’s administration has taken to pull back regulations on coal mining and coal-fired power and empower fossil fuels as a primary energy source to feed the rapid growth of artificial intelligence data centers.

In its proposed rule, the EPA said a 2024 rule under President Joe Biden misjudged the effectiveness and cost of the regulation, and had the effect of shutting down coal-fired power plants at a time when energy demand is spiking.

Changing the rule is critical to making electricity more affordable and reliable, while advancing the economy, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement.

sen. Tina Smith, Rep. Paul Tonko to speak at Citizens’ Climate Lobby virtual conference

Published on November 27th, 2022 | by Citizens' Climate Lobby

The midterms have been pivotal in forecasting the political leanings of the next Congress, and Citizens’ Climate Lobby is poised to make a difference no matter who is in office. One way to make sure that you’re fully prepared for climate action going into the new year is to attend CCL’s free, virtual December conference!

===

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/some-gop-lawmakers-are-thawing-on-climate-change

2/19?

Congressional Republicans seem to be thawing on climate.

Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus who has denied the science behind climate change, told reporters Wednesday he was open to confront the peril of the warming planet.

“There are some things I’m willing to look at,” the North Carolina Republican said of addressing climate change. While he remains skeptical of climate science, he said, “I think that greenhouse gas emissions is certainly something that we need to look at.”

Last week, SenateEnvironment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso of Wyoming said America can cut its carbon output. It’s a business opportunity for U.S. firms, he said. “You know, as other countries grow their economies, they should be using the best possible technology to capture carbon emissions.”

And Illinois Republican Rep. John Shimkus, who in 2008 called a carbon tax “the only intellectually honest way to move forward on global climate change,” said Wednesday, referring to a possible climate bill, that there are “areas of agreement where Republicans can be supportive so that you might have a legislative solution that actually gets signed into law.”

As the long-set Republican opposition to addressing climate change recedes on Capitol Hill, even highly conservative members in the House and Senate are indicating they view greenhouse gases as a problem and are open to climate measures that would emphasize an expanded role for the private sector rather than the federal government.

While no deal is imminent or likely in this Congress, Republicans have set out areas they might be willing to compromise on or use as bargaining chips in negotiating climate legislation, including carbon-capture technology, energy efficiency, nuclear power, battery storage and funding for basic energy research and development.

In a column published Wednesday, a trio of top Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee — ranking member Greg Walden of Oregon, Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, and Shimkus — offered an “innovation” pitch to address the issue with what they called “bipartisan solutions”: renewable energy development, carbon capture and utilization, hydropower and nuclear power.

“These are bipartisan solutions we must seize on to deliver real results for the American people,” they wrote.

That type of offer may have an audience with Democrats who may view a proposal with more federal involvement, like the Green New Deal resolution from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, as less politically palatable. The resolution aims to overhaul the U.S. energy system and swiftly pull away from carbon-heavy sources.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon, who opposed cap-and-trade legislation Democrats narrowly passed when they last had control of the House, said he was interested in what Republicans had to offer.

“Renewable energy, R&D, energy efficiency, research into new battery technology, massive federal investments in those areas? Sure, I’m interested in that,” DeFazio said.

He said that before he’s willing to work with Republicans on these efforts, they must acknowledge the science behind climate change and the related risks presented to the planet.

“They have to acknowledge there’s a problem if they want to spend a bunch of money to solve it,” he said. “If they’re going to spend a bunch of money on a problem they say doesn’t exist, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

Shimkus said that he, with Walden and Upton, was trying to move beyond the topic of climate science, which “we all agree with,” to a strategy of “how we can move forward.”

Republicans are considering “where are there areas of agreement where Republicans can be supportive so that you might have a legislative solution that actually gets signed into law,” he said.

‘No-regret solutions’

At a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who chairs the committee, laid out similar grounds for compromise.

“I have often spoken about clean energy innovation policies as ‘no-regret solutions,’” the Alaska Republican said. “But in reality, these are just those first steps.”

Deploying low-carbon energy infrastructure worldwide requires research and cost-cutting, she said, underscoring carbon capture technology, which is still in its infancy.

“It is time to push hard to bring down the cost of clean energy technologies like renewables, advanced nuclear, next-generation energy storage and carbon capture,” Murkowski said. “If we want credible technological solutions that are cost-effective and deployable globally and at-scale, we must ensure that the policies we put in place propel those efforts.”

Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Joe Manchin III said at that hearing that a comprehensive measure like the Green New Deal could be a way for lawmakers of both parties to “come together and understand that it’s a really lofty goal.”

“We get these divides where our caucuses, whether it be within the Democrat or Republican, or divide within the whole Senate or the whole Congress,” the West Virginia Democrat said. “We don’t want to drink dirty water. We don’t want to breathe dirty air. We want our kids to have a future. We really do. They also realize they have to have a job to sustain themselves.”

Shimkus agreed with the sentiment that Democrats’ Green New Deal created an opportunity to craft a more politically-moderate approach to addressing climate that could receive buy-in from his party.

“I think that’s helpful in getting us to look at something ... that we might be willing to consider,” he said.

In an interview,Rep. Paul Tonko, who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce’s Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, lauded the Republicans’ willingness to address climate change but said their push for innovation falls short of what is needed to tackle such as sprawling threat.

"Innovation and research are important but again that's only picking two tools out of the kit,” the New York Democrat said. “And if we’re going to get to this very lofty ambitious goal with urgency, we’re going to need to have many more elements to be part of the equation for success.”

Tonko, whose subcommittee would be the first stop for legislation in the House to address climate change and energy issues, said there are opportunities to work out a deal between both chambers and parties.

He mentioned energy efficiency, weatherization, conservation, research and upgrading the electric grids as areas of collaboration — points Republicans have broadly said they would be open to.

“I applaud they're coming around,” Tonko said. “It appears as though the denial syndrome or the delay syndrome has been abandoned and that people are now talking solutions.”

Trump: Green New Deal sounds like a ‘high school term paper that got a low mark’]

==

https://thinkprogress.org/california-trump-states-adopting-vehicle-standards-6212b2031ce6/

More and more states and automakers are uniting behind California in a nationwide debate over vehicle emissions standards, as tensions between the Golden State and President Donald Trump’s administration come to a head.

A growing coalition of states is supporting California’s efforts to demand cleaner and more efficient vehicles, at a time when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are seeking to halt standards despite objections from health and climate experts. Those states are now being joined by several major automakers, with others facing pressure from lawmakers.

Three weeks ago, California inked a deal with four major automakers, committing them to increasing both gas mileage and greenhouse gas emissions standards in exceedance of the Trump administration’s proposal. Now, others are under pressure to do the same.

Eight senior House Democrats wrote to 14 other automakers on Thursday, encouraging them to sign on to the same deal California made with Ford, BMW, Honda, and Volkswagen.

“Our districts and the country as a whole need the auto industry to help us address climate change, and in the near-term that means a serious commitment to greenhouse gas reduction through emission reduction from vehicles,” wrote lawmakers led by Reps. Doris Matsui (D-CA) and Paul Tonko (D-NY), the latter of whom is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee. Recipients included major automakers like Volvo, Chrysler, and Toyota.

That appeal echoes an earlier effort from 30 Senate Democrats, who last week similarly called on automakers to join their peers in adhering to stricter standards.

“In the absence of an agreement between the Federal government and states, the California agreement is a commonsense framework that provides flexibility to the industry to meet tailpipe standards while also taking important steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money on fuel for consumers,” that letter reads.

[Economic and environmental cost of Trump’s auto rollback could be staggering, new research shows

The administration's war with California could cost the U.S. economy $400 billion by mid-century.]

The deal the California Air Resources Board (CARB) struck with the four automakers would see the average fuel economy of fleets increase to 50 miles per gallon by 2026. That commitment is less than Obama-era efforts, which would have seen 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, but it still marks a major break with the Trump administration.

Under the Clean Air Act, California has for decades been granted a waiver allowing the state to impose vehicle emissions standards exceeding those of the federal government. But the Trump administration has sought to undermine the state with its proposed Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule. The EPA and NHTSA are proposing freezing federal fuel economy standards at 2020 levels, a move environmental and public health experts have said would have swift repercussions. Data shows that air quality has improved significantly as a result of the stricter standards.

California has aggressively sought to protect its standards, suing the federal government over the rollback. And automakers have an incentive to side with California. While the oil and gas industry has lobbied hard for easing emissions standards, many automakers have grown worried by the scope of the administration’s rollbacks. One serious concern has been the prospect of a split market, wherein the industry would have to meet different standards in different states. In June, 17 car companies wrote to Trump and warned that weakening standards regardless could destabilize the industry.

Support from other states is also giving California a boost. Twelve states and Washington, D.C., were already committed to California’s standards prior to the Trump administration. But Colorado, an oil-rich state, recently joined that lineup, becoming a “Section 177 state” in a nod to the section of the Clean Air Act that allows for California’s stricter standards. New Mexico, another oil state, also has plans to re-join by the end of 2020; the state had initially joined but repealed the standards under Republican Gov. Susana Martinez. Arizona and Florida have similarly adopted and then repealed the standards.

Environmental groups have expressed optimism that other states may adopt California’s approach, especially amid growing concerns over the potential ramifications of the rollback. Research released last week by the environmental policy group Energy Innovation found that the Trump administration’s efforts could cost the U.S. economy $400 billion through 2050, in addition to increasing U.S. transport emissions up to 10% by 2035.

And with litigation underway, conversations about auto emissions and climate change are already proving contentious. The Washington Post reported on Friday that a federal judge who was set to hear the vehicle emissions case between the EPA and the consortium of 17 states led by California was replaced on that panel after he sent emails critical of climate science. The judge, A. Raymond Randolph, had complained in a reply-all email to a colleague about a seminar on climate change science for judges.

“The jurisdiction assigned to you does not include saving the planet. A little hubris would be welcomed in many of your latest public displays,” Randolph wrote. “The supposedly science and stuff you are now sponsoring is nothing of the sort. Get out of this business and back into the business of judging, which is what you are being paid to do.”

Randolph has been replaced on the panel by Sri Srinivasan, a Barack Obama appointee.

#AIR POLLUTION, #CALIFORNIA, #CLEAN AIR ACT, #CLIMATE, #JUDICIARY, #POLITICS

https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/the-trump-administration-has-launched-more-than-100-attacks-on-science-in-unprecedented-assault/

no lnx

The Trump administration has launched more than 100 attacks on science in unprecedented assault

[px President Donald Trump holds up a jacket he was given by a guest, Tuesday, March 21, 2017, after signing the S-422 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Paul D. Williams)]

Written by Elliott Negin / Independent Media Institute August 19, 2019

On July 19, President Trump hosted Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins and their families, along with the family of their deceased colleague Neil Armstrong, at a White House event to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first manned landing on the moon.

“Tomorrow will represent 50 years from the time we planted a beautiful American flag on the moon,” Trump said. “And that was an achievement, possibly one of the great, considered one of the great achievements ever.”

Trump’s fractured syntax notwithstanding, the Apollo program was indeed a stunning triumph of federal science, involving more than 34,000 National Aeronautics and Space Administration employees and 375,000 industry and university contractors. It was one of many spectacular achievements by federal and federally funded scientists over the last half-century, such as the creation of the internet, fiber optics and magnetic resonance imaging technology, not to mention the role those scientists played in providing the technical underpinning for health and environmental standards that save lives and protect critical ecosystems and wildlife habitats.

Trump’s lauding of the Apollo 11 mission rang a particularly discordant note given the lengths to which his administration has gone to destroy federal science by censoring scientific findings, gagging agency scientists and fostering a hostile working environment. Since taking office, the administration has launched more than 100 attacks on science, according to my organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists—more than the George W. Bush administration amassed over its two four-year terms.

Sidelining Science

Just a day before Trump’s Apollo photo op, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it would reject scientific evidence and the recommendation of its own staff scientists by not banning chlorpyrifos, the widely used agricultural pesticide shown to hamper childhood brain development. It was the agency’s second scientifically indefensible chemical-related decision of the year. In April, it overruled the advice of its own scientists who urged the agency to follow the example of 55 other countries in completely banning asbestos, a known carcinogen.

Today’s EPA offers a stark example of the Trump administration’s crusade to dismantle science-based agencies. Nearly 1,600 employees left the EPA during the first year and a half of the EPA administration, while only 400 were hired, according to data obtained by The Washington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request. Of 1,600 employees who left, at least 260 were scientists, 185 were “environmental protection specialists” and 106 were engineers. The total number of employees at the agency today—14,172—is the lowest in 30 years.

Besides chopping staff, the EPA has dramatically reduced the role of outside science advisers. Last fall, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, disbanded a 20-member scientific advisory committee on particulate matter, failed to convene a similar panel on ozone, and packed a seven-member advisory committee on air quality standards with industry-friendly participants.

The EPA is not the only agency pushing scientists out the door. The same day the EPA made its chlorpyrifos announcement, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)announced that nearly two-thirds of 395 Washington, D.C.-based employees in its Economic Research Service, which provides analyses on a range of issues, and National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which oversees $1.7 billion in scientific funding, will quit rather than relocate to Kansas City.

The department’s dubious rationale for moving the Research Service and National Institute is placing researchers closer to farmers and cutting costs, but its ulterior motive is to hollow out their staffs, hindering their ability to carry out their missions. Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff, acknowledged as much during a speech he gave at an August 2 Republican fundraiser in South Carolina.

“You’ve heard about ‘drain the swamp.’ What you probably haven’t heard is what we are actually doing,” he said. “I don’t know if you saw the news the other day, but the USDA just tried to move, or did move, two offices out of Washington, D.C…. Guess what happened? More than half the people quit…. What a wonderful way to sort of streamline government, and do what we haven’t been able to do for a long time.”

Capitol Hill Science Defenders

Some members of Congress are fighting back. Late last month, for example, the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress—a temporary committee with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans—unanimously approved a recommendation to resurrect the Office of Technology Assessment, a congressional watchdog agency that then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich killed in the mid-1990s.

The select committee’s recommendation comes on the heels of a draft House spending bill for the 2020 fiscal year that includes $6 million to jumpstart the agency, which provided Congress with analyses on a range of topics, from acid rain to climate change to renewable energy, from 1972 to 1995.

Meanwhile, House Democrats and Republicans alike voiced their support for protecting federal science during a recent Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing on scientific integrity. Two dozen federal agencies have adopted scientific integrity policies since 2010, but they are inconsistent and difficult to enforce, so some members of Congress want to codify protections in a law.

“Allowing political power or special interests to manipulate or suppress federal science hurts, and hurts all of us,” said New York Rep. Paul Tonko at the July 17 hearing. “It leads to dirtier air, unsafe water, toxic products on our shelves, and chemicals in our homes and environment. And it has driven federal inaction in response to the growing climate crisis.”

Earlier this year, Tonko introduced the Scientific Integrity Act, which would guarantee federal scientists the right to share their findings with the public, ensure the accuracy of government science-related communications, and protect scientific research from political interference.

Federal science has taken an unprecedented beating during the Trump administration and remains a long way from its glory days half a century ago when it landed men on the moon. Tonko recognizes that protecting scientific integrity is a critical first step to rebuilding American scientific enterprise and that it deserves bipartisan support.

“Scientific integrity is a longstanding concern that transcends any one party or political administration,” Tonko said. “The abuses directed by this president and his top officials have brought a new urgency to the issue, but the fact remains whether a Democrat or Republican sits in the [House] speaker’s chair or the Oval Office, we need strong scientific integrity policies.”

Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

This article first appeared on Truthout and was produced in partnership with Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

==

-----

Former Interior scientist calls out ‘culture of fear, censorship, and suppression’ under Trump

KYLA MANDEL

:{

}:

:{

There is a “culture of fear, censorship, and suppression” within the Trump administration that is impeding government scientists from doing their best work, former Interior Department policy director and scientist turned whistleblower Joel Clement warned on Wednesday.

Speaking to lawmakers on the House Science Committee, scientific experts spoke about the need for stronger rules to support the integrity of their research and ensure that political agendas don’t dictate or interfere with the data.

“There is not Democratic science, there is not Republican science, there is just science,” said Michael Halpern, deputy director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Halpern pointed to instances under current and previous administrations, including under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, of scientific assessments being either watered down or language softened. He pointed to past research on lead in school lunchboxes and on the impact of fracking on drinking water.

But the scientists said that under President Donald Trump, political interference had reached a new level.

As Clement highlighted, a study into the rules needed to protect the health and safety of offshore oil rig workers was canceled right before a set of measures to protect the workers was rolled-back. Similarly, a study into the health impacts of surface coal mining was canceled right before making moves to support the coal industry.

Other studies have been delayed, such as one on the health impacts of PFAS chemicals in drinking water for fear of a “public relations nightmare,” while agencies have seen some scientists self-censor their work out of fear, such as removing the words “climate change” from reports.

“The American people lose when we end up with manipulated, suppressed, or distorted information,” Halpern said. After all, as multiple experts testified, it’s taxpayer money that funds government scientists — the public paid for that research and deserves to see it.

The result is “dirtier air, dirtier water,” added Clement, who resigned from his post at the Interior in July 2017 after being reassigned to “an unrelated job” by former Secretary Ryan Zinke. Clement saw the move as an attempt to push him out for speaking out about the impacts of climate change on Alaskan native communities.

The hearing on Wednesday follows the release of a bill by committee member Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), called the Scientific Integrity Act, earlier this year. The bill, which has thesupport of nearly 200 House members,is intended to insulate “public scientific research and reports from the distorting influence of political and special interests” according to Tonko.

While Tonko reminded everyone at the hearing that he began working on the bill in 2016 under the Obama administration, he added, “The abuses directed by this President [Trump] and his top officials have brought a new urgency to the issue.”

While more than 20 federal agencies have some type of scientific integrity policy, not all of these policies are successfully or fully implemented. As an April report by the Government Accountability Office found, of the nine agencies reviewed, seven have “specific, documented procedures” for identifying and addressing alleged violations. The report also made 10 recommendations to agencies for addressing the need to better educate staff on the issue, provide greater oversight, and develop procedures to identify and address potential violations.

Scandals mount under David Bernhardt just two weeks after being confirmed to lead Interior

Ethics probes are still in full swing.

Last year, the EPA announced it would begin an investigation to see whether its scientific integrity policy was being properly implemented. This came after a survey was released by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which showed that government scientists across 16 agencies and departments had concerns with the degree of political influence over their work.

Specifically, the annual survey for 2018 showed that a third of the nearly 449 EPA respondents worried about the “influence” of political appointees or White House officials over “science-based” decisions. Less than 30% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “My agency adheres to its scientific integrity policy.”

In addition, roughly a third of EPA respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had either been asked directly to omit or independently decided to avoid the use of the term “climate change” in their work.

There is technically nothing stopping an agency from dismantling its scientific integrity policy, said Halpern. That’s why a bill such as the one proposed by Tonko would go a long way to buttress, or add “statutory heft,” to agency policies as Clement described.

Clement called the Scientific Integrity Act a good first step, but noted that in order to be truly effective, broader ethics and integrity standards were needed across agencies.

Indeed, many of the individuals overseeing agencies come from the industry they are now responsible for regulating. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Interior (DOI) have faced numerous ethics scandals regarding potential conflicts of interest and alleged industry influence.

EPA internal watchdog will audit the agency’s Scientific Integrity Policy

Less than a third of EPA staff surveyed said they felt the agency adheres to its scientific integrity policy.

In March, for instance, The New York Times revealed documents showing DOI Secretary David Bernhardt intervened to block a study showing pesticides might threaten the existence of 1,200 endangered species; Bernhardt has a history of lobbying against the Endangered Species Act.

But due to the “hostile leadership situation,” there are many scientists who are simply keeping their heads down and staying quiet about issues surrounding scientific integrity under the current administration.

“I’d love if every policymaker thought of science as the North Star,” said Clement, “but I hope it’s part of the constellation.”

}:

==

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/434157-dem-lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-protect-science-research-from

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation on Thursday to prevent political interference with public science research amid what they called "President Trump's multi-agency assault."

The lawmakers said in a press release that political interference has been a "longstanding concern that has taken on newfound urgency" in the current administration.

Provisions in the "Science Integrity Act" intend to make it so that political considerations do not factor into scientific conclusions, to prohibit the suppression of scientific findings and to allow scientists to answer media inquiries about their work without prior agency approval.

“Independent, rigorous scientific research is one of the most powerful tools we have for advancing the public interest and keeping the American people safe,” Tonko said in the statement.

“President Trump’s multi-agency assault on environmental standards has hinged on efforts to distort, bury and even rewrite credible public scientific findings, including his absurd denial of the growing climate crisis and efforts to cover up evidence that the American people are being exposed to dangerous toxins," he added.

Schatz in the statement said that we are facing "unprecedented times" for science.

"While it’s not the first time it has been under attack, this time feels worse," he said. "That’s why we need to answer the call of our times and stand up for science.”

==

Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida introduced the Scientific Integrity Act in February; Rep. Paul Tonko of New York introduced a House version this month.2,3 Combined, they already have more than 100 cosponsors.

The legislation would require agencies to create policies that provide researchers with whistleblower protections, the ability to review public communications on their research, and the right to communicate freely with the public and Congress.4

"If ever there was a time that such a bill is needed, it is now," said Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Science.1

References:

1. Mervis, J. (8 February 2017). "U.S. Senate bill aims to make sure federal scientists aren't 'muzzled.'" Science.2. Nelson, B. (7 February 2017). "S.338 - Scientific Integrity Act." Congress.gov.3. Tonko, P. (2 March 2017). "H.R.1358 - Scientific Integrity Act." Congress.gov.4. Marshall, C. (8 February 2017). "Senate Dems push bill to protect researchers." E&E News.

==