Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1029

Reforming the EPA’s Science Advisory Board

Argument in favor

This bill will enhance the diversity of thought and perspective on the EPA's Science Advisory Board. Also reduces conflicts of interest and expands opportunities for public involvement.

Inez's Opinion
···
03/14/2015
All for letting the public have an opinion on issues of environment that directly affect them. The way EPA is set up now is narrowly focused.
Like (6)
Follow
Share
Peter's Opinion
···
03/10/2015
This board should be a revolving door of knowledge,NO one should be permenently employed by this very corrupt agency.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
Joe's Opinion
···
03/15/2015
Anyone with a grant has a vested interest and will only protect their grant.
Like (3)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Keeping scientists who have received EPA grants off of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board would dilute the pool of talent available to consult on environmental issues.

JordanForeman's Opinion
···
03/04/2015
I would not trust non-scientific minds with selecting which scientific minds get to contribute to the EPA.
Like (18)
Follow
Share
Steven's Opinion
···
01/01/2016
Science isn't debatable, it's hard fact! It's not validated by whether you agree with it or not. The board needs no revision or outside influence from energy companies.
Like (12)
Follow
Share
Jim's Opinion
···
03/18/2015
Scientists should not be put in the position of either taking an EPA grant or being on this Advisory Board. They should be able to do both, and it's not a conflict of interest.
Like (10)
Follow
Share

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 17th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 236 Yea / 181 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
    IntroducedFebruary 24th, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 17 - 12.
  • action
    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 114-33.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 22.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 138 Reported to House. For each measure, resolution provides one hour of general debate; makes specified amendments in order; and allows a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 138.
  • action
    House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 138 and Rule XVIII.
  • action
    The Speaker designated the Honorable Kevin Yoder to act as Chairman of the Committee.
  • action
    GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 1029.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 138, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Grayson (FL) Part A amendment No. 1.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 138, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the McKinley (WV) Part A amendment No. 2.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the McKinley (WV) Part A amendment No. 2, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Ms. Bonamici demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption ofthe amendment until a time to be announced.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 138, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Polis (CO) Part A amendment No. 3.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 138, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the Bonamici Part A amendment No. 4.
  • action
    The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1029.
  • action
    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
  • action
    Mr. Peters moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Peters motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to add a new section at the end of the bill pertaining to Protecting Taxpayers from Science Promoted by Polluting Companies. Pending a reservation of a point of order. Subsequently, the reservation was removed.
  • action
    The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
  • action
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 179 - 237 (Roll no. 120).
  • vote
    On passage Passed by recorded vote: 236 - 181 (Roll no. 121).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

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 17th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 236 Yea / 181 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
    IntroducedFebruary 24th, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    All for letting the public have an opinion on issues of environment that directly affect them. The way EPA is set up now is narrowly focused.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    I would not trust non-scientific minds with selecting which scientific minds get to contribute to the EPA.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Science isn't debatable, it's hard fact! It's not validated by whether you agree with it or not. The board needs no revision or outside influence from energy companies.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Scientists should not be put in the position of either taking an EPA grant or being on this Advisory Board. They should be able to do both, and it's not a conflict of interest.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Science is science and your "opinions" have no place in it.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Seems to me this bill seeks to further politicize the agency. I see all kinds of problems with this bill.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm supposed to let a bunch of dead-eyed white guys s**t all over absolutely everything I stand for?
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    This is clearly another attempt by the GOP to minimize the power of the EPA. We are in a climate crisis right now. This sort of legislation is not what our country needs right now.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Abolish the EPA and return state power.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This board should be a revolving door of knowledge,NO one should be permenently employed by this very corrupt agency.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill is another anti-science attack on necessary and sensible regulatory bodies.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    "Most of these rules are based on controversial scientific assertions and conclusions, so it is critical they be reviewed by a balanced panel of experts in an open and transparent manner. This bill directs EPA to undertake reforms to do just that.” - Solutions to climate change may be controversial, but the science isn't. Balanced panel of experts should primarily include experts in the environment, this isn't biased science the science just happens to support the left. 50/50 split is unbalanced when the scientific split is 97/3 (roughly).
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Anyone with a grant has a vested interest and will only protect their grant.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Letting people who aren't scientists draw scientific conclusions. How about no. --- And changing how board members are selected costs $2 million dollars???? What the actual fuck.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    A mixture of factors, good and bad, that would cost 2M without significant improvem
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    If the corporate interests in the Republican Party feel like they can simply stack the team with "Scientists" in their favor instead of researching the facts then they simply stall the inevitable. Congress needs to be debating our reaction to climate change not debating the fact that it exists.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, reform it to include folks who do not have any ties to an entity who benefits from environmental issues. Conflict of interests are killing this planet.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This all boils down to the same ridiculous argument, that somehow 97% of the scientist in the world are wrong. It is a power play for the new incoming head of the EPA and his cronies to go back to straight oil and gas consumption. This is just their conniving way to get there.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a way for our "representatives" to discredit scientists and scientific research, we need to say NO. I live in Morgan Griffith's district, a rabid climate change denier. He voted "yes" soI vote NO.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Some of the provisions of this bill are generally useful, however, packaged as they are, this seems like nothing but a power grab.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE