Another Republican Takes a Step to Ensure Death of the EPA
Legislation introduced this week by Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas) would gut 13 EPA programs and shutter all EPA field offices
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 Hill writes 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 BNA described 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.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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 Hill writes 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 BNA described 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 Hill writes 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 BNA described 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.