House Appropriators Approve EPA Funding Bill with Deep Cuts
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is facing a $528 million cut to its funding under the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill reported out of committee July 18. While Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee expressed disappointment in the deep cut, it could have been worse.
The Trump administration’s budget request, released in late May, proposed EPA funding of $5.655, a cut of $2.345 billion. In contrast, the House bill would fund EPA at $7.5 billion, a level Appropriations Committee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) says “will ensure that the agency is able to fulfill its core duties while streamlining the agency and reshaping its workforce.”
Dems Sneer at Funding Cuts
The other side of the aisle had a very different take on the EPA funding level in the bill, saying that $7.5 billion in funding is not only inadequate, it is all but certain to tank the bill entirely. “It is outrageous to think that Republicans would threaten another government shutdown rather than work with Democrats to enact government funding bills even though they know any legislation will require Democratic votes to become law,” Committee Ranking Member Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said during the markup.
EPA is no stranger to funding cuts, noted Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), ranking member of the House Appropriation’s Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. “Since FY2010, the EPA has been reduced by $2.2 billion and has 2,000 fewer staff. Adjusted for inflation, the Environmental Protection Agency has already been cut 30% below FY10 levels. Despite these alarming figures, the chairman’s mark cuts EPA even further,” she said.
WOTUS Rider Make Waves
Another controversial inclusion in the bill is a rider that would allow the administrator of the EPA to withdraw the Waters of the U.S. rule (WOTUS). According to McCollum, who introduced an amendment to strike the rider, her concern with the rider is less about the WOTUS rule and more about the precedent that approving the rider would set. “I understand that the Waters of the U.S. issue has become very polarizing and very divisive, just mentioning it sends people to their respective corners,” she said. “The rider would give an unprecedented amount of power to the EPA, giving the agency the ability to be above the law. The agency would be able to get away with the following: no public comment on its proposals; no economic analysis with costs and benefits of a repeal; no justification for a repeal; and not having to defend a repeal against court challenges.”
She went on urge her colleagues to consider what might happen if this precedent were applied to any other regulation in the future. “For some of you, this rider might sound like a dream come true for now but think about the future, next time. Do we really want to say it’s okay for the executive branch to circumvent the laws we create and there’s no accountability through the courts?” she said.
Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert disagreed with McCollum’s analysis of the rider, saying that it is in line with recent actions by the administration to withdraw the rule. “First it provides a clear authorization to withdraw from the Obama administration rule. Second, it clarifies what rules will be in effect if the WOTUS rule is withdrawn, specifically the same rules that were in effect immediately prior to the promulgation of the final WOTUS rule. Third, it does not affect the Trump administration’s ability to develop a new rule, one that will provide more clarity and certainty for the regulated community while staying within the legal bounds provided by the Supreme Court,” he said.
—Abby L. Harvey is a POWER reporter.