House Budget Cuts Threaten Environment and Public Safety
Published February 19, 2011
The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed sweeping legislation early today that would cut $61 billion from hundreds of federal programs—including many cuts that threaten environmental protections and public health and safety—while shielding oil companies, coal companies, and major polluters from government regulation and oversight.
By a 235-189 vote, mostly along party lines, the House sent the bill to the Democrat-controlled Senate, which is expected to insist on fewer cuts to federal programs, in part because of President Obama's threat to veto the House budget resolution if it reaches his desk without significant changes.
Budget Battle Could Lead to Government Shutdown
The differences between the two parties are not likely to be resolved quickly. The House measure is being seen as a victory for the 87 freshman Republicans, who were elected in November on their promise to reduce the federal budget deficit and limit the reach of government, and House Speaker John Boehner is insisting that the House will not agree to any budget measure that does not include deep spending cuts.
That division, and the ultimatums from Boehner and Obama, sets up the prospect of a government shutdown when the current budget resolution expires on March 4, unless the House and Senate can first agree on another continuing resolution (a temporary spending bill that keeps the government funded and operating in the absence of an approved federal budget).
House Budget Cuts Target the Environment
High on the GOP budget hit list is almost anything having to do with conservation, climate change and other environmental protections.
H.R. 1 cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's budget by almost a third and hamstrings the EPA's ability to protect the environment and Americans' health.
For example, the measure prevents the EPA from protecting communities from mercury, lead, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from cement plants, leaving thousands of children exposed and at risk of asthma, slowed brain development and other neurological disorders. The EPA safeguard that the measure blocks would have reduced mercury pollution by more than 90 percent and saved 2,500 lives each year.
"This bill isn't mere tinkering with policy, it's carpet bombing some of our nation's most important environmental laws," said Kierán Suckling, who heads the Center for Biological Diversity, in a press release earlier this week. "In crafting this bill, Republicans have created a feeding frenzy for those intent on dismantling laws that for decades have protected our air, water, climate, and wildlife."
What House Republicans Want to Cut
Other provisions targeting the environment and public safety in the House resolution would:
Will the American People Support House Budget Cuts?
Clearly, House Republicans, and particularly the 87 GOP freshmen who are new to national politics, believe they have strong public support for their budget cuts that take aim at the EPA and the environment. They may be surprised at how quickly voters can change their minds.
In a new survey released by the American Lung Association, a majority of registered and likely voters from both parties say that although they do want Congress to reduce the federal deficit, they also strongly favor many of the very environmental protections the House Republican budget measure prohibits or fails to fund. They also think the EPA is doing a good job.
Key poll results include:
In a memo to the American Lung Association, the pollsters wrote: "A bipartisan 69 percent majority believes that EPA scientists, rather than Congress, should set pollution standards."
"Despite the strong attacks on the Clean Air Act coming from Congress and industry, it's clear that the public values measures to protect public health," said Paul Billings, vice president for national policy and advocacy at the American Lung Association, in a statement. "Voters clearly recognize and respect the role of the EPA in protecting their families from breathing toxic air, and they don't want Congress to interfere with the EPA's authority to take action when lives are clearly at stake."
The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed sweeping legislation early today that would cut $61 billion from hundreds of federal programs—including many cuts that threaten environmental protections and public health and safety—while shielding oil companies, coal companies, and major polluters from government regulation and oversight.
By a 235-189 vote, mostly along party lines, the House sent the bill to the Democrat-controlled Senate, which is expected to insist on fewer cuts to federal programs, in part because of President Obama's threat to veto the House budget resolution if it reaches his desk without significant changes.
Budget Battle Could Lead to Government Shutdown
The differences between the two parties are not likely to be resolved quickly. The House measure is being seen as a victory for the 87 freshman Republicans, who were elected in November on their promise to reduce the federal budget deficit and limit the reach of government, and House Speaker John Boehner is insisting that the House will not agree to any budget measure that does not include deep spending cuts.
That division, and the ultimatums from Boehner and Obama, sets up the prospect of a government shutdown when the current budget resolution expires on March 4, unless the House and Senate can first agree on another continuing resolution (a temporary spending bill that keeps the government funded and operating in the absence of an approved federal budget).
House Budget Cuts Target the Environment
High on the GOP budget hit list is almost anything having to do with conservation, climate change and other environmental protections.
H.R. 1 cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's budget by almost a third and hamstrings the EPA's ability to protect the environment and Americans' health.
For example, the measure prevents the EPA from protecting communities from mercury, lead, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from cement plants, leaving thousands of children exposed and at risk of asthma, slowed brain development and other neurological disorders. The EPA safeguard that the measure blocks would have reduced mercury pollution by more than 90 percent and saved 2,500 lives each year.
"This bill isn't mere tinkering with policy, it's carpet bombing some of our nation's most important environmental laws," said Kierán Suckling, who heads the Center for Biological Diversity, in a press release earlier this week. "In crafting this bill, Republicans have created a feeding frenzy for those intent on dismantling laws that for decades have protected our air, water, climate, and wildlife."
What House Republicans Want to Cut
Other provisions targeting the environment and public safety in the House resolution would:
- Stop federal agencies from protecting the public from the impacts of mountaintop-removal mining.
- Interfere with the EPA's ability to limit toxic pollution from coal-fired power plants.
- Prohibit the Environmental Appeals Board from reviewing or rejecting permits for offshore drilling.
- Exempt oil companies from Clean Air Act review for drilling in the Arctic.
- Restrict the EPA’s ability to implement safeguards against coal ash, the dangerous waste generated by burning coal that contains arsenic, lead, hexavalent chromium, selenium and other harmful byproducts. In recent years, coal ash has breached containment ponds at various power plants and has severely polluted local rivers and streams in those areas.
- Eliminate EPA funding that would enable the agency to use the Clean Air Act to curb greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons.
- Prohibit the EPA from setting new health standards limiting coarse particulate matter in the air we breathe.
- Cripple efforts to clean up and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
- Prevent the Bureau of Land Management from implementing its new "wild lands" policy that allows the agency to provide interim protections for certain public lands that have not received a formal wilderness designation from Congress.
- Defund the Council on Environmental Quality, which was established by President Richard Nixon to coordinate environmental policy among all federal agencies.
- Block efforts to stop polluters in Florida from contaminating waters with fertilizers, sewage and manure.
- Stop the EPA from implementing certain portions of the Clean Water Act, thereby threatening drinking water and potentially leaving wetlands unprotected from pollution.
Will the American People Support House Budget Cuts?
Clearly, House Republicans, and particularly the 87 GOP freshmen who are new to national politics, believe they have strong public support for their budget cuts that take aim at the EPA and the environment. They may be surprised at how quickly voters can change their minds.
In a new survey released by the American Lung Association, a majority of registered and likely voters from both parties say that although they do want Congress to reduce the federal deficit, they also strongly favor many of the very environmental protections the House Republican budget measure prohibits or fails to fund. They also think the EPA is doing a good job.
Key poll results include:
- 69 percent think the EPA should update Clean Air Act standards with stricter limits on air pollution.
- 68 percent feel that Congress should not stop the EPA from updating Clean Air Act standards.
In a memo to the American Lung Association, the pollsters wrote: "A bipartisan 69 percent majority believes that EPA scientists, rather than Congress, should set pollution standards."
"Despite the strong attacks on the Clean Air Act coming from Congress and industry, it's clear that the public values measures to protect public health," said Paul Billings, vice president for national policy and advocacy at the American Lung Association, in a statement. "Voters clearly recognize and respect the role of the EPA in protecting their families from breathing toxic air, and they don't want Congress to interfere with the EPA's authority to take action when lives are clearly at stake."
Source...