EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Coolcaesar/flickr/cc)
Feb 10, 2017
A House Republican this week introduced legislation to eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act of 2017, declared Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas), is a "commonsense bill does right by the hardworking Americans." According to a press statement from Johnson, the legislation "would terminate or eliminate federal funding for 13 wasteful EPA programs, would close all EPA field offices, and require the EPA to lease or sell all underutilized properties."
Among the programs it would kill are environmental justice programs and all EPA grant programs. It would strip funding for the greenhouse gas reporting program, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants; and climate research at the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The Hillwrites that it "is modeled after a report from the Heritage Foundation," a conservative think tank. It also regurgitates a failed bill Johnson introduced in 2015, which Bloomberg BNAdescribed at the time as "the anti-EPA bill to end all anti-EPA bills."
The Center for Responsive Politics, using data from the Federal Election Commission, reveals that Johnson has received $586,600 from the oil and gas industries from 1991-2016.
His, however, is far from the only recent threat to the agency.
Last week, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced legislation to kill the EPA entirely. Beyond that, Trump's pick to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has been described as a "fossil fuel industry puppet" and climate change denialist who fought EPA regulations.
And Myron Ebell, the former head of Trump's transition team at the EPA, said to the Associated Press two weeks ago that the administration may pursue slashing the agency's workforce by half--or perhaps more. Further, AP writes: "Ebell suggested it was reasonable to expect the president to seek a cut of about $1 billion from the EPA's roughly $8 billion annual budget."
While Rep. Johnson argued that gutting the EPA was in the public's interest, BillMoyers.com reporter John Light explores how doing so is anything but, as it threatens public health and people's lives.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A House Republican this week introduced legislation to eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act of 2017, declared Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas), is a "commonsense bill does right by the hardworking Americans." According to a press statement from Johnson, the legislation "would terminate or eliminate federal funding for 13 wasteful EPA programs, would close all EPA field offices, and require the EPA to lease or sell all underutilized properties."
Among the programs it would kill are environmental justice programs and all EPA grant programs. It would strip funding for the greenhouse gas reporting program, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants; and climate research at the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The Hillwrites that it "is modeled after a report from the Heritage Foundation," a conservative think tank. It also regurgitates a failed bill Johnson introduced in 2015, which Bloomberg BNAdescribed at the time as "the anti-EPA bill to end all anti-EPA bills."
The Center for Responsive Politics, using data from the Federal Election Commission, reveals that Johnson has received $586,600 from the oil and gas industries from 1991-2016.
His, however, is far from the only recent threat to the agency.
Last week, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced legislation to kill the EPA entirely. Beyond that, Trump's pick to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has been described as a "fossil fuel industry puppet" and climate change denialist who fought EPA regulations.
And Myron Ebell, the former head of Trump's transition team at the EPA, said to the Associated Press two weeks ago that the administration may pursue slashing the agency's workforce by half--or perhaps more. Further, AP writes: "Ebell suggested it was reasonable to expect the president to seek a cut of about $1 billion from the EPA's roughly $8 billion annual budget."
While Rep. Johnson argued that gutting the EPA was in the public's interest, BillMoyers.com reporter John Light explores how doing so is anything but, as it threatens public health and people's lives.
A House Republican this week introduced legislation to eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act of 2017, declared Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas), is a "commonsense bill does right by the hardworking Americans." According to a press statement from Johnson, the legislation "would terminate or eliminate federal funding for 13 wasteful EPA programs, would close all EPA field offices, and require the EPA to lease or sell all underutilized properties."
Among the programs it would kill are environmental justice programs and all EPA grant programs. It would strip funding for the greenhouse gas reporting program, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants; and climate research at the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The Hillwrites that it "is modeled after a report from the Heritage Foundation," a conservative think tank. It also regurgitates a failed bill Johnson introduced in 2015, which Bloomberg BNAdescribed at the time as "the anti-EPA bill to end all anti-EPA bills."
The Center for Responsive Politics, using data from the Federal Election Commission, reveals that Johnson has received $586,600 from the oil and gas industries from 1991-2016.
His, however, is far from the only recent threat to the agency.
Last week, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced legislation to kill the EPA entirely. Beyond that, Trump's pick to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has been described as a "fossil fuel industry puppet" and climate change denialist who fought EPA regulations.
And Myron Ebell, the former head of Trump's transition team at the EPA, said to the Associated Press two weeks ago that the administration may pursue slashing the agency's workforce by half--or perhaps more. Further, AP writes: "Ebell suggested it was reasonable to expect the president to seek a cut of about $1 billion from the EPA's roughly $8 billion annual budget."
While Rep. Johnson argued that gutting the EPA was in the public's interest, BillMoyers.com reporter John Light explores how doing so is anything but, as it threatens public health and people's lives.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.