Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 3641

Reducing the Environmental Protection Agency's Workforce by 15%

Argument in favor

During the last government shutdown, nine of ten EPA workers were deemed non-essential and subsequently furloughed in order to save cash.

Mike's Opinion
路路路
05/28/2016
Their are to many,and their not doing their job anyway,if you watch the news 馃槨
Like
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Unrealistic legislation penned by a Big Coal backer who will seek revenge of any sort for environmental protections that cost his counties money.

路路路
02/01/2017
When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money.
Like (3)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Agriculture
      Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research
      Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Environment and Climate Change
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
      Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
      Water Resources and Environment
    IntroducedDecember 3rd, 2013

What is House Bill H.R. 3641?

This bill would require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce the agency's workforce by 15 percent within three years from the date of enactment. The bill offers a fourth year for the reduction, should the decrease not be able to be accomplished in three years. 

Impact

The bill would impact the number of workers employed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Currently, the EPA employs roughly 15,000 people.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 3641

A CBO cost is currently unavailable. A reduction in workforce, however, would seem to have the potential to translate to a very small deficit reduction.

More Information

Media:


Of Note:

-Since 2008, according to the Federal Register, the Environmental Protection Agency has published and put into effect 2,313 rules. 

-From 1972 until 2011, the number of Environmental Protection Agency employees increased by 107 percent while the number of total Federal personnel decreased by 15 percent. 

AKA

EPA Maximum Achievable Contraction of Technocrats Act of 2013

Official Title

To require that the workforce of the Environmental Protection Agency be reduced by 15 percent.

    I'd reduce the whole department
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    This area of concern grows larger everyday. One would think that the staffing support would grow the same. Hence the 107% staffing growth. A mandate of 15% cut without stated reasons is foolish. I would think the dept. could determine what is required, if they had a fair and non biased secretary.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    We are facing the greatest threat to life in this planet in climate change, we need all the experts we can get to work for environmental protection.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    I like to drink clean water.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    No they do important work to protect our communities from dangerous corporations and with climate change efforts. They need more not less employee.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    The EPA is necessary to ensure we have a livable planet. Unless all these EPA haters want to live on a planet like Venus where their money would be disolved by acid rain.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Great idea!!
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Reducing the workforce of the only government organization that cares about our planet is a grave mistake. Let's not make anymore mistakes with climate change. Let's give more funding to the EPA so that they can do their jobs more effectively.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Less protection for the environment and people will lose jobs...not good.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    No. No. No. Absolutely not. Even if there was an actual, logical reason. I would oppose it since the intention to withdraw from the Paris treaty was made public.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Their are to many,and their not doing their job anyway,if you watch the news 馃槨
    Like
    Follow
    Share